Board of Supervisors — 2014-07-29

♪ Hi, everyone. ♪ Thank you.

It's going to rain in here. All right,

good morning ladies and gentlemen I'd like to welcome everybody to this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Allen can we get a roll call please?

Mr. Carbajal? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Here. Ms Farrer? Here. Mr. Adam?

Here,

Mr. Lavinino?

Don't forget it.

Mr. Allen, do we have any public comment speakers? Slips?

We have no request to speak on public comment.

No requests to speak. Great. All right. Let's move on to our- For public comment or for speaking on something else?

Then Scott wins.

Okay, Scott.

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Scott Wins. I'm wearing two hats today. The first one is a member and an officer in the line of the Scottish Rite Valley of Santa Barbara. Scottish Rite has a language disorder clinic for the kids. We have a booth down at Delaguerre Plaza for a fiesta. We invite you to come down, buy a rib for a kid. This is a item that helps support our clinic. We charge absolutely nothing for any child that comes in.

And so we really would hope that anybody here in the audience that's listening to this would come on down and help support us. And I'll step back and re-approach as President of Cars Air Basic. We sent you a letter approximately a month ago regarding the new bike lane configuration on Hollister. We received a very congenial letter in response from Mr. McLaughlin. I can tell you right now that this bike lane configuration is not working. The very fear that we had of people using that buffer lane As a additional bike lane is actually happening. I've been out there now almost 10 times and watched it, and that's exactly what they're doing. They come out there, they're riding in tandem, they're right now very much closer to the automobiles so the bicyclists are actually in more danger.

So I would urge you to remove that buffer lane and go back to the standard configuration. Thank you.

Thank you very much. All right. Public comment will be closed. We'll move on to our administrative agenda. Mr. Allen?

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board we just had a single administrative item this morning it's from the county executive office. The request is that the board consider recommendations regarding the re-ratification of the drought proclamation passed on July 1, 2014.

So moved, Mr. Chair.

Moved and seconded. I guess we need a roll call with Mr. Adam and Santa Maria

Mr. Caldwell, Mr. Carbajal, Mr. Wolfe, Ms. Farr, Mr Adam, Mr Lavinino.

Aye. I think he called you Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Carbajal

almost.

All

right so this will take us to our departmental agenda almost. So we'll move on to our departmental agenda item number one Mr. Allen

Item one is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Measure P implementation ordinances and general plan amendment.

Okay, I'm going to kick it to Mona for just a second so that Mona can kind of give us an idea of why we're having this hearing. And then if we can move on from there go to our regular presentation.

Board members and we had scheduled today's hearing for a couple of reasons one originally was to. The next board meeting is scheduled for August 19th and staff would need to prepare actions. For a commission meeting that

Yes, good morning Mr. Chair and members of the board. This is an item related to Measure P, the initiative to ban high intensity petroleum operations which your board voted to submit to the voters in the November general election. High intensity petroleum operations include hydraulic fracturing, acid well stimulation, and injecting any substance into a well including water, steam or air.

The initiative includes three broad categories of exemptions from these prohibited operations. However, in order to consider and apply these exemptions, implementing ordinances are necessary as are amendments to the coastal land use plan, land use element, circulation element and ag element. Since several of the prohibited methods of oil and gas extraction are extensively used in the county, staff has proposed to codify the process to consider and apply the exemptions in the initiative.

This would provide certainty to the community and reduce litigation risks to the county. The proposed ordinance and general plan changes would be operative if, and only if, and immediately upon Measure P becoming effective. If the board follows staff's recommendation and directs staff to develop and process ordinances and plan amendments, staff proposes to agendize proposals for the Montecito Planning Commission's consideration on August 25th We have a request to speak.

Supervisor Wolf.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ms. Block I think I need a little bit more direction about what we're to do today. What I heard you say is that we are charged with developing implementing ordinances and as I read through the initiative It appears that the Board of Supervisors should basically lay out a process. That if there is someone who wants to maybe assert vested rights or something like that, that there is a process by which they can come to the county and assert those rights. So is that what we're here today to do? Which is to develop a process like for instance within 30 days you have Make your application for the 90 days. It's hurt. I mean what so what are we doing today?

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Wolf, yes what we are asking the board to do is to give us direction to develop implementing ordinances to administer the exemption provisions of Measure P. The rest of the measure if it's approved by the voters will go into effect immediately but the provisions that are included in Section 5 for consideration of exemptions require implementing ordinances And so our recommendation is that we put those procedures in place to administer those exemptions, consider those exemptions prior to the election. So that if it passes, those are in place. Okay.

Thank you. So we're not giving you the specifics. We're just going to say to you come back to us with the process per the

initiative? Mr. Chair and Commissioner Wolf, or Supervisor Wolf, that's correct. Okay. Thank you.

So we'll do two minutes a piece for speakers. There's 27 speakers, that's an hour of public testimony I think that's significant for one item so go ahead.

Our first speaker is going to be in Santa Maria at Susan Wayland to be followed by Trent Benedetti also in Santa Maria.

Thank you. My name is Susan Whalen with GRECA and we have a couple of observations we'd like the board to consider at today's hearing. First, one of the findings which appears in section 1 purpose and findings paragraph A subparagraph 1 in the last sentence of the second paragraph again it states quote use of high intensity petroleum operations to extract oil and gas could lead to an increase in the number of new wells in the county.

This language allows an interpretation that all existing wells are exempt for any future activity regardless whether a modification to any permit may be required. This interpretation eliminates the perceived necessity to define what modifications for permitted operations may be exempt. All are exempt with reference to existing wells. Second, We consider the quote vested rights to include permitted, excuse me permit applications filed with the county and state before the effective date.

Otherwise there is potential litigation with the county as to permit applications filed versus granted before the effective date of the initiative if passed. For example an operator's later application in time that did not get approved may challenge how it is that the county did not process its application fast enough to grant approval along with the other operators applications.

This opens Pandora's box and accordingly, to eliminate any ambiguity and for the avoidance of doubt, vested right ought to expressly include permit applications filed not limited to those granted. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, thank you I mean, I just want to clarify I think everybody understands but this was a ballot initiative that was qualified for the ballot by the voters The board had two choices Once that happened we could either adopt it just the way it was or we could put it on the ballot We put it on the ballot But we do not have the option of changing a word of that initiative All we can do is try to then be prepared, if it should pass for what it requires. And it does expressly state within the ballot measure that we then are obligated to come up with these implementing ordinances.

We're not talking about anything here today except to give staff the go ahead, to go ahead and start to draft those so that they can go to the planning commission and come back to the board in October. So that they can be in place if measure P passes. If measure P does not pass none of this happens. I just want to be clear because we don't have the option of changing a word of the ballot initiative as it qualified. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Trent Benedetti in Santa Maria and then we're going to come back here for Doug Imparato.

Thank you Chairman Labagnino and supervisors, I appreciate the opportunity to speak. My concern as a citizen that's been volunteering on some of the committees for the county for the last decade is the potential effect on the general fund And specifically to address supervisor's issue there, I'm not so concerned. I realize that we're just now talking about directing county council to do implementing measures that would allow them to interpret the exceptions to the ordinance and The main concern today is that we've been able to, over the last decade as a very strong healthy general fund recognize Decreases actually of the 58 counties in California Our municipal bonds are rated among the highest there is probably no county higher than our bonds That's enabled us to keep our interest rates low.

We've probably saved millions of dollars over the last decade In our general fund also when we get to the issue of property tax, I think that if if the landowners Are not successful in getting their exemptions granted. We certainly will see a decrease in some of the property values that were negotiated with mineral rights and consideration of future uses My basic comment today is that you direct county council when they look at the exemptions of what a constitutional taking is, and you look at the large amount of information that's provided in some of the packet information today related to lawsuits and state laws and things like that. You give county council Direction to interpret it not in a narrow scope. It seems like attorneys have the ability to interpret laws, you know based on The way they want to see it based on their clients and basically County Council is Is your your their client the Board of Supervisors?

And if you direct them to Consider the constitutional takings both at the US and California level and give the property owners broad latitude in what that Doug Imparato here in Santa Barbara followed by Gary Podlar.

Good morning. I'm a UCSB graduate and lived in Santa Barbara most of my life, where I've raised a family and enjoyed all the great things that Santa Barbara has to offer. I am very concerned about maintaining a healthy environment for my children to live in and try to do my part every day. I do support my family with oil production from a Santa Barbara County lease Water has been injected on this lease and wells have been acidized on this lease since the 1940's. Now, this is the same acidizing process that's used in water wells to maintain water well production and also in geothermal wells. It's a routine process that's required to keep production going.

Our operation can hardly be characterized as intensive. Now, fracking is a non-issue in Santa Barbara County. It hasn't worked and no one is doing it. This measure goes well beyond fracking to include eliminating many of the routine operations that we've been using for years Now I'm not a lawyer. My PhD is in geology, but I have read this measure quite a few times and from what I can tell it will have a major impact on our ongoing operations.

Are we going to be able to continue to do the things that we need to keep our lease productive? I am hoping that we can get some assurances that's going to be the case. Thank you.

Thank you.

Gary Podlar. Be followed by Katie Davis.

Thank you. Yesterday, KEYT reported that Supervisor Vanino said that lawyers were predicting billion-dollar lawsuits if Measure P passed. He couldn't be here today but I have a letter from a lawyer who says his client will give me $20 million if I help him to get his fortune out of Nigeria. I don't know why he won't tell me his name. When I get the money, I'm donating it to Yes on Measure P.

Not for a moment would I suggest that Supervisor Lavagnino would publicly quote non-existent lawyers, but I must question the motivations of those lawyers when they are unwilling to appear in the light of day and explain how other lawyers who have successfully crafted ordinances specifically to avoid takings claims could be so wrong. Is it possible that Lawyer X, whose identity must remain secret, is being paid by the oil industry to frighten voters?

If that was true then that would suggest that the industry was unable to persuade voters with rational argument and had nothing to offer other than anonymous threats.

Thank

you.

Thank you very much.

Katie Davis to be followed by Rebecca Klassen

Mr. Guzzone, have we been threatened with litigation at this point?

Chair Labadino and Supervisors, yes we've received at least two express written threats of litigations based on takings claims. Thank you very much. All right, Katie.

Yes, Katie Davis with the Water Guardians that helped qualify the initiative. I am not surprised that you have been threatened with litigation. Here is a map of 429 places in the US that have banned these types of techniques like fracking. I talked to David Slotsky, a lawyer with Environmental Defense Center of New York that has been involved with 200 of those municipalities in New York that have banned fracking. And he said in every single one of those cases, those localities were threatened with lawsuits. People coming in, threatening the local municipalities. Threatening the individual members to sue them.

It's just a lot of scare tactics. Those have passed successfully and there were only four lawsuits out of 200. And in all cases the bans passed, they won. And the local municipalities had paid nothing, so it didn't cost them anything. I would ask that the supervisors and county staff not be intimidated by these scare tactics that have not proven out in other places.

It is perfectly acceptable and legal to pass this initiative which does not apply to current production or well maintenance as those are also misinformation that's being spread By by industry and nothing will change if this passes will continue a status quo. We will do is prevent a massive increase in these very risky high intense Wells that are causing water contamination health impacts elsewhere, thank you

Rebecca class and followed by Stephen Kirby

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, my name is Rebecca Claussen and I am speaking on behalf of the Yes On Measure P coalition. I would like to start by pointing out that it is due to no flaw in the initiative that we are here today. Initiatives functioned to outline the basic overall policy for a jurisdiction while allowing local government to determine how these policies will be implemented.

And that is what Measure P does. Measure P is a well-crafted, legally defensible initiative that outlines an overall policy that will protect our precious water supplies from risks of contamination from high intensity oil extraction techniques while exempting current production, well maintenance and vested rights. We commend county staff for taking these steps outlining how Santa Barbara County would implement Measure P upon its passage.

I would also like to point out that while our efforts are truly grassroots and all local in origin, we are far from alone in this. Over 400 communities nationwide have taken action to protect themselves from these risks and many similar initiatives have been upheld all without bankrupting their communities. Thank

you. Stephen Kirby be followed by Ben Oakley.

Good morning. My name is Steve Kirby. I practice natural resources law with the Hollister Embrace Law Firm. I'm making a special appearance today on behalf of the National Association of Royalty Owners. If you move forward with this, I hope that your staff and council will consider some of the following issues among others. First of all, how many separate operations or interests are covered by Measure P.

The board is going to need to know this information in order to budget for the necessary staff, attorneys, consultants to process what will be a flood of exemption requests. The voters ought to have this information as well. Second, will production operations be allowed to continue during the vested right determination process? If not, the county could be liable for permanent takings on account of barrels not produced.

Can broad categories of exemptions be crafted or does each matter individually have to be the subject of a separate determination proceeding? Will the Board of Supervisors make all of these determinations Or will staff or the Planning Commission be able to make some? If so, which ones? Will there be notice and opportunity to be heard given to third parties?

And will CEQA apply? Will vested operations be subject to Measure P determination if one seeks a permit to change out equipment That needs to be replaced. What about new wells on the same lease? Who will make those determinations and will full-blown hearings be required? Lastly, most of the focus has been on owners and operators suing the county. What about suits by vested right opponents The county may not be able to recover any of the defense costs from the private sector in either case.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Ben Oakley to be followed by Frank Hotchkiss

Good morning my name is Ben Oakley I work for ERG operating company we're an oil and gas operator in the Cat Canyon Oil Field I'm here today to voice our opposition to Measure P in that it's a flawed proposition. It would ban conventional oil and gas production techniques along with fracking, and for that reason it would have a devastating impact on the local economy and jobs.

And when we talk about these impacts, I just want to make sure that we understand there is a human element to this. This isn't just numbers on a piece of paper but these are hardworking men and women in our community You know when we say there's thousands of jobs are going to be lost. We're talking about thousands of households and families such as mine and some the other you know folks that are in the audience this morning so I just want to point that out.

As an example, we have a vendor in Cat Canyon who does uniform service for us. So just give me an idea the breadth of people that will be affected by this this measure he came in recently and was distributing anti Measure M literature because he was worried about his job and he said that 80% of his clients are oil and gas clients. And so it's not just people that work for the companies, it's the service providers, and it's going to be a very large impact on these folks. So I just wanted to point that out to you folks this morning. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Frank Hotchkiss to be followed by George Milston

Board members, good morning. Frank Hotchkiss. I'm not here to try to persuade the proponents of this flawed measure for them. It's a matter of belief and it's not smart to try to argue religion from the podium. But I am here to speak to you as neighbors because Measure P proposes to eliminate a lot of neighbors' livelihoods. It does this because its backers just don't like what their neighbors do for a living.

If we adopted that as a guiding philosophy, what would be next? What else doesn't appeal to us? Grape growing? That requires back-breaking labor. Wine making? Well, do we really want to contribute to inebriation on our highways? Planting new crops? Well, what's wrong with the old ones? How about new home construction that's a precious waste and use of resources? So I hope you see my point.

To bring this closer to home for us here in the South County, how would we feel if our neighbors to the north decided to ban one of our important industries that they found undesirable? What if they decided to ban commercial fishing? Well why not? They don't fish. Fishing pollutes the ocean, they could say. It affects our ocean water. It kills things, fish.

Overfishing could assault the natural balance of wildlife. Such a ban obviously would be as foolish as Measure P and it would deprive us of jobs, good produce and taxes. And it would not be neighborly. Let's not set a terrible precedent by being unneighborly to them any more than we would have them be unneighborly to us. I think entire religions are based on that premise, thank you. Thank you.

George Milston to be followed by Ed Hazard.

Good morning, George Milston of Latham Watkins. This board is not permitted to fix a fatally flawed initiative and that is what we have here. The initiative will dramatically and adversely affect all existing production in the county, and will effectively prohibit any new production. The initiative will result in millions of dollars in lost revenues to the county.

The initiative will result in millions of dollars in increased staff costs and legal costs to the county. The initiative will expose the county to millions of dollars if not hundreds of million dollars of liability for takings claims. There is no savings clause that will save the county from these costs and liabilities. The initiative could have made clear it exempts existing production, it does not.

The initiative could have made clear that exempts well servicing, it does not. The attorneys that wrote the initiative knew exactly what they were doing. It prohibits all existing production, prohibits future production and effectively stops all well servicing. Measure P proponents say that it bans fracking. There's no fracking going on in this county. That is wrong. It is so broadly written it affects all production.

Don't take my word for it, ask your staff. They will tell you that Measure P will effectively shut down all existing production in this county and there will be no future production. The banned production methods have been safely used in this county and the state and the country for decades. And there is no savings clause to save you or the industry. There is no state statute that county can point to define vested rights. It's all based on case law, and it's clear from court decisions that there is no right to develop vests until the final discretionary permits have been issued.

And under the county ordinances virtually every permit that is needed for oil and gas drilling is discretionary which makes the issue of vested rights very problematic. And it will be subject to substantial litigation. And then that leaves us with the takings claims, and there'll be hundreds of them brought. It is very important that the county make this information known to the public. The potential exposures and liabilities to the county, the cost to the counties, and the jobs that will be lost. Thank you very much. Thank you.

And to the speaker before, I present to you Attorney X. Okay. Thank you. One of Attorney X's. Yes. All right.

Ed Hazzard and then Caroline Chamberlain.

My name is Ed Hazzard, my family and I are Santa Barbara County mineral owners. I'm also president of the California chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners. My family acquired some minerals in 1955 in the Cat Canyon field. My father his mother and some aunts uncles and cousins right now that fields largely producing in the CISCO zone which requires every now and then that you abandon a well and drill a new well.

And one of my concerns is what happens when, as we're trying to extract the reserves that we own? We don't own any surface. My family has severed mineral rights. We own the underlying rights to the minerals. We get along very well with the surface owners, but what happens when it's necessary for us to go in and abandon a well and drill a new one so that we can harvest that oil?

I think you have a seriously flawed measure here. What you're being asked to do today is to put a Band-Aid on a mortal wound, and I think you have to. I think you don't have a choice. But I will tell you that if Measure P passes We don't have a choice either, us mineral owners. We're going to have to protect our interests and you can think it's an idle threat.

We may win we may lose but with the amount of recoverable reserves based upon these technologies which are actually proven safe time tested technology steaming acidizing water flooding have been used for decades on our properties If this measure passes, we will have no option but to try to protect our family. And as president of NARO California I will have no option but try to protect the thousands of others in this county just like us. Thank you. Thank you.

Caroline Chamberlain to be followed by Ron DeBlois

Hi, my name is Caroline Chamberlain and I am in support of passing Proposition P. And I know a lot of people are speaking about the economic consequences of eliminating fracking in the county and I want to talk about The consequences if you continue fracking or allow it to expand. Even though we haven't found examples of local municipalities that were bankrupted by fracking, there are plenty of examples of neighbors having to pay a heavy price for their health and the quality of the water and air from this risky technique.

When you frack, benzene is released in dangerous levels into the air. And in Denton, Texas where I lived near for almost 20 years, air monitoring is important because in the backwards Texas regulatory system fracking is treated as an innocent until proven guilty procedure. Even though we know the industry is using carcinogenic and toxic materials and chemicals, the burden of proof falls on the residents to establish those chemicals are trespassing into their neighborhoods and their bloodstreams.

It means that it's up to the local communities to monitor the industry, and that's what we're trying to do today. We also talk about the economic consequence, how about the consequence of our property values? There's another article, The Best Ways to Ruin the Appraisal Value of Your Home. First of all, water damage. Second, where your home is located. Third, hoarding. This one, fracking, the potential for fracking. There's good reason...

Sorry I can't read it. There's good reason for the widespread protests against fracking. The controversial drilling technique has been linked to an increase in earthquakes and poor water quality. One result is a significant decrease in the value of homes in areas where fracking has taken place or could possibly occur. Researchers at Duke University have determined that Pennsylvania homeowners who live within one and a quarter miles of a fracking site suffered a 24% reduction in the value of their property, which there hits our budget. Hits our property values, our tax revenues.

Ma'am, you're over your time. Okay. Thank you very much.

Ron DeBlois followed by Roy Reed.

Hello, Chairman and County Supervisors. Thanks for giving me the time to speak. I'm Ron DeBlois. I am a candidate for State Assembly in 37th District. My whole focus on the campaign has been about jobs and putting people to work and keeping companies from leaving California. We have record companies leaving California all the time. Everybody knows it. So if this measure passed, it would cost thousands and thousands of jobs. I mean, this is real. This is people that go to work and they get home, they get laid off. The companies leave in California. It's a big thing. This is not real simple. You have thousands of people lose their jobs because they lose their house. It doesn't stop. And it affects every business. It doesn't just affect the oil worker.

It affects the grocery store. People who want to send their kids to college and not have the money. So it's a big thing, you know? And that's why I'm pro-business and pro-jobs for one reason. So people have opportunities. College kids have opportunities. So I say no on P because we need jobs. This is a real thing. It's not just oh, you're on this side or you're in this side. Hey, you know, people need to work.

We already have problems in California. We have water problem in California that's taking jobs too. We can't afford to lose any more jobs so I say no on p and thank you. Thank you.

Roy Reed, to be followed by Corey Ellis.

Good morning Chairman Labanino and the board I'm Roy Reed from Santa Maria. I am a board member of Naro California. I am also representing some family holdings representing the interests of approximately 120 family members Partners and shareholders in two large holdings in the Santa Maria Valley. These ranches have been producing frack-free oil in Santa Barbara County since the 1920s, in one case, and since the mid-'60s in the other.

Fracking has never been used there nor will it ever be used there although we have used cyclic steaming and acidizing very safely and effectively since at least the mid-'60's. One of the things that we do understand very well is that up to this point, you've not had any options in terms of modifying Measure P. And you won't. The only opportunity that the board will have to mitigate some of the potentially negative impacts of this measure is to direct staff to prepare ordinances to create reasonable, equitable and durable exemptions for people with oil rights in this county. Not only will it preserve income, it will preserve very badly needed jobs when the North County will be primarily a recipient of the negative effects of this ordinance.

Now I know the Water Guardians profess that Measure P will have no real effects on existing properties and productions. It seems to me that never have so many talked so much and so loudly in favor of a measure that they claim will have no significant effects. While on the other hand, those well-versed, well credentialed and well qualified with respect to petroleum and petroleum law say that existing Thank you very much.

Corey Ellis, to be followed

by Pat Kistler.

Hello and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm speaking today on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Water Guardians and a number of false statements have been made this morning so I'd like to offer some clarification. We have this document that has been offered by our lawyers who wrote the initiative So to the question, will the initiative measure shut down existing oil and gas operations and facilities? No. The measure only applies prospectively to prohibit any new land uses in support of high intensity petroleum operations including fracking, acid matrix stimulation, cyclic steam injection and water flooding.

It does not apply to existing operations and facilities, and therefore it doesn't apply to existing jobs or existing service providers. It does not apply to offsite structures or infrastructures such as refineries and pipelines. Second question, will the measure ban routine maintenance activities and thus effectively shut down existing wells? No, the measure does not ban routine maintenance activities such as cleaning or repair of the well borer.

If operators believe this should be clarified, the measure permits the county to pass regulations to expressly permit maintenance activities. Third question, will the measure prevent existing facilities from modernizing? No, the measure does not prevent currently existing facilities from modernizing their existing equipment. Of course, modernization would not allow a landowner to commence new high intensity petroleum operations such as fracking. What our initiative does do is prevent the expansion of these high-intensity petroleum operations and therefore protect our air, water health and climate. Thank you very much.

Pat Kistler be followed by Robert Burke

Good morning. Pat Kistler representing the Chambers of Commerce Alliance, over 20 to 30 chambers in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties. I am the current past president of the board. The Chamber of Commerce Alliance urges a no on Measure P which has been placed on the November ballot for the Santa Barbara County voters to consider The Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors and voters are reminded that the CCA represents more than 200,000 jobs in Ventura and Santa Barbara County. An outright ban or any type of process ban on oil and gas production in this county will have a far reaching consequence.

County boundaries are not barriers to workers, as there are residents in both Santa Barbara and Ventura County who rely on production of oil and gas for their livelihood. They may be employed directly by a producer or may work for a subcontractor or an ancillary industry. By having an opportunity to vote on this measure, the CCA is happy that people in the county have an opportunity to vote yes or no on Measure P. Thank you for placing this measure on the ballot for November 4th. Thank You.

Robert Burke to be followed by Maggie Hall

Mr. Chair and board members Fracking is the environmental molestation of Mother Nature. Fracking is the environmental molestation of Mother Nature. Fracking is the environmental molestation of Mother Nature. Mr. Chair.

Our next speaker is Maggie Hall to be followed by Kayla Penza.

Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. I'm Maggie Hall, Staff Attorney with the Environmental Defense Center representing Water Guardians, the proponents of Measure P. Today we would like to express our support of county staff's proposal to draft implementing ordinances and general plan amendments for Measure P Such ordinances would help provide detail regarding the county's implementation of the measure if approved by voters.

Initiatives commonly have implementing regulations and Measure P articulates land use policy, but leaves the procedural details to the board to decide how to implement the measure. Specifically it includes a provision expressly authorizing the board to adopt ordinances guidelines rules and regulations to further the measures purposes. I'd also like to point out that contrary to claims by Lawyer X, Measure P provides an express exemption to its ban on high intensity petroleum operations for owners of existing or proposed operations that have obtained a vested right to continue operations. And that's at measure p section 5c.

Section 5 also provides an exemption for any application that would result in a taking. And the reason that we're here today is to consider the adoption of ordinances to provide details for implementing those measures. We agree with county staff, that implementing regulations would be particularly helpful In this context for establishing a process for considering and applying the exemptions in Section 5 of Measure P. We therefore urge the board to approve staff's recommendation and begin the process for adopting and implementing ordinances, thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor Carpalli.

Thank you Maggie. We've heard from Lawyer X, Y, are you Z? Are you an attorney as well?

I am an attorney as well. So now we have

X,Y, and Z,

great. Certainly, thank you. We'll

probably be hearing from A through Z. We're going to go ahead and vote on that. And we'll see if this

continues to come forward. All right. Our next speaker is

Kayla Pensa. See anybody moving on that one.

They go with Mister Caldwell. To be followed by Greg Siffen.

Chairman Lavagnino, members of the board. At the last hearing county council said something very interesting in response to Mike Brown was asking questions why does everybody get to vote? And whether they're in the incorporated, unincorporated area. And the county council's response to that is because the people themselves elect all of you but when they put forth a ballot initiative, they're in essence taking your place and enacting laws Well in that regard, as you know I've lost this fight with you over the years of why doesn't county council represent the people? The answer's always that he represents the board. Well in this case, I believe he does represent the people because this is the People's Ordinance and law requires him to give an impartial analysis of this measure.

Not just impartial to no on P or yes on P but impartial to the Board of Supervisors. Because it is the people that are directing him right now, and it's the people he's to report to. We want to know what he's told you in closed session. Because this should be our information, it should be in the voter pamphlet. We should know whether or not he thinks it's constitutional. We should know whether the issue and the relationship between vested rights and discretionary permits. We should know right or wrong. It's not just the oil companies that may sue, it might be the environmentalists that sue because you're granting exemptions that they don't support.

Why was it that the county Made the claims that measure M could bankrupt the county. And we haven't heard a single statement of the fiscal risk to the county from this measure, which we believe is orders of magnitude above the threat. I've been doing this job for 24 years. This is the largest single threat I've ever seen in county finances. My last question Katie Davis, EDC come indemnify the county. If you're saying this does not affect current operations, maintenance operations and that the lawsuits are going to be frivolous then indemnify the county.

Supervisor Carbajal ask him to come up here say will they put their name on the liability exposure for the county as attorneys and citizens bringing this forward indemnified the county? Thank you.

Greg Safane to be followed by Joe Armendariz.

Good morning, my name is Greg Safane and I'm with the Coastal Energy Alliance. We are a coalition of folk that work in the energy sector. We live here, we raise our kids here. We send them to public school here. We teach them to surf off the coasts of our beaches and we hike with them in our mountains. We volunteer in their classrooms and their outdoor activities.

The energy sector is a significant part of what's left of our manufacturing jobs, jobs that help a family pay for their needs, jobs that help pay a mortgage and still have some leftover to send their kids to school. Jobs in our sector pay well and usually Usually offer full benefits. Many of those in our coalition are union members. In part, above all we consider ourselves environmental stewards.

We are blessed to live in a region as beautiful as ours and we intend to keep it that way by protecting our natural resources and public health. To this end, in March of this year Santa Barbara County posted a 6.7% unemployment rate. In a time when our county has worked so hard to bring our economy back, Measure P stands to destroy thousands of jobs and put thousands of hard working men and women out of work.