Board of Supervisors — 2017-10-31

Camp 4 MOA Negotiation Context

• The meeting addressed the need to secure local controls as an alternative to H.R. 1491, which would affirm trust status without county input.
• Key negotiated terms include a waiver of sovereign immunity, limited development, no gaming, and fiscal mitigation payments.
• The agreement serves as a binding framework to mitigate impacts and offset property tax losses pending federal legislation.

MOA Key Terms and Staff Presentation

• The agreement runs through December 31, 2040, with a waiver of sovereign immunity allowing suits in federal or state courts.
• Land use adopts Alternative B, specifying 143 residential lots, 206 acres of agriculture, and 869 acres of open space, with a 985-foot buffer from Highway 154.
• Water export is prohibited, and the tribe will pay a flat annual fiscal mitigation of $178,500 in quarterly payments.
• The tribe must comply with California building codes and pay its fair share of transportation improvements.

Board Deliberation and Legal Clarifications

• Staff clarified that "economic development" refers to existing agricultural operations and that the agreement requires compliance with the final Environmental Assessment.
• The board confirmed that sending a letter of support for H.R. 1491 is separate from the county’s pending federal litigation.
• Legal counsel stated the agreement binds future boards through 2040 but includes a re-opener clause for mutual amendments.
• The board determined it was considering the MOA itself rather than approving a specific development plan.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to adopt the proposed Memorandum of Agreement and direct the Chair to sign letters of support for H.R. 1491.
• The board entered a brief closed session to consult with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation.
• Upon returning to open session, the board voted to pass the motion to adopt the MOA and support H.R. 1491.

Closed Session

• The board consulted with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation before returning to open session for the final vote.

Agenda Item: Special Meeting – Camp 4 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and H.R. 1491

Opening Remarks and Context

• Supervisor Hartman called the special meeting to order and outlined the procedural structure, including opening remarks, a staff presentation, supervisor questions, public comment, and deliberations. She detailed the negotiation context, citing three key external factors: the Department of the Interior’s January 19, 2017 decision to take Camp 4 into trust; the introduction of H.R. 1491, which would legislatively affirm trust status without county input; and congressional pressure to pass the bill. She stated that the Ad Hoc Committee negotiated the agreement to secure local controls, including a waiver of sovereign immunity, limited development, no gaming, and fiscal mitigation payments, as an alternative to the tribe having full discretion under H.R. 1491.

Staff Presentation

• Assistant CEO Terry Mosnisch presented the staff report on the proposed Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. Key terms presented included:
• Waiver of Sovereign Immunity: The tribe irrevocably waives sovereign immunity for the term of the agreement, allowing suits in federal or state courts for disputes arising under the agreement.
• Term: The agreement is effective through December 31, 2040, with reopeners available by mutual consent.
• Land Use (Alternative B): The agreement adopts Alternative B from the Environmental Assessment, specifying 143 one-acre residential lots, 206 acres of agriculture, 869 acres of open space/recreation, 30 acres for tribal facilities (including a 12,000 sq. ft. tribal hall), 98 acres of resource management zones, 33 acres of oak woodland, and 3 acres for utilities. A 985-foot buffer from State Highway 154 is maintained, with no structures within that zone.
• Water: No export of water is permitted. Water use is limited to project purposes, with a net increase of four acre-feet in non-drought periods and no net increase during droughts.
• Fiscal Mitigation: The tribe will pay the county a flat annual amount of $178,500 in four quarterly payments, expiring in 2040. Payments are characterized as offsets to potential losses and impacts, not taxes or fees. The tribe will also pay its fair share of transportation and circulation improvements.
• Compliance: The tribe must comply with California building and public safety codes, with monitoring by mutually agreed-upon third-party professionals.
• Litigation and Legislation: The agreement requires the dismissal of the county’s federal litigation and county support for H.R. 1491 with amendments referencing the MOA.

Supervisor Questions and Staff Responses

• Supervisors asked questions regarding the impact of other litigation on the agreement, the re-opener clause, and whether the agreement binds future tribal leadership. Staff clarified that the map presented represents the most intensively studied configuration of Alternative B, though other configurations were considered. Staff confirmed that no commercial development other than agriculture is allowed, and no gaming is permitted. Regarding alcohol, staff noted that current tribal ordinances prohibit alcohol in government facilities, and any future use would require standard ABC permits. Staff addressed community questions on traffic, air quality, and solid waste by referencing specific mitigation measures in the Environmental Assessment.

Public Comment

• Public testimony was received from various individuals and organizations regarding the proposed MOA. Comments were divided between support for and opposition to the agreement.
• Supporters:
• Tribal Representatives: Teresa Satt (Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians Foundation) cited the critical housing shortage on the reservation. Willie Wyatt (Tribal Administrator) highlighted the tribe’s contributions to public safety, specifically the Chumash Fire Department. Nakia Zavala (Cultural Director) described the cultural significance of Camp 4 to tribal identity and youth education. Kenneth Kahn (Tribal Chairman) emphasized the tribe’s commitment to community relationships, environmental stewardship, and the agreement’s provisions, including no gaming, water conservation, and open space preservation. He noted that the tribal membership had voted in favor of the agreement.
• County and Official Perspectives: Steve Lavagnino (Supervisor) expressed support, citing the need to secure a binding agreement to mitigate impacts and offset property tax losses, particularly in light of pending federal legislation (H.R. 1491). Gail Marshall (Former Supervisor) supported the agreement, arguing it provides enforceable conditions and fiscal benefits. An unidentified former supervisor noted that the agreement sets aside land for open space and includes water restrictions.
• Community and Organizational Support: Martin Rodriguez (Iroquois Local 4033) and Michael Lopez (Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 114) supported the MOA, citing the tribe’s history of community goodwill and local labor practices. Mary Ellen Brooks (Citizens Planning Association) supported the agreement, noting that without it, federal legislation would preempt county control. Joe Armendarz (Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association) argued that the tribe’s economic impact benefits the county. Chuck Cuddleston (Union Electrical Workers Local 413) and Brian Gregory (IBEW Local 413) cited the tribe’s use of local union labor. John Park (Attorney) noted the waiver of sovereign immunity and lack of gaming expansion. Andy Caldwell (CoLab) and Ken Huff (Santa Barbara County Action Network) viewed the agreement as a resolution to long-standing conflicts. Nicholas DiCroce (Resident) cited provisions for no gaming and conservation. Steve Pepe (Econ Alliance) compared the tribe’s sovereign status to other entities. Rebecca August (San Ynez Valley Community Action Alliance) supported the agreement as a compromise. Holly Sierra Mayor (Mayor of Buelton) cited the positive working relationship between the City of Buelton and the tribe. Joni Jamieson (Salt Lake City Council member) highlighted the tribe’s contributions to local revenue and educational benefits. Elena Simon (SBCAN board member) stated that SBCAN voted in support of the agreement.
• Other Supporters: Unidentified Speaker 13 (Sociologist) supported the agreement as a compromise. Unidentified Speaker 19 advocated for collaborative relationships. Mickey Flax (HOT Committee Representative) stated the agreement functions as pre-project zoning. Unidentified Speaker 26 (Solvang Resident) urged prioritizing the well-being of adjacent neighbors. Unidentified Speaker 16 urged the board to stand up for local democratic institutions.
• Opposition and Concerns:
• Legal and Procedural Concerns: Unidentified Speaker 40 argued that the Board was disregarding fiduciary duties and called for a public vote on the MOA. Unidentified Speaker 42 (Environmental Attorney) argued that the agreement and H.R. 1491 are unconstitutional and evade environmental regulations. Andy Culbertson questioned the Board’s support for H.R. 1491 and challenged the fiscal offset calculations. Unidentified Speaker 24 criticized the ad hoc committee process for lacking transparency.
• Land Use and Environmental Concerns: Karen Kuyper expressed concern that changing the community plan would set a precedent. Unidentified Speaker 11 raised concerns about traffic safety on Highway 154. Carrie Marshall opposed the agreement, arguing the process was rushed and environmental impact statements did not meet California standards. Penny Knowles (WEWATCH) expressed concern that the county may lose influence over development after 2040. C.J. Jackson (Concerned Citizens) opposed the agreement, arguing it is a land use issue that has not been diligently reviewed. David Cousineau (Attorney) argued the agreement is incompatible with the Community Plan. Dennis Beebe (Resident) opposed the agreement, arguing the Environmental Assessment is inadequate. Bill Crouch (San Ynez Valley Coalition) opposed the agreement, arguing the county’s lawsuit has a high probability of success.
• Other Opposition: Unidentified Speaker 50 (Former Supervisor) supported the agreement but noted it is a necessary protective measure due to federal support for the fee-to-trust conversion.

Board Deliberation

• Following public comment, the board entered deliberations. Supervisor Wolf raised questions regarding the agreement’s specificity and legal implications, including economic development projects, acreage allocations, mitigation clauses, the provision requiring county support for H.R. 1491, timing of payments, and the absence of an explicit liquor restriction. Supervisor Adam asked if support for H.R. 1491 could be separated into a distinct resolution.
• Staff and legal counsel responded to the board’s questions:
• Clarified that "economic development" refers to existing agricultural operations and that the agreement requires compliance with the final Environmental Assessment.
• Confirmed that the map shown in the presentation is the Alternative B map from the Environmental Assessment.
• Stated that the board has discretion to make changes, but any changes would require further process.
• Clarified that sending a letter of support for H.R. 1491 does not prevent other parties from litigating and is separate from the county’s pending federal litigation.
• Explained that the agreement includes a provision for dismissing the county’s federal litigation, and if other litigation succeeds in removing the land from trust, the agreement terminates.
• Confirmed that the payment trigger is tied to the earlier of January 2024 or the completion of the first home.
• Stated that the agreement binds future boards through 2040, similar to other settlement agreements, but includes a re-opener clause for mutual amendments.
• Confirmed that the waiver of sovereign immunity is irrevocable for the term of the agreement.
• A board member clarified that the board was not approving a specific development plan but was considering the MOA itself. Questions were raised regarding the binding nature of the agreement on future boards and the fiscal impacts on the county. A board member stated that the agreement was the best achievable outcome given the legal framework and the pending federal legislation.

Motion and Vote

• A motion was made to adopt the proposed Memorandum of Agreement, including staff’s recommended actions A through D, and to direct the Chair to sign letters of support for H.R. 1491 in the form of Exhibit B or C. The motion was seconded.
• The board entered a brief closed session to consult with legal counsel regarding significant exposure to litigation. Upon returning to open session, the board voted on the motion.
• Vote Outcome: The motion to adopt the Memorandum of Agreement and support H.R. 1491 passed.

Adjournment

• CEO Miyasato made an announcement. The meeting was adjourned until November 7th.