Board of Supervisors — 2017-10-31

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

¶. ♪ ♪ Well. Good morning, welcome. It's nine o'clock and I call to order this special meeting of October 31st 2017 of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room. Mr. Allen would you call the roll?

Mr. Adam, Mr. Lavinino, Mr Williams, Ms. Wolfe, Ms Hartman.

Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? The minutes stand approved. Do we have a CEO's report today Ms. Miyasato?

No report this morning.

Okay and now is the time for any member of the public to comment on any matter not on today's agenda do we have any speaker slips Mr. Allen?

With no request to speak.

Okay for anyone who would like to speak on the main item please submit your speaker slips now we're going to figure out how to allocate time based on how many total number of speaker slips we have so get them into us now because once public comment begins we will not take any additional speaker slips. So turning to this single item for today's special meeting would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?

Chair Hartman, members of the Board. This item is brought to the board by Supervisors Williams and Hartman. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a memorandum of agreement between Santa Barbara County and the Sayinas Band of Chumash Indians regarding Camp 4.

Thank you. I'd like to begin today's hearing by acknowledging and thanking a number of people First of all, my fellow board members for being here today at this special meeting. Normally we wouldn't be here at all and especially the North County Supervisors who drove down I thank you for being here and giving this matter the full attention in a special meeting I particularly want to recognize the work of the previous ad hoc committee, Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Farr who is here today.

I'd also like to recognize Chairman Kahn and the Tribe's Business Committee who are here this morning along with other members of the San Ysidro Band of Chumash Indians. Thank you very much for being here. I'd also like to recognize all the residents here from the San Ynez Valley. I know you were up early to drive down or board the bus and be in this room by 9 a.m., and thank you for being here, and for your sincere and longstanding engagement in this issue.

I also want to acknowledge many people from throughout the county who are here or watching on TV today. I'd like to start next by explaining the process by which this special hearing will be conducted. Today we'll start with opening remarks from both myself and Supervisor Williams, who served on the Ad Hoc Committee. Then we will have a statement by Chairman Kahn of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians These remarks will be followed by a presentation by our Assistant CEO Terry Mosnisch and she'll present the staff report outlining the terms of the entire agreement.

And included in this report will be responses to many of the questions posed by the community over the last month. Following the staff report, there will be question and answer from supervisors. Then we will turn to public comment. We'll start first with those who are willing to speak for one minute and then we will turn to those three-minute speakers. It should go without saying, but I kindly ask that you keep today's conversation respectful to all parties.

Our negotiations have benefited from civility and respect and I know that we can continue that decorum here today. I ask that you refrain from applause and cheering. Every individual here is welcome to make their views heard during the public comment period Every individual here deserves the courtesy of being listened to and heard, and having their perspective respected even if it differs from our own.

This meeting is being recorded and we want to create a record of civility. Following public comment Chairman Kahn will have an opportunity to make some concluding remarks. After public comment Ms. Nisic will respond to any outstanding issues that she's heard during public comment that she thinks needs to be clarified and then we'll return to the board for deliberations. We may have a break at some point during the proceedings.

So turning to my opening remarks, I want to again recognize the members of the community who are here and who have invested so much in this issue. I assure you that your input, your goals, your engagement, your letters and your comments shape the ad hoc committee's objectives and approach to these negotiations. The ad hoc committee approached these negotiations with five guiding principles.

One, preserving the rural character of the Santa Ynez Valley. Two, respecting tribal sovereignty. Three, addressing the tribe's stated need for housing and a tribal center. Four, providing greater certainty about Camp 4 development. And five, mitigating for impacts of the proposed development. These negotiations were extremely difficult and challenging taking place over the course of nearly 20 meetings between the county and tribal leaders since 2015 along with numerous staff to staff discussions.

When Supervisor Williams and I began participating in February 2017, our negotiations were shaped by three key events. First the January 19th 2017 decision by the Department of the Interior to take Camp 4 into trust concluding that the NEPA review was sufficient Second, the March 10 2017 introduction of H.R. 1491 which would legislatively affirm the Department of the Interior's decision about the trust status of Camp 4 with no input from the county.

Let me reiterate HR 1491 would eliminate any opportunity for local government to play any role vis-a-vis Camp 4. The bill affirms the trust status of Camp 4, which would mean no say whatsoever for the county in land use building codes setbacks mitigation of environmental impacts or fees for other kinds of impacts The third event influencing our negotiations happened last spring when I went back to Washington, D.C., and I met with congressional leaders.

I appealed to the bill's author, the chair of the Natural Resources Committee and the bill's sponsors and came to an understanding. They would hold off on passage of 1491 giving the new county and tribal leadership time to work out a local agreement, a binding private contract that could be referenced in HR 1491. I was promised some time but it was strongly emphasized not too much time.

I was told that if we don't come to an agreement 1491 would go forward without an agreement. On July 26, 2017 this bill passed unanimously out of the House Committee on Natural Resources. Recently HR 1491 was placed on the union calendar and can now be brought to the floor for a vote at any time. I was told that the house was poised to move but action was delayed by mutual request of the county and the tribe to delay until after today's meeting So, at this very moment Congress stands ready to act on H.R. 1491. Either we have a local agreement with some significant controls in place for 143 homes and a tribal center through 2040 or we do not have a local agreement and the tribe has full discretion to do anything but gaming on the Camp 4 property and the county would have no certain role whatsoever going forward.

Given these events and the threat of HR 1491 passing without a local agreement, the Ad Hoc Committee endeavored to negotiate the best agreement possible under the circumstances. The agreement commits the tribe to what they said they would do and what the coalition in the San Ynez Valley expressed support for, 143 homes in a tribal center. Alternative B in the environmental assessment where 84% of Camp 4 will remain undeveloped.

Limited use of groundwater and careful water management, no commercial development on the property other than agriculture. No gaming and that is stated both in the environmental assessment and in HR 1491. Enforceability through a waiver of sovereign immunity and monitoring, reporting and an enforcement regime. A term of 22 years through 2040 with the re-opener available but only if both parties agree Fiscal mitigation paid to the county of $178,000 a year or three million as a negotiated settlement number. This figure was hotly debated and in the end we felt this was better than nothing at all. No land use controls, no environmental protections, no money whatsoever.

In sum, we negotiated the best agreement available under very challenging circumstances and that agreement is being presented here today. Supervisor Williams?

Well in an age where people in politics have abandoned the ability to respectfully disagree largely I am going to address Something that I think is important to talk about which is intentions. Many of you are here in opposition to the agreement because you feel that a better result might be able to be achieved through litigation or through continuing to fight.

We are bringing an agreement to the county because we don't think that a better agreement is possible to be achieved at this late stage of the fee-to-trust process. And let me back up a little bit. Because I represented half of Santa Barbara County in the state legislature, this issue is something that my office and I have been trying to figure out for about seven years. I know many of you go even farther on that.

But it was pretty clear to us very early that this was a no win situation. And I don't just mean legally, I mean in terms of community relationships. That this is kind of what every elected official's nightmares are formed of. It's a situation where the community overwhelmingly wants a result that is impossible to achieve Because of the legal framework in this nation.

And so I want you to know that even though many of you oppose this agreement, your priorities have found their way into this agreement. The two priorities that I have heard over the last seven years overwhelmingly from the community has been Number one, that this is the gateway to the valley and that we should preserve a maximal amount of open space as part of any agreement with the tribe.

And that has been achieved in this agreement. And secondly, that there should be a prohibition against gaming. That is also achieved And for those of you that don't believe that it's enforceable between a contract between two private parties, then I would tell you that is the upside of the legislation. That if the legislation passes and is signed into law by the president this is not just an agreement between two private parties. It's federal law.

And therefore imminently enforceable I tell you this because I hope that you can recognize that there is no possible political reason that Joan and I, Supervisor Hartman and myself would even touch this electric third rail. Except that we care dearly about open space and dearly about the future of the valley That we may not have the same strategic assessment that you have.

But, that we have the same intentions to maximize what is preserved and to maximize the continued beauty in this community. With that I think it's good to come to the details of the agreement.

Chairman Kahn would you like to come forward?

Good morning Chair Hartman and members of the board. I'm Kenneth Kahn, chairman of the Sandinez Band of Chumash Indians. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you about the tentative intergovernmental agreement between the tribe and the county of Santa Barbara County. For those in the audience, I understand that you have great interest in this matter. We have worked very hard to address community concerns As the chairman of the San Dines Chumash it's important to me that we develop relationships, relationships in our community.

I've made it a priority to explain the complexities of Camp 4 and feed a trust in how its vital to preserving the tribe's culture. Protecting the rural character of the San Dines Valley is also very important to the Chumash The Chumash have inhibited this land for thousands of years. Past and present generations have been caring for and honoring the land and its vital resources.

Whether you have ancestral ties going back thousands of years or if you are the first generation to the community, we can equally appreciate the beauty and serenity of this place we call home. We all share heritage and pride in our valley. The tribal county relationship has had a number of stress points in the past. Through this process, and this agreement I hope to build upon current positive government-to-government dialogue.

This is in the best interest of the citizens of the community and the members of our tribe Ongoing Camp 4 discussions have provided a better understanding of community needs from both the tribal and county perspective. I would like to recognize and thank Supervisor Adams and former Supervisor Farr for their participation in the first round of Tribal Ad Hoc meetings.

We learned a lot about community concerns specific to Camp 4 during their time on the committee. Through nine public meetings over 18 months we established the framework for the agreement scheduled for vote today. The renewal of the ad hoc committee back in February this year was a clear sign that those meetings are of public benefit We thank all of you up here for your five to zero vote extending and modifying the county tribal ad hoc process.

The added ability of having staff-to-staff discussions along with more frequent meetings were extremely important to producing a thorough rough draft agreement for public review and comment I thank Supervisors Hartman and I thank Supervisor Williams for your part for that period. Ongoing discussions and negotiations have not been easy, there were many moments of contention.

Both parties remained at the table through hours and hours of deliberation. The easy thing for us to do would've been to walk away but for the sake of our constituents we didn't. Which brings us here today. I ask that you wholeheartedly support this agreement, the tribe in good faith voluntarily came to the table to work through key terms involving Camp 4. Key terms identified by your constituents.

Through the argument, through the agreement plenty of argument For consideration today we've outlined a number of mitigation areas. We address land use, prohibitions on gaming water usage and conservation fiscal impacts and road infrastructure including the roundabout highway one fifty four and highway two forty six over eight hundred acres of open space housing agricultural and government facilities facility areas have been identified Designated 1000 feet for scenic highway 154 of a scenic Highway 154 buffer.

We will continue to work with the county in the community beyond this agreement in order to identify areas of concern. Tribal families moving to Camp 4 also deserve and want to make sure that their quality of life is looked after. Supervisors, some of you have had an opportunity to tour the reservation You've seen firsthand the challenges that we have with housing.

Some have been able to tour the learning center, medical facilities and other government infrastructure. For those that have not it would be an honor to have you come visit and see what we're doing in our community. I look forward to finishing up at the end here and maybe answering some more questions so thank

With that we turn to Ms. Terri Mosnisch and she's going to give the presentation of the Memorandum of Agreement in the Environmental Assessment and Fonzie. I would ask that board members allow her to finish the presentation because many of the elements of the agreement are interrelated and so it may become clear as she proceeds any questions you might have. So Ms. Mosnisch please go forward.

Good morning and thank you again Terry Nesich presenting on behalf of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee. I'd like to begin with a little bit of background on Camp 4 itself. The proposed Camp 4 project encompasses over 1400 acres, and the property was acquired by the San Ynez Band of the Chumash Indians in 2010. It is also in a multi-year agricultural preserve or Williamson Act contract.

The environmental assessment prepared for Camp 4 and finalized in 2014 identifies two development alternatives. Alternative A which consists of over 1400 acres to be converted into 143 five-acre residential lots And an alternative B, which we will discuss as part of this agreement consists of 143 one acre residential lots and 30 acres for tribal facilities. This alternative was adopted by the Tribal Business Committee and again is the subject of this agreement.

In terms of location of Camp 4, we've outlined this here on the vicinity map. The project boundary is identified in red. You can see the project location, the proposed near the township of Santa Ynez and the existing tribal reservation. There's been a very long history of county involvement and discussion with Camp 4 and Feed-A-Trust in general, but today I'm going to focus some of my background and history comments specifically on the more recent work of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee as well as the work to prepare this agreement.

The ad hoc, the original ad hoc subcommittee was put in place by the Board of Supervisors in August 2015. Former Supervisor Farr and Supervisor Adam were originally appointed to that subcommittee as you've already heard and met in nine meetings with the public. In January 10th of 2017 Supervisors Hartman and Williams were appointed to serve on the short-term ad hoc subcommittee.

Also on January 10th of 2017, the Board directed our County Council to initiate federal litigation if the Bureau of Enduring Affairs Regional Director decision was affirmed to take Camp 4 into trust. On January 19 the interior did in fact affirm the regional December for the regional directors December 14 decision to in fact take camp four into trust and concluded that there was adequate NEPA review on the project.

On January 28 as directed County Council filed a federal district court. On February 7 of 2017 the Board of Supervisors renewed the short term advisory ad hoc subcommittee And in late February the new ad hoc subcommittee and the tribal business committee began meeting. And as noted they've met on nine occasions formally, in addition there were multiple staff to staff meetings.

In September and October most recently we also had three public meetings to discuss the terms of the agreement. I just want to go back to the original charge of the Board of Supervisors to both ad hoc subcommittees. The direction was to engage the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians in discussions related to land use and financial matters of mutual concern that include but are not limited to the waiver of sovereign immunity San Ynez Valley properties of interest inclusive of Camp 4, the Mooney and Escobar properties and the 350 acre triangle property and other general topics between the county and tribe as appropriate.

On February 7th the board also directed that in addition to the open public meetings that were currently being held by the original Ad Hoc That the tribe engage that the board engages a tribe in discussions with it outside of that open public meeting process. As the ad hoc subcommittee began their work in February of 2017 they were faced with several external factors that were quite impactful to the overall discussions and some of these were already described by Supervisor Hartman.

The January 19 action of the Department of Interior that changed the status of Camp 4, the county had filed its litigation and as noted before Congress is poised to act on HR 1491. In addition, the Supreme Court will soon hear arguments about whether or not Congress has the right to dismiss a fee-to-trust litigation via legislation. While those factors were known to the ad hoc subcommittee they did establish a series of guiding points that led the efforts throughout the term of the discussion.

The first was to build on the early work of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee as mentioned that Ad Hoc Subcommittee met in public on multiple occasions and set forth a framework for future discussions It was also important to recognize the tribal sovereignty and self-governance which has been consistently referenced in the county's adopted legislative platform. There is a need to recognize the importance of tribal housing and recognize that critical services are delivered by both the county and the tribe and I'll speak about that a bit more as we talk about fiscal.

There was a shared goal to protect the rural nature of the San Ynez Valley and to provide greater certainty regarding the development and timing of any proposed project on Camp 4. In addition there is a goal to establish a strong model of government to government relations going forward and address fiscal and environmental impacts associated with any proposed project.

There were a broad array of discussions through the ad hoc again building on the prior discussions in the open meetings. We explored a number of out-of-the-box solutions trying to build on the input from community and many of the concepts discussed during earlier meetings and as noted by both Chairman Kahn and Supervisor Hartman, the discussions were very intense at times but very sincere and we believe very thorough.

I'll now go ahead and walk through the summary of the key terms of the agreement there are seven. The waiver of sovereign immunity, the term land use and mitigation environmental impacts, the fiscal component safety and code compliance land use and dismissal and support provisions. Before I go into those in depth I did want to highlight for the board however A number of the questions posed by the community. As I mentioned earlier there were three meetings with the public and we received a number of questions not only through those meetings but via our ad hoc subcommittee website and through a number of correspondence that we attempted to answer, and I wanted to highlight those so that board would be aware of the scope of questions that were received.

Obviously the scope of the agreement itself and what that refers to is Camp 4 versus other properties in terms of scope and then you can see the others. The term, the questions about support for legislation we received a number of questions about the fiscal component, a number of questions about detail related to the mitigation specifically in the area of land use water specifically and a number of others which I will speak to as I go through the various terms.

The first and perhaps the most important is the waiver of sovereign immunity. It was directed by the board as I referenced earlier in the charge that a waiver of sovereign immunity be secured in order to move forward with any form of an agreement. So the enforceable agreement protects and secures the stated land uses for the terms of this agreement without a local agreement with an enforceable waiver by the tribe there are no protections In August of 2015 to March of 2016, this waiver was discussed at the original ad hoc subcommittee.

On August 30th of 2016 there was a report to the Board of Supervisors on the Waiver of Sovereign Immunity and the board separately approved an agreement for law enforcement services with this specific waiver. Just to be clear there are two law enforcement agreements One does contain this waiver and the second does not, or the first does not contain the waiver and the second does. On November 4 of 2014 the board approved the agreement for law enforcement services with no waiver however in order to mitigate that risk there was a prepayment provision on that particular law enforcement contract. On August 30th, the board approved a contract for law enforcement services that did in fact contain this waiver of sovereign immunity.

The tribe's general counsel will vote on the proposed memorandum of agreement. They have in fact done so and that is within your packet and if the vote is approved which it has been, the general counsel approves a resolution authorizing the tribal chairman to sign the proposed memorandum of agreement and approve the waiver of sovereign immunity. The chairman has signed that resolution and it is in your packet as part of the agreement.

And it is attached as Exhibit D. There are no third party beneficiaries to the waiver. The specific language of the waiver is as follows. The tribe expressly and irrevocably waives for the term of the agreement its right to assert its sovereign immunity from suit and enforcement, and execution of any ensuing judgment or award, and consents to be sued in the federal courts of the United States or the state courts of the State of California provided that the dispute is limited solely to the issues arising under this agreement.

In regards to the term, the agreement is effective on the latest dates upon which each of the following conditions are met. This agreement needs to be approved by the County Board of Supervisors. It requires the approval of the general counsel of the tribe which includes the approval of the tribe by a vote and authorization of the chairman to sign the agreement as I've mentioned that has occurred and it is referenced within the packet.

There must be dismissal of the county's federal litigation and we must receive written approval by the Secretary of the Interior or written determination by the secretary that approval is not needed. It is my understanding that the secretary has determined that the approval is needed. The agreement would be in effect through 2040 December 31 of 2040 and as previously mentioned there are reopeners by mutual consent provided for within this agreement.

The scope of the agreement is very straightforward. It solely applies to Camp 4 while other options were discussed in the open ad hoc committee meeting process as well as throughout the secondary ad hoc committee meeting process Camp 4 was determined to be the sole purpose of the agreement. And I will just add that in the absence of comprehensive fee-to-trust reform at the federal level, the tribes are not mandated to secure agreements.

I'll go ahead and move on to the land use component This provides for alternative B as I've previously mentioned it outlines the land uses proposed under that alternative. So again there are 143 one acre residential lots and the residential component comprises 194 acres of the total site and the residential you can see here in this particular layout There are 206 acres of agriculture which is referenced in the green.

There are 869 acres of open space recreational use which is primarily trails and designated open space. There are 30 acres for government purposes which includes the tribal hall and facility. There are 98 acres of resource management zone designation for riparian corridors and preservation. There are 33 acres of oak woodland, which are also designated on the site in green you can see those throughout And there are three acres which are designated as a special purpose zone of just for utilities and a wastewater treatment plant, which is up here at the top of the site.

I'll also make note of this 985 foot buffer, which was referred to previously as the viewshed and this is also included as a protection in part of it as part of the agreement specifically. A little bit more about the terms or specific components of the land use. There were questions about the tribal land consolidation area. The tribal consolidation areas no longer in effect, DCA as it is referred to was voluntarily withdrawn by the tribe. And the fee to trust application and the environmental assessment was submitted without a TCA so that is no longer a factor and it is not within this agreement. The current project has no TCA just to be clear.

There is no gaming allowed in the EA, the environmental assessment and the legislation as previously referenced specifically disallows gaming on the property. In addition the tribe is to comply with the final EA, the FONSI and Alternative B as I've outlined of the final EA and as adopted in May 2014 by the Tribal Business Committee including no buildings on Camp 4 within 985 feet of State Highway 154 which I highlighted just a moment ago.

They must comply with all required mitigation measures in the FONSI and the final EA, and alternative B. There must be compliance with the FONSI and final EA but it shall not preclude solar energy on Camp 4 however all forms of solar energy are prohibited on Camp 4 within that 985 foot buffer that I did reference. In terms of water we did utilize this slide actually Chairman Kahn referenced the slide as part of the open public meetings and I wanted to make sure we shared this with the board today because it does outline several of the key components of the medication monitoring plan is specifically related to water.

One of the primary concerns brought forth by the community and by the Ad Hoc Subcommittee was a concern about export of water. And to clearly state there is no export of water provided for, water on the site is specifically for the stated project purposes. I have however listed here a number of other key mitigations related to water. In terms of the actual use of water in drought there is no net increase of the use of water during a period of drought and a four acre foot increase in water in non-drought periods.

Just for reference to further explain the water component of this. The tribe has provided two letters which is in the board's packet and was posted to the site, the first of which is a resolution 990 of the business committee and it specifically refers to the use of groundwater on-site and no export and they have adopted a resolution to that effect and again it is in your packet just to clarify their intent And then secondly, we have a letter from the tribe that was received yesterday that discusses their desire to report on water use on the site both with the existing wells and the proposed wells for their residential use.

A bit more on land use there are limits on commercial. There is no commercial other than ag commercial which Supervisor Hartman has already stated. There are 260 acres of agriculture on the site and there was a net increase, net decrease excuse me in commercial as there is no winery approved for the project. I referenced some of the provisions for open space, 869 acres of total open space for recreation as well as the acreage for designated resource management zones.

In terms of the tribal facilities there are 30 acres of tribal facilities and that is for a 12,000 square foot tribal hall facility. This is to provide for tribal members and guests for tribal events and functions and ceremonies. There are 250 parking spaces associated with the facility with 100 events planned and primarily the types of meetings that occur are language learning cultural nights AA meetings and 4-H meetings so community meetings by the tribe. There is no alcohol provided for in tribal government facilities and the same rules apply to this facility as applied to the current Tribal Hall.

In terms of development options we provided as part of our narrative and response to questions which is also in the board packet a listing or a description of eight one acre alternatives. The alternatives that I've provided here provides the most intensively studied alternative for Alternative B but there are eight one acre scenarios that were considered by the tribe as part of Alternative B As I mentioned previously there are no structures within that 980 foot right of way on 100 preservation area and 154.

And we had a number of questions about building height and to address that question about 75% of the single-family residents, about 75% of the residences are single family and single story. In terms of county land use policies we've had a number of questions regarding the San Ynez Valley community plan. And the ad hoc subcommittee asserts that we are in compliance with the San Ynez Valley community plan as a result of this agreement and this pretends the pursuit of an enforceable intergovernmental memorandum for camp 4 is consistent with the policies contained within the plan And then I also listed specific policies which indicate that the county shall oppose the loss of jurisdictional authority over land within the plan area where the intended use is inconsistent with the goals and policies and the development standards of the plan or in the absence of a satisfactory enforceable agreement.

In addition, it indicates that the county shall pursue legally enforceable government-to-government agreements with entities seeking to obtain jurisdiction over land with a plan area to encourage compatibility with the surrounding areas and mitigate environmental and financial impacts to the county. In regards to the fiscal, the county and the tribe have very differing perspectives on service impacts costs and costs.

We explored a number of different formulas to address fiscal impacts associated with this agreement. Many might recall that as part of the initial ad hoc subcommittee meetings we explored a number of options related to property tax. We had numerous discussions on municipal finance and the numerous services provided by both the county and the tribe Ultimately the ad hoc committee agreed that the development of Camp 4 property may in some cases result in impacts and costs to the county.

And it acknowledged that the county does not have permitting authority over development of lands held in trust and that the payments made under this agreement are not taxes, do not constitute taxes, exactions or fees. And there was an agreement that the payments are approximate offsets to the potential losses and impacts to the county, and are intended to support an approximate level of services to Camp 4 and the affected community.

The tribe will pay a flat amount of $178,500 annually due in four equal quarterly payments and payments would expire upon the expiration of the agreement on December 31st of 2040. The tribe will comply with the terms of the Williamson Act contract on Camp 4 until the December 31st 2023 date and payments would begin after the expiration of the Williamson Act.

If the Williamson act is canceled for any reason prior then payments would begin upon completion of the first home on the camp for property. We also agree or the ad hoc also agreed that the payments to the county may qualify as credits under the tribal gaming compact and the county agreed to support the tribe getting credit for those payments. I should just state that by the tribe potentially getting credit for those payments it does not impact the payment to the county, it does not impact that 175 in any way. It is a reduction to the amount they would otherwise have paid to the state.

In addition to the payments, the tribe is required to pay their fair share of transportation and circulation improvements in the valley. And that includes the completed roundabout at 246 and 154 as well as payment for additional corridor improvements regarding signalization or roundabouts on 154 and 246 and they are under discussion with Caltrans on those. I did add this slide to your packet and the, this is also in the back of the room. It's entitled safety and code compliance.

The tribe is required to comply and monitor, is required to have compliance and monitoring done by mutually agreed upon third party professionals. The tribal ordinance requires code mitigation monitoring and enforcement program only by qualified engineers architects etc. And they must utilize the existing county list of approved architects and engineers for the purpose of their construction. And they have agreed to comply with the California building and public safety codes.

In terms of dismissal of the litigation and support provisions, the Ad Hoc Subcommittee is suggesting that as part of the agreement that the litigation is formally dismissed and that they will support HR 1491 with amendments. And that includes referencing this agreement as part of those amendments. Just a bit about the public process. The first public meeting occurred on September 25 at that point in time there was not a completed agreement so that a summary of the known terms was provided to the community in the form of a PowerPoint and we reviewed those terms verbally to the best of our ability where we did have exact language secured, we were able to extract that and provide that directly to the community We then set a hearing on October 3 of 2017 and by setting that hearing it allowed for the agreement to be placed on the public record and the full agreement to be distributed to the community.

At that meeting of October 3 we set a hearing for October 17 and as you are aware that was continued to today. However in the interim two additional public meetings were held in addition to the September 25 meeting. When the full packet was available, the full agreement was available we held two meetings on October 5th and October 9th to receive to provide an overview of the agreement received questions and answer those questions.

So wrapping up you have several recommended actions before the board today and the first is to approve and authorize the chair to execute a memorandum of agreement with the Sanias Band of the Chumash Indians regarding camp 4. And in accordance with the terms of the memorandums agreement authorized and direct the chair to sign letters of support for HR 1491 in the form of Exhibit B in the memorandum Or C, provide other direction to the ad hoc subcommittee on tribal matters and staff as deemed appropriate.

And there is a CEQA recommendation as well. So that concludes my presentation and I will turn it back to Chair Hartman.

Thank you do board members have questions?

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to you and Supervisor Adam and to Chairman Kahn and to our staff. The Board of Supervisors I think it's been a few weeks since we've had this agreement so if you'll bear with me because I do have questions some of which I talked to County Council about but there are other ones that have come to light for me.

So the first one has to do on the agreement it's one of the whereas and it says the tribe desires to expand tribal housing opportunities and operate tribal economic development projects. And Ms. Nesich what is your understanding of economic development projects particularly in the context of the PowerPoint where it says that there is no commercial activities. So what does that reference, the economic development projects?

So I

can

begin the answer to that Chair Hartman, Supervisor Wolf and then turn it over to County Council. As I indicated there are no commercial activities provided for as part of this agreement or referenced within the EA or FONSI so the economic development activities that are referenced within fee-to-trust law there are stated purposes for taking lands into trust one is for the purpose of housing one is for the purposes of economic development activities So I believe what this particular area references is the fee-to-trust law and I'll turn that over to Rachel Van Molen if she has anything she would like to add.

And chairman supervisors today as we go through questions only a series of these are going to ask our chief assistant Rachel Van Molen to answer them and if we have follow-on questions I'll be glad to put my thumbprint on that if it would help but Rachel Van Molen has been very involved with this for the past couple years both with the federal litigation and then through the negotiation process.

And thank you Mr. Gazzone, I failed to acknowledge your office and Miss Van Mollen in working through this.

Thank you madam chair and supervisor Wolf. I think that in part what that is referring to is the existing ongoing commercial operations for agriculture because there is a vineyard on the property but there is no plans to do a winery and not as made clear in the in the questions and

so what I heard from his message is that it's part of the law, but what you're saying is that is that part of the law. So it is that why it's in here

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf it is part of FETA trust law as well. I just wanted to clarify that there is existing vineyards on the property as well.

And is there any way that the 30 acres allocated for the event center or tribal facilities, that could be interpreted as part of the economic development project? Let me go back because this was one of the questions that the community asked and I looked at the answers that Ms. Nisic provided which were very comprehensive however in this particular section of commercial There was reference to Appendix N of the final EA which shows the potential uses of Camp 4 as proposed by the tribe indicates that there are no designated commercial land uses outside of ag commercial for vineyard production.

When I looked at that appendix N, and interestingly the maps that are part of this appendix N for option B is not reflected in the map that we just saw on the PowerPoint. So let me ask it this way. Because we've always we're always referring to the EA as kind of the guiding document while this part of the EA does not include that map so is that map that we saw on the PowerPoint going to be incorporated into the agreement?

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf are you referring to the map that shows alternative B?

The map that Ms. Nisic showed on the PowerPoint and it's number, its page 16 if you want to go back to that. Would you

pull that up Ms.Nisic?

Yes.

That is the alternative B map

No it's actually not the alternative B map that's presented that Ms. Nisic showed as part of the EA so there is a little bit of a discrepancy. So what I'd like to know is which map are we using? Because this is not one of the four.

So perhaps I could clarify, so the map that is here which is on the screen and included by reference within this agreement, is the most intensively studied map and the adopted alternative B by the Tribal Business Committee. And this and the stated land uses which I read off are specifically re-referenced and adopted within the final EA. So that is, this is what we're referring to.

Exhibit N with this reference which we were trying to explain as part of our answers is that the tribe also considered a number of other configurations for this particular alternative for one acre lots And what alternative N, I'm sorry which the exhibit specifies is other configurations for the various land uses or for the various residential etc. But this is the map which is in the final EA and we are referencing.