BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 December 5, 2017

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:011 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:20 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Music Good morning. ♪ Hi.

0:03 – 0:053 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:06 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Good morning, welcome to this December 5th 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room. Mr. Allen would you call the roll?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:19 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Mr. Lavinino? Here. Mr Williams? Here Ms Wolfe? Here Mr Adam? Here Ms Hartman?

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈20s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:25 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here Please stand and join me for the pledge

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:48 · ≈ 9:03 AM

And may I have a motion to approve the minutes of November 14, 2017? Second. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Minutes stand approved and I would like now to Talk a little bit about a member of our county family who passed away suddenly. It's with great sadness that we learned that former Supervisor Joni Gray died last week. She served for 14 years on this board And she'll be missed by many locally and throughout the state. Last week I attended a CSAC meeting, and she was well known throughout the 58 counties in leadership throughout California. And they dedicated a moment of silence to her there. She was a courageous public service, and she was somebody joyous in the way she lived her life. So I would like us all to just spend A minute here reflecting about her and her dedication to our county in public service.

Thank you for honoring her and her legacy. I know there are some board members who would like to have some remembrance of her. Supervisor Lavanino?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

0:05 – 0:097 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:34 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I was honored to have been asked by Joni's family to... I don't even know what you call it. It's not...

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:48 · ≈ 9:05 AM

A eulogy?

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction5:52 · ≈ 9:05 AM

It felt like a eulogy, but it was an introduction. You were the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:58 · ≈ 9:05 AM

MC or whatever of the whole thing. And in Joni's style we started right on time and we didn't take a lot of time. We were in and out in 45 minutes. She would have been very happy. We also didn't do it during any football game so she would also have been very happy about that. She was a huge football fan. And as I told her family, uh, I spent the first two years on this board driving back and forth with Joni.

We had two subjects. One was her family and the other one was football. And we didn't talk about her family very much so she, um, she was a citizen of the year. I mean, she's everything in North County. She'd been citizen of the year. Um, she was rodeo queen. Just to kind of put her life in perspective, at four years old she led the Santa Maria Elks Rodeo Parade.

And she then became the rodeo queen and then 70 years later she was the grand marshal of that same parade so she led a great life I talked about also that she was a cheerleader in junior high which didn't surprise me much because she'd been a cheerleader her whole life for the North County You always knew where she stood and we're gonna miss her. She was a terrific lady, and the community place was packed, I think 400 or 500 people there.

It was just a really beautiful ceremony and she'll be greatly missed.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role7:27 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Thank you,

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction7:27 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair. Well Steve did an incredible job at the memorial service that I also attended and as Steve mentioned the place was packed and then also in Joni's style there was a party afterwards with Just so many people celebrating her life. I just, you know, I knew Joni when I first came on this board. I met Joni when I first came on this board and we We were two women amongst three pretty strong men.

And Joni and I often differed on policy matters, but we were so much alike in what we cared about. And Joni and I developed a really fond friendship with each other. And as Steve mentioned, Joni loved to talk. We didn't talk about football but we did talk about our families and I learned so much about her daughter Samantha and then you know having the opportunity to meet Sam at the memorial service was really I saw Joni in Sam and anyway, I'm going to miss Joni. She was a true leader. She was a great friend and a great representative for this county.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role8:56 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Thank you and our thoughts go out to her family and friends at this time. Ms. Miyasato, do you have our CEO's report for today? Good morning Chair

0:09 – 0:142 turns

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction9:07 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Hartman and board members I do have several items we wanted to start this morning off myself and Chief Peterson if he'd come up to just give you a brief update on the Thomas fire in Ventura County right now This fire is not in Santa Barbara County. It is wholly within the jurisdiction of Ventura County. Rob Lewin, our Office of Emergency Management Director, is busy at the EOC. I know he's been up all night since late last night or early this morning and same with several members from General Services, Fire Sheriff and Matt Pontus so I want to say thank you and appreciate their work. I don't think they've gotten any sleep.

So let me start off and I'll hand it over to Chief Peterson. As far as impacts in Santa Barbara County, many of you noticed the power outage that happened late last night or early this morning if you're in Southern California Edison territory. Our facilities were backed up by generator power during some portion of that. Currently power is stable although its fluid. I know people saw flickering this morning around 7 AM and OEM's in constant communication with Southern California Edison.

We've offered mutual aid for sheriff and Chief Peterson will talk about our resources deployed for the fire, as well as the Office of Emergency Services. Our EOC has been activated as of last night and critical staff are there since the power outage. Vista Del Mar which is our psychiatric facility where we have sent our patients was completely destroyed last night. We've had I think seven patients there at about 70 or 80 So patients in total, all were safely evacuated.

Dr. Gleghorn has been working with her staff to ensure the safety of these patients and bring them back to Santa Barbara to our Puff facility. We're evaluating what other needs may be required. OEM is planning for possible shelter facilities with the Red Cross. That planning continues this morning and they are in communication with Ventura County EOC. As you know we have many employees who've been impacted, many who are evacuated Some who've lost their homes, we found out. We're asking all our departments to be mindful of this and lend support to these employees whose safety for themselves and their families are our first priority.

Lastly it's a good time to remember to tell everyone you know to sign up for our whereandprepare.org and to follow us on our Twitter sites. We have information posted as of last night and continue to do so also on our website. Again, the situation is fluid. We're asking for everyone's patience and cooperation. And again thank you to our employees who work throughout the night to ensure power to our critical facilities particularly in general services as well as Sheriff Fire OEM and our PAO teams.

Now Chief Peterson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed11:41 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Thank You CEO Miyasato. So as we as you are all aware Ventura County has a very major significant fire going right now The latest update at the briefing this morning is that it's at 45,000 acres which is astounding for one night's fire. Went 25,000 acres in five hours. They have 150 confirmed structures down, including a portion of the psych hospital as Mona mentioned.

There's a large apartment building went down, 27,000 people evacuated. Right now there's about 1,000 firefighters on scene with many more in route. The fire is established behind the 150, can you bring the map up? So that yellow area, of course is the outline and you can see it's established itself right behind Ventura City. It's very visible down there and of course as you drove in this morning you could see the column coming up and you can see the wind because the column is as you could see is right out over the ocean so even now the winds have calmed down but that column is stretched out over the ocean so it's a classic Santa Ana condition.

Challenges they've had down there is they lost hydrants in the foothill, in the foothill area because they just ran out of water. A lot of a lot of the water up there is stored in tanks and when the power went out they lost the pumps and they were unable to refill those those tanks and so on top of that cell service is really spotty down there because they've lost a bunch of their cell towers Power is out still in most of the city although they're starting to re-establish it in some locations One of the most disconcerting things right now is that Red Flag fire conditions are going to continue to be really focused on Ventura County and in that area.

And the highest winds are predicted for Thursday, so we haven't even seen the worst of the winds yet. So as far as our contribution to their incident, out of our op area we have contributed A significant amount of people and equipment. We have 21 engines down there out of the OP area, 14 of those came from the county fire department so those are all white fire trucks.

Our helicopter 308 is down there with our combined unit and they're doing good work. They were called off last night because of high winds and they just couldn't fly anymore. And so first thing this morning when winds calmed down enough Helicopters back down there. We have an emergency recall in place, went in place last night. Unbelievably good response from our personnel. Everybody came into work, everybody that was at work was held on duty.

All stations are open and that is about it and I can take any questions you might have.

0:14 – 0:2028 turns

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction14:48 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you Chief Peterson for the report. Is it at all in state jurisdiction or is it all Ventura County?

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed15:02 · ≈ 9:15 AM

It's in state and local jurisdiction. And

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction15:07 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Ventura City too.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed15:08 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Right exactly but CAL FIRE is contributing a huge amount of resources to this fire

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction15:14 · ≈ 9:15 AM

And they did the evacuations last night. I just saw on the news that they did it pretty much door to door,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed15:22 · ≈ 9:15 AM

right? Very similar to what's been going on up in Santa Rosa and what we've done here this year with the Whittier fire.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction15:28 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Were there any fatalities?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed15:31 · ≈ 9:15 AM

I've heard different information about that. I don't have anything confirmed on that right now. Okay.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction15:37 · ≈ 9:15 AM

And then as far as Santa Barbara County because we did experience in the South County that the outage how did our Facilities do hospitals. Have you heard? Maybe general services knows that too, but how like our EOC or dispatch county facilities hospitals Supervisor

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction16:00 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Walden, maybe Matt can come up and speak to that since he was involved with all of that last night. I think again our facilities aren't generator. I know last night OEM had been calling our critical care facilities to make sure there was power and I believe there was. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed16:16 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Madam Chairman members of the board we got through the night and we had a few technical difficulties but we got everything on board and Had a good partnership with the city as well in their dispatch center So we did have OEM contacting those other critical care facilities across the county and ensuring that they were up and running. And we haven't heard anything that suggested otherwise.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction16:42 · ≈ 9:16 AM

So what were the difficulties? Do we have it at the OEM? Because when we built the OEM, one of the big things was to have that generator in place so that worked.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed16:54 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, we did have the generator and it was operational throughout it. We had issues with one of the switches at the facility and we have a technician out this morning going through that to make sure that They will continue to provide service there at the dispatch center. At OEM, we have the generator up and running and because the power was fluctuating on and off, we decided to leave it on generator for a while and we'll switch back over to commercial power soon.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction17:31 · ≈ 9:17 AM

And how about cell towers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed17:34 · ≈ 9:17 AM

So Supervisor Wolf through the chair, our communication towers up there at San Inez Peak and several of the others. We had staff up there last night refueling the generator tanks and that kind of thing to make sure that we had adequate fuel supplies up there. Okay

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction17:49 · ≈ 9:17 AM

thank you. Thank you Chief.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role17:50 · ≈ 9:17 AM

And maybe just wait there's some other lights up here I'm not sure who the questions are for. Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed17:57 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Yeah I was wondering if anybody knew anything about the jail? Jail no hitches?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed18:03 · ≈ 9:18 AM

So supervisor Adam through the chair, the Gerald generator was on and operational all night.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed18:09 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Perfect.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role18:10 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed18:14 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Do we have any fire personnel that have been whose families have been evacuated?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed18:20 · ≈ 9:18 AM

We're concerned about that. We haven't, we're looking into that right now is actually talking to Tyler Gilliam this morning. We have a lot of people personnel that live down in that area so it's something that we are definitely looking into everything is really chaotic down there so information is just now still coming in

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed18:36 · ≈ 9:18 AM

and then the other question more about Given that last night was a Cal ISO transmission emergency and that the fire is still raging, is there reason for members of the public to minimize energy usage so that we could avoid further outages from at least for the time being?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed19:04 · ≈ 9:19 AM

I'm not an energy expert by any means but that sounds like a good idea to me. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role19:19 · ≈ 9:19 AM

I had a question for Dr. Gleghorn. Is our facility, do we have enough beds to accommodate? Are we looking for emergency beds or how were people evacuated? Our Santa Barbara patients.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed19:36 · ≈ 9:19 AM

So we are looking at accommodating patients through a variety of strategies for those patients who are ready to be discharged and moved to a lower level of care. We're trying to vacate some beds at the Puff but I've also notified the state that we're in an emergency situation and that we may need exceed our census, so they're aware and we can accommodate maybe up to 10 additional in the short term. So we've notified our food vendors, we're bringing in additional linens and we're prepared to take our clients who are at the fairgrounds at this point and bring them back up to the hospital facility which by the way did go on to generators last night.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role20:21 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Any other questions? Thank you very much.

0:20 – 0:267 turns

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction20:27 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Thank you again to all our staff and you can see people are a little weary eyed today there's been it's been a long night for everybody so thank you to them actually on to some happier news I'm also I'm here to congratulate and have the board join me in congratulating Tanya Heitman who was just appointed as the Chief Probation Officer. So, Tanya if you could come up for a moment.

Tanya was sworn in by the Superior Court last week and as you know Tanya has served as our Deputy Chief Probation Officer for the Adult Division since May 2013. During her 27 year tenure with the department she has served with juvenile institutions adult and administrative divisions In a variety of capacities, she's been instrumental in the planning and implementation as all of you know for realignment in Santa Barbara County. Working collaboratively with reps from our courts, the sheriff, the DA, public defendant, all our local community groups. I think the court recognized Ms. Heitman's breadth of experience and her abilities, and we look forward to working with her in her new role as chief. And before she begins, I also want to say thank you.

I know the board has another thank you plan for Beverly Taylor later. To recognize Ms. Taylor who through her commitment we just applaud and praise she has served the department as our former chief and came back to help us out in this interim period so thank you to Beverly Taylor as well. Chief Heitman?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed21:51 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Chair Hartman, Supervisors good morning. You've seen me before your board previously so you're well aware that I am extremely proud of the Santa Barbara County Probation Department, its work and all of its staff. With 27 years of service, I'm honored to be appointed as Chief Probation Officer to one of the top probation departments in the state of California.

I want to thank CEO Miyasato and all of her staff for their tremendous assistance during this transition period. I know that we have many challenges ahead of us, but I'm confident with continued collaboration with your board. With the other county departments, with the courts and the criminal justice stakeholders that your probation department will continue to excel.

I am humbled by this opportunity and I look forward to working with each of you and I thank you for your support.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role22:46 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Thank you very much.

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction22:57 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Thank you, Chair Hartman. I have two other announcements one is just a quick one and that is to talk about our winter holiday closure this is just to let the public know most county administrative offices and facilities will be closed between Christmas and New Year's but many critical and essential services will still be open Tuesday the 26th through Friday December 29th we have a list of all the available services posted on our website at CountyofSB.org and the county's Facebook and Instagram sites The public may also contact any specific department and check its website, and that information will be available.

So last but not least I want to invite Terry Nisich to come up and talk about our food toys in sock drive.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed23:37 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Thank you, good morning everyone. The county is sponsoring three wonderful campaigns this year for the holiday season. Toys for Tots, the Holiday Unity Shop Food Drive and then the United Way of Northern Santa Barbara County AmeriCorps Sock Drive. The sock drive includes winter clothing, blankets, backpacks, rain pouches, ponchos anything you need for the winter season. We have collection bins throughout our government buildings both in Santa Barbara and in Santa Maria through December 19th So today we have Tom Reed who I know we see every year. Come on up, Tom.

And he is going to kick off the Toys for Tot drive. Every year it is our pleasure to make sure that our board are the very first to fill the box But this year we also are offering the opportunity for you to also put all of the socks and winter clothing that you've brought in, in our basket here as well. But before you do that I'm going to turn it over to Tom and then you'll be able to bring us down your toys and socks thanks

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed24:44 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. It's an honor to be a part of the Toys for Tots. I think the Marines were going to be here this morning but they got impacted by the fire and I know the fires on everyone's mind some of our staff at Unity live in Ojai. They've been evacuated there right now at the Unity Shop. We are the designated long-term recovery agency for the County of Santa Barbara and so unity shop is active as soon as the first responders are gone. It's about a two-year process to take care of people in long term recovery.

Unity is 100 years old this year, we're celebrating that at our telethon on December 9th and all these toys that you guys are providing and the Toys for Tots that we've been doing for about 30 years because the Marine Reserves really like the way we distribute the toys each one of these toys will have an impact I can't get past the story Last year at this time a woman came to us and she said, I was married a long time ago with three kids. I married an artist who was failing and we were about to have the worst Christmas known to man. We didn't have food and certainly no toys. She came and offered us $1,000 donation and said you helped my family 56 years ago.

She's still thinking about it 56 years later and so what it communicates to me is that every one of Families that are helped and there's about 3000 families coming to the unity shop this Christmas. And each one has a story, they're newly needy often. And so having lost the ability to provide for themselves what you guys are doing for those families has an impact.

And I don't want to overlook that. So thank you so much for being a part of that. Our telethon on December 9th will give everyone in the community a chance to support what we do. It's a little bit neighbors helping neighbors, we all pitch in and it works very very well so thank you so much for your donations are you going to bring these toys down or what are we gonna do today? We

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role26:44 · ≈ 9:26 AM

are and thank you so much for collecting them

0:26 – 0:2910 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed26:58 · ≈ 9:26 AM

We can take the money. Thank you, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:18 · ≈ 9:27 AM

It's a natural

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed27:19 · ≈ 9:27 AM

gas.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed27:39 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Wait, Joe needs her barn. Hold on.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed28:14 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Yeah.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role29:06 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Well having launched the holiday season at the Board of Supervisors, we're turning now to our honorary resolutions. May I have a motion to approve A25 through A27? So

CommentAlex TuttleProposedself-stated29:18 · ≈ 9:29 AM

moved.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role29:20 · ≈ 9:29 AM

All in favor say aye.

CommentAlex TuttleProposedself-stated29:22 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role29:22 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Motion stands approved and A27 would you read that into the record Mr. Allen

0:29 – 0:3510 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed29:31 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, item A27. This is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution proclaiming December 1st 2017 as World AIDS Day in Santa Barbara County and we have members from our public health team here to receive this. And there's Evan De La Rosa I don't know if it's Charity Dean and Paige Batson Paola Hurtado, Maria Garcia, Lynn Fitzgibbons. Let's bring the whole crew up and I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.

Whereas on December 1, 2017 in honor of World AIDS Day, the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department joins the global partnership to promote the Center for Disease Control's message of increasing impact through transparency, accountability, and partnerships And whereas 1.1 million people in the United States are living with HIV, and one in seven of them don't even know it. People living with HIV receiving medical care and achieving viral load suppression have a dramatically lower chance of transmitting the virus to others.

And whereas, public health employee Maria Garcia was selected by the Santa Barbara Independent as a local hero for 30 years of dedicated service as a medical assistant at the Public Health Department's HIV clinic. Maria has been a medical assistant for the county HIV clinic since 1987. And whereas Maria was a medical assistant during the darkest days of the HIV epidemic and telling stories, reviewing patient lists of those who had died every month or at the end-of-life care that was often part of the routine of the clinic visits.

Whereas from then until now Maria remains the heart and soul of the clinic and has been there a pillar of support for all our patients and their families for decades Now therefore it be hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors Santa Barbara County does hereby proclaim the first day of December 2017 as World AIDS Day in Santa Barbara County pass and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed32:02 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Good morning. I lost my speech. Thank you for your support of our ongoing work in preventing and treatment of HIV and AIDS, and today is a fabulous Because we get to pause amidst our crazy busy work to honor one of our own. And I have with me Dr. Fitzgibbons who would like to share some thoughts about Maria and her dedication to our HIV

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed32:52 · ≈ 9:32 AM

clinic.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed32:56 · ≈ 9:32 AM

This is my first time here, it's very dramatic. Let me just take... Every week

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed33:04 · ≈ 9:33 AM

it's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed33:04 · ≈ 9:33 AM

dramatic. Just got

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed33:05 · ≈ 9:33 AM

usually power outages.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed33:09 · ≈ 9:33 AM

In 1987 a young woman left Santa Barbara High School and walked into Franklin Clinic and asked for a job. And there was one clinic that no one wanted to work in It was the clinic that was started by my mentors who are here today, Dr. Steve Jose and Dr. Andy Gersoff. Maria became the medical assistant for the HIV Clinic that year, January 1987. She has been and still is the face that our HIV patients see when they walk into that first visit.

She has known many of these patients literally since that first year. And so really sincerely from the bottom of my heart as the physician in the clinic now I want to thank Maria for all that she does, for all of our patients. I want to take a minute to remember those of the patients who are no longer with us and thank everyone in the room, particularly the Public Health Administration, the clinic staff, the Clinic Administration, again my mentors and predecessors in the clinic, and finally Maria. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed34:20 · ≈ 9:34 AM

This has been a long road and a beautiful job I've had all these years, and still to come. And working for and with these two guys. They've been great. These two physicians. Beautiful people. And Dr. Fitzgibbon. Thank you too. People that I work with. Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role34:55 · ≈ 9:34 AM

We thank you. Beautiful smile. Mr Allen a 26

0:35 – 0:395 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed35:07 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board item a 26 also sponsored by our chair supervisor Hartman is a resolution of commendation honoring Ian Swisher Julia Kosowitz and Sally Leon Tondreau of the Agricultural Commissioner's weights and measures office as the December 2017 employees of the month for Santa Barbara County Regrettably, Ian and Sally have been impacted by the fire this morning So they are unable to make it I believe, but we do have Julia Kosowitz. Julia here? Julia come on up and I think Stephanie Stark as well. Come on up to the podium and I know Kathy Fisher is in Santa Maria watching us and I'll read the resolution.

Whereas Ian Swisher, Agricultural Biologist II, Julia Kosiewicz, Agricultural Biologist III and Sally Leon-Tondreau, Weights & Measures Inspector II with the Ag Commissioner's Weights & Measures Office are recognized for their exceptional performance, initiative and dedication. And whereas Ian, Julia and Sally are a positive force in the department who embrace the county's core ACE values in their willingness to hold themselves accountable. Their commitment to customer service and their motivation to improve efficiency.

And whereas Ian, Julia and Sally contribute their opinions and ideas openly and honestly. Their unique enthusiasm encourages communication and they treat everyone professionally with courtesy and respect. And whereas, Ian, Julia and Sally understand all aspects of providing education and outreach to industry stakeholders and the general public. They continue to maintain the challenging dynamics in the department's agricultural weights and measures programs.

And whereas Ian, Julia and Sally are recognized as valuable resources that have contributed suggestions to improve internal processes and their overall compassion and commitment to public service is a model for the entire department. It is now hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Ian Swisher, Julia Kosowitz and Sally Leontandro for their exceptional contributions passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed37:42 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Good morning members of the board. Chair Hartman, members of the board thank you for this opportunity to recognize these three outstanding employees as stated Ian Swisher and Sally has not been able to join us today due to fires but we do have Julia Kosowitz here today And each of these employees really represents the department and the county as a whole, just in their values and the unique way that they are with the customers that come in every day.

The Agriculture Commissioner's Office is a very small department. We work intimately together as a team. One day you may be out in the field and the next minute you're in the office trying to get something accomplished for a client or customer that has come in but Julia As with Ian and Sally represent the department in so many positive ways, and we're so pleased to be here today.

And we're very proud of them and thank you for this opportunity.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed38:36 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed38:42 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Thank you very much for this honor. I know Ian and Sally would love to be here with us today. It's been a real honor to receive this, it's been a real pleasure to work for the county. I work with a fabulous team and it's a real pleasure to come into work every day and work with the public. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role39:03 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Thank you for all you do So turning now to our administrative agenda, I have item A-12 and A-13. Do we have any from the public that we should pull? Mr. Allen.

0:39 – 0:4617 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed39:22 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, I have no request to speak from the public but I do have Cassie Roach here with Item A- 12 is read into the record she's the safe parking program coordinator and she's available for questions at that time. And I just want to note in addendum that we posted last week Regarding item a 12 and this Corrected part of the recommendation just to clarify that this was the second district item not first in second district And if you'd like I can then I can go ahead and read item a 12, please record Item 812 is from general services. It's to consider recommendations regarding the safe parking program on county property This is the sixth amendment to the license and service agreement. This is in the second district

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role40:09 · ≈ 9:40 AM

And supervisor Adam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed40:11 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Mr. Fay's here Can you come up and help me out for a moment? Thank you for coming up does this item comply with our lamp I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed40:27 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Supervisor Adam, through the Chair. This item came to the attention of Environmental Health yesterday and the proposal as it stands is not in compliance with our onsite sewage regulations. When we adopted the on-site sewage ordinance in 2016 one of the provisions of the ordinance is a restriction on the use of portable chemical toilets for temporary or occasional uses

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed40:52 · ≈ 9:40 AM

So if this were to come before the county as a private application, we would do what with it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed41:02 · ≈ 9:41 AM

This kind of application we would remand back to the applicant and tell them to put together another plan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed41:08 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Like build a permanent

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed41:09 · ≈ 9:41 AM

facility? options. The first one, if bathroom facilities are necessary for the kind of project that is being proposed then there would need to be permanent plum facilities with hot and cold running water flush toilets connected either to sewer or an approved onsite sewage system. A couple of other options that could be considered for an RV park type situation would be the installation of, if the parking is restricted to self-contained RVs meaning they have their own holding tank and installed a dump station so that when they're leaving we have a place to actually dispose of the material appropriately. That would be another option that would work for environmental health.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed41:57 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Okay. What about the one here? Do you think that, can you, can you opine as to what's legal in the city of Santa Barbara?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed42:13 · ≈ 9:42 AM

The two issues with one here at the admin building. One is our onsite sewage ordinance applies to the unincorporated parts of the county so we don't have jurisdiction in the city of Santa Barbara. Secondly that ordinance went into place in 2016 so it wasn't this year The activity here in Santa Barbara, if we had jurisdiction would be treated essentially as an existing non-conforming use. We wouldn't allow expansion of the operation but it could continue to operate in a manner historically. I can't speak to the code requirements in the city of Santa Barbara and what they may or may not allow.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed42:48 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Okay is anybody from general services here that could tell us what happens in the city of Santa Barbara? Okay, okay. So where does that put us here? I don't know what we want to do with this but maybe we need to go back to the drawing board.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role43:12 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Supervisor Wolf?

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction43:20 · ≈ 9:43 AM

This concern is concerning. It was never brought up as a concern, first of all and it's not a mobile home park. It's for people who may be living in their cars, some may have a mobile home. But the alternative is that, especially in this particular area, some of these folks are living in their cars on the street right adjacent to where the safe parking program is.

So I think one could logically believe that it is healthier and more environmentally preferable for people to have a safe parking area where there is a portable toilet rather than people living in their cars and not having those facilities available. I think that's been the theory action behind the safe parking program that's actually been noted on nationwide Santa Barbara County Safe Parking Program, so This issue comes as a surprise and I don't I Don't know What what we can do at this point? You know we have someone

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role44:57 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Mister Gazzone would like to add to this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed45:01 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, as a starting point under a case called the Lawler L-A-W-L-E-R we know that the city code does not apply to the county property and vice versa So the board still has some policy choices in this area. One option would be to possibly trail the item, we could go back to what I believe was the 2004 original agreement that this would be the sixth amendment of look at the termination term on that and see if it has a standard termination clause It would allow the board to take a temporary action today on this and that's I was looking for it online as Supervisor Adam was talking, but it's not coming right up But I think we could work with General Services if the board wanted to trail the item bring it back later today And we could let you know whether you'd be able to approve this and Know that you had the opportunity to terminate on 30 days notice That would give you time to look at this deeper or you could just continue the item

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction46:00 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Okay. Yeah, I think we should trail the item and because I don't want us... Oh here comes Miss Pell. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed46:13 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Jeanette Pell, General Services Director. I would appreciate if we could trail it. I haven't been able to pay attention to all the questions and so I'd rather come back at a later date I think it's important for us to be able to. Understanding what the issues are and come with a solution. Thank you. You trail the items later today. Yeah, here. Continue it continue it. Okay. Continue it too. Probably I'd say the first meeting in January just to give

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

0:46 – 0:5733 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed46:53 · ≈ 9:46 AM

I'm not aware of the state of things and the lack of accommodations in this time of year. It would be better to bring it back next week if possible.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed47:10 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Okay, well my point here is to point out the hypocrisy of us telling everybody else that they have to have permanent units and then letting ourselves do it and circumvent that requirement. And so maybe what would be better is to pass it on a temporary basis and then work on this as time goes on and we understand that there's this I want to say tension, but it's really hypocrisy where we're going to allow ourselves to have a permanent situation with temporary toilets. And then there are other uses in the county that we tell people they can't do unless they A permanent situation with hot water and all these requirements. So if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander.

And I'm fine with doing a temporary thing. I'm not trying to stop this from existing. I am just trying to say that what we're doing out there in the rest of the world is probably a little bit unreasonable.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed48:29 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Chair Harmon again the board unless Unless general services or CEO are detecting an exigency on approving the item today You could continue the item, or if you wanted to take action on it today because there be some Consequence of not acting today We could certainly trail the item take a look at the 2004 agreement and then confirm that there's a short determination provision in it It would allow this to actually be a temporary action. I

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role48:55 · ≈ 9:48 AM

So let's trail the item, see if we can get something temporary in place and then continue it if need be for further discussion. If I could just

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction49:05 · ≈ 9:49 AM

say something given that Supervisor Adam is fine moving forward. And I think that there's, I really am surprised to hear a disconnect between departments knowing that this was coming forward and that there was a need for this. It would have been good to have had a heads up about this so we could've taken care of this ahead of time. I think right now that we should move forward with this. Thank you Supervisor Adam.

And then if there's a problem or an issue that we need to resolve, we do that and it comes back to the board at that time. But for now, we move forward with this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed49:52 · ≈ 9:49 AM

I agree because A is approve and authorize the chair to execute the agreement. It does not mean that the chair has to execute the agreement until there could be an amendment, so I think we should approve the item and give the chair the discretion to make some changes suggested by staff if necessary.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role50:18 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Mr. Gazzone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed50:20 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I'm trying to give you a path here that you could both act and also know that if you wanted to change this down the road that you actually have a short termination provision. I just don't have the 2004 agreement in front of me. And if you were to trail this item even for an hour we could pull that through clerk of the board and assure you that you have that as an option.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction50:39 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Okay let's do that then. Let's trail it for today though. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role50:49 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Turning to item A13, would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:54 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, Item A13 is also from General Services this is an independent contractor agreement with Veneer Construction Management for services associated with the main jail there's a four-fifths vote required on this item.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction51:09 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Supervisor Wolf? Thank You Madam Chair Is Ms. Pell still here? You're going to do it Skip, thank you. So we finally had a lot of consultants look at the jail and it looks like Vanier has been one of those consultants in that they are coming back and doing a more extensive review. It's a lot of money for the county. It's $200,000 plus and just to confirm they're supposed to have this back to us in about six months.

The funding for this comes from where? Is it general services?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed51:54 · ≈ 9:51 AM

The

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction51:55 · ≈ 9:51 AM

funding, yes. For this report? Yes. Okay. There are three parts of this that Veneer is going to be looking at. One is repairs or alterations of the jail. We're talking about the jail down here in South County.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed52:11 · ≈ 9:52 AM

The main jail, correct. The

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction52:11 · ≈ 9:52 AM

main jail. The second one is repairs and remodeling. That will be another option. And then the third thing that they're going to be looking at, which causes me a little bit of concern. That's why I'd like some clarification is that they're also going to be looking at partial repairs and new facility construction. And that's the part that is troubling to me because there's no indication In their contract What that might entail new facility construction? And I understand that this is just a plan and a proposal but I Am concerned that this report may get ahead of what the board Might be considering as far as new facility construction, and I'm hesitant because I They don't have direction from the board or a framework from the board from which to work.

That it's not an open-ended process, or recommendations that they can come back with. So what are the parameters that they're working with? And my other question is, a while back we had numbers from this jail facility for our population and also what the population would be in the new North County Jail. So my second part of my question is what are the population numbers that they're looking at?

Because I didn't also, I didn't see that as part of the contract as well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed53:49 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Right and I may ask the Sheriff's Department to come up to answer that question but with respect to your first question you know this particular study is simply To look at the consideration of The deferred maintenance, we want to do a lot of deferred maintenance on the main jail. But there's things and we have ADA upgrades and other things. We don't want to do those without some sort of a plan that obviously will come back to the board and share.

But this will only be delving into, it will not delve into any policy matters beyond jail detention. It will take into consideration the beds at the new jail, once it's opened. Because as well as any newer upcoming legislation because we need swing space if we're going to move people from this jail while we're doing the construction, we have to have some place to put them. So as far as new facilities, it may look at replacing And

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction54:59 · ≈ 9:54 AM

I understand that and that makes a lot of sense. So what use what you stated was is that this is going to be jail detention,

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction55:07 · ≈ 9:55 AM

correct?

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction55:08 · ≈ 9:55 AM

So I think that's really important in that it's not going to Be another facility that might impact another department

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed55:17 · ≈ 9:55 AM

exactly simply jail detention shuffling inmates back and forth deciding how

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction55:23 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Okay. And the six months is correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed55:25 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Yes.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction55:26 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Okay. Um, and is there some sheriff department I wanted to talk about the, the bed count and what are we telling veneer as far as, um, the numbers that they should be looking at?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed55:43 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Well right now we're running between a thousand and 1100 in custody. So those are the numbers we're using.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction55:53 · ≈ 9:55 AM

And then you're subtracting the number assuming that, what is it? 300 will go to the North County Jail.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed56:01 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Right? Yeah, 350. It's 376 bads but

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction56:07 · ≈ 9:56 AM

340- So what numbers are you giving them? I just think it's important that when you're letting a contract and someone is looking at design that they have an idea of what are the parameters. And I didn't see that in the contract.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed56:23 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Since they came in to do the original one for the DRC, that's the ADA compliance one. They already knew the numbers that we had and they also looked at the new plans for the Northern Branch Jail so they have an idea about what those are. They use those numbers to figure out how many beds we needed Bring up to ADA standard in the old facility.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction56:57 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Okay, but aside from that we're looking at this 1100 less approximately 350.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed57:05 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Well that number's going to stay.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction57:07 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Pardon me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed57:08 · ≈ 9:57 AM

That number is going to stay. Right. Our bed number is going to go up. We have 800 and some added rated beds and it'll go up by the 346.

0:57 – 1:0021 turns

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction57:20 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Yes, I'm not talking about rated or non-rate. I'm just talking about number of inmates.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed57:25 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Well the inmates aren't going to necessarily go down. We're trying to get them down but...

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction57:30 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Well that was our intention was to have the numbers go down.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed57:34 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Right. We're working on that.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction57:37 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Well you should at least have 350 less because they are going to the North County Jail

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed57:44 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Correct, but system wide the 1100 is going to be the same.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction57:47 · ≈ 9:57 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed57:47 · ≈ 9:57 AM

understand.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction57:48 · ≈ 9:57 AM

But I'm just talking about ADA numbers at this jail. They should have a sense of what that number is. Mm-hm. Okay, thank you. Thank you Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role58:01 · ≈ 9:58 AM

So I think those were all the pulled administrative items. So may I have a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda except for A-12?

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction58:11 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Sure, Chair Hartman. Just quickly, I wanted just to correct some information. Supervisor Wolf asked if this is all coming from general services. Part of it is and part of it is coming from unassigned fund balancing general county programs. So I just wanted to be clear. How much is that? 155 is from general services and 179 from general county programs. Okay, thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role58:35 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed58:38 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Move the balance of the agenda.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role58:42 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Yes, I'll second

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction58:43 · ≈ 9:58 AM

that

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role58:44 · ≈ 9:58 AM

with

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction58:44 · ≈ 9:58 AM

the...

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role58:44 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Excluding A-12. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? So the administrative agenda stands approved except for A- 12. Now is the time for public comment on matters not on today's agenda but within the board's jurisdiction. Do we have any public comments slips that have been turned in Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed59:05 · ≈ 9:59 AM

No request to speak.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role59:07 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Okay, I would like to make just a quick announcement on item five on today's agenda. The Nomad Village we will hear that after lunch so no sooner than one o'clock so anybody who is here for that we won't get to that until later. So turning to our departmental agenda would you read item number 1 into the record Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed59:33 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, item number one is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding case number 17APL2 and 17APL3, Olston Trust Appeal and the Hare Sturgis Appeal respectively. This is of the Monticello Planning Commission's April 18th 2017 conditional de novo preliminary design review approval for the Olston Trust single family dwelling demo rebuild and new detached garage. This is in the first district.

1:00 – 1:078 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:00:03 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Thank you and Mister Tuttle, you'll be giving the presentation today. Thank you.

CommentAlex TuttleProposedself-stated1:00:09 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Yes thank you good morning Madam Chair members of the board my name is Alex Tuttle and I will be providing a brief presentation to you today regarding the two appeals of the Olson Trust project Just for reference attached is This is a vicinity map that shows the location of the property. It's in Montecito within the community plan area along Channel Drive just to the west of the Biltmore. The property is located, well it's approximately .44 acres and size zoned 1E1.

Here's just an aerial imagery of the project site. The two appellants are located behind the property, immediately behind and then to the northeast of the property for reference. Just a little background. Some of you may recall this project. The coastal development permit was in front of the Board of Supervisors on July 19, 2016. The board granted de novo approval of the CDP at that hearing.

After approval of the coastal development permit, the project returned to the Montecito Board of Architectural Review and obtained preliminary design review approval on December 19th 2016. That approval was appealed to the Montecito Planning Commission by the neighbors Mr. Herr and Mr. Sturgis The Montecito Planning Commission then granted Preliminary Design Review Approval, de novo approval with various conditions applied to the project design. That approval was granted on April 18th 2017.

After that action both parties, both the applicants and the appellants appealed the NPC's action to your board Since that time, there was a number of continuances of the appeals and both parties have reached a settlement agreement resulting in some minor modifications to the project and design review conditions that had been identified by the Montecito Planning Commission.

The bulk of the conditions remain the same. There were some changes, or the changes relate primarily to elimination of exterior shutters facing Channel Drive, the addition of a small balcony at the back of the house and elimination of two landscape trees at the front of the house. Subsequent to preparation of the board agenda letter, there were some minor modifications that were identified that I wanted to correct for the record.

Staff prepared a supplemental memo that was provided to your board on Monday, I believe. And it was just making some corrections regarding the accurate square footage of the garage and identifying a basement proposed underneath the cabana. So the project description in both the staff report, the permit and in the CEQA notice of exemption were updated accordingly. In addition there was a reference corrected reference to a landscape exhibit included in the plans that was clarified And I think just for the benefit of the record and the lateness of those changes. I think it would be useful when you hear from the appellants to have them confirm that they've reviewed those changes and are accepting and agreeing of those changes.

With that, and with those changes staff has an updated recommendation for board's motion But essentially it remains as it was written in the Board of Supervisors, a board agenda letter. And that is to approve in part and deny in part the Olston Trust Appeal case number 17 APL 2. And to approve in part and deny in part the Harris-Sturgis Appeal case number 17 AP L 3.

Make the required findings for preliminary design review approval of the revised project including CEQA findings Determine that approval of the revised project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15303. And grant de novo preliminary design review approval of the revised project as shown on the plans dated October 5th, 2017 and pursuant to the conditions of the settlement agreement as revised.

That concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for any questions you may have.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:05:05 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Thank you Mr. Ghisoni

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:05:08 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Chair Hartman and supervisors. The board has been through a process like this before but I think it's, I just wanted to underscore that the board retains its full discretion as an appeal authority here so there is a private settlement agreement between the parties. The Board's discretion is not constrained by that. The Board could affirm the Montecito Planning Commission's preliminary design approval. It could modify that preliminary design approval or it could reverse and deny that I think that since the parties are expecting at this point that their agreement will impact this, if the board was not to follow that agreement one option would be to continue the hearing so they could address the board substantively. But I just want to underscore that the board always has its discretion despite a private agreement.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:05:55 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Thank you. Before we go any further are there any ex parte disclosures board members would like to make? Any site visits or conversations? Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:06:09 · ≈ 10:06 AM

I have turd the location. I've had multiple conversations with the applicant, the appellant or one of the two appellants and correspondence with The applicant's architect and the applicant's attorney, and the appellate's attorney. So pretty much I have ex parte with everyone in Montecito about this so-

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:06:40 · ≈ 10:06 AM

And Supervisor Wolk? Thank you, Madam Chair. Since our last hearing I had a phone conversation yesterday with Miss Petrovich. The conversation was basically asking me if I had any questions about what was before us today.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:06:59 · ≈ 10:06 AM

And I also had a conversation with Ms. Petrovich, I think last Friday and she walked me through the very complex procedural history of this particular case. So we have two appellants but I will refer in the proceedings to Ms. Petrovich as the appellant and the Olsten Trust representative as the applicant So the appellant, Ms. Petrovich is there anything you'd like to say?

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:07 – 1:1219 turns

PresenterSusan PetrovichOlive Mill TrustProposedself-stated1:07:35 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Susan Petrovich and I'm here representing the Olive Mill Trust, the Hare family and Thomas Sturgis. And I have just a few very brief comments. This has been a very long and painful process because both sides felt very strongly and continue to feel very strongly about the issues Is it perfect? No. I don't know any settlement agreement that anybody would consider perfect, but it is a reasonable compromise.

We ask you to adopt the conditions and Alex, I don't think included that in his recital of your actions, but we would ask you to adopt the conditions and approve the plans before you without any changes. If you make changes that will void our settlement agreement, and we'll be back at square one. And if that happens we ask that you reschedule a hearing on the plans and conditions as approved by the Montecito Planning Commission because without the settlement we would all be back considering the MPC action.

The appellants I believe share my view We urge you to approve the revised project proposed by the settlement agreement and adopt the conditions as slightly revised, uh, is Alex outlined in his memorandum. So I'm available at answer any questions from the neighbors, the immediate neighbors perspective. And of course Derek will want to say something I'm sure.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:09:14 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:09:16 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Well, just one question for staff. The Exhibit B essentially is reiteration of many of those conditions of approval that the MPC had. How many of the conditions of approval are they reiterating and how many are they passing on? Let's say.

CommentAlex TuttleProposedself-stated1:09:41 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Williams of the 14 conditions that were originally identified and added by the Montecito Planning Commission. 7 are exactly the same. 9 of them are essentially the same with just some to tweak language with with the same result and then several so of the remaining 5 those relate primarily as I indicated to the shutters, the balcony and the landscape trees in

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:10:23 · ≈ 10:10 AM

So following on that, Mr. Ghisoni do we need the conditions as part of our motion should we decide to approve the settlement?

CommentAlex TuttleProposedself-stated1:10:34 · ≈ 10:10 AM

It's Exhibit B I believe. Madam Chair, Supervisors if you look at Recommendation number five it makes reference pursuant to the conditions of the settlement agreement So which are those conditions?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:10:48 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Okay. So we're set with what we've got. Thank you. Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:10:52 · ≈ 10:10 AM

And while miss Petrovich is up, we just had one one more succinct point

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed1:11:00 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Madam Chair and Speaker Petrovich, if you could just confirm that you agree to the minor corrections that were displayed by planning? Yes. Thank

PresenterSusan PetrovichOlive Mill TrustProposedself-stated1:11:09 · ≈ 10:11 AM

you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:11:10 · ≈ 10:11 AM

In fact

PresenterSusan PetrovichOlive Mill TrustProposedself-stated1:11:10 · ≈ 10:11 AM

I proposed

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:11:11 · ≈ 10:11 AM

them to planning. Thank you and is someone here representing the applicant for the Olson Trust?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed1:11:23 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Excuse me good morning yes Derek Weston representing the applicant we agree with the staff report including small corrections to the last version happy to answer any questions, but I Didn't trouble each of you to make sure you didn't have questions

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:11:39 · ≈ 10:11 AM

All right. Thank you So are there any public comment? speaker slips today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:11:47 · ≈ 10:11 AM

No requests to speak from the public

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:11:49 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Mr.. Tuttle any final words

CommentAlex TuttleProposedself-stated1:11:54 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Madam chair, supervisors. I would just say for the specific text of the motion. It's included in staff memorandum dated November 30th and that has the correct references to the conditions and what's shown on this slide is a paraphrased so if you are

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:12:23 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Supervisor Williams. I think we're back supervisor Williams.

1:12 – 1:1822 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:12:53 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Let's have the mic confirm if we're recording. Can you confirm that we're recording?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:13:04 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Chair Harmon, members of the board, yeah, we're currently recording so we're okay to go ahead with any motion you'd like to make at this point.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:13:11 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Supervisor Williams had a question then just because this is a quasi-judicial proceeding I need to ask if the appellate or applicant have any final comments and then we can go for a motion or deliberations in a motion. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:13:24 · ≈ 10:13 AM

I don't have a question, I have maybe a point and a motion if folks are ready you know for such so I'll differ in case someone else has a question

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:13:33 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:13:34 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Well, I don't have a question either but I do have an ex parte that I just want to throw in here just for For fun because I don't think it's really important but July 11th 2016. I had lunch with mr hair and I was waiting for for confirmation of that date

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:13:53 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Okay. Thank you So one final chance for miss Petrovich or

PresenterSusan PetrovichOlive Mill TrustProposedself-stated1:14:01 · ≈ 10:14 AM

No further comments.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:14:03 · ≈ 10:14 AM

All right it's been OK thank you and the applicant doesn't have any either let the record show so we return now to the board for deliberations or a motion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:14:14 · ≈ 10:14 AM

So hopefully everybody is very happy that we are here with an agreement between the applicant and the appellant. I will tell you that from my viewpoint it's not perfect because obviously there is also issues with You know, our advisory boards have chimed in both the MBAR and the MPC several times. Of course some of those viewpoints have not been in accordance so we're not only arbitrating really between the MBAR and MPC I mean between the applicant and the appellant but also between the MBar and the MPC on this.

I think given that most of the time we wish that applicants and appellants could just learn to get along and figure things out, we should probably reward under the circumstances an applicant and appellant figuring it out even at this late stage so I'd be happy to make a motion uphold in part and deny in part the appeal, and we approve the project with the conditions outlined in the staff report.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:15:31 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Thank you. And may I have a second? Madam Chair,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed1:15:41 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Supervisor Williams just to clarify this is the motion laid out in the November 30th staff memorandum that was posted?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:15:48 · ≈ 10:15 AM

That is correct with the conditions under attachment B.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:15:52 · ≈ 10:15 AM

We have a motion. May I have a second?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:15:54 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Yeah, I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:15:54 · ≈ 10:15 AM

would I would second and You know, I just wish people had the capacity to Have a little more I don't know what. Capacity to ignore what may annoy them about what their neighbor does, that's all. I just wish. But I know that doesn't exist down here but we seem to be able to do that up in the north better. It does on Napomo Drive

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:16:26 · ≈ 10:16 AM

where I live but we may want

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:16:29 · ≈ 10:16 AM

to promote it. Well maybe we can make it spread.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:16:31 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Okay we have a motion in the second any further discussion. I guess we don't need a roll call vote all in favor say aye aye any opposed so finally this is put to rest Mr Allen would you read item number two into the record

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:16:52 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Chair Harmon, members of the board. I'll read item two into the record here. I just want to note that due to the power outages we've had some intermittent elevator outages along with obviously the light situation that we're experiencing so I want people to know that the members of the public can watch the proceedings at this point in the Planning Commission hearing room And we're working on establishing a remote testimony capability should we need it later in the day.

If we have individuals with accessibility issues or something like that, and I don't know if CEO Miyasato wants to add anything to that? Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:17:29 · ≈ 10:17 AM

And I just might reiterate that since we have two paths of power coming into the area that if people tried not As much power as they can, then we would also have a little bit less blackouts citywide. And I also want to apologize sort of in advance if I seem distracted. It's because while we're doing this hearing, I'm also coordinating several of my families evacuating mainly to my house or their dogs to my house. So the folks from Ventura County.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:18:12 · ≈ 10:18 AM

It is close to home, sorry to hear that. So was Supervisor Farr in Ojai? Okay, item number two

1:18 – 1:3332 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:18:22 · ≈ 10:18 AM

chair Harmon members of the board item. Number two is from the county executive office This is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the recruitment process for filling a vacancy on the retirement board of the Santa Barbara County employees retirement system and As the board is aware that we currently have will have as at the end of this month two vacancies on the Retirement board. These are public member vacancies staff was directed to engage The community and a recruitment effort we did so over the past 60 days that effort led to eight Applications that are part of the packet and so here we're here today just to get direction from the board And how you'd like to go forward?

Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:19:04 · ≈ 10:19 AM

You, mr. Allen, can you tell me by when do we need to make those appointments I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:19:09 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Well, also note that Mr. Levin is here from the retirement system and we did discuss this briefly I know he has some plans for some orientation and training with members of the Retirement Board in January So I'll let him comment but I'm sure that he would like to get people on board as soon as possible

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed1:19:39 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Greg Levin, CEO of the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System. We do have a orientation plan for January 22nd and January 23rd. Why that is important for us is that we bring people in from out of town, namely our investment consultants and other professional advisors to the Board of Retirement to participate in that process. We have two new elected members that will be going through process as well, and they take office at the January 24th Board of Retirement meeting. And so from a timeline perspective we would ask that the Board of Supervisors make these appointments so that they can participate. However, we will certainly make accommodations if the process takes longer than that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:20:26 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Thank you. Well, I would propose taking chair's prerogative that we appoint an ad hoc committee to review these applications and then come back to the Board of Supervisors. I would be honored to serve on that, and I have spoken with Supervisor Lavinino, and he is willing, although he says ad hoc is Latin for more work, to step up and do this. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:20:54 · ≈ 10:20 AM

I think that it's good to have two members doing the interviews, there is no doubt. My hope is that whoever does the interviews will especially ask questions concerning the fiscal impacts of any decisions that the board makes on the county.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:21:16 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Supervisor

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:21:16 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to say that Supervisor Adam and I have served as the ad hoc committee in the past and I think it was gratifying to serve in that capacity and I'm happy to hear that the two of you will be taking it over because I do think it's really informative and an important

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:21:42 · ≈ 10:21 AM

task.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:21:43 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:21:45 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Yeah, and ad hoc does mean more work. And if you're going to take that, that sounds good to me. Right? Supervisor Wolf because we could go do it and then we'd have to yeah I was figuring they'd make us do it but that's super that they're gonna take that off our plate. I will give you my thoughts though. I think that for me, we really need to have some management on that thing or representation from the North County.

And there's really only one guy that meets that has the qualifications as a money manager And and that's Trent Benedetti We don't have any board appointed Representation from North County on that thing at all. So I think that's really important and He's a money manager And as I read these, these are my picks in case anybody cares

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:22:45 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Why don't you give those to us in private? Would that be okay or we can come back about this? I guess for Brown Act, we need to get it publicly. I just think it's premature to be discussing...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:22:59 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I think I understood the chair saying that you're envisaging the chair appointing a short-term advisory ad hoc subcommittee to review the materials, conduct any interviews then come back with a recommendation to the board? Yes. And that would not be subject to the Brown Act?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:23:20 · ≈ 10:23 AM

So we could discuss the applicants in open session right now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:23:26 · ≈ 10:23 AM

However, however two of you would not be subject to the Brown Act but any contact with a third supervisor would be

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:23:32 · ≈ 10:23 AM

that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:23:32 · ≈ 10:23 AM

subject to the Brown Act.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:23:34 · ≈ 10:23 AM

All right so I guess we have to hear it now

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:23:36 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Okay, so Trent Benedetti for that reason. Susie Schomer you got a bunch of money in already in training and she's she's a money manager Scott Etzbe Money manager Craig Geyer, money manager Ted Sten. Then Michael Thomas seems like a sales guy rather than a money manager. Donald Benninghoven is an administrator seems like not a money manager. And Charles Stauffer is sales and marketing guy.

And you know, while those last 3 guys are and maybe even I mean to Ted Sten has some experience managing money but it's lesser than I think the then I'd like You know. You can ask him questions about World view or their decisions on the pension board are going to affect the county. But they have a fiduciary responsibility to be wearing a different hat at that point, and so just remember as you ask them Opine as to how their decisions would affect another entity that you're asking them to breach their fiduciary responsibility by doing so.

So, spare that all in mind as you go through all that extra work that you've accepted.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:25:35 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Thank you. And just to be thinking, if there are any additional questions or areas where you would like us to explore in our interviews please alert us to that now. Supervisor Wolk?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:25:46 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Mr. Levin or Mr. Gazzone can help me with this. I seem to recall that At some point, you at least talk to the people who are applying to make sure that there's no conflict of interest as well as the fact that they're willing to fill out the disclosure forms because we had had that problem.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed1:26:07 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Certainly Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolff, in cases where candidates have reached out to me, we do advise all candidates for the Board of Retirement particularly those that are employed currently To check with our employer as we are actively investing out in the marketplace that can create conflicts of interest for certain people. One of our former trustees had to leave his position at the request of his employer, not because he had done anything wrong but just because they had made a decision Start marketing to the institutional investment space, which is where we operate.

I'm always available to provide any information to a prospective candidate or to the ad hoc committee and I have some remarks that were prepared just in case today but I can email them The ad hoc committee or to the full board if that would be preferable.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:27:03 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Why don't you go

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:27:04 · ≈ 10:27 AM

ahead? Just while we're on this topic though before you read your comments, I think Mr. Allen wants to maybe chime in on my question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:27:13 · ≈ 10:27 AM

I just wanted to note that we did work with Mr. Levin in the advertising that went out to everybody and it did contain information about all of that and so the applicants were all provided with information related to them

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:27:24 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Okay, so that's great. So the assumption is that they know all... Thank you Mr. Allen for that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:27:30 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Yeah this is all creating a framework and a foundation for our work so thank you. Yes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed1:27:37 · ≈ 10:27 AM

please. Thank You Madam Chair honorable members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors today you are set to consider the appointment of two members at the board of retirement and provide direction to staff if any on the future steps they may take with regard to this process Service on the Board of Retirement is an extremely important role for our community, and it's our hope that the finest of our community will embrace the challenge.

The role of this board is to serve in a fiduciary capacity and govern the retirement system. Its highest duty is to the system's beneficiaries who are retirees, the current and former employees of this county, and their families. The board's goal is to prudently invest the funds of the system However, beyond stewarding an investment portfolio it's important to note that the board also involves making many decisions that are significant and life-altering to individual members.

This includes making determinations regarding disability retirements and providing guidance on how to assist our members through what is perhaps the most challenging moment in their professional lives—the decision to retire. In review of the applications, it is clear that you have an abundance of qualified applicants. This more so in the past makes the task at hand a challenging one. There are many basic requirements for the job that you should consider. The ability to dedicate up to two days a month in service of the system, travel up to two weeks of the year in order to be educated on the best practices and perform due diligence activities necessary to be an effective fiduciary body.

The appointments that you make today are two of four members that are required by statute to be residents of the county with no connection to the County Retirement System or its members. While these members are members of the community, once appointed their first duty is to the members of the system not the community. The decisions are not political in nature but based on objective fact-finding performed with the assistance of qualified professionals.

We hope that members will have a strong base in management and finance, and that members will serve for at least two terms. We invest an incredible amount of time, energy, and money providing training and education to our board members. This process starts with a two-day orientation process then continues with academic focused education through institutions like the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, UCLA, and Pepperdine Universities.

It is because of this considerable expense and time invested that we hope the candidates that you choose will be available to us for six years or more. Juxtapose that to the three-year term that they currently are filled to serve. Thank you, Madam Chair. That concludes my remarks and I'll be pleased to answer any questions this board may have.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:30:24 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Levinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:30:27 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Levin, are there term limits on the Board of Retirement? No, there are not. Okay. Just, I'm sure we're going to be getting a lot of information from you as we form this ad hoc. But I'd also like to see the existing members and how long they've served as well so that we can kind of get a feel of how much experience is on that board. I would be pleased about that. Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:30:47 · ≈ 10:30 AM

you. Supervisor Williams and then Wolfe.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:30:51 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Well, I wanted to, no questions thank you. I did want to note I hope that you will be advised by a county council's office about what types of questions you can and cannot answer. But the, I would describe the relationship between this board and the county as wholly dysfunctional. Fiscal conservatism, I thought means that you believe that government should pay less towards pensions not more.

And when this board decides to reduce the rate of return now as opposed to in the future when we have more Post PEPRA employees hired and more pre-PEPRA employees retired. That means that every year of delay of changes saves the county money, and every year that they preempt and make changes means the county pays more towards the pension system which I thought was the opposite of fiscal conservatism.

It essentially is a dysfunctional cycle, because of the hiring rules of the county. The people who get fired when we have to make cuts are mainly the post-PEPRA young employees that aren't part of the problem. They're the ones helping make the system more sustainable and as the CEO has indicated in the last hearing These changes to the expected rate of return are not expected to increase by one year, the 14 years it will take us to make our pension system sustainable.

I just think this is a very dysfunctional relationship. I really hope the ad hoc will examine that and put these appointments in that context as much as the County Council advises you to do so, and then with that since Several candidates were named. I want to put out one that I hope you will look very closely at, which is Ted Sten. He does have finance background. He also was the foreman for the grand jury for a number of years.

So an interesting background for a difficult task.

1:33 – 1:429 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:33:40 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:33:42 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Well, let me explain fiscal conservatism. Fiscal conservatism means that you operate something within the parameters that are the rules that exist and the rules that exist are not good for the county at this time. However, those rules exist and the pension system has to be operated and there's a reason that there is a fiduciary obligation to the pension system when you go over to that building and you put on that hat you have to take off your county hat if If you go there and you have to put on the pension system hat.

And then run the pension system for the benefit of the pension system under the rules that exist today. We might not like those rules as they exist today and and they may in fact be changed at some point but that doesn't mean that we can just ignore those rules and make it more comfortable for the county. You know with the hat that we wear today here By postponing decisions that will be the best decision long-term for the pension system in the event that the rules don't change.

In the event that the rules change, then there's new rules. But right now there's no new rules, there's the old rules and the old rules dictate certain things being done by the people that are operating that system under their fiduciary obligation.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:35:38 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, I just wanted to thank Mr. Levin for his remarks as you all know I've served as your representative one of the four I don't even know how many years maybe it's five years or six and I take that service very seriously and understand well the fiduciary duty that I have and I think all of the other board members do as well. Not, I think I know every board member takes that responsibility very seriously.

I don't want to give my My thoughts on who I would recommend. One of the things that I will say about dysfunction or conservatism and so forth, I think that the Board of Retirement when we looked at the rate of return We were given different options, each one would have been well within our fiduciary bounds. And the one that was selected was one of the more conservative choices. It wasn't my choice but it was the choice of the board, of the retirement board.

I think that the relationship that we have with the Retirement Board is at, well especially now having Mr. Frapple coming to our meetings, I think it's really positive. Mr. Levin coming to, I think you come to the management meetings? I think that relationship is really important, that we understand each other's roles and can work cooperatively together. And understand the impact of what happens with what the county does and also with what the retirement board does.

So I look forward to your recommendations. And I do hope, I guess my final statement is that I hope that we can have the recommendations before the January 22nd workshop or whatever Mr. Levin is doing so that we can have a full board. Thank you for doing this by the way.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:38:19 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:38:22 · ≈ 10:38 AM

I want to because it's a discussion topic and because this is maybe my last chance to weigh in before you bring back some recommendations. And because Mr. Levin is here, let me articulate why I don't think the fiduciary interests of the county and in opposite directions. In my view, they are in the same direction and rates of return being adjusted downward means fewer post-PEPRA employees which means not only that the Retirement system is less sustainable because there's fewer pepper employee post pepper employees, but it is also less Potentially sustainable because the fewer pepper employees the harder. It will be to have agreements in with the bargaining units over cost savings and pension reforms. So the irony here is that the decisions are making it more difficult to create sustainability in the system, not less difficult because you have to look at all the factors, not just the possible scenarios for actuality of returns

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:39:52 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:39:54 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Well, you're doing a really good job highlighting the difference between The fiduciary responsibility that you have as a board of supervisor and the fiduciary responsibility that a Board of Directors of the retirement system has because the rate of return That they're having to set is The reason why I'm saying that is because. It has absolutely nothing to do with the the.

The workings of the county. They can't they can't and. Being a board member, he's putting a lot of emphasis on the fiduciary responsibility. Would you like to comment on that or maybe you don't want to kick that rattlesnake?

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:40:55 · ≈ 10:40 AM

If I could maybe also comment on the factors that go into deciding on the rate of return because there are a lot of factors that you can look at and still be a responsible fiduciary to the retirement system.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed1:41:12 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Certainly Madam Chair, Supervisor Adam. The board's fiduciary responsibilities are spelled out in the state of California's constitution and the constitution says two things it says that its first duty is to the membership of the system and then it provides for the second duty of the board is to consider the impacts on the plan sponsor and so we are Constantly trying to balance the advice of professionals and in the process of developing the discount rate and the assumed rate of return, we look far and wide on the investment consulting industry and what the expectations of the investment consulting industry are in terms of what those returns can generate. Then we work in great detail with the Systems Actuary. We recently completed this process last year, and as part of that we determined to phase changes to the discount rate in over a five-year period.

And that was a very reasonable decision, as Ms. Wolfe mentioned. There were many options before the Board of Retirement. They selected one As part of that, we also invite Ms. Miyasato to come speak to the Board of Retirement and Mr. Thrapwell as Ms. Wolfe mentioned as well. So I would say that the Board of Retirement does take into account the views of the county and the views of the Board of Supervisors in making these determinations. And it is a policy set through much deliberation and consideration of a lot of different pieces and elements of information.

1:42 – 1:4919 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:42:54 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Thank you. Are there any public comment slips for this item, Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:43:04 · ≈ 10:43 AM

I have no request to speak but just because of the nature of what's happening with some of our equipment, I just want to check with North County to make sure that we don't have anybody up there that would like to speak on this. Can we go up to Santa Maria just to be sure that we don't have any speakers? OK thanks a lot.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed1:43:28 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Thank you. No we do not have anyone here on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:43:32 · ≈ 10:43 AM

this item. Thanks Yvonne.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed1:43:35 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:43:36 · ≈ 10:43 AM

you so we will consult the ad hoc. We will consult with County Council and with Mr. Levin about questions to develop for our interviews and make sure that it's representative of the discussion we've had here today. Supervisor Wolf?

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:43:54 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Thank You Madam Chair if there is no further comment I'll make a motion that we move staff's recommendation A and B, and included in that is the appointment of the ad hoc committee of Supervisor Labagnino and Hartman.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:44:12 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Before we break I'd like to go back to, I'd like to do a short break. I guess we're ready on A12 and maybe we could finish that off before we could turn to libraries item number three after a break.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:44:33 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Chair Harmon supervisors. Thank you. Yes, I confirm that miss Pell is here and available and Since the time you first considered a 12 today our County Council attorneys worked with General Services staff And confirmed that the sixth amendment is still subject to a 10-day termination provision So if the board approved these licenses this license today You would still have the opportunity in the future To make changes to that on ten day notice So I just wanted to make sure you had that ability so you could properly approve this item today and know that You could make changes in the future

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:45:09 · ≈ 10:45 AM

Supervisor wolf. Thank you for that. Mr. Ghazani, then I'll go ahead and move item a 12

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:45:17 · ≈ 10:45 AM

second

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction1:45:18 · ≈ 10:45 AM

any

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:45:19 · ≈ 10:45 AM

further discussion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:45:22 · ≈ 10:45 AM

I just want to know that we didn't have any public comment.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:45:24 · ≈ 10:45 AM

Thank you Supervisor Adam,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:45:27 · ≈ 10:45 AM

well, I just want to note that You know as we go forward here, we need to probably re-examine the proper uses of Chemical toilets. I know it's not a exciting Subject but sometime I think we've taken too radical a position on on The use of chemical toilets. I think there's other places that we can use them besides, you know, there's legitimate uses for them when they're temporary and stuff like that. So we have taken a position elsewhere is that in private sector? You don't get to use them in any kind of a permanent situation and as Mr Faye said, we wouldn't be able So I don't want to just, I want to accommodate this use. It's certainly a legitimate use but so are other uses in the private sector and so that's my point behind this whole exercise.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:46:32 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Okay we have a motion and a second. I don' see any further discussion Supervisor Lavinino? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? A12 passes. So I'd like to take, we'll reconvene at 11 o'clock. We'll take a short break and come back to start with item number three. Mr. Gazzone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:46:55 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Chair Hartman, I just wanted to say thanks to the clerk of the board's office for helping us go back to 2004 and provide you with that option a few minutes ago.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:47:02 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Okay thank you. The Board of Supervisors meeting Yeah.

1:50 – 1:571 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:50:11 · ≈ 10:50 AM

you Hi. Hi. Hi. ♪ ¶.

1:57 – 2:044 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:57:53 · ≈ 10:57 AM

♪ ¶¶ ♪ Yeah. Yeah. We're reconvening the December 5th, 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Barbara and turning to item number three on our departmental agenda. Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:03:25 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Chair Hartman members of the board and just before we get started on item 3 I just want to note that some people may have noticed that there is a little bit of a smoky smell that you are going to smell here in the building. The HVAC system here does use outside air. I just want everybody to know that we don't have any problems here with the building or anything like that, but it's just that outside air.

If you walk outside right now you see it's really impacting the air quality outside.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:03:55 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Are you sure it's not pot? It

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:03:59 · ≈ 11:03 AM

has a distinctive smell.

2:04 – 2:1117 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:04:06 · ≈ 11:04 AM

One would wonder why you say that

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:04:10 · ≈ 11:04 AM

I've walked by all right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:04:16 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Item item three is from community services it's a hearing to consider recommendations going the first amendment to the countywide Library agreement and an update on the formation of the city of Goleta's Municipal Library, and I have another note that We did pass out An updated there was an attached library agreement That was passed out today And this was a tat replaced attachment for in the website, and it was because it was missing a few pages So I just want everybody to know that we that's been distributed to the board posted online and available

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:04:53 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chapchin.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:04:54 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Good morning Chair Hartman and members of the board. What I'd like to do is introduce two staff members who are working on the library issue with me. One is Ryder Bailey. Ryder's our Deputy Director and CFO. And Natasha Garduno. Natasha's Secretary to the LAC and has been working with the consultants scheduling meetings and making sure all those day-to-day activities get done. So with that I'll turn this over to Ryder Bailey Thank you,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed2:05:20 · ≈ 11:05 AM

George. Good morning Chair Hartman and members of the Board of Supervisors. Today you'll be receiving an update on countywide libraries. The first of four recommended actions will be to approve and authorize the chair to execute a First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2017-18 Agreement for Operation of a Countywide Library System. This increases funding for library services to the City of Lompoc, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria by $162,000 for a total award of 3.8 million dollars.

And to receive an update on the status of the formation of a municipal library by the city of Goleta. And to receive an update on the status of the library consultant's work. Lastly, to determine that these actions are not subject to CEQA. During the 2017-18 budget hearings, the Board of Supervisors allocated an additional one time funding amount to maintain status quo library hours and programming.

Staff has worked closely with each of the three City Library Zone Directors to identify needs related to hours, programming, and technology to increase staffing efficiencies. At your direction, this funding was not allocated based on per capita but on identified needs. Funding breakdown for each library branch will be illustrated on the next slide. As mentioned, staff worked with the three Library Zone Administrators to recommend funding for libraries that were at risk of reduced hours in programming.

Carpinteria and Guadalupe were identified as being most at risk and received the majority of the funding. Once those issues were addressed, the remaining funds were allocated towards technology to increase staffing efficiencies. This includes items such as self-checkout machines, new computers and printers aimed to reduce staff time. The cities of Santa Barbara and Goleta did not request any of the $162,000 one-time funding allotted.

I will now

move on to the next item, an update on the formation of the Goleta Municipal Library. County staff is actively engaged in working with the two cities, Goleta and Santa Barbara regarding discussions and negotiations for the 2018-19 annual funding contract and zones. However, the board can appoint a member or members to lead this process. At the August 15th Goleta City Council meeting, the council voted 5-0 for the following.

To pursue the formation of a municipal library. They also approved a potential Zone 4 service area of 94,545 persons subject to the ratification by the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors and agreement by the city of Santa Barbara.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:08:25 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Okay. So we're back on again and because of the Ventura fires, we're on and off with power. And we'll just keep plowing through the best we can. I have a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:08:52 · ≈ 11:08 AM

question.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:08:52 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Oh, Supervisor Wolf.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:08:55 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Ryder, you mentioned discussions and negotiations in that the board could appoint one or two members. Can you expand upon that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed2:09:08 · ≈ 11:09 AM

I'll believe I'll kick this one over to council.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:09:12 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Well I think Supervisor Wolf through the Chair, staff is working with staff from Goleta and Santa Barbara keeping in touch with them making sure that we're involved in the process to keep you informed of their movement towards a municipal library. As you know, and Ryder will touch on this, the consultant will also be looking at the formation of a Goleta Library and potential service area for Goleta and Santa Barbara.

Right now it's staff driven. If the board chooses, the board certainly can take the leadership on that. We certainly can support whatever work the board needs to do. But I think how that's formed is probably an issue for county council to discuss.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:09:55 · ≈ 11:09 AM

So so before County Council opined, so I can understand if it was negotiation and all that. But so it sounds like what you're doing is more discussion similar to what we've met with folks from Goleta City there they have a small committee. So, I mean, I would like to be involved in those discussions. So if you can let me know when those are happening. I don't know if we need a formal appointment but I would like to be aware of them.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:10:35 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:10:38 · ≈ 11:10 AM

And as the board appointment to the Library Advisory Committee, I would appreciate being included too if that is something that we're having board level participation on.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:10:55 · ≈ 11:10 AM

And I just have a question. Are these Brown Act public meetings or are these our private discussions?

2:11 – 2:1820 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:11:03 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, these aren't Brown Act meetings per se. They're discussions between staff, consultants and our staff but certainly depending on what the Board would like to do we normally would keep you informed of all the discussions that we can do that and make sure we amp that up as well every time we do notify you of meetings but I'm not sure how that affects Brown Act if two members attend any of those meetings

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:11:31 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Mr. Casoni, I guess only two members probably should attend if anybody speaks is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:11:38 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Chair Hartman and supervisors as we've discussed with other short-term ad hoc advisory committees yes if the county supervisor role is limited only to members of of the Board of Supervisors less than a quorum, so two or less then that would not be a Brown Act body. And the other restriction that we deal with any time we're talking about the Brown Act is an amendment circa 2008 and it used to be that the conversations among supervisors was to develop a collective concurrence. That's what was prohibited. Now it's hear, discuss, deliberate. So it's a broader prohibition But less than a quorum is not a Brown Act body as long as it's a short-term ad hoc advisory body making a recommendation back to the whole board.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:12:31 · ≈ 11:12 AM

So Madam Chair, if I could just say then if you could whatever Mr. Williams wants to do but I would like to be informed of the meetings that you have with the City of Goleta and Santa Barbara and either me or my staff will just attend. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:12:48 · ≈ 11:12 AM

We absolutely can do that.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:12:50 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:12:50 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Supervisor Adam?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:12:53 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Are we done with this presentation?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:12:56 · ≈ 11:12 AM

I don't think so. I think we've just jumped in and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:13:01 · ≈ 11:13 AM

followed on various points here. Okay, well I'm going to hold my question until the

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:13:06 · ≈ 11:13 AM

end. While we're on the topic of attendance at these meetings, I think it's important to note that the board as a whole is awaiting the library consultants report and that will give us a great deal of information about The geographic areas that we might want or might not want covered by certain districts and various options. So I don't think, I think it's premature to be negotiating any formal agreement with the city of Goleta before the board has an opportunity to read and discuss that report.

And

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:13:43 · ≈ 11:13 AM

I just want to reiterate the discussion part. I don't think its negotiation its just being aware And the city of Goleta has already indicated what they anticipate their zone will be, whether or not that remains the same. We'll see and we'll see what the consultant recommends.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:14:05 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Okay. Would you like to continue,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed2:14:07 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Ryder? I'll continue. Thank you, Supervisors. As I mentioned at the August 15th meeting, the City Council of Goleta voted to continue to pursue the formation. They approved a potential fourth zone with a service area of 94,545 persons and this is subject to the ratification by the County Board of Supervisors in agreement by the city of Santa Barbara. Their proposed zone would include the following, Goleta city limits Gaviota Unincorporated Census Blocks, Community Service Area 3, Isla Vista and Hope Ranch. Ultimately the County of Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors retains discretion to determine whether to contract with the city, how much funding to distribute to the contracting zone cities and the geographic zone each city is responsible for providing library services in.

The City of Goleta's timeline is as follows. Recently, on October 17th, the California Library Services Board approved Goleta into the Black Gold Cooperative System. They are currently recruiting for library director. In early 2018, Goleta city staff will coordinate with their library director to do the following. Negotiate with the County of Santa Barbara and City of Santa Barbara on the boundaries of a new library service area Purchase new barcodes design and purchase new patron ID cards and work with the city of Santa Barbara on the transition of current library staff to employment for the city of Calita Their goal is a July 1st 2018 target crossover date for City Administration of the Calita Library. I Now we'll move on to a brief update on the library consultant status.

On October 17th, the Board of Supervisors approved the Library Consultant Selection Committee's recommendation of management partners. They have met with the following stakeholders so far. This includes the Library Advisory Committee, library directors, members of the Board of Supervisors City of Goleta staff, various friends groups and county staff. They are scheduled to meet with the following in the coming month city managers mayors library branch managers supervisors and their staff The consultant's timeline is as follows. Management partners are currently gathering information through research, community engagement and stakeholder interviews.

During November and into December they will compare Santa Barbara's existing approach with other California county library systems and complete best practices research. Also, during December 2017 the consultant will evaluate the formation of the City of Toledo Library. They will evaluate impacts to the existing system, evaluate service and funding changes with the goal of ensuring equity during the transition.

The draft report will be reviewed with county staff in January 2018 and a final report and presentation to the County Board of Supervisors in February 2018. I'd like to thank you and we are available for any questions you may have.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:17:05 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:17:07 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Okay, I'm looking for where this money is actually emanating from. The additional money that we're adding

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed2:17:18 · ≈ 11:17 AM

in this... Supervisor Adam through the Chair, this money was awarded to libraries during the budget hearings back in June. One-time funding was allocated for countywide libraries to keep status quo hours and programming so it's already within our budget We just had to allocate who was going to receive each portion of these monies. So we're coming back to you to amend that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:17:40 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Okay, so that's why when I go to Exhibit E it just has a bunch of money on there and where it's allocated to and that sources the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed2:17:51 · ≈ 11:17 AM

budgeted... Supervisor through the Chair, that is where the money is headed. So if you want to go back to slide four...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:18:00 · ≈ 11:18 AM

But that came from general fund? Correct.

2:18 – 2:2411 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:18:07 · ≈ 11:18 AM

And I had a follow-up on that as well. We did agree during the budget discussions that this money should be allocated not just on the per cap formula that exists, but it seems that there's an inequity here and What I'm curious about is the process for making this decision. Was this made by the zone administrators or did the county have a role in this, or give direction about what criteria should be used?

And let me start with that.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed2:18:46 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Supervisor Hartman. Yes, we work very closely with the library zone administrators. We sat down with all three and really identified their needs to maintain the programming and service hours during those discussions we saw that Guadalupe and Carpinteria were at risk of reduced hours of programming so we worked closely with all three of them and thought that was the result

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:19:07 · ≈ 11:19 AM

And was there any effort to look at what the cities themselves do? I mean, what's worrisome is that the county is going to be asked to fill in and the cities are gonna back up. And then the cities where they're really stepping up are going to be hurt and maybe for a one time deal that's okay. I'm chafing at that but certainly going forward that's not a good strategy.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:19:34 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, yes that was a discussion. And as you know it sort of incentivizes cities not to provide money in but this is one time and we were tasked with filling a gap for one year. This is a problem that could hit the other libraries as well because their fund balance is depleting In the next year or two, the other libraries are also going to see issues, financial issues. So they really have to somehow address it whether we as a county address it or the cities address the funding gap that there will be potential trouble down the line same as Carpinteria was facing because Carpinteria was really out of fund reserves or fund balance reserves.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:20:15 · ≈ 11:20 AM

As I remember, we were very late in the budget process and we were just trying to fill holes and didn't have a lot of time for everybody to go back and redo their budgets. So one-time, I understand. Supervisor Wolf?

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:20:28 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. Yeah, I would feel the same. I hope this is not a trend that this is a one-time process that we went through And I'll speak just to the unincorporated folks who had passed Measure L, and it was to supplant services. So in a sense there was no benefit to a large unincorporated swath of people. And yet they're paying additional taxes to the Goleta Library. So, and I think looking also at where the expenditures were made, the intent was to extend services.

I just hope we don't go down this road again. And of course, I'm looking to you but it's really our decision, right? So I'm speaking to me and all of us.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:21:32 · ≈ 11:21 AM

It's Supervisor Will through the chair. We're really thankful for both, I think Santa Barbara City and Goleta for at least not asking for any of that. They decided they came to us and said don't give us any of this money just use it where you need it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:21:45 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Thank you for acknowledging that. Supervisor Williams and then Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:21:49 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Yeah, I just wanted to note that some of that perceived inequity is because the two largest libraries in the system said we can handle this. But of course part of the reason why they can handle it is that the per capita split system that we have obviously Does not favor small libraries and that's very different than other County library systems where the county.

Big cities are charged with Funding 100% of their libraries, and counties are only charged with funding the small libraries. So I think that a lot of these things will be looked at. I think we made a good compromise in the budget hearings which was to help everybody. And we helped the big ones with an increase in per cap, but of course that's almost meaningless to the small ones because they have so few folks assigned to them. So we helped the small libraries with this funding and I think at the time it was an effort to forestall us fighting over the bones of library funding, and I thought it was a good compromise under the circumstances and should be upheld. That being said, I think we should always harangue any cities that are at the lower end of the funding.

To that, in that I definitely harangued the city of Goleta. And they stepped up and I really appreciate it. I want to really say that because it's a real positive because depending on the calculation you used we're either at 0% or 10% in previous years. And now are much higher, and that really speaks to at least somebody willing to put some money where their mouth is with libraries. I really appreciate that.

The perception out there in some people's minds is that this is a temporary problem and we need to make sure that cities know this is not a temporary problem They may perceive their share is very large in some cases, but it's not It's not and that everybody's going to need to step up more if we want to keep library hours Open at the same rate. Not anybody backing off

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:24:40 · ≈ 11:24 AM

I just have a quick follow on Mr. Chapman, what does Carpinteria, Buellton and Solvang each of them contribute to their libraries?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:24:50 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Chair Hartman in terms of dollar amount or percentage? Percentage.

2:24 – 2:2915 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed2:24:58 · ≈ 11:24 AM

If you don't mind, Chair Hartman if you want I can answer that one. As far as the three cities again were Carpinteria and the other two?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:25:05 · ≈ 11:25 AM

Built-in solving.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed2:25:07 · ≈ 11:25 AM

Built in solving both contribute roughly half their budget, the city budget towards a library about 50 to 55 percent. Carpinteria is a little bit lower about 15 percent of the city library.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:25:17 · ≈ 11:25 AM

One five did you say? Okay speaking of encouraging cities to step up I think there's one in the first district

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:25:25 · ≈ 11:25 AM

Yeah, I wasn't mentioning him by name. But that's particularly the one I'm talking about because they need to. The city needs to be aware. I mean, they did increase their funding this time around but it at least in They are, I think living under a little bit of the illusion that this is a temporary problem and that someday they're going to be able to go back down. And I think we need to make it very clear that actually you need to go the other way around because at our last budget deliberations Goleta was the smallest percentage so I hope you don't beat up Carpinteria any more than you beat up Goleta but now they're at the bottom of the heap and they should step up

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:26:16 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:26:18 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Mr. Chapman would you assign a percent chance that this underfunding is a recurring problem?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:26:29 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair. As I stated, each of the libraries do have a fund reserve that is slowly being used to cover costs and I think in the next year or two you're gonna see more libraries in that situation where they're gonna run out of reserves to cover costs.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:26:52 · ≈ 11:26 AM

So in the percent chance Category 100

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed2:27:00 · ≈ 11:27 AM

probably very high how's that 7580% chance I would say okay. So there's a 20 to 25% chance that we never hear about this again Maybe I think if the cities do step up as the supervisor suggested. I think that that problem will be taken care of but There's a high likelihood that we will hear of this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:27:23 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Yeah, okay so You know Are we? We haven't had public comment yet. Okay

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:27:32 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well just to Supervisor Williams comments about this First Amendment that the money went to small libraries. When I looked at this there was a lot of money That went to Lompoc and Santa Maria Library. So they're not just the smaller libraries that we would normally think of. And if that were the case, then we should probably have a definition and make that a firm decision. If that's where we want money like this to go, if that's what the board decides.

But I just again, to restate, I think that this process of allocating funding There could be a lot of missteps and I think the much fairer way was to do it per capita or you give a certain amount for books and supplies and things like that, a one-time amount which is what we've done in the past. But this is...I don't think it's really good public policy. Thank You Madam Chair

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:28:54 · ≈ 11:28 AM

Supervisor Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:28:55 · ≈ 11:28 AM

and I just want to reiterate that that's that's convenient to be able to say when the funding form per capita funding formula favors certain libraries over others and is atypical in a statewide picture. And that you know if we just If we say we're going to save libraries and we just put money into the per capita, then that only helps the large libraries stay open. It does not give any appreciable help to the small libraries that are already disadvantaged by the per capita split.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:29:34 · ≈ 11:29 AM

And that's why I made the, my thought was is that if there was a foreign, if we ever wanted to embark on something like this again which I wouldn't. I don't think it's a good idea but if we were then we do allocate it to the small libraries with a definition of what is small to answer that question. But that's not what happened here.

2:30 – 2:388 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:30:01 · ≈ 11:30 AM

And I would be inclined for some kind of match with the city so that there's equity supervisor love and you know,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:30:07 · ≈ 11:30 AM

thank you madam chair. I definitely don't want to go down this road again. And now we're starting to come up with definitions of big and small and look The only way to do it is per capita and then I understand you end up with with some problems and that's why during the budget cycle and during the budget We figure out which of the small libraries are stepping up in our opinion and can be helped, and which ones aren't.

And we help to a lesser degree. So I mean here we are in December five months after we went through the budget or six months and we still are going through the process and it's kind of ridiculous so this way is not working. And it just basically comes down to who's arguing the most is gonna end up with more money I don't want to see it end up that way.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:30:58 · ≈ 11:30 AM

I think we'll have a lively discussion when we get the consultants report, but now let's go to public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:31:06 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have two requests to speak. We're going to start with Judith Dale and then go to Gabby Edwards.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed2:31:19 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Chair Hartman, board. First of all I just want to say I am so delighted to see you getting involved in libraries. This is one of the first times in all the years I've been involved that the Board of Supervisors has taken up really a discussion of the structure and how we fund libraries. So thank you. I totally agree with keeping them per capita but I also feel That you should make a recommendation in your contracts that cities at least match what the county gives them.

Because then you won't have this huge disparity between what some cities do and step up, and other cities. And believe me city managers and city councils look across the fence to see what's happening in other places and say wait a minute. We stepped up and put 50 more thousand dollars into our library, and so-and-so didn't. And yet we only get X amount from this extra money.

So I think a really good solution would be that cities need to match what the county gives because it is true that some of the county libraries that don't have a city struggle. And some of the city libraries do too. On that note, I want to say thank you for the extra $162,000. Believe me, no good deed goes unpunished when you're trying to allocate money but thank you for it. It really has helped all of the libraries and thank you for keeping the per capita at what it is. Obviously we'd like it to be more but thank you for your support. You've been very supportive of libraries and we appreciate it. Also, I want to thank the board The community services department for hiring the consultant to do the study because the system we are having now is 50 years old.

Back when there were only three incorporated cities in the county, Santa Maria, Lompoc and Santa Barbara it made sense but this is 2017 almost 2018 it's time for a restructuring. I am totally in support of Goleta forming a library And I am delighted that there will be an ad hoc committee from the board joining the discussion because this affects every library in the county, not just Goleta and Santa Barbara. So thank you for getting involved in that. And once again, thank you for your efforts on behalf of libraries keep up the good work.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:34:05 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Gabby Edwards?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 29Proposed2:34:14 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Madam chair and supervisors, uh, I represent the friends of the library, but I feel like I should also represent the little town of Carpinteria. Um, which isn't, I think delusional in assuming that it is not going to have to take on more responsibility. You may have read in the paper that actually the city council on Monday night, um, um approved a survey of our citizens to see About the possibility and the probability that we will.

Float a measure for one cent sales tax in Carpinteria to benefit things like the library, and there's a ton of support for that on the part of the City Council. I would say too that it's it. There's a little bit of history that you should know in that the friends at the library. We have this lovely situation thanks to the city, which is that we have a huge used bookstore in a building that the city owns and rents to us for virtually nothing. And we net about $70,000 a year which can go... Our operations allocation is something and then maybe 3,000 more for this and that kinds of things. So the city has allowed that to happen and kind of counted on that As part of the carpentry libraries budget and that's been huge. And certainly, you know they're seeing now that they're going to have to come up with make way more but you know 5 years ago they think they were giving us 15,000 a year for library and it was fine it was enough I mean I think we all need to acknowledge that this huge ballooning of our budgets has contributed to you know all kinds of problems.

But meanwhile It's been a very rough year for our little branches and especially so I think for Carpinteria. We're very grateful for that emergency fund and for the generous allocation that you gave to us. It made us uncomfortable obviously, our other branch cohorts were very gracious in not hating us for getting 75,000 and they're getting far far less we know it's a one time deal.

Because of other concerns that didn't have anything to do with money really, our wonderful longtime librarian supervisor retired in March and has not been replaced. So it's been sort of chaos at our little library and the morale of our patrons has been low and that the county gave us that one-time allocation so that we're not losing hours was a huge morale boost. So thank you for that. And thank you too The hiring of the consultants, I think all of our branches were so pleased with our friends' meetings with staff of the consultants and how widely knowledgeable they are and so respectful of our concerns. So thank you for hiring them.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:37:25 · ≈ 11:37 AM

I have a comment, if I could? I just want to thank you for your graciousness throughout all of these discussions. I think there's something incredible about the people who make up the different friends groups in that you want what's good for yourself to also be good for your neighbors. And I remember you speaking as a Carpinteria resident, supporting Goleta Library. And now you're thanking Goleta for supporting, or it wasn't just Goleta. But anyway, I think what Friends represents is really what this county is and that is everyone working together and making every one, every branch as good as possible. So thank you for your graciousness. Thank you.

2:38 – 2:434 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:38:18 · ≈ 11:38 AM

That concludes public comment.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:38:21 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Okay, I just wanted to add one thing or actually two things. I don't believe we have technically appointed an ad hoc. I believe Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Wolf would like to be notified and either they or their staffs will attend these meetings but not represent the County Board of Supervisors in negotiations but listen and possibly report back. I wanted to add one thing and that goes to the city of Goleta and forming its own.

The per cap for Isla Vista will be key, there's 20,000 plus people there not all of them are students in fact there is a large community of City College students and long term residents and Latino community And they do not have a library. I think a bookmobile is, is not adequate and we need to give some thought to how if such a library is formed the needs of Isla Vista are addressed appropriately.

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:39:24 · ≈ 11:39 AM

I just wanted to speak in agreement with that. That to me you know We're going to be looking at the size of the service area for Goleta. Goleta wants that large of a service area, even if we are willing to approve that. The people who live in the unincorporated area should have equal voice in the governance of the library and so if Goleta is appointing members or trustees of a library board and the county may be appointing trustees to the library board The people that live in the unincorporated areas that would make up two-thirds of the funding from that library board should also have an equal voice.

One person, one vote is a Supreme Court decision. I think that is relevant at least in spirit not in law in this case but So I'm hopeful that in the discussions, the governance will be addressed so that all areas both the unincorporated Eastern Goleta Valley and Isla Vista have proper representation on the library board that governs Goleta Library.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:41:10 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair. I think the reason why that recommendation was made and the primary difference, and I know Supervisor Lavagnino would like us to get off of this topic but the main difference, Supervisor Williams, and I can just say it until I'm red in the face is that the unincorporated of which there are 30,000 people pay a tax to support The Goleta library, probably more than the city of Goleta pays.

So that's why it was recommended to have a seat at the table if you just do it by population and where people live You know then then you know that Really doesn't make sense the reason why it was suggested was because of the allocation of money that goes to complete a library. And you know I think the city of Goleta assuming that this moves forward You know, they've talked about a bookmobile in Isla Vista. Certainly that's better than what they have right now.

So you know me and I'm not speaking for the city of Goleta but maybe that's the first step and I could imagine that they probably might want to have a formal place for a smaller library I don't know, but I've heard them speak about the importance of Isla Vista. You have a lot of people on the city council who care a lot about Isla Vista and understand that the community and just from my background of being on this school board and seeing the Isla Vista School in the community that's part of Isla Vista you're right it's not just the students. So I think the City Council knows that, is aware of that. They talked about a bookmobile and again it's something they don't even have right now so that would be an improvement not to say there couldn't be more but going back to the governance let's not forget that Measure L supports Goleta Library and the taxpayers pay for that That's why they deserve a seat at the table

2:43 – 2:4514 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:43:27 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Okay. Seeing no further lights, may I have a motion to approve staff's recommendation? Chair Hartman,

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction2:43:34 · ≈ 11:43 AM

just let me one, I want to be the official wet blanket because that's my role and that is just to remind everyone in the public that we're facing a difficult budget next year At least a year, depending what happens with our revenue measures. The board has always given more money to keep our per capita at the rate we've set it at and the board has always given more money in addition to that and this past year gave even more money. And I just want to remind everyone those choices will be much more difficult probably when we come to June's budget.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:44:02 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:44:04 · ≈ 11:44 AM

I'll move staff recommendation.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:44:07 · ≈ 11:44 AM

May I have a second? Supervisor Wolf seconded. All in favor say aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:44:15 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:44:15 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Any opposed? Motion passes. I just want to do a time check. We're running a little later, we want to do item 5 after lunch Could we make an estimate if we spend, say, an hour on item number four, break for lunch, closed session? What time would we expect to be back for item number five just so people who want to attend have a sense.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:44:43 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Chair Hermann, my estimate for closed session is about an hour and 15 minutes. So if you had an hour on item four, that's two hours and 15 minutes from now to come back after lunch.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:44:54 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Okay so it looks like 2.15, 2.30 is...

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction2:45:04 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Supervisor you also have an option if you'd want to break for closed session and maybe not.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:45:13 · ≈ 11:45 AM

I see the people here for item four so I think we should push through. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:45:17 · ≈ 11:45 AM

I would estimate that again if you do item 4 now then break for closed session you'll be able to come back at two o'clock?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:45:23 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Okay, so for people who are coming for NOMAD around 2-2.15 is our best guess. Okay would you read item number 4 into the record Mr. Allen?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:45:36 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, Item 4 is from Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a status report on oil and gas operations in Santa Barbara County.

2:45 – 2:538 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:45:47 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Hello Ms. Black, Dr. Russell and Mr. Briggs

CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated2:45:51 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Aaron Briggs and I will be presenting the oil and gas briefing today. On March 14th of this year your board requested a report from planning and development in coordination with the fire department and air pollution control district on the status of onshore oil and gas facilities and pipelines including a status update regarding compliance for existing operations.

In the interest of providing a comprehensive report, staff has also included the status of offshore oil and gas projects as well as a summary of the recently initiated federal outer continental shelf leasing program. Onshore oil and gas production in Santa Barbara County derives from more than 2,450 active wells and is processed at over 125 facilities that are operated by 23 different producers.

These onshore wells and associated production facilities are generally located in the northern part of the county and are particularly concentrated in the Santa Maria Valley, Orchard Hill, Cat Canyon, Los Alamos, and Cuyama areas mainly in state designated oil fields. This map shows the locations of onshore oil wells as well as state designated oil field boundaries in Santa Barbara County.

Offshore, 16 platforms located in the state tidelands and federal outer continental shelf adjacent to Santa Barbara County produce oil and gas into onshore processing facilities. This map shows the location of platforms offshore Santa Barbara County and the related onshore facilities as well as the major pipeline systems that transport oil out of the county.

Only the APCD directly regulates all 16 platforms based on authority in the State Health and Safety Code and delegated authority from the US Environmental Protection Agency. Eight of the platforms produce and transport oil and gas into onshore facilities located in county jurisdiction. These onshore facilities fall under the regulatory purview of Planning and Development, Fire Department, and APCD.

The remaining eight platforms produce oil and gas into facilities located in Ventura County. Those facilities are overseen by that county's corresponding regulatory agencies. And finally, of the four additional platforms off the Ventura-Oxnard Coast, two produce oil and gas into the Carpinteria area and to produce into Ventura County destinations. Two significant pipeline

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:48:11 · ≈ 11:48 AM

systems... Excuse me Mr. Briggs, Supervisor Adam had a question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:48:14 · ≈ 11:48 AM

I just want to do a little clerical here. It says proposed facilities are shown in red, but there's the wind energy project at Lompoc that's not showing in red on all of these things. I just want to make the distinction that does not exist.

CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated2:48:35 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Thank you. Madam chair and supervisor Adam that facility does not exist is currently proposed and it's in the permitting process.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:48:41 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Okay. And, and it's. The solar energy project shown in red, but it's actually permitted and they're constructing that right?

CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated2:48:52 · ≈ 11:48 AM

That's correct. They are almost finished Two significant pipeline systems transport crude oil within and beyond the county. Until its rupture and cessation of operations in May of 2015, the Plains Pipeline All-American consisting of Line 901 along the Gaviota Coast and Line 903 running inland north from Gaviota to Pentland Station in Kern County provided crude oil transportation for six offshore platforms associated with the ExxonMobil San Ynez unit and Freeport-McMoran's Point Argollo Unit as well as Veneco's Platform Holley.

The second pipeline system, Phillips 66 Line 300 System originates at the Lompoc Oil and Gas Plant east of Vandenberg Village. The line runs north carrying crude oil from Platform Irene, the Lompoc Field and other onshore production sources to the Phillips 66 Santa Maria Refinery on the Depomo Mesa in San Luis Obispo County. The Phillips 66 Santa Maria pump station east of the city of Santa Maria allows trucked crude oil production from numerous onshore operations to enter the line 300 system for transport to the refinery as well.

Now I have a few slides that summarize county annual inspection results. This slide provides a summary of Planning and Development's Petroleum Unit well and facility annual inspections. The petroleum unit inspects approximately 2,450 active and idle onshore wells in 125 associated facilities. In the almost three-year time period from January of 2015 until September of this year, 161 notices of violation were issued with an average of 58 notices of violation per year.

The highest number of violations was in 2017 with 86, with the preponderance of violations issued to a single operator. 145 of the 161 NOVs issued during the reporting period were directed to Greca Oil and Gas. The violations documented a variety of infractions, including fluid spills. Failure to comply with multiple requirements of the county petroleum code and violations identified in follow up and or specifically purposed facility inspections.

The majority of these violations were minor in nature and were remedied by the respective operator in a timely manner. This slide provides a summary of the fire department's annual facility inspection results. The fire department inspects all facilities associated with onshore oil and gas production. In the almost three-year time period, 676 violations were observed with an average of 245 violations per year. 342 of these violations were given to a single operator.

There was a high of 381 violations issued in 2016. Again, observed violations were generally maintenance related and most violations were minor in nature or considered low risk and were corrected in a timely manner. This slide provides a summary of the APCD's inspection results. The Air Pollution Control District inspects all oil and gas-related stationary sources which generate pollutant emissions.

In the almost three year time period, 178 NOVs were issued with an average of 65 violations per year. 82 of the 178 violations issued during the evaluation period were directed to GRECA. The highest number of violations occurred in 2016 with 71. These violations included both emissions violations and administrative violations. Some examples of violations issued by the APCD include failing to operate equipment in compliance with their permits, local rules and state regulations, failing to maintain equipment, failing to keep records, and operating equipment without valid APCD permits.

This slide summarizes oil and produced water spill data for the almost three-year reporting period for both Fire Department and Planning & Development onshore spills. The data included in your board letter, and shown here does not include the Plains Pipeline spill in May of 2015. Petroleum Unit and Fire Department staff responded to a total of 18 spills during the reporting period none of which created impacts to active waterways.

The sources of the spills varied, originating from lease flow lines, valves, tanks, wells and related oil field infrastructure. Five spills occurred in the first nine months of this year, the largest of which was a February event totaling 210 barrels at Graca's Blockman tank battery. The spill was traced to injection pump and alarm system failures at the facility.

As a general trend over the last five or ten years, spills are historically trending downward.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:53:30 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Mr. Briggs, may I interrupt? So this is surface water. What is in place to monitor contamination of groundwater aquifers?

2:53 – 2:596 turns

CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated2:53:43 · ≈ 11:53 AM

So the contamination of groundwater aquifer would be monitored by DOGGR primarily. The county does not have a monitoring system for groundwater quality.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:53:54 · ≈ 11:53 AM

And you're not pulling in any of the violations from DOGGR, this is just county departments today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:54:00 · ≈ 11:54 AM

That's correct.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:54:01 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:54:03 · ≈ 11:54 AM

To the best of your knowledge has there ever been any assertions that groundwater has been contaminated?

CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated2:54:13 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Supervisor Adam I'm not aware of any groundwater contamination due to oil and gas activities. Okay thank you Okay, now for a couple of important project updates. The Plains All-American Pipeline System remains out of service and the seven associated platforms dependent upon the line to ship their production to market are likewise shut in and not currently producing oil. Planes recently submitted an application to the county to install a new smaller diameter pipeline system Portions of the existing lines would be removed while the majority of the lines would be abandoned in place. That application has been found incomplete for the purposes of case processing, however Plains recently resubmitted the necessary items and P&D staff is currently reviewing that information for adequacy Venneco declared bankruptcy on April 17th of this year.

In concert with that action, Venneco quick claimed Platform Holly and Tidelands Lease 421 back to the state which means that oil and gas cannot be produced from these facilities anymore. Wells in the platform and lease 421 are currently the focus of a plugging and abandoning program which will be implemented under the direction of the State Lands Commission.

Removal of the platform will follow a two to three-year plug and abandon process. The onshore processing plant, known as the Elwood Onshore Facility is located within the jurisdiction of the City of Goleta. The city is working with the State Lands Commission to ensure the plant is maintained in safe condition while options for its eventual decommissioning are identified.

Equipment within the EOF will likely be needed to handle gas and oil associated with the Platform Holley well plugging and abandonment process. The non-operational Elwood Marine Terminal located on University of California land near Devereaux Slough was nearing issuance of a county demolition and restoration permit when Benneco declared bankruptcy. As the underlying landowner of the marine terminal site, UCSB has assumed the environmental review and permitting responsibilities for EMT demolition, and P&D staff has transferred the process and associated files to them for completion.

And last but not least, the Elwood Pipeline known as Line 96 was constructed in 2011 to connect the Platform Holley EOF crude oil production into the Plains All-American Line 901 at Las Flores. This pipeline had remained filled after the plane spill with approximately 1,700 barrels of stranded oil. In the first two weeks of November this year, Veneco removed the stranded oil under an emergency permit.

The pipeline currently remains filled with water, biocide and corrosion inhibitor. County staff is currently identifying potential options to further empty and clean the pipeline and abandon it pursuant to state fire marshal requirements. This slide identifies the locations of three large onshore production projects that P&D is currently processing permit requests for, which include the ERA East Cat Canyon Oil Field Redevelopment Project, the ERG West Cat Canyon Revitalization Plan and the Petro Rock United Cal-Cal Bradley Lease project.

The AIR project proposes to develop 296 new wells, including 141 production wells and would utilize both steam flooding and cyclic steaming strategies to produce oil. Staff is currently working with the EIR consultant to finalize the internal administrative draft of the EIR, and we expect to be able to release the EIRE for public review sometime in early 2018. The ERG project proposes to develop 233 new wells and would utilize a cyclic steaming method to produce oil.

Again, staff is working with a consultant on the internal administrative draft and we expect to be able to release the EIR for public review in early 2018. The Petro Rock project proposes to develop 231 new cyclically steamed wells and it's currently considered incomplete for case processing. In July of 2017 under direction from the Trump administration, the US Department of Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management or BOEM Initiated the development of a new national outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing program for the period from 2019 to 2024. To replace the 2017-2022 program currently in place.

As with previous federal leasing programs, no Pacific OCS lease sales arose from the current program. On July 3rd of this year, BOEM issued a request for information with a 45-day comment period that closed on August 17th. The new program is intended to consider, among other things, the potential for issuance of leases in the Pacific OCS including offshore California.

BOEM's request for information is the first step in a multi-step federal process of identification and potential sale exploration and ultimately development of the intercontinental shelf oil and gas leases by interested operators. This process will include multiple opportunities for public input. The next step is to seek review and comment on a draft proposed leasing plan that would be developed after considering inputs received during the first round of recently closed public comment period.

And that concludes our presentation, and we're here to answer your questions.

2:59 – 3:0816 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:59:37 · ≈ 11:59 AM

I see no lights. Supervisor

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction2:59:40 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Wolf? Thank you, thank you Mr. Briggs for your presentation so I have a couple of questions and I just want to say I really appreciate the staff report and the attachments that were provided by your staff fire and air pollution control district. And we are allowed to charge fees for inspection. And I just wanted to know because there are so many different facilities and wells, when was the last time that we had updated our fee schedule? And then given that, are we getting full cost recovery for all of the inspection?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:00:32 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, we updated all of our fees including the petroleum fees in April of this year. And yes, we're getting full cost recovery.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:00:41 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Okay thank you. And then the penalties for non-compliance it was $500 and I think it's now raised to $716. And that's noted in the section 2515 of the ordinance. My question to you is how much, when we sit on APCD, APCD is getting per violation. Sometimes they don't get anything, and sometimes they get a significant sum. What I'm wondering is for your department given the different violations what is the amount of money that you are receiving?

And does it occur at the notice of violation when it's issued by petroleum or the notice of determination?

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:01:40 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolff. We collect fees or fines associated with the violations when we issue a Notice of Determination of Fine. It's under the Administrative Fine Ordinance, and we can collect for the first violation up to $100 a day for each violation. So if we issue a notice of determination of fine it would be for up to 100 dollars a day and there would be a specified amount It's appealable and the hearing officer can uphold that fine, waive the fine or reduce the fine. So it really depends on what the initial assessment was based upon those seriousness of the violation and then what the action of the environment or the hearing officer is with respect to the fine.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:02:33 · ≈ 12:02 PM

So then what was I reading in Article 25 that talked about penalties for noncompliance? Where it specifies $500 fine or up to six months imprisonment in county jail, or both for such fine and imprisonment for each offense. It's 25-15.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:03:17 · ≈ 12:03 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, I see that. But that's not an accurate summary of 24A, the fines that are available under the Administrative Fine Ordinance as I understand it.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:03:31 · ≈ 12:03 PM

So which one?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:03:33 · ≈ 12:03 PM

We use the Administrative Fine Ordinance and perhaps Mr. Gazzone has something to add.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:03:38 · ≈ 12:03 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, the board has choices when enforcing Chapter 25. And as Black has been discussing administrative fines under Chapter 24A, the county also has the opportunity to go to superior court and seek judicial fines and also in this case imprisonment. We've made this a violation, a criminal violation, and that would occur in superior court.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:04:03 · ≈ 12:04 PM

I'm just trying to understand. So it sounds like there's one way we can, when there is a fine we could do it $100 per day or we can do it this way and just a one time fine of $500? Help me with

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:04:22 · ≈ 12:04 PM

this. Which one are we using? Not meant to be more confusing, but the county has actually a broader menu of choices. The County Enforcement of St. Louis can seek injunctive relief. It can impose administrative fines through Chapter 24A. It could have judicial penalties or it could be a criminal action that's prosecuted either as a nuisance We have civil nuisance or it can go to the district attorney's office as a crime. And that's this provision 2515 by stating six months of confinement.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:04:54 · ≈ 12:04 PM

So we, as a county have chosen to do what we are doing which is the $100 a day but we don't have to, we have some discretion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:05:06 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Madam Chair I think and Supervisor Wolfe, I believe that the way the county operates is We use the administrative fine ordinance, and we would escalate and use a different tool if that ordinance was not working for us. So $100 a day adds up for the first 30 days to $3,000. You start to get people's attention. If it goes to a second NOV, it's $200 a day. If it goes to a third, it's $500 a day. So we typically use that tool first but we do have other tools available.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:05:39 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Okay so that does seem would be a more effective tool than looking at the fine ordinance. Maybe we should readjust that? But anyway, I guess that's for another discussion. Another piece of this article 25 is the What's it called? The high-risk operator. Because none of, you know particularly Greca and I think there was one other operator doesn't meet the definition of high risk operator.

Has P&D given any thought to changing the definition of a high risk operator? Because now as I look back on it, it seems almost impossible to reach that. And yet it's shocking that you have one operator that has so many notices of violation and I know it was stated that they were minor but when you have a lot of minor issues sometimes Even a crack can become something significant.

So my question is have we ever thought about changing that definition?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:06:56 · ≈ 12:06 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, I don't think we've given a lot of thought to changing the definition based upon our experience The high-risk operator Ordinance can be triggered by two methods. One is the us to spells in a 12 month period We've not had two spills out outside of containment that exceed the 15 barrel limitation at any of these operations, the other is non-compliance with various sections of the ordinance and the intention is that those would Would be you know very Fairly significant health and safety and environmental issues that are triggered.

Greco's violations or the majority of the violations that we're talking about are mainly for failure to clear vegetation, which is important but is not a life safety issue and for Signage, which is also important but not a significant life safety issue. All of the violations that we found in September of 2017 that are part of your report have been corrected. They were corrected after the issuance of the first NOD and really the intention of the high risk operation designation is to get facilities back into compliance So I think we still feel like we're in good standing, in terms of using this tool.

3:08 – 3:1615 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:08:36 · ≈ 12:08 PM

Chairman and supervisors and for context the county after adopting the high-risk operations ordinance, which is a number four seven zero one had the opportunity to litigate this in US District Court with Greco and prevailed in that case with the court addressing the fact that the ordinance was tailored to address public health safety and welfare and and finding for the county on that. And within the ordinance itself, as Ms. Black has summarized, the two prongs triggering it are either two or more spills or violation of some enumerated sections which are essentially the safety-based or danger sections. So it's something that we could certainly look at but we have tested this ordinance already once in court and prevailed on that but were informed by that and could look at if that was the board's direction.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:09:31 · ≈ 12:09 PM

Supervisor Wolf a follow-on

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:09:33 · ≈ 12:09 PM

yeah, and you know I just want to follow up on that because You know when this whole issue came up back in 2008 after the initial Greco spills And we were seeing so many issues with APCD That's when the board in 2009. You know put all of these basically changed the ordinance and put in that I appreciate all of our response plans and the high risk operator. And there was a lot of thought that went into it, but it still is a little disconcerting, but I appreciate your perspective. I think it's also important as alarming as some of these numbers were, you can't disregard the fact that there were also a lot of good operators.

I went back and compared the number of spills that we had when we, I think it was again in 2008 when I brought this to the board. And I went back and We had over 30,000 gallons that were spilled in 2015-4700, 2016-1500. And now unfortunately that number has gone up in 2017 to 9,000. But my point is that I think with good, strong enforcement with all the agencies and acknowledgement from the operators that they're going to be inspected.

And that there will be consequences if from enforcement. I'd like to believe that that's one of the reasons we're not seeing as many spills. Are these amounts too much? I think they are, obviously I'd like it to be zero. I'd like to not have seen a lot of the issues from APCD. that are impacting our air quality. But I think we're moving in the right direction, obviously and I just want to thank you again for providing all this information and let's not wait too long to get another update because basically at least for me I had to go back to all my records to make this comparison and see where we are so if we could just do it Supervisor Lavanino.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:12:24 · ≈ 12:12 PM

When you mention that, I think we all want to concentrate on the major issues and major health and safety violations. And sometimes when you lump everything and call everything a violation it kind of minimizes when It's something that could be fairly significant. So I understand the dogger has sort of a almost like a fix it ticket so that you're notified. You have, I think 2 weeks to fix.

If it's removing vegetation or whatever is something minor and it's done a violation doesn't really occur. And seeing as how majority of these were You know, either signage or removing vegetation. I think it sends almost a false alarm when you say well we had 187 violations. I'd really like to know how many of those were significant and do we have a system that is everything a violation? Or do we meet at some point and meet with the operator and try to fix something before it does become one?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:13:32 · ≈ 12:13 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Lavinino, our process is pretty predictable. We inspect each of the facilities we make appointments with the operators far in advance they know what we're looking for when we go out and that's why I think you see Most operations are in compliance and they don't even receive an NOV. When the staff are out at a site, if there's something that's easy to correct right then and there they'll give them the day or another day and come back and check and won't go through the NOV process but at a point somebody isn't reacting quickly then we use the NOB tool whether it's a minor violation or a more significant violation.

And they get 30 days from when the NOV is corrected, I mean is issued to correct before it goes into an NOD so there are built-in opportunities for people to address pretty much at every stage and I think in this particular year There was some staffing issues with Greca that have it seems been corrected And so we're hopeful that next year it will be a more positive response and we won't see as many.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:14:53 · ≈ 12:14 PM

There was nothing in here that told us out of the 2,400 wells how many actually Greca owns? So percentage wise it would have also been helpful to know if they have half of them or a third of them or whatever they are so that would also help you know obviously most of the violations and that were theirs but it would be nice to know how many So the rest of mine are just comments. I'll wait for public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:15:17 · ≈ 12:15 PM

We do have that number if you'd like the number.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:15:20 · ≈ 12:15 PM

Oh yeah.

CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated3:15:22 · ≈ 12:15 PM

Uh, uh, Madam Chair, supervisor laughing, you know they have a little over 25% of the wells out there. Okay,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:15:28 · ≈ 12:15 PM

great. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:15:31 · ≈ 12:15 PM

How often do we inspect and do we ever have coordinated inspections? And do we ever have a surprise inspections or are they all just noticed ahead?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:15:41 · ≈ 12:15 PM

Madam chair? Um, We inspect all of the facilities, the onshore oil wells once a year in the facilities. And then if there's a particular issue that needs to be re-inspected we would go back out but it's once a year. Sometimes they're coordinated more often each agency does their own.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:16:01 · ≈ 12:16 PM

I'll just note because I was listening and you can do that in the Board of Supervisors is kind of interesting.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:16:09 · ≈ 12:16 PM

You cannot comment from there, however.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:16:13 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Super high tech. The actions that state lands and the state has taken on Rincon Island which is the oil facility off of Ventura County was because of a result of one of those aforementioned inspections which revealed a whole lot issues

3:16 – 3:226 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:16:40 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Okay, seeing no more lights public comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:16:44 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Chair Hartman members of the board. We have three requests to speak we're going to start in Santa Maria With Joe Armendariz and then Ken Huff then come back here to Santa Barbara for Linda crop Mr.. Armendarz So

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:17:00 · ≈ 12:17 PM

hold just a minute mr. Armendaris I

PresenterJoe ArmendarizSanta Barbara County Taxpayers AssociationProposedself-stated3:17:07 · ≈ 12:17 PM

I'm Joe Armendariz, representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. Struck by the scarf that Supervisor Williams and the County CEO are wearing, I'm impressed by this new policy of austerity in the county. And I think it's probably relevant to bring up, I think, the 800-pound gorilla in the room which is the revenue side of this discussion. I'm not surprised that so far the only issue of money that has come up as part This hearing has had to do with the county nickel and diming the industry to death, with respect to fees and violations. The missing equation here, the missing link is really the big bang multi-million dollar revenues potentially I think it would be a mistake to not acknowledge what's going on today as we sit here and our neighbors to the south are battling a fire.

The firefighters who put their lives on the line to protect people, animals and property of course are the best that America has to offer. But it's worth pointing out and remembering that these fires cost money. Fighting these fires costs an average of a million dollars a day, and public safety law enforcement receives a disproportionate percentage of property tax revenue.

I find it fascinating quite frankly and with all due respect that you would have a discussion today on the eve of a $50 million deficit that the county is facing And then you would identify three specific projects in the county, and no discussion would be attached as to what the economic value of those projects are. So allow me to do it for you because I think it's important. If the county were to approve those three projects within the next 3-5-6-7 years, the county would receive roughly about $150 million dollars in property taxes. 50 to 60 million of that would go directly to the county general fund, which would then be disproportionately spent on public safety. And so I think these are important topics. I can't imagine a private sector company having these type of discussions around a board of directors table and not focusing on the revenue side of the equation.

As Supervisor Lavinino pointed out it's perfectly legitimate to discuss safety issues. Indeed, it's perfectly legitimate to consider it and to discuss it. I would submit that it is equally important to discuss the revenue side because at the end of the day, the taxpayers of Santa Barbara County are entitled to the core services the county provides and the county cannot provide core services without revenue. And so I would ask that you would continue to keep that in mind as you continue this discussion. Thank you.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:20:08 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Ken Huff. And then here, Santa Barbara for Linda Kropp.

CommentKen HuffProposedself-stated3:20:15 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Good afternoon Chair Hartman and Supervisors. I'm Ken Huff speaking for Santa Barbara County Action Network. This report leaves out one important aspect of oil production in the county and that is the threat to our groundwater especially as environmental documents are being prepared for hundreds of new wells using high-pressure steam injection The Board ought to be aware of the number of such wells that are currently operating.

Of particular concern is the number of such wells operating above and through the Santa Maria Valley Groundwater Basin. It's a small number, especially relative to the 750 proposed wells in East Cat Canyon. Most of the existing 200 enhanced extraction wells in the Santa Maria Valley are on Orchard Hill and do not overlie the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. There's a great potential for contamination of the groundwater, certainly more so for high-pressure steam injection wells than for conventional wells.

But wait, it is not just a potential. It's already happening and I guess nobody heard that from Dogger But we heard it. Since 2015, we've been urging the Twitchell Management Authority to assess the threat of petroleum products to the groundwater. Under the stipulation, the annual report prepared by the authority's contract engineer is required to address all threats to the groundwater supply.

Finally, in 2017 this threat has begun to be addressed in the report. On page 13 of April 2017 report following a discussion of total dissolved solids, the report says and I quote it should be noted that in the Santa Maria Valley groundwater Basin contamination also derives from the historical and recent use of organic chemicals, primarily petroleum product and their components, product additives, and product diluents. The sources of contamination are primarily old oil drilling sites, commercial underground storage tanks, and oil refineries.

As many as 60 active investigations of possible or confirmed contamination are being conducted between Sisquack and Guadalupe under the requirements of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board And that's who the county ought to be getting information from as to the potential or actual contamination occurring to our groundwater. It's a very real threat, and it's an important reason why SBCAN opposes drilling hundreds of new high-pressure steam injection wells through our groundwater basin.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

3:23 – 3:3810 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:23:02 · ≈ 12:23 PM

Linda Kropp.

CommentLinda KroppProposedself-stated3:23:09 · ≈ 12:23 PM

Thank you and good afternoon, I'm Linda Kropp, Chief Counsel of the Environmental Defense Center. I want to thank the board and staff for this briefing and we hope that they will occur on an annual basis. Regarding onshore oil, the staff report identifies proposals for 760 new wells which is more than a 30% increase over existing wells And these projects will use steam injection, which threatens significant new environmental risks and impacts to air and water quality groundwater habitat in oak trees and local creeks and streams. They will also substantially increase greenhouse gas emissions in the county's carbon footprint When these projects come forward, we expect to hear a lot about jobs and money. The jobs however are mostly temporary and the tax revenue is also of limited duration in the communities that rely on the money or left stranded when production ceases.

Moreover, these projects impose tremendous economic burdens on our communities and local businesses when there are oil spills such as the Plains Oil Spill or when oil companies go bankrupt and leave the taxpayers to clean up their messes. With respect to existing projects, we appreciate the inclusion of inspection histories but are confused about the total number of facilities and wells for each operation as opposed to those that were inspected. And we just heard that every facility is inspected so wondering where all the zeros come from on the chart.

To the extent that they're not all inspected every year what criteria is used to determine which facilities and wells are inspected? And what kind of harm or damage occurs from the violations, including to waterways and wildlife. With respect to offshore oil we urge the county to continue its opposition to the threat of new federal offshore oil leasing. Even without new leasing, we still face threats from platforms and abandoned wells off of our coast. And the state is currently having to come up with money to plug in abandoned legacy wells. Veneco has walked away from its operations offshore. Fortunately, the state and federal government have requirements that the prior owners, Exxon Mobil and Chevron will be liable. We don't have those same protections onshore for the onshore facilities that are abandoned.

And so we urge the county to take a look at that and perhaps consider an ordinance to require similar transfer of liability or retainment of liability upon transfer. Finally, we appreciate the stakeholder process that has begun to update the county's oil spill contingency plan And to address lessons learned from the Plains oil spill. We recently learned that Elsa Arndt, the county's longtime oil spill specialist will be retiring this month and we want to make sure the county retains that position.

In conclusion, we urge the county to continue its efforts to address climate change and transition our community from dirty fossil fuel development to clean energy resources that will provide jobs money and a healthy environment. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:26:19 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:26:20 · ≈ 12:26 PM

That concludes public comment.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:26:22 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Supervisor Lavanino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:26:24 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Well I think both Mr. Armendariz and um... Doggone it, EDC. Linda Kropp. Linda! How could I forget Linda? Linda Kropp. Good points and I think it was because I think what was limited was the scope was limited based on what the board asked for. And I think if this does come back, there's 2 things that I had written down beforehand is that there were no economic impacts. You know, I think we asked two years ago during the budget cycle to what would be The the ruptured line.

I still don't think we've ever heard back you know what that's going to do to us and also it Linda brought up, I don't I would have liked to have seen. What's our update on some of our our alternatives? And I think if we're going to do this again that you know, that should be a part of it because. I think if we did a study right now and said hey have we over the last few years increased or decreased the amount of fossil fuels that were using in Santa Barbara County up at the number is but we've increased.

You know it kind of sometimes and I'm going to exempt Ken Huff because I guarantee you can either bike or walk to You know, it's akin to a guy smoking a cigarette calling for the end of the tobacco industry. We continue to use the product and we continue to rail on the industry so you kind of can't have it both ways but I value the report. I think staff is doing an outstanding job.

I think a majority of our operators are doing an outstanding job And I think the fact that when you call out as many violations as we have, kind of leads me to believe that it's because it's such a highly regulated industry and for good reason. So I don't have a problem with that. So. Going back to the high-risk I was surprised that it actually took us this long before I heard that we need to go back and revisit it because nobody fell into a high-risk situation. And I think, well I know, I was on the board when we came through with that ordinance and it was at the time considered very controversial and it was considered I think people thought that there was going to be quite a few people that fell into this high risk ordinance, or at least for sure one.

And the fact that just because we haven't had anybody in that situation instead of like I am feeling good that we haven't had anybody in that high risk ordinance. The call is to tighten that restriction down even more. So just going back it was two spills over 12 month period And noncompliance with certain very significant health and safety issues. And so I'm glad we have that ordinance in place, and I think changing at this point would seem to be a reach just because we haven't had anybody in there.

Greca obviously when you're going through this report As you said, maybe there was some turnover at the time. But I would like to see staff continue to provide us more information so that next year if we continue to see this notice of violation pattern, that at that point we can take a look at whatever other means we have in our toolbox. Basically dedicated to those that continue to spill outside of containment. I think we've got that under control, so I wouldn't be interested in moving that but I would be interested in this next meeting being in Santa Maria.

not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:31:03 · ≈ 12:31 PM

Supervisor Williams? Doesn't sound like it. Your light's on, so something is working. Try

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:31:16 · ≈ 12:31 PM

again. There we go. Well first I would definitely support and if it is the board's will to choose me as chair next year, we'll make sure that the next report is in North County. I think that's appropriate. You know, I fully agree with my colleague to the right about the hypocrisy of folks using fossil fuels. And that is why I believe that People are trying to get off of their oil addiction and I definitely think that is primary in a goal. If you do not want more projects, then we should all be doing our part to wean ourselves off the addiction or go as cold turkey as you can.

Last couple years I've almost gone cold turkey. I can't say that I don't use any plastic products, but almost gone cold turkey and And you know what, my quality of life is a good quality of life. It's not like my family is suffering though they bundle more clothes in the winter but they're not suffering and we live in a place where people can reduce Oil and natural gas that they use and help create part of the solution.

I do agree that it would be useful to look at the financial information, but here's my issue. To me, it can't just be a gross calculation. If you really want a business calculation, The money coming in, you look at all the expenses occurred as well. And I've had a really hard time trying to figure those out. I've had a staff person and an intern trying to research that for last six months.

And it's difficult because a lot of our departments do not track how much time they spend on property tax appeals from the oil industry. So I mean, oil industry is saying approve these projects but they're also right now engaged in appeals against the county saying they want lower property taxes and costing us money that way. They're costing us money with There are hundreds of idle wells that some of which have been idle for more than 10 years. Some have been idle for more than 20 years, so one wonders if they're ever going to be in production again and why they are not abandoned.

And my view is that's probably because they're trying to avoid the cost of a properly abandoning and capping those wells. Wells uncapped and idle for decades, then that increases the risk on us and on the taxpayer to pay for those wells. And so to me I definitely hear you when you want us to be looking at the revenue side of this but we need to look The revenue is not just what the gross amount coming in is if we want to look at this financially.

And look at the headaches and problems that have been incurred, and there's a message to the industry. If you want goodwill from the community I think the way to get goodwill You know, to stop leaving wells idle that you never intend to put back into production for 20 years. And to clean up your messes and I do believe that there's some that do that. And I want to encourage more of that. And, and of course my biggest hope and plea out there is for the members of the public who like myself have a general problem with Continued reliance on oil and gas. The best thing you can do is not only advocate, but live your values because the problem isn't a bunch of bad, bad oil companies forcing this on us. The problem is that we as a community, as a state, as a country keep on demanding this kind And if we stop demanding it, the problem will be solved.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:36:41 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Supervisor Wolfe and then Supervisor Adam.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:36:44 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. First I have a comment about this high risk operator and I appreciate the comments that staff has made and Supervisor Lavagnino. So we may not want to change the high risk operator definition but when you see one operator receiving 342 violations which is over half of all All of the operators and facilities and wells that were being inspected. It seems like there should be another level of enforcement.

You may get speeding tickets. You get four speeding tickets and you might have your license suspended versus someone who has a DUI and their license is taken away. I mean, I think we can also look at things in gradations. So while someone is not a high risk operator, I think there's got to be something in between where they're not being a responsible operator.

To have this many violations, so I would suggest that maybe when this comes back. That there is something in between that we can enforce because You mentioned two minor violations. We called Aaron yesterday to try and get a definition of what minor is, and I totally understand that it's very subjective. But when you accumulate this many violations I think there has to be a consequence to that. So, that's my statement. My question has to do with fire and if you wouldn't mind coming up and you don't have this in front of you. I doubt that you would know this by memory but you might because you guys always impress me. This has to do with Amric Energy. Are you familiar with them?

3:39 – 3:4720 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:39:00 · ≈ 12:39 PM

First, I'll have to apologize. I'm operating on very little sleep and the subject matter expert- I almost don't

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:39:05 · ≈ 12:39 PM

even want to ask you the question

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:39:06 · ≈ 12:39 PM

then. I just sent the subject matter expert down to Ventura.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:39:10 · ≈ 12:39 PM

Thank you for your service. So you have that. Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:39:17 · ≈ 12:39 PM

so I'm sorry the-

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:39:18 · ≈ 12:39 PM

Okay, so this is my question. So AMRIC Energy back in 2016, you folks inspected and there were, you identified 23 violations and there were 23 violations outstanding. And then in 2017, Americ Energy it says over in the comment section that the facility has been abandoned. So what do you do in that case or does P&D intervene? What happened in that particular case?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:39:57 · ≈ 12:39 PM

The chair, or Supervisor Wolfe through the chair. I believe that we have a definition of abandonment, the semantics that are coming up when we wrote the note maybe that it was abandoned and John can help me out here. I don't know that it was properly abandoned and as-

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:40:20 · ≈ 12:40 PM

Well because actually P&D did inspect In 2017, AMRIC is listed in your form as that there were three facilities that you inspected. So just kind of overlapping these two departments how does that work? What is the status of AMRIC right now

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated3:40:49 · ≈ 12:40 PM

if you know? Mr. Briggs? I can address that. Members of the board, so Amherst is a relatively small company. They came in 2013-2014 time frame began acquiring leases, began acquiring permits to drill wells and develop facilities. Apparently they were not very well capitalized and over the course of the drop in the price of oil they were not doing very well and they were able to drill some wells. They were able to put together some temporary facilities to deal with that.

But over the course of time, as they fell apart financially, they were forced to walk away from their facilities, sell their facilities to other operators. And so that's why you kind of see Amherst dropping off the chart here is because they essentially went bankrupt and have gone away.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:41:40 · ≈ 12:41 PM

Okay, thank you. I'll let you sit down so you can rest. Thank you for your service. So FIRE has 23 outstanding violations. So if they sold it to someone else who is picking that up? Because they're still noted as outstanding.

CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated3:42:02 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Right, The wells are still there. The facilities that they constructed were temporary, what we call bigger tanks. It's essentially a tank that's driven by a truck and so they'll set that up. They'll drill the wells. They'll produce into those tanks and then once that initial kind of exploration testing program is done, they'll remove the tanks from the site. So there's no longer a facility there and that's why it went from three or four down to zero is because those facilities were removed from the site. The wells remain, the wells have been sold to another company. I'm not sure exactly who but the facilities that they were producing into are no longer there.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:42:44 · ≈ 12:42 PM

So if you could just, so there were violations that were issued by the fire department? Do we just forget about those violations or does it go to the new owner?

CommentAaron BriggsProposedself-stated3:42:58 · ≈ 12:42 PM

So, I mean it would depend on the nature of the violation. Either

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:43:01 · ≈ 12:43 PM

the violation- Are you guys in coordination with these types of things?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:43:05 · ≈ 12:43 PM

Yes we are. The majority of our violations will write up a violation every year we require a permit to operate that renewal, that's a violation until that renewal happens and so many of our violations or numbers seem pretty large, are some faded placarding. There's maybe some fire extinguishers that need an annual service. Some things that get taken care of on an annual basis, they're all part of that maintenance. If the Fire Department goes and we were inspecting something it's a severe violation.

That is a safety issue, we'll issue stop work orders right there. So the majority of the violations that we're issuing can be taken care of at a little later date or we deal with it right there as far as health and safety. We initially were doing joint inspections and To do that, but the nature of our inspections also requiring an annual permit. That's a 12 month permit.

We weren't able to fold into the same Schedule with petroleum, and so we needed to kind of keep our California fire code permits legit. Okay.

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:44:35 · ≈ 12:44 PM

Do you know how many stop work orders you've issued? Is it just a couple or zero?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed3:44:40 · ≈ 12:44 PM

No, I have the number right off hand. It's been a couple of them. And that gets the attention and then we fix that violation right away and then we get back rolling again.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction3:44:55 · ≈ 12:44 PM

Thank you very much. Can I suggest that when this comes back, that for fire in their chart that you include when they've issued a stop work order? Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:45:06 · ≈ 12:45 PM

you. Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:45:09 · ≈ 12:45 PM

Okay well I was going to sit here quietly and not say anything today but it's just gotten too much for me You know, this whole idea that we're going to end our oil addiction and get off fossil fuel. You know maybe in 200 or 500 years I don't know but not not in our lifetime you know the idea that we could actually The fact that oil exists in the society that we have created here without oil is nuts. And you're just kidding yourself. Oil's everywhere and it's in everything, and all this paper that gets delivered to my house every year. I don't know how you get yours but I get mine delivered at the house.

Every week, it comes to the house. Do we think we're going to hook up the horses and make somebody drive the wagon up to Santa Maria to give me my paperwork? And do we think that the horses would eat Hey, that was grown locally? Answer no. It would come out of Imperial Valley or Kern County or something. That's where they grow the hay. So it's just ludicrous and unless you're subsisting on a beach with a palm loincloth, you're using oil.

And you're going to continue to use oil. One other thing, Mr. Armadero has talked about everybody's scarves and scarves are a wonderful statement but the temperature in this room I've tried to get an answer from Ms. Pell but I can't rouse her on that issue. But I think the temperature in this room is probably set the same as it always for the whole entire year. And so scarves are a wonderful fashion statement, but nobody's keeping warm by wearing the scarf.

So there.

3:47 – 3:518 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:47:28 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:47:31 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Just because something is difficult Just because something will take time doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do and doesn't mean we shouldn't start.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:47:43 · ≈ 12:47 PM

So I think you've heard, I think the agreement is we'd like to have at least an annual report. Next time we'll do it in North County. I think you've heard some other things. I think it would be very helpful to hear more about Dogger and Water Pollution Control District or whatever other kinds of violations just so we have a bigger picture not just what the county does.

So I think we're ready for a motion to receive and file this report. All in favor say aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:48:22 · ≈ 12:48 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:48:23 · ≈ 12:48 PM

Any opposed? Motion passes. Before having Mr. Gazzone talk about closed session, I think we may not be back until about 2 o'clock for NOMAD and before we start that I hope we'll have an update on the Ventura Fire And any ideas about what we can do for our friends and colleagues whose homes have burned, who have been evacuated. We're getting news every few minutes about someone else we know who's been affected by this so we want to pitch in and help.

Mr. Ghisoni?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:49:04 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today for closed session the board has agendized to consider three matters. One case of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. One case of significant exposure to civil litigation and conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers, and executives. And my estimate is about an hour and 15 minutes or returning shortly after 2 o'clock.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:49:30 · ≈ 12:49 PM

All right, so 2.15 or 2.30 for coming back is my guess. It's always a little longer than Mr. Gazzone predicts. Thank you.

PresenterSusan PetrovichOlive Mill TrustProposedself-stated3:51:09 · ≈ 12:51 PM

Welcome to Unified Conferencing.

5:00 – 5:321 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:00:02 · ≈ 2:00 PM

Music. You. you Good morning, everyone. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mm hmm. ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Hi, everyone. Hi. Hi, everyone. ♪ ♪ . . You. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Yeah. ♪ ♪ Music you

5:35 – 5:388 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:35:24 · ≈ 2:35 PM

Good afternoon. We're reconvening the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting of December 5th, 2017 after closed session. Mr. Gazzone would you report out from closed session please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:35:39 · ≈ 2:35 PM

Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered three matters. Two involve conference with legal counsel. One was deciding whether to initiate civil litigation one case and another case was significant exposure to civil litigation. You also had a conference with labor negotiators with all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers, and executives was the subject. No reportable actions.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:36:03 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Thank you. And CEO Miyasato, you were going to add to your CEO's report about the fires in Ventura and what other counties have done to help friends and neighbors and colleagues? And what we'll be exploring here.

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction5:36:19 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Chair Hartman yes thank you for bringing that up. We're looking at what we can do now as a county. We're still in support of the incident in Ventura County. Other counties have done such things that we'll be exploring in the next few days. One is trying to set up maybe a fund among county employees for those who've lost their home or been displaced, another is allowing employees to donate their vacation time. Another is evaluating whether the county could give more leave time for those employees who did lose their homes.

Looking at whether we can extend our EAP, Employee Assistance Counseling Services for those employees. Looking at transportation services, what kinds of subsidies or things that we could provide? So we'll be looking all of that in the next couple of days and if there's time, we could bring something back to your board next week if we can get things done. The things we can do, we will do that don't require board authority so we're looking at all that as I speak right now, Terry Ness came to me. There was a call.

At the EOC and for employees who need to get back home, we're worried that the 101 will close. So we're going to be letting those employees who need to get back southbound on the 101, we'll probably be letting them go shortly.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:37:30 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Thank you.

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction5:37:34 · ≈ 2:37 PM

We haven't heard any issues northbound.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:37:38 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Okay so turning to our final item in today's agenda Mr Allen would you read that into the record please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:37:46 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Chair Harmon, members of the board. I just want to also note that in the event the elevators become unoperable again today we have a video teleconferencing system now set up in the planning commission hearing room so it would be able to accommodate those people should that happen And I'll read number five into the record. This is from General Services, this is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Judge David W Long's arbitration ruling and awards as corrected dated June 16th 2017 as to awards one through nine in the matter of arbitration between Nomad Village homeowners and the Nomad Village mobile home park pursuant to rule 23 of the mobile home rent control rules for hearings in chapter 11A section A4 of the Santa Barbara County Code.

This is in the second district.

5:38 – 5:4311 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:38:32 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Thank you. This is a hearing to review the arbitrator's ruling and award stated June 16th, 2017 in the matter of arbitration between Nomad Village Mobile Home homeowners and Nomad Village Mobile Home Park. I have a procedural order for today's hearing, but would first like to hear from county council on the legal framework under which this review will be conducted. And that'll include why this item is currently before the board, the standard of review including the amount of discretion that the Board of Supervisors has and County Council's recommendation on how to handle public comment. So Mr. Gazzone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:39:15 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, good afternoon. We can spend a few minutes now going over the legal framework that the board will be operating under today. With me today is Deputy County Counsel Jenna Richardson who will describe the legal framework itself and I will then provide a recommended procedural motion that I see is over my shoulder as we are talking.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed5:39:41 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisors. For this matter an arbitrator issued a ruling and award as you noted on June 16th 2017. And this item is currently before your board because the homeowners filed a petition for review of that arbitration decision pursuant to the mobile home rent control rules for hearing. And while the parties are the same as several matters that your board has heard over the past few years, this is a separate matter from the awards previously considered related to 2011 rent increase.

And then as for the standard that your board is operating under today, it is the abuse of discretion standard. And this is not the de novo standard that your board normally operates under when acting as a land use appeal authority. Instead, here your board's role is not to reweigh the evidence. Instead an abuse of discretion is established if your board finds that the arbitrator failed to proceed in the manner required by law, made a decision not supported by findings or made a finding not supported by substantial evidence.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:40:49 · ≈ 2:40 PM

And you've heard the abuse of discretion standard from Ms. Richardson, and the board's consideration of this matter is further constrained in part by the mobile home rent control rules, in particular Rules 13 and 23. Rule 13 states that the record is restricted to evidence that was considered by the arbitrator. However, Rule 23 allows the board to hear oral argument from the parties, the representatives or their attorneys.

And since this is a notice meeting of the board, it is subject to the Brown Act and therefore the board is also required to receive public comment on this item. As a way to harmonize all of these into this hearing what we recommend is that the board at this point make a procedural motion that is shown over my shoulder in which would state that in accordance with rules 13 and 23B The Board will limit its review of the arbitrator's decision to the paper record alone that is attached to the board agenda letter dated December 5th, 2017. And as further detailed in that board agenda letter it consists of attachment 1 exhibits A through Y.

The Board will not consider any new evidence and will be receiving oral argument and Brown Act public comment only as argument that focuses on evidence that is already in the record.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:42:11 · ≈ 2:42 PM

So we need a motion? And a second. All in favor, say aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:42:20 · ≈ 2:42 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:42:22 · ≈ 2:42 PM

Any opposed? Motion passes. Any ex parte? Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:42:29 · ≈ 2:42 PM

Chair Hartman, members of the board. I did have one other thing to announce while we're dealing with these procedural matters There were a couple of attachments that did not get posted due to Technical glitch in our system so they were not on the county's website until Monday afternoon But the board received all those attachments in your packet They were all available on Thursday when you received all of your information and So those attachments are have been posted online And they are online and they're available in the clerk at the board's office and also in North County as well

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:43:00 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Okay, so any ex parte disclosures? Supervisor Wolk.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction5:43:07 · ≈ 2:43 PM

No I have none.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:43:10 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Okay, so this is basically a quasi-judicial but we're sitting here like the appellate court rather than a district court. So we have limited ability to review or to consider. We have to look at the facts on the record and that's what you're about to give us in our staff presentation.

5:43 – 5:514 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:43:36 · ≈ 2:43 PM

On March 31, 2016 Park Management delivered to the homeowners a Notice of Increase in Monthly Rent set to take effect on July 1st, 2016. The notice attempted to recoup expenses incurred by park management including increased operating expenses, capital improvements and expenses for the parks common area roads and common area electrical systems as well as professional fees incurred by park management related to past and ongoing rent proceedings.

If you'll remember on October 17th, 2017, you affirmed awards 5, 7, 8 and 13 settling the issues associated with a petition for arbitration filed by the homeowners in February of 2011. On May 13, 2016 homeowners of the Nomad Village Mobile Home Park filed a petition for arbitration pursuant to County Code Chapter 11A which is the mobile home rent control in response to the park management's March 31st, 2016 notice of monthly rent increase.

The petition was verified by the clerk of the ordinance The hearing date was set and the arbitrator selected pursuant to the process set out by the Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance and the Mobile Home Rent Control Rules for hearings. Then, hearings were then held on November 18th 2016 and February 10th 2017. On June 16, 2017 Judge Long issued his arbitration ruling and awards. Park Management issued a comment on the arbitration award requesting the arbitrator to correct certain mathematical and typographical errors in the award.

The homeowner's objective to park management's comment Then on July 10th, 2017 Judge Long issued this corrections to arbitrators ruling and awards which corrects certain mathematical and typographical errors in the award. And then finally on August 1st, 2017 the homeowners submitted a lengthy petition for review of the arbitration ruling and awards to the board of supervisors.

Which brings us to today, review of the arbitrator's rulings and awards which occurs pursuant to mobile home rent control rules for hearing. The county code chapter 11A creates an arbitration process for rent control disputes in mobile home parks within the unincorporated area whenever a proposed rent increase exceeds 75% of the consumer price index as described within Chapter 11A.

The parties for today's hearings are for Park Management, Lazy Landing LLC and Waterhouse Management Inc. And for the homeowners residents of Nomad Village Mobile Home Park. Under Rule 23, the board reviews as council advised the arbitrator's opinion and award under an abuse of discretion which is established only if the arbitrator failed to proceed in a manner required by law.

Made a finding not supported by substantial evidence or made a decision not supported by those findings. So getting into the awards, there are nine of them. Award number one, the HOA's Nomad Village Homeowners Association motion which was styled as a motion for summary judgment was and is denied. Staff's recommendation for award number one is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award.

Award number two, the HOA's objection to management's reply brief on attorney fees was and is denied. A recommendation for award number two is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award. Award number three, the meet and confer requirement of the Santa Barbara County Mobile Home Rent Control Ordinance was properly complied with by the respondent. By a preponderance of the evidence not even considering the admission of such by the petitioner HOA as noted below. Staff's recommendation for award number three is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award.

Award number four, the arbitrator finds that the notice of increase in monthly rent effective July 1, 2016 was timely. Staff's recommendation is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award. Award number five, the automatically allowed rent increase based on 75% of the CPI increase per section 11A5G of the Rent Control Ordinance. An increase of 1.725%, which is the corrected amount, is granted.

The award of this automatic increase portion of this award is pro rata based on the individual currently existing rents for the respective 150 spaces in the park. This award is retroactive to July 1, 2016. Staff's recommendation for Award No. 5 is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award. The requested increase based on Rule 11A5I12 in the total amount of $29.31 as set forth in the Notice of Increase in Monthly Rent served on March 31st, 2016 is granted.

This award is per space, not pro rata and is retroactive to July 1 2016 to be capitalized at 9% and amortized over a period of 15 years. Staff's recommendation for this award number six is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award. Award number seven, the amounts claimed for capital improvements for common area paving. Common area electrical work and related engineering costs are awarded as set forth in the notice of increase in monthly rent served on March 31 2016 which has been capitalized again at 9%. An amount the arbitrator finds reasonable supported by the only expert testimony presented And is to be amortized over 15 years as set forth therein the amount of $23.01.

This portion of the award is also retroactive to July 1, 2016 and staff's recommendation for award number seven is defined at the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award. Award number eight On the issue of attorney fees and costs incurred since the last arbitration hearing in defending the multiple appeals and writ petitions arising from the 2011 arbitration.

The arbitrator finds in favor of the respondent, and against the petitioner, and awards the rent increase requested in the March 31, 2016 notice of monthly rent increase. And the amount of $56.30 per space retroactive to July 1, 2016. Staff's recommendation for award number eight is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award.

Finally, award number nine, respondents post hearing requests for attorney fees and costs in the current litigation as well as the request for expert fees for the same time period is granted. Staff's recommendation for this award is defined at the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm this award. As far as CEQA, we've determined that the proposed action is an administrative activity and will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. And therefore it's not a project as defined for the purposes of CEQA.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:51:33 · ≈ 2:51 PM

And that concludes your staff report?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:51:35 · ≈ 2:51 PM

It does.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:51:36 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Supervisor Williams

5:51 – 5:5610 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:51:43 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Well, I just will ask the question. I know I asked this before but is the issue that has the greatest amount of sort of heartburn for me which is this issue of attorney's fees. I've read the ordinance a couple times. There's no mention of it. There is in 2F of the ordinance, it goes over the relevant factors that may include but does say but not limited to. But it says explicitly that expenses incidental to the purchase of a park are not to be considered and You know, I can understand how an attorney or a judge might think that it's a normal course of business to have attorneys fees. But for normal people we operate all every day without hiring lawyers to do things all the time so I don't you know, I to me the interpretation of this.

It's not explicit in the law and into interpret it constantly as attorneys fees are part of it is not only seems really shaky but also seems to me that it's an inherent conflict The owner of the park can just run up your attorney's fees if you want to squeeze. Your tenants. And just wanted to ask whether. County Council or anybody has a anything besides a, you know it's within their discretion response?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:53:40 · ≈ 2:53 PM

Chairman and Supervisor, as we look at the arbitrator's ruling which is attachment one exhibit O. The arbitrator did a succinct and accurate summary of the law in this area. This California Supreme Court case law. Normally, I would say it's an option for the board in for future cases to look at changes to its own mobile home rent control ordinance but I would caution that all of the Burdens and benefits under that ordinance are pretty tied together. The county's Rent control ordinance was litigated actually by the city of Goleta at a different time But it was the same ordinance And I think the balance worked out right In that case, so my recommendation on this would be that as we look at this I think that the arbitrator has provided a solid layout concerning support of attorney's fees.

If the board wanted to consider not supporting that, we would recommend continuing the matter but I think the arbitrator has provided in their record a very solid description of his reasoning.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction5:54:59 · ≈ 2:54 PM

Supervisor Wolfe. Thank you, Madam Chair. On the award number eight and this is the one that has to do with attorney's fees and it just occurred to me I don't know why I didn't think of this before but most of these are amortized over a period of seven or nine years And for this award, it just says it's $56.30 per space retroactive to July 1st 2016. But is that then considered a permanent? It can't be permanent.

So I went back because I have the judge's opinion here and I read it and now I can't find where he talks about that. And you guys don't have it in number eight, so shouldn't we have it somewhere? The amortization period

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:56:11 · ≈ 2:56 PM

for the attorney's fees. Madam Chair through you to Supervisor Wolff, I believe it's seven years for

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction5:56:18 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Is that what-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:56:19 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Chairman, I believe that on the arbitrator's ruling it's discussed at the bottom of page 13 and the top of page 14.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction5:56:32 · ≈ 2:56 PM

It is, thank you. So does it need to be stated there on this sheet? It's just not spelled out.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed5:56:46 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolfe it is spelled out in the findings although it may not be on this summary sheet. Okay so that's what we look toward then.

PresenterSusan PetrovichOlive Mill TrustProposedself-stated5:56:53 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed5:56:54 · ≈ 2:56 PM

thank you

5:57 – 6:036 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:57:01 · ≈ 2:57 PM

I have a question, I guess. I'm not sure if there's an easy answer to this. How much has the average cost for a mobile home park owner increased? I mean, I see all these numbers 2931, 5630, 1386. Is there any way to answer that question or

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:57:25 · ≈ 2:57 PM

Madam Chair, the total increase is $108.61 and that is comprised of the $23.01 for the capital improvements and $56.30 or 29 cents for the professional fees As well as the permanent increase of $29.31, so for a period of time it goes up by that $108 and then drops back down after everything is amortized to the permanent increase of $29.31. Thank you, that gives me a better context.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:58:01 · ≈ 2:58 PM

And what is the rent now? What percentage increase is 108.61?

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:58:16 · ≈ 2:58 PM

I don't have the answer to that right off the top of my head, Madam Supervisor.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role5:58:21 · ≈ 2:58 PM

Okay, because this is a... Could you put the slide back up about the proceedings today? Because this is a quasi-judicial hearing we'll have a presentation first by the homeowners up to 10 minutes then park management up to ten minutes then public comment and then staff will have an opportunity to respond. And then the response by homeowners and park management and then it comes back to the board to deliberate So, do we have someone to speak on behalf of the homeowners in the park?

Ten minutes. Hi. Hello. Please introduce

PresenterLindsay Davishomeowners of Nomad Village and today we are here about the ordinanceProposedself-stated5:59:22 · ≈ 2:59 PM

yourself so we know your name. Oh, my name is Lindsay Davis. I'm here on behalf of the homeowners of Nomad Village and today we are here about the ordinance. The homeowners are here today about the ordinance not what management claims the ordinance says but what the ordinance says and the ordinance says I am being violated Section 11A4, 11A5. 11A6, 11A8 the rules for hearing the list is extensive.

In fact, the arbitrator's ruling violates the ordinance so blatantly that management felt compelled to make corrections to it and in so doing violated it one more time. 11 A 5 L which forbids award of future rent increases. It says, increases in the maximum rent schedule by the arbitrator shall become effective as of the effective date of the notice of the rent increase and yet one of these rent increases takes effect 90 days from whenever and then Management wants the board to disregard Rule 13. The official record consists of all exhibits admitted and rejected as evidence during their proceedings, not just exhibits submitted as evidence.

It also consists of all briefs, not just management's briefs but Management has asked that the board ignore Rule 13 and just pretend that the homeowners don't exist. I don't think that's going to happen, do you? The ordinance was admitted into evidence as management's Exhibit 12. It is the most important piece of evidence. This is a piece of evidence that the arbitrator's rulings have violated Even the corrected ruling.

If you go through the ordinance 11A5, it is not what the arbitrator awarded. There is nothing whatsoever in the ordinance that says expert opinion can void or nullify any of its provisions. And yet, that's what the rulings do. Expert opinion nullifies 1185 and 1186 and interprets it differently. And that's what the rulings do. Guggenheim versus the City of Goleta has said, excuse me.

Decided by the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, establishes beyond doubt that the arbitrator failed to proceed in the manner required by law. Both rulings allow management to void provisions of the ordinance in order to substitute its own interpretations which contradict the U.S. court's explanation of the ordinances complicated formula that the arbitrator must follow.

If parties cannot rely on arbitrators to perform their duty according to Rule 12 in the ordinance, the process breaks down. We ask that the board look at these rulings through the virtual eyes of the ordinance. Did the arbitrator proceed in the manner required by law? Is each award in accordance with Chapter 11A and Rule 12? The answer is no. Thank you.

6:03 – 6:132 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:03:51 · ≈ 3:03 PM

And who is representing Park Management? Thank you. Sorry about the long wait.

CommentJames BallantyneProposedself-stated6:04:04 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Good afternoon, Chair Hartman and members of the Board of Supervisors. I'm James Ballantyne again, the attorney for Park Management in this case. Before I start, I'd like to introduce to you Mr. Ken Waterhouse who's right here. He is the park owner, the president of Waterhouse Management, the park owner. Back again, we are in this case another arbitration and another appeal by the homeowners. I'm here to urge you to follow your staff's recommendation and adopt the findings that they proposed to you. I've looked at those findings. They're well reasoned, they're thorough, they comply with the ordinance and the applicable law, and I think they're well stated. Similarly, the arbitrator's decision was as well. In this case, as you know, the county has a process, an ordinance and a process to adjudicate and arbitrate disputes about rent increases.

Judge Long was the arbitrator that was selected by, well through your process, to hear this case. He, as is clear from the arbitration award, took great care to have a thorough hearing and to issue a thorough award. He is a, and I have to say probably the most qualified arbitrator that I've seen in any of the proceedings here before this county. A retired and respected Superior Court judge and I think that's evidence in his findings As the staff report and the findings, and the arbitration award I think make clear there was a long process. This process took about a year.

The homeowners had a thorough opportunity to present their case through the arbitration. There were two days of hearing. There were extensive exhibits that were offered. And the parties had extensive opportunity to present post-hearing briefing all of which was the homeowners availed themselves of and in fact in some cases asked to be able to do that. And there was a stipulation for a briefing schedule.

I note it's significant the staff, your staff has not identified a single part of the award that is not supported by the findings within the arbitration award. In fact to the contrary as your proposed findings for you make clear all of the award is well supported by the record and by the ordinance and other applicable law. There would be no reason not to affirm that. There would be no reason to remand it.

The staff indicates should this board not be prepared to adopt in full its findings, the proposal is to remand it back to staff. The homeowners I would observe have not raised a single valid argument to show that the ward should not be upheld. They haven't raised it in any of the filings and their petition before this board or in the arguments presented here today by their representative Ms. Davis.

I note that the homeowners have challenged every part Just as they challenged every part of the rent increase notice. And as the arbitrator found, there really wasn't any grounds to challenge anything. The arbitration award, there were a few questions about that, have a few different components. The total rent increase is $108 and that has several components. The first component is the CPI component.

I'm sure you know, your ordinance basically limits park management to an automatic rent increase of 75% of the CPI. So there's the 75% of the CPI that surprising to us, the homeowners still challenge. As your findings point out, that's a mistake. It was just 75% of CPI is 75% of CPI and the arbitrator had the correct number and has corrected award on that. One of things that I'd point out though, that significance is because your ordinance says that park management is limited to a rent increase of 75% That's kind of an interesting limitation. Basically what you have is CPI, which generally is agreed upon general cost that people incur. You have CPI going up at one level and yet the park owner's only entitled to have a annual rent increase of 75% of that level.

So basically there's a disparity between the two. CPI going up faster and higher than 75% of CPI. That's where the next component of the rent increase that Judge Long found to be appropriate was a permanent rent increase of $20 and change. $20 some dollars to compensate the park management for increased operating expenses that were proved to be the case at the arbitration.

The remaining amounts of the rent increase are essentially capital items, or capitalized items. First of all, capital items that were actually and recently incurred by the park and operating the park for the common area electric and the common area roads. That's clearly subject, it's clearly expense by the park owner. Clearly something that's subject to being passed through by the homeowners. The ordinance makes that very clear, the homeowners have no grounds to challenge that.

Secondly there is the professional fees which Supervisor Williams asked about and I would comment as follows just like a lot of people don't like paying taxes. I can understand that homeowners don't like paying the park management's attorney's fees. But the reality is, that's what the law says, that's what Supreme Court precedent says and that's really what it takes to make a rent control ordinance constitutional. Any other landowner, any other lessor who's not subject to rent control when they incur attorney's fees and they do in the normal course of business just as the county does having two attorneys sitting here to advise it.

Then that's a cost of business that's passed through by whatever rents the property owner is charging. In the case of a rent controlled landlord, obviously they don't have the ability simply to raise the rents to cover those expenses so Supreme Court precedent is very clear that the park owner being forced to go through an administrative process and incur cost to do so. And these costs are not free for anyone, including the county and the people of this county.

Then the park owner is entitled to recover those costs that it's forced to incur in going through that process. And in terms of why are these expenses, well these expenses are because the homeowners have and it's their right to follow this process. To choose to petition for an arbitration if they don't like the rent, they're entitled to appeal to this board.

But the fact of the matter is the park owner is forced to respond to those and to defend those. And clearly in this particular case again, this board isn't the finder of fact here we had an experienced superior court judge. He looked at every single billing, he said very clearly in his award that he looked at everything and that he found that all of the billings were appropriate. And that's the record that's before you. You've basically delegated to an arbitrator the job of looking at the expenses in an incident to a mobile home park rent increase and make determinations. In this case, you had an experienced Superior Court judge. Who looked at it and made determinations. And he found one, that the Supreme Court law says that the park owner's entitled to it.

Two, he also found that these very homeowners when they were represented by I would note a very good homeowner attorney Bruce Janton and their expert witness Dr. Barr conceded what the law is. And the law is that the park owner is entitled to recover. Their expenses, their legal fees and other professional fees incidental to these types of rent proceedings. They admitted that as well they should have because that is what the law was and is.

And the only job or then the other question is what's a reasonable amount? And in this case, the arbitrator looked at the billings and said we found a reasonable amount. And that's what's before this board through the rent increase that this arbitrator found to be appropriate. As a general bit of perspective on this, as I indicated these proceedings aren't inexpensive. I think that your staff report indicates that hundreds and hundreds of hours of staff time alone have gone into these proceedings. That alone ought to indicate to you the fact that when the park owner who's a stakeholder in this and has to defend these proceedings obviously has to expend a significant amount of time dealing with these. And I might note that the only thing that the park owner has asked for Is the basically reimbursement for their out-of-pocket outside council expenses.

They haven't at all, that doesn't even cover their in house basically expenses, their administrative expenses of having to deal with all of these proceedings. And I would note basically at this point, the longer the proceedings go, the greater the cost to the homeowners in terms of the park owner having to deal with these proceedings so On that basis, I would very much urge this board to adopt the findings and these proceedings at this point in time. And essentially stop the expenses from accruing for everyone including the homeowners, including the park owner and including this county. And I will thank you for your attention to me and your patience in listening to this matter. And before I give up the floor though if there's any questions from this board I would be very happy to try to respond to them.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:13 – 6:2019 turns

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction6:13:35 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Mr. Ballantyne, you mentioned the CPI. I thought I read in the record that there was a stated CPI but then the homeowners came, I guess it was during one of those early meetings. And suggested that the CPI might be lower than management had originally come up with. And management agreed to that?

CommentJames BallantyneProposedself-stated6:14:02 · ≈ 3:14 PM

That's correct.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction6:14:04 · ≈ 3:14 PM

So they, so that did occur.

CommentJames BallantyneProposedself-stated6:14:05 · ≈ 3:14 PM

That, Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolfe that is absolutely correct. There was a disagreement as to the number and this was a case where the meet and confer process I think worked. The homeowners had a different number. It was a reasonable argument that they made. Park management agreed with that and that was changed. And I would note that is the number that's reflected in the findings that have been presented to you.

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction6:14:28 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Okay, that's my only question. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:14:34 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Thank you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:14:37 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Madam Chair. So that did happen during the meet and confer process so after you came to that agreement of settling on what the actual CPI was, but that was still challenged after the After that number came to be? I mean, that's still one of the.

CommentJames BallantyneProposedself-stated6:14:57 · ≈ 3:14 PM

That's a good question Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavigno. Yes, that seemed to be the case. Maybe one of the reasons is there's not a clear guideline for exactly how a petition to challenge a rent increase is but the fact of the matter was that appeared to be an issue that was still in contention although it was a little bit unclear how or why that was. But that was an issue. But at the end of the day, I think that the arbitrator's award as corrected has the percentage number that was requested by the homeowners and agreed to by management.

So-

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:15:37 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:15:38 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:15:39 · ≈ 3:15 PM

So do we have any public comment slips Mr Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:15:42 · ≈ 3:15 PM

No request to speak.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:15:45 · ≈ 3:15 PM

And Mr. Gray, any response to any of the comments you heard?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed6:15:50 · ≈ 3:15 PM

No ma'am.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:15:52 · ≈ 3:15 PM

We do have an opportunity for response by the homeowners if you've heard anything you'd like to add or say anything more. You have another five minutes. OK. Mr. Ballantyne? Oh, you have another five minutes rebuttal if there's more you'd like to add.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 31Proposed6:16:14 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Oh, thank you. I appreciate that. I don't think that I have any further rebuttal. I will note Mr. Whitehouse reminded me that CPI difference-

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:16:21 · ≈ 3:16 PM

I think you have to come. We record these formal so start at the beginning again so we can get it all down. Thank you.

CommentJames BallantyneProposedself-stated6:16:29 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Understood, I should know better. I served for many years on the Assessment Appeals Board and was up there and understand the process. Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board, thank you for the opportunity to respond. And I don't have any reply, I just have a supplement to my comment to your questions about the CPI question. I would note that the difference was basically a fraction Okay, so I'm bringing it back to the board for deliberations and Supervisor Wolf.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction6:17:21 · ≈ 3:17 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you for everyone for being here. We did deal with the last round that was started from the rent increase back in 2011. You know, at least from my records and I could obviously be wrong from the information that I gleaned. But at that time there was a increase of both besides the CPI about $160 permanent and temporary. And then after All of the meetings that were had, the arbitration, the Board of Supervisors meetings, the court.

That amount was essentially reduced to approximately $60. Now that might not sound like a lot but I think for and I don't mean to speak for The owners, but I would think that any amount decrease would be helpful. So it is troubling when I hear that all of this time that we spent back then was useless or a waste of time or a waste of money because I'm not sure that's what, that's the universal.

Now, so that's just kind of my editorial statement. Now looking at this issue before us and reading Judge Long's creative dispute resolution. I guess that's the title of his business. Anyway, his decision and also reading the transcripts of the hearing. And I should also say during the other one, I was very concerned about some of the findings but in this case I spent a lot of time going over these awards one through nine.

And, I have the concerns that Mr. Williams raised about the attorney's fees but But the judge addressed those, and he did talk about the Supreme Court case. And he did talk about other rulings and the rationale behind having attorney's fees. So, and then of course, he went through all of these other items I think in detail. So given all of that, I feel that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion.

And I would agree with staff's recommendation.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:20 – 6:238 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:20:46 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:20:50 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Well, I think more though I obviously have a level of discomfort with the process and the application of the rank control ordinance. Sold out and joined the landowning class, and I rent something. And I do it without attorney's fees that I pass on to my renters. So I have obviously a bit of discomfort with this, more than a little bit of discomfort but I can't just make decisions based on gut, and I have to make decisions like this based on the abuse of discretion standard. And I could not proceed with certitude down that route with what I have before me so I'm with you reluctantly.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:22:06 · ≈ 3:22 PM

Would you

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction6:22:06 · ≈ 3:22 PM

like

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:22:07 · ≈ 3:22 PM

to make a motion?

GuestPetersonProposed · by introduction6:22:09 · ≈ 3:22 PM

All right. Madam Chair, I will make a motion that we refer to staff recommendations that we take the following actions as noted in our staff report A through B inclusive of all the ones in between.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:22:35 · ≈ 3:22 PM

Second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:22:37 · ≈ 3:22 PM

Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. So that concludes today's meeting, and we meet again in Santa Maria on December 12th. And we will be, and we meet again special meeting on cannabis on December 14th, and that'll be in Santa Barbara at the 12th is in Santa Maria. And we'll be looking for more information about what we can do to help our friends and colleagues. And Mr. Gazzone?

6:23 – 6:245 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:23:12 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Chair Hartman, just a housekeeping item. You do have the board is expects two meetings next week the 12th and 14th and the 14th is a special meeting and I would just like permission to add a closed session item if needed for that special meeting on the 14th

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:23:28 · ≈ 3:23 PM

absolutely

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:23:29 · ≈ 3:23 PM

thank you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role6:23:34 · ≈ 3:23 PM

we are adjourned

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:24:19 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Hi, everyone.