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.0:00 – 0:021 turns
You. ¶. Thank you. Board Meeting
0:03 – 0:066 turns
I'm going to call this meeting to order. Apologize, we started a little bit late there was an accident on the 101 South from North County so...
Roll Call please Mr. Lavinino Here Ms. Wolfe Here Ms Hartman Here Mr. Adams Here Mr Williams Here
Is there
a CAO's report?
Yes there is a CEO's report. Good morning Chair Williams and Board Members, just a few announcements. This morning your board will hear a presentation from the BEAR and WERT teams but this is just a reminder to the public that there will be an event tonight at 6pm here in this room to hear the BEAR and WERT reports also FEMA will be present County Planning and Development will address how the maps will inform the land use rebuilding process, and a FEMA National Flood Insurance Specialist will be on hand to answer any questions.
Tom Fairam, John Farrar from County Flood Control, and Rob Lewin will also be available so if people want to be here tonight that starts at 6 p.m., it will also be live streamed on our County TV Channel 20. Also on our Facebook at facebook.com slash county of SB. A couple other more announcements, the public is invited and encouraged to attend the annual Youth Impact Award Ceremony and that's this Thursday May 3rd from 4-530 at the Office of Education at 4400 Cathedral Oaks. It's hosted by The Kids Network of Santa Barbara County and it recognizes and celebrates outstanding youth who are making a difference in our communities Several county departments are engaged in producing this event. And as you know, Kids Network is administered through the Department of Social Services and chaired by Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Adams serves as the Vice Chair.
Youth from the Los Prietas Boys Camp Culinary Arts Program will be serving light refreshments they prepared for the event. And the County Probation's Culinary Program, as you know trains youth in all aspects. So again that is going to be Thursday May 3rd from 4-530. And lastly this is just a shout out and request everyone knows the primary elections are coming up on June 5th and our county registrar voters is still in need of poll workers especially in Santa Barbara and Santa Maria. Community participation is key to staffing. We have nearly 170 precinct boards for the election. Poll workers receive a stipend for training and election day, so for more information please contact our assessor's office at 844-259-0348 or they can go online at sbcassessor.com Santa Barbara County Voter Information Guides are currently being mailed to all registered voters.
That concludes my report.
Thank you and approval of the minutes of April 10th, 16th, 18th and 20th. Is there a motion?
0:06 – 0:085 turns
So moved.
Motion in a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. We do have requests to pull two items, A16 and A19. It sounds like we're going to have more on the way in a moment but why don't we start with our ceremonial items?
Chair Williams and members of the board if we could get a motion to approve items 835 through 838 and then we'll go ahead and read the resolutions into the record.
Is there a motion for All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Please proceed with A35.
Okay, Chair Williams, members of the board. Item 835, this is sponsored by our chair, Supervisor Williams. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Vida McIsaac, Heather McCaslin and Danielle Rifalato as the May 2018 Employees of the Month for Santa Barbara County. They are from the Clerk Recorder Assessor's Office and if they could come on up with Joe Holland.
And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas Vida McIsaac, Heather McCaslin and Danielle Rifolato exemplify the clerk recorder assessor department's commitment to excellence in leadership. And whereas Vita in the assessors division works tirelessly on the most complex detailed assessment appeals skillfully bridging the chasm between user and developer in leading the assessors new APS development implementation project that injects efficiency and zeal into teams work.
And whereas Heather from the Elections Division is highly driven, articulate, approachable leader who promotes teamwork and creativity while striving to find efficiencies. She's resilient while working long hours on weekends with boundless energy enthusiasm and a keen sense of humor she shepherds her team to ensure their success. And whereas Danielle is in the clerk recorders division and demonstrates exemplary customer service by showing integrity, patience and a friendly attitude to her customers and her team. Her recording expertise is respected statewide and she's often tasked with leadership roles to represent the Recording Association. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Vida McIsaac, Heather McCaslin, and Danielle Rifolato as our Santa Barbara County Employees of the Month for May 2018.
Passed and adopted today.
0:09 – 0:143 turns
You know, I was just thinking about what I wanted to say for these folks and the three words I came up with were professionalism. Capacity, I mean the amount of work that these three women do is just amazing. And then tenacity because they never give up. They're always working to make sure that the public services that we provide are well done. Now Danielle, Danielle, we stole her from Riverside County.
She really is respected across the state and she leads up many committees in clerk recorder and Vita, I'm not kidding you. Vita did all those oil assessments back at the peak of the market. Vida literally brought millions of dollars to this county in property taxes and she's leading up our APS, our Assessor Property System. And then Heather. Heather has worked in all three divisions, clerk, recorder and assessor.
She worked her way up to be a manager in the elections office. And you've all interacted with our election staff and you know how great they are? A large part due to Heather. Thank you ladies, you're amazing.
Item 836. Chair Williams, members of the board, item 836 also sponsored by Supervisor Williams. This is a resolution proclaiming the week of May 6th 2018 through May 12th 2018 as National Correctional Officers Week. Senator Barbara County and Sheriff Brown is here with members of his corrections team and you guys can come on up. I will read the resolution into the record.
Whereas, the week of May 6th through 12 represents a period of time when correctional officers across the United States are recognized for their service and dedication to their local communities. And whereas custody operations at the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office consisting of the main jail, medium security facility, administration, contracts management programs, classification and transportation unit are highly regarded professionals working in concert with other local criminal justice and public safety entities. And whereas 45 years ago, the sheriff's office and this board recognized the need to create a sheriff's correction officer rank structure that would best serve the duties of a correctional officer specifically trained in the unique needs of detention facilities responding for the housing, security and transportation of all inmates incarcerated in Santa Barbara County.
And whereas, corrections officers reporting for duty ready for the challenges of an ever increasing overcrowded jail system are faced with danger in their work environment on a 24-7 basis. All the while maintaining order, security and preserving the care, custody and dignity of those individuals charged with their care. And whereas the citizens of Santa Barbara County can rest assured that these men and women are dedicated to their service and perform their duties in a professional and ethical manner while displaying integrity, courage, and fairness. Thus ensuring safety of the community, their fellow officers, and incarcerated individuals. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors does recognize the week of May 6th through 12, 2018 as National Correctional Officers Week.
It takes this opportunity to thank the men and women of the Sheriff's Office who have chosen the field of corrections as their service to our community passed and adopted today.
Well Chair Williams and members of the board, I just want to publicly state how proud I am and how proud I know you and everyone in the county is of our correctional workers. They work unquestionably at the toughest beat in the county. They do it every day and every night. They do it with incredible dedication. They do it with courage. And they do it with compassion And they set an example for those who are in our custody and they work with those who are in our custody to try to get them to recognize that they have an opportunity to turn their lives around. And the 98% or so of the people who were in our custody, who eventually will come back into the community, oftentimes come back as better people as a result of the men and women who are behind me.
I just want to say again how incredibly proud I am of the great job that they do, oftentimes unsung. And we are all very much indebted to them. Thank you.
0:14 – 0:199 turns
Item 837.
Chair Williams, members of the board, item 837 our next resolution sponsored by Supervisor Williams. This proclaims the month of May 2018 as Mental Health Month in Santa Barbara County and I think Jeff Moore is here from the Behavioral Wellness Commission as is our director, Alice Cleghorn. I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas approximately one in five adults in the United States, or 18 1⁄2% experiences mental illness in a given year and 4% of adults experiences a serious mental illness that substantially interferes or limits one or more of their life activities. And whereas approximately one in five youth age 13 to 18 experiences a severe mental disorder at some point during their lifetime and 50% of all chronic mental illness begins by age 14.
And whereas mental illness knows no racial, cultural or economic boundary. And whereas the Santa Barbara Behavioral Wellness Department annually provides services to approximately 10,000 individuals in our Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorder programs. And whereas Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness and its system partners are committed Evidence-based treatment within a comprehensive system to care for the mentally ill in Santa Barbara County. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors is hereby proclaim the month of May 2018 as Mental Health Month and calls upon all Santa Barbara County citizens to fight the stigma associated with mental illness and reaffirm our commitment to supporting mental health of all people in Santa Barbara County.
Passed and adopted today.
I'd like to introduce Jeffrey Moore who is the new Vice Chair of the Behavioral Wellness Commission.
Good morning on behalf of chairperson Sharon Byrne, I and the other commissioners certainly thank you for this resolution we look forward to partnering with the Department of Health Services and the other officials here in the county to make a real impact on the challenges of our community so thank you again for the resolution
Good morning, supervisors. I'm joined here today by the regional managers and the division chief for clinical operations for the Department of Behavioral Wellness. And I asked them to join us here today because I wanted to recognize the extraordinary efforts that our department has engaged in response to the multiple disasters in this county this year. And also in the hard work that they've done over the past three and a half years to really improve our performance on a statewide level, and improve our external quality review and triennial review performance.
It's been a long journey for this department to bring itself into full compliance with what's required at the state level. And each and every one of these managers has taken on extra tasks in order that we achieve our goals. And I just really wanted to appreciate and recognize their efforts today as Mental Health Awareness Day. So, Dr. John Lewis is our forensic manager. Shana Burns is regional manager for Santa Maria.
Tammy Summers, Dr. Tammy Summers is our assertive community treatment manager. John Winkler is both the regional manager for Lompoc and our crisis services manager. Ana Vicuna is our Division Chief for Clinical Operations. And Veronica Heintzelman is our South County Regional Manager, so I just really wanted to appreciate their efforts. It has been a very extraordinary year for us and we thank you for this recognition today.
Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Adam, you too have little green pins in front of your desk there. This is what we've really adopted as our symbol of Santa Barbara behavioral wellness is the green sea glass that matches the vibrant green that the state has chosen to represent behavioral health in California. So wear those with pride and thank you
again. Dr. Glacorn, people may not know that you handmade these little things, these beautiful hands. Yeah if they
break I'm happy to fix them again.
It makes it extra special and thank you for that. Wow! Thank you.
We have one more ceremonial item A38.
0:19 – 0:244 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item 838 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Noel Langel upon his retirement from Planning and Development Department after over 40 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. Noel could come on up? No I just want you know they're making me read this.
Whereas in 1978, Mr. Lengel began his career with Santa Barbara County as a mapping intern and in 1980 became a planner working on various projects in the comprehensive planning and development review divisions. And in 1988 he became county zoning administrator and deputy director of the Zoning Administration Division of P&D. Whereas Mr. Lengel spent countless hours in hearings responding to difficult questions from decision makers such as one from a county planning commissioner who asked him what was the meaning of 1 AM in the morning? To which Noel deftly replied, 60 minutes after midnight.
And whereas in 2000 Mr. Langle abandoned his decision maker and managerial duties and decided to utilize his extensive knowledge of the county code to become the Oracle or the high priest who provided planners with sage advice from the zoning gods regarding the wise and just zoning regulations. And whereas, when planners sought his advice and examples for how to best draft ordinances and other official county documents the oracle wisely responded remember plagiarism is good government. And would advise planners to just copy from the county code.
And whereas following Mr. Langell's advice good portions of this resolution have been copied verbatim from past honorary resolutions for retiring employees. And whereas, all joking aside, Mr. Lengel honorably served the county as the zoning administrator for 12 years has been integral in drafting the zoning ordinances of the Santa Barbara County Code preserved throughout the Zoning Ordinance Reformatting Project that has been invaluable in dealing with the vestitudes of planning such as when in 2014, he and county council quickly assembled ordinance amendments regarding the high intensity petroleum operations in the event that voters pass Measure P.
Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors Mr. Noel Engel for his years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County, and congratulates him upon his retirement. Passing adopted
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. If somebody had told me back in 1978 when I first started working with the department that I'd be retiring here after 40 years in county service, I would have said they were nuts although I probably would've used a different term. Over those years, I'm really grateful for the opportunities the county has given me I've worked with numerous board members, even more planning commissioners and a lot more staff. And I really appreciate all the support people have given me over the years.
I counted up this morning and actually worked for eight different directors of the department ending with my favorite one, Diane Black who has supervised me over the years gave me enough rope to strangle myself with on occasion And I really appreciate the support she has given me as well. I didn't start out to be a planner, this was not my chosen career. I actually graduated from UCSB with a degree in geography and my main interest at that time was cartography and graphics and that's what I started doing when I first started here as an intern doing the mapping for what was then called the Comprehensive Planning Division.
Over the years Things changed and here we are today, 40 years later. And I really again appreciate all the support and help and assistance people have given me in this time. And my really have met so many wonderful people over the years it's been amazing. So thank you again.
Well I know everything after that is going to be kind of anticlimactic today, but we have a couple more items pulled. So we're going to start with A10 pulled by Supervisor Adam.
And Chair Williams and members of the board, we also have items A6 and A16 pulled by members of the public.
0:24 – 0:298 turns
We need to do one more thing. Is that a public comment for items? No, no we do that afterwards. Let's continue. So A6 has been pulled by the public. And A16? Let' s roll through the whole list. We will have A6 pulled by the public, A10 pulled by Supervisor Adams, A15 pulled by Supervisor Adams, A16 pulled by the public, A19 pulled by Supervisor Wolf and A25 pulled by Supervisor Adams.
I also had pulled A16.
So let's start with A6
then. Chair Williams, members of the board, item A6. This is from county council and it's regarding the contingent fee contract with a law firm of Barron & Budd for litigation services in an action to be filed against Southern California Edison. And we're going to go to Santa Maria for Mr. Caldwell to comment on this item.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Excuse me I'm Andy Caldwell representing OLAB. This item is distressing. We understand on the one hand how everybody wants to go after deep pockets and we understand the issue of whether it was they should have shut down the power because it was windy, so we understand that but I want you to consider two other things. Number one, back in the 60s—I brought this up for a couple of weeks of hearings a few months ago. During the 60s when after one of these horrendous fires, the Board of Supervisors wanted to sue the federal government for allowing the buildup of fuel.
And in this particular case, the feds allowed 100 years worth of fuel or even more than that to build up. So you have a spark for medicine but what about the fuel loading from the federal government? Are they not equally culpable? If there hadn't been that fuel load there, that fire would've been put out. The other thing I want to bring up is this issue of community choice aggregation You know your board and a bunch of other boards in the City of Santa Barbara, they would like to break down the vertical integration of companies like Edison and then even putting a microgrid in Montecito or doing all these different things. What you do there is you undermine the value of serving your region Because if they can't be vertically integrated, then really what they're doing is maintaining lines for other people's power to be delivered here.
Well guess what? If those lines become such a liability, why bother? Have you thought of what would happen if Southern California Edison went belly up? PG&E almost went bankrupt. What if Southern California goes belly-up and their stockholders say you know what, it's not worth serving the Central Coast. They're at the very end of the line. The lines have a danger to them. There are high maintenance and we don't, we're not assured of any market at the end of the line.
This is the kind of business reality real world reality you guys need to think of before you pull a trigger saying hey we found deep pockets Because those deep pockets, in some cases are your own constituents. So if Southern California Edison loses the suit it's your constituents that are going to pay the higher energy prices. There is no such thing as free money. There is no such thing as one company holding the bag for all of the culpability having to do with that disaster and we wish you would really think this stuff through before you pull the trigger. Thank you.
That concludes the comment on that item.
Any comments from the supervisors? Any desires to vote on this separately? Supervisor Adam?
I don't need to vote on it separately today, but you know just I'm not a big fan of this either and I argued to not do it, but I did not carry the day and the amount of money here is really significant. And given our financial circumstances, I think it's warranted enough that I just go along with this. And I feel a little dirty, I'll just say that. But you know, it's a lot of money so.
0:29 – 0:3533 turns
Item 810. Chair Williams, members of the board, item 810 is from the county executive office. This is regarding the adoption of an ordinance ending chapter 50 establishing a commercial cannabis business license and this is the second reading in the adoption of the ordinance today for
this.
All I want here's a roll call vote. I'll make a motion move item 810
Second. Just for discussion Mr. Chair.
Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you I'm going to vote yes on this item when it came to the board originally it was tied in together with the inclusion of the transition period for cannabis and because of that it was a it was a united request and so I voted no at that time, so I just want to explain why I will be voting in favor of 810 today thank
roll call please.
Mr. Lavagnino
aye
Ms. Wolff aye Ms. Hartman aye Mr. Adam
no
Mr. Williams aye passes 4-1 a 15 please did we have a 15 pulled or was it
a 16? A15 was pulled by Supervisor Adam
okay item A15, that's public health department. This is regarding a personal resolution for an additional healthcare center position.
I just want to get a confirmation here that what we seem to be doing is deprivatizing one position.
I'm sorry could you repeat your question?
We seem to be deprivatizing one position here.
So what we're doing is right now, we have five subcontractors who are perhaps not reliable. Perhaps the continuity of care is not there because they're there part time and so what we're proposing is to hire one full-time provider to be on staff, to be part of that team so that the continuity of care is available.
Okay, well I didn't see that in here that you don't have reliable staffing.
So existing provider panels are full for OB care and there's often a wait for several weeks before OB patients can be seen in Santa Barbara as well as that delays the access to early prenatal care, access to other supportive services for the pregnant patient.
Okay. Isn't there another way to do that? Can you add other contractors instead of starting to hire county employees that are going to be hooked into the pension?
We can explore that, however it's difficult to attract one subcontractor full time so that's why we've had to piecemeal it between five subcontractors.
Okay, well at this point for me I'm not in favor of deprivatizing anybody who's already privatized. And I think that this is a solution and if you have to add three or four more that are part-time to take up the positions then I think you should do that instead of hiring more employees for us. So that's just the way I feel about it.
Well for my part, you got me as soon as you said delay for OBGYN or prenatal. So I'm on board with the motion. Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you Mr. Chair. Van, I just want to compliment you and your staff for moving this forward. This is such an important position and much needed. I always thought that there was, this will be in Santa Barbara. But I would encourage you that if we need additional positions to take care of this issue in Santa Maria, that we move forward with it. These are generally funded for Medi-Cal. And reimbursable. So yes, there is an additional cost to the county but certainly I think the cost of not getting timely care would much outweigh what we're paying so congratulations to you and your department for moving this forward.
Supervisor Adam, do you have further comment?
Well I just wanted to say that I don't think that delay and OBGYN is a good thing either but there should be a way to manage that through how many people you have around instead of how many that you hire yourself.
Supervisor Wolff.
I was going to move this item.
Thank you. Is there a second?
Second.
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Motion carries. A16.
Chair Williams, members of the board, item A16 is from the Public Health Department. It's to consider recommendations regarding the acceptance of donations from the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation and the Ellen DeGeneres GoFundMe for Montecito Disaster Relief. And we have two requests to speak. We'll start with Suzanne Perkins to be followed by Susan Jordan.
0:35 – 0:3915 turns
Good morning Board of Supervisors, Chairman Williams. I'm Suzanne Perkins and Susan Jordan. We were here to thank you for accepting this donation from Ellen DeGeneres. She's worked very hard in putting together the fund. She devoted three television shows primarily to our disasters. And fortunately, we have an organization here in the county. There's the umbrella for the rest of the GoFundMe venues that Ellen chose to be recipients. So with that, thank you very much.
We're very grateful for Ellen's work and in addition to the money that's going directly to the county, she raised over $150,000. I think it was about 155-157. So in addition to the county, it also went to the county's partners. And I'll just read some of them because we want to recognize how she assisted these other organizations as well that are your partners. The ASAP, that's the Cat Animal Assistance Program.
The National Disaster Search Dog Rescue Foundation and those were the dogs that were active out in Montecito and did such an incredible job. The Santa Barbara Bucket Brigade which was founded as APAL, The equine evacuation and assistance team that headquarters at the fairgrounds. Very important for large animal rescue. I know because I have taken my horse there when there's been a fire, so I'm very grateful for their work. The Santa Barbara Wildlife Care Network and also the Showgrounds Foundation that's a tremendous asset that we have in our county and we wish it would get more support from the state will continue to work on that but we're thrilled that Ellen was able to give them support thank you very much
Well, I had the chance to thank her personally but I think we should all do so publicly. This is just a couple of the things that she's been up to try to help with the disaster and I think we can say that she's invested in this community and willing to help mostly in ways they're not always seen by the public. But these are our ways that are desperately needed for us to continue adequate Funding of our animal services.
Supervisor Wolfe?
Thank you, Mr Chair. I want to thank both of you for being here and representing Ellen DeGeneres and really all the volunteers who have supported the county so thank you for that. I had actually pulled this item because I wanted to confirm with a public health department and I've talked or exchanged emails with Van, but I just want to get this on the record.
Because in the budget journal entry it states that the money will go toward services and supplies and salary and benefits. And so my understanding is that it does go toward the disaster recovery and animal services. So my understanding is correct, is that right?
Supervisor Wolf through the chair, yes you are correct.
Okay so even though it says this in the budget journal we can be assured that the money will go to where it is supposed to go?
Yes, the way that the budget journal entry is coded it goes directly to animal services not the general fund out in the public health department
Okay, well that's not what it says. It says it goes to the general fund. It says public health general fund for services and supplies and salaries and benefits but are you saying maybe internally the coding will say that?
Correct so on On page 2 of the budget journal entry, it goes to the way that it's coded. It directs the funds to animal services and the efforts that we spent during the recovery process.
Okay well I'm not going to belabor the point. Thank you though for ensuring that this is going where it's supposed to go.
Yes
thank you very much.
Thank you.
Any
19?
0:39 – 0:414 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A19 is from Public Works. It's regarding state road maintenance and rehabilitation account list of projects.
Supervisor Wolfe you had a question or?
I have a comment in front of us. We received a memorandum this morning from Brittany Heaton from Public Works and I appreciate getting this memorandum. I had talked to Public Works about this item because there were Streets at least in my district that I recognize that were noted as being part of SB 1 and It was my understanding that they were not they were under a different funding source so Miss Heaton has corrected the board letter to reflect that to basically take The streets that I know of in the second district and apparently other streets in other districts out of the SB1 allocation. So, I want to thank her for doing that also. There you guys are. Thank you Chris for meeting with me as well. So I'm ready to move forward on this. Just in general, the whole issue of funding sources for our roads is Thank you.
This is a very extensive and Chris provided me with a chart that shows me for my district where what roads are being funded by SB 1 general fund the 18% I actually talked to Ms. Miyasato as well that I think a chart like this might benefit all the districts so that we all know where the money is going and how much it is, how much is going to what areas in our district? So anyway with that, I don't need to take this item separately. I just wanted to draw attention to this issue. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Excellent suggestion 825.
0:42 – 0:4512 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, item A25 is sponsored by Supervisors Wolfe and Hartman. And they consider recommendations regarding a resolution in support of Proposition 68.
Supervisor Adam, you had a question about that? I just wanted to vote no on it. So let's do a roll call. Roll call please. Well actually,
not voting no, abstaining. As am I. I'm just going to let the voters decide but I have some very good ideas of where I would like the money to be spent if voters do happen to approve it.
Not ready to support it, but you're all ready to spend the money.
That's interesting. There's a lot of people in that line I believe. I'm not saying I'm not voting for it personally, I'm just saying let the voters make up their own mind.
So you're voting for it personally? Good good. I'll let you off the hook because you almost never do
this. Our elections people were here today and they would uphold the integrity of the voting booth so I will do so as well. Secret ballot doesn't mean it has
Roll-call vote 0–0 · 2 under review
Show transcript
thank you for co-sponsoring this with me. I think it's very important for the county. It is for that important infrastructure, parks and trails. We were discussing, for example, the $750,000 repair of a well at Waller Park. That would be eligible for these monies We've done irrigation upgrades at Los Alamos. It's saving us a lot of money, we could do that at other parks. We could make improvements out like Kachuma.
Moreover it's safe parks for every child. This is focused on disadvantaged communities. Like Santa Maria and Guadalupe, where they are extremely park and trail poor. People are desperate to have more safe outside activities for children especially in those communities and this Park Bond is a way to make that happen. So I am very supportive and once we approve the resolution, it's highly likely that this will pass.
It passed by a super majority in the legislature in California and so it just requires a simple majority to pass on June 5th. And we should begin planning and getting ready and getting in line with our projects. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Chair I want to thank Supervisor Hartman for her leadership on this issue, I am fully in support of this. I think it's important when there are issues like this that come before the public that we bring attention to them and encourage to the extent that we can. That voters are aware and hopefully vote for something that in my mind is so important to our community.
Allowing and providing access to the outdoors, to recreational activities is so important for our community. And I'm in full support and thank Supervisor Hartman again for bringing this forward and allowing me to co-sponsor.
Supervisor Adam, I know you want a vote on this. We have a motion.
Second.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed and abstentions? Abstain. I'm abstaining That is 3-0-2 Now can I have a motion on the balance of the agenda, which means all items except for A10, A15, A25 and the ceremonial items.
0:45 – 0:5210 turns
So moved. Second.
All those in favor please say
aye.
Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Do we have public comment for items not on the agenda?
Chair Williams, members of the board we have two requests to speak. We'll start with Sylvia Munoz Schnapp to be followed by Ed Kolaski
Good morning, Chair Williams, County Board of Supervisors, county staff. I'm Sylvia Munoz-Schnapp, Mayor of the City of Port Hueneme in Ventura County. You may ask why I am here. Port Hueneme is celebrating our 70th anniversary this year and part of that was on Arbor Day a few weeks ago and as we are Also a community that's rebuilding and strengthening up for the next 70 years.
We had some trees, and I thought how fitting would it be to present these trees for your rebuilding here in the county of Santa Barbara and especially in the community of Montecito? Chair Williams for many, many years and appreciate his support of the 805 community. And what he's done for not only us down south and downstream here but also too for the broader community of California.
And with that we stand with you not only with the Thomas Fire but also the 19 debris flow that has affected all of us. So as we present both these trees, one is an eastern redbud and the other is a tulip tree. Very pretty and dynamic maybe be a symbol for not only the current generations but the generations to come that we stand strong and were 805 strong. Rolf Waldo Emerson once said the creation of 1,000 force is in one acorn.
And so may this gift bless you and bless the community from us. Thank you.
And for members that may not be as familiar with Port Hueneme, Port Hueneme is also a community that has seen its share of disasters in the past few years. Very vulnerable to storms and sea level rise and to the fiscal issues that arise after such challenges. So if there's any jurisdiction that knows our pain and our struggle, Port Hueneme is one of those and we thank you.
Mr. Kowalski?
All this talk about voting, put the lights... Can somebody change the light so it can be seen? Okay, thank you. With all this talk about voting we tried to present our house, our remodel on our house to the Board of Architectural Review. We came in sat down and they kicked us out. They ruled that the second story was solely over the garage. You can clearly see it's not solely over the garage. They had Dylan jump up and scream at us that it's solely over the garage. So I put on my first two paragraphs here, one that when he was screaming side loading, side loading, that was the same as saying It's solely over the garage.
Only three of the members got to see it. We couldn't present it on a screen like this. Four of the members never even saw the project. The next paragraph says that, the project was constructed as a second story addition solely over the garage and then he talks about it being back to the rear of the project so it must be detached from the house according to his description.
I don't know why we have to live like this. Why can't we just get an extortion fee in the guidelines? Everybody will have a chance, instead of doing this nonsense. Would you vote that that is solely over the garage? You'd have to be nuts to vote that that's solely over the garage and they write 64 pages five and half months. Saying that is solely over the garage. So I don't know why we have to live like this, and put the next one on. We got people laughing at my blood pressure last time.
You see down there in a hyper intensive crisis, Ed's blood pressure was over 200 higher than 180. They say well consult your doctor immediately. I was happy when I got it to 185 which is just a little bit I'm going to talk about the Over the last two years, I gave up on building my telescope. A few months ago, I gave up on working on my mathematical problem on the solar system. I'm a physicist. All I want to do is remodel my house. Obviously you cannot do that unless you make a contribution which I call an extortion payment. Normally it's done by contractor and not by an individual. So this reminds me of Marie Antoinette when she was told that people had no bread She was remarked that, well let them eat cake. And that is just the way this board is.
Totally not in touch with the public. I had members of my community come by and say yes you'll never get it passed because that is the way this board is. It's totally un-in touch with reality. In essence your a bunch of hypocrites. You come in here and pledge allegiance to the flag for liberty and justice! What is that? For liberty and justice for those who pay the extortion fee?
Come on, get real. Thank you. Sorry I made it so fast.
That concludes public comment.
0:52 – 0:5615 turns
D1 please.
Chair Williams, members of the board Departmental item one is from behavioral wellness. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a waiver of retirement exclusion for Mary Pat Sweeney, psychiatric nurse two for the Psychiatric Health Facility of the Behavioral Wellness Department
Good morning supervisors. I'm at the next item too, but I'll start out here and then move to the seats there. This is simply a request for our long time night nurse at the psychiatric health facility who retired recently to be able to come back and do Fill in work when we are lacking necessary staff at the PUF. This item came before the PUF governing board a few weeks ago and was approved, and we bring it here to you today to seek your approval as well. Happy to answer any questions.
Any questions? Any requests to speak?
No requests to speak.
Can I get a motion?
Yes, Mr. Chair I will move this item as presented. Second? Second.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. It's unanimous. D2 please
Chair Williams, members of the board item D2 also from behavioral wellness. This is a hearing to consider recommendations running an ordinance amendment. The Department of Behavioral Wellness published charges for fiscal year 2018-19 for inpatient and outpatient mental health services affected 45 days after the adoption by the board.
I apologize, we don't appear to have the slides that I can pull up and show you so I will read to you instead. Essentially the background on this item is that we need to bring before the board published charges So that we comply with state requirements on fees for our services. So published charges are fees for the psychiatric health facility, crisis stabilization and outpatient mental health services that are provided to non-Medical clients.
Almost none of our clients pay the published charges as non-MediCal clients are screened based on a state developed sliding fee schedule and pay an annual fee based on their income. The public charges affect MediCal reimbursement rates for the county mental health services. We found them, yay! Reimbursement is limited to the lowest of actual costs or published charges, so we need to annually come to you with these published charges.
The Board of Supervisors last set behavioral wellness published charges in November 2016. Our recommendations are to approve the introduction first reading of an ordinance to amend the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness published charges for inpatient and outpatient mental health services. Read the title and waive further reading of the ordinance, and continue the item to May 15th 2018 to consider the adoption at the second reading.
On May 15th, we recommend that we adopt the ordinance to adjust the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness published charges for inpatient and outpatient mental health services effective 45 days after the adoption. Are there any questions?
Questions from the board? Is there a request to speak?
No requests to speak.
Can I get a motion?
Mr. Chair, I'll move this item as presented.
There is a motion and a second. Supervisor Hartman? All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you so much. D3
0:56 – 1:114 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item D3 is from the County Executive Office and Public Works. It's hearing to consider recommendations regarding a presentation on watershed conditions due to the Thomas Fire.
Chair and Supervisors, thank you. This morning we're going to hear a presentation from the U.S. Forest Service Los Padres National Forest Burn Area Emergency Response Team Lead who will give a presentation about the efforts that they undertook in evaluating the Thomas Fire We will also hear from the Watershed Emergency Response Team, a team that's put together by CAL FIRE that incorporates other state agencies on the impacts of the Thomas Fire in the areas outside of the forest.
We also have with us today some other folks that have contributed greatly to both the pre-19 debris flow and the post-19 debris flow actions. And those include Don Lindsey and Bill Short from the California Geological Survey, they're behind us here Wendy Bomecki and Al Linenbauer from Cal OES who have provided coordination and leadership, as well as funding from Cal OES in support of the post-19 debris flow analysis done by the Watershed Task Force.
And presenting today will be Kevin Cooper from the US Forest Service Los Padres and Drew Coe from Cal Fire as well as Jeremy Lancaster from the California Geological Survey. The Burn Area Emergency Response Team was also on the ground with us for the Sherpa, Ray and Whittier fires and in this case of the Thomas fire because of the great impact on areas outside the forest the work team also contributed These folks were in our Emergency Operations Center conducting their efforts before the 1-9 debris flow and they were working together. This is up to about 50 or more members on their teams, and they included what we kindly refer to as the ologists – all the different varieties of scientists who come together from the different disciplines.
The reports that they finalized are posted on the ReadySBC.org website And those are available of course for the public to see. And they are the foundation for all the efforts that we've undertook since the 1-9 debris flow and trying to understand the impacts, and they are continuing their work. Mr. Faramany else?
I think just to add with what Mr. Lewin said is the speed at which they delivered their initial findings were crucial in our response efforts before the 1-9 debris flow. They literally had days and they gave us valuable information
Okay, good morning. My name is Kevin Cooper and I am the Burned Area Emergency Response or BEAR team leader and liaison for the Los Padres National Forest. And Rob, if you could go to the next slide please? So the BEAR team is a program, oops it's moving forward without. Is this in your control? It's a program to identify imminent post-wildfire threats to human life and safety, property in critical natural and cultural resources on federal land. And take immediate actions to manage unacceptable risk. And our role is to do this assessment post fire but pre flood. And our role is to look at all the lands that are affected by the fire both on forest and off forest. And then when it comes to treatment of the lands we work on for service properties.
So the risks that are occurring from a fire after the loss of vegetation is increased erosion. You can see this rilling, this is in Cold Canyon above Montecito right after the storm and a lot of soil is lost. Of course that soil moves downstream into places we may not want it. This is Lake Jameson Lake. Water source for Montecito. You can see a lot of sediment and pollutants have entered that lake, so that's also an issue. And we looked at that.
There is an increase in water flow just to flooding itself. Just the increased water that flows off of that land. That can carry a lot of debris with it, and that causes some other problems I'll talk about in a minute. Rockfall is also an issue, just the loss of that vegetation releases those rocks and that sediment and moves down slope, and it can land on our roads and highways and homes and be an issue as we've seen.
And of course, worst of all is the debris flow which is a hyper-concentrated flow that comes off that slope. It's collected with rocks and mud and debris and picks up large boulders. If the intensity of the storm was large enough it creates a very large and hazardous debris flow like we saw in Montecito. This is the size of the fire, 161,000 acres over that was burned on the National Forest Service lands. We had Bureau of Reclamation state lands and of course a lot of private lands. And this photo is a satellite photo of the smoke going offshore during December.
So we started, the B.E.A.R team started on the U.S. Forest Service on December 5th. We came here right away and started looking at this fire in the Ventura and Ojai areas and did an assessment, an immediate assessment there that first or second week of December and discussed that with the County of Ventura and Ojai. And immediately afterward worked with the WERT team, Len Nielsen is here and he'll be speaking tonight And started making preparations, and we actually called Rob Lewin back in December before the fire even hit Santa Barbara County. And started making preparations for this fire as it moved this direction. And we also had a team of ologists, as Rob says, moving behind that fire across that black line behind it assessing what we could so that we were prepared as soon as possible when this fire hit its boundaries to do this assessment.
So we had the good information to provide for the safety of the communities. By January 3rd, we had our full teams here. A full team for the US Forest Service of about 30 people and the state work team. We also had folks from, of course, the counties and other federal and local agencies all working together. It was a highly coordinated effort. Of course after that, we had the storm on the 9th before things were really able to be implemented but we're continuing to implement any kind of work that we need to do up to this point.
We produce what's called the Soil Burn Severity Map, which is the basis for all the other debris flow maps and other information that is needed to assess the risk. And we established the watershed response and that's based on watersheds about the size of Cold Springs and San Ysidro and the different watersheds above Montecito here. We look at the values at risk, those are VARs and determine what the threats are. And we propose treatments for those. The Forest Service team has just seven days after containment and the idea is that it's an emergency implementation we're trying to do quite rapidly.
These are examples of soil burn severity, and on the left you see light soil burn severity where it doesn't burn the soil too much. It leaves roots and seeds. And as we move to the right, that's higher soil burn severity in heavy timber where a lot of heat is imparted to the soil. And that's the key componentry is how much heat has been delivered to that soil.
Grassland fires and shrub landfires can remove all the vegetation over the surface but not cook that soil too deeply which is a good thing. But if it is burnt very deeply, we get more erosion and issues that way. This is a very important map. It's created by the Forest Service and U.S. Geological Survey, and it represents the sum total of the probability, in other words, of debris flows. And you can see the red there above Santa Montecito on the left side, that represents a high probability of large debris flows. With an intensity of storm, which is about an inch and hour for only 15 minutes. And it's the intensity of the storm which is important. It's not the full volume of rain that happens during the event, it's how intensely that storm and rainfall occurs.
And as we know there was a period of time just five minute period where he had 0.54 inches which is equivalent to six inches per hour. So that intensely heavy rainstorm is what kicked loose these debris flows. We did a geological assessment and of course looked at debris flows, rockfall and rockslides. And on one of those you'll see debris flows occur on that right side. You'll see in the middle a depiction of debris flows coming out of the canyons themselves. And they are following these channels out as you saw in Montecito. We see rotational slides also like La Conchita, which is a different animal. It's something that responds to a lot of moisture, the deep-seated saturation of those soils. So we didn't expect to see like a La Concheta type slide after those first storms.
Of course we see flooding issues, sedimentation issues and we described all these in our Bayer report. And there's evidence of past debris flows and that is very important for the Montecito area because it was built on old debris flows, same in the Ohio area. And so it made the assessment very difficult. It's very difficult to determine where flood waters will eventually go.
It adds a lot of uncertainty to what's going to happen during a debris flow. Forest Service is looking at roads, of course the roads took a lot of hit just from the burn itself. And you can see the dry ravel in the bottom picture that just came down after the fire and filled up a lot of the roads. Highway 33 was that way and many of the roads across the front country were covered with debris. A lot of washouts are expected and did happen, and many washouts occurred on those forest service roads even behind here. There's much country back in the back country that was damaged. Of course, in the front country it's very important for I know for the local community to have these hiking trails. Those have been filled over with a lot of debris and you can see this is the San Ysidro Trail upper and a little bit lower.
The side slopes are washed right out. It's very difficult and dangerous and it's going to take a lot of work and money and time to get those reestablished. So the city of Montecito is working on that and they're making some progress with some citizens. to get that done in conjunction with the Forest Service. We do look at other things, like I said, into cultural and natural resources that pale in comparison to the importance and the issues that happen here in the front country with the loss of life and property but a part of our mission across the entire forest in the backcountry is to look at things like invasive species which can be very high economic impact. This is star thistle on your left and they do impact some of our native plants also We did a fisheries assessment.
We know that there's steelhead fisheries across the front country and across the back country, and those will be highly affected by the debris flows themselves and that sedimentation that comes into those streams. Wildlife, for the same reason. We have California condor here and a red-legged frog down below, a royal toad. Several species that are riparian oriented that will be greatly affected by this fire. And being the largest fire in California it's had a significant effect on these species so we are continuing to study what that effect will be. And of course we did look at the effects on cultural resources This is a photo in late January, standing in Cold Springs Canyon above Montecito. You can see the rilling that took place and that heavy rainfall that happened.
We're experiencing very slow regrowth unfortunately and it is the reestablishment of the vegetation on those slopes which will help protect us from future events, future flooding events. Unfortunately because of very dry soils and that late burn, a very dry winter, and then the late rains we've not had great germination. So this is one week ago today that's in Cold Springs Canyon.
You can see a small amount of regrowth coming back, but unfortunately we've lost a lot of soil and there's not great regrowth so this puts us in a position that We're looking at a similar type of risk next winter with the rainstorms that come again. We're looking at a slow recovery, slower than normal. Normally we'd see up to 50%, 60%, 70% ground cover by now but because of the weather patterns and because of lack of rain essentially, we're not seeing great recovery.
5 to 10% is what we see out there. We may see some more, although we're kind of at the end of our rainy season. We don't expect a lot more rain. The soil moisture is down to about four inches and receding with the high intensity sun and wind we've had. And I don't expect to see a lot more germination. We do have some sprouting that's taking place as you see in this chemise bush on the left. And some of the deeper rooted plants are sprouting. So we expect those to continue to grow some, but I don't expect that that will be a huge amount of recovery and protection of that soil from now until the next rainy season. But we are monitoring that and we're gonna come out with report. We're using our satellite imagery in ground truthing and we'll come out with a final report this summer towards the end of that growing season.
So we know what that total is. I did look at the Whittier Fire and this is the north slope from Highway 154. And that burned, and I did speak with you earlier this year, I think in August about this fire. That north slope has recovered significantly 25 to 50% cover which is much better than the Thomas Fire. So we're looking at some reduction in the potential for flooding in that area.
South facing slopes are drier and didn't have as much response so the south side that comes down to the coast it has less recovery. These kinds of slopes can still produce a debris flow with intense enough rain. So we're not out of the woods entirely, but it is in better shape than on the Thomas Fire. This is the channel. This is San Ysidro Channel. You can see on the left that there's a lot of debris was actually removed from it, but there's actually quite a bit stacked up in there still using very large boulders.
That is essentially unstable and could move back into those channels and could possibly present a problem. We are trying to understand, there's several people here. There's lots of agencies that are looking at this and trying to understand what that risk next winter will be during heavy rainfall. Whether we have the same kind or less risk from debris flows or if it's a flooding risk or just what that will be compared to last year.
And on the right of course is about a 20 foot boulder kinda precariously perched in the middle of the channel there. Okay, that's all for me and I'll pass it off to Drew Coe.
1:11 – 1:181 turns
Good morning. Drew Coe, work team lead for CAL FIRE. We're going to talk a little bit I'm going to talk a little bit today about the work process and some of the contents of the work report and then I'll pass it off to my lead geologist Jeremy Lancaster he's gonna talk a little bit about hazard and risk following the January 9th debris flow event So we have a similar process to the BEAR team. Our primary goals are to assist communities, and we do that through the rapid evaluation of hazards for values at risk that are affected by the fire. And we essentially look at hazards posed by debris flows, flooding, and rockfall.
Unlike the BEHR team, we're not land managers. We work on private property so we are mostly dealing with hazards to life safety and property. We generally do not consider natural resource or cultural resource impacts. So our process is very explicit. We, much like the BEAR team, we develop a soil burn severity map. We put that data into a variety of spatially explicit models. That helps us along with some field observations, that helps us determine the location of values at risk. It allows us to do a hazard determination for those values at risk or VARS.
And then we come up with some preliminary or general recommendations to mitigate those hazards and communicate those to the local entities. It's important to note that it's a very rapid assessment. It's not the same as official hazard zonation, so it's basically just supposed to be used for emergency planning purposes only. And ideally our assessments should be done well in advance of storms. We need to have enough time to take our findings, communicate them to local entities, Implementation, future assessment design work and implementation before the start of the storm season.
It's important to note that we use the same data that both WERT and BEAR use the same data. We both use the same soil burn severity map. We relied heavily on the BEAR team to generate the soil burn severity map for us. We used the same model outputs from the USGS An important point to note is that we did not get the soil burn severity for Santa Barbara area until January 2nd.
And then, we weren't able to generate the debris flow probability maps until January 3rd. So there was a race against time between when we started field assessments on January 4th and And of course, the storm happened on January 9th. And this figure here just basically shows you what those model outputs look in kind of a geospatial context. Those red segments, those red areas represent a probability of debris flow occurrence.
We take these model outputs, we take GIS outputs and we put them on a tablet. We have licensed professionals out on our sub-teams, professional geologists, certified engineering geologists, professional engineers. And we use a combination of model and professional or evaluate risk. We pay very close attention to the geomorphic evidence that's out in the field. And I want you to pay special attention to that figure on the lower left, the alluvial fan landform. These were the kind of issues that we were faced with when we're doing our assessment. Land forms that are very large in the case of the alluvial fans out in Montecito and where it's very difficult to predict the flow paths. And in particular, the interaction of these processes with the built environment.
Roads, bridges, homes and so that was a real challenge for us to do in a very rapid manner. So just as a quick summary, the Thomas work report which I have here if you want to take a look at during recess or break. We identified 178 values at risk for Santa Barbara County now some of those are discrete points which can reflect We're going to be looking at a number of different types of houses. Some of them are distinct house or unique House, some of them are large polygons in the case of Montecito we have to bound out that entire Louisville or most of that alluvial fan land form and that can contain hundreds if not thousands And then just in terms of how to navigate the report. The executive summary is separated out by county, so you can quickly get a summary of work findings and the executive summary for Santa Barbara County.
Chapter 4 has specific and general observations for distinct geographic regions by county. So we have subsections for Montecito, Carpinteria And so it's organized in that way. Chapter 6 summarizes impacts to the oil field infrastructure, which I believe Santa Barbara has some oil field infrastructure. A lot of it is in Ventura but there are some in Santa Barbara County. Appendix A has our post January 9th debris flow assessment and inundation mapping report that was used a lot in future evacuation planning.
Appendix C has the value at risk data in tabular form. There's lots of information there, so appendix C has just a lot of information, very specific information about specific VARs. And then appendix D has VAR maps overlaid on the USGS model outputs and also map floodplains, so you can really see the VARS in relation to different types Geomorphic and hydrologic hazards. And then Appendix G has our post fire hydrology report, and now I'm going to turn this over to Jeremy.
1:18 – 1:253 turns
Great, thank you Drew. My name's Jeremy Lancaster. I'm a senior engineering geologist with the California Geological Survey. I was also the work co-lead with Drew and my goal here is to really describe a little bit more about debris flow processes and continued risk following the 1-9 debris flow.
Jeremy can you speak into the microphone a little bit? Thank you.
Sorry. So a debris flow is a form of rapid mass movement, right? It contains rocks, soil, air, organic matter. Sometimes it contains cars. It has a distinct bouldery surge front that's followed by a mass of wet material that's kind of muddy material resembles flowing concrete, right? Debris flow is part of the flooding processes, especially flash flood processes. And so when you get a flash flood on a burn area, you typically generate a debris flow.
That surge front when it came down, so this is a map showing the Montecito area with the inundation boundaries and then the damaged structures. That bouldery surge front came down and it came to rest just south or just below 192 across the Piedmont. And it did most of the damage in the upper part of the Monticito area and One thing that's important to note is that as the boulder front came to rest, all of that following material. That flowing concrete, that wet concrete ran over the top of that and that flowed down into lower areas and filled up those areas.
So one thing that county flood oughta be commended if those debris basins were not emptied. That surge front would have come down those canyons and creeks unmitigated. So the destruction would have been much more widespread. So continued risk, what we know, debris flows following fires are common and multiple debris flows from the same watershed are also common. There's historic context for this after the station fire there has been burned watersheds that have issued three or four debris flows in one year.
And the other part of this is you've probably heard from other researchers that these events don't occur but every thousand years. I would argue that destructive and damaging events are important to acknowledge, and Santa Barbara County has a history Of destructive and damaging post fire debris flow events. And those include 1964, 1971, the 2017 Sherpa, and of course 2018. So what we know there was considerable scour of hill slope material.
Kevin showed some photos of that channel material has been scoured but it's not complete and there is still plenty of material there. And as Kevin showed, where you have those eroded channels with the boulders on the sides. Those over-steepened banks of boulders will fail back into the channels. Those boulders will recharge that channel network with material that will be available for future floods and debris flows. Just a little bit on fire history.
You've had 63 fires since 1913 from Gaviota to the county line. And many of these have been sort of the basis for flash floods causing a post fire debris flow. If you look at the perimeter of the Thomas Fire in the coastal plain, it was about 22,000 acres just in the coastal plain area. And that has about a ten year recurrence interval. So about every ten years you can expect to have a fire impacting that much area.
These are not infrequent events these fires. And if we compare the historic evidence of debris flows with sort of the maximum events in this state. So, this is a chart showing the first six rows are debris flow events. The first two 1964 and 71 were sort of these middle magnitude damaging destroyed homes killed people. And then you had some smaller ones. You had the Sherpa fire, the one in El Capitan and then you had the Santa Barbara debris flows.
You're having these debris flows occur on engineering time scales that are not every thousand years when they're damaging and destructive. And I think that's important to note from a planning and flood control perspective. The 1-9 debris flow event is comparable to the maximum magnitude events that we've had in the state that have been documented on historic records. So 1934, the La Crescenta New Year's Day flood that killed more than 40 people and destroyed 500 homes.
This event was comparable to that. 2003 Christmas day another large event in San Bernardino County. Inyo County in 2008, another very large event. So this was a sort of maximum magnitude event when you compare it to what has happened in the state. But we need to consider that even smaller events will damage and destroy homes and take lives. So what we don't know, what is the watershed recovery cycle going to look like? Kevin showed some photos and we haven't had a lot of recovery this year. And we had the scientific symposium yesterday and talked about how much of the seed bank may have been removed from the hill slopes from the 1-9 storm.
Will sediment recharge these channels prior to watershed recovery? And will we have another big storm prior to watershed recovery when those channels are recharged. Those are questions that we're trying to answer, others in the research community are trying to answer as well. What we know about flooding, the post-fire runoff regime remains unchanged. The channels are all cleared out. They're going to convey water really well. So if you have flash flooding that material is going to mobilize down the channel and you can definitely convey a lot of material and water down low.
So the lower lying areas that are in mapped flood hazard I would anticipate that they would be impacted in a flash flood event. With that, I thank you very much.
1:25 – 1:303 turns
Chair and Supervisors, so of course I'm sure you have some questions for these folks. Just to kind of surmise here a couple things. Clearly we have the potential for more debris flows. The magnitude of those debris flows could be different but it doesn't take a magnitude 7 debris flow to be deadly. We have a higher likelihood of flooding due to the inability of the watershed to hold on to that moisture, that rain. We have a slow regrowth occurring unfortunately and that was unfortunate information we're receiving now but the Forest Service Kevin's team will We're hoping to get up in the forest over the summer and continue to look at that, and let's hope that there is some growth that can occur because a fire occurred late in the year in December.
It just hasn't had the time so we'll be monitoring that. Our follow-up with this will be that we're hoping to get a new risk map put together to take the one that we have and have it reevaluated. We've asked the state for support on And then as you'll hear in a future board item about the FEMA hazard map that the FEMA star two team is putting together and you'll hear about that more. Of course, any questions you have about that Mr. Faber I'm going to address those and so thank you.
Can I ask you, going back to what you mentioned in one of the first slides that the assessment has proposed treatments. Can you elaborate on what that bare assessment proposed treatments are? And then a general question for both of you guys or for all y'all. One of the questions that I get a lot is why not do some hydro mulching or seeding, even if the seeding is of local native plants.
So can you elaborate maybe on both of those points?
Sure, I'll talk about the treatments. So the treatments that the BEAR teams do are primarily intended to protect the landscape from those rainfall events. So the treatments that we proposed were some drainage features on and we're talking National Forest Service lands. That's what we're responsible for and other folks who are responsible for their properties. So in the work team has some suggestions but other property owners have that responsibility to do their own work. But on the forest service lands, we did the drainage work for the trails and And we put some, of course closure which is easy to do. That's a good safety measure just keep people out of this hazardous area and so those were taken forward as far as I could go when they're still underway right now But when it comes to the hydro-mulching, for instance that was looked at of course on those slopes.
We've done that before in the past but hydro-mulching only works up to about a 60% slope and it works for which is most of this country that we're looking at that produces those debris flows is over 60%. It's 60 to 100%, it's very very steep country. And it works for moderate rains. So the kind of rains that produce a debris flow are the same kind of rains that will take out any kind of hydromulching and make it ineffective. So, for instance, if hydromulching had been applied to that one, it would have just simply ended up in the ocean. It would not have done anything. We don't feel it would be effective. It's effective for some soil retention on some moderate slopes and on moderate rains.
Like we saw, for instance on the Gap and Haste of Cedar Fires. There were some areas where that was successful. It would not be successful in this area. Now you asked about seeding also. Normally the issue with the regrowth is not the native seed, there's plenty of seed up there. We even think there's seed up there now. A lot of soil has washed away but we believe there's sufficient seed to regrow.
The choke point or the limiting factor here is the soil moisture. I think that's the real issue, is when the moisture came and how much there is there. There's a lot of stump sprouting taking place right now and there's a lot of live vegetation out there. It's in kind of a state of stasis, it's waiting for some good moisture. And I believe that still will recover. So generally we have not seen Increased success and loss and changes in erosion, and certainly not debris flow. Again, debris flows are happening on some slopes that are so steep that you need a lot of time to recover for this one. And the native vegetation normally does better than the regrowth of planted vegetation. One other thing about that is when we put And I guess the
1:30 – 1:4415 turns
That leads me to the question, is there no treatment that you know of that could provide erosion control under these conditions?
Unfortunately on these slopes, I would say that's true. You would have to manage it so, it would take watering daily. It would take all these things that I think are impossible to do and unfortunately it's hard to hear this, I think for everybody but in these cases we have to wait for Mother Nature to take its course. And beyond that, it's moving people out of harm's way. Of course, that's a different kind of treatment but I don't believe there is a slope treatment that would be effective under these conditions.
Supervisor Adam?
Well, I think the assessment that you could wind up with much regrowth this year is really rosy. I am a farmer and rancher and I'm going to tell you this year's over. Once the grass starts to seed and it's all seeded now it's done. It's over. So you need massive amounts of grass up there, that's the only thing that's going to hold this stuff in place and the brush is going to grow through the grass over a longer duration and so I think that five year time horizon is probably a good one where Even no matter how much rain you get, you're going to end up with some brush. I mean it's just gonna happen but it's gonna take the long term to do it and that's what holds all those rocks in place right? You're not holding that in place with the grass You're pulling the mic back.
Do you want me to wait for you? I'm having trouble
reading it. Chairman and Supervisor Adam, you're entirely right. The only optimism we can find today is that the north slope of the Whittier Fire does have good regrowth and anyone who has driven along 154 can see that and of course as explained by Mr. Cooper That's because it's a north slope and that's because there was, you know, significant amount of stump sprouting that can occur on those slopes as well.
So that is good news for Lake Kachuma of course cause we have reduced amount of sedimentation that could potentially flow into the lake from there I don't think the same thing is in the case for Jameson Reservoir, which was hit by the Thomas Fire. And then of course as we all know, the South Slope. The evaluation we still are asking the Forest Service to continue to look at will be the South Slope but the Whittier and Sherpa Fire to see how those canyons are doing because those are also on our mind.
We do believe that the Alamo Fire in the North County is far along in its healing and will not pose as much of a threat because it wasn't as steep. And also, it was a different kind of fuel model there, grass models more than
heavy shepherd house. Yeah, there is a bunch of that Alamo fire though that just didn't grow anything. Everything that was grass, It just blew over and didn't get the soil hot, but the brush part of that was equally as bad as this stuff. And I disagree a little bit in that I think that the potential for a lot of material to come down Tepeskaya Creek particularly is going to be a problem and we should be ready for that.
And Chair Supervisor Adams, we of course understand your expertise in that and I'm sure Tom Fairam's team will be monitoring it just as much as we have in the past to make sure that we're in line with what's appropriate.
How do we mitigate the risk of this in the future? I mean, how can we change what we do or can we in some way and I'm thinking control burns but maybe that's not what your expertise tells you. But it just stands to reason that if you let 300,000 acres burn Especially if it just happens to you, you have a bad draw and it burns really hot. And it does a lot of damage in areas particularly up slope of urbanized core.
That seems like something that we should be planning to mitigate now. And then when it does regrow, how do we start to do that in an orderly fashion so you don't have too much available for that kind of a burn all at once?
So I'll take a stab at that and someone else can join in. But so yeah, the buildup of fuels is an issue. Of course we have to be very cautious about when you try to burn it off. We create the same conditions if we're not careful that we saw that created this hazard for debris flow right? So you're trying to find that in between ground there but it is very risky and this country's very steep. It's difficult to control.
So that's always going to be a challenge, no matter how much we work with that one. And we do have a fuels program that looks at that and has a fuel break across the ridgeline. That's being examined but unfortunately it's not a simple fix. Part of the issue with this fire was the incredible weather we had and regardless of fuel types that were there, we would've seen some kind of very large event.
But looking into the future, I think it's really important to take in the component that Jeremy was referring to. That the planning for potential future events here and elsewhere across the front country is very important to understand that this risk exists and to think about the infrastructure that we have and how will we respond to it? One thing I'd like to say is that we, somewhat by chance Rob and I have known each other a long time. And because we worked on those other fires, we had an extremely good cooperative arrangement and working relationship with all the groups involved here. So it was almost miraculous how lucky you will or what kind of coincidence it was that we all came together and worked so quickly and had as much done as we did beforehand.
So we were trying to institutionalize that a little bit and make sure this is something that can happen in the future also. This can help us protect the communities.
Well, yeah but it's not really responsive to the question. What can this board do in future years? And I'm going back to control burning and maybe winter burns, time and place of your choosing not when you just get a bad draw or a good draw. You know, like we just did here. In theory we should have had a great burn. I mean that should have been great conditions. You should've had three or four inches of rain at the least ahead of the date that burn started.
I mean that should have been sort of wet-ish, moist conditions that would have burned very slowly and in a much more controlled way. And it might not have been any easier to deal with because as you say the slopes are really steep. You might not have been able to put it out, but it wouldn't have done the damage that it did being as dry as it was and then having the weather that we had. And when you leave it to chance, you're open to a bad draw which is what we had right there.
Don't you think that it would be better if we kind of took that under our own initiative and started planning in earlier stages like now for what we can do in say five years when You know start to grow back and maybe because you can't burn I mean even at a normal size control burn in my experience up in the North County is about 3,000 acres. So that would take 30 100 years sorry 100 years to do it at 3000 acres crack so if you just did a little piece every year it would take 100 years Well, that's obviously not a solution. But maybe it is if there's a piece out in the middle that you can do with a helitorch or something and keep dropping 3,000 acres at a time then maybe there's a way to mitigate this thing and keep it from getting huge in the future.
So since that's more of a comment than a question, I'll also point out something. I mean, I think that there's been because of some of the rhetoric and discussions after the Thomas fire, a perception that we're not doing vegetation control or we're not doing controlled burns and I don't know if you're on the APCD email list, but there's controlled burns all the time in this county.
And at least if you ask our fire personnel, There's a lot of vegetation control. The perception, at least that I've gotten both from rank and file and from the top is not that they're not doing vegetation control but that they have a narrower window of number of months to do that vegetation control because the fire season has gotten longer because it would have been simply a bad idea to be doing controlled burns in the conditions You have to wait until the rains, you have to wait till some of these things. So I guess the addition to Mr. Adams' points and questions is that how do you do that all in a narrower window? Do you just have to staff up a lot more for a shorter number of months? What do you
what do you do? If I could just comment briefly on that one. We do have a fuels program here and we're members of the Fire Safe Council, and there is a large program to look at this. And those issues that you mentioned are challenges that we're working with, and there are windows. And so we're looking at possibly relief from some of those windows. And the fuels program is actually one of the stronger programs, and the funding actually looks good for that portion of the Forest Service. So I would say we are trying to address that and will engage with the county and other partners.
Those future plans.
And I'm just going to say that the way you prepare for that is, you're ready when the conditions are right and those conditions don't come around all the time. You know when you, if you don't have a plan in place to take advantage of the conditions when they are correct then I would say that those are probably what every three or four years when the conditions are right for a winter burn.
Yeah possibly it changes every year of course
but yeah. And you just have to be prepared with the place that you want to go and The funding to get it done and if it doesn't happen this year, you got to roll it over and then see what happens next time. And if you get a good draw then you gotta go out and do it. And I think we need to make a commitment to allow that to happen. Regardless of some of the other conditions that exist at that time, because we got so many raindrops to walk between.
To make sure that we can get these things done and I'm just gonna disagree with Chair Williams. There's hardly any burning done anymore. Back when I was a kid, I worked on several control burns and we don't do that anymore, just FYI. So there may be some brush piles burned or there may be a few things burned here and there, but on a large scale like 3,000 acres, 5,000 acres those just aren't done anymore. And the Range Improvement Association has quit even trying because it became impossible and I think there's enough hope out there in the range improvement community Who does all these things at their own expense?
And many times they go out, they put all the fire breaks in and stuff. And then they just can't get the window right. And then it closes for the year and that's it. So they just miss the entire opportunity. I think we need to open the window a little wider from some of the parameters that are preventing us from doing this. Thanks.
Supervisor Labadino? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a question. You touched a little bit on the Alamo Fire regrowth area. Do we have any specifics
1:44 – 1:5929 turns
In the case of the Alamo fire, there was no bear report because it wasn't on federal land and because it wasn't as severe enough to meet the threshold for CAL FIRE they didn't have a watershed emergency response team. But I have talked to the forester who works out of the San Luis office for CAL FIRE and we've talked about it and you know he recognizes that area is not the same sort of dynamic that we have on the other burns that we had in the county The ground is not as steep. The one watershed or the creek that we're most concerned about, Tepeskaya, was burned on one side of it so it didn't have the impacts of a full watershed taking it all out. So we had that going for us. There was movement and I guess I'd turn it over to Tom Fairam here for what they saw this winter on it.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, actually in regards to response, the Alamo fire is outside of the flood control district so that's why we don't have any operational activities going on there but that said there was some debris movement on I think impacted Tepeskaya Road and but it was very minimal compared to you know the impacts in the Thomas Fire as a comparison.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you Mr. Chair, I have a couple of questions. The first before the Thomas fire our big concern was Lake Kachuma and sediment into Lake Kachuma and what that would do for water supplies. Mr. Payram could you just give us an update on how much sediment and whether that will affect us this year?
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman was a real concern as you mentioned. The intensity of the rainfall that occurred across the south coast in that one night event was drastically different spatially and while we did get sediment inflow to Kachuma, we haven't measured that yet. We're determining with the Kachuma Operations Maintenance Board if we're going to do a follow-up survey. My guess would be maybe we wait a couple years before we actually try to measure it But having been out at the lake a couple of times over the winter to look at it, I view it as mostly minor.
Certainly nothing on the scale of what happened to Jameson Reservoir for the Montecito Water District. So we're pleased with that and as referenced in the earlier reports, the vegetation regrowth on that side of the mountain are dramatically improved over the Thomas Fire.
Thank you. My next question is technical, I guess. We don't want to reseed because there won't be enough water or it may just flow off. But a real key I understand is how much bacteria are in the soil and how that bacteria functions. And if the fire's too hot, it destroys, sterilizes the soil. And if it's a cooler fire, then maybe the soil is still more intact as an organism. So my question is, is there more that we can do to help the soil heal?
I am not familiar with any treatments for instance bacterial inoculation and what we see is that bacteria that breaks down that hydrophobicity and helps increase that soil productivity usually remains in that soil. And as we've seen when we go up there, That biological horizon was not completely burned out and we see some of that live soil material still there. We expect that that's going to recover, and again the primary constituent that's missing is going to be water to promote that growth. Unfortunately, that's going to be the case no matter what we do to try to improve that situation if we don't have good steady rainfall.
Ironically, we need more water up there in small amounts. That's what it's going to take I think.
So it's not like there's a hard cover over the soil or lateritic soil or anything like that?
That's not what I've seen. Have you seen anything like that? No,
thank you and my next question. You mentioned the word scour are there a lot of areas where the soil is completely washed away and there's just rock and we won't expect that there'll be regrowth at all?
So what we saw was there are significant areas that was hit by that intense storm, lost a lot of the soil. But it's not everywhere and I think, I didn't get a percentage of this but most of the erosion occurred in these rills which were small gullies if you will on that surface and between those rills at least right after the storm I saw good soil development, it was still there. It didn't really move that much. What I saw was a significant amount of soil left also in general across these watersheds. You'll find patches up there where it was very steep and it took most of the topsoil off. But in general, I believe that there's a soil bank that is still viable and in place up there. And I don't know if you would agree with that from what you're seeing?
Yeah, that's consistent with our observations that there's still a lot of material on the hill slopes available for eroding. And when you go up there you can actually see in the inter-rill areas that there is quite a bit of soil left.
Thank you. One more question, in talking to some of the firefighters what they have told me is that roads are very important where they can stage to fight the fire it's not that they put the roads in to block the fire but it gives them a place when the winds change they can set a backfire And deal with it that way. But I guess the roads then bring in more exotic plants, so I guess I have two questions.
Could you describe a bit more what some of the risks are with these exotic invasive plants? And then do we need more roads or is that an approach that we need to look at in greater detail?
So I'll start with the noxious weeds, and there are some serious noxious weeds that could be introduced. Particularly with heavy equipment that comes in to fight the fire on the bulldozers and the low boys that carry them in there if they've got material on them coming from somewhere else in the state or another state even. If those are parked and has dropped we've seen significant infestations of yellow star thistle and purple star thistle, important noxious weeds that affect our agriculture a great deal. So we hire crews to go out and look at all those old roads and any places it was affected by the fires, and we had those crews coming on in a few weeks to spend the summer monitoring for those. And then once we find them, we can treat for that, and we've been successful in treating some of those infestations we found.
And in terms of the roads that are out there, yes those are extremely important. As you said they don't stop the fire but they allow access to work on fuel breaks and to attend to the spot fires and to work at set backfires or whatever so they are very important. And there's a road system that's fairly significant in place and I've not done an analysis myself to see if there is more that's needed but I think it's really important to maintain the roads we have. And to keep those usable.
We have, unfortunately not a great funding for road systems right now for the Forest Service but we're able to maintain those. I think the challenge right now is to go back to the road systems that we have that were severely damaged by the storms and get those back into shape. There's not an existing readily available funding source to do that and we're working on that right now.
Just two more questions if I may, Mr. Chair? I think this is for Mr. Farrum but maybe all of you. Do we need more debris basins or do we need to just keep after the ones we have?
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, that's an analysis that we're going to be doing. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a program that will do an analysis of that and clearly The debris basins have a beneficial impact. Locating them and sizing them can be very, very difficult to do. And of course as you mentioned in the past then having a location for the debris that you clean out of it to be able to manage that efficiently comes with it as well. So we are going to be looking at that moving forward. And then I was also just notified just within the last day or two that we were invited to pursue a grant funding for three of the debris basins, Cold Springs, San Ysidro and Romero. And so those might be opportunities to enhance those basins and make them more effective.
And through that grant funding if that opportunity exists, we will certainly take advantage of that.
And I'll just chime in because we've had a lot of discussion about this before and I think the priority is going after the ones that we can affect most immediately, which is modernizing some of our existing Very, very important basins. I mean the three mentioned by Mr. Farrum were sort of instrumental in dealing with the severity of this event and then there are some cases as fairly recently in Toro Canyon where a neighborhood has rejected a debris basin but the next step would be then to maybe bring some of those back up again thinking that maybe people may have changed their mind.
And just one more thing if I could. While we're speaking of debris, I think the takeaway from your report is we're likely to have more of it in the future. So this is a major issue for our county as what we're going to do with this debris going forward. I read about Brander Winery recently in the Santa Ynez Valley. They've taken some of the Montecito debris, in fact I guess massive amounts of it. And it's more alkaline and they've taken it up to the more acidic soils and they're going to have a special brand of Montecito wine a few years down the road but Dirt is, we shouldn't treat our soil like dirt and pollution is dirt out of place. But we need to find, and so this is just a plea, a call, an acknowledgement that we need to find places to deposit the debris that are closer to South County in Montecito.
And the final point, thank you so much for all the hard work and for how timely and how well you've worked together. We all appreciate it.
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you all of you for being here and I did try and read those reports yesterday and yeah they got pretty technical when you're going through all the biological plants and flowers I just I skipped right through it, but there was a lot of really good information that was important to me. And I think certainly for the community and obviously you folks put in a lot of work.
I think the timeliness after seeing the chart of all the fires that we have had. I know that the teams get together and analyze the effects of the fire, and then the potential flooding that might come later. And certainly you guys were right on it with the Thomas Fire, and I think this, the rain event was so significant but yet having you already on the ground working And in reading the reports and looking at the timeline again, of the work that you were doing preliminarily definitely had an impact. It was a positive impact. Even though we saw such a tragedy from the debris flow. So I want to thank you for working together with our staff. It's obvious that there, if you didn't say it, I would have guessed that there is a long term relationship working with Mr.
Lewin and the rest of our county staff so thank you all for that. One of the things that I did pick up from the report, and you've talked about it a lot today is the noxious weeds and the non-native vegetation that's growing. And the importance of making sure that that's removed. And again, you touched on it from other questions from my colleagues. So you are having folks going out there and working in the roads but I'm wondering if they're going, Into the mountains and looking at this issue as well.
Because it seems to be a big, at least from what I could understand, it seems to be big issue.
The noxious weed issues?
Noxious weeds and also the non-native growth
that's
occurring.
Yes, most of those plants if they're going to occur have not quite sprouted yet and we're waiting just a little bit so we know we can identify those. And we have a team of botanists that we've hired specifically to go into these areas and they'll be spending the summer looking for these species. So we're going to get them to the most likely spots which are along the roads and trails, helispots and other drop points for instance of the fire. And then we'll move out into the mountains themselves as you say to look for those species.
And then remove them, is that?
We'll remove them. It depends on how big the infestation is. If it's small of course we'll take care of it by hand right away or however treatment is needed but if it's getting bigger we need to identify what needs to take place and of course early detection and removal is how to deal with these before they get big so we'll be looking at that.
Okay. Another thing that I noticed, I think it was in the Bayer report, was the need for rapidly implemented protective measures and diversion structures. And in the PowerPoint that I had received earlier, and it wasn't in this one, showed a K-rail placed in front of a structure. Well, so it wasn't in the presentation. I'm wondering why it's not in the presentation? Is it because it's not really a feasible option or is it something that will be considered with some of the other preventable structures?
It looks like Mr. Fairam has got this one.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Wolf, and one of the things that we We look at, because we've done a number of response efforts after fires is making sure that the measure that we're going to take doesn't create a bigger problem. And K-rails and diversion type techniques can divert a problem from one area onto another and you don't really solve it. You just change its location. So that's
1:59 – 2:049 turns
why you guys took it out?
Yeah, and also sometimes you can imagine if K-Rail had been put in place in this debris flow it would have been part of the debris flow.
Well I was thinking that. Okay.
And having been the person who put that slide in I can speak a little bit to that. Oh you
did?
It was interesting though. That was actually a picture after the 2008 What fire was that? The Basin Indians Fire. I'm sorry, which fire was that? The Basin Indians Fire up in Big Sur back in 2008 and actually Len was on that fire during that time doing a seat deployment which is the predecessor to work But the prevention measures, the mitigation measures we come up are very specific to the process. And in that specific scenario it was a very small debris fan that the lodge was built up against and the geologist at the time felt that that was an inappropriate treatment. You had a single lodge in a parking lot and it looked like you could divert it into the parking lot which it actually did.
In the case of Let's use Montecito as the example, where you're talking about these very large fan landforms. And it's just the magnitude of the process is just much larger than could be taken care of with a K-rail. So it's a much more complex problem but a K rail can be an appropriate treatment depending on the situation.
Thank you for clarifying that, and I just want to again thank all of you for being here. And just Mr. Farrum, thank you for you and your staff's work. Mr. Lewin as well, and also following up on the mud issue and what we do in making sure that we have a plan. So that, I mean obviously this was not just a tragedy but it was something that no one ever expected to see what we saw on Highway 101.
So things needed to happen and they needed to happen immediately. But I do believe that knowing what we know and what we've seen, we need to have a plan in place for another event or another eventuality of something like that happening. Thank you Mr Chair.
Since you say we're constrained by the slope of the topography out there, is there more that we can consider in channel? Sort of this is a dead tail on Supervisor Hartman's question. Is more acquisition of public land, say we modernized. Say we magically came up with the money in the next five years to modernize all of the high priority basins. And we were looking at what else we could do, like other debris basins or and I'm not even saying just that level of engineering but can we use some of the existing rocks to help shape the existing channels?
Mr. Chair I think making improvements to those channels it needs to be an integrated approach you just can't site-by-site widened channels and that's also one of the tasks that we've asked the core
Keeping the channel capacity in place through these next several years, and of course we do that through all years not just these years. Will help the sediment, the natural sediment supply. We don't want to interfere with that and we spoke with the team over the last couple days as well as we've seen this sediment slug come through after many other fires. The one that really comes to mind is the Hesa Cedar fire where Through Mission Creek, huge slug of sediment that makes its way through and we'll see that coming through the Montecito Creeks as well. So I don't know that making physical improvements keep in mind that most of these areas are private property as well so there's a process for that. But making sure that we keep these channels open as we did immediately after the debris flow to help that sediment supply make its way through.
And as for using existing boulders, those creeks are naturally armored they are on a debris flow as the team mentioned before And so I don't see an issue with increasing the hardening of those creek banks. They're basically carved out of rock debris flow area anyway, but I think our challenge to get to the point of your question is for the next several years and that achievable category is to keep those channels open and it'll be an ongoing response effort.
2:05 – 2:1011 turns
Supervisor Adam?
I'm just wondering if anybody can explain to me what modernization would be because a debris basin is basically pretty low tech, right? I mean you just dig a hole and the stuff goes in it fills it up and doesn't run out the other side until Fills all the way up, how would you improve them?
Well before Tom gives us a real complicated and precise answer. I'll just tell you the general layperson answer which is this is all a basin works better if it lets more small material through the spillway but blocks the big material. And so there are better designs of debris basins that can accomplish that.
Mr. Farrum? And Mr. Chair, Supervisor Adam to build on what Mr. Chair said the biggest problem we have with many of these debris basins is they trap the fine grain sediment and then and then we have to deal with it and it's extremely costly and so we had a pilot project in one of our basins called Gobernador Debris Basin where instead of a 36 or 42 inch outlet pipe it's actually a notch in the dam that is less prone to plugging And it performed miraculously during this last debris flow. We had a large debris field of rocks that was left in the basin, and then very little fine-grained sediment that passed on through the system. In past years, in 1995 and 2005 to bring to point, we spent millions of dollars hauling off mud.
Unnecessarily and so we're going to look at that technique on some of these other basins. And then other, you can call it modernization or just improvement. We should look at the height. Can we gain more capacity? And then there are other techniques I think we learned from our friends in Ventura County they have particular items that can be put in place in a debris basin called rock bollards. They're just basically You know teeth to stop rock, but again let the sediment through. We do not want the fine-grained sediment in those debris basins wasted space we want it to stop the rock.
And I'll tell you something you'll love even more that there's funding available for it because It's also good for fish passage so we can use environmental fish passage monies and purpose to increase flood control which is you know
I think
we have a late addition. I knew somebody wanted to do that. Ms. Hillary, come to the mic. You're our only speaker.
Good morning. Chair Williams, members of the board, just a brief observation on the controlled burn subject. I'm just wondering if the board has heard from County Fire particularly Eric Peterson, Chief Peterson about their effort to cut fire breaks before I'm arguing for common environmental sense, but my understanding is that they're being blocked from cutting these fire breaks by an environmental group. And I'm just wondering if this could be a conversation to be worked out by staff or public work?
I don't know if you've been advised on that and could get a conversation going on it.
Well, I was just going to thank you and tell you that I appreciated your comments during the beach dumping issue. A better position than I thought you would. Let's put it that way.
I just want to thank you for that, Supervisor Adam. It was a very hard one to write but as somebody on my board said it was a lousy situation with lousy answers but somebody had to make a decision and that was the point of all that writing. Thank
you. It was very much appreciated by me and I know many others of our staff. So thank you very much.
2:10 – 2:175 turns
That concludes that item. If anyone wants more of it, at 6 p.m. tonight we will be reconvening this presentation for the benefit of the public knowing that most people can't just watch all of a Board of Supervisors hearing during the day while they work so come on back! Can I get a motion receive and report?
So moved
Is there a second? Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? We are at item four.
Chair Williams and members of the board, item number four is from the sheriff. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding mental health services oversight and accountability commission. Together we can reducing criminal justice involvement for people with mental illness.
Thank you, Chair Williams and members of the board. It's a pleasure to be with you today to present a report that was prepared for the Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission that addresses an issue that is very timely and very much on our minds. And that is mental health and the interaction of persons with mental illness with members of the criminal justice system and with the system itself.
And let me just start by saying that one of the great policy failures of our time has been the dismantling of the state's mental health care institutions without the provision of adequate community-based treatment in their stead. And as a result to that, we have seen a marked increase in severely mentally ill persons often suffering from co-occurring substance abuse disorders and homelessness that come into contact with law enforcement.
And the confrontations that result are frequently disruptive, dangerous and sometimes they're deadly. And more often than not these encounters serve as a gateway for those mentally ill people to enter the criminal justice system. We recognize that problem and when I say we, I'm speaking about the MHS OAC which it's been my privilege to serve as a commissioner on for the past seven years.
As part of that, I was privileged to chair a subcommittee on criminal justice that looked at the intersection of mental illness and the criminal justice system. And I chaired a committee that looked for the better part of two years at this problem. And during that time, we traveled across the nation and throughout California and looked at areas that had model programs to deal with these issues.
We traveled to Pennsylvania, to Texas, to Florida, and throughout California. And what we found is that there Although it's a very difficult topic and a difficult subject, there are communities that have come together more successfully than others to address and deal with these problems. And we studied those communities and what they were doing. We put together this report that's entitled Together We Can, reducing criminal justice involvement for persons with mental illness.
The report is by design a succinct report and it is not a comprehensive treatise on mental illness, but rather It is something designed to be actually read and acted upon. It encapsulates the problem and presents a creative and achievable plan To reduce the number of mentally ill persons who are entering California's jails, which you've heard me say many times have become our de facto mental health institutions.
And the report offers a road map to providing better mental health care and treatment for those who must be kept in custody regardless of efforts. We recognize that fiscal and human resources in all forms of government are in short supply, and that in many cases as they are here in the County of Santa Barbara, they are stretched to the limit. But we have seen how communities facing similar challenges have come together to solve parts of this vexing problem.
Their approaches were varied, but what they had in common was a collaborative spirit of goodwill and a resolve to combine forces, share resources and solve this problem collaboratively. We strongly believe that now is the time to implement these recommendations. And while we recognize that not every county can do everything suggested in this report, we recommend taking a strong look at three priorities.
The first is collaborating and combining resources to effectively address the problem. And a mechanism to do that is one that we've incorporated here in Santa Barbara County and that's the stepping up initiative. A proven vehicle that can help communities come together to facilitate these efforts. The second point is to provide crisis services and other alternatives to custody for mentally ill persons.
This requires having appropriate places and or programs that people suffering from mental illness can be diverted to instead of going into jail or into the criminal justice system in some other way. And the third is to expand both jail-based and community-based restorative services for persons who are found incompetent to stand trial. This is a statewide problem that congests our courts and overcrowds our jails, but more importantly it results in people languishing in jail Or in state hospitals for lengthy periods of time before there is a restoration of their competency.
Effective prevention and early diversion strategies can reduce the number of people who are found to be incompetent to stand trial, and counties should consider implementing or expanding both community-based and jail based competency restoration programs. And I want to thank the people who really made this report possible, and two of them are here today to present this report to you. The first is the MHS OAC Executive Director Toby Ewing. It's been my privilege to work with Toby for the last three years or so during my time on the commission. And also is Senior Researcher Ashley Mills, who was the researcher assigned to this project and she's the one that did the yeoman work and the heavy lift in putting this report out.
And I commend her and the support staff for the tremendous job that they did in making this report a reality. The report came out in November. It was designed to be used by members of the legislature, but it's also something to be designed to be used by law enforcement officials. By county officials, by CEOs, by members of boards of supervisors and the governor and legislators alike. It is something that we're very proud of and we believe really offers an opportunity to do things differently. And to do things more effectively as we look to doing a better job serving the mentally ill. So without any further ado, I'd like to turn it over to Toby Ewing.
2:17 – 2:233 turns
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Toby Ewing. I'm the Executive Director of the state's Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission. We're sort of like a grand jury for mental health at the state's level in that our job is to really promote the transformational change that is needed in California in terms of the design and delivery of mental health services. In our state, as you know our mental health system is really driven by the counties and counties are lead agencies. And have a lot of discretion in terms of the strategies you use to deploy the dollars that you receive.
Before I talk at length about who we are and what we do, and I don't mean at length in ways that you should be alarmed about that. I want to just say that your county is very well represented both in terms of Sheriff Brown who is the governor's appointee representing law enforcement on the commission. And also our former chair or immediate past chair Mr. Tina Wooten who works in your behavioral wellness department. Tina, as chair really championed this work on reducing the number of mental health consumers who end up involved with the criminal justice system. And Sheriff Brown then led the work through a subcommittee.
The commission has a range of tools that we use to do our job. We review and approve county innovation plans. We support the counties in terms of your prevention and early intervention work. We work with the counties in terms of the kinds of strategies. That are out there, evidence based practices, community defined practices in terms of the plans that you have.
We also allocate a grant program that's a little over $100 million. We recently awarded a grant to Santa Barbara County as part of that, in addition to some funding you received a few years ago. We've been working to link data systems to better understand how and why people with mental health needs become involved with the criminal justice system but also understanding whether or not mental health services are helping children succeed in school, helping families keep children in their homes and avoid the child welfare system.
We do advocacy and these policy projects. This is the first policy project that we have completed on this scale. The intent is to really inform policymakers and practitioners in terms of opportunities to do better. I'm going to let my colleague Ashley really go through the details of the report. But I want you to know that one of the things that we are really working hard on is to better understand how the state can support the counties and their abilities to be successful. We see some tremendous challenges in terms of technical assistance, in terms of fiscal incentives and disincentives. In terms of onerous regulatory and reporting requirements that need to be streamlined in ways to support improved outcomes for the counties. And so included in this report are recommendations for things that should be happening at the county level but in some ways more importantly also things that should be happening at the state level to support success in your communities.
So with that I'm going to turn it over to Ashley.
Thank you and good morning. You have the PowerPoint in front of you and up on the slide. I'm going to move through it fairly quickly, just giving you some of the highlights so we can leave room for questions and comments. So our project goal was to find ways to reduce the number of adults with mental health needs who become involved with our criminal justice system. And then also improve outcomes for those who must remain in custody.
As stated earlier by Sheriff Brown, to develop a shared understanding of this problem we had a number of series of meetings across the state. We held public hearings, community forums, site visits both here in California and nationally. And what we were able to confirm is that the criminal justice system is overwhelmed by population it was never designed to serve.
To paraphrase a quote from the report, people with mental health needs are not good for the criminal justice system and the criminal justice system is not good for people with mental health needs. I'll give you some statistics. It is estimated that approximately 5% of people will meet the criteria for serious mental illness. Of those incarcerated in our local jails it's been estimated that 17% have a serious mental illness. That is more than three times the number of our general population.
So the commission sought to understand what the potential drivers of these statistics may be. Because what we know is that people with mental health needs, it's not the mental health need alone that is driving the criminal justice involvement. Oftentimes factors increase someone's likelihood of becoming involved with a criminal justice system like substance use and living in poverty.
And people with mental health needs are more susceptible to these factors. So given all of these challenges, we started to understand what are the opportunities for solutions.
I'm going to interrupt you real quick just to let people know that our final item, there's two more items after you. I just want to let people know in case they're watching at home or prepared to be up here. We will take the next item after this but the cannabis item will be after closed session so If you are here for cannabis or uniform rules, I think it's safe to come back after one.
Please proceed.
2:23 – 2:291 turns
Efforts are underway across California to create systems of diversion. And so these systems of diversion identify a number of intercept points, to divert people away from the criminal justice system and into our community based system of care. Up on your screen is the sequential intercept model and mapping is available for programs and services to engage community members that can help county agencies develop a shared understanding of available resources and how best to coordinate them. So if you look at the sequential intercept model, this is one tool that is available for counties and other partners to use.
It maps out, if you will, a number of intercept points along a continuum of the criminal justice system beginning from community into law enforcement followed by opportunities at booking, opportunities through the court system for diversion, those in re-entry and then also our community corrections opportunities to better connect people with mental health needs with community based care.
Often, however services are distributed through multiple public programs and agencies. The variety of funding streams and eligibility requirements for disparate agencies complicate the coordination of service delivery. And it makes it very difficult to fill gaps in service and capacity. Typically funding structures require counties to develop programs and services that fit within specific parameters. And this approach does not necessarily involve doing what it takes to meet the population.
Finally, in addition to opportunities for diversion there's opportunities for prevention. And I outlined a number of key issues, key concerns with developing a system of prevention. A diversion of people with mental health needs from the criminal justice system requires prioritization among leadership. It requires a capacity to deliver community-based alternatives to jail, collaboration among community members, public health and public safety leaders, an equitable system that recognizes in response to long held mental health and criminal justice disparities, and service integration that addresses complex co-occurring needs like physical health and substance use disorders.
So as Executive Director Ewing mentioned earlier, these recommendations both highlight what can be done at the local level but then also how the state can support local efforts to create systems of diversion and prevention. The first finding and recommendation is really around how counties can develop comprehensive systems for prevention. And this can be done through methods like the sequential intercept mapping, but it's really designed to help counties look across systems to coordinate efforts, to coordinate funding and to identify areas for partnership so that systems can be developed together and not separately.
The second finding and recommendation is recognizing that not everybody will be able to be diverted from the criminal justice system. Some people must remain in custody, and so this is an acknowledgement that we need to better understand challenges and opportunities for delivering better services in our local correctional facilities which were never designed even from a physical standpoint to house people long term and with very complex needs.
The third recommendation and finding is an acknowledgment of the increasing number of people found incompetent to stand trial. Many counties are experiencing challenges with not having capacity, not having space to provide people with services. So oftentimes, people who are found incompetent are waiting in jails, waiting for services, and waiting for competency restoration. So this recommendation is really to promote community based alternatives for competency restoration. But it's also an acknowledgement that we can do a lot of this by better fortifying our system for diversion. If we divert many people out of the system before trial, we'll have less people being found incompetent to stand trial.
The fourth recommendation and finding is how the state can support local communities to do this kind of work. We acknowledge that the state has a role in providing leadership to model the kinds of collaboration that we're asking at the county level. So, at the state level, we have a council on criminal justice and behavioral health which is really intended to model the kind of collaboration between mental health partners and criminal justice partners to identify how we can look at our resources as a whole. And make strategic investments in things that we know work.
And the last two recommendations are tools, really to support the previous four recommendations. Recommendation five is around data and how we can better leverage existing data by doing integrated data analyses to understand the population with mental health needs who are becoming involved with a criminal justice system and identifying areas where we may be able to divert those folks from the criminal justice system at earlier points in time.
And then finally, the last recommendation is around training and technical assistance. What we heard pretty consistently is that law enforcement officers are often being asked to intervene in mental health crises out in the field and they often feel unprepared to do so. We're also hearing from mental health clinicians that they too feel unprepared to work with a population that has had criminal justice involvement. And so this recommendation is an acknowledgement of that, and acknowledgement that we'll need a little bit more training and technical assistance in a variety of different ways in order to support our professionals who are on the front lines.
2:29 – 2:4610 turns
Part of the challenge that the commission has is we do this work, we create a set of recommendations to the governor and the legislature. And become very concerned that these kinds of recommendations sit on the shelf. So we're doing a number of things right at the moment. I can see that resonates at least with one of the supervisors. Now I'm just kind of wondering what else it's going to do?
In the Governor's budget, we've requested a $5 million state investment to launch an innovation incubator. The intent here is to create a venue to support the ability of counties to think differently around integrated strategies to reduce the number of people who become involved in the jails. The governor has approved that 5 million and it still has to go through the legislative budget process. And there is a commitment that would focus on strategies to reduce criminal justice involvement of mental health consumers.
We've been working with the Board of State and Community Corrections on the kinds of strategies that they can pursue. So Sheriff Brown, and Ms. Mills recently presented to the state board on this work. We're part of a state level work group on this broad issue of the number of folks who are deemed to be incompetent to stand trial. And the governor has included in his budget proposal more than $100 million in investment to reduce the number of people who do become deemed incompetent at state trial.
We are working to strengthen the Council of Criminal Justice and Behavioral Health, because we see that council as a lead state entity that should be tackling this challenge on an ongoing basis. We've done some preliminary data matching in terms of linking mental health data and criminal justice data so we can understand what kinds of programs actually work and for whom and under what situations. And then the last issue is we have a request into the legislature to provide what we call stakeholder advocacy dollars. These are funds that we make available to non-profits, to really work up and down the state creating education outreach and doing advocacy to promote the kinds of practices that are actually impactful. In terms of reducing criminal justice involvement.
So we wanted to present the report to you, let you know the work that we're doing and respond to any questions you might have in terms of some of these initiatives or the broader recommendation that the commission has made. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.
I have a question. Our Behavioral Wellness Department and our Sheriff's Department, in some of the plans and initiatives they brought forward that they seem to be very on board with the goals of the plan. But many of these take Proactive moves, which take money. And so one of the things that may not be on your radar screen in your communications with the governor but I hope will be is that there are a number of bills moving through the legislature that would make it easier for people to be conserved if we are If we have an increased avalanche of conservative individuals, it will constrain our ability to do proactive work. To prevent sort of the severity The model of housing people at essentially at the highest levels of acuity.
All our best work would be to grab them before they leave, reach this level of acuity or before they commit a crime and that seems to be your thrust of your report. But to do that would be impossible if we have an avalanche of increased IMD unfunded mandates from the state, which is a severe danger of this legislative session. Supervisor Labadino?
Thank you Mr. Chair. I had a chance to read through the report. There were some interesting things and one that you brought up that I hadn't really known before was The fact that only 10% of the folks that end up in the criminal justice system are there just because of their mental illness. That most, there's overriding factors, substance abuse or I always had this impression that folks were mentally ill, acted out, got arrested so that seems to be a very small sliver of the pie.
I guess my question is for Sheriff Brown and In the report, LAPD was highlighted as they've got like a four day training period for their officers. And I was just curious what you thought about that plan? And I know everything has a price tag associated with it but what are we doing and what are we looking to do?
Supervisor Levine through the chair, That focus on the critical incident training and the mental health training that LAPD is doing as one of the models that we pointed out. Here in the county, we have taken steps to make sure that all of our sworn staff including our custody staff have gone through CIT training, and there is also a 40 hour CIT training that we are sending a cadre of our people through. Now some counties like Ventura adjacent to us they have a goal of putting every peace officer through the 40 hour training which I would love to see happen but as you say that doesn't happen by magic. There are significant costs that are associated with being able to do that.
So our approach at this point is to make sure that all law enforcement officers, and that doesn't just mean in the sheriff's office. We have offered that training and provided it to a number of other law enforcement officers from the police departments in the community as well. That all the law enforcement officers have at least some initial training in how to address critical incidents and people with mental illness.
And that we do a follow up and have a cadre of people who have more training that are involved, and hopefully are the ones that can be sent to calls when available. And then we're also in discussions now with our behavioral wellness department to look at trying to implement a pilot program where we would have an actual co-response. Where we would have someone who would be assigned to work as a partner with a mental health professional from behavioral wellness And they would respond if available to those calls as a team, rather than a co-response from different sections and others. They'd arrive at the same time.
And it's a model that is being used. It's a model that has challenges in our county particularly because of the geography of our county and the numbers of calls for service and where they're coming from but we've had discussions and Working to try to make that a reality on a pilot basis. We had a meeting this morning actually trying to brainstorm some ways to try and come up with some funding for that, perhaps from the state.
So training is significantly important. It's one of the things we are doing. We're also doing screening at booking as was mentioned in the presentation you just saw and Working to try to develop with the Department of State Hospitals and in custody IST treatment program as well. So we're in the midst of discussions with them on that.
Cool, okay. And then I had one question for Dr. Gleghorn. That's just if, I don't know if there's a model out there. I know at one time we had a changeover and police chiefs in Santa Maria but are there any models out there where You know, partner with cities to do similar to what the sheriff was just talking about where you have a mental health professional that's riding along. So that in case inside, I'm thinking of Santa Maria as a partner and a possible, I mean that would be almost a revenue stream as well of having those services right there with them so Instant access. I know we have the CARES team, but I'm talking about somebody that would actually be riding along.
Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. You've hit the nail on the head as to what the need is and what the problems are. And that is, as you know our services are primarily reimbursed in fee for service. So even though we've developed a pretty robust crisis response through mobile services and triage grants. When we move those into ongoing services that aren't grant funded, we need to be able to support the positions with the service that they do. So our pilot that we're looking at is in South County where the highest volume of crisis services occur.
So we calculate that we'd be able to support a certain number of staff based on that high volume of services. We'd love to be able to do the same kind of thing in other regions of the county, but South County and Lompoc follows Santa Maria in terms of volume. That said, we did have grant funding. We have put mobile and triage workers in all regions of the county.
And we are hoping to be able, in a small way, to begin to do either co-response same car. And that's what the sheriff has talked about. But funding those positions full time is challenging given our fee structures and our reimbursement strategies.
So that pilot program, is that with the county, with the Sheriff's Department? Or is it with the City of Santa Barbara who
Right now we've had discussions with the Sheriff's Department primarily and primarily as South County. And our little tiny pilot, and I actually have some comments that I'd like to do. Our little tiny pilot is that we have several staff who have volunteered to be co-responders. And so we're looking at just taking some of their shifts and making them the people that go out when there are police calls and coordinating.
I do have comments, I don't know if you'd like me to do those now or if you want me to wait until the supervisors have finished with their questions.
Please proceed.
Okay thank you. I wanted to just highlight that there are many many truths in this report and I wanted to pull out a few of them just to focus as important for our county. One of the quotes early on the report says that people with lower risk to offend can actually be harmed by too much correctional supervision or by being placed with people at higher risk to offend.
And I wanted to highlight that because we have an orientation in this county where we've ended up with the national data you heard was 17% of folks in jail have serious mental illness. We know from our one day counts, that over half the people on that day had serious mental illness and histories with working with our department. So we're even in a deeper problem here than folks see on the national level and the data that has gone into this report.
Further, the report says that many people with serious mental illness while incarcerated felt that their mental health and addiction needs were not addressed or were made worse by the isolation and confinement that they experienced in that situation. Yet many folks believe that if law enforcement intervenes, that somehow that arrest or that action is a merciful action that could lead them to treatment. Or force access to care. That's not currently the situation in this county and we really need to look at the way we are intervening with people. And that goes back to the stepping up initiative that Sheriff Brown was talking about. We need to look critically at those lower level intercepts and work directly with individuals to divert them from the arrest, from the charges and from jail.
And we can only do that by providing a much more robust Access to care and ability to keep people from being charged in the first place. Or creating mechanisms that those charges can be deferred or dropped if they're able to seek treatment and be cared for in those situations. We do know, even with our limited participation thus far in the stepping up initiative that it has led to significant changes here in the county. The board is well acquainted with our IST problems, incompetent to stand trial problems and the effective solutions that we've already been able to come up with simply by working together and sharing a commitment to reducing those problems.
The department and all the stakeholders have been able to reduce the number of people who are incompetent to stay in trial, who are impacting the psychiatric health facility. And we've also been in discussions on jail-based competency treatments that Potentially could be funded by the State Hospital Association. I'm sorry, the state hospital and also there are statewide diversion funds $100 million at the state level that is currently in the governor's budget that this county may qualify for as well which would not be in custody services those would be out of custody services.
Crisis intervention training is something that the department and the sheriff collaborated with very effectively for a number of years, more than five years. And it's something that our department staff continue to be deeply involved with in terms of training for all law enforcement not just the Sheriff's Department in the county. Many of our staff participate as trainers in what is currently the CIT program, but we did conduct that for at least five years prior to that with a combination sometimes of grant funds and sometimes the Mental Health Services Act funds. And everyone believes very strongly that training in mental health issues is essential for all aspects of law enforcement and we really do need to reduce any barriers. To having that happen, and in answer to I think Supervisor Lavagnino's question.
We did previously have a four day long training for CIT. I've already addressed to some degree the co-response and crisis calls, but what I haven't mentioned is that one of the things we tried to do as part of Renew 22 was to take the resources that we had. And see where we could break down silos and create the things that we wanted to have because all of our grant applications and other efforts to get funding for these initiatives haven't panned out with extra money. So we in South County, which again is the biggest.
volume of crisis calls. We have moved all our crisis services onto the county campus so that we have our psychiatric health facility, our crisis stabilization unit and our mobile and triage teams on campus all working together in an effort to break down silos that exist between those services and to facilitate more responsive work between law enforcement and behavioral wellness. So we haven't talked about that here before because we just moved the people in and are in the process of really working on creating that better.
But because of funding issues, we're only able to do a limited amount of what we'd really like to do. Hopefully some of these other grants will help us achieve some of these things but But we really do need to have diversion from arrests and charges, we need conditional release. We need to defer prosecution or sentencing and we need to reduce or dismiss charges when folks have severe mental illness and substance abuse that really require treatment.
Jail should not be the de facto mental health institute in our community. We really need to reduce the number of mentally ill and substance abusing populations in jail, and we need to treat them proactively. So I appreciate that the commission took the time to develop this report and focus on these important issues. And I think so that this doesn't sit on the shelf, we do need to look at how these translate in what we are doing in this county and where we can make a difference.
2:46 – 3:009 turns
Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you, Mr Chair. I had a couple of questions for the commission and about the Commission. Are you going to all 58 counties in the state with your report?
Supervisor, we're not set up to do that. Certainly not in that start north and go south kind of a process. What we have done is in response often to an invitation, we come and speak to different boards. We certainly are participating in some of the national and state level and local conferences around this issue. Because of I think Sheriff Brown's involvement, because of our former chair Commissioner Tina Wooten's involvement with the commission.
There was the opportunity to come and talk to Santa Barbara County but we're certainly engaged with a number of counties on this work and other work as well that's relevant to our ability to either support what they're doing or to explain what we are doing.
Well, thank you for coming to visit us. Would you talk more about the incubator? And I think you said you have 5 million in the governor's budget that you'll be using to finance some of your activities.
Absolutely, thank you for the question. So the Mental Health Services Act generates about $2 billion a year in funding statewide. There's a requirement that 5% of that be set aside for innovation. Under the law, the counties develop your spending plans for the overall funds but the innovation plans have to be reviewed and approved by the commission. Over the last few years we've, the commission has seen that counties often struggle to find ways to deploy those dollars in ways That have the potential to be transformative.
And so earlier this year, in February in fact, we did a convening where we worked to connect the mental health community with the state's innovation community. So our meeting was hosted by Google at one of their Google Health campuses. It's a company called Verily and we brought in the private sector as well A variety of folks in the public sector, educators, law enforcement, but clearly mental health providers, consumers and county staff. And the intent was to really start to connect our mental health community with folks from the private sector where innovation is a strength. In part, we see that counties struggle to be innovative because innovation is just difficult. And there's often public pushback against proposals that are creative.
And so in response to that work, we had proposed to the administration that we'd like to create a venue in a marketplace environment, so probably a non-profit, that would really bring the counties together to collaborate around spending that $100 million. We have four goals. The first goal is really to support collaboration across counties. What we've seen is many counties will spend these dollars in little pots. So, we recently approved an $89,000 innovation investment and the intent of the act was to invest these dollars in big ticket opportunities that could be scalable and transformative. And so, we want to help counties collaborate and that's already happening but the innovation incubator would really be designed to identify areas of shared concern and support the ability to co-invest.
The second issue is technical assistance. Part of the reason we believe that counties are struggling to be innovative is because they often don't have the capacity to connect with people who can help them. So, they're proposing things that there will be highly successful at and in some ways that's not the definition of innovation. The third piece is to strengthen evaluation of those innovations and this is where private sector partners can help us in terms of what we call a fail quickly kind of analogy that if you're going to try something invest quickly do it really well But decide fairly soon to stop investing in a proposal that isn't working. And so the evaluation component's very important, and the fourth piece is the collective learning.
And so the idea there is when we talk to counties about what they've learned from their innovations, they'll quickly tick off the kinds of things they've done but they're not learning across the counties. So what San Diego County has learned isn't necessarily Impacting how Santa Barbara or Los Angeles, or Fresno might be deploying their dollars. So we proposed to the administration to use state money to launch that incubator and the governor supported that on the condition that it focuses on strategies to support diversion from the criminal justice system as an upstream prevention oriented approach to reducing the number of consumers who are deemed incompetent to stand trial.
That sounds very exciting. Can you bring it home, how this will affect Santa Barbara County? What we should expect going forward?
Sure, and I should say that in addition to the 5 million that we've asked for that would focus on the criminal justice population, we're also exploring if there's enough money in the state's fund because there is a mental health services fund for state agencies that is 5% of the overall funds. To also do some innovation support work around the needs of children. So we see a couple of opportunities. Right now, we're actually in a design phase. We're holding meetings around the state with people from the public sector and the private sector who've worked on innovation to really understand how to design that incubator. But the intent is that probably towards the later end of this calendar year because if we're successful, the money would be available July 1.
That we would be able to launch an entity that would actually bring counties together to share information around challenges and needs. And the idea is that with this focus on criminal justice involvement, is that we could get counties collaborating on innovations where they're sharing resources. Specific to the challenges that are local in your county. So it's a recognition that although there are lots of issues that are unique to Santa Barbara, many of the challenges that Santa Barbara has are being shared in other counties. But that collective learning strategy isn't happening as well as we'd like it to happen. And so we could, for example, your colleagues were asking questions about is the response to a 911 call for assistance for someone in crisis.
A mental health worker alone? Is it a law enforcement officer alone? Are they in the same car? Are they meeting there together? What's the strategy? At what point does the law enforcement officer disengage? At what point is there a decision that the response really needs to be a law enforcement response versus a mental health response? Those are questions that all counties are struggling with. And so, our intent is to really bring the counties together with subject matter experts to understand how we can best use this $100 million in annual innovation investment in ways that address these problems statewide.
Supervisor Adam?
Well, forgive my cynicism and frustration with this whole subject matter. It just seems like it's just a jargon filled industrial mental health drug and alcohol complex that wants money to be the measure of all success. And it seems to me that the entire problem with this whole deal, and Alice talked about it herself when she said that many of the people that we've interviewed in our jail are already in our system.
So we're just clearly being ineffective in treating them and I think your entire focus should be on Creating effective metrics to be able to find out who's doing the treatment that's effective and getting these people to, I don't want to say decompensate but that's the wrong term. That's the opposite term. But who in the system is treating people so that it's effective? And they're progressing on and becoming productive members, or at least stabilized out there so they don't come in contact with law enforcement. Because that's the real problem here. You can't train our sheriffs, our patrol deputies, Out of having contact with people that have mental illness. I mean, it's not going to happen. You can train them to identify them and you can train them maybe Maybe you can do something else with them at some point, but really especially if they're already in our system.
If they're new and they're not in our system then that's a different matter. But if they're already in our system and we haven't been effective enough in treating them so that they're still out there creating problems and contacts with law enforcement. then that's a failure on B-Wells' part. So, you know, that's what's got to happen and I really think... One of the things that I've done here for my entire time is try to demand a higher level of accountability And a more long term look at what the condition of each of our clients is.
And how they progress through their system, through our system. And see if we can keep them from decompensating and going the wrong way. And find out where the holes are, find out which programs work. I mean you know we're spending $130 million plus here to do this and clearly it's not working if we're continually having A higher level of incidence of our clients, particularly running into law enforcement and training them into the legal system.
That's not working so I think that's where the biggest bang for the buck is in this whole deal. Is figuring out how to do effective treatment and stop doing the stuff, stop wasting the money that we're clearly wasting on programs that don't work. And make sure that we're 100% invested in it to the greatest extent possible because there's no system that's 100% efficient.
But make sure that you've got the maximum amount of money possible directed at those things that are high yield. And do more of that and do less of the stuff that doesn't work, but I don't think we're actually Keeping good enough track of our actual effect on each individual client. And I know that Alice is gonna come up here and take issue with that, and that's great. But that's my opinion. I haven't gotten enough direct, and we just started doing some of this stuff so maybe it's gonna develop as time goes on and I'll be happier as time goes on.
But I just don't feel like we have at this point enough long-term, and of course we just started so long term's out of the question. But maybe that's something with 100 million bucks from the state. They can apply that and find out where the success is. And as defined by clients, either leaving the system and becoming 100% self-sustaining members of society or at least going down in levels where they're not involved with law enforcement.
Thank you, Mr. Supervisor. If I may, Mr. Chair? That's exactly the path that the commission is trying to pursue and so in the interest of time we didn't get into some of the broader areas of work that we're doing but one of the other areas that we're looking at in terms of data is linking mental health data and employment data using quarterly wage data. Because the intent of the act is really that we're using these resources in a prevention or intervention strategy so that illness doesn't escalate to the point that someone can't work. And it doesn't escalate to the point where someone becomes involved with the criminal justice system.
We are pioneering, in fact, the data link between our mental health data and our criminal justice data. We have some preliminary findings as very early and we're not satisfied with the analysis that we've done yet. But the preliminary data shows that for those folks who were in a full service partnership, we cut criminal justice involvement about in half. When they leave that full service partnership it goes up a little bit but nowhere near as high as it was before. The services were received. What we've not done is distill down that analysis to understand which types of consumers, what their needs are and what kinds of services. But that is the intent and I think to your point these weren't quite your words but we also are of the mind that we can't buy our way out of the problem that we have.
We can't fund our way out of the problem that we have. But we do have the opportunity to innovate and to shift more attention towards prevention or intervention strategies, rather than these very expensive high end treatment needs. One of the things that the commission has been doing in particular in this area is around early psychosis programs. We recognize that the vast majority of people who are deemed incompetent to stand trial who have multiple arrests, who end up with felony charges and then they are at risk of state hospital involvement because they have psychoses.
The state is just beginning to understand the impact of early psychosis programs. We're working with the University of California Davis, to put in place a technical assistance and evaluation program to better understand and help the counties understand how to invest in early psychosis programs in ways that are preventative and respond to people at first break rather than waiting five, seven, ten years where someone has been chronically homeless and has spent a long time on the streets and it's very difficult to serve.
The sort of analogy is, we don't wait until cancer's at stage four. Why do we wait till mental illness is severe and disabling before we begin to deploy? And so you're absolutely right Supervisor that that is the intent. We're working to use the data. We're working to bring together subject matter experts to build out the technical assistance strategies and provide those kinds of supports to counties so that you can make more informed decisions about how you use the limited resources that you have.
3:01 – 3:061 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair, thank you for being here. I just want to talk about some of your findings and recommendations and just give you my input. This first one about the recommendation 1 really seems to deal a lot with Prevention and collaboration amongst our departments. And I've served on the AB 109 commission since its inception, and my observation is that initially there was a lot of collaboration amongst our agencies.
Which I'm sure you know includes probation, social services, behavior wellness, the sheriff, public defender, district attorney. It's the collaboration of, it's the group. But over the years when there was additional funding available, It felt to me as almost, I hate to use this word but a food fight for the money. Because of the recession and there was this money available. And then or now, I'm seeing a little bit more collaboration.
Really the focus of that organization is to keep folks out of jail. But for a period of time, it seemed like there wasn't but that focus had diminished a bit and that more money was going to the sheriff's department, to the jail. But now what we're seeing is more on the prevention and the assessment. So we have engaged, and I forgot to mention the courts, engaged in pretrial release which involves more assessment. Which in turn then reduces the number of people in the jail. I think that is one of the issues that, I believe that we're seeing in our county. That we're not seeing a significant reduction of people in our jail and the number of people who are in our jail.
That have not been adjudicated yet is, at least in the last numbers was above average. So whether or not they have mental illness or not I believe that's still an issue that we need to address as a county and with all of our partners. The other one has to do with recommendation number two. And that is, the fact is that we have folks with mental illness in our jails and it's been an issue for me.
In that, I think that we need to ensure that the care that they're getting for those people who need to be in the jail are receiving the proper care. And I think the Sheriff's Department has heard all of us talk about that issue. We have a new provider on board who is providing those mental health services and I say this to the sheriff because I looked at our long range calendar I still don't see the new contractor coming to the Board of Supervisors for a review of their contract, which they're supposed to do every year. And I thought during budget hearings that when I asked the question that I understood that they were coming back to us. But it's our responsibility to hold the people who are doing the work in our jails accountable.
And again, if we have folks who have mental illness and are in our jails they have to receive the best services because we're paying quite a bit of money for those services. And it's been, in my opinion, the results in the past have not proved to be very positive. So I'm hoping, Sheriff, that we can get our report back. We had also asked when we started this contract that we were going to have behavioral wellness and public health be a part of that evaluation so that it's not just the private entity who is providing us with input but that it's our own county staff is providing us with input on how well we're providing those services to the folks who are in jail. And I think we also need to know, aside from the services from this private provider is what are the services we're providing as an institution for drug rehabilitation and any other mental health services that we can be providing.
Which I'm not sure that we have any, so I think that would be something that's really important. A question for you is do you know for the Affordable Care Act if we have inmates in jail who qualify for Medi-Cal and are receiving mental health services? Does a county get reimbursed for that?
3:06 – 3:1215 turns
Supervisor, I do not know the answer to that question. I know that there are restrictions in terms of Medi-Cal for people who are incarcerated but I don't understand on the managed care side what those restrictions are. My assumption would be no but I honestly don't have a, I don' t know the answer to that.
Supervisor Wolfe to the chair, actually there was just a change that occurred I think last year. That for when patients who are in the jail who are Medi-Cal eligible get services outside the jail for certain types of procedures for health facilities we can get reimbursed and that was a change that just happened last year. I think there's something on your board agenda next week that asks the board to adopt our program.
And that's for
if they're out of
the jail.
That's when we get rid of them. Supervisor Wolfe through the chair, so that's really if they are admitted to a hospital? An overnight stay and that would apply if they are admitted to a psychiatric hospital that bills Medi-Cal.
But if they receive services in jail, we can't get reimbursed for that.
Our staff are unable, that's correct. Our staff are unable to bill for services provided in the jail. There is one source for us to be paid for services provided in the jail but that's limited to discharge planning services within a month of an anticipated release and that's it. Okay
may I suggest that that is something you take to the governor in your report because I serve on the NACO Health Committee, and that is an issue nationwide. And it just boggles my mind that an individual who is qualified for Medi-Cal and is incarcerated doesn't get those benefits because certainly it would help the county who's providing those services. And you know just so you know we as a board just had a budget hearing and the issue of the CIT did come up and again is I'm hoping that that program will be Hopefully, I don't want to use the word institutionalized. We'll become a part of either the collaboration of B-Well and the sheriff or the sheriff. But it seems to me to be an essential part of what we need to do to ensure that prevention element is incorporated into the criminal justice system.
And Sheriff Brown has something to say.
Supervisor Wolf, through the chair. Certainly that program is something that we want to see and will work to continue. It is however a program that's unfunded- Yes, we know that. And it's put together by Bailing Wire and Elmer's Glue at this point. We want to see it continue but we would like to see it continue as a funded program that could be one that wasn't just kicked down the road and we have to deal with this problem every year to try to get it funded.
Well, thank you for that and my hope was that is funded. I didn't say specifically if it should be ongoing funding but I definitely believe it should be funded but that was part of our budget
discussion. We're in complete agreement with you
on that. Thank you. Did you have any comments about anything else? It looked like maybe we were going to say something about the Medi-Cal or not.
Well, thank you Supervisor. We agree that we need to strengthen the access to care in custody environments and as outlined in the report those environments are not conducive to wellness and health. And part of the discussion with the administration actually around the $100 million investment, which is general fund money. Is to better understand how to best deploy those dollars in recognizing the needs on the community end but also in a custody environment because for many of these folks it's not as if they're in the community only or they're in the jail only, they're often passing through. And there needs to be some continuity in that care. And so as your behavioral wellness director pointed out, that there is some ability to use these funds to support people in discharge planning.
But part of the conversation the commission had is to really strengthen the integration of the community based services and the jail based services. And that's an area that I think we need to, the state needs to look at in terms of that $100 million investment. That the administration is proposing and then I think that the commission would want to look at in terms of our innovation work because the ultimate goal is that people aren't ending up in jail so that you can bill for services because they're getting care still on the community. That were diverting as many people as it's appropriate recognizing the public safety needs. And that even for those folks who do need to be in jail because of their behavior or their criminal justice history, that they're getting the right kind of services as well.
Because eventually they'll get out and we want them to get out in ways that result in stable participation in the community.
Well, I think we have the same objective and again we're all dealing with budgetary issues. And really if we're looking at exemplary service in the jails then the people who qualify for Medi-Cal should also qualify for behavioral wellness or mental health services while they're in the jail. That in my opinion shouldn't preclude them from getting A benefit that they would get if they were outside.
Thank you, Mr Chair. Can
3:12 – 3:192 turns
I just clarify one point? Sure, absolutely. Through the chair, Supervisor Wolk first of all. The other thing I just wanted to make clear was mentioned that the Medi-Cal was for someone left the confines of the jail and received treatment and it was mentioned overnight in a hospital which certainly would qualify but it doesn't have to include hospitalization there are instances where we have inmates who have cancer Cancer treatments or dialysis, or have to see a specialist. Or have to have a minor off-site surgery or something like that and those are covered typically by MediCal and could be by private insurance also if they had it. The other point that I just wanted to make to Supervisor Adam in the comments that you had with Director Ewing.
And that is that yeah, I think we're in agreement Alternatives to jail, effective alternatives and effective treatment programs. And part of that is certainly the data and studying what's effective and what's not but it's also imperative that we have a place to divert people too. And that's what oftentimes is lacking. We don't have a community based program that perhaps has a housing element that has more of a longer term Treatment element in our community, and although Behavioral Wellness has done and is doing some great things in terms of trying to get that. And we're looking at utilizing some of those.
The fact of the matter is we still have a very limited number of puff beds. We still have a very limited number of treatment beds in our community for 440-some thousand people.
Well, I'm not going to say I disagree because maybe we do. But the fact is we just keep throwing money at it and we don't know. The problem is you're putting $133 million into our mental health program every year and we don't know what the effectiveness of any individual program is on any individual. And how many people were bringing into the system, and how many people we've lost from the system, and why have we lost them?
You know, those are really important statistics to know about because if we were being effective In terms of moving people through the system and making them more and more stable as time went on, we would have less people in the system eventually. But it seems like we just collect them in the system. And so we're either being ineffective or there's just an influx of people coming in from some place.
I suspect that may be happening. In fact, somebody sent me an article and I can't tell you what paper it was out of but it was about a guy from Orange County that had been sent here from Georgia. And the guy had bounced around in various group homes and stuff. And so, is this what's going on? Is this why this number continues to grow all the time? We seem to be unable to affect it.
And so that's why I'm a little frustrated because we don't have enough information. And I understand, we're getting it or some of it but I still don't know and Alice and I have had conversations about the performance measures that we typically use. And a lot of times those performance measures are really oriented to people showing up to various programs But it doesn't say that the practitioners of this program are being effective.
It says when this program got employed someplace else, it was effective. Ergo you're going to get to assume that if the people show up to your program, it's gonna be effective. Well there's absolutely no proof that any of the practitioners and I could tell you that we know that there is doctors that are great doctors and there's teachers that are great teachers. And there's doctors and teachers that are horrible.
I mean, this is why at schools, at colleges every kid can grade their teacher and you can go look up the teacher and see if you want to take that as a teacher as a student. And we don't have that. We don't have any information about the people that come through our system. We don't have any information about the people that are the practitioners And I really think we've got to take a look at that, because if you don't know about your clients and you don't know about your practitioners and watch the performance, there may be... How can you fix it? How can you do better? If you can't measure it. Andy Caldwell always tells us, if you can't measure it, you can fix it.
If you don't measure it, and I don't believe we're doing that to an adequate degree. And a lot of these conversations that Allison and I have had over my time here and her time here have been kind of stymied by the conditions that the money comes from. The grant has conditions that you have to use certain performance measures. Well, none of those performance measures are measuring the outcome on an individual patient.
They're saying did you talk to them within 10 days or did they show up? for 30 days or, you know. And you just are making this grand assumption that if they show up for 30 days then they're gonna get better but I don't think that translates so I would like to see a lot better and a lot more thoughtful performance measures on especially as you have control over state grants or influence on the conditions of state grants that seems like a no brainer.
3:19 – 3:257 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair, I meet with our mental health commissioners on a monthly basis and one of them is a client and he likes to remind me that I don't have high blood pressure. You can't just give me medicine and I'm going to get better. We're looking for this logical solution to folks that live in an illogical world. I don't think it's A plus B equals C, really. I don't think you can just have a real simple answer for something that's a super complex issue.
You know, I want programs at work as well but this is a lifelong struggle for these folks, for a lot of them, for the rest of their lives and even this individual who our mental health system, the other side of this is Behavioral wellness is trying to usher this guy into, hey you're done. You're good and he's heading off into a world where he's like I'm not. I need assistance.
I want to be able to come back and get involved in these programs so I don't think it's just simple as we put the seed in the ground. It's in good soil, you water it, it's gonna flourish and everything's gonna be great and the person's gonna go off and get a job. You know, I think it's a struggle that Dr. Glegghorn has had as far as coming up with really good performance measures but I think we've got to remember who the clientele is and it's not as easy as it looks or sounds.
Are there any requests to speak?
Chair Williams, members of the board, we have one request. Lynn Gibbs
Honorable Supervisors, I chair the NAMI Public Policy Committee. I just wanted to mention a couple of positive things that are going on. This report Together We Can highlights programs that divert people with serious mental illness from criminalization into treatment and two that are prominently mentioned are assisted outpatient treatment and CIT. And we in NAMI are really proud that our county has already had strong beginnings with our AOT, Laura's Law Program and with our CIT program. And we can brag on that in other counties. We have really strong leadership at behavioral wellness from Tammy Summers who Runs the AOT program and John Lewis in forensics, and John Winkler in crisis among others. And they work closely with a beginning CIT team including Dr.
Lee. In NAMI we get to be included in a couple of the action teams, the crisis action team and the forensic action team. And we see progress being made because people are coming to those meetings from behavioral health, from the hospitals, from the sheriff's department and the police department. And things are being worked out such as making it easier to find out what medication a person is on when they're admitted to the ER and so on.
And so we're really proud of what's going well, and I think too often you hear from us about what's not going well. Because we're advocating for something that we don't have and we need to have but I think we were setting a really good direction. And the departments are beginning to work together much more collaboratively and closely. Supervisor Adam, I just wanted to mention that in terms of performance measures since 2015 our public policy committee has advocated outcome measures for people in different programs.
And the three of them we advocated were reductions in incarcerations, reduction in ER utilization and reduction in psychiatric hospitalizations. And we believe that those are hard outcome measures we can look at in terms of programs. And if a program's being effective in addressing serious mental illness, then we should see the people in those programs have reductions in those areas. And we actually are measuring those things right now with the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program and we're showing reductions but we'd like to see those measures applied to other programs as well so that we can compare programs and see what's working best.
And potentially then put more resources into the programs that are working the best. And the other thing I wanted to say, and actually the primary
reason- Thank you Ms. Gibbs.
Okay, could I just say one thing and thank the officers for the work they do in the field? I felt bad that when we came here to advocate for That you only heard the bad stories, but we hear many positive stories about what officers have done in the field. So thank you for letting me say that.
We also have a slip from Chief Pat Walsh
3:25 – 3:318 turns
Good morning. Thank you for letting me speak today. First, I want to tell the commission a great job on this report. I just want to mention a couple things. What I like about the report is that data, I'm not a data geek but the data does need to be looked at. But it also needs to be shared and so one of the issues that I could share information with Dr. Claghorn but she can't share information with us and so there are some gaps. And so the frequent flyers we'd like to call Are not getting, they're not being looked at like my officers are coming across the same people that the hospital ER is coming across. That the deputies come across, that mental health comes across.
So I'm excited to hear that the commission's talking about trying to collaborate and get that data together. And then the other thing is This idea of putting a clinician in the car is an exceptional idea and I actually traded that car in Portland, Oregon before I came down here. And I'm actually not asking for more money from my city, I'm actually going to carve out an officer just to do that.
I'm probably going to be asking the doctor to put a clinician in a car in the future. Because, I think if they're together then the officer might be able to do some good and if the officer's not communicating well maybe the clinician can do something for those folks suffering from mental illness. And quite frankly, the most vulnerable folks that I see in Lompoc Are having no contact with county mental health because they don't even know how to get there and that they need the help. And so I'm very concerned about it, and so I think that this is something we all have to stay on.
So thank you for your time.
That concludes public comment.
I think there's one more
My name is Ron Glover and I'm currently county liaison for Lucidity, which is an artist collective and music festival here in Santa Barbara County. There's a couple of programs that we do in our event where we mitigate and bring down the problems of most festivals. We have a guardian team, we have security of course, and we're required to have sheriffs on site.
And we're required to have security. We have been doing this for six years, it's our seventh year and the amount of incidents that we have on site are quite low when you look at it compared to the rest of the festivals that you are familiar with. And we contribute that to our guardianship which is very much like the CIT. And the officers that we have on site, the majority of them are trained in that as well.
It tends to be the personnel that is first responders to a situation and I must say that I'm very proud of our record, of the least amount of incidents that happened in our program. And we have up to 5,000 people on site. And I think it's due to the amount of care that we take and having the officers there, they're also trained in CIT, that mitigate the problems from going to a full-on arrest.
Thank you.
Thank you and thank you for your work, Ron. Any other requests to speak? I'll just briefly, sometimes this realm is so intimidating. It's so intimidating because there's so much wrong with how the system works but I just think we should kind of take a larger view of it to say that all the solutions that other societies have come up with this Have been inferior to this.
The solutions throughout history are either completely segregate those folks, liquidate them or to allow them to pass away because there's no support network or As was the case in this society until fairly recently, put the entire burden on families which causes particularly poor families with folks with mental illness to have increased rates of incidents. So I don't think it's an accident that we're still figuring this out.
That it is still a process of improving something. Because we and a handful of other Western democracies have decided to treat the mentally ill as human beings, and try to create a support network for them. And we're still working out how we can make that really work. Is there a receive and report
motion? I'll make a motion to receive the report.
Second.
There's a motion, and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Public works you're up
3:31 – 3:4618 turns
Chair Williams and members of the board, this is item five from public works. It's a hearing to consider the adoption of measure A five year local program projects for fiscal years 2018-19 through 22-23. Ready?
Please proceed.
Okay, good afternoon. Chris Nedden, Public Works Transportation. Chris
Nedden, the most popular man in Montecito.
All right thank you I'll take that. Brittany Heaton our budgeting and programs manager is going to give the presentation today on the Measure A program of projects
Thank you, good afternoon Chair Williams and board members. Today I'm here to present the Measure A Fiscal Years 18-19 to 22-23 Program of Projects. This is an annual item that we bring to you. We're required by the ordinance to have a public hearing and adopt a program or projects that communicates to the public what we're doing with our Measure A funding. Measure A is a half cent Local sales tax that is set aside specifically for transportation.
Today, we'll just quickly go over some of the requirements that the ordinance and investment plan requires. We'll talk a little bit about the measure A revenues and the distribution in our county. A little bit about the state of our transportation system. And then we'll look at the program or project specifically. So as I said, we are required to adopt a five-year program or project. So we're looking at the upcoming fiscal year and the five years after.
We also at that time certify the maintenance of effort which is a requirement of the ordinance that we spend a baseline amount of funding that we spent at a discrete period in time. And then that grows each year with the rate of growth of the sales tax. And then also, today we want to reaffirm the distribution formulas for Measure A and some of the priorities for the use of the funding. So when you look at the revenues for 18-19 these estimates come from us, come to us from the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments.
And the revenues for 18-19 are $3.4 million in the north and $3,700,000 in the south. The measure A investment plan bifurcates the total revenues after many regional projects get their funding taken off the top such as the highway 101 widening. The commuter train that is operating now from Ventura to Santa Barbara, some of the interchanges in the North County. And then the money that goes to local streets and roads gets split 50-50.
The North County has a smaller share because the unincorporated population in the North County is a smaller percentage than the unincorporated population in the South County. So Measure A revenues are distributed 100% by population from SBK to our county. You can look at the, this bar chart goes over a little bit what the trend is looking like for our revenues.
We are going up approximately 2% from last year and in 19-20 we'll see a 1% growth and then in 20-21 the revenues dip to our county and all of the local agencies and this is due to a current investment plan That is looking at bonding to help fund the highway 101 widening. And when they bond, we'll have to start paying debt service in 2021 and that debt service comes off the top of the program before the money gets distributed to the local agencies so there's a slight dip.
At the same time, we are required to keep our maintenance of effort. So even though our actual revenues coming to us dip, our maintenance of effort will go up still at the rate of growth of the sales tax. So that's the comparison of those two charts. This year, our maintenance of effort for Measure A alone is $1.56 million. So let's talk a little bit about the distribution of Measure A. I mentioned that we split it north and south, so the Board of Supervisors today is going to reaffirm this distribution but in the past has established that in the North County We distribute Measure A 100% by lane miles.
So each district that's represented in the North County has a certain amount of lane miles and that percentage, it all goes according to how many lane miles are in that district. In the South we use a 50% population, 50% lane miles distribution. Now the state of the transportation system, we started talking to you a little bit about this during the budget hearings. I just want to highlight that we do have a significant deferred maintenance backlog and it's gone up 10% from last year mainly due to the condition of our pavement because as I think you all know, we do not have the funds we need to put into our pavement each year and so Every year as we apply our surface treatments, we're only able to do a small percentage that's needed. And so our pavement condition index is slowly degrading and as it degrades the cost to rehabilitate those roads goes up by three times.
So let's look at that a little bit more closely. The top chart there is what we call our pavement degradation curve, and the PCI again is the pavement condition index. So our current payment condition index average in the county is 56. We're still pretty solidly in the good category, the blue category there but we are on a pretty steep slope into decline. If we're not able to invest properly in our pavement. And once we get below 50, we get into the poor area and that's when, as I mentioned, that's when we go from being able to do our preventive treatments into having to do rehab. And again, that's three times the cost. So we're looking at $50,000 a lane mile versus $150,000 for a surface treatment versus a minimal rehab.
The other chart up there is our PCI projection. And you saw this during the budget hearings, $15.8 million is what we need to, the investment we need to maintain our current PCI at 56. Our current investment in deferred maintenance is $7.2 million and if we project 7.2 million dollars out over the next several years Even with the slight increase we're going to see from SB 1, so 7.2 may go up to about $10 million based on the SB1 revenues. We are still going to by 25-26 be looking at a PCI of 42 which is solidly in that poor or yellow region in the curve above.
You'll be shocked to find that Supervisor
Adam
has a question?
I just want to confirm that's countywide. That number that you're talking about, 56 at this time and 42 in 10 years will be countywide? So that means there are a bunch of roads way below that and some above that?
Yes, Chair Williams, Supervisor Adams. That's correct. That is the average countywide and we have several roads that are significantly below that and we have roads that are higher than that of course.
Thanks. Yeah,
I'll take what's it? Yeah, it's taken over so we break it down by district as well. Correct you have that do we break it down? You guys do not, if I'm correct, you do not pave roads by using the PCI number and then theorizing how to improve or that number. Correct? I mean, you don't take that into consideration. You guys aren't playing to the numbers is what I'm saying. So what you're doing is looking at, you're putting your dollars into an algorithm and then you're determining which road to pave to save the most money down the road.
Supervisor Lavagnino, Chair Williams. That's correct. We obviously look at the pavement condition index or the payment management system that we use looks at the PCI to determine The treatment that we're going to do to the road. But ultimately, we take the money, we plug it in, we use the superintendents and maintenance superintendents in each of the yards their field knowledge and together we come up with a list of roads that is the best investment for the amount of money we have using the formula that we are required to adhere to.
So do we break it down? Do we have our PCI by like heavily used roads, arterial roads and then county roads out that...
I don't have that today. Right. But we do do that. We do do that yes. That
would be interesting to see.
Okay. We can get that for you absolutely. So then moving into specifically the Measure A program of projects, this is the total. So the North and the South County Program of Projects, this is a breakdown of where the Measure A funding is proposed to be programmed. 86% or the largest piece of the pie there is for operations and corrective maintenance. And this is a change from historically with measure D, and then now measure A. We haven't always had to use this much funding for operations and corrective maintenance because we relied on some state gas tax funding, what we refer to as HUDA, or the Highway Users Tax Account.
But that funding has dwindled over time. And even with the passage of SB1, it hasn't replenished to the point that we aren't dipping into our reserves each year to cover the cost of operations. So then with the storm events of this year, we had to use our reserves even further and so now we are really in a situation where we need to use Measure A to cover operations and help with the reduction in reserves.
And I know some people ask us, well what does that mean operations corrective maintenance? Is that just staff time. It is staff time but this is the staff in each of our road yards we have three main road yards and two satellite offices that are out in the field every single day doing surface preparation for our more significant surface treatments mowing weed abatement. Shoulder repair, they're cleaning culverts on an annual and sometimes twice annually basis depending on the situation.
Tree maintenance which we know is significant in some parts of the county. Striping on the road, the paint. Taking care of downsigns and these field crews respond to over 1,100 service calls every year. That number has been pretty solid since I've been here and I've been at the county for six years. And so a majority of the calls that we receive in our office and that I think you receive in yours can be handled by our operations and corrective maintenance crew. So it's an integral part of the picture when we're looking at maintenance.
In addition though, we do have this deferred maintenance backlog and we have roads that need treatment beyond what our crews can do. The other portions of Measure A are going to be used for transit and active transportation. We are required by the ordinance to spend at least 10% of our funds in both the North and South County on active transportation, and transit qualifies as under that umbrella.
And then we have some funding going to pavement preservation, mostly in-house county work, and then replacement and capital improvement so A little bit of additional funding that we have in the North and South County is often used to match federal and state grants for bridge rehabilitations or replacements, and things like that. So finally, we'll just go over our recommendations. Well you can see them here and I don't need to read them but we are looking for the adoption of a resolution to adopt the program or projects which you have in your packet. That format is the format that the Santa Barbara County Association of Government requires.
And so we also want to reaffirm the existing distributions of measure A, that's the 50-50 in the south and 100% lane miles in the north. Reaffirm Resolution 10-101. This establishes the policies where we look at funding maintenance first, and then after that safety and capital improvements. And so clearly we're funding maintenance first with Measure A today if you adopt this program of projects. And then as a follow up item on May 15th, we'll be back with the road maintenance annual plan. And we've been discussing this with you and your staffs. This is where we will put together the list of roads that we will provide capital maintenance to with the other funding that we've discussed, Senate Bill 1 funding and some general fund that you have allocated to us.
So thank you very much for your time today and I'm happy to take any questions.
3:46 – 4:006 turns
Questions or comments from the supervisors? No requests to speak. Thank you for your presentation and illustrating the challenges we have ahead. Supervisor Lavagnino?
I'll make a motion, move staff recommendations.
Motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. We will break for closed session. Mr. Gazzone can you detail that?
Chair Williams and Supervisors, my estimate for closed session is about 45 minutes to one hour today. You are noticed for three items, Whiffen versus County of Santa Barbara in existing litigation case. One matter of anticipated litigation for significant exposure to litigation as well as conference with labor negotiators but I'm informed by human resources that they do not need the labor negotiations item so you only have two items for closed session up a little bit longer than 45 minutes.
I'll try to be back here at a quarter to two, because I think those two items will go fast. Okay, thank you so much.
Hi, everyone. Music. You. Yeah. Hi. ♪ Yeah. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Oh,
4:03 – 4:532 turns
♪
♪ ♪ ♪ ♫ Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Hi, everyone. you Good morning, everyone. Hi. Hi. ♪ Good morning. Hi. You. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Thank you. you You. you Music playing Music playing ♪ ♪ ¶. Music Music ♪ ♪ Music playing ¶ Music Okay. I think it's
4:54 – 4:5911 turns
We'll call this meeting back to order for a report from closed session.
Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered two matters. One case of existing litigation, Wiffen versus County of Santa Barbara as well as one case of significant exposure to civil litigation. There are no reportable actions. D6.
Chair Williams and members of the board, item D6 is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the cannabis amendments to the Santa Barbara County Uniform Rules for Agricultural Preserves and Farmland Security Zones and the right to farm ordinance.
I've never done this before. Good afternoon, Chair Williams and supervisors. We are here before you today to present amendments to the uniform rules and the right to farm ordinance in regards to cannabis cultivation. This presentation covers the board's direction given to staff on March 20th. First, a quick overview of the uniform rules. These rules are our local policies for implementing the State Williamson Act.
Under the Williamson Act owners of agricultural lands or open spaces enter into a 10 or 20 year contract to receive reductions on property taxes while preserving the land for agriculture or open space. The uniform rules specify how the county determines eligibility for these contracts and how we permit or prohibit other uses on contracted lands. Per the board's direction on March 20th, the amendments before you today treat cannabis cultivation as an agricultural product that counts towards the minimum cultivation requirements of an agricultural preserve contract.
Retail and marketing would be prohibited, yet processing, distribution and manufacturing of cannabis from offsite sources would be a compatible use on contracted lands as long as 10% of the cannabis comes from the agricultural preserve premise. In 1981, California passed the Right to Farm Act protecting farmers from public nuisance concerns. The county adopted the right to farm ordinance in 1989 consistent with the Right to Farm Act.
Our ordinance states that no agricultural activity conducted for commercial purposes shall be or become a nuisance due to any changed condition in or about the locality after it has been in operation for more than three years. The right to farm ordinance proposed amendments as directed by your board adds the definition of cannabis and language that would not afford the cannabis cultivation the same protections as other agricultural uses due to the fact that cannabis is a federally considered a controlled substance.
Involves potential adverse effects that differ from other crops grown in the county, requires unique development standards and will be taxed differently than other agricultural products. That concludes staff's presentation. We ask that your recommendation follow what is on the screen and page one of the board letter. And we are happy to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much.
Other questions from the board? Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we did the registry and I think this is in the EIR there was some indication of those on the registry that were doing cultivation that were in Ag Preserve. Do you have an estimate of how much those people might be saving by being in an Ag Preserve? By not paying taxes?
Through the Chair, Supervisor Wolf. Unfortunately we don't have any economic studies of the Williamson Act and any sort of benefits to the cannabis cultivators.
Well so let me ask it this way. So if someone, if we didn't adopt this, someone could get out of an Ag Preserve contract and continue to cultivate cannabis as long as it was within the ordinance that we had already adopted?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Wolfe, they could cultivate cannabis in nine or ten years when their contract's expired. They're bound to the rules of their contract during the non-renewal period which lasts nine or ten years. Okay.
And then after that then they would be subject to the regular property taxes as anyone would be? Right.
They actually increase over time during that 9 or 10 year period. I guess it's a 9 year period.
4:59 – 5:0611 turns
However, to review the amount of the property tax subsidy within Williamson Act is tied to the cash value of the crop. So at least the info we had last time from the CPAs over here was that there's really very little subsidy because their cash value is high enough that we're charging them higher property taxes.
Chair Williams, that is what we heard at the last meeting from the tax collector. Or assessor I'm sorry.
To the public. Any requests to speak to it?
Chair Williams, members of the board, we have seven requests. We're going to start in Santa Maria with Lil Clary to be followed by Renee O'Neal. If we could go to Santa Maria please.
Thank you very much. I believe it is very important for the county to establish that cannabis cultivation and related activities are not protected under the Right to Farm Act. Therefore, I strongly support the language in Attachment 3 amending the Right to Farm Ordinance. Both the text of the amendment and the justifications are well thought out. Since the State delegates decision-making under the right to farm, the local jurisdiction, the County should take this step now. And here's why.
I've been doing some research on Right to Farm in other states. And in Oregon, where there are similar but not identical right-to-farm ordinances, cannabis farmers are trying to use them in order to prevent restriction. In one example I found, growers are telling local jurisdictions they have to be allowed to grow or that they have to be compensated for the full value of what they would have earned.
In another, cannabis farmers are claiming local restrictions are not reasonable opening the possibility of extended litigation by the cannabis industry. I believe you should settle this matter now. You've worked for over a year to address cannabis matters and respond to both citizen issues and industry concerns. Growers must be clear that odor, noise, night lighting et cetera will not be tolerated And all involved must understand that the requirements of land use permits must be met.
The alternative, I believe is to face a future in which not only cannabis but other agricultural crops such as coca leaf and opium poppies might be tolerated. Thank you very much.
Rene O'Neill and then we're going to come back to Senator Barbara for Ron Glover
Good afternoon, Supervisors. I'm just going to brighten up your day with a poem song that I wrote for the bad actors in Tapiskaya Canyon. First they buy land, tell you lies about their plans for those supplies. A home for mom or date palm trees but that was said just to deceive. Next come chainsaws, tractor trailers, dozers, bobcats, well drill failures. Say goodbye to clear streams, rural life and your dreams Doing the cannabis rag.
So we formed a canyon crisis team, read the laws and learned just what they mean. Spoke at meetings, voiced our founded fears, wore our purple hats and made it clear absolutely no to players. They connive, don't do them favors. Zones, cups, blah, blah. Time to finalize the law. Board of Supes Planning Commission fraught with changing state revisions, striving to keep laws the same. It's a cart before the horse game. That's for you Peter Adam.
Move them on to urban land where you control and take command. Oversee and regulate, monitor and stipulate doing the cannabis right. State law has in place before we do this gives growers loophole avenue. They obtain a temporary pass to continue growing all the grass. We are livid, fit to be tithed. Confident it's all been contrived. Stunned, strained, curse word. Voices raised were finally heard. How much revenue from weed to fill the county coffers need? Law enforcement permits staff It's enough to make you laugh, allowing pot farm industries will not produce desired fees. Keep them out of egg zones far away from our homes. Getting more furious maybe delirious doing the cannabis rag.
And for those of you who recognize the tune, Peter, you got a smile on your face. I know you do. That's a song by or the music is by Tom Lerer who was pretty amazing clever lyricist and satirist. Satirist musician from the 60s, amazing stuff. And that's based on a song called The Vatican Rag which my mother thought I would be struck by lightning if I watched him on the TV playing that so have a good afternoon you know where I stand we're still waiting to get these bad actors out of our community thanks bye.
Thanks Renee and but I think it would be even better as a rap. So try that next
time. All righty, darling. I'll try that. I don't know how to write rap but I'll try. Thanks.
Steve can help you. I want to know who's going to follow that. Good luck!
That would be Ron Glover. Is Ron here? Sandy Cutler? We'll hear from Anna Carrillo after Sandy.
5:06 – 5:1110 turns
Great. Great song, loved it. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me to come and express my concerns about the odor issue in meeting from the cannabis business in Carpinteria. We have a small farm in the 5800 block of Casitas Pass Road. Obnoxious skunk-like odors escape daily from the greenhouses located in the 5600 to 5800 block of Casitas Pass Road. I believe if the right to farm ordinance passes, I would have no recourse to complain about the nuisance odors I've been experiencing for the past two years.
Concerning the ordinances you are finalizing, I have two requests regarding the odor nuisance issue. First there needs to be a clear precise method of reporting fugitive odors to an enforcement person. It's not right to ask the citizens to contact the growers. Often we can't figure out the correct address, let alone a phone number. Also having us contact the sheriff's department to be put on a list to show a track record of the problem is pointless.
Second, the county's rules must not give a cannabis grower any wiggle room in allowing fugitive odors to escape. There's methods of control and these methods need to be applied. Thank you for your efforts on our behalf.
Anna Carrillo, be followed by Mary Ellen Brooks
Thank you, I'm Ana Carrillo. Thank you very much for all your work. I've lived in Carpinteria since 1973 and have been extremely appreciative for all the staff's hard work and your approval of the recently adopted land use ordinance and the business license ordinance. I'm very concerned about the proposal before you of designating cannabis cultivation as a compatible use, so it can be cultivated on all Williamson Act parcels with no restrictions except for retail sales and marketing which are deemed incompatible on those parcels. I am in favor of the previous limits restricting cannabis is not being compatible and therefore limiting the amount of cultivation but I'm willing to compromise on this. If you are going to allow unlimited cultivation on Williams and Act parcels, I want the Board of Supervisors to state categorically that cannabis does not qualify for the right to farm protections.
This has been the accepted understanding since June 2016 when I asked both the state and our local ag commission who agreed after checking with your county council that cannabis was not under the protection of the Right To Farm Ordinance. Since the cultivation of cannabis is unlike other agricultural, as it is a controlled substance will be taxed and many local rules and regulations have already been passed to protect recent. And long term neighboring residences in schools all the odor abatement measures and other protections pass would be for not if the right to farm ordinance was to include the cultivation of cannabis. While those in Carpinteria who are in the coastal zone continue to wait patiently for all the rules and regulations to become operative, we are continuing to have ongoing issues with odor and night lighting.
I brought this up two weeks ago followed up with our local sheriff but as no rules are in effect yet, we have no recourse for probably another year. We're hoping that the consult model will encourage those who are interested in growing here to be proactive and follow the regulations set forth by your board. And the Coastal Commission will approve Santa Barbara's county rules and regulations in a timely manner. We are still concerned about those who aren't interested, and we'll be allowed to amortize their investment until May probably of 2019.
Thank you very much.
I have two questions quickly for staff on that. Essentially what the speaker just articulated on exempting cannabis from right to farm, that is your staff recommendation correct?
Chair Williams yes. That is one half of the report that's before you today is making sure that cannabis does not get afforded the same as other agricultural products under the right to farm.
And then secondly, just because say an outdoor operation we've banned that from the coastal zone. But just because they might be able to ride out the amortization period does not mean that they would not be subject to other zoning violations like using electricity for an outdoor operation which would be another zoning violation is it not?
Chair Williams, that's correct.
So residents could come to planning and development about a zoning complaint for an outdoor grow that is using electricity say in a hoop house because that would be a zoning violation?
Yes, and also just to note we're going to have separate cannabis enforcement team so they'll be readily easy to access.
Mr. Gazzano. Just to bootstrap on that comment, as planning it indicated the right-to-farm ordinance amendment in the last portion of section 1, the final sentence says therefore cannabis cultivation and cannabis operations are excluded from the protection of this ordinance so it's a pretty crisp statement.
5:11 – 5:1810 turns
Mike please proceed.
Marilyn Brooks default by Paul Ekstrom
We go back to public comment.
Okay, good afternoon Chair Williams and Supervisors. My name is Mary Ellen Brooks and I'm here today to represent Citizens Planning Association. We have submitted a letter which I think is probably in your packet. I do not have any iambic pentameter this afternoon. I am restricted to dull prose but I did appreciate the earlier poetic- Mary
Ellen that was not iambic pentameter
No that wasn't, but I'm not going to have an iambic pentameter either. Okay, Citizens Planning Association has been monitoring the planning process for the cannabis ordinance. We applaud the Board of Supervisors for its thorough review of the components of the ordinance. For the most part CPA has agreed with your decisions regarding the production and sale of cannabis. We agree with the restrictions placed on the grow areas in Carpentaria. However, we are concerned about some of the suggested changes to the uniform rules for Williamson Act properties. We do not support lowering the 50% onsite production requirement to 10%.
We are concerned that by requiring only 10% on-site product, this effectively creates industrial zones on agricultural properties which might result in increased trucking processing etc. A similar discussion came up during the winery ordinance consideration as I will remember and the Planning Commission During the consideration agreed to keep the 50% on site product. Some of the arguments about lowering it were given during that time also, but I know the commission had hoped to keep the 50% onsite products. CPA feels the cannabis industry Should be held to a similar standard.
We have as a priority issue, the support of the preservation of our county's agricultural lands. Our board members have read and we do agree with the Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee's letter which also support or at least it did support the keeping of the 50% requirement. Thank you.
Paul Ekstrom, to be followed by Ann Louise Barach.
Good afternoon. Thank you staff and supervisors for your hard work on this. My name is Paul Ekstrom, I've been a Carpentria resident since 1970. True cannabis is a plant but it's an unusual plant the odors I think are extraordinary. I think that the right to form ordinance that would protect them should be off the table for five years minimum Supposedly odor control is going on in my neighborhood.
I live right on the county line, Carpinteria city limits in the county there's no improvement either the machines aren't working or they can't keep up with the illegal growers I don't know you know they have their right to farm Protections, but where's my right to have my windows open on my house? How about the right for Kate School to have an environment for their employees and their students?
Carpenter High School. I mean the residents, the businesses, the schools we need your help. Thank you.
And Louise Bordash to be followed by Erin Weber who is our final speaker.
Hi, I live at 1720 Ocean Oaks Road. Thank you all for your work on this issue and listening to us. There was a meeting at my house in our neighborhood last night so several people said to please tell you that I'm speaking for them. Many people are concerned. Everything that we just heard, I don't want to repeat it but feel very strongly on this issue That it should be exempted.
We're finding out firsthand in Carpinteria the downsides, which I don't think people understood beforehand. The odors are making certain homes uninhabitable. There are neighbors of ours who cannot open a window. Some people are starting what we think is this odor abatement program. Well two nights ago and this is something new. Beginning around 11 midnight, the sound of very loud generators or the Goodfields across the street talked about it. It's like the loudest vacuum cleaner you've ever heard.
We are worried that these so-called odor abatements involve very, very noisy generators that go off through the night. And for two nights I have monitored it at 11 o'clock and At midnight, at 1 and at 3 AM. And I mean noisy closure windows. I'm not 100% sure we would like this investigated but we don't want to get rid of one problem and have another problem which is We can't breathe in the neighborhood replaced by it so loud that no one can sleep. And if that is, as I suspect, the very first odor abatement what happens if you have 50 of them?
So we have really serious issues here which involve Really incredible odors. If you want to just get a whiff, get off at Santa Monica Road on the 101 before you even get off and even if your windows are closed you will smell it from all the nurseries along via Real. And then with light, night light. We used to have gorgeous night light. People wanted to live in Santa Barbara County because you could actually see the stars and the moons and now it looks like We may have a serious noise issue and the attempt to resolve another issue, which I would really like to have investigated. I want to say one other thing and I don't want to overemphasize this but there is another downside and that is involving criminal or unwanted elements.
Some of you know about a wonderful doctor who lived here in town Dr. Henry Han. The murder of him, his young daughter and his wife. That was over a cannabis deal. I mean, I began my career as a crime reporter in New York and I am telling you I found that really chilling that is what Thank you very much.
5:19 – 5:253 turns
Good afternoon, honorable chair and board members. My name is Erin Weber with California Strategies. We are representing several cannabis clients who are both existing and prospective operators on Williamson Act contracted land. On behalf of our clients I'm just here to say thank you for your boards previous decision on this issue. And making the determination that cannabis is agriculture. As many of you know from site visits to farms, cannabis uses much of the same infrastructure equipment and procedures as other agriculture.
Furthermore in many instances cannabis is a less intensive use than other agriculture. We believe that your policy will allow for existing State licensed cultivators to continue to operate in compliance with best practices such as installation of best available odor control technology, 100% water reuse and recapture. As well as product testing to ensure consumer safety.
We also support your decision because the EIR did find that imposing limitations on the acreage or type of cannabis activity. Would result in the displacement of existing operations and could result in the proliferation of smaller grows, which would in turn create more impacts. We'd also like to point out that the county will continue to have maximum discretion and authority over each cannabis proposed project during both the land use entitlement process as well as the business license process. We believe your board's decision was good public policy, and will really help to preserve the existing agricultural character of our community. We continue to support the county's process and timeline Thank you. I do have a question about the noise and do we
Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman. Yes, you might recall from the ordinance that your board adopted that there was a requirement for a noise plan that must be submitted with every application for cannabis activities. As part of that they need to demonstrate that the activities will not exceed 65 decibels as measured at the property line that's consistent with the noise element standards. Second, I also want to clarify that generators are only allowed in emergency situations as backup energy. And they still cannot exceed the noise standards for surrounding residencies. So the applicant would be required to submit a plan to us with their application that we review to verify that they meet those standards. If they do, we'd issue the permit and then if we did receive any noise complaints, we would follow up accordingly so.
Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you Mr. Chair. You know, it's so interesting that these two items are coming at the same time. And in some ways they totally contradict each other. In the right to farm ordinance which I'm in favor of supporting that change. It spells out the reasons why cannabis should be not included. It talks about agriculture as an activity for cultivation and it talks about all of the issues that we heard today. That it's not a product, it's not an ag product.
And then the flip side of that is in uniform rules. So we've got kind of the negative stuff about cannabis when we're talking about the right to farm ordinance, and then on uniform rules all of a sudden cannabis becomes a product that's compatible with contracted land cultivation. So it makes absolutely no sense to me. So I cannot support the uniform rule change.
I mean, it was hard enough for me to move forward with the ordinance as we did. But now to be so blatant as to make contradictory statements about cannabis and then on top of it, to give folks basically a tax rebate when we've been talking about that cannabis is going to bring in so much money for And then to treat it differently as Ms. Brooks pointed out, differently than wine grapes. So it's almost like we're going overboard. It absolutely makes no sense to me.
I hope the board will consider the suggested changes by Ms. Brooks on the 50%. The uniform rule though is just Is just kind of the icing on the cake for me. I can't believe that we would even consider it, but I do support the right to farm ordinance. I think that's really important and so I would just ask my colleagues that when we're ready to vote that we could separate some of these motions because I think in particular section A combines both and I would like them to be separate. Thank you Mr Chair.
5:25 – 5:302 turns
I'll just say for my part that To me, the question of Williamson Act is a tough one on either end because we do not want to create an incentive for people to pull out of Williamson Act. Because this is not the last crop that will be grown in Santa Barbara. There is a day when something else will take over marijuana. I can't stare into the crystal ball and say when that is.
And if you look at the number of acres that will be cultivated it's a relatively small I want to make sure that we have the right percentage because of that. I don't want to pull have properties pulled out of Williamson act for this Protecting the feel that we have in Santa Barbara. A lot of people will tell you that to them most starkly is emblematic of Santa Barbara as it's the first county in a certain direction, that you can tell when one community ends and another one begins. And the reason for that is because of agricultural land and There is at least some evidence to point out that Williamson Act is a useful policy mechanism in discouraging suburban sprawl and preserving that ag land.
And so I think what we were looking for is some policy mechanism that would not encourage people to withdraw from Williamson Act, but would also not have some of the severe disadvantages that having cannabis in the right-to-farm would present in terms of trying to control nuisances. For me, I agree with Supervisor Wolf that I don't want there to be a tax subsidy for an industry that's going to do just fine on its own. Now what we heard though from our experts here is that there is not a tax subsidy so that's not as much of a concern as I had initially and It's not my preferred route to getting to that balance, but I think it's a relatively acceptable way We're exempting cannabis from right to farm. They don't get those protections, and at the same time we're saying that however it is compatible as a ag use on those parcels.
And so I think it creates the compromise that's necessary under this case. I think the question of 10% versus 50% is a tough one because And I would ask you to think about if we did have a 50% rule, what that would mean is that every other cannabis operation would have a concentrate device. And so we would actually be expanding the number of parcels that would have industrialization if that's There is a concern for.
And at least in Carpinteria, that has been one of the worries is that if you have too much concentrate devices, you have a higher chance that something will go wrong. So I don't think it's an easy call what percentage to put it at. For that reason, the higher amount has some advantages but the lower amount has some advantages in reducing the amount of those machines that are proliferating around town.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I very much appreciate all the public comment that we've had and I think we've been responsive and learned a great deal in the process. Government is really only as good as the people who watchdog and tell us and help us learn. And the Citizens Planning Association has been around for 50 years. And it's an organization that I always pay attention to what they say and give it serious thought.
In my view, the 10 versus the 50% requirement for processing on agricultural lands In wineries and vineyards, that's a very different crop and processing method than what we see with cannabis. And that for me is what justifies the 10% rather than the 50%. You don't need big trucks. There are small vans, much smaller acreage, and the processing area itself is very small and mainly involves just drying. It doesn't involve So that explains my reasoning and I just wanted an opportunity because I wanted to get that on the record.
5:31 – 5:3516 turns
Mr. Labanino. Well, I'm ready to make a motion and I'll try to make it so that Supervisor Wolf will try to work this. Just let me know where I'm going. So I'd like to make the motion that we make the required findings for approval of amendments to the Right-to-Farm Ordinance including the CEQA findings and that also we determine that for the purpose of CEQA Of the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and Licensing Program, so let's move A and C first.
I would second that if that passes Mr. Gazzone's muster.
Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you. A includes both uniform rules and the right to farm doesn't it?
No, I think...
It says amendments to the Santa Barbara County Uniform Rules and the right to farm.
See this is my first time trying to go paperless, right? And I'm trying to read it off of the thing here.
Supervisor Wolff has corrected it as a briefing. Mr. Gazzone.
Supervisor Leveny, now you're first moving just on Right-To-Farm? Yes. Maybe just for clarity and we have one housekeeping item also would be move all of staff's recommended actions as to Right-to-Farm as well as agendize for May 8th the second reading.
I will accept Mr. Gazzone's advice and use his words as a motion. Is there a second?
Second.
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Four to one. Further motions?
Okay the second motion then would be the movement that we would I think at this point if you were moving staff's recommendations on the uniform rules it would just be that motion move all of I would second.
We heard what the impact is right now to the uniform rules as far as a tax subsidy. But we don't know what the future will hold, and my sense is that when people know that cannabis will be allowed as a use under the uniform rules, that it will impact our county tax base. Thank you Mr Chair.
Okay. I accept that comment and we'll move forward with my recommendation, my recommended motion that we move forward with staff's recommendations moving, reforming the uniform rules to include cannabis.
Any other comment on the motion? I don't, you know, I would have preferred trying this I think it's the best thing that we have in front of us at our disposal to accomplish both Hitting the nuisance issue of cannabis, but still dealing with the fact that it's here. And it doesn't make sense in my mind to provide an incentive for people to exit the Williamson Act.
So I'll be an aye vote. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. 3-2 Thank you. We'll adjourn to May 8th in Santa Maria.
5:36 – 5:361 turns
Yeah.