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 – 0:057 turns
I'd like to call this meeting to order.
Please call the roll.
Mr. Adam? I am here. Mr. Lavinino?
Here as well.
Can I get a motion on the minutes of the first? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? CEO's report.
Good morning Chair Williams and board members I have two quick announcements the first is just recognizing that this week May 6th through 12th is Public Service Recognition Week celebrated annually to honor men and women who serve the nation as federal state county and local government employees. Not just this week, but every day we applaud our employees for their efforts and extend our gratitude in their commitment to serving Santa Barbara County.
I think following the Thomas fire and debris flow employees stepped up and stepped in only not just as first responders but behind the scenes many of our employees are not front and center. And this is a week to express our gratitude and for employees to remind themselves of why they became public servants in the first place. And their dedication to serving our residents. So that is this week, I thank all our employees in Santa Barbara County and all the public servants throughout the county.
The second is our green business. Green Business Santa Barbara County recertified the Public Works Santa Maria Service Center and recognized it as an early leader in green buildings in the county. Recertification focused on additional water conservation efforts, for example. Drip irrigation system maintenance and low flow water aerators which were in addition to other requirements already in place. So today we have Frances Gilliland, the Executive Director of the Green Business Program and I've asked her to just say a few words and present our award.
Okay, thank you Chair Williams, members of the board. Thank you for having me here today. My name's Frances Gilliland. I'm the program director of the Green Business Program of Santa Barbara County. Our program is a multi-jurisdictional partnership made up of over two dozen local governmental agencies. We're also part of a larger network of green business programs throughout the state of California called the California Green Business Program Network.
We launched our program here in Santa Barbara County in 2008 with a great deal of support from the county, your board and particularly from County Public Works Department both Resource Recovery Waste Management Division and the Water Agency. Since we launched our program, we have worked with well over 100 amazing local businesses. We really have a great business community in this county.
The Green Business Program works with local businesses to help them meet statewide standards in the areas of recycling, waste minimization, purchasing water and energy conservation, pollution prevention and ride sharing. Certification is good for three years after which time we recertify a business. We go back and we check in with them and make sure that they're maintaining those original standards and hopefully are doing even more in the areas that I mentioned.
Currently we've certified two county buildings, both housing public works divisions. First was the Naomi Schwartz building in Santa Barbara and then also the North County Public Works Service Center offices on Foster Road here in Santa Maria I'd like to thank your board again for your support. At the Green Business Program, we look forward to working with even more county departments and certifying more county divisions or buildings. We are working with your sustainability division to do just that.
But what I'm here for today is to recognize the recertification of the North County Public Works Service Center on Foster Road. That means they were originally certified three years ago, and they earned recertification by showing that they maintain those standards and did even more. And I would particularly like to thank the work of Kalani Durham and John Karametzos for getting that location through our recertification process.
So Scott, did you want?
0:05 – 0:1011 turns
And as Francis presents the certification to Kaylani and John Karamitsos, we're extremely proud in Public Works to be the two buildings that are certified as the Green Business Program. Kaylani and John are two of our three outstanding employees that work with this program. Alan Nakashima unfortunately couldn't make it this morning. And they go out and do these certifications of private businesses so we encourage other departments to participate as well and we're here to help. So thank you so much for the recognition.
We'll take the ceremonial items before the pulled items. So let's start with A15.
Chair Williams and members of the board, if we could get a motion to approve items A15 through A18? So moved.
Second.
Motion on the ceremonial items all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Anonymous? A15.
Okay, we have four resolutions to present this morning. We're going to start with item A15, this is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2018 as Water Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County and Brenton Kelly is here.
He's here, he's coming up to
the mic. Come on up to the podium. And I will- Tallest man
in Kuyama, so he's hard to-
Yes. I will read the resolution into the record. Whereas while water is California's most precious resource and our quality of life and economic well being depend on its efficient and prudent management of water resources. And whereas on May 9th 2016 the Governor of California signed Executive Order B3716. Making water conservation a California way of life, bolstering California's drought resilience and preparedness by establishing longer term water conservation measures. And whereas the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors declared a drought emergency on January 21, 2014 with continued proclamations monthly ever since that time. And while the February 2017 rainfall triggered much needed inflow into Kachuma Reservoir, the increase in storage does not alleviate our water supply concerns and should not be considered drought ending.
And whereas despite receiving above average rainfall last winter, current winter rainfall amounts are 51% of normal and continued diligence of our water supplies remains a priority following the driest five years on record in Santa Barbara County. Whereas the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department is working cooperatively to conserve and protect our valuable water resources with water purveyors throughout the county and to facilitate in securing additional long-term supplies. And whereas this cooperative effort was established decades ago because the efficient use of our local water resource is always a priority, not just in times of drought.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this county board of supervisors state of California proclaims May 2018 as Water Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County and urges all residents to learn more about their precious water resources and the importance of wise water use And in joining support local water agencies and organizations in their effort to be Water Wise in Santa Barbara County, passed and adopted today.
Thank you very much. I want to start by thanking this board and these public officials for The seats you hold and the job you take on delicately balancing those property rights, individual rights with those collective natural resource rights that we as the public have entrusted To use your pen to somehow draw that line between those distinctive jurisdictions. And I know that we have a lot of representative, a lot of speaking comes up here in favor of those property rights and business interests and resource management decisions that are in your hands. And there's fewer and fewer that are speaking up for Cottonwoods and groundwater dependent ecosystems, and the water that we all hold in commons. And as a value that we must have some left over to return to our children when we're done with it.
Give you a little bit of a happy story. Out at Quail Springs about 15 years ago, about 450 acres of dry venticopa badlands was purchased at under $1,000 an acre because of a dying drying spring. And today that water is flowing at 50 or more gallons per minute even in the August afternoon 10 years through drought and the difference is about resource management.
And the concept that we can manage our resources from a perspective of abundance, instead of from a perspective of scarcity. I encourage you as public agents to consider that and also for those of us voters and entrusting the public policy to recognize that there are distinctions between some Assets and resources that require a certain amount of management above the private sector and the individual interests. So thank you very much.
0:11 – 0:174 turns
A16?
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A16 is sponsored by Supervisor Wolfe. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2018 as National Foster Care Month in Santa Barbara County and here to receive this resolution today is the Scott family. If you guys would all come on up. And I'll read the resolution into the record. Whereas any given day in Santa Barbara County, there are approximately 350 children and youth in foster care who are separated from their families through no fault of their own.
These kids need love support and guidance so they can thrive and develop to their best potential. And whereas every child deserves to belong to a family that's compassionate and committed to meet the increasingly complex behavioral and emotional needs that children and youth in foster care present within today's society. And whereas transition age youth in foster care require mentors, and other caring adults that are ready to provide loving guidance and moral support so that youth may navigate the many challenges of early childhood, early adulthood, and become self-sufficient successful adults.
And whereas, children and youth in foster care need heroes who will come forward and become a member of a supportive team that works to provide children and youth safe and nurturing family environments that provide a sense of belonging and lifelong connection. And whereas through the ongoing and steadfast efforts of resource families, mentors, teachers, advocates, social workers, probation officers, and volunteers, children and youth in foster care are able to have a caring network of adults that can support a child's journey toward healing And ensure a child or youth does not feel alone or isolated while facing life's challenges. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes May 2018 as National Foster Care Month in recognition of the value of family resource families in providing children and youth in our county hope safety and the opportunity to heal pass and adopted today
Thank you. Good morning, board. I'm Amy Krueger, Deputy Director of Social Services. This month we're here to honor the Scott family. The Scotts became an approved resource family in October of 2015 and since that time they have already cared for 14 children in their home, one of which they have adopted. The Scots also have three biological children of their own, including one Noah who tragically passed away from cancer last year.
Noah felt a very deep passion about children in foster care which inspired them to establish Team Noah. They established a Facebook page originally to share information about his condition and treatment. And it garnered great support from the community, eventually growing to over 7,000 members. Shortly afterwards they formalized the non-profit Team Noah with a mission to not only treat children to special activities but to show them a caring experience and give them normal childhood memories.
Since becoming a non-profit, the Scots and Team Noah have coordinating multiple fundraising events including golf tournaments and baseball tournaments. And the proceeds of these events have allowed them to continue their work with foster children. Last year in November they led the first annual Disney expedition which took 11 children in foster care to Disneyland with their caregivers. And in addition they are also providing scholarships to graduating seniors in Noah's name.
So the Scott family is an amazing family and truly a hero, the type of family that we are so honored to have working with us in providing care for children in foster care. We wish we could replicate them. So with that I'd like to introduce Mr. Scott and he'd like to say just a couple words.
Thank you, my name is Charles Scott and this is my amazing family. This is my wife Kristen, Jordan, Zachary and little Sophia who's the princess in the family. She was adopted a year-and-a-half ago and little Asher who will be adopted in about two months it'll be finalized so he's a miracle baby. He was born in an alley unassisted in an alley, and we got him when he was two days old. So he's really been a lifesaver for our family after losing Noah. We're so grateful for this honor.
There are a lot of families like ours who value these kids, so we stand in place of all those families We just feel a calling that these kids are truly our next resource and they deserve to live in a home where they have every opportunity to thrive. It's not their fault, they find themselves in these conditions and they deserve to be loved. They deserve to be normal and we're grateful that God called us to do it.
Losing Noah was hard. We got a lot of criticism from our family for bringing kids in while Noah was sick. So we asked Noah if he wanted us to take a break, and he said no. He said that's what he looks forward to so that's what our family is going to do is continue to love on these broken kids and try to make them as whole as they can be because they deserve it. They deserve it On behalf of my family and every foster family in the county, we appreciate this. Thank you.
0:17 – 0:225 turns
Daniel, don't go anywhere. I just want to say for my part that you've cut me to the heart and my hope is that your message also cuts someone else out there that's watching or witnessing to the heart because you exemplify, your family exemplifies to me what heroism is and that love is not finite. And to the two older brothers, The heroes, because you have obviously are supporting your parents through all of this and also playing a role with your younger siblings. So you're my heroes too.
And Daniel if someone is cut to the heart who do they contact? Go to the mic if you can. Because we do have a shortage of foster parents, resource parents in this county. So if someone is convicted out there to be interested they come to you right?
They come to us at the Department of Social Services, Our County Our Kids. We have our website up and our 800 number is on the website as well and I don't have it in front of me, I'm sorry but ourcountyourkids.org yeah.
Thank you so much for your work. A17.
Chair Williams and members of the board, item A-17 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of May 2018 as Older Americans Month in Santa Barbara County. And Joyce Ellen Lipman is here from Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens and she'll come on up. I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas, the County of Santa Barbara includes countless older Americans who enrich and strengthen our community.
And the County of Santa Barbara's departments and commissions are committed to engaging in supporting older adults, their families, and caregivers. And whereas, the County of Santa Barbara engages with many local organizations both non-profit and profit to address the needs of older adults, their families, and caregivers. And whereas we acknowledge the importance of taking part in activities that promote physical, mental and emotional well-being no matter your age.
And whereas the 2018 theme for Older Americans Month is Engage at Every Age which emphasizes that you are never too old or too young to take part in activities that can enrich your physical, mental and emotional well being. Whereas the County of Santa Barbara can enrich the lives of individuals of every age by promoting home and community-based services that support independent living involving older adults in the community, planning events and other activities, and promoting opportunities for older adults to work, volunteer, learn, lead, and mentor.
And whereas the County of Santa Barbara joins with the Central Coast Commission for Senior Citizens to celebrate Older Americans Month by recognizing outstanding individuals and organizations on Wednesday, May 30th at a celebration tea at the Sanchez Valley Marriott. Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara do hereby proclaim May 2018 to be Older Americans Month. We urge every resident to take time during this month to recognize older adults and people who serve them as a vital part of our community, past and adopted today.
Thank you very kindly, Chair Williams and members of the Board of Supervisors. Just glad to be here and to call your attention to the fact that it is Older Americans Month. We have two exciting events coming up this month, and there are many others going on throughout the county and the country. The first is Monday, the day after Mother's Day we're having our 29th, 30th annual Elder Abuse Prevention Month.
Conference in Santa Barbara and it'll be excellent this year. And anyone on your staffs and members would like to attend, please point on it. You can register at our website which is centralcoastseniors.org. We're also as the proclamation indicated going to have a celebration tea. This year we had 20 nominations for the various award coming. Categories, Senior Citizen of the Year, Senior Citizen Program of the Year, Intergenerational Effort of the year and a few other award categories that we'll be proud to celebrate the nominees as well as the winners of each of those awards.
And I just want to take a moment to reflect on all of your county staff. Who do exemplary work trying to safeguard our seniors from abuse and neglect. And the work of the community as we see through the Elder and Dependent Adults Abuse Prevention Council of Santa Barbara County, a great deal of activism and advocacy to try and ensure the safety of all of our dependent adults and senior citizens. So thank you for the proclamation and have a great day.
0:23 – 0:2810 turns
Item A18. Chair Williams, members of the board, item A18 also sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. This is a resolution of commendation honoring the reinstallation of the sculpture La Fleur de Bonaire by William Shin at the Santa Maria Sustainable Garden and we have Mrs. Jean Shin is here. And Jean if you can come on up and bring your family if you'd like? And we have John Hood is here from- My daughter! Okay.
John Hood why don't you come on up from Department of Fine Art, Allan Hancock College. And Hannah Rublikava and members of the Arts Commission. You guys would like to?
Yes.
And just so everybody knows our Arts Commission Director Sarah is at the podium in Santa Barbara. So we have a large crew and I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. And I just want to note that at the conclusion of this we do have a few slides that show the piece both before and after the conservation effort. Whereas, the arts provide enjoyment and instruction while serving the dual purpose of holding a mirror to society and a shining light towards cultural advancement.
And whereas the county actively supports the arts through the Arts Commission and public art installations at county facilities including the major piece La Fleur de Bonaire which is The Flower of Happiness at the Santa Maria Valley Sustainable Garden at the Foster Road Campus in Santa Maria. And whereas William Bilshin, a noted ceramic artist of international acclaim, graciously donated Le Fleur de Bonaire to the county for placement in the garden in 1997.
And whereas the Allan Hancock College Department of Fine Arts has masterfully restored the piece to museum quality ensuring its preservation for the benefit of future generations. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognize William Bill Shinn for his donation of Le Fleur de Bonaire at the Santa Maria Valley Sustainable Garden, and the Allan Hancock College Department of Fine Arts for their conservation efforts. Passing adopted today by the Board of Supervisors.
Do you want to sing?
This is your soapbox.
Thank you for having me, it's an honor. And
Jean, would you like us to show the slides real
quick? Yes, please do. I can comment on them too. There he is. It's a huge piece. And he made them in pieces and then put them together. And please, everyone go to see the sustainable gardens. You talked about water. These sustainable gardens that grow things save water and put them in your yard. There it is, dilapidated. And Mike McNutt from Hancock College repaired it all so it will be up and go over and see it that was all the pieces The grounding came away and these are some of his other pieces. He was a Hancock teacher, ceramic teacher and art teacher and he made many things. These are all made from the extruder and I'm not going to explain
it's
too hard but there he is. And this is when he was young, he had a mustache like yours. These are all his big pieces. I married my teacher and I was a ceramist also and I made the small pieces and he made the big pieces so I would put my small pieces in between its big pieces in the kiln. We worked well together. This explains his extruder, the dyes that go into an extruder.
He was in the Air Force. He's a jet pilot and that's his piece And I wanted to thank John Kermitus and John Hood for all the work they've done. I didn't do anything. And I wanted to tell everyone, after you go see the sustainable gardens, smell the roses please.
0:28 – 0:339 turns
We have an item pulled by the public, A6. And we have an item pulled by Supervisor Adam, A7. Are there any other items that need to be pulled? Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you Mr. Chair. I was going to pull A7 but I think the clerk is going to clarify something on that. Yep. Okay thank you.
By the way good catch on that Supervisor
Wolk. And I was pulling A6 but let's hear from the public first. Day six.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A6 is from General Services and this is to consider recommendations regarding the Renewable Energy Systems Proposal from Andalus Energy from Santa Barbara County's Bitter Heavy Campus in Fire Station 12. This is in the second and fifth districts and I have three requests to speak on this item. We're going to start in Santa Barbara with Zach Pettit to be followed by Cameron Gray and then we'll come back to Santa Maria for Andy Caldwell.
Zach Pettit?
And Zach, give me a second first because just in case there's any staff around for any of the other items. Can I get a motion on the balance of the A items? So moved.
Second.
Motion and second all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Mr. Bennett.
Cameron go ahead. Hi there. So Zach was actually going to cede his time to me today, but it sounds like that may not be allowed under the rules of order in which case I can keep my comments to three minutes. What is your direction on that? We don't cede time so you have three minutes. Okay. Three minutes, it is. All right so yeah my name is Cameron Gray I'm speaking on behalf of Community Environmental Council and we're here today to share our strong support for the proposed energy and equipment upgrades at the Better Rivia campus in Santa Maria and Fire Station 12 in Goleta County staff have done a really, really phenomenal job of developing and managing the solicitation for this project.
And they have selected a proposal from Endelos Energy that will provide much needed upgrades to aging outdated equipment. All of the proposed projects will allow the county to maximize on-site renewable energy generation and reduce energy demand, which will give the county more independence and freedom from increasingly costly utility services. If low-cost loans and on bill financing are secured, these projects will also deliver a positive cash flow each year beginning in Year 1 providing an estimated savings of more than $9.9 million over the next 25 years.
A couple upgrades that would happen with this project that I want to highlight. One is the combination of solar with on-site battery storage. This will enhance the resiliency of county operations in, in the North County and at Fire Station 12. In the event that grid services in our area were compromised there was a major failure these resiliency measures would keep county facilities up and running so staff can continue to do the community especially in times of need if there were a natural disaster say.
Also, the proposed installation of electrical disconnects at the Better Aviva solar carports will allow up to 10 electric vehicle charging stations to be installed in the future. This is the absolute least cost option for installing new charging stations Because it avoids the need for costly trenching and electrical conduit. I've been in a communication with staff, and it sounds like there is the opportunity to put in more of these electrical disconnects for charging stations.
If you are successful in securing the favorable financing and low cost loans we would encourage county staff to just look at that option of maybe putting in more than 10 of these electrical disconnects So that future demand for EV charging can be met. And on that note, we have a survey that we have shared with county staff to evaluate the demand for charging at workplaces and with your support, we'd like to refine that survey and possibly send it out to county employees so that Public Works has more information about where to target the installation of these charging stations in the future. So I want to thank staff for all their work on this and really appreciate you for considering our comments here today. Thank you.
0:33 – 0:4014 turns
So is Zach going to speak? Okay, then we're gonna come back to Senator Maria for Andy Caldwell.
Yeah, Zach will not be speaking. He was here to cede time for me. Thanks very much.
Chair Williams, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. This project's a little bit of a potpourri, I guess I would call it. On the one hand we don't consider roof replacements a capital project. We call that maintenance. We're not sure the county should be borrowing money for maintenance items. So I know that you have a big hearing later on today, item number four that has just that.
But they're not the same thing. Building a new building or remodeling a building is one thing but borrowing money there's no such thing as free money. When you borrow money, that interest is a charge that wouldn't be incurred if you'd saved as you were going along. Now with regard to this particular project, as you know I sent an inquiry over the weekend and most of the questions got answered. However, the big question is why wasn't that information in your staff report? I.e., how much is it gonna cost per year, what's the savings per year? What's the life of the project? Solar panels don't last forever and neither do roofs.
And the thing is that somebody should be doing the math in putting these things in the staff report. We have a tendency to think that if it's green then we're gonna do it. Now the other issue is one of the motivations of this is to reduce greenhouse gases. Well, you can buy greenhouse gas reductions from credible companies in the United States and the rest of the world for $2 to $4 a ton.
Not hundreds of dollars or thousands of dollars per ton. And the point here is we want you to have a context. So when you're gonna spend this much money, $4-6 million depending on the interest rate, we want you to have a context and a menu of choices. One of the issues with this as well is that 13-17 years is a long time for a potential payback. Especially when systems can fail for various reasons.
And so when you guys make these decisions, we'd like to see all the math shown, options, alternative options shown. I don't look at Goleta as that big of a win corridor for a win project. So I'm having trouble with that one. I'm no scientist, but I'm having trouble with that. I don't know of that being a wind corridor. And the bottom line here is the last thing is they never figure into cost what is the cost of either the subsidies or the loans or the grants because somebody had to pay for that. Government has no money to give away that it didn't first bill somebody else. And we would like to see an honest math on these type projects, thank you.
Any other requests to speak?
No further requests.
I'll just briefly Mr. Adam.
Thank you. I just want to assure the public that as this comes back to the DAC, that it will be reviewed scrupulously. And the work
will be shown. Supervisor Lavanina? Thank you Mr. Chair. Why on Fire Station 12, why aren't we looking at fire dollars out of their maintenance? Their long term CIP list of doing improvements instead of taking it out of another source.
Supervisor through the chair I believe we are looking at fire dollars that they would be supporting the cost of this.
I think that's an excellent suggestion.
Yes, and really from the utility budget that they are currently paying is where this debt will be paid off if you will on that.
Great. The other thing is so looking at the design of this thing and I know we're in preliminary stage but that Better Arabia campus one of the biggest problems is parking and space. Are these, are we going to lose spaces with these carports? No, we're not intending to lose any spaces. And it would be nice, I think if we're doing this in the long run of. I think we need to figure out what we're dealing with this piece of property that's across the street as kind of tying in the whole project of what's the long term intended use? I probably had, I think every single department had come to me and asked me for space across the street. So that would be nice to know as well while we're looking at this.
I guess it's at the DAC and later on we'll figure out what the actual percentage rate will be, correct? Depending on what financing. That's correct, yes. How many, so we sent out a request for proposal. Correct. And how many responses did we get back that we determined were credible? We
had three.
Three good, okay perfect. All right thank you I guess like Supervisor Adams said this is a very preliminary stage and we'll look at the financing and for me that's where it's all at is in the financing and the math so I'll be listening in on those DAC meetings
0:40 – 0:4517 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a couple of general comments first with the green business award that we received today for public works projects. It kind of puts this in the context of our policies. It is consistent with our county policy to move county facilities to zero net energy that was adopted August 30th 2016. And it's also doing more to comply with our energy and climate action plan goals, specifically with our own facilities. I'd like to add that buying credits elsewhere doesn't give us the kind of control we have if we do it here and make sure we do it right.
It's an excellent opportunity to use incentives that are available on bill financing through PG&E and the California Energy Efficiency Financing rebates for battery technology. So I think that we would be remiss if we didn't take advantage of these, I also think the resiliency is absolutely critical especially in the Goleta area. So I would like to make a motion, however I would like to have people come back in two months if that's a reasonable time frame and not leave it just uncertain. And I also have a question Mr. Gray about Whether we have looked to union shop proposals, or whether this is union workers and whether we could at least in the future make that an element of what you report back with.
I don't have the answer to that but we can find out and get that to you.
Great, and do you know anything about the survey that CEC was talking about? A survey of county employees to get a better fix on what the demand would be for charging here onsite.
Yes, the sustainability group is working with that survey and we're working with the general services is working with CSD's sustainability group to evaluate the survey. And decide how best to go about putting electric vehicle charging and how many employees will use it so yes, we're working with them.
And I noticed at the charging facilities in South County that a lot of people come after business hours into the parking lot once it's open and use those chargers. So it's not just for county employees, have you noticed that as well?
Yes, I believe the general public is using those quite a bit.
And another question, assuming that we go forward with these two projects. When would we get more information about other potential projects within the county jurisdiction that are county owned facilities?
We're actually using a similar model, I think going forward to where we're using our utility budget to fund some of these projects. So we're hoping to starting with actually a commissioning audit to look at all of our retro commissioning on it to look at all of our equipment to make sure it's running properly and if it's not What corrections can be made in addition to an energy audit that will also look at the rest of the county and do similar type projects.
Again, if the financing is right, if all the pieces fall together with renewables, with batteries, and efficiently getting our buildings efficient because we've talked about before, we have to have the buildings efficient before we can add the renewables so As Supervisor Adam mentioned, it may make sense. So we're starting out by doing those audits.
And time frame?
Hopefully through the next fiscal year so we're starting probably the commissioning audits by the end of the summer is what we're shooting for right now and then have been talking to other companies and may put an RFP out for some sort of a larger project maybe in the fall
Okay, thank you. When the time is right I'd like to make the motion.
Sure. Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Gray, sorry if you could just come back up. On the fire station there was mention of the windmills and when I looked at this it appears to be that it's photovoltaic and storage only.
Correct. The wind I believe is going to
be on this campus right? Building C not on the fire station.
No,
okay I just wanted to clarify that and Just in general terms Mr.. Gray, and I know miss Pell is out in the audience I wanted to thank you and your department for bringing this To us you know you gave a historical perspective on on this issue in the board letter And this is something that the board has Been moving toward, albeit incrementally and I just want to congratulate you for bringing forward two projects would appear to be exemplary projects. And I'm hopeful that we can see this move forward from DACC and then back to this board. So congratulations to your department. Thank you.
0:45 – 0:508 turns
I'll just say, I think that the questions that Mr. Caldwell asked were excellent questions. Some of that kind of information should be in staff reports when possible. I understand you don't want to on an A item spend a huge amount of staff resources at all times but Number one, this payback period is in my view an acceptable payback period. Number two, staff has put a sort of very conservative interest rate in built and that could be even lower because some jurisdictions are getting 0% on bill financing rates so I think that As it goes to the DAC, obviously I think we should be interested in some of those programs.
And I think there's also other benefits, particularly anything in the Goleta area that takes demand off the grid potentially is a benefit to the community and a benefit to us on reliability as we saw in the disaster when we get cut off Everybody fires up a lot of generators and less of that is necessary if we build more stuff close to where there is a grave deficiency of power, which is in the Goleta area.
The other thing I want to go back to Supervisor Lavinino's point about across the street. I do think it would be good to get our head around what that use is, what the timing is for If we don't have a plan to build a building within the next ten years over there. To me, even if we sunk a solar farm out there for 15 years it would be well worth it in terms of power. It has the potential to be producing a lot more power at a lower rate than some of these other projects that we're looking at. Of course, if we have a need.
It'd be good to know what that is and determine what that is in terms of a building. But if we're not, it would be great to use the land for something that would be productive in the meantime.
Mr. Chairman, if I might, a couple things. One with respect to the lot across the street one of the things we will be using it in the interim should this project go forward is for temporary parking as we build the solar panels and the car parks were going to need some place to park employees during construction so it will be leveled and ready for whatever which is kind of cool.
The second point is that we absolutely have done the math. It's just that we don't know the interest rate We will certainly show whatever, we'll show the cash flow and everything. It was difficult because we don't know the interest rate and this project is even feasible if the interest rate is too high so we will do our due diligence and make sure the numbers make sense. And Supervisor Adam will be there at the DAC to keep us honest.
And I just think you guys were responsible by giving a range because, so I think you answered that responsibly. Supervisor Hartman?
I would like to move staff's recommendation but for item B I would like to say instead of returning to the board at a future date within two months to consider approving financing.
I'll second that.
Discussion on the motion. It has to go to the Debt Advisory Committee, correct? Right. Okay. So is that even on the agenda or... I mean, I'm all for bringing it back soon but I just want to make sure it's realistic.
Supervisors, we will coordinate with the Treasurer's Office who chairs and staffs the DAC and given your board's direction, we will coordinate with them to see if we can get a meeting to meet your board's timeline.
And if that is not possible, the CEO will come back and let us know. So is there any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Item A7.
0:50 – 0:5719 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, item A7 It's from planning and development. And I'm going to go ahead and read the recommendation here, or the title into the record. There's a slight change to the title. And it reads consider recommendations regarding cannabis amendments to the Senate of Barbara County right to form ordinance. And it does not include uniform rules for ag preserves or farmland security zones. And then the boards, the recommendations A through C are correct on the printed agenda.
Is there any comment? I think we have only a request to have a separate vote in one regard. Supervisor Adam.
Okay. Just to clarify again, this item in the printed agenda that went out to the public included the uniform rules but as Mr. Allen just pointed out we are just voting on the right-to-farm ordinance. Thank you Mr.
Chair. That was superfluous and thank you for catching that Supervisor Wolff. That was good attention to detail As always. Supervisor Lavenino? All right, I'll
make a motion to move staff recommendation.
I second.
All those in favor? Oh! We're going to do roll call.
Mr. Adam?
No.
Mr Lavenino? Aye. Ms Wolfe? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Mr Williams? Aye Passes 4-1.
We are done with the A agenda. Public comment for items not on the agenda I have no request to speak. Then we will go to D1. Mr. Lappin.
Chair Williams, members of the board, item D1 is from the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System. It's a hearing to receive and file a report and presentation from the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System on the June 30, 2017 pension plan actuarial valuation and the June 30, 2017 other post-employment benefits plan valuation.
Thank you, Chair Williams. My name is Greg Levin and I'm the CEO of the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System and to the Board of Supervisors as a whole thank you for the opportunity to present the results of your retirement system from the past year. It has been a positive year for SB Service and we're pleased to share this information with you.
And compared to past years, this is a shortened presentation and we're just going to focus on highlights for the quarter pension benefit and also for the county's health care, retiree healthcare program. If there are any questions or if there's anything not included in the shortened version of this presentation, there's also an appendix that was included and we can refer to those slides if necessary.
So for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2017 average pensionable compensation for SB service members was $81,840. For the general members you can see they comprised about 78% of their total membership with safety coming in at 22%. However, you may notice that general member compensation is about 75% of safety member compensation And so that averages up to the $81,840. And that was a 2.9% increase over the prior year and so very much in line with our expectation that salaries were going to grow on average of 3% per year.
This slide shows 25-year performance return on net assets if you will. What you can see is the orange bars show the annual return for each fiscal year, while the blue dotted line shows the assumed rate of return or the hurdle rate what we need to earn in order to tread water. And then the green line shows what inflation was in each year. You can see from reviewing the arrows at the bottom of the presentation that over a 30 However, over the last 10 years since the Great Recession you can see that those cumulative returns have been a lot lower coming in at 4.14% on the ten year and then fairly close to 7% from the five-year.
Since we're pretty late in the fiscal year, we thought we'd give you an update on what has happened so far fiscal year to date. As of March 31 2018 the portfolio has returned just under 7.6% for the fiscal year So pretty much in line with our 7% return assumption. You can see that since the new year has begun, there's been a lot more volatility in financial markets. The chart on the lower left and also what the larger chart as well shows the returns by quarter That would be the blue bars. The interesting thing, and to a question that Supervisor Robinino has had in the past about passive investing and the complexity of our asset allocation, you can see that in this most recent quarter some of that downside protection that we've had in the portfolio has really helped out The average 60-40 portfolio had a negative return of about 1.3% in that last quarter while we were slightly positive in the core portfolio, so that's a good illustration for the concept of diversification and what we try and do by adding some downside risk into the portfolio.
We're pleased with that. April returns – well, we don't have official April numbers. We're relatively flat. So we're hopeful that we'll see positive returns in May, June and finish out the year on a positive note. This slide shows the 23-year time series of our funded position. It also shows some historical milestones for the plan when there were significant plan changes put in place.
Mr. Levin, there's a question on this slide. Sorry.
Mr Adam? We got a new... it's on slide four which we got a new copy of this morning and I'm failing to see the difference between the one that gets circulated and the new one. On this slide?
Yes. There was an error in the original slide presented that percent sign at the top header was in front of the 7.59 instead
of
behind the
7.5. I was looking for a number, all right thank you.
0:57 – 1:058 turns
So this-
Overachiever keep on going.
So this slide shows the 23-year time series of our funded position. You can see that due to the performance, we had a 10.4% return last year. The unfunded liability dropped $116 million to $901 million. So we're back below $1 billion in the unfunded liability. What this slide also shows is that we used to also have a surplus back at Excuse me, I'm not sure what we did hurt the slide. Back in the original, in the late 1990s with the dot com boom you can see that the system once had a surplus and then with each major milestone of the benefit increases we did experience some realization of unfunded liabilities and then in 2008 and 2009 That's when the vast majority of the unfunded liability came into existence. We've made good progress on paying that down, and what we'll see on the next slide is our contribution projections.
We have about 12 years left on paying down that majority of that unfunded liability related to the 2008 and 2009 losses You can see that cliff that happens here in 2029, which will be effective for your budget year 2031 actually since there's about a two-year lag. That is the roll off of the amortization payments from the Great Recession and so we're optimistic as we continue to meet our assumptions This scenario will play out, but it is based on the big assumption that we will continue to earn on average 7% over the next 12 years.
So with that, we'll move on to other post-employment benefits. If the chair, if there's any questions I'll stop here and entertain any questions the board may have.
Yeah, I just have a question. Have you factored in the most recent agreements with 620 and 721 in these slides?
No, this slide does not include any what we would call reverse pickups where employees are paying a portion of the employer's pension cost. So when we come back next year the slide will be adjusted to show the increased employee contributions.
And Supervisor just for the record remember we haven't approved those yet.
But we will right? Okay, Mr. Levin can continue.
Thank you Chair Williams. So this we're now going to talk about other post-employment benefits or OPEB and OPEB is the retirement waltz acronym for retiree health care and we have some highlights on this. You can see that the about 43% of the retirees were participating in county health insurance which means they get a $15 per month benefit Those who do not participate in the County Health Insurance Plan get a $4 per month, per year of service benefit. What's interesting about that is while the split in terms of enrollees is 43-57 you can see that 85% of the dollars paid go to the retirees that are taking the $15 benefit.
And so we've paid out approximately $8.99 million in benefits over 2017, and what we've just seen is a continuation of a trend where we're having some of our older retirees fall off the $15 benefit and move on to the $4 benefit, A combination of a couple of factors. We see that usually newer retirees have higher benefit levels, they can afford more expensive health insurance and then as members get older they become available to have other Medicare type related options and they tend to go off the $15 benefit.
Excuse me. This slide shows the annual contributions to the plan. You can see that Santa Barbara County was still the vast majority of the contributions to the plan in 2017. That's the result of your adoption of a funding policy, which was a very wise move and consistent with accounting standards. And we'll show you why that was a good thing in our later slide. But then also what was notable in 2017 is we collected a fairly large advance payment from the courts as well. So with that now we have three plan sponsors on this plan that are advanced funding the plan and beginning to tackle the liability side of this issue. Which is very important because with 2017, this is now coming on to the balance sheets of plan sponsors. It was in the past only shown as an expense and now it is shown as a liability on the balance sheet of each plan sponsor.
We're currently beginning the process of working with the other special district sponsors to help them model funding policies and hopefully follow the same path as the county of Santa Barbara. The other thing that is worth noting is a few months ago this board closed membership for new employees of the special districts into this plan and so that will all be incorporated in next year's actuarial evaluation for the plan.
So, well we have an issue with the slide here but the paper slides should have the numbers For the year ended June 30, 2017. The total balance of the plan was just over $11 million at 11,098,342. This marked an increase in the funded ratio of the plan from 5.7% to 9.5%. I think I mentioned earlier but the OPEB plan returned 5.8% through this fiscal year It returned 10.6% at the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017. So as I noted on a previous slide about the core pension plan we're seeing now a situation where the core pension plan which is more diversified has more downside protection and it's beginning to outperform the OPEB plan a little bit And then finally, I think this is the most important slide in the presentation as it relates to OPEB.
This last year Moody's which is a bond rating agency that focuses on providing credit ratings for local governments came out with what's called the tread water analysis and I'm really pleased to let you know What our tread water analysis for the plan showed is that you were paying down the liability. So, you can see that actual contributions in 2017 and 2018 exceeded the tread water level. That is the orange bar on the left and the contributions are the gray bar on the right. And that's a very positive thing it should reflect positively in future bond rating discussions with Moody's.
It is a key statistic that we're tracking across the industry. That concludes our presentation today and I'd be pleased to answer any questions that the board may have.
1:05 – 1:0714 turns
Supervisor Lavinia? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious on timing of the report is now when the fiscal year ends in June, correct? I mean, I would like to see something in August or September. Is it possible to do something like that? I mean, or are you crafting all these numbers and it takes this long to get to the point where we have our discussion in April.
We're a little later than usual this year. Generally, we finish our actuarial process. The actuarial evaluation is approved by the Board of Retirement at our December board meeting so The earliest we could come with hard actuarial numbers would be January. For different reasons, we were bumped on the schedule a little bit this year but will try to come earlier next year.
I'm probably one of those retirement nerds though. I am on your website all the time looking at the year-to-date following the rate of return so I've got it mapped out a little bit. So I appreciate the fact that your website is updated every month too and give us that information.
Thank you, and that's also an opportunity to plug. We have a retiree newsletter that we email out to 2,500 retirees each month. That includes our investment return in that newsletter as well.
Any other questions from the board? Thank you Mr. Levin. Do we have any requests to speak?
No requests to speak.
And we'll move on to D2.
Could we possibly get a motion to receive and follow the presentation?
So moved.
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. D2?
Chair Williams, members of the board.
Excuse me just a second. And I think, I don't know maybe you got to read it in first and then I recuse? Mr. Guzzone? Or would you rather I recuse first and then read it in? I'd recommend that
the clerk read it in and then you announce your recusal. Okay
here we go. Chair Williams, members of the board. Item two is from Public Works and to the board as the Board of Directors of the Water Agency it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Fringe Basin Boundary Modification involves the third, fourth and fifth districts.
1:07 – 1:133 turns
Okay so concerning agenda item D2 my family and I farm and use groundwater wells on properties overlying the adjudicated Santa Maria Groundwater basin Through county council, I requested advice from the FBPC on March 12th to rule out any conflict about this matter but I have not yet received their reply. Therefore in an abundance of caution, I am recusing myself from consideration of this item today. After I hear back from the FPPC, I might decide in the future to consider and vote on other matters concerning the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act.
Thank you, Mr. Adam.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. We'll turn the presentation over to Matt Young and Frey Crease with The
Water Agency. Good morning, this item is on the agenda to request board approval to submit a basin boundary modification to the California Department of Water Resources or DWR for the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin Fringe. And to request board support for a county of San Luis Obispo basin boundary modification in a portion of the Santa Maria groundwater basin fringe.
This map shows in blue where DWR's basin as identified in bullet 118 is different from the basin as outlined in the adjudication. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, or SGMA, established a process for modifying the Bulletin 118 boundary. On February 13th of this year, the board completed the first step of this process by approving a submittal of an initial notification to DWR that the water agency is considering a modification.
Since the notification was submitted, Water Agency staff has prepared technical information supporting the modification. Held public meeting with stakeholders in the fringe areas. Met with DWR staff to discuss proposed modification and coordinated with the county of San Luis Obispo which is also considering a modification. We believe that the fringe areas in Santa Barbara County have a strong justification for removal from the Bolton 118 basin.
Many parcels are split by the adjudicated basin boundary but are managed pursuant to the adjudication. Many of these areas are in non-water bearing formations, particularly in the southern fringe. Some have barriers to groundwater flow. In most areas there's a lack of significant pumping and limited opportunity for future development. These areas have minimal contribution of flow to the greater Santa Maria Basin.
This map shows the parcels that are within or split by the adjudicated basin boundary. These parcels could not be managed pursuant to SGMA because of their inclusion in the stipulation agreement. This excludes much of the fringe area, you can see that the parcels overlap a great portion of the fringe area particularly on this southern boundary. I'll now briefly talk about each of the fringe areas.
The fringe areas along the southern and western edges of the basin, which are shown here as the areas between the blue and the red lines on the map. Are primarily underlain by consolidated bedrock rather than alluvial aquifer materials. These areas have no groundwater wells. Most of these areas, as mentioned, contain parcels that are split by the basin boundary and used for adjudication. These areas should not have been mapped by DWR as part of the alluvial ground water basin.
The area along the Sisquauk River is a narrow strip of alluvial material along the riverbed. A concrete ground water barrier was installed across the river in 1910, shown here as this red bar. Which impedes subsurface flow from the alluvial materials along the river to the main basin. Finally, the parcels along the western edge of the fringe are split by the adjudicated boundary and are considered to be managed pursuant to the education. So all of the irrigated area in this fringe is within the adjudicated area.
The area along Tepeskay Creek is also a narrow strip of alluvial material. There is no irrigated land within this fringe area. Known groundwater wells are shallow, from 30 to 60 feet deep and support rural residential parcels and horse operations. Some crops are grown in this area but they are dry farmed. The parcels along the southern portion of the fringe are split by the adjudicated boundary and are considered to be managed pursuant to the adjudication.
Finally, along a bridge at the base of the canyon right about there. The bedrock which is Monterey Shale outcrops at the surface immediately adjacent to both sides of the creek. It is likely that the bedrock is extremely shallow on the creek bottom at this point forming a barrier that impedes subsurface flow to the main portion of the basin. The fringe area along the Kiyama River Valley from Twitchell Reservoir to the adjudicated basin is split by the county line. This area, through this process has come to be known by the County San Luis Obispo and some of the local land owners as Ziegler Canyon.
The county of San Luis Obispo has funded a study of the entire fringe area on both sides of the county line. After consultations between staff of both counties and DWR, it was determined that a single boundary modification request should be submitted for this fringe area rather than one by each county. The county of San Luis Obispo has agreed to take the lead on this submittal and will be requesting that this area be removed from the Bulletin 118 boundary.
DWR requires that the basin boundary modifications have broad support, so your board package includes a resolution supporting San Luis Obispo's request. The San Luis Obispo Board will consider this boundary modification request on June 5th at their board meeting. Staff recommends that you receive and file this report, adopt the resolution supporting basin boundary modification requests by the water agency in the county of San Luis Obispo. And determine that the proposed actions are not a project pursuant to CEQA. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.
1:13 – 1:2410 turns
Questions from the board? Requests to speak.
No requests to speak.
Do I have a motion?
I'll make a motion to move staff recommendation.
Second. Do I have a second? All those in favor please say, discussion on the motion. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. We will take D3, but I think it's safe to say that we will be going into closed session a little earlier than normal today. I think it probably would be safe to say about 1145, That range. I hate giving a projection when there's two more items, but there's a rational reason to give a projection today. Mr. Basanich?
Chair Williams, members of the board. I'm here to present a first reading introduction of an ordinance to establish cannabis business license fees in the county of Santa Barbara. A couple of important points to make note of here at the outset of this discussion. We are establishing fees for the cannabis business licenses only through the action your board would consider today.
It's important to note that the Planning and Development Department already has an existing fee ordinance that your board approved last year. That will encompass both the consultation process, that your board has previously approved and directed staff to utilize as a means to allow people to stay in compliance. As well as planning and development department also has established fees for their land use permit and conditional use permit processes as well. So this fee analysis today does not incorporate any of those already existing fees within planning and development in order to arrive at A suitable and fair fee as is required under state law.
There were a number of inputs that were required, first was the validation of staff time necessary in order to provide the licensing review and the compliance monitoring that has been part of the board's actions on the adoption of Chapter 50 which is the Cannabis Business Licensing Ordinance. We also estimate that there's approximately 150 cannabis business licenses and I'll walk you through both the staff time estimates as well as how we arrived at the estimate of 150 cannabis business licenses for the coming year.
We determined with the help, and I do want to recognize here both auditor controller staff and treasurer tax collector staff. But primarily auditor controller staff are helping identify the full cost recovery rates that would be necessary under this ordinance that's before you today. And at this time we've structured the fees, the cannabis business licensing fees as three different fees. One is an application fee, second one is a licensing and compliance fee, and then a third one is a renewal fee.
And it's critical to note that because we don't have a lot of experience and understanding how much time it's actually gonna take to do these different licenses. Each of those different fees will be based on the actual hours worked by staff, and then charged against a deposit. Part one of the analysis to arrive at the business license fee was to validate the staff time estimates required for each of the components of Chapter 50 that your board approved. And if you or members of the public want to refer to attachment A, we identified 16 different licensing and compliance activities that were part of chapter 50.
And the list below is broken up and you'll notice that there are texts on this slide that are in italics. And those text, the text in the bullets that are in italics are the ones that would be associated with application review fees. The items in non-italicized, and in this case also bold print at the bottom of this slide are those activities which are associated with the licensing and compliance fees.
And then all those that are, whether they're italics or regular font. All those that are in bold are the activities that are associated with renewal of any cannabis business license. And so we asked staff from the various departments to go back and validate the time that they estimated their staff would need to spend per license application or per license. Over the course of a year or for a renewal on what it would take to accomplish the tasks that your board approved in the ordinance associated with chapter 50.
The second part of the analysis to establish the fees was to look at how many business licenses do we expect to actually process during a coming fiscal year. And based on the current count of 129 county letters that have been provided All of the legal non-conforming exempt under our previous Article 10, we provided 129 county letters to individuals or entities on 118 different parcels.
It's also important to note that about 30 of those, somewhere between 27 and 33 will likely be in the land use consultation process and won't even be eligible to go for a local cannabis business license. As part of the consult process in 18-19, those in the coastal zone would Utilize the state annual licensing as their mechanism for staying compliant. And we would pick them up through a local cannabis business license after the Coastal Commission acts to certify both the amendments to chapter 35, the coastal zoning ordinance and also to chapter 50, the cannabis business licensing.
So I think we will have a subset of the 129 that will be working. So, I think staff, we made a reasonable effort to estimate that it would probably be around 150 cannabis business licenses that we might process in 18-19. It's important to note here that in order to be able to apply for a cannabis business license, you had to have already completed the land use permitting process and zoning clearance process that were established back by your board's approval of the ordinance amendments back in February of 2018.
Following a determination on what the activities were, the hours estimated to complete those. As well as then each of those tasks for application review, licensing and compliance and renewal. And as well as determining what we think the estimated number of applications it would be for cannabis business license in the coming year. It was then important that we put a full cost recovery hourly rate attached to each one of those activities.
And this is a portion of the chart that is available in your agenda packet as attachment B. For either you or members of the public. And this applies then the hours for each of those estimated activities, application review, compliance licensing and renewal for each of the staff at their fully loaded hourly rate. And I would point to the bottom right-hand corner of this chart where we estimated the total for an application review process would be about $4,000.
It'd be about $3,100 for the licensing and compliance cost per license, and then about $4500 for renewal. Staff then decided to estimate that we would provide a deposit of equal to 80% of what those total costs would be. And that would be what we would recommend as a deposit with some small amount of rounding. I think this is important to note because not all of these cannabis operations are going to be the same size and so we don't exactly know whether or not if it's a for example 130 acres on a particular parcel of cannabis cultivation could take Considerably longer and this seems like a fair way of appropriating the charges to those operations that are larger. Smaller operation, small micro business for example might take considerably less time but they will only be charged what is the actual cost of their hours against this deposit?
Supervisor Adam
has a question on that slide.
Yeah, I was wondering Dennis why these hourly rates are so cheap compared to P&Ds?
Chair Williams, Supervisor Adam. I can't speak to exactly the methodology that the consultant came how the consultant came up with the rates for planning and development fees. I do know I worked extensively with the auditor controller staff we incorporated both direct and indirect rates into these hourly rates for each of these positions And both, I think the audit controller and I felt comfortable with establishing them as this rate. So I don't have the information about the methodology used by the consultant in the fee study last year by P&D. Well, what are we billing
that now at 200 and
1:24 – 1:4020 turns
what?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Adam, the rate is over $200 an hour.
You can't tell me what it is because it's always... I
don't have it right with me. I mean I can look it up and get
back to you in a minute. Thank you Ms. Blackburn for coming up. It just seems like at these rates something's wrong with somebody's rate Okay, I mean one department doesn't have people in it that cost twice as much as the other. So somebody's wrong somewhere either this one's wrong or the other one is wrong.
So Mr. Chair and Supervisor Adam, I can tell you that we also worked very closely with the auditor controller and they validated our study in our rates as well so we can certainly look into it but ours were validated too.
Well, we're going to have to bring this back because there's no way that you can say that CEO staff should be getting two-thirds of the P&D
staff. So perhaps part of this lies in the difference In the Planning and Development Department, they charge and I think add to their charges the cost of the supervisory levels above the planners in their rates because that is their core function. And it's associated with each of the permits. It would be much more difficult, for example in CEO or Sheriff or Ag to determine which part of the upper levels, the supervisory management and executive levels within those other departments. What portion of their supervision management or executive function is attributable purely to the cannabis business license where it would be reasonable to say perhaps and I don't want to speak for the audit control methodology. But it would be reasonable to say that was absolutely essential within the planning and development department.
And I don't know if that comes through, and perhaps Ms. Black can talk to that?
Well, I don' expect to have an answer to this at this point. I'm just pointing it out and saying we're going to have to circle back to this at some point.
Thank
you. Please proceed. I have a question on that slide too. Dennis, why is the renewal cost more than the original application? What do we think? Why is that going to drive up
costs? It's an excellent question Chair Williams, Supervisor Lavagnino. It actually because it's a portion of both the application review because you want to go back every year and make sure revalidate all their security plans, their site plans, their energy conservation plans. You want to validate all those but it's not gonna take as long But if you actually looked at what it would cost, it would cost approximately. And we'll use the third line from the bottom right? Okay so if it's $4100 for the application fee and then $3100 for a licensing fee that's actually $7200.
So the renewal fee at $4500 is discounted. Good question because when I did the math too I wondered okay. So here's the suggested fees that are found in the ordinance that is before you today, is that we're suggesting a deposit for when somebody submits an application for a cannabis business license. A deposit of $3,250. If they were successful in going through that application review and we were ready to grant the license, we would ask them for another deposit of $2,500.
Now, I should back up and say this way so it's clear. If we don't spend the full $3,250 during the application review process because it's a rather simple operation, very straightforward, we would be able to refund those dollars at that point so that potential licensee, the applicant at that point would receive a reimbursement or a refund for any monies we don' use.
Likewise, if their actual cost of application review exceeded $3,250 we would invoice them for the additional hours that are necessary in order to complete that application review process. Again utilizing the hourly rates that I presented in Attachment B And that are also a part of the addendum to the ordinance itself. Then moving back to where I wanted to go there with the second one, the licensing and compliance fee would be $2,500. Again, that would be what you would pay in order to actually receive your license. And that would also pay for the compliance checks mid-year by business licensing staff.
A full year later, we would come back and we'd invoice them. And we'd ask for a deposit of $3,600 which would then incorporate the review process I just outlined a moment ago in response to Supervisor Lavinino as well as then whatever other compliance related activities would be required throughout that following year. So it's going to be based again as I mentioned a moment ago, based on the actual hours worked by licensing staff at their fully loaded hourly rate. The deposit is about 80% of the estimated total and refunds would be available for excess funds and invoices would be generated for any additional hours worked.
So just to kind of dive back to where we were a moment ago, the land use permit and consultation fees were established by your board by ordinance 4991 back in 2017. And it established a separate full cost recovery fee structure for processing of land use entitlement planner consultations. And then no changes to the existing development fee schedule for planning and development are required to process and monitor compliance with cannabis land use entitlements or to conduct planner consults regarding that portion of the cannabis operation licensing and permitting process.
So our recommended actions today are consider the introduction first reading of an ordinance of the board, establishing cannabis business license fee. Read the title and wave a reading of the ordinance in full. And then set a hearing on the administrative agenda for May 15th to consider the adoption of the ordinance. And then also make the CEQA findings that are found on the first page of the board letter. And I'm happy to answer any questions.
Supervisor Wolfe.
Thank you Mr. Chair, Mr. Bazonich I understand what you're saying about the fact that P&D is responsible for the permitting and we've already taken care of that but I am concerned and I was like I've been looking at attachment A that's in our board letter which I think really is important because it goes through all of the different items that the different departments are going to be looking at.
So do you have attachment A there, Mr. Bozonich? Chair
Williams, Supervisor Wolfe I do.
Okay so on the top part of it it goes through all the different plans that you mentioned in your report but if you look under the review energy conservation plan there is no department noted there If you go down, there's your-
Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolf. The explanation for that is that will be reviewed by planning when they also are reviewing their permits and entitlements at that point.
Okay, so that just brings up the other point. Probably a bigger point that I wanted to make and that is that planning there is not even one planner that's listed on this chart and again I understand they're doing the permitting piece But I would suggest, even if you look at the second line or the second column where it says review a change in premises. The way it's written here is that a planner's not going to be doing that. That's going to come from the CEO's office.
So I'm concerned that we don't have a planner that is part of this licensing regime. We don't have anyone from P&D who would respond to complaints, including site visits. We don't have P& D who would review compliance operating requirements including site visits. There's, we don't have P&D for any of the review of the compliance and implementation of the cultivation quality control etc.
So it's just It's just stunning to me that of all the departments that are listed here, P&D is not one. And if the energy and conservation plan is being reviewed by P&E then you certainly should note that on this chart. I know Diane wants to talk about this because we talked about it before the board meeting as to why there's no P&D individual. But before she answers that, I also have a question about fire.
It says here in the asterisk down at the bottom that they will perform the inspections and issue permits necessary at no charge until they can establish a fee schedule. When do you expect that's going to happen?
On the question of fire and consultation with Chief Peterson as well as Deputy Chief Steve Oaks, who's overseeing that portion of their inspection regime under the fire codes. They did not give me an estimated time. Primarily because we don't know how many fire inspections they will actually be required to do within a set period of time. It really depends on the flow of the applications. I would suspect by the end of a year, if not sooner but certainly by the end of the year there would be sufficient data points in order for them to establish what their fee would be as a part of this licensing program.
Well, and I understand that but I think that argument could be made for all of these departments. I think this is a best guess estimate and if we're adopting a fee ordinance it should include that. But anyway, Ms. Black, if you can explain why we don't have P&D here? And if I could just also say when we looked at this, I think it was back in January. We had a supervising planner for code compliance.
So it wasn't just the permitting, it was someone who was going to be making sure that what was being licensed was being complied with. So if you can talk about that?
Sure. Mr. Chair and Supervisor Wolf, first of all in terms of our staffing what you've heard pretty consistently from us is that we believe we need two staff planners for permitting, two staff planners for compliance and a supervisor. So we've already taken steps to hire and have hired staff for our permitting needs. And are awaiting direction from the board, I think through the budget on enforcement needs. On your agenda next week you're going to see a request for an extra help or contractor on payroll. for an initial supervisory function for the program. So I think we have been consistent in what we've asked the board for on staffing and we're proceeding along those lines.
With respect to why we aren't included in the fees for the permit, for the licensing. We already have our own fee schedule and are fully able to collect fees for both our own permitting and our compliance efforts. We have land use permit, coastal development permits, CUP fees. And we will be looking at the licensing components of those projects at the same time. And so we'll just simply charge That's how we intend to move forward.
It might have been helpful to note that we would be doing some of those reviews, but rest assured, we know what we're supposed to do in terms of the licensing work and we'll be doing that. We'll just be doing it with the applicants under the land use permit fee. I want to go back and give you a better answer on our fees. It's great to have a phone sitting here because we have staff watching going, you should have said so he caught me off guard, my apologies.
So when we updated our fees, we did full analysis of our costs. Which included cost of staffing for the permit process, management costs, supervision costs. Support staff costs, services and supplies as well as indirect costs. That fee study was done by a consultant and it was validated and believe me it was not simple process, but it was a very extensive validation process with the auditor. So we feel very confident that our fees really do reflect the full cost of providing planning services to the county now in terms The fees that are before you today, I think Dennis is right. I don't think all of those sort of indirect costs were necessarily built in because they're a little harder to predict. In our department we know how much of our staff is devoted to and how much of our operation is devoted to permitting versus other operations.
So I hope that helps and I hope I answered all your
1:40 – 1:457 turns
questions. No, well you did answer my questions thank you for that. I would just suggest that this attachment A especially where it says the review energy conservation plan and there's no one there's not its left blank. I think that it needs to have some explanation then that it is P&D that's doing it and It sounds like from what I understood from Ms. Black that some of their work will be involved with compliance, but it's under a different fee schedule which Is a little confusing, but again it would be helpful to have noted that on this attachment. So that we know that P&D is involved in compliance because otherwise for the reader including me it just doesn't make sense.
So those are just my two thoughts and suggestions other than the same issue that I had before. Well, let me ask the CEO this question about Enterprise Leader because this goes back to our Defining our employees with these terms that are sometimes difficult to understand. So at what level is
that enterprise leader? Supervisor Wolf to the chair, an enterprise leader in our system is basically the level below an assistant director. So it's the top level in our leadership series and then next level above that is basically an assistant director so it's sort of like a top program manager division leader that's the type of level of position.
Okay, and are you planning to hire someone? Yes we are. All right thank you Mr Chair.
Further questions, Supervisor Adam?
Yeah. This slide six if you want to go back to slide six these numbers I just wanted to be clear to the industry that these numbers are not what it's going to cost to get yourself squared away These numbers are a small portion of what it's going to cost to actually get a permit, to operate and actually do what you're currently doing. Order of magnitude, is this potentially even 10%?
Chair, I defer to Ms. Black to identify what the average typical cost of an LUP, total cost of an LUP or a CUP might be. I think we're in the realm of really speculation at this point, until we have a year under our belt. And I should say that the plan from our office's perspective is to continue Specifically, in fact with the help of Auditor-Controller they've identified a special code that will be used in time sheets and everything else to be able to track each of these pieces very specifically. The time spent as well as through the billing system we're going to be working with the Acela system that planning and development already utilizes for licensing as well. So we'll know very specifically what the actual real cost of these things are for Each of the applicants, each of the licensees and so forth.
But I think these are our best estimates on just the cannabis business licensing piece. There is the local permitting component of it that will come through planning and development with all of their accessory requirements that are associated with LUPs and CUPs. But I will say this, the costs pale in comparison to what the state is charging for annual state licenses. So there are state licenses and their fee schedules upwards of 50, 60, $80,000 to the state.
So when you look at what we locally, the local burden, fee burden if you will. Is again I think commensurate with the time we're spending based on the analysis we did and certainly with the analysis that has been done previously in planning development for the permitting process. But the state has issued a fee schedule that is Quite a bit higher, so you are right in your analysis that this is not
the total fee. This is a portion- A very small portion of what it's going to cost somebody to get going. Ms. Black can you tell me maybe what a ballpark average CUP costs?
1:45 – 1:5013 turns
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Adam, I don't really know how long a CUP is going to cost for cannabis because we haven't processed any of them yet.
Well yeah but they're not really any different than any other CUP right?
Well it really depends on the level of environmental review. I don t expect that a lot of the CUPs will require extensive environmental review but if they do you know the costs are quite a bit more. An average Minor CUP is probably 40 hours, so 40 hours times 200 plus an hour. Major CUP can exceed 100. What
kind
of
time frame generally we're looking at?
I would say four to eight months depending on the level of complexity. For the CUP and for most of these permits will not be CUPs. Most of them initially will be land use permits, and then as the coastal zoning ordinance is certified, it'll be coastal development permits as well. Those are issued at a staff level. And I think we anticipate an average of 10 plus hours for a land use permit. There will be some that will exceed that because they'll be more complicated. Okay,
thanks.
Request to speak. Chair Williams, members of the board we have one request Mr. Caldwell.
Chair Williams, members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. We're all for full disclosure, and we don't see any reason. I think that Supervisor Wolf was raising the same question. I don't see any reason why P&D isn't on this. They're part of this process. Why isn't there an estimate for Secondly, I want to talk about two big picture items. Number one, you got a proposed cannabis tax.
We're going to tax every level of this industry. Why isn't that tax sufficient to cover costs? This is the fundamental question, you're adding a special tax to this industry alone that no other industry's paying. But on top of that you're gonna charge them extra fees for applications license and renewal. Is this the golden goose? Plus they're gonna be paying property taxes and as staff mentioned they also have to pay the state money.
Why isn't that enough to cover the cost of them being here? The other issue, one of the things that started CoLab about 28 years ago was the hazmat programs. So I was in charge of the hazmat programs at Union Sugar. We had to do all the work, fill out all the forms, submit all the maps, submit all the plans. Then the county came by and spent an hour looking at it to verify that we were telling the truth.
We never could figure out why we weren't just paying for an hour or two of somebody to come out versus spending thousands of dollars for checking a plan. And so the renewal costs, we don't understand this. We don't understand after they've gone through the application and the license in the initial compliance why the renewal would not be a fraction And in fact, you may not even want to do that. You may want to go to a thing where if somebody is in compliance they pay nothing. You do random inspections and if somebody's out of compliance, you fine them.
Because what really caused us resentment in the business community is we were doing everything by the book and it was still costing us a fortune to prove to the county we were doing everything by the book. That was insult to injury. And we have like for instance gas stations, things just don't change from year to year. Don Oaks who used to be the thing said if my guys don't know there's gases at a gas station I don't want them working for me and the point here is after awhile these things should be routine for the good operators But again, the biggest point is you're taxing them. Why add fees on top of it? We'd like you to come back and put fire department and P&D on this thing plus add the state.
What's it really going to cost to do business in the county as compared to for instance some of the cities and other jurisdictions? Thank you.
That concludes public comment
Supervisor Wolfe?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Bozonich in the board letter this was I'm sorry didn't ask this question before it said that this whole thing we're talking about is contingent on the treasurer tax collector opening and maintaining a bank account in a suitable financial institution. Have we heard any progress on that front from the treasurer tax collector?
1:50 – 1:5914 turns
Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolfe. I would like to allow the treasurer tax collector if they're in Santa Barbara with one of their staff to speak to that issue if they are available there. Perhaps they can make themselves known to the chair here so we could perhaps hear from them. I was going to take your turn. Why don't you give it
a
shot, Dennis? Yeah so in the absence of that there have been a series of meetings that continue to occur on the issue of the opening of the bank account and just to clarify the contingency is on the operationalization Ordinance amendments as well as the business licensing ordinance. It's a contingency for both of us, for the operationalization of both ordinances and the ordinance amendments in there.
The discussions are fruitful, we have a target date in mind but there is no announcement that I am able to make at this time about the bank account. It would be the treasurer tax collector's prerogative. And in fact, the ordinances you approved asked him to come back and inform you so I would not want to take that pleasure away from the treasurer tax collector.
Other questions from the board? Comments from the board? Motions? I'll make a, not a motion but a comment. I do sort of wonder about what was brought up about renewals. I would think that in our regime, we would inspect at least once a year if not more. And so why wouldn't we just use that inspection as the sort of criteria and that we would only have to charge people for if they failed that inspection?
So Chair Williams, it's a good question and I think at the outset of this to give the renewal fee some context. Again we're just identifying a deposit here that any licensee for their renewal will only be charged the hours that is required to process that renewal. So to the extent their operation has a great deal of continuity as the examples that Mr. Caldwell shared a moment ago in his public comment, then that amount of staff time is dramatically less and they will only be charged for the hours of actual time spent on that renewal process.
That said, I think the concerns that your board has heard from members of the public for the last 14 months in this chamber and in Santa Barbara. I mean, I think has driven a lot of our desire to create a permitting And a licensing program that is as robust as possible to ameliorate the impacts on neighbors and on other businesses, and to address the concerns raised by your board over these past 14 months.
And that is really been paramount in our mind what public testimony was and what your overall board deliberations, discussions and directions to us in that period of time. I think we've sought And hopefully identified what that would cost in the simplest terms. And frankly, in the fairest terms by establishing a deposit and then an hourly rate for the work actually delivered in order to provide application review, licensing, and compliance, and then the renewal of those licenses.
And so maybe it's
fair to say that you had to come up with a fee schedule that was inclusive of the fact that some of these actors are going to be more problematic than others to put through the process. And so this does not necessarily reflect the costs of what it would take an operator Truly together to move through the process, but has to reflect the folks at the low end of the bell curve as well as the ones at the high end.
Chair Williams I think that's a very helpful statement to make in terms of this. To the extent people are ready and willing to participate in their application and compliance checks. That they're ready, working with us. That is going to take generally less time than people who are going to perhaps avoid some of those compliance checks that will cost more time and more hours and hence their fees will probably be higher.
Supervisor Labanino.
Thank you Mr. Chair, Dennis I was basically going to say the same thing so I appreciate you bringing that up is it for me this might feel a little bit like overkill when you look at what what the entire plan looks like and I feel that's needed at the beginning because you know we've started off with unfortunately you know over the last few years Folks in my district as well have been living with.
A lack of enforcement and that's due to a lack of resources. So I don't look at it as the golden goose, but I do look at it as I don' see anybody in here from the industry complaining about the cost of these fees and permits. I think they're ready to move forward. This is just a small fraction of what these guys are going to be paying in the long run. And maybe at some point they're going to be just like everybody else and say you know what? I can do it somewhere else cheaper.
But for now, we can always adjust these. We can always do something. We're at the beginning stages of this initial stages and so if it comes down to erring on one side or the other on this I want to definitely err on the side of overkill. So I'm ready to make a motion if we're ready. So, I'll move our recommended actions today. And see where we're at. There's a motion, is there a second?
And part of the motion, I'm sorry. Part of the motion is, I don't know if we have a time certain yet when the treasurer tax collector is going to come back but it would be nice to get an update on that ASAP. So put that as part of the motion to hear back from the treasurer tax collector on the issue of banking. Think that's a good change.
There's a motion, is there a second?
I would second and if I might ask Mr. Chair, I am curious as Supervisor Adam is about the hourly rate and so when it comes back on May 15 could we have a fuller explanation of that? Thank you.
Supervisor Adam
to
the motion
Yeah, I agree Dennis that you have responded to board direction and this is exactly what you've been told to do. And all along I have opposed this Scheme that we've cooked up here to regulate this industry. It should have been simplified, it's too cumbersome and it's too expensive. And I think in the end it's gonna chase good producers that were willing to play into the black market and Denying us the tax funds that we're going to need for enforcement.
And I think it's gonna be declared a failure at some point, so I won't be supporting. Wet blanket.
1:59 – 2:014 turns
Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I can count on one hand the number of times that I've abstained from something because I feel strongly that you take an action one way or another but I'm torn on this because I think it's important we move forward with I think And I do think P&D needs to be included in this whole regime. And, you know, I think I've said it before we're talking about pot not pumpkins and Is important and if people want to go elsewhere, they're obviously free to do that.
But it seems like a lot of people want to stay in Santa Barbara and so we should make sure that our county recoups The funds that we're expending on making sure that they're adhering to our ordinance, which we did spend a lot of time going over. We have all of those plans that you listed. What's the point of going through that and developing those plans unless we have someone who is there to ensure that they're being implemented? So again I'm torn in some respects but I'm gonna have to abstain from this vote and hope that some I guess in time get clarified and that we do hear from the treasurer tax collector on this. Thank you, Mr Chair.
Any other questions, comments? There's motion and there's second. I suppose we'll still, we don't need to do roll call but we can make an abstention. Do a roll call.
Roll call please. Mr. Adam. No. Mr Lavinino. Aye. Ms Wolfe. Abstain. Ms Hartman. Aye. Mr Williams. Aye Passes three ayes one no one abstention Capital projects. Chair Williams, members of the board. Departmental item number four, some general services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the proposed capital projects for county financing consideration.
2:02 – 2:185 turns
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I'm here today with Skip Gray, Assistant Director of General Services. I am Jeanette Pell. We today are bringing forward proposed 2018 certificates of participation for debt issuance. We've really focused on deferred maintenance. I need to tell you that the demand outweighs the funding, so it was kind of a challenge.
We drew up a line based on limitations of funding. There are some projects that were not recommended but at the end of the presentation I'm going to discuss those a little bit more and also there are several departments that want to talk about their project. So let me get myself pulled together here. Whoops, okay so we used a fairly straightforward process for selecting the projects that you'll be seeing today. We started by having the department submit their list of capital improvement projects in fiscal year 17-18.
There are $336 million of unfunded projects, and that's in total. I'll get into more detail on the next slide. We asked departments to rank their top priority projects, the top five. And then we, General Services took the Government Finance Officers Association criteria they developed and We applied those to the top projects by department. We met with the CEO's office and established a threshold, which we set at 25 million. We reviewed the list with the CEO's office and we made a final review with the department so they would know what the recommendation was going to be.
There are a total of 336 million of unfunded land, building and infrastructure projects in the CIP. This number does not include any of the public works projects or requests for equipment or information technology. With this request today should your board approve it there really is only 25 million available for these projects and clearly again the needs outweigh the available funding.
Jeanette, since Goss isn't here I had a question on this slide so not a question as much as a comment. I went through and when I looked at the different priorities that we're going to get on the next slide, so we have imperative essential important and desirable. You know, I don't want it to make sound any rosier than it is but 311 million really priority ones and twos out of the general fund that aren't out of the fire funds. So this is kind of what I'm looking at.
It's still 155 million but it's half of what we have identified as CIP unfunded projects. Yeah, there are things out there that are desirable or we could do. But I think we maybe have to have another chart at some point that shows these are must dos and should dos as opposed to because we can make the list as long as we want. And if I wanna put flower beds outside my office, that's cool but it really shouldn't be part of the unfunded project.
So anyways, just for the future I think we could break out priorities ones and twos and have it on a different sheet. And general fund projects as opposed to something that fire funds going to pay for.
So here's the criteria that we used. Priority one corrects conditions that are dangerous to the public health or safety, satisfies a legal obligation, alleviates an emergency service disruption or deficiency, or prevents irreparable damage Priority two, rehabilitates or replaces an obsolete public facility or attachment. Stimulates economic growth and private capital investment, reduces future operating and maintenance costs, and leverages available state or federal funding.
Priority three provides a new or expanded level of service, promotes intergovernmental cooperation. Reduces energy consumption and enhances cultural or natural resources. Priority four is the desirables. They're projects that are not included within the five year program because of funding limitations. And I take your comment to heart, Supervisor Lavinino. Really we have enough work in the priority one and two That would keep us very busy for a while.
Okay, I'm going to take over the middle part of the presentation and these are a list of the first category of possible COP projects and there are two categories that we're going to talk about and these are different from the priority categories. These categories I'm talking about are proposing that that if approved, the debt for this first group that you see up here would be paid back with general funds. This includes the water system replacement at CaliRail campus, the replacement of the historic Santa Barbara courthouse roof, the public safety radio tower enhancement project Enhancements and infrastructure upgrades at the Cochuma Lake RV Park.
Remodeling and expanding the downtown Carrillo Street probation department headquarters, and I'll provide more detail on each of these in the following slides. And as Jeanette mentioned departments are also here for this group of projects too should you have any questions that want to go into more detail. The second category, or the other categories of those projects that are in effect kind of what we saw this morning self-funding and that they do not rely solely on the general fund to pay the debt directly. In fact both of these are solar projects and for the most part utility savings are utilized to make the debt payments. The first one is the A6 item we discussed earlier today and includes the solar and energy efficiency upgrades at this campus and Fire Station 12.
And the second place is solar at the Kachuma Lake RV Park. It's important to note that all of these projects are just, estimates are just that. They are rough order of magnitude numbers and if any of these are approved today we'll be coming back to the board with more refined estimates after we've discussed the projects with the DAC, the Debt Advisory Committee.
So just real quick I'll go through these. The Cali Real water system replacement, the lower Cali Real campus piping and more importantly the valve systems which go rust quicker and degrade quicker are 80 years old and major failures literally shut down the entire campus at times Given that water is such a valuable resource and the project has been placed pretty high on our list, actually number one.
When we have failures like I said the entire system including the hospital and whatever all this stuff out there goes down. We have at least ten or have had at least ten failures in this system over the last five years so that's something we're constantly battling with The next project is the historic courthouse roof replacement. I won't go into a lot of detail here, but this project would stabilize and rehabilitate the existing roofing materials and underlayment at the courthouse in Santa Barbara.
This is the original roof, I think it was put on in 1929. Almost 100 years old and it's been patched many times over the years. Facility maintenance staff have to deal with numerous leaks including my office throughout the courthouse during rain events. The next project is the Public Safety Radio Tower Enhancement. This project enhances three communication sites for the county, Figueroa Mountain, San Ynez Peak and Mount Abel.
This will greatly improve radio service for the sheriff fire probation and public works departments. The additional transceiver sites will help improve the radio coverage areas where populations have grown quite a bit over the years and the coverage needs have changed. By adding Figueroa Mountain, we can help improve the San Ynez Valley and the Los Alamos area as well as the back country behind Figueroa Mountain.
The addition of Mount Abel will improve the eastern portion of the Quiama Valley, which is currently serviced only by Plowshare Peak. The blue overlay that you see here shows current radio coverage throughout The blue overlay shows current radio coverage throughout the county. The Figueroa Mountain will provide added radio coverage to the Central Valley, as I mentioned in the backcountry. Enhancements to the tower at Mount Abel will allow us to provide needed improvements in the eastern portion of the Cuyama Valley that has a much higher elevation so the coverage areas are greater.
And an additional site will be added or is being added this 18-19 fiscal year to the Valley Peak, which is the Santa Cruz Island. This project... The cool thing about this is it greatly improves the resiliency of our public safety communication system where it's almost linear right now and this will allow us to go around when we have failures so it's very helpful.
The next project is the Kachuma Lake RV Park enhancement Renovation of the RV park at Kachuma Lake includes elements designed to address years of deferred maintenance and improve the economic competitiveness and desirability of recreational opportunities. While also giving us additional revenues. It will reconfigure the about 120 RV campsites, replace water and sewer lines that are very old and the electric service as well to allow us to serve a bigger or larger RV's As a result of that, it's important to point out that the revenue growth as a result of being able to do that associated with this project in both occupancy and fees are expected to be approximately $700,000 of new revenue annually.
The last project in the first category of general funded projects is the probation headquarters remodel and addition. This project will infill the existing courtyard and add a second story over the current first floor space that faces Carrillo Street Santa Barbara Juvenile Hall functions require about 10,000 square feet and the scope of work outlined here will provide about 14,000. That'll allow the department to accommodate staff and program growth.
The probation department has expressed a goal in their Renew 2022 initiative to combine downtown Santa Barbara juvenile services and various services at Hollister Road Juvenile Hall. To provide ongoing operational cost savings and efficiency. The next two projects are in that second category I described earlier, that utilize the utility budget savings to effectively repay the debt.
That would fund the project. The first one is the installation of what we talked about earlier item A6 this morning, the installation renewable energy and the energy efficiency upgrades at Beverly Avia campus. It includes a solar thermal for hot water, as well as lithium battery storage system. And as we talked about small wind on this campus just to kind of test that out at BetterAvia the panel systems as we talked about will be designed as a carport structures that provide the support system for the panels In addition, we're upgrading a lot of the HVAC equipment and controls with this project. And very interesting technology with the lighting controls as well which helps save energy.
Again, the goal is to get these closer to ZNE zero net energy facilities and reduce our maintenance costs. The second solar project is the Consumer Lake Renewable Energy Project and this project will install a 450 kilowatt solar energy system on, again new shade structures at the parking lots for existing RV boat and trailer storage area. Installation of this system will supply service to the entire 6500 acre recreation area and update Outdated systems controls and fixture replacements, lights and that sort of thing. And then paving and fencing as well.
We do have a backup battery system on this one, too. The project will meet the county's zero net energy policy as well and be paid for again primarily with utility savings. As we mentioned earlier I just repeat it one more time any projects that you approve we will go back and get refine our estimates actually pay to get final estimates, not final but much better estimates than we've got now so that when we go to the DAC we'll be able to talk about that and the financing available as well.
So I would like to turn your attention to attachment two, which lists the capital improvement projects. I'm going to focus on page one. I just want to let you know that in addition to the projects that we just reviewed, we are working with the sheriff's office to address the deferred maintenance at the Santa Barbara jail and we actually have a study underway and we expect to get better numbers coming back In June, so we will incorporate that information when we go to the debt advisory committee and return to you.
Additionally there is a project on here that was not recommended just based on the funding limitations. But we have two departments here today that would like to speak to that. Magna Cola from the District Attorney and S.E. Ballard from the Public Defender, would like to talk about the Santa Maria DA and public defender offices. So I encourage you to come over there.
Do you want me to run your slide or do you want?
2:18 – 2:336 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, good morning. I'm Matt Nicola, Chief Deputy DA with the Santa Barbara DA's Office. I think I've met and know most of you, all of you. This is an overview of the North County Santa Maria Court Complex, Llewellyn Justice Center. I have a pointer here. The top is Cook Street, this is Miller Street. The town center is over here north of the complex.
What this project entails is a proposal to purchase and rebuild this property abandoned by the Santa Maria Police Department and house new facilities for the public defender which is located here and the district attorney which is located in these two buildings. Okay? This is the breakdown. Here's the police department facility, which is vacant and available.
The public defender occupies a one story building built in 19, it's 65 years old can't do math today. DAs office occupies the first floor and second floor of this two-story building. And one half the second floor of this two-story building. This is a mixed use complex with the courts on the first floor of this building, courts in this building, courts in this building and down here's the courts. This is the court admin building which is brand new and I think causes some of the problems that I'll be talking about.
I want you to note the position of this external elevator. Some of the challenges we have with this facility is that it's a state-owned building, which limits county maintenance and the county has to pay its share of upgrades. We have a slide later on that'll show what we've paid recently as a county. Anytime we need maintenance done, determinations as to whether or not it needs state approval.
General services has been phenomenal to work with over the years. I've been there 24 years in that facility, never had a complaint about them and still don't. They're terrific but this has been a limitation for the entire time that I've been working at that facility. And perhaps Director Powell will address that a little later. We do have a homeless population that seems to be ever present.
Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. But we do have camping and the issue of human waste. I know that's not unique in California but it is an issue that's a problem at the Santa Maria Court Complex. In addition to the camping and human waste problem is that we have lack of access to our second floor Particularly because it's an exterior elevator, it's separate from the building the DA's office occupies.
And it is isolated within the center of the complex. Isolated because of that new court administration building completely blocked off view from all angles. That leads to a lack of visibility and security issues for our staff on weekends, evenings and nights. There are numerous isolated alcoves. Some incidents recently demonstrate why our staff feel so threatened in that particular facility.
Supervisor Hartman
has a question. I was hoping you would go back and explain again with the image how the elevator, how the new building affects the elevator?
Sure. I could do it on this one as well or would you like the bigger one? Okay perhaps it's better on this one. I don't have it labeled but right where I'm pointing is the exterior Elevator. That's the only way to get to the second floor of this separate wing of the DA's office It's not connected by anything other than this open breezeway So if you need a wheelchair or crutches, or can't climb stairs that were built 65 years ago You need to use this elevator Which is out in the open, it's blocked from view this way because of this court administration building.
You can't see it from this side of the parking lot because of the jail cart bus port here. There are fences and gates in between these two buildings that are approximately seven, eight feet tall that you can't see through because the court needs a security measure for this particular courtyard. You can't see it from this side of the building, from this side of the street because all these buildings are in the way.
So at night, the only way to get to this elevator is through this narrow corridor at night into here. It's well lit. We're not complaining about the lighting but the lighting has not stopped the behavior It's flood lit, and we still have the campers. We still have the waste. We still have other issues that I'll get to that occur here in the public defender courtyard.
Here in front of our first floor victim witness wing where our victims enter or our victim advocates enter and work. We still have issues in alcoves over here. And if I may, the triangles show everywhere that we've seen issues. This triangle right here shows that isolated even a well lit courtyard. Prior to certain security measures being taken we had homeless sleeping on the second floor balcony which is right outside our door.
This closed court complex and the court admin building. They were using the balconies and alcoves as toilets, and filling the area with trash. This triangle, same issue. Security measures have resolved it. This alcove we feel is an ambush spot. Our employees have actually worried about someone jumping out from there, and I have a picture of that a little later.
We have an alcove over here, again outside one of our entry doors that people are using as a toilet or sleeping in it. Right here the red triangle on Friday the public defender Found a large butcher knife buried in a picnic table first thing in the morning. This is an area known for homeless to camp out, they found human waste. We've seen people out there first thing in the morning being carted away by ambulances for overdose or other medical reasons. First thing in the morning, vomit is common in the area but the butcher knife was something else.
That's a thing of value. You don't just stick it in the table and walk away. If it's a tool, you want to keep it. If it's valuable to you and say you're a drug abuser, you can trade that for something. But that knife was stuck in the table and left there. On Friday afternoon, there was a very significant child sexual assault case that returned to verdict late in the day.
It's great verdict for the people who is guilty straight down the sheet. Monday morning when our victim witness staff came into work through this door, it's also the same door that any victim would come in to get services. They were greeted with a condom that was stretched across the door handle. Now even if these events, the knife, the condom are random coincidences.
Even if they are, the result is it's still very intimidating a bit terrifying for our advocates and our other staff and frankly just really gross. And that's what's going on in this courtyard because it can't be seen from either Miller Street or Cook Street or anywhere else in the complex. It's completely isolated even though it's well lit, we still have the campers, we still have people leaving knives and other disgusting material.
The alcove that I was talking about our entryway this is common. I know it's common throughout the county. For people to urinate or otherwise relieve themselves on state or public property. But this is regular in a regularly used entrance to the district attorney's office. The door to get in our office, it's literally right where I'm pointing with the red dot and that's where they're hanging out.
This is random graffiti that shows up throughout Can't tell if that's connected to anything nefarious, but what it tells our employees and the public defender employees is that people feel free to hang out at this complex in the alcoves and do whatever they wish. Our employees come day and night. They work a lot of hours. Reminds them that this is an unsafe and unsecure complex to work at.
This orange oval circle and this green circle represent the only two elevators servicing the second floors of any part of this complex that are open during business hours. Like I said, this elevator serves the DA's office. This elevator serves the court or the DA's office through this complex. This is closed after court hours, nights, holidays and weekends.
We can't use our elevator at night because when we left it unlocked it would be used as a toilet. So at night, that's locked. On weekends, that's locked and unavailable to us. Again there is no other way if you have a disability to get to the second floor of the DAs office either in wing C or D. Our interior challenges, of course it's a 65 year old building.
That comes with a lot of stuff. And it's probably right up there with other old buildings in the county. But we think combined with the external security threats to our personnel, this is more of a category one than a category two and if it's a category two, we think it should be at the top of the list. We do have the issue with ADA. We have HVAC electrical and plumbing issues.
Not spectacularly different from anyone else, yet ongoing. In my time in the Santa Maria office we've been forced to evacuate twice for electrical fires. One was upstairs in some random electrical motor in our HVAC system and once for a downstairs panel outside the courts. Of course we're right above the courts so out we go. We do have It's been fairly frequent, although I don't know if it's unusual plumbing issues. But it's gotten to the point where Director Pell's great staff and us in the DAs office are pretty chummy.
They spend so much time there, I think they could probably pass the bar exam just dealing with our HVAC electrical and plumbing issues.
Well we better hope they don't because I don'y know where we're going to get people to replace them.
Well, some would say they're more useful than lawyers anyway. I'm just saying. No one's disagreeing with that. Our structural issues are known and unknown. Of course we have evidence of water damage, who knows? Who knows how long that's been there? The water damage, the falling ceiling tiles and the torn shirt not related. Who'd have thought that this and this were due to an electrical problem?
I'll explain. Our attorney is occupying a space that he really shouldn't be occupying because we've run out of space to put attorneys in, or any staff. We're completely full. We can't even fit our files into our new file room, they're overflowing. So this attorney is sitting in a new cubicle which seems to be fairly close to an attic access. He's not directly under it, he's to the side.
We had an electrical issue of unknown origin. Director Pell's fine folks came over, climbed up into the attic to try to find it. What the issue was because they really couldn't find the breaker because the electrical system is so jumbled in our building they could not find the breaker for this particular issue. So they climbed up in there, our attorney was working in his cubicle on this file.
And this thing came crashing down from the ceiling and he saw it just in time to raise his arm and boom, the nails went through his shirt. Without his reflexes, those nails would have hit him in the head, face, neck. I don't know. I don't know if this building creates liabilities for our staff but I want you to consider that. The cost sharing problem is this.
Jeanette did you want to comment on this slide?
2:33 – 2:417 turns
It's just because the state owns the building that when repairs need to be made, there is a certain percentage that the county needs to pay. And we recently paid our portion of the Santa Maria parking lot resurface which was $190,000 and I just received notice from the courts that they want to replace the roof on Building C&D at a little under a million dollars. So I just want to make the point that if we, We can continue to nickel and dime this and put money into this particular facility but we do not own it. And so that might be a consideration for a longer term different solution.
We do think the opportunity to relocate to the Santa Maria Police Department property is gonna be one of limited duration. Eventually, that door's gonna shut on us. Three years ago we were approached with this project. We were told we're gonna hold off on improving our facilities because this is becoming available and it looks like a really good opportunity for the county to get out from under the superior court.
It's still a good opportunity and it still exists. It's still there. And yes, we know it's expensive. But the first step is at least looking at that property and locking it up. And what we're asking you to do is at least take that step. At least push this back And say, we want another analysis of this. Is this really a one or is this really a two? Are there liabilities here for our personnel that we have not considered because we believe there are.
Our staff is genuinely afraid of that location. Public defender staff are genuinely afraid of this location and there are reasons to be. If a decrease in liability, whatever that liability may be for the county is worth it. This project makes an awful lot of sense right now but we urge you to take another look at it. At this point I think I will yield to Ms Ballard from the Public Defender's Office.
Just I should have said this earlier. Maybe you guys can move a little faster or let the chair know ahead of time when there's going to be an additional presentation.
It's not fair to have lawyers make arguments for their departments either.
All right. Good morning and good morning Chair and Board of Supervisors My name is Essie Ballard. I'm here on behalf of the Public Defender's Office and I'm just here to be much more brief than my counterpart, but I do want to echo everything he said. I really appreciate everything that Mr. Nicola had to offer and we certainly feel that we are lock-stepped with the DA in this issue.
So what I'm here today to do is just give you a quick window inside of the Public Defender's Office at the Santa Maria branch And I want to start with just the two issues that make it a priority one level, and this is health and safety. First for safety as Mr Nicola pointed out the location let me see man use that. Alright. Let me see if I've got it.
And you have excellent projection, but just get closer to the mic for the record.
You got it? All right so a couple of specific instances on safety. First of all this knife that was found on Friday, I was lucky enough to find that knife. So you're looking 15 feet out of my window there. So I want you to imagine just a regular Friday morning at work You come to work, you're happy you've made it till Friday. You're finishing coffee, you're doing emails and I'm looking out the door at a 12-inch butcher knife stabbed into a picnic table.
Now what's so significant about that first of all should be significant just based in and of itself but what's so significant about it is that this parking lot right here This is where stabbing took place less than two weeks ago And this stabbing that took place it was about 10 o'clock at night And as new attorneys are want to do, they work late. I like it when they work late so we have one of our youngest and newest attorneys here and right where that green arrow is is her office.
Her office window opens up to this open parking lot and around 945 there was a stabbing. Now she heard a little commotion but not much, not much to really give her cause because you hear sirens in Santa Maria. But when she left the office and it is extraordinarily dark in this area where she has her choices to leave, she walked right into that crime scene And you can imagine it's scared or 10 o'clock at night, a safety issue that really can't be mitigated or modified by any type of money.
The second issue that I would point out right off the top is Another physical structure here in this area here. When there was a seismic retrofit a few years back of this building, what happened at that areas? There was a three sided I'm going to say patio for lack of a better word created from the retrofit. For transient and homeless folks to try to seek shelter and just like Mr Nicola said it is a constant source Waste urine feces that our attorneys have to walk through and near every day.
Now I touched very briefly on the health side of things when I came this morning, I had the staff pull just the last five years of when we had to request general services to come on over to the building and they have done an excellent job. An excellent job, but just in the last five years we have had 18 work calls out for dead animals inside of our office. In the roof tiles.
We've had 22 call outs for plumbing issues. These are structural issues that you just can't change. I'm going to leave you with this because we've taken a lot of your time already. But what would you think? And this is straight from one of our lawyers on this issue, the dead animal. Because this is what happens right? Dead animal dies in the drop down ceiling but it takes a few days maybe a week for that stench to come up through the office And once it starts smelling, then we call general services. But what's already happening is the bugs are already there.
So the lawyer walks in she smells a dead animal. We called general services but the flies have already started. She's walking to her office and as she walked she thinks she's walking over what looks like spilled rice and she looks down and she's walking over maggots. Now how would you feel entering your lawyer's office? Your doctor's office Or your CPA, and the first thing you smell is a dead animal. Do you think for one minute? You would think that professional was there to represent you competently.
We have approximately 25 staff in our building every day that doesn't include members of the public that are brought into our office as our clients, nor does it include experts other law enforcement that come for certain meetings. And I'm just going to close with this. Let's not throw good money after bad. This building is broken in a way that needs to be repaired in a move across the street.
Thank you so much for your time, I appreciate it.
2:41 – 2:4829 turns
Supervisor Adam? Well, I was just going to ask, I didn't catch your name, I'm sorry. Ms
Ballard.
Given my record on maintenance, when you say that stench. Were you talking to me or were you just talking to them?
Well I was trying to make eye contact with everybody. Okay
thank
you. Alright
thanks y'all.
Thank you.
So these are the next steps we want
to
refine. We want to refine the estimates for the projects and gain direction. Are these the right ones? And then our next step would be to refine the estimates, and then go back to the debt advisory committee, and finally return to the board with proposals for financing, and then move forward. So those are our next steps, and that concludes our presentation.
Supervisor Lavinia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the courthouse, have we looked at it? So it's a historical building, correct? And is there any grant funding? It would seem like replacing that would generate a lot of the community support to go out there and raise money to replace a roof or through the state or somebody threw some historical funds to be able to replace that roof.
A couple things. We did apply for a seismic retrofit grant that would have allowed us to offset some of the costs of that roof project and were declined on that one, so we tried on that one. The Courthouse Legacy Foundation does raise funds for various projects. Part of the courthouse. Nobody likes to
put a roof
on. Probably not one of those, yeah. Redoing
the mural room? Yes. Right. So and then on the Kachuma side so it says that increased revenue if we did those additional RV spots everything would generate about $700,000 are we factoring that into would that money go back to pay the debt service or are we putting that back into parks or where's it really
yes that's correct I think the plan was I can let Jeff Rappel speak to this, but I believe we were going to use that money to go back into the parks.
Okay well yeah that would pay half the debt service actually so I'd be pretty motivated to put that into
more... We would be very motivated to do that as well but I think the question is whether that's a guaranteed source and I think we have to have more
discussions. So is Kachuma in the parks, is that an enterprise fund or not? I mean well I guess no it's not. Okay so you can't go out and borrow your own money on that enterprise fund. I mean if it was an enterprise fund would you be able to borrow? I don't know, Jeff might ask that. Because I was thinking if it's an enterprise fund and we can make it one why couldn't they just go out and borrow their own money and pay for it through parks?
Yes. Supervisor Lavarino to the Chair. You could make an enterprise fund. It has been in the past. It was not successful in supporting its own operational cost. The real question is enterprise fund or not whether the rating agencies would consider that a risk Where did they get a favorable interest rate? I suspect, given my experience that they'd be looking to the general fund ultimately to secure any kind of debt financing for Coachella.
Okay thanks. A couple more questions on Calle Real. How...I thought at one point one of the repairs was like a million dollars so how are we okay with that whole system is going to cost us just two million? Maybe I'm wrong. Because I know we had 10 years of, I know Matt Pontus was dealing with this thing forever but I think the pipes are still clay out there and they're 100 years old or something.
Supervisor Lavinino through the chair, this project is mainly the piping out there. It may have been a previous project. We've done a lot of work out there already but we still have 80-year-old valves and piping and I think that speaks to that.
Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair, we did replace a lot of the big valve systems across that system. It was the first step in that process and what they have left over is the remaining excess.
Okay great. Okay so then my last comment's just going to be on the building and I just want to thank you guys for painting a great picture for the Santa Maria Chamber of Commerce of downtown Santa Maria. I run by that place every once in a while and on a jog, not running because I'm scared. But it is a- It keeps you going though doesn't it? It keeps me going yeah. I actually pick up speed in that area so.
It is just visiting the DA's office. I've been in that elevator and it's scary. There's graffiti scratched all in the elevator. The elevators pretty...it's not what you would imagine we have in our administration building in Santa Barbara. I think that long term is, you know the plan is and when we say long term like we said we were talking about it three years ago.
That property's not gonna get any cheaper for us to buy, I don't imagine. You know, I would like to see at least the purchase or chase the purchase and I don't think we can do that. Can we do that in a COP? You can't purchase the property correct?
Acquisition costs can be part of a COP if there's available funding.
Okay, so when I added up what we had down right now, I think we got to 22 and a half million. Without the, yeah. So and I had thought that that building was gonna cost somewhere around $3 million. And I know there's a lot of things we have to do after we buy the building to move the folks over there but I think we have to do something and that makes the most sense.
So personally I would like, I think all the projects that are on here are worthy. But I would like to see us move forward on Meeting with the city of Santa Maria and finding out where we can go with that. And I think we can fit that into our $25 million package, so.
We have been meeting with the City of Santa Maria and we recently conducted another appraisal or updated the appraisal that we had done several years ago. So we have been in discussion with them.
Okay, great.
2:49 – 2:5711 turns
Sounds like we need a closed session though for if we're doing property negotiation.
I'm just looking, do you? I think we've talked about this in open session a number of times as far as yeah. I'm not saying we want to negotiate it right now but we got to kind of lay out our plan a little bit for that courthouse area.
So the CIP amount, COP amount in the staff report indicates a much larger cost than Supervisor Labanino was indicating.
That's to build a whole another building. But you have to buy that property before you can put the new building on there.
But I am interested, but I think what's maybe missing is how much cost is going into the existing facility. Sort of in terms of understanding cost benefit here, I think that's something we would need to have. Supervisor Adam? Thank you.
Well first of all, I know there's some other priority one items on here and I'm wondering why we didn't prioritize all the priority one items instead of digging down into the deeper items. Ms. Pell?
So Supervisor Adam through the chair, I think we were just trying to Be fair to all departments as best we could. And we also, we had that limitation of the 25 million and that drove some of our decisions just based on that dollar limitation.
Well it's hard for me to understand, I don't understand how You know, you're only dealing with how many departments here? Two. I don't understand how we can have these DA concerns and public defender concerns. I'll leave you out with these buildings that this is exactly what I've been talking about for six years. You know it's to have this kind of neglect is just, it's unconscionable and I don't understand how we can start talking about spending money on things that aren't You know, demonstrably or not as high a priority. And maybe we need to do twice as big of a COP.
We need to identify and I know there's some other priority one Uh, projects on here as well. And what were we planning on doing? You know when are we planning on doing those because I know that those are something that we don't talk about in open session but we're and I don't exactly know Mr. Gazzone how to Go about identifying these things. But I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about here in terms of at some point having to spend on the order of 20, 30 million?
Maybe I can talk with you offline and then agendize a closed session as needed.
Well okay but how do you get that out into The real world, you know, out into the open session. And I know you're not done with these things but I think that those are realities that we better... You know? I think we need to go back to the drawing board with this list and come back with some like a list of priority one items. It just seems inappropriate to me Going to go utilize some of our borrowing capacity for priority two items that are kind of nice to have when you have other things.
That are hanging fire out there, and other things that are real live items as identified here this morning. And we seem to have ignored those. So my question is, are there more items like that? That the other department heads didn't bother showing up for because everybody's I've been habituated to working under these circumstances, and nobody's coming in and complaining.
Supervisor Adams and the Chair if I might. So a couple of things to answer your questions. One is on the priority ones. So if you look on their list aside from the jail, the existing South County Jail, I think the department did address all the priority ones in the COP. Is that correct Mr? Yeah, so that was one thing the second thing about yes. There is a lot of deferred maintenance as you know and When we look and that's why I think Magna Cola bringing this forward we appreciate that I look across The parking lot, and I see our engineering and planning building where it gets so hot in the summertime. And there's no adequate air flow that we have to send people home. So we have the same byproducts from the homeless population in our lot. I was just talking to Mr.
Allen about that. But my parking space every morning although general services does a great job in trying to clean this space. We live in urban areas, we have urban problems, and we have a lot of deferred maintenance which your board has grappled with. Regarding the COPs, I think they have addressed all the priority ones. Your question is do you want to keep capacity for the main jail because that's the other priority one on here? And I think we're addressing issues at the main jail and there was a report that's been done and we'll be talking more about that with you in the future.
The other issue, and again the issues on the main job that the general services department has listed is for major renovations which this board has not made those policy decisions yet. So I just want to clarify that. The other issue is, would more departments have been here? Perhaps. But the reason we have a whole capital improvement program and the COP process and general service quality process given their expertise in working with departments to come with this list. We're here before you to ask you is this the right list based on the information that's provided you today. And you have the right to say it's not the right list but we're providing you the best information that we have and the expertise of the departments and your general services department.
Lastly about funding for the acquisition. If you're directing us, if you'd like us to research that we could do that. The range that we've given you is a range of estimates. It could take up the entire capacity of debt service. It may not but it could. So if you want us to do that, we can come back and look at it some more. And when either after the DAC or before we go to the DAC, we could bring back another report to you in closed session or open session.
The last thing I'd like to say is I was quickly doing some numbers with Mr. Frapwell. And if these buildings are so important, I would ask departments that you prioritize that when you provide your budget expansions to us. So we just went through a week of budget workshops with all the departments. I don't filter their requests and so if this is such a high importance especially to our public safety departments, In lieu of or equal to the positions, I'm going to be recommending getting the recommended budget out to you soon. I'm recommending restoration of positions, expansion of positions in some of those departments and if that was a priority then I would have maybe thought maybe we could reserve funding those ongoing positions and use that for debt service so it's a balancing act that we have to do and if departments this is really important I ask they help us in
2:57 – 3:0512 turns
Another suggestion was in the near term, could we post and enforce no trespassing at the court complex during certain hours?
Or even a security guard.
Chair and Supervisors, yes recognizing that we're a co-tenant with the state, we need to work with them but the public agency has the ability to put off limits on parts of its property.
Okay well I suggest we get to doing that as soon as possible in the near term. Now especially with respect to the Kachuma project, we need to see these cash flow expectations. If we're gonna try and justify that by revenue growth I think that's gonna be a really tough sell. I'm really concerned that we're in violation of law, that we're not supposed to borrow money for maintenance and How old the building is kind of does not relieve you of the obligation to maintain it with current cash flows, I believe. Is that true Mr. Frappel?
Supervisor Adams, the Chair. Maintenance of facilities is ultimately our responsibility ongoing for all buildings old or not. With respect to the ability to finance a maintenance project There are structures out there that would get us there. In other words, you can collateralize another asset as a pledge for funds raised to do a roof for instance. You could pledge the entire building as collateral to provide security to the bondholders with respect to putting new roof on so it can be done.
It really gets down to from a ready agency standpoint, their comfort level that the security and collateral that you're providing is adequate to cover and ensure the debt service is covered to the ultimate bondholder. So there are ways to do that. It gets sometimes more complicated but there are methods
Okay, well the bottom line is we've been avoiding and evading doing our maintenance out of our current cash dollars. And we keep expecting somebody to come up with a bond or a grant or some other alternative funding mechanism. And I think we can see especially with respect to the court complex that's a failing strategy And even Kachuma, I mean look at Kachuma. That should really be a well-maintained up to date facility and it's not because we've never put the money into it. It's like our strategy is just ignore all these things and then at some point the Bank of Unicorns and Rainbows will show up and finance our renovation I know that some people actually think that bank exists, but it doesn't.
That just made it up.
I'm sure if you were in charge the buildings would be maintained. I am just not sure there would be very many attorneys there. Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you explain the 25 million, the debt ceiling and how much flexibility there is in terms of what we could borrow? Why do you justify that?
I was waiting for your answer. The $25 million kind of number is essentially our best estimate today without doing all the research and running, working with our financial advisor to actually come up with a final number of what 1.4 million dollars of annual debt service would drive as far as borrowing amount. So it's our preliminary estimate now, it's kind of rule of thumb.
But as you know, it's subject to vagaries in the market and the ability for us to finance at a favorable interest rate. So interest rate environment right now is on the uptick, which actually drives that number down. If you still want to stay within the $1.4 million we've historically identified for potential debt service. That's not to say we're locked into that number as our CEO mentioned it really is a question of trade-offs And so if your board wanted to issue a COP in excess of that and it required debt service above the 1.4 that we've built into our ongoing budget, then that's certainly a policy decision for your board to make.
Thank you. If I could continue, let's see. In terms of the existing state building where the DA and public defender are, we don't really have any idea what future costs we would have to pay. Things happen and we're on the hook right? And there's no way of really predicting over the next several years how much more money we have to invest in a bad building.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I think you know, I could work with the state and try to come up with that number but in the past it appears That I just get a notification in the mail and like they're ready to start the roofing project at almost a million dollars and we have not budgeted for that at all so So I don't know today what all their plan deferred maintenance projects are the same thing happened with the The parking lot upgrades as well. And then they threw in that they were going to put fencing around it and so it seems to be evolving.
Right, and that to me is very concerning. The next point I have to...I would like to echo what I think Supervisor Lavinino said and that is, and what you're already doing, that is exploring acquisition of the Santa Maria property If I understood Mr. Frapwell, we could use some of the money from the loan from the COP to pay for acquisition of that so that would be a first step and I would also like to consider moving that from it sounds to me like as a priority one rather than a priority two I know we may not want to consider it, but I'd like to move it forward and when things are falling out of the roof and nails are tearing people's shirts and people are physically threatened. It seems to me that that is a priority one as I understand it.
I don't know if there's support for that, but if we could be moving forward it seems to me important possibly exploring whether we could expand how much debt service in light of these Supervisor Wolk.
3:05 – 3:111 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair. When this I think started maybe two years ago, right? CEO Misato when we had a little bit of extra money and I think I suggested that we put the 1.4 million into a line item to talk about debt financing because it was so apparent at that time really the big focus as I recall was the jail. And the South County Jail, and how were we as a board to come up with money to fix up the South County Jail?
I kind of recall that we were throwing around a $10 million cost. But even at 19 million which is noted here for HVAC and ADA structural things. That's going to be coming back to the Debt Advisory Committee. And that is listed as a priority one, and my position is that we need to take care of that because we have talked about that South County Jail and its renovations and For so many years and if we're going to go out for If we're going to do debt This is one of those areas that I think that we have to focus on and so I'm glad to hear that it's coming back And I will say all of these other items and looking at the list There are so many things that I would rather see be put on priority 1 but they're not and So I'm going to I'm going to trust that Ms.
Pell, because I have bugged her for months to get this list put together because I worry about the interest rates going up. Two years ago it was less than where we are now and I think at some point we need to move forward And I'm so glad that Ms. Pell has done this, yes it's taken a bit longer than I would have liked but Some of these things surprise me, but they make a lot of sense.
And so I am not, I don't feel prepared right now to say, you know, I listen to the public defender and the district attorney and I appreciate what they're saying. I listened to Ms. Miyasato as she was talking, I was thinking the same thing about the engineering building. And what some of our folks are dealing with there. I know, I mean, I was just thinking of the public defenders building in Santa Barbara when that building was horrible and it was a danger to the employees. I don't even think there was an elevator, maybe there was.
But we took some of our older debt financing and used it to repair and redo the public defender's office, which I'm so glad that the board decided to do. I hear the issues that are being stated today, and I think that maybe there needs to be more emphasis on hiring private patrol right now to ensure the safety of our employees and the public. I think there may need to be obviously more outreach with the state but Because of the jail and because of the unknown cost of the jail, I don't think we should go any further than what is being recommended by our staff.
And then to hear back from the Debt Advisory Committee on what needs to be done at the jail. Because in my opinion, we're not going to be at 25 million, 35 million, and then we're going to have to figure out because that 1.4 is not going to cover the debt service for that. So I suggest that before we go any further, we stick to what is before us now. And if I could just say one more thing about the Santa Maria Police Department.
It's like I don't want to negotiate out here and And talk about how much we need that space, because we may not. And I don't know the condition of that building. I don't know what our lease is right now with the state. There's a lot of unknowns. So I think for the purposes today, in my opinion and I would make a motion at the appropriate time is to move forward with what staff's recommendation is.
And to include, I think in that recommendation was to have more information come back on the jail. And then this go to the debt advisory committee with these recommendations and then it comes obviously it comes back to the board for further review.
3:11 – 3:1614 turns
Before any motions we do need to get a public comment. Do you want to go?
I'll just say that, you know, Move forward on the infrastructure upgrades as much as I would love to have them at Kachuma. That's kind of been a push of mine for a long time, even back to Supervisor Farr that we need to turn that into a money making great park out there. But while we're struggling to, as Supervisor Wolfe said, renovate the jail and we have folks working in those types of conditions, I couldn't move forward with this list the way it is, and I know we're still working on it. And there's other things that we need to do but so that's just my two cents. So out of these up here those are
ones. I'm sorry because I missed the very beginning. The
Kachuma Lake Park infrastructure upgrades for me I wouldn't be able to support moving that forward while we have these other ones if we're trying to stay in the $25 million range. Gotcha
okay thank you
And I was going to wait to say this still after public comment, but I'll just throw it out for you to think about. I do think Supervisor Wolf has an important point here. The cost driver for, I think you could fairly say one of the three top cost drivers for our fiscal woes is the state of the jail. And for us not to address that at some level seems like we would not be addressing some of the root fiscal problems that would prevent us from doing all this other stuff. And so I do think she has a good point, that we really got to figure that part out and But at the same time, I do see the value in putting aside some money so that you get the ball rolling. And so my suggestion would be that we put either from the fact that we decided at the end of the day to use a portion of the revenue from Kachuma Take care of some of the debt service or by enlarging this by a small amount.
But I would suggest that we put a less than needed amount aside for Santa Maria DA public defenders issue so that we could at least negotiate with the city of Santa Maria. But definitely not 12 million and not what would be necessary, so I mean, Put aside a million and half, and then if the acquisition is a little bit more than that then we would have to figure out the gap. But I don't think it's wise to start a negotiation with a large big pot of money.
That doesn't necessarily put us in a good position. So I just ask you to think about that while we take public comment. Do you want to speak before public comment?
I just had a question, I should have known the answer to this and I am appreciative to Supervisor Wolf for raising the issue of the main jail. But it's 65 million so what are our thoughts?
So those are very preliminary estimates and we want to get the report back and then look at the priorities. We may not want to do all of the enhancements that have been identified, so I think there's room to narrow that scope.
Well, 44 of it is for a whole new building. I
was just looking actually at the first one because I don't think we have a fully vetted plan on what may be closed down but what I understood from Ms. Pell when I talked to her is that even if there were maybe a portion of that jail closed down that we still need these HVAC and ADA changes. Thank you for pointing that out. Just to clarify, I wouldn't go past that first line.
But that's still 20 million unless we can sequence it over several years. Right
and those are all the things that we need to sit down with the sheriff's office and explore based on the information because that was exactly what the report is supposed to tell us is what are the options for Prioritizing, phasing the different upgrades of the jail.
I'm sorry and when is it coming? It seems a bit like the cart before the horse here.
So we just asked for very preliminary numbers just because we knew that today that question would be asked about the jail. They will be on site at the end of May and we expect to report probably by the end of June.
3:17 – 3:236 turns
Go to public comment.
We have two requests to speak, we're going to go to Santa Barbara for Cameron Gray and then back here for Mr. Caldwell
Chair Williams, Vice-Chair Lavagnino and County Supervisors. Cameron Gray again with Community Environmental Council. As I listen to this discussion today it's clear that there are a really wide set of goals and needs that staff are attempting to balance here. It's a really difficult needle to thread. and presents a really complex puzzle of challenges and potential solutions.
But I wanted to hold up the Better Avia project that was discussed earlier today as a model for meeting multiple county goals and needs. That project can help implement the Energy and Climate Action Plan, move us towards zero net energy, and upgrade some aging outdated equipment That really, really needs to be replaced. So that's a project that I think is putting the puzzle pieces together in the right way and delivering some financial benefits to the county as well as meeting all those needs.
A couple other thoughts about puzzle pieces that we can put together is continuing to factor in electric vehicle charging infrastructure into these projects. So if a project is going to have any repaving, I think considering the installation of electric vehicle charging stations as prudent because that's the time when you can put them in at the least cost. And then also, you know that opportunity to electrify the fleet of vehicles that the county operates. That is another cost for general services to operate their vehicles if they're matching electric vehicles with county employees who drive 30 to 60 miles per day, that can reduce the lifetime cost of ownership for electric vehicles and make them the most attractive option in many cases. So as we do these capital improvement projects I think that's another thing to keep in mind as many county employees are in fleet pool vehicles and they might be a good fit for driving an electric vehicle for their work needs.
So again, just really want to recognize county staff. I think that whatever we can do to move these capital improvement projects forward with local contractors and labor unions involved is a real plus because it's gonna take the benefits from these projects and put the economic stimulus back into the community so really supportive of that and just wanna thank you for making these difficult decisions having these difficult discussions so that we can put the list of projects forward that really will meet the most pressing needs. Thank you very much.
Andy Caldwell?
Chair Williams, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. Kinda like to think of the irony here That homeless people are not scared, they have no fear or respect to literally defecate on law enforcement. I've heard business people, my daughter works for a place. They rousted the homeless out of their office complex, their windows got broken.
We all heard about the homeless person that wandered into a restaurant in Ventura and stabbed a man to death while he had his four year old daughter sitting on his lap completely unprovoked. And the bottom line is, last week you had this big thing about mental health and this jail and stuff. There's so many people that want them treated as patients versus criminals.
And if you can at the DA and the public defender when it was right next door to the Santa Maria police station Had this problem, what kind of hope do people on State Street or Milpas have? Or the stabbing that occurred. A stabbing occurred in the very parking lot of the DA and the Public Defender's Office. Another stabbing happened at Broadway and McCoy. I wish the DA would come up here and talk about a robust prosecution plan for these homeless people that are literally threatening public health and safety and destroying our quality of life.
Where's that discussion? If you guys, you know, and the other thing about maintenance We've been following COPs for a long, long time. And I can't recall and I may be wrong but I can't recall an almost entire list that's maintenance which means you're not paying them ahead of time, you're now borrowing to pay maintenance. So you're doubling down on your debt is what you're doing. You're doubling down on maintenance debt now to borrow your way out of it Think about that pipe, that 80 year old pipe. How much would the county have had to save over 80 years to be able to replace it without borrowing money?
Schools and government in general should be front loading their maintenance as part of their everyday budget not going out and borrowing money. This is mismanagement, it's gross mismanagement. And we're not blaming your staff for it. It's the board and we've been talking about this for 30 years, CoLab has been. But again, this homeless issue, we need aggressive robust enforcement and prosecution.
Thank you.
That concludes public comment.
3:23 – 3:3619 turns
Supervisor Wolk.
So let me just ask staff, you're looking for us to receive and file and give you some direction? And then you'll come back, okay. Is there any more, I guess I'll just try a motion and see where we go. I'll make a motion that we accept staff's recommendations and ask that they come back to us after reviewing these items with the DAC. So those include The Chi Rial water system replacement, the courthouse roof replacement, the public safety radio tower, Kachuma Lake Park infrastructure at four million dollars instead of six.
Santa Barbara Probation Department headquarters and then the two renewable energy programs that we have listed an allocation of of an allocation of $2 million for Building for future building purchase, so I don't want to identify the building in In the motion and to also add as recommended that You come to the deck with recommendations on the main jail renovations That would include structural exiting HVAC and ADA.
I Would second
Do the motion, Supervisor N. Okay
well you know we painted ourselves into a corner by deferring too much maintenance for too long and as Mr. Caldwell was talking about, a well run business understands when it builds a new asset That it's eventually going to need to replace that asset. And if they created a fund, I think this is the problem that the counties had is they've never adequately budgeted for maintenance and now you've got all these assets that are aging that are gonna require heavy duty maintenance like roofs And lots of other things, too.
And there's no fund or there's an insufficient fund to take care of that stuff. So when you have a roof or something and you assume that it's got a 40-year life and you put away enough money to your best estimate of replacement at the end of the 40 years and then the thing lasts 80 years You should be ultra flush with money at the end of the 80 years. Because you put away all the money for the first 40 years and then you never used it, so in theory it's building.
And when that asset needs to be replaced, you should have plenty of money around to do it. But that's not what we do. We just keep spending all the money on feel good stuff and then at some point we just don't have any money and we're trying in every way possible to extract money out of somebody else to pay for the stuff that we should have been saving for all along.
So I think the list is incomplete and I think that we should probably go back to the drawing board and really check in with all of the other departments and make sure that they all shouldn't have been here. Like the DA and the public defender were advocating for their own facilities. And when I first came here, I went on a tour of many of the facilities and tried to get around to a lot of them and saw a lot of different things that were inadequately maintained.
And tried to do what I could for those people that work in those buildings to get them fixed. But I think that there's probably more buildings that have problems than meet the eye here today. And problems that cause liabilities, and maybe not as severe as at the courthouse facility but Maybe just as important to the people who work at those buildings. So, to the extent we're sending all this stuff to the DAC, you know I'll support the motion but I don't think we've heard the last of this.
Chair Mullen, can I
just- Sure. I was just going to say though that I think what you say is a rational choice in a high interest environment to squirrel money away for future expenses. If we had extra money right now, I would use it on capital projects right now not squirrel it away for future capital projects because
Well, that's in a world where you've deferred too much maintenance already. It's too late for that strategy for us. We're not gonna do that strategy because we're always going to be chasing our tail and putting out the hottest fire. And that's what's gonna happen from now on here. That's right. The well run business model is not available to you.
If I could just say, you know, I think this board, this county has been very responsible in our debt issuance. I feel like we're being very responsible in moving forward and taking care of some of these items. And this is our opportunity to do something. Sure, we've got probably $25 million in strategic reserve. Do we want to use that? No. This is another vehicle. This is another option that's in front of us.
And again, I'm grateful that our staff has brought this to us. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Chair Williams and board members, before you vote on the motion I just wanted to try to ask if you could sort of soften the motion a little bit and give conceptual direction. I think the direction as you Supervisor Wolf's motion is for us to go forward have general services continue to review and refine all the projects listed but your board would like us to also look at an additional property that we just talked about. And the reason I'm saying that is to split the six million to four and two, that might not be the best option right now. And then we haven't talked to general services of what's needed. But if you give us that general direction, we will look at the other property. We'll do more estimates on it, and we can also talk about it at budget hearings.
We'll be talking at budget hearings about any potential one-time Uses of revenue and using cash is better than issuing debt many times. And so we'll bring that forward as a list of things for you to consider. I just don't want to give general services the direction of only four and two, it depends on what we end up as we refine our estimates. Don't want to hamstring the board, we understand your intent. Supervisor Wolk,
would you consider that? Especially considering we haven't let Mr. Frapwell determine how much of the revenue from Kachuma that we can count on.
I will make it conceptual regarding those items. And I just want to point out too, as far as hearing from other departments, does I think yeah that would be good if we heard from other departments but the reality is that this DA public defender building is on the list right below Kachuma Lake Aquatic Complex so its not like way back here on page six So there are definitely other departments that I think, I'm just muddling my motion so I'm going to stop talking.
But I guess what I'm trying to do is give some rationalization about why I think we should look at this DA public defender issue in Santa Maria in very general terms.
And this is acceptable to the seconder of the motion. And I plan on supporting the motion, but I of course would love to know that this is an acceptable compromise to the fifth district supervisor. Supervisor Lavinino?
No, there's a number. Okay first off in the new jail that we're building have we built in a maintenance fund that goes along with it are we funding Do we have a plan to fund the maintenance as we go?
Supervisor Lavendino, through the chair. We've actually been working with the auditor's office to look at capitalizing the large pieces of equipment and maintenance pieces so that we have a capitalized fund going forward. So they've been asking us gosh which You know, how much can you kind of look at the HVAC system and put a dollar figure on that so that we can capitalize that over 20
years? So we have been looking. I'd be very interested to see that because I agree with you but going forward... We haven't really built hardly anything new since I've been here. Yeah, I'd like to go to that guy that's hanging on the wall from 1938 and say why didn't you put money aside for the or the folks from 1950 and why they didn't plan for Kachuma a little bit better. Reality is now I have it and it's $330 million so we can't borrow 330 million. So we gotta do the best that we can.
I wasn't there when all the decisions were made, and I trust you guys. I just don't know how that building came below the Aquatic Center for Lompoc or it's rated about the same. So the Kachuma, what did I say, Quiama? Lompoc. They already have an aquatic center. They don't need another one. I can't move forward with the plan if the Kachuma Lakes, and you guys got the votes to do it anyway. We've gotta figure something out and move forward. Anytime we make a list someone's gonna get out but we definitely have got to look at the security issue at least.
And I appreciate the fact that you're putting aside a chunk or we're gonna talk about how to move forward but When something's brought to us in open session like that, I think it's incumbent upon us to address that for our employees. Whether it's hiring security or providing escorts in and out of parking at night or whatever we gotta do something. And I would hope that would be included in the motion that somehow we address that. Or at least we give direction to staff that needs to be addressed.
So Mr. Chair, I'll make that a part of my motion that we direct staff to work with whomever over there to ensure that we have. I think we need to ensure that we have security guards there and anything else that ensures the safety of our employees in public. And maybe also as part of my motion that you come back
with a report- Can we keep this really general, especially since this is not agendized at all?
Okay. Well just make it that you just come back to us with a report on your discussions with the state about safety issues and security issues.
3:36 – 3:379 turns
Great, I think that's, is that, are we okay Mr. Gazzani?
You're absolutely okay for the board to direct staff to return at a future date which is what the request was.
Mr. Adam. The only thing I was going to say, Supervisor Lavinino is you know this is going to the DAC and I would expect that this list gets refined a little bit from further looking down into some of the financials on some of the projects and I would expect that it changes a little at least.
And Supervisors, from my end we can evaluate if the revenue that is expected could support debt by talking to the rating agencies. It's a good idea.
And then it'll come back to us after the DAC? Yes. Okay, good.
Technically you'd have to come back on each project separately right at some point
So there'd be probably a dual path on the financing itself that would come back as one item and then each project, as you move forward, would be its own approval. Okay.
We have motion. We have a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you so much. We are going to adjourn to closed session.
Mr. Gazzani? Chair and supervisors, today the board is agendized for two items. The first is conference with legal counsel for one case of significant exposure to civil litigation as well as another matter of conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units on represented employees, managers and executives in my estimate is one hour.
3:40 – 4:471 turns
Mm hmm. Hi. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Hi, everyone. Thank you. Yeah. Hi. Music. ♪ Hi. you ¶. Thank you. Yeah. ¶. ♪ Yeah. Yeah. you You. Thank you. ¶¶ Music playing ¶¶ ¶. Music ¶. Music Yeah. Music Thank you. Thank you. ♪ Yeah. You. You. . . Hi. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Hi. And.
4:51 – 5:102 turns
Thank you.
♪ Thank you. Mm hmm. Music Yeah. Music Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi, everyone. Music Yeah. ¶. Yeah.
5:10 – 5:161 turns
Hi, everyone. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Calling this meeting back to order. We have one item left on the agenda. Chair
5:16 – 5:3014 turns
Williams from closed session, today the board considered two items. One significant exposure to civil litigation which is a meeting with county council as well as conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units on representative employees managers and executives there are no reportable actions.
Thank you. There's one item left to go D5 an appeal.
May
I read it? Yes please
Chair Williams, members of the Board. Item 5 is from Planning and Development. This is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an appeal by Mr. Chip Wolbrant, attorney for Sepulveda Building Materials Appellants of the Planning Commission's February 28 2018 deemed denial of Alampoc Stone Mining Area Expansion Vesting Determination and Reclamation Plan revision project.
And this involves Site located north of Santa Rosa Road and easterly of State Route 1 in the Lompoc area in the 4th district.
Before we begin and have Mr. Briggs go, we should do ex parte disclosures. Maybe we'll just go from right to left.
Okay, let's see. I had a meeting with Mr. Chip Wolbrant and Mike Weiss. And then also met with Mr. Mark Shatillo and- Yes, it's Catherine? Yes, okay. Yesterday, I believe so.
And the same here, this did come before me when I was on the planning commission and I did a site visit at that time.
I met last week with Mr. Chatillo, Catherine, Mr. Labarge last week and spoke to Mr. Wolbrant on the phone yesterday.
And I spoke to Chip Wolbrandt and Mike Weiss and Mike Conners yesterday.
I had two ex parte meetings regarding this item. My staff member, Naomi Kovacs and I was with me for both meetings on May 2nd. I met with Mark Shatillo, Catherine Anderson and Pierre Labarge on May 3rd. I met with Chip Wolbrandt and Mike Wise with Sid Goldstein in on the meeting via speaker phone. And I had reviewed, I think two or three emails that my office received.
I'm sorry, I also have to add Mr. Sid Goldstein was also in on our phone conversation as well. Thank you.
So Mr. Chair? Yes. Joe Dargle will be giving the staff presentation and I think several of the board members have met Joe and seen him before but some of you have not and so he's in our Energy and Minerals Division and we're pleased to have him.
Thank you, Chair and members of the board. My name is Joe Dargle and I'm the planner for the Lompoc Stone Mining Area Expansion Vesting Determination and Reclamation Plan revision project. The applicant, Sepulveda Building Materials currently operates the Lompoc Stone Mine near the intersection of Santa Rosa Road and Highway 1 in the Lompoc area. Current operations utilize two separate sites indicated by the red circles on the screen.
Site 1A is the mining area and site 1B is the sorting and storage area. Although sites 1A and 1B are separated by approximately two miles and comprised of multiple assessor's parcels, both sites are located within one legal lot known as the Essene Ranch. The project was first presented to the County Planning Commission on January 11, 2017. The commission reviewed the evidence presented and directed staff to return with findings for approval of the vesting request along with a revised reclamation plan and appropriate CEQA review for the expanded mining area.
The project returned to the Planning Commission on February 28, 2018. At that hearing, the Planning Commission moved to conceptually approve the project. However by a vote of two to two, the action failed to pass resulting in no action which is a deemed denial pursuant to the planning commission procedures. Following the deemed denial, the applicant timely appealed to the Planning Commission's action to the Board of Supervisors The mining area, called Site 1A is comprised of two adjacent assessor's parcels shown outlined in red on the screen.
The two parcels are a small part of one legal lot known as the Ascene Ranch. The current mining boundary is drawn on the screen in yellow. This 96.5 acre area was approved for reclamation and considered vested by the County Planning Commission in 1998. The applicant now requests a vested rights determination for a 28.5 acre mining expansion area that adjoins the existing vested mining operation. The requested 28.5-acre area is outlined in white.
The project as proposed is a vesting determination request for an additional 28.5 acres within site 1A. A determination in favor of vested rights would allow mining in the expansion area without a conditional use permit. However, the expansion of the mining area would require a revision to the approved reclamation plan to incorporate this new acreage. Additionally, the Site 1B sorting and storage area was expanded years ago by 3.5 acres.
Site 1B is accessory to the already vested mining site and its expansion does not require a conditional use permit. The 3.5 acre expansion of Site 1B is required to be included in the reclamation plan, to ensure it is reclaimed at the conclusion of mining activities. A mitigated negative declaration was originally prepared for the project. Following the planning commission's hearing in January of last year, the project was revised and the MND was circulated for public review in March of 2017 and then was revised again to include an updated biological survey, quantification of air emissions sources, and more detailed visual simulations showing the extent of the proposed mining expansion area.
The revised draft MND was circulated for public review again in November of 2017. The MND identified potentially significant impacts in the areas of aesthetics and visual resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geologic resources, hazardous materials and risk of upset. Mitigation measures were incorporated into the MND that would decrease each of the impacts to a less than significant level.
However, the potential impact to aesthetics and visual resources was of particular interest when the project was reviewed by the planning commission. The photo shown on the screen above was taken from the intersection of Santa Rosa Road and Highway 1, a state-designated scenic highway and the gateway to the city of Lompoc. The large stockpiles and hummocky terrain represent the current environmental baseline.
As you can see previous and current mining activities have significantly impact the viewshed along the state designated scenic highway As allowed by the current reclamation plan, the mine operator is authorized to continue mining down the face of the slope towards Highway 1 further impacting views from the scenic highway. As discussed in the proposed final MND, the proposed project would be an improvement to the existing CEQA baseline and would allow the county to modify the reclamation plan conditions of approval to mitigate existing and future aesthetic and visual resource impacts.
The boundary of the Site 1A expansion area is shown on the screen. If approved, the project would allow the mine operator to expand mining operations to the northeast on the other side of the hillside and away from the viewshed of Highway 1. The proposed project would impose new visual impacts on public and private views along Santa Rosa Road Sweeney Road and Highway 246, which would be mitigated to a less than significant level with the implementation of MND Mitigation Measure AES-01.
As described in mitigation measure AES-01 at any given time up to six acres of land could potentially be impacted by mining and reclamation operations. This slide also shows how the mining operation would progress down the hill to the east, following these sub areas labeled 1 through 14. A maximum of six acres could be disturbed at any given time contained within this six acre limitation would be the active mine pit and any area being reclaimed. A visual simulation was prepared as part of the MND and shows the worst case potential visual impacts that could occur with the approval of the proposed project.
As proposed, the project stands to improve potential future visual impacts along Highway 1, a state-designated scenic highway corridor and would shift the visual impacts that would be mitigated to a less than significant level to secondary and tertiary view sheds. The project as proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan policies. The project is compliant with the land use and development code, including reclamation plan performance standards. The project conforms to the State Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.
To approve the proposed projects, the board will need to make all of the necessary findings for CEQA, the vesting determination, and the reclamation plan revision. Should the board deny the appeal in the project, findings have been prepared identifying that denial of the project is exempt from CEQA and that the vesting determination and reclamation plan findings cannot be made.
The board's decision hinges on the vesting determination and whether your board can make the required vesting findings. In order to approve the vesting determination, three specific vesting findings must be made. First, the board must find that the vested right continues and no substantial changes are made in the operation. Second, the board must find that prior to January 1st 1976, the applicant diligently commenced surface mining operations and incurred substantial liabilities necessary for the surface mining operations.
And lastly, pursuant to the Diminishing Asset Doctrine, the Board must find that the applicant clearly intended to excavate the requested expansion area prior to the 1958 County Zoning Ordinance 971. The applicant has provided evidence in support of their vesting determination request in the form of historic aerial photographs dating back to 1954, a 1958 USGS map which denotes the site as a mine.
Signed personal declarations from the property owner and various individuals who were historically involved with the site operations. As well as a 1950 geologic map showing the geologic formation spanning both the existing mining operation and the requested expansion area. The mining operator has not provided any evidence that directly identifies their written intent prior to 1958 to expand into the requested expansion area, however, Indicates the mining operations began at multiple locations on the property prior to the 1958 zoning ordinance. And that geologic maps available at the time showed the targeted geologic formation spanned both the existing mining operation and the requested expansion area.
Should the board decide to approve the project, staff recommends that your board conceptually grants the appeal. Case number 18, APL 6. Conceptually make the required findings for approval of the project including CEQA findings. Conceptually adopt mitigated negative declaration 12 NGD 22 and conceptually adopt the mitigation monitoring program contained in the conditions of approval.
Conceptually grant de novo approval of the project case number 16 DET 4. And 10 RVP 48, subject to the conditions of approval. And direct staff to refer the revised reclamation plan to the California State Department of Conservation Division of Mining and Reclamation for review and then return to the board for final action after receiving direction from the state.
As part of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act process, the project is required to be reviewed by the State Division of Mining and Reclamation. As such there are three steps required for the county to approve this project. Step one requires the county decision maker to take conceptual action. Step two requires that the county send the conceptually approved reclamation plan to the state for review.
And step three requires that the county take final action upon considering any comments received from the state. Alternatively, should the board deny the appeal and the project, staff recommends that your board make the required findings for denial of the appeal and the project. Case numbers 18 APL 6, 16 DET 4, and 10 RVP 48. Determine that denial of the appeal and the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15270 A.
And deny the appeal and the project. Case numbers 18 APL 6, 16 DET 4 and 10 RVP 48. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions the board may have. Thank you
5:31 – 5:364 turns
Each presenters have ten minutes and we'll start with the applicant slash appellant. But first, are there any questions from the board before we go on to the applicant slash appellate?
Yeah. And I've put Mr. Chair, if there were no questions for staff, Chip Wolbrant, I'm the appellant. I'm actually going to reserve my time until after you, this is an odd hearing, you have not really an appellate because we're the appellant but there's another party and so I'm going to reserve my time until after their presentation. But we have Mike Connor and Mike Weiss and Sid Goldstein who are going to present first.
Good afternoon, Chair and Supervisors. Thank you very much for your time today. I want to introduce myself. My name is Mike Connors. I'm the president and owner of Sepulveda Building Materials and Sepulveda Building Materials Lompoc Inc. And in California, I employ approximately 100 people. 16 of those people work in Lompoc. At the quarry that we're discussing today.
I just want to give you a little bit of insight, it's been almost 10 years since my father originally asked for this revised reclamation plan to be approved. I've invested between him and myself over $400,000 into this project and this process has taken a significant amount of time in my mind. I would really like to invest that money into my company and my staff, and allow them to have a better life.
And do it all in accordance with the law on what we need to do to make sure we're keeping everybody happy. This project, if it's not approved I will be forced to do the most economical decision for me and my employees. And that is to mine directly down towards Highway 1. That's not my intent. I don't want to do that. I would much prefer to be mining in a more efficient manner Which is where we're proposing to go to now. It's a lot easier for us to do it, a lot less disturbance we need to do.
But if I'm forced to go down that way then that's the way I'm going to have to do it and I don't really want to do that but that's where the economics is going to be. So if the project is approved in my opinion it's best for the community, for my business and for my employees. Thank you, I'd like to introduce my core manager Mike Wise.
Chair, Board, Mike Wise, Corey Operations. Just give you a little history, I'm second generation miner in this area. Been there for 20 years and when I started there with my father we started mining in this area. And we began mining down this way because our reclamation plan had just been approved at that time. We started mining down this way with the intent to follow down through this valley. The reason for that is, this area here as you can see has been previously mined in spots, not thoroughly but in spots. So the best operation for us following down the valley left the most untouched stone.
If we come down this area, which we can. It requires us to move three times as much material to acquire the stone necessary to keep moving. So in the original plan we had was to come down, come back put in a simple application for expansion and move on at least that's what we were told 20 years ago. So basically at this point we're in a corner. We have one of two options. We can't continue to pile the dirt.
Here in the middle and wait for an answer. We have to either make the choice to come down the hill, and take this area here that has not been touched along with multiple areas in here that have not been touched or move much less material and follow down this valley. And basically stay hidden from almost every direction virtually. In order to give the best visual appearance for everybody and the most economical way for us to mine, it's here.
That's about all I have to offer. With that, Sid?
5:36 – 5:499 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Sid Goldstein. I'm a civil engineer and have been working on this particular mining operation since 1990, continuously since then. I'd like to go through some bullet points. I'll try to be very brief. I know I have five minutes. So Sepulveda Building Materials Lompoc Stone received approval for I'd like to introduce you to the new mining reclamation plan in 1998 as a vested mining operation.
Numerous documents are in the record which refer to, even though they're not separate legal parcels but for purposes of reference refer to both assessor's And in fact include the total acreage of both of those parcels combined, not just the mining areas. The 1998 approval included three acres within the 28 acres that are now proposed for expansion and this is a logical orderly progression of mining on the same piece of property.
The same type of stone mine today has been continuously mined at different locations throughout this property. Since prior to 1958, a 1950 geologic map prepared by Tom Dibley does in fact show this same formation progresses through the entire property. We also had Steve Campbell who attended the Planning Commission meeting gave testimony as to his findings not only in historical aerial photos but also on the ground that confirmed is located throughout the area. He found evidence that mining was on both sides of both of these parcels.
The USGS map, which was published in 1959, was based on a 1956 aerial photo and that USGS map shows on this property right where the existing mine is a quarry to have existed at least since 1956 Written statements, as Mike indicated, written statements from prior mine operators testified that mining had taken place on this property since the mid-1950s. With the USGS map and other evidence by way of the aerial photos was used when the planning commission made its determination that this was in fact a vested mining operation.
A certificate of compliance has been recorded which documents that all of these assessor's parcels are within one legal lot. Vested rights for this mining operation were accepted and documented by the Planning Commission initially in, I'm sorry, by the planning department in its letter going back to 1991. And I've given you a copy of that. That was for both parcels 9 and 15 again in their documentation.
CEQA has been updated as Joe indicated and includes updated studies for air quality, traffic, biology, archaeology and visual impacts with a finding of no significance. The only potential impact that will be exacerbated if this revised reclamation plan is not approved, will be the visual impacts directly from Highway 1. As Mike Connors indicated, if the expansion is not approved they still have the right to mine and will mine within the existing reclamation plan. Their only option will be to move toward Highway 1.
If the revised plan is not approved, the stockpile material which is at the far west end of the property will be expanded. They'll have no choice but to enlarge that stockpile. It will become more visible not only from Highway 1 but also from Highway 246 and many of the surrounding properties. The currently approved mining reclamation plan allows mining to continue until year 2045. We are not proposing any changes to that in this revised reclamation plan, so the termination date remains the same. The method of mining and the method and procedures of reclamation remain unchanged.
Lompoc Stone has significantly reduced the area of revised plan from 82 acres which is shown in the hatched area This larger area was the originally proposed revised reclamation plan area of 82 acres has now been reduced to this 28 acre area in the heavy dash line. Of that 28 acres, three acres is actually part of the existing reclamation plan. Was already deemed to be vested, and about three acres in this area are not available for mining would not be disturbed. So of that 28 acres actually about 22 acres would potentially be disturbed if this plan is approved.
Lompoc Stone has consistently been in compliance with its reclamation plan and has been proven to be a responsible and honorable mining operator. As Mike indicated, this revised reclamation plan process was initiated in 2007-2008. It's taken us ten years to get to this point. Oddly enough when I worked with my Connor's dad John Connors we started in 1990 and it took eight years to get that initial reclamation plan approved.
But I think with all the documentation, and you know how thick those documents are. This can all be boiled down, I think pretty simply to a simple conclusion, a logical conclusion. When the county approved the original reclamation plan in 1998 it concluded that this was a vested mining operation. And I don't think anybody's arguing that or shouldn't be. And that included both parcels, assessors parcels nine and 15 consisting of over 500 acres in total.
It also included much within the existing reclamation plan, much of that area that has never been mined has never been disturbed. Likewise on the adjoining parcel, parcel nine where we're wanting to expand it included three acres. And logically, well actually per its document included all of that parcel as well. Much of that, most of that obviously has not been disturbed. I'm
going to just ask you to wrap up.
Thank you. One more comment, again the APNs are assessors lines only and do not constitute legally separated properties. The only logical conclusion I can come to without getting involved in trying to decipher historical aerial photos is that with the determination made by the Planning Commission in 1998, it essentially determined For you, what we are now asking. And that is a vested mining operation that applies not only to parcel 15 where the main mine is but it obviously and in fact did include portions of parcel 9, the adjoining parcel.
And with that as Chip indicated he'd like to reserve time for rebuttal and if you have any questions for us we'll be glad to answer. Thank you.
Questions from the
board?
I just have one question, that Dibley map that you're indicating showed the extent of the rock- Correct. That's in
your evidence? Yes, that's the 1950 Dibley maps. Okay. Yeah and those were published through the USGS offices. Okay.
Mr. Still? And Mr. Wolbrant, you'll all have a five minute rebuttal.
Good afternoon members of the board I'm Mark Chatillo and I'm here on behalf of Pierre Labarge who is a winery owner on Sweeney Road. Mr. Labarge is joined by 11 other individuals in the wine industry that have submitted comments to your board indicating objections to this vesting determination. And that's because this is both sensitive site and visually significant site. I take issue with Mr. Wise's characterization that the site, if this project is approved would be hidden.
In fact, the visual simulations that you'll see are going to show that it's quite visible throughout the Lompoc Valley. It's a former cultural site, former because it's been destroyed by the rock The prehistoric Chumash tool manufacturing site that was on this location was destroyed by prior mining operations. However, the biological resources in the San Ynez River down to the right remain significant. And because of the high visibility of this project, we think it is appropriate that your board not approve the vesting determination. But instead direct the applicant to pursue a conditional use permit where they can obtain the rights that they're seeking today but to do so with a modern and fully conditioned permit.
As you're going to hear in a few minutes from first Catherine Anderson who prepared the historic mining investigation report. She'll show you a few of the areas that are particularly significant based on real evidence, not the kind of information that's been provided by the applicant which requires you to make an assumption of the intention back in 1958 but real evidence from that area that shows there was not mining in this area.
Since there was not, this is a non-conforming use in 1958 when your predecessors adopted the zoning ordinance that required conditional use permit. And the courts have held that non-conforming uses are to be narrowly interpreted and eliminated in favor of uses that do conform to modern zoning as could be done with a conditional use permit in this instance. There is a narrow exception for when there are vested rights. But that has to be based on pre-enactment activities in a specific area, and that is pre 1958.
The applicant has argued that in 1998, when the Planning Commission approved a 68 acre vested right determination that it applies to this area as well. But that's not what the cases provide. The cases make it clear that your board and the county has to make a finding as evidence on the specific area that is being mined. The Attorney General wrote an opinion in 1976, The area within which the vested right may be exercised is confined to the mine lands on which surface mining operations were being conducted as of the date of enactment. Any substantial change or expansion of those operations into a new area require a new permit. So it's our belief very strongly that this does represent an expansion of the activities and that is only allowable when there has been an expression, Objective manifestation of an intention back in 1958 to expand into this area.
So I'd like to bring up Catherine Anderson, who has prepared a historic report here and remind you that the courts require that the applicant meet a burden of proof to show that there is affirmative evidence which establishes that they intended in 1958 to expand into this new area. The aerial photos you're about to witness here show that there was no such intention back in 1958 by the actual mining of this area. It was not until substantially after that date, and so we don't think that the findings can be made for the vested right.
Ms. Anderson?
5:49 – 5:566 turns
Chair and members of the board, thank you very much. My master's training is in science and archeology and I examined the signatures of human activity on the landscape. I also have ten years experience with the Federal Bureau of Investigation as an analyst. The extent of a vested rights over a new area of mining operation rest on the subjective manifestation of intent to mine into these new areas prior to the enactment of local zoning laws, in this case September 29th 1958.
So what are objective manifestations? They're tangible physical evidence rather than memory, personal anecdote. You need dated records, maps, contracts, documents, photographs, things that are dated. In this case no objective evidence other than historic photos and maps occur. Photographic evidence of mining activity would need to exist prior to September 29th 1958.
Accounts of early mining activities state that hand tools such as picks and shovels were used to quarry stone from easily accessible areas and loaded by hand onto pickup trucks for transport. This activity would create a signature, and the signature would be two wheel tire tracks that terminate in light soil disturbance and those things being unrelated to farming.
The signature is needed to achieve the standard of objective manifestation of intent to mine into this new area. There's no evidence of the signature in any areas outside the known quarry site prior to September 29th, 1958. USGS topo map of 1959 whose field work was completed in 58 shows a quarry symbol where this pickaxe symbol associated is. No quarry symbols exist anywhere else on the property as of June 1958, published in 1959.
An aerial photo taken on August 12th, 1958 was chosen to represent the scale of activities approximately six weeks prior to the adoption of County Ordinance 971. The areas labeled one through four represent the new locations specified by the claimant as alleged areas of pre-mining in 1958. However close ups of these areas show no roads or coring activities to these specific areas.
You can see that this is a two-wheel tire track road terminating in light soil disturbance. This signature is not seen anywhere else except in the known quarry location. This road curves up and goes into there having to do with the steep topography of the landscape, but the area one where they claim mining ore is untouched. Area 2 shows no roads or evidence of soil disturbance and you can even see the clear distinction between a road in the corner and no road at the top.
Area three on the riverbed also shows no roads or no soil disturbance in this area. And area four, it shows the roads and access road and everything else curving up and over going around this area avoiding this area does not terminate in this area there's no soil disturbance. Photographs from the report that date back to 1928 also show no evidence of disturbance in this area.
By comparison, this very washed out photo. That's very light. It shows the scale of operations after in 1961, after Ordinance 971. This post-1958 intensification of the coring would account for a lot of the personal anecdote in this area for mining into new areas. You can see going down into Area 2 there is more activity going down towards Area 3. This is after the effective date.
This analysis shows there's no objective, tangible evidence of quarrying outside the known area prior to the effective date of Cowdeny Ordinance 971 on September 29th 1958. In this instance vested rights for these new other locations are not upheld. The areas that were previously determined to be vested by the county and any other governing body only pertained to the known quarry area in 015. We did not go into these new areas which is what would have to be proven.
So conditional use permit should be required for this activity. Thank you
Good afternoon, Chair and board members. I'll be brief on a citron. In addition to the vesting determination issues you are also being asked to conceptually adopt the mitigated negative declaration for this project. And to do that you need to be able to find that there is no possibility that there may be a significant effect on the environment. Now here we submitted substantial evidence into the record demonstrating that there would indeed be, that there is that fair argument of a potentially significant impact. Now you've heard that in terms of visual impacts, that the project will be shifting away from Highway 1. But I think it's important to note that the visual simulations show and this is a visual simulations in the NEG deck show very significant visual alteration of the landscape associated with the excavation of rock material down to 75 feet.
Those visual simulations don't account for the full impact of the project, however because they don't capture the very impactful stockpiling that will be occurring. In addition, the visual simulations don't include all the viewpoints and we've included some additional ones here. So this prominent ridge line that will be altered by the project is visible from much of southeastern Lompoc. It's also visible from the La Purisima Mission State Historic Park.
This shows the mining expansion area from Sweeney Road. And you can see that quite a substantial area of this ridge line is visible from the properties along Sweeney, from 246 which is a public road in addition from River Park in Lompoc and other public recreational areas. Now, when you look at the Wampoa area goals which were not considered in the NEG deck. And here, natural backdrop of the area should be preserved through strict controls on hillside development. This ridge line forms the natural backdrop for much of Wampoa and indeed at the planning commission these area goals were discussed and some commissioners had trouble. In fact, Commissioner Brown was not able to find that the project's consistent with these goals.
Where there is potentially, where there's a conflict with provisions that protect visual resources in this case. That is additional substantial evidence supporting the existence of potentially significant aesthetic impacts. The mitigation measure proposed again it would allow six acres to be open at a time significant stockpiling and does not mitigate that impact below significant levels And accordingly, and for other reasons described in our letters, we believe an EIR is required. The remainder of the time I believe Mark Shatillo will use for rebuttal.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolbrand? Sorry, we'll do public comment
first. I'm sorry. Is
there a public comment?
We have one request from Pierre Labarge.
5:57 – 6:1218 turns
Thank you, Chair and members of the board. My name is Peter- Matter of order? Sure.
Isn't this, I mean it seems that he's getting extra time now. If you just put public comment if Chip wanted to load up four or five people in public comment, he is the, if I'm not mistaken, isn't he Mr. Stillo's client? Right, so now it's public comment. It just seems a little funky. No offense, I just think it's kind of gaming the system
a little bit but- Point well taken. Point well taken and probably we should.
Chair Williams, just since I'm not seeing very many public comments here it might save some time to allow Mr. Labarge to speak and just tack on that same amount of time due the other side?
That's what we'll do.
So please proceed. Okay, thank you. Again my name is Pierre Labarges IV and I own property at 2380 Sweeney Road. And it sits directly across the St. Edwards River from the Lompoc Stone Mine. I sought out and purchased the property in 2010 for two reasons. Because it is on the coveted western edge of the Santa Rita Hills, and because of the beautiful views it enjoys.
The location of the mine and its expansion sits at Highway 1 in between Santa Rosa Road and Sweeney Road. This beautiful and important area is the gateway to Lompoc, Vandenberg Air Force Base, and Santa Rita Hills. Santa Rita Hills has become one of the most important wine growing regions in the world. The most recent economic report from 2013 states that wineries, grape growing, and tourism it brings with it accounts for a $1.7 billion impact on Santa Barbara County.
The economic impact has surely grown since 2013, especially in Lompoc. It is important to protect the quality of this area. The mine scarring of the hills degrades the curb appeal of the area so frequented by tourists and locals alike whether they're on a wine tour or enjoying a bike ride on Santa Rosa Road. The expansion of the project will have an adverse impact and conflict with the image that has allowed Lompoc's economy to expand.
My neighborhood on Sweeney Road consists of over 20 residences that enjoy beautiful views to the south across the St. Ann's River and to the hills beyond. However, more recently, the conical piles of the current mining activities continue to grow and become larger and more visible by the day. The proposed expansion is directly visible from my property and others on Sweeney Road, and will bring an offensive element to our views in our neighborhood.
The topography will be forever changed, and the views from our area will never be the same. The reclamation plan does not restore the natural beauty of the landscape. And the best example of the failure of the reclamation plan is the current view of the mine from Highway 1 while heading into Lompoc. I want to make clear that the local community is very worried about this project and the amount of opposition in the letters and emails from local business owners, managers, and property owners is a testament to the amount of concern.
And keep in mind this is only the amount of people that have become aware of this project and there are still a lot of people that don't know about what's going on or are still in the dark about it. In summary, Lompoc Stone is asking for the ability to rapidly damage the landscape over the next 30 years and likely for much, much longer without a review process. Why are they entitled to a pass when everyone else has to adhere to an extrict review and permitting process that makes it difficult to build even a modest home in this county?
All we're asking for is that everyone play by the same set of rules and standards, and I thank you for your consideration.
Supervisor Adam has a question for you, Mr.
Labarge. I got to ask you a question. Yes sir? So you did some due diligence before you bought your property right? Correct. And you bought it in 2010? Correct and did you not notice that there was a mine out there?
It was not visible from us at the time
And you didn't drive around the area and see Highway 1? Because I've known that property's been a mine for years. You just didn't see that, huh?
The mine was not visible from our property at that time.
So you didn't go on Highway 1?
I had driven Highway 1 at that time.
And you didn't notice it?
I don't recall at the time. Mr. Adam, I think you said no.
Okay.
Thank you. Mr Wolbrant? Eight minutes for you and any other assorted folks.
The 82 acres And while this is coming up, I'm going to probably respond kind of in reverse order. You know, I appreciate Mr. Labarge. I appreciate it. I had not seen them before but there were some emails that he got from neighbors. I would note that virtually all of the emails are concerned about the view of the mine from Highway 1 And clearly somebody has told people that we're proposing to do something that would create greater view impacts from Highway 1.
So I want to just remind, and I think your board gets it, and I think that your staff has made this very, very clear. But we have an existing permit which allows us All through this entire area on this side of that APN line. And again, Highway 1 is over here and so anyone who is worried about the view from Highway 1 or I would also say from 246 or from Riverview Park or from the La Purisima Mission.
I would think that you would be supportive of this project. Because again, what the applicants have been trying to do for the last 11 years is instead go on the other side of a ridge here and down a little valley so you won't see it anymore from Highway 1. And contrary to what Ms. Citron showed, you won't see it from La Purisima and you won't be seeing it from 246.
Those little nublets up there, those nublets are up there because of waiting for 11 years to figure out which direction the quarry is going to go. And so one of the first things and there is a timing in a process and reclamation plans are actually very involved permits. They're kind of like CUPs, they're very involved permits. They have annual inspections and performance requirements and bonding and lots of other things.
Those little nublets up there that apparently Mr. Labarge didn't see in 2010, but now finds objectionable are going to be one of the first things to go away. And so we would urge for the greater good for everyone who doesn't know about the project and anybody who looks at it in great detail They're going to be much better off. We're all going to be better off, and we will be able to mine in a way that is not impactful to the public. And I'm glad that again, we have heard from Mr. Labarge.
I think that based on his testimony very clearly when we take those little doublets down and we go just into the valley that is not prominent from other places. Again, the view there is not a fair argument of significant effect. It will in fact be better. When we came in, in 2014 and then Commissioner Hartman was on the Planning Commission. We were proposing to increase the area for reclamation to this entire 82 acre area.
And at that time there really wasn't this discussion about a need for a new vesting determination because The project description included the entirety of these two APNs. There was some confusion because apparently, the county thought they were two separate legal parcels. We've just continued to have a whole lot of confusion and so I want to make very clear and this is clearly in the staff report.
We're talking about the same vein of stone. We're talking about the same material. Tom Dibley, very famous geologist. I rode his ranch two weekends ago, mapped this in 1950 and published it. And so everyone in 1950 knew that that stone was throughout this area of the property. And today you can go out and you can see the stone, the way that stone works when you go down the hill, the stone starts outcropping. And so in the 1950s, it was mapped. The owners had those maps. The owners were quarrying. You could see the stone. The way that you chase stone is you see where it comes out and you dig between here and where it comes out. And that was the case. That was the case in 1958, it was the case in 1990. It was the case in 1998, it's the case today.
It's one single legal parcel, it is one same kind of gold or diamonds or whatever it is and the owners always intended you would have to think they were complete idiots. To think they didn't always intend to follow the both visible and mapped And that's what we're asking to do today. We're simply asking instead of going out here where we have to move, and I think that Mike said three times the amount of material. So much more cost and much more impact to the public in all ways. Air pollution, visual impact, every other impact. If we continue to do what we are right now entirely allowed to do, the county loses, the public loses, and the landowner and the operator loses.
We've pulled back from this bigger area because we tried to guess what would have Mr. Labarge be happy and have him not keep sending Mr. Chatillo, and so we pulled all the way back here. And as you can see it's essentially immediately adjacent and it's right along the same area of the APN That the county found in 1990 was part of the vested mine. There's nothing different today, it's still part of the same vested mine. We've provided you air photos and an interpretation by Steve Campbell of those air photos. He's an actual geologist.
Information from the 1950 mapping. We've provided declarations, we've provided just a mound of evidence but it all comes back to I think a basic legal distinction between what Mr. Chatillo is saying and what I'm saying. Mr. Chatillo referred you to a 1976 Attorney General opinion, and in 1976 the Attorney General had the opinion that mines were the same as all legal non-conforming uses. And that's why he keeps urging you that you have to find that mining was actually occurring before 1958, Logically follow the vein.
That 1976 Attorney General opinion is the thing that was overturned in the Hansen case in 1996, so the 76 law is no longer good law. It was not good law in 1998 unfortunately it's kind of what county council at that time was still following. And the county mistakenly believed that there were separate legal parcels. And that's just created confusion today, so I'm back to, I'm urging you this is clearly a much better project.
A reclamation permit is as good as a CUP we've been processing for 11 years. I suspect if we could ever get a CUP it'll be another 11 years. The money's not there to do that. It doesn't make sense, the public doesn't benefit, no one benefits. I'm going to finally close with you had a series of air photos shown. And then one of the most telling things is you saw an air photo from 1961 That Mr. Chateau's office agrees, shows all sorts of mining in 1961 and it's kind of a gotcha minute because it's 1961 instead of before September 1958.
Well if you are already mining extensively in 1961 along a vein of rock then you obviously I mean even back then you had some plan and some intent More than two years before. And so I would urge, even by their interpretation the 1961 air photo shows that by September of 1958 the people who owned this vein of valuable resource on a piece of property where there's not a highway, there's not a river in between, there's no physical barrier, there wasn't even a fence.
They intended to go over and keep mining in a logical fashion as we propose today. I believe that you very clearly have the ability to make the findings for vesting. I think the county made those findings in 1990, I would urge you please make them again. Please also recognize as is shown in the visual resource analysis in the ND that we did attempt to look at the view including the private view from the essentially appellant and it simply is not Significant. There's no, no argument that it's not essentially the same as it looks elsewhere around there. Mr Labarge when he came here in 2010 apparently didn't even notice the then existing mine and I suspect that if he hadn't seen a notice on this you know Once those little nubs are gone, and this all looks like kind of white dirt for a while.
And then it's planted dirt, and then it's white dirt, and it's planted dirt. It kinda looks like where he did his grading for his winery. And as it's reclaimed over the years, it'll get back to looking the same way.
6:12 – 6:1710 turns
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Wolbrant. You have a question from Supervisor Hart?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you did get this vesting determination for the 28.5 acres, will you come back again asking for a further vesting determination based on the evidence that you've given today?
Well, I don't mean to be flip. I hope I'll be retired before that would ever happen but my understanding is that no they've identified again the logical area they were hoping to go down that logical area since sometime in the early 2000s it took them a while to even submit their application and They only have until, and I know it may sound like a really long time but if you think about in the life of businesses.
They only have until 2045 and they as I understand they essentially can mine based upon the market for stone and the equipment and the topography and things they mine about an acre a year. And so to get through that whole area And then come back and go through this entire process. I just don't see it happening.
I'm asking more for a legal conclusion, rather than a hypothetical...
I can't tell you that no one can ever in the future apply for something else. But they would have to apply and they would have to go through this same process, and you would have to make the same determinations. We're actually not here today asking you, and we could be, we could ask you for a vesting determination for more than the 28 1⁄2 acres. We're only asking you for that determination. And so again, someone else would have to go through a very detailed and very involved process at which time you absolutely would get to say no. The only thing you right now can't really say no on is the stuff that's on the other side of that non-legal parcel, non APN line. Over here we've got a, crazy, we've got a reclamation plan that allows us to keep doing all of that over there.
One more question. I think it was implied but you said that a reclamation plan is basically a CUP so why didn't you just get a CUP?
I'm sorry Supervisor Hartman, I know that you and I had a little conversation that had nothing to do with this particular project about your getting a permit for a house related matter County of Santa Barbara is not an easy place to get permits at all. It's definitely not an easy place to get a conditional use permit, and I will then say it's not just the county of Santa Barbara. The reason that the people who filed back in 1996 filed is because even in that other Northern California area, It is not easy to get a conditional use permit. What the state law provides though, for mining because there were concerns about mining. There was a statewide concern about mining and so the legislature created a permitting process to make sure that those bad things that were happening from mines.
People who just dug the big giant hole and walked away and left it wouldn't happen in the future. Conditional use permits probably would have many of the same types of conditions as we already have in our reclamation plan. And, as the more stringent conditions that we have proposed in our, and I think Mr. Schottillo's term is modern, in our more modern reclamation plan.
The again the conditional use permit. I see that as just an argument for hey you know why don't you that's easy just get one so just process another 8 to 10 years and Again, they're seriously at the point one legally the appropriate permit for a mine, for a vested mine which is what this is. I know that we are asking you to make the determination. Frankly, we're asking you to make the determination because I'm worried about or potentially worried about future litigation from the adjacent property owner. Otherwise, I probably would much more strongly be taking the position that the vesting determination occurred in 1990. I just don't want to go through the process costs of litigation.
I don't want to go through the process cost, and I don't see this applicant going through the process cost for a conditional use permit. And I also absolutely don't see the reason for it either legally, there's no legal justification because we are a vested mine with instead a reclamation plan. And again practically what this applicant is trying to do and has been trying to do for many years This is a project that will be from the public's view and perception much better than what they already have an entitlement, a right to do.
I hope by somewhere in there answered your question.
Other questions from the board? Mr. Chichillo.
Thank you very
much.
6:17 – 6:3231 turns
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the commission, I've asked staff to put up some of the visual simulations from the planning commission so we can look at that. But in rebuttal, I gotta ask the question where's the evidence? This has gotta be an evidence driven process. The burden of proof under the case law is on the applicant to provide objective manifestation of an intent in 1958 not in 1961 but in 1958 otherwise you may not legally Award a vested right here. Mr. Wolbrand argues, it was already done in either 1990, 1996 or 1998. He referenced all of them but that's not the case. He applied for 68 acre entitlement for vested rights back in 1990. It was approved in 1998. He did not include these 28 acres. You need to make an independent determination.
Now the law that applies is the law that I cited before. The case of Hansen Brothers in the California Supreme Court did follow after the AG's opinion, but I don't believe it overturned, certainly didn't overtly overturn it. I'm going to read two sections that talk about the legal standard that you have to apply from Hanson. That Mr. Wolbaron agrees is their operative law, the mere intention or hope on the part of the landowner to extend the use over the entire tract is insufficient. The intent must be objectively manifested by the present operations at the time of the enactment.
And secondly, the right to expand quarrying operations on the property is limited by the extent that the particular material is being excavated when the zoning law became effective. So this is all about 1958. So what evidence is out there? We heard from Mr. Wise he said 20 years ago they had an intent to mine well that was 1998 so that's 40 years too late. You have a declaration from Frank Asin 1971 is when he bought the property. Well, that's also too late. That is later than 1958 so it doesn't really affect this determination that you have to make. There's one sentence in all of the evidence that's provided there that is clearly prior to 1958 and that's in part of Don Lee's declaration and he says I can remember the first rock that I split as a youngster back in 1956.
That is the only evidence that you have. Now, you have geologic maps. Tom Dibley, he performed geologic surveys across the entire state of California. It doesn't necessarily represent anybody's individual intention so that is not dispositive. The parcel, I read the language to you that says that you can't assume that the entire tract is then subject to a vested right. You have to prove it as to the extent of the operations at the time. So Mr. Goldstein's claim that the certificate of compliance and the entire parcel is somehow wrapped up in this vested right? That's not applicable law. In 1998 they didn't ask for this area to be covered. They asked for 68 acres that they're now saying that they can basically stick Into the people of Lompoc and make a very offensive physical situation that people have to deal with.
Well, that's not evidence either. That may be an equitable issue but it's our belief that indeed this is not the action. Those are not the statements or actions of an honorable operator if they feel that they're going to basically ask for a permit by blackmail. What we saw in the 1998 negative declaration, in the environmental review document that looked at the operation that they say that they can now expand down and make into an eyesore from Highway 1. Was the negative declaration that the county prepared said that there would be no substantial change in the visual impact. And that the project would have a negligible impact on the visual resources of the area. And that displays how important it is that the county does not find vested rights, but indeed requires that the applicant obtain a conditional use permit like any other applicant.
And go through the environmental review process in order to ensure that these visual resources throughout the Lompoc Valley and if I, let's see, I guess I have control of this. Okay. Oh, this is ours. I'm sorry. I was looking for staffs but that's all right. I think you saw from our previous documentation that this is visible from the state park, La Prisma State Park. It's visible...I'm sorry. Go back to the photo at least and it's...this is from the Planning Commission It's visible, you can see the city of Lompoc in the background and you can see to the right.
And staff has acknowledged the 246 view shed so this is a very visible site and so this is one that does require the decorum of a conditional use permit and full environmental review. Had they started, had they heeded staff's advice back in 2014, they'd be far along that process preparing an EIR and have their conditional use permit. Those are the tools that we have as a community to ensure that these values of visual resources, biological, cultural, and general plan consistency are addressed. So thank you for your consideration, and we hope that you'll agree with us that there has been no evidence of a vested right. And the best path is for the board to determine that there has been no vesting and direct the applicant on to prepare the appropriate permit submittals.
Thank you.
Questions from the board? I have one, Mr. Chillo. The applicant slash appellant's claim that your aerial photos from 61 actually lends more evidence to his view. With the claim that if you're mining in 61, you can't have just come up with the intent in 60 or 61 mine. You got to do roads, you gotta hire staff, you gotta do things. What would you say to that?
That claim. I am surprised by the claim, frankly because the cases are clear that you look at the evidence that existed at the time of enactment and arguing that after enactment evidence reflects an intent before. Does not pass mustard with the way that the cases have looked at it. What is the intention at the time? And yes, they did expand in that area afterwards. That was also somewhat of the evolution of power equipment. But if you looked at what was the state of mind, if you will, what was happening in September of 1958, Explains that, they were using hand tools and pickup trucks. And the signatures of mining that we see from that period were such that was the intention, that was the scope of their intention. And indeed they didn't necessarily have at that time there's no evidence that they've provided other than what you might this might have been a hope or aspiration.
You might make that assumption but I don't think it's borne out by the evidence that was in existence in 1958.
Mr. Well, how would it be reasonable Given the fact that they were taking it out of there with a pickup to have more than a two track road anywhere on the property. I mean, they couldn't sell any more than they were selling. If they would've been able to sell more than they were selling, they would potentially opened up other sites but there was so much material right there.
So why wouldn't, I don't know how The absence, you're asking them to prove a negative basically. The
absence of some other road to some other place disproves that they wanted a mine there.
Actually, the burden is on the applicant to affirmatively show that there was evidence of an intent to mine. Our burden- I don't think they did it. Our burden is to show the negative and that's what the photos, it's very difficult to do so and that's where the 1958 aerial photos really tell the story. What was the nature of mining in September of 1958? And it was as described by the declarations of Mr. Lee and the others that it was simple.
It was a pickup, it was hand tools. So there was no need to have a grander intention to go further. They had their needs met as of 1958 and again- Yeah
but you're talking about their needs as of 1958 not whether they would prospectively foreclose going off anywhere else on the property in the event that the demand was there.
There's no evidence that they were constrained by a lack of demand. The
evidence- Well, there's no evidence that they weren't except for the fact that they didn't sell anymore. They would have gone out and got some more. If they would have sold some more, they would have gone out
and got some more. When you look at the declarations it does go back into the 70s and it makes it very clear back as far as the 50s but even beyond that. This was a very low scale, low key operation. Buster would go out periodically with a pickup truck and take a couple loads when he had some to sell. But this was not a sophisticated sustained mining operation until Sepulveda entered the property sometime between 82 and 85.
You have to put yourself in 1958. Is
there
an
intention to
go and- Okay, well let me interrupt you. We have no power equipment, no power tools in 1958. Are you saying that they should never have been allowed to use power
tools? No, I'm trying to draw a conclusion from the evidence with these signatures of mining that we see. Back in 58, what are those intentions? They are for a smaller scale operation and-
No, sorry, I am not going to let you go there. You know, I asked you a question about power tools such as bulldozers.
Bulldozers and those were not evident on the site until after 1961. Are you contending
that was improper that they even brought those out? No. What vesting did they bring those out under? Well they obviously they because expanded their operation
areas that they never were in 1958 and in 1998 the board, the Planning Commission approved that expansion into that area. But now they want to go further and did they have the intention of this area back in 1990. They're going to do the same thing
now that they did then which is keep up with With demand.
And so then they're going to just mine this entire site then, based on that? That's what you're saying is that they could. They could
but aren't they doing you a favor by coming in with the request for 28 acres instead of the whole thing?
No actually their request is to dig down 75 feet instead of 50 in the existing reclamation area, the poison pill area. They've asked for more entitlements there through this process and In expanding to the 28 acres, they're not committing that the other areas are not going to ever be mined again. They're keeping all of their options open. So I fear that there's a cumulative effect that could occur. Thank you. Any other
questions?
Any questions, comments from the board? I want to return to staff. I have a couple of questions for you guys but if you want to preemptively say anything. I guess one is, how do you rate the adequacy of the applicant's slash appellant's wildlife assessment? Is that an accurate portrayal and so how would you compare the impacts in that wildlife assessment to say if they went down towards Highway 1.
I guess that's asking more than might be analyzed or in scope. But if you can answer the first one, that would be great. If you can answer the second one then, that's a bonus but it's not answerable.
Mr. Chair, as part of the project, as part of the MND that was prepared, the applicant provided a biological survey of the proposed area and that survey report was also peer reviewed by the county's consultants and it was found to be sufficient to meet the reclamation plan needs. And so I believe from the county's perspective it is a sufficient report. And
it has no class one impacts, they're either class two or class three. Okay? That's correct. That's the term of arts I always forget with three and one but mix them up.
The impacts would be mitigated to a less than significant level.
And the visual impacts, did I hear that the project is better than the baseline? How is that possible?
So Mr. Chair, to answer your question that is correct. The proposed project would be an improvement as described in the MND. The proposed project would be an improvement upon the existing baseline because as the project would move to the east it would be limited to a six acre maximum disturbance area whereas currently it is not limited to that and it's much larger. And does that six acres, does that apply to the other area too or just in this new area? Mr. Chair it would actually apply to the whole of the project going forward if this project was approved.
6:32 – 6:3912 turns
So going back to this 1961-50, this is the part that's hard for me to kind Conceive of, in either direction. Because
you weren't born yet?
Yes. So I mean if the Dibley map says the vein was there is it likely that the person would know about that map? The miners
would know about that map? I mean- So Mr. Chair, I think now you're asking us to speculate. Right. So really that's the question before you is what would the person that had the property and was running the mine in 1958 have reasonably expected? And what evidence exists that shows they intended to mine further on the property?
I guess I just don't know much about how long it takes to stage stuff in the late 50s, early 60s. How many years does someone need to take? Obviously it's not the ten years that you would have to now but to prep to expand a mine because we know the mine was expanded there by 61, What took place between 58 and 61, correct?
So I'll let Joe, Mr. Chair, I'll let Joe answer this question if he knows what mining techniques were used in 1958 on this property but I can assure you he was not born in 1958.
Since Mr. Gazzani is our renaissance man, I think he may have some input. Can I explain 1958 mining techniques for us?
Chair and Supervisors, I cannot say that I was not born in 1958. But I will focus you on the staff report, the board agenda letter. In the middle of page four there's a paragraph beginning with although courts generally follow a strict policy. There's a discussion in there that, in as plain a language as is possible under the case law, I think frames what the board's task is today.
And you're dealing with a few different legal standards that I think are condensed nicely in that paragraph. As the parties have discussed today, the burden of proof at this hearing is on the party asserting a right to this non-conforming use. That burden will shift later if there's litigation to the other side to show that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence and substantial evidence is really what you're looking for today as the opposite of an abuse of discretion. So this paragraph is aiming you at some objective manifestations back at the time of 1958, and that really is the task for the board today. And I think this paragraph above everything else that's in the package probably focuses you on what you have in front of you this afternoon.
Other comments? Questions for staff? None? Then Board deliberation. Is there a motion?
Well,
I didn't see any lights.
Supervisor Atom. You were holding your hand in the way. I can't see you just clicked it but- Go ahead. Well, I think the biggest thing for us to understand here is if we deny this that mining will continue under current practices. And notwithstanding whether you agree with any other assertions here from the appellants, I think we gotta pass this thing and going down to Highway 1.
I think that they've been pretty responsible in where they want to put the mining operation, and if they don't get that, they have economic interests that they have to protect and they got to do what they gotta do. The fact that they've got only six acres open at a time on the backside of that hill is a good thing for all of us. I can't figure out how any reasonable property owner wouldn't have intended to take everything they could sell out of the property after they set up a mine, You know, if you can't sell anymore, you can't sell anymore. But if you can cut out what you can cut out and sell it and people enjoy using that material as a natural material for all kinds of different Homes and businesses and buildings that people enjoy being in.
It enhances, I think natural stone enhances the quality of any building and the quality of your time in it. So you know, I think it's a really great product and it's got a bunch of jobs for people who live in Lompoc which is important to the 4th District. So I don't understand how. Anybody could prove, you know, Mr. Tillo seems to want evidence that they intended to mine the exact area through some physical proof that I don't know how it would exist so and to one of Joan's points that they could If they would come back in and try to vest more property, you know. I think from the footprint of the mine that they have open at this time between considering that it's been opened between 1958 and the present Between now and 2045, it would be a stretch to me to think that they could open the proposed area up at the current level of sales.
I mean unless they're going to go out and figure out somebody else to sell to, I don't know that they're going to be able to open that whole footprint up. So I would make a motion that we adopt staff recommendations. I think it's the best for the community, and it's the best thing for the county.
6:39 – 6:4511 turns
There is a motion. Is there a second? I'm going to hold
off
until we hear other...
Chair Williams, just for clarity, I think I understand Supervisor Adams' motion is the staff recommendations for the conceptual approval, the first half of the board agenda letter not the denial.
Yeah correct yeah I forgot there was a denial in there yes a motion for approval staff recommendations for approval
Well, my understanding of the procedure is that if there's no second. Okay well I'll give a second so we can have discussion on it. Okay so there's motion and a second. Is there discussion? I
have a question. Yes
Supervisor Wolk.
So you know this it's It's a tough decision on one hand, but then on the other hand it's a little bit easier if I just try and focus on the evidence and what I can visually see. And I'm talking about the vesting part right now. And I've looked at the maps, I've looked at them really close. And I think I fall on the side of Mr. Chatillo's argument that there is no evidence of the activity Or necessarily the intention of mining in 1958. There is just, I can't find the tangible evidence after looking at the maps and hearing from the parties.
I do also have concerns with the MMD. I was looking at it again during some of the discussion. The comments about the visual and the aesthetics, and the impacts not just to Highway 1 but to Sweeney into some of the other roads. I'm not convinced that the MND was sufficient so I'm not going to be able to support the motion.
Supervisor
Labnino? Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know it's interesting I always like when staff doesn't want to speculate and then they're like all right you guys take it over because this is a really hard one and you know I guess now we're at the stage where bringing in the FBI that's great background for this And welcome aboard. So we're going to probably be hearing more from you in the future.
Wow, so it's weird because I'm sure 20 or 30 or 40 or 60 years from now, we can look back at our society and there'll be a wealth of Facebook posts and emails and texts and faxes and all that kind of stuff. You'll know whether somebody wanted to do something or not. 1958, little bit different but You know, I'm looking at there's evidence on both sides really. You know, I really appreciate all the hard work that went into this. There's a lot of really good photos in there but you know we're looking at 1958 photos and trying to get into somebody's head and figure out did they intend or didn't intend?
I think Supervisor Adams is a really good point. It's, I wouldn't own a mine that I didn't think and have the intention that I'm going to follow that mine and mine that product. And I don't know, I'm not a legal scholar so I don't know if that means if you have the intention to do it but you haven't actually physically done it yet. I'm gonna leave that up for the lawyers and I have a feeling that this case isn't done no matter what we do.
I do look at this as almost kind of the lesser of two evils. And I know Mr. Shatillo had said that maybe it's not an honorable thing to say, if you don't let me do this, I'm going to do this. But the reality is they're already allowed to do that. So it's not like, and I don't feel like they're threatening. I just feel like they're telling you hey, you are not going to just kill the project. If we're not allowed to go where we want to go, we're going to have to go where we have to go.
You know, this is just one of those coin flips really. It's really tough. I think Mr. Chatillo said something else that made a lot of sense to me is when he said if the applicant had done in 2014 they'd be very far along in that process. The reality is we're in 2018 and I think that kind of shines a little bit on Santa Barbara County is that most other places if you start in 2014, you'd be done by now. And they would probably be far down the process but they probably wouldn't be completed yet either so.
I like the idea of the proposed project would only have six acres at a time. It would actually be mined, and the rest would be under reclamation. But really for me this is probably the toughest one that I've seen since I've been here as far as mining by nature, Supervisor Hartman.
6:45 – 6:544 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair, I agree it's like how many angels are dancing on the head of the pin? How many lines do we see on these maps and what do they mean but when I focus on the real question which is What was objectively manifested in September of 1958? And I've got all these maps here that I've been walked through and I can't see. It's not just a vague intent, it's an objective manifestation And there's a characteristic photographic signature of mining and it doesn't exist. And roads and cattle roads do not lead to the places where the photographic signature of mining exists, so I can't make that finding that there is an objective manifestation.
It may seem like a small matter, but it really isn't. When rules change the objective is to assure that a landowner realizes their investment backed expectations, but also to bring non-conforming activities into compliance with the new rules. And on September 29th, 1958 60 years ago the rules changed and ordinance 971 went into effect. And it required a CUP for mining and reclamation activities in the county. And if we don't hold with that then I don't see what's going to prevent this same thing happening in the future. And mining operations could intensify, and so I'm really stuck on the legal argument. And so I can't support the motion and I can't support the appeal.
Well, I agree with both of my colleagues to the right that this is a very difficult call to make legally. Going back, I mean, I think any cold murder case back in 58 would have been also probably a tough call to make. But I also think that we should also think about sort Sort of precedence for our moves in some level. And that leads me to think Evidence, especially when we're going back to 58 for most things in law includes witnesses. And no one of those affidavits alone would make you think that there was a clear intent but as a package it sure kind of seems that way right?
It's like you piece together a lot of circumstantial evidence, and people get convicted of murder on enough piecing together of circumstantial evidence. And so I can't imagine that the evidentiary standard on this is higher than that of a capital crime. To me, the idea that at a 58 level pace when it's someone rolling up on a truck and taking some rock whenever there's a load. That somehow the mine would migrate couple acres without their ever being an intent before 61 to migrate several acres. It's gone from one side of that line to another in three years.
When it's just a guy in a pickup truck, right? To me that it seems inconceivable that there would be no previous intent at that exploitation level of the mine at that time. And so that makes it harder. I think the other thing though is there is a bigger issue beyond The legal issues, obviously we have to make the finding based on the legal issues. But I think the other is just that Most of us, if not all of us have been consumers of this type of product.
And those of us that are not hope to someday. Should there be a mine in Santa Barbara? Mines aren't all that desirable at one level but yeah I think there probably should be and would it be better to have a mine Mitigation plan and a clear plan of how much can be disturbed at any one time. I was trying to think of whether I'd be happier with one scenario or another by a neighbor, and I guess I could understand as a neighbor how I would be unhappy with either scenario but that I truly believe that That the six acres at a time and the removal of the previous piles will be more desirous for the surrounding communities in the long run.
So not without a great deal of soul searching, but I'm prepared to support the motion. Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you Mr. Chair, because either way this is likely to be litigated I think it's very important that the board be clear about what it's saying and I have a question for Mr. Ghisoni because I keep hearing the word intent But that's not what I think we're looking at. I think we're looking at either an actual expansion or an objective manifestation, which to me seems different than intent. It's kind of like a water right or something you have to perfect it in some way. So I guess I'd like you to just clarify what is it the legal standard? What is it that we're looking for? What is it that we're supposed to find or not find?
Chair and supervisors, again I'm going to focus you on the board agenda letter package which in the middle of page four has a paragraph that begins with although courts generally follow. And under that which discusses the diminishing asset doctrine which is essentially an exception of the standard non-conforming practices it talks about In a 2006 case, the owner must show that the area it desires to excavate was clearly intended to be excavated as measured by objective manifestations not subjective intent.
So lots of words in there about What are you looking for? And when you look at that, I think it would be helpful for you to also look at another attachment to the board agenda letter which I believe was attachment for the planning commission report by County Planning and Development dated February 27th 2018. In that package on pages A1, A2 and continuing are the draft vested rights findings by your staff that talk about photographs or analyzed from 1956-1958 and that's an underlined in the package that I just described. But, I think the legal standard is as we've described in the board agenda letter and then the draft findings addressing vested rights talk about what may be there and it's really going to be the task of the board to see if you agree with those draft findings and can make those findings or if you wanted to go a different direction
6:54 – 6:568 turns
One of the key words I heard was objective findings, which says it all for me.
Mr. Adam? I'm not trying to get, my dad used to accuse me of practicing law without a license occasionally. And I think I'm
about- I
think you
practice a lot of things without a
license. He would be very happy to hear you say that if he were here. Staff had this giant report created here. I don't know how much this thing weighs and You know, they came up with a recommendation that we support this project and I don't always agree with staff. They come up with recommendations. None of us always agree with staff. Sometimes everybody disagrees so I'm not saying you have to agree with them because that's what they said.
I'm saying that I'm agreeing with them because They put this thing together at their direction and they made the applicant pay for it. And you know, it's like if you If you don't on some level, the process is illusory. I mean they went out there and got the evidence that they were asked to acquire by staff and they convinced staff enough that they would make a recommendation for approval and at some point You gotta go with that as a board member. So anyway, I would just call for the question, I guess.
Any other discussion? All those in favor please say. Sure you can have a roll call.
Mr. Adam. Aye. Mr. Lavagnino. Aye. Ms. Wolfe. No. Ms Hartman. No And Mr Williams. Aye Passes 3 to 2
6:56 – 6:581 turns
We will adjourn to Tuesday in Santa Barbara. Music.