BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 July 10, 2018

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:00 – 0:021 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:37 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Thank you. Thank you. Okay, that's good.

0:03 – 0:0815 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:12 · ≈ 9:03 AM

I'll call this meeting to order. Roll call, please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:16 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Ms. Wolfe?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:19 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Can you hear us, Janet? Can you hear us now, Janet? Hello, Santa Barbara.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:31 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Hi, we're here. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:35 · ≈ 9:03 AM

We're doing the roll.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈23s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:42 · ≈ 9:03 AM

I pledge allegiance to the flag of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:45 · ≈ 9:03 AM

the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:45 · ≈ 9:03 AM

United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:16 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Can I get a motion on approval of the July 3rd minutes? So

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:20 · ≈ 9:04 AM

moved.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:22 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Do we have to do even, all right. Roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:31 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye. Mr Adam? Aye. Mr Lavinino? Aye, Mr Williams? Aye Passes 5-0.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:37 · ≈ 9:04 AM

So just a matter of procedure for the audience in cases where there is a remote vote we have to do roll call on every vote so that's why you're not going to see all those in favor please say aye today it's gonna be a little different.

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction4:56 · ≈ 9:04 AM

County CEO's report Good morning Chair Williams and board members. Today you're going to hear a report later this morning on an update on the holiday fire, so I believe Chair Williams will bring that item forward ahead of the agenda. But right now there are a couple announcements I have to make and that is related to the holiday fire. Yesterday the county along with our state and local agencies, non-profits and counselors and HOPE 805 opened a local assistance center at Goleta Union School District at 401 North Fairview. The center is open today until 7 PM and 9 AM to 7 PM tomorrow.

We will assess the community's needs but are ready to extend the center hours through the weekend. Also, the community is invited to hear from FEMA representatives about FEMA's interim advisory recovery map at a community meeting tomorrow July 11th at 530 PM at the Montecito Union School at 385 Sandy Cedar Road. The FEMA recovery map is available online at readysbc.org and at the Montecito Center. In addition, Senator Jackson and Assemblymember Monique Limon are hosting a public hearing this Thursday 4 to 6 PM at the Montecito Union School. County staff will give a presentation and update on the county's recovery strategic plan for Montecito similar to what we presented to the board about a month ago.

Lastly, to ensure public trust in our county government we with the Auditor-Controller's Office and Risk Management have launched a more robust mechanism for reporting and investigating suspected fraud waste and abuse of county resources or misconduct by county employees contractors or volunteers. It's called see it, report it, stop it. And it's available to employees and the general public via new website and hotline. We honor confidentiality thus individuals can report in the way they feel most comfortable without fear of retaliation. It's a 24-7 hotline and websites operated by a third party with bilingual support.

Issues that are reported will be given to the Internal Audit Division for investigation or referral. The toll-free number is 844-413-4025, and there is a link on our county website if you go to countyofsb.org under County Government, and there'll be a link to the employee intranet for employees. Thank you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role7:24 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Are there any items that the public wishes to strip from the agenda? CEO, are you asking that D6 we take up before the A items.

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction7:35 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Yes please chair if you could take up the update on holiday fire which is D6.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role7:39 · ≈ 9:07 AM

So D6 just so that folks know if they're looking at the paper agenda it was a late added item so some of the paper agendas do not have it as D6 is on the holiday fire

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:54 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board. Item six from the county executive office is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the holiday fire ratification and proclamation about local emergency. And I just want to note that in the resolution that's referenced in recommendation A, in the second whereas of the resolution In the original copy that was distributed there was a mistake on a date it erroneously I mentioned December 6, 2017 in the resolution and that date is July 6, 2018. That's been corrected for the final copy.

0:08 – 0:132 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role8:31 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Mr. Peterson? Mr. Lewin? Sheriff Brown? Rob?

GuestEric Peterson Fire ChiefSheriffProposedself-stated8:41 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Morning Chair Williams and Board Members, I'm Eric Peterson Fire Chief. I'm here today with Sheriff Brown, OEM Director Rob Lewin and our Division Chief Matt Ferris to give you a quick overview of the holiday fire and current situation status. So on July 6th we had red flag conditions very similar to the Painted Cave Fire of 1990 30 miles per hour, sustained winds gusts to 40. Single digit relative humidity and 100 degree heat in some cases well over 100 degrees.

Luckily, we had very good early weather information from the National Weather Service which we acted on. We put extra resources of our own on from county. CAL FIRE supported us with two bulldozers and crew in a water tender and because of new pre-positioning funding made available in the governor's supplemental budget, we were able to stage a strike team of five Cal OES engines.

We staged them at the corner of Hollister and Turnpike. And we kind of got lucky because that turned out to be a perfect spot for them to be pre-deployed for this incident, they were very close. When the fire started that strike team went to work I think within minutes So they were with the initial dispatch, so they were able to be used almost immediately. So upon arrival our first in battalion chief saw extreme wind driven fire behavior which was to be expected, ordered an additional immediate need five strike teams and within a half an hour we had an additional 14 fire engines on top of the first alarm response which is a lot of equipment in a very very short amount of time and I think that made it a very big difference Everything that we hear is that the evacuations were orderly and immediate, and the Sheriff's Department gets a lot of credit for that.

As you know rescues are always our priority over fire suppression and the fact that we didn't have to do rescues and we could focus on fire suppression was extremely important in this fire. As usual, we had great mutual aid support from the OP area. Every fire department in this county was involved in this thing from one degree or another everybody contributed.

I have to mention Ventura County Fire Department on the way into this fire. I got a call from their chief Mark Lorenzen. Asked what we needed and basically, we said we could use whatever you can give up. And at the end of the day, Ventura County contributed 15 fire engines, a hand crew and a bulldozer which was a heavy lift for them because they were under not great weather conditions either. So for them to give up that kind of equipment under those conditions was very much appreciated, and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

LA County contributed Black Hawk Night Flying Helicopter which can drop 1,000 gallons of water in one drop basically empty out one of our water tenders every time it takes off and fills up so that was important too on top of all the work our ASU crews did. And I think Sheriff Brown's gonna talk a little bit more about the work they did. Our type three incident management team took over the fire in the morning and set up in the incident command post at Dos Pueblos High School.

DP high, I have to mention has been key with all of these catastrophes that we continue to have in this county. They have provided a base camp for us that is ideally located and we have a really good relationship with them. We have now set up a contract with them through Cal Fire. So that's going to be seamless moving forward. Hopefully we won't need to invoke it.

At the height of this incident, we had 500 personnel and 75 fire engines on scene. So ultimately we had 100 acres burnt 10 homes lost three damaged these numbers are going to be updated a little bit this morning 14 out buildings destroyed I think we're calling it 95% containment now so those numbers have improved a little bit and the incident cost was Estimated by CAL FIRE to be about $1.5 million in suppression costs alone.

We have right now 22 people without power, we as always lament the loss of structures and Our heart goes out again to those people who are suddenly homeless. This fire could have been a lot worse and one of the reasons it was not worse was that we were able to cut it off at the top with some really, really good work by our dozer operators and I have Matt Ferris here today, our Division Chief, who can tell a little bit about that story so I'm going to turn over to Matt Ferris. Thank you.

0:13 – 0:218 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed13:50 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Good morning. To play onto that, the dozer that we had pre-positioned was at our headquarters and that was immediately dispatched upon the first responders with the first engines going and his knowledge of this area is Mark Lennane Jr., and his knowledge of this area is impeccable you can't even compare it he knew exactly where to go and what to do And he deployed his other dozer on the other side of the fire as well. So, he went up Patterson unloaded and started cutting a fire break above the northern end of the fire. The importance of this is when we have down canyon sun downer winds they're blowing down Canyon obviously that wind will come back and push it back uphill. And when that happens it runs up to the top of the hill and then we get another sundowner and it blows back down taking out more homes.

So his forethought and what we did with the management team is cut that as one of our first priorities. It was so high, there's no recorded fire history there. Being able to go in there and fight direct fire was incredibly dangerous. He was calling in water drops on himself as he got down this steep hill just so he didn't burn up, and that's his dedication. He had the other dozer on the other side. The hills were so steep that he was watching it and guiding it and telling it it was pushing dirt so that he could not just roll over the side. So the way it works is you push dirt. It was Kyle Hill. And he push it, push it and then it kind of just rocks and pushed down. Well then at that point Mark's watching him said you're losing your dirt his dirt fell away.

Said raise your blade, raise your blade. At that moment he was able to raise his blade so we didn't topple over and then made its way all the way down the bottom. It's a one-way trip And once you get down there, the fire activity was so intense. They used the Nighthawk, the Firehawk from LA County that was there by 1215 just because we were in direct communication with a liaison from LA County at the ICP and they were there dropping 1000 gallons of water on him so that he didn't burn up in his other helicopter.

And just to tag on to that another story was his brother, Chris Lang is an engine company captain. He gets a phone call through dispatch or over the air we have people trapped at home. So his first thought as he goes in, the house is almost completely involved but he's goes in three separate times to go to try to rescue these people and He couldn't get him out or couldn't get anything out, come to find out the people that already left. Which he found out later through dispatch following back around but there's just a couple of stories that went on. We kept up fire to 100 acres which we're very lucky to do that with equipment we had I just wanted to pass on how important it is to have these fire breaks in place and how effective they really are because we don't have to put our people in such dangerous positions if we had some fire breaks that would allow us to do that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role16:56 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Mr. Ferris, so this is a very interesting thing and maybe goes along with Chief Peterson's interest in military history. So what the Dozier team did instead of creating a break in the direction the fire was going they enveloped behind the fire to prevent it essentially from spreading- That's correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed17:19 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Later on in the evening. When you're in an urban interface The bulldozer is going that direction. There's too many homes, too many things that there are places that we can do but we could use other equipment when you have the other dozers coming in. But with the wind shift that we knew was coming at 3 a.m. with the weather service it was going to go back uphill and it was a critical piece and he was done by 3 a m with that piece And you

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role17:41 · ≈ 9:17 AM

feel this made it instead of being a long, weeks-long slog where every day we have a shift and a fight. A fire that was a few days because of cutting off the fire?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed17:56 · ≈ 9:17 AM

It was a few days, 100 acres. Tragically, we lost 10 homes but it could have been easily 100 homes, 1,000 acres.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:05 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed18:06 · ≈ 9:18 AM

thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed18:17 · ≈ 9:18 AM

We have some photos for you to just see the intensity and the actions that were done by the fire department during it. It's interesting to note on some of these homes which appeared to have good adequate clearance following You know, what is expected for a wildland situation for homes and yet still the amber production from a wind-driven fire like this can cause problems. Still those are you know that can either occur by ember production that's falling into fuels such as even lawn furniture or wood piles or getting into vents and things like that and that's a difficult thing newer construction helps prevent a lot of that and also Making sure people are thinking about what's around their home, not just what it's built of and the clearance around it.

So couple of key facts that we want to share with you. The EOC activated by 10 o'clock that evening was very rapid for an EOC to open up that quickly. We asked for FMAG which stands for the Fire Management Assistance Grant And you have to do that during a going fire, the incident management team put together that document and the state awarded that very quickly that night.

Ms. Miyasato our County Executive Officer and Director of Emergency Services proclaimed a local emergency that night at 1 AM and then, and of course that's what's on your agenda now, and the Governor the next day proclaimed a State of Emergency. We have a principle, the fire department, the sheriff's office and OEM about evacuation. One of those principles is return people home as quickly as possible and not taking into consideration anything except is it safe for them to go home? So many people returned home, some of those people returned home before power was restored and they're still doing that because we'd still believe that the right thing to do is get them home and let them make the decision about whether they want to live in a home without power or not.

And so we did our first repopulation on July 7th, and then we fully repopulated the area on the 8th. We have asked, or we're going to be sending a letter as soon as we gather more data to the state asking for funding. The California Disaster Assistance Act funding and also for SBA funding. The SBA funding does have a threshold that we have not met. However, we're hopeful that because of our previous disasters as well as the other fires that are occurring in California, that will be made available so we'll be making that effort. Our County Ag Commissioner is now out in the field today, gathering data on ag damages.

Next slide. The sheriff and I are going to talk a little bit about alerting because we know that's a concern to the public. First of all, I want to say that Missing my slide here. The the aware and prepare that look so this is the sheriff's line. I'm sorry, Sheriff.

0:21 – 0:303 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed21:39 · ≈ 9:21 AM

All right, thank you. Good morning I'm going to give you a briefing on some of the alert issues and also some of the involvement of the Sheriff's Office in this incident. The incident broke out at about 840 p.m., and that's when the first calls were received in our 911 center. The dispatchers were inundated with emergency calls that evening To give you an indication and idea of what it was like, we had six people working that night as supervisor and five dispatchers.

And within the first half hour from between 830 and 9 o'clock really for about the first 20 minutes in terms of when this fire actually broke out The dispatch center received 98 9-1-1 calls. The week before, during that same time period they received 4 9- 1-1 calls. So you can just see there's this crush of calls that come in when something like this occurs.

In the next half hour from nine o'clock until 930 there were 45 calls the week before there had been four And from 930 to 10 there were 32 week before they've been five. So in that time frame, there were 175 911 calls the week before during the same time period there had been 13. A request came out for evacuations. Immediately, sheriff's deputies responded and sheriff's deputies and search-and-rescue members who were off duty were called in to assist and participate in those evacuations. There were door-to-door evacuations conducted almost immediately The fire was a big one and at night obviously lit up the entire area and a lot of people were getting the message and understanding what was going on without having to be told to evacuate.

All told, we estimate that about 3200 people We're in the area that was ultimately affected by the evacuation zone and out of that, we estimate at least 22 to 2500 of them actually did evacuate subsequent to being notified. And the remainder many of them obviously had self evacuated and some did actually choose to stay and did stay within the within the area.

There were some dramatic moments as well involving some of the sheriff's deputies. In one instance, a patrol car sucked in a burning ember into the engine compartment and the engine caught on fire. The deputies spotted this, were able to stop, get the hood open, get the fire extinguisher out and did extinguish the fire. Vehicle was still operational and they continued back in the fight, and continued to go. In the Whittier fire a year previously with the same thing that occurred and we actually lost a vehicle it was totally destroyed by fire.

The LED lights on the push bar of one of our pickup trucks were completely melted to give you an idea of how close the deputies were to this incident. We had a total of 78 sheriff's personnel and 20 search-and-rescue personnel that came out and responded to this incident. In addition to that, we had mutual aid assistance from Santa Barbara Police Department from the UC Police Department, UC Santa Barbara Police Department and also from the Ventura Police Department in the Ventura Sheriff's Office.

We had San Luis Obispo sheriff that was actually responding and actually were canceled we had enough people at that point so it was a All hands on deck type effort, as you can imagine. Our air support unit was activated. We only had one helicopter that was capable of making night drops with night vision goggles. That was Copter 3. It has a built-in tank. We don't fly missions that involve the Bambi bucket drops at night so the only one that could fly was Copter 3 Copter 3 got into the fight and ended up making 17 water drops that evening while they were on the ground refueling at Santa Barbara Airport. They noticed they had a hydraulic leak and ended up ultimately having to ground the aircraft as a result of that.

As you heard, fortunately the L.A. Fire Department sent us one of their firehawks and the firehawk continued throughout the evening to make nighttime water drops as well so this was a classic instance of one of the few areas in the United States where nighttime water drops were made on a fire Getting back to the alert process, the Sheriff's Office sent out an Aware and Prepare Alert. And I just wanted to clarify that there is a little bit of a misunderstanding. Aware and Prepare is the program that people sign up to get alerts on but Aware and Prepare actually encompasses many different mechanisms for people to get messages. They get them by email, by text, by phone calls to landline and the cell phones that are pre-recorded and these are all done through a GeoFence technology where we can actually draw a line around the area where we want calls that are made either landlines or to cell phones that are registered within that area The Nixle alerts are also part of that and go out to people.

In this case, the Nixle alert went out to the entire Goleta community. And the community members who were in the epicenter really or close to the epicenter of the fire were immediately evacuated and alerted in person on a door-to-door basis if they were still home. You can see the map there shows the initial area of the notification was the red zone there and then the subsequent evacuation zone that was put together is the larger green rectangle.

And as I mentioned, we continuously updated through social media and one major asset to this in this fire was the local media's response. KUIT in particular did a magnificent job of getting the message out and it was a pretty spectacular looking fire as I'm sure most of you who saw it saw by By the fact that they had a helicopter come up from Los Angeles that was giving aerial shots that showed these simultaneous structure fires and vegetation fire that was going on at the moment.

We did have an issue that came up, When the alerting process is put together, there's a sort of check-the-box form on the alert. One of which is a WEA alert, which is the federal system and as a result of the crush of calls that had come in to dispatch, dispatch had called An off-duty dispatch supervisor to make that notification, and he did that from his home.

But he did not have the code that was required for the WEA alert so he did not want to delay getting that message out. He ultimately did send the alert short of the WEA alert but it had all the other platforms that I just mentioned to you that went out. And then subsequently communicated with the people at OEM once the Emergency Operations Center was set up and there was a delay in getting out a second WEA alert that may have been due to some equipment issues in terms of the extreme heat that occurred and involved servers over at the EOC.

So that's it, I'll be happy to answer any questions at the end if you like and I'll turn it back over to Rob.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed30:14 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8530:16 · ≈ 9:30 AM

I had a couple of questions Sheriff Brown. First of all, it seems overall that with the red flag alert we were pre-staged, we were ready and that made a huge difference. Do we do that in dispatch as well?

0:30 – 0:389 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed30:33 · ≈ 9:30 AM

We did not. We had a normal complement of dispatchers and sheriff's deputies that were working, and I think part of that is probably due to the fact that the funding that's available for pre-staging is really dedicated towards fire resources.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8530:49 · ≈ 9:30 AM

But it might be something we would think about for the future if

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed30:52 · ≈ 9:30 AM

we know. And Friday is normally a busy night anyway so we typically had six people on duty and then about an hour into the event, normally and on this evening as well that was up staffed by two more positions. So there were eight people total as a result of about nine o'clock.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8531:13 · ≈ 9:31 AM

And I had one more question about WEA. It was, the federal government was making some adjustments to this system because it was overly broad, the notification. Have those changes been made?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed31:28 · ≈ 9:31 AM

They have. The ability with WEA is to do it county-wide, city-wide or it can be done more specifically. Rob has more expertise and info on that that he could probably give you some information

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed31:43 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Chair and Supervisor, yes the WEA now they've not told us that there was a change in the ability to do geofencing. However we have found that the last WEAs that we've done during the previous emergencies during the previous evacuations for storms in March as well as this one that were finding that in fact it is isolated now down to its specific geography that we draw on these maps We're not exactly sure if that was a change by the cellular companies or if pressure from FCC, we're not sure exactly what's happening with that. We have tried to communicate with cell companies now to try and understand that better.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role32:27 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Please continue and then we'll go to Supervisor Wolf if she has any questions.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8532:33 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Just a question about the WEA. Is that just the alarm, the noise or is it also text and has if I remember the text was limited in terms of language and characters? And so could you talk about that as well?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed32:49 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Chair and Supervisor yes that's correct it's limited to 90 characters. The FCC has stated that they're going to change that in November of 2019 Chair, did you want me to continue or? Sure. Okay. Please continue. On the alerting of the second alerting that went out at midnight 21, at this point we knew that the evacuation was complete so when this one went out it was really more to make sure that community had clarification because there was not a clarity about what the evacuation boundaries were however on the ground The evacuation had occurred, control points had been established by the deputies.

The previous alert hadn't been very effective other than the fact that we didn't have the WEA out. So that one went out at midnight 21. The sheriff mentioned that we had some trouble with our server. We'd had trouble all day with overheating in our server room. However, the only delay that really caused was probably about 15 minutes. I don't want to state that there was a delay longer than that because of it.

So on the next slide, can you go back to the previous slide? I want you to see that on this particular map it includes a larger area than the previous map. It includes all of the area that was included in the evacuation area and as the sheriff said people have concern of why they didn't receive an alert oftentimes it's merely because they're outside of this area.

And that's really the simple reason for it. We've gotten quite a few emails from people saying, I live south of Cathedral Oaks. How come I didn't hear anything? And this is the reason as we target the area. One of the reasons we target the areas to try to reduce the amount of impact on our dispatch centers from people calling and wondering if they're supposed to evacuate. This we're finding is balancing act of people wanting to know and also not creating an impact. And we often struggle with that balance of how to do that.

Next slide, please. Learning improvements. So we are learning all the time and the sheriff's office in the fire department and OEM are committed to working together to review our methods and to come up with ways that we can do things. Some of the problems that we have are the communication between the field and the dispatch center in the field and the EOC. And we're going to be committed to coming up with procedures that are adjusted to this new technology so the importance of getting it out We're also committed to reviewing our communication amongst each other, as I said. And then we also want to make sure that because dispatch does alerting as well as OEM, that our policies and procedures are coordinated and aligned in all fashions.

I want to say that this is hard. We're doing something that's very difficult and I want to assure you that it isn't from lack of trying, that we're not trying to get right. We work really hard all of us all the agencies work really hard to try to make sure we're getting this right It's what we're doing that we need to work on, it isn't from lack of effort. The other part I wanted to make sure we understand is that we're trying to balance accuracy and expedience.

And if we are too accurate, it takes too long. If we're too expedient, it can cause inaccuracies. Some of the things that we're looking at changing and improving are quickly getting out just a 90 character message that says something like there's a wildfire in your area. Take action if needed. Something very short that just gets the word out quickly, but it will not have much accuracy obviously. So we'll look at that and we'll see what the ramifications of that are.

People in the community have different expectations. All of them, some want more information, some want to opt out of our system because they're getting overwhelmed by it. And that's the other part of the balance we're trying to strike. So we're going to do that. We're going to keep trying to strike the right balance in our efforts here. Next slide please. I want to talk about the, I'm sorry it was a lack slide next or?

Okay, our local assistance center opened up yesterday at noon and I know that Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Wolf both were there as well as Congressman Carbajal and several county elected city elected folks were there. We appreciate that very much. I know the community does. At this point all of the people who have lost their homes have been to the local assistance center and are getting assistance there whatever it is that we can do for them The center is staffed by many state agencies and local agencies. And there are all, and many behavioral wellness counselors as well as 805 HOPE folks are there too. This is the beginning of the recovery process for those people. We're all now quite familiar with recovery as we've all been through it in this county now over our last disasters.

And these folks were committed to making sure that they get the same level of service that we provided for our other disasters. Even though it's much smaller, These people have been impacted and we know that the county cares, and we're going to do our very best for them. When the EOC opened at 10 o'clock that evening, the JIC opened as well. We were very prompt in getting people into our joint information center and providing as much information as we can. We're doing that through all means of communication and we also were using Spanish translators to try to get everything translated into Spanish right away.

And then of course, we're all available for questions.

0:38 – 0:4412 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role38:48 · ≈ 9:38 AM

I'm going to give Supervisor Wolfe an opportunity first because she's in remote testimony. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed38:56 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Wolfe? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can the sheriff come back up? Sheriff, I have a couple questions I wanted to ask you. You said Copter 3 was out the evening when the fire started and then we had the LA copter come the next day. Do we not have any other copters that would've been available that evening or the next day?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed39:26 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Supervisor Wolf to the chair, we have two other medium lift helicopters in our inventory. One is copter four, it is a helicopter that is not equipped with an integral tank. Which means that it utilizes a Bambi bucket for firefighting and that can only fly during hours of daylight. So although that aircraft was available, it was not the type of aircraft we could use during the evening.

The other medium lift helicopter

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed39:58 · ≈ 9:39 AM

is... Excuse me but you could have used it during the day?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed40:02 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed40:03 · ≈ 9:40 AM

I just want to be clear.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed40:04 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Yeah, and in fact it was flown down to Santa Barbara Airport and it was available on the morning of the 7th but it was not assigned any duties by that time the fire had been knocked down substantially and it didn't have any mission at that point. And then the other helicopter is 308 which is the Fire Department Huey helicopter, it was down in Van Nuys actually getting a integral tank installed on it but it was not available the evening of the fire.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed40:39 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Okay thank you for that. The other question I have is the notification process from when your folks are getting calls into dispatch At what point did the Sheriff's Department notify the OEM or Mr. Lewin about what was going on? Because it seems, if you can just answer that question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed41:13 · ≈ 9:41 AM

I don't, Supervisor Wolf through the chair. I don't know an exact time. I know that the we alert was put out at 914 and I know that in subsequent conversations I've had with Director Lewin while he was en route from his residence to the fire he actually called the dispatch center and was put in touch with a supervisor and that was sometime before his arrival But I'm not sure what the exact timing is. Sometime between 915 and 10 o'clock.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed41:50 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Okay, and the WEA alert you just said went out at 914? I thought that there wasn't an alert put out by the Sheriff's Department because of some problem that occurred.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed42:06 · ≈ 9:42 AM

An alert was put out but the WEA component was not included. In other words, the alert that went out was a Nixle alert, it was the text messaging, emails, the Everbridge direct phone calls to landlines and cell phones that were in the evacuation area The WEA component was not part of it because the supervisor who put the alert out, put it out from home. He had been called because of the call inundation in the dispatch center. He had been called and asked to do it but he did not have the codes available With him at his disposal, and he did not want to delay putting the other messaging out. So he put all of the rest of it out but the WEA alert did not get put out. There was a wear and prepare umbrellaed alert that went out but the WEA component did not go out.

And this is something that we're concerned about and we're working to try to address that to make sure that does go out in a timely fashion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed43:13 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Okay, thank you for that because when you said it went out at 914 I was confused but you've clarified that. I know that you talk about this 9-14 timeframe, but I know that I received alerts earlier than that. And I actually was pleased when I saw those alerts because the evacuation in one of them was very clear. It was north of Cathedral Oaks between Foothill and Patterson.

Then I received another alert that said everything north of Cathedral Oaks, which was very confusing and didn't comport with the earlier alert or notification. So who, Sheriff Brown is responsible for those alerts? The ones that I received and I'm sure other people received earlier than the 914 alert

0:44 – 0:506 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed44:23 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Supervisor Wolf, I don't know what you received before 9-14 but to my knowledge there was no official alert that went out from the Santa Barbara County Dispatch Center prior to that. The only thing that I'm aware of is that there is some kind of a private system and I don'y know if you're tied into that but there's some kind of a private system for Residents who live on the extreme west side of Goleta that I understand they had some kind of a system where they linked messages and sent messages out to people that there was a fire. But, to my knowledge-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed45:03 · ≈ 9:45 AM

And I'm not. And I'm not part of that. The notices that I got were OEM notices, and I understand now that those were initiated by the sheriff. And in fact, I spoke to and texted the notifications to CEO Miyasato. Let me just say this in closing without getting into the weeds on this. I think that the most important fact is that we had no loss of lives, and I think that is certainly due to the efforts of the Sheriff's Department and the Fire Department. There is no doubt about that.

What I'm concerned about is this, and I think you folks have talked about it in your slide that there's going to be a look at improving the system. But I think this is something and I've mentioned it to CEO Miyasato that has to happen immediately because this type of problem with someone not knowing the code or Any kind of delay in my mind is unacceptable, particularly when we're talking about mandatory evacuation. So the area initially between Foothill and Patterson was mandatory evacuation.

And the messages didn't come out timely and they were conflicting. So I'm hoping that in the recommendation that all of you are going to be working together to develop better protocols, I think that's obviously something that we need and we need it immediately. And I would suggest to CEO Miyasato that you come back to the board and report on this and the improvements that we're going to be making We know that fire season is all year round, but particularly right now in the summer it's even more intense. And frankly I worry about other emergencies that we don't really think about too well aren't on our minds such as earthquakes and so forth.

So we need to get our system, we've got great people. We've got a great technology. We just need to bring it all together so we don't have this happen again. But in closing I'm very appreciative to our staff and And I wanna say to situational awareness amongst the citizens in this area who are all too familiar with fire danger, who were alert. Obviously there was a community notification that seemed to help but I know from a lot of constituents that they were concerned that they were not notified by the county and we really need to work on that. Thank you Mr Chair.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed47:53 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Can I just respond to that too? Of course. Supervisor Wolf, I certainly share your concern and we are as indicated by Director Lewin, we are working to improve this system and make it the best it can be but we have to all bear in mind that there is A human element that is involved in this. It takes time for calls to be made to a dispatch center, it takes time for response to be made to the scene by sheriff and fire personnel. They have to evaluate the situation they have to convey that back to dispatch. Dispatch has to begin a lengthy process of notifying people who are off duty and getting a sufficient emergency response to go to it. And then when the messaging, the alerting system is sent out that message has to be composed an evacuation area has to be determined and it has to be put out and although it may seem like 914 was a lengthy delay from the origin of the fire.

It actually, for that part of the message and for that component of what happened, it's really not. It was actually done in a fairly timely manner. Now as Director Lewin said we may look at this in trying to get some much more general notification out, but on the same token we want people to be notified in the areas that are of concern. We don't want people to be unduly panicked and especially have them call our and flood our dispatch center with calls so that all has to be balanced in terms of how we approach a situation like this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed49:35 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Thank you Sheriff Brown and I'm keenly aware of that and It wasn't just the 914 alert. We had earlier alerts and there was some inconsistencies, and also some people in the evacuation area didn't get the information.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed49:55 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Excuse me, Supervisor Wolfe again to my knowledge there were no alerts before 914. You're welcome to call me and send me whatever it is that you received but I don't want people to think that there were other alerts that somehow went out that were from the emergency operations center or from the dispatch center because to my knowledge and I believe to my colleagues' knowledge there were none.

Supervisor

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed50:25 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Adam? If I could, just to respond. Sure. I will get you that information and also as you complimented the media, I think they did play an important part in fact KEYT prior to 914 issued something on their Facebook about the evacuation.

0:50 – 0:565 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role50:53 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Supervisor Adam?

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction50:54 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Well, as Chief Peterson's coming up I will just say if you would please. That was your cue to come up. I will just say that I was glad up in Orchid that we didn't get the... You guys seem to have filtered that thing down and maybe it's a little tight who knows but I think From the sounds of things, it went pretty well and there is sort of a as well as can be expected under the circumstances standard here. And I think we're getting closer and you guys will refine it as time goes on and I'm sure everybody's doing the best they can.

So my question for What proactive steps are we taking to attempt to mitigate the risks of these type of incidents on that front country, next to the urban parts of Santa Barbara? Because that seems to be You know, high risk problem area of Santa Barbara County and the repetitive nightmare scenarios that keep happening right there. And we have that whole section of country that has a lot of homes in it tucked up in the brush.

Is there anything that we're doing in the way of fire breaks, control burns or the like that is designed to mitigate those risks for the future?

GuestEric Peterson Fire ChiefSheriffProposedself-stated52:32 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Okay well thank you for the question. There's a lot that needs to be done in my opinion. As you kind of alluded to, the difference between the North County and the South County topographically is pretty extreme. What we keep finding out through history keeps teaching us is that Santa Barbara, the front country, is uniquely positioned right up against this massive fuel bed It is highly flammable and has a tendency to run down into populated areas.

It's not going to get better in my opinion, so I think ultimately in the front country we're going to have to have a very well coordinated effort between our federal partners Our state partners and our local government partners, experts, subject matter experts of all shapes and sizes. But what we are going to need to look at is essentially a front country fuel break. And that can be made up of a lot of different things. It can be thinning operations. It can be actual fuel breaks where there's a break in the fuel that's created by mechanical means or hand tool means.

And it can be AG. We have found that AG tends to act as a heat sink in many occasions when a large flame front is coming down the hill. You may remember the Gap Fire, one of the reasons the Gap Fire didn't come into Goleta and I can't remember the exact date of that one but It hit a lot of avocados that were well watered and green. And those avocados acted like a big heat sink, and sucked up a bunch of the embers that were coming down that very likely would have ignited structures.

The front country is very different from the North County in that I don't think that controlled burns in the front country is really a viable option. I think that's a genie that we can't let out. Even on a foggy day, I just think it'd be too risky. There's just too many assets at risk. In the back country we do need to do more controlled burns and we are a lot more aggressive than we used to be. Things have changed from the old days where you know we had a lot of rancher participation in the old days.

Liability has changed, there are fence lines that don't want to get burnt. It takes a lot of coordination between a lot of different landowners to make a large burn occur and oftentimes we get mixed up in some of that but I won't deny that we need to be more aggressive in the North County doing controlled burns. We have a good plan coming up for something behind Lompoc.

Rob Hazard has been working on that for quite some time. But at the end of the day, I think we need to look at fuel breaks and managed fuel reduction projects.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role55:45 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Just want to have Mike, it looks like he wants to caution us for how deeply we get into- I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed55:52 · ≈ 9:55 AM

just suggesting that if we're going to discuss this in any much greater depth you might want to just agendize a separate item on this since this is concerning the holiday fire.

0:56 – 1:0224 turns

GuestEric Peterson Fire ChiefSheriffProposedself-stated56:03 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Just to finish, Division Chief Ferris' swashbuckling tale of bulldozers pushing fuel and putting themselves in harm's way. It'd be great not to have to do that if we had existing fuel breaks. We wouldn't have to do that so thanks for the question.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8456:29 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Supervisor Lavagnino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah I was going to comment on that just probably should have been done at a different time right so you don't have to drop water on top of him. I just wanted to thank all of your men and women and Sheriff you as well and all those employees from the CEO's office who spent long hours in their weekend again in the EOC it's starting to be a normal occurrence and we do appreciate it I just wanted to ask about whether those folks that lost their homes will have the same like for like, if they'll fall into that or do we need to change our ordinance? Or did they just automatically fall into the same thing as the, sorry Diane.

Thought you were going to get out of this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed57:19 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Mr. Chair, members of the board actually our current ordinance not the modification addresses fires quite well and so people will be available or like for like will be available for rebuilding.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8457:30 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Okay so in the future anybody that loses their home to fire they fall into the like-for-like?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed57:36 · ≈ 9:57 AM

That's correct.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8457:36 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Okay great thank you. I

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role57:42 · ≈ 9:57 AM

guess I'll Just to reiterate some of the questions, so I mean to my knowledge that reverse 911 call was made pretty early. It was made about ten minutes after the incident started, so before other media and so forth. So that part of the system worked really well at least the information I got from residents was they got it before 9 o'clock. Is that true or is that just people's perception?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed58:15 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Chair, they would have got what we used to refer to as reverse 911 at 914. Those calls started going out after the sheriff's dispatch put out the aware and prepare alert. That includes calls to landlines and to cell phones with a recorded message.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role58:32 · ≈ 9:58 AM

But you're talking about the mandatory. The first, there was two sets right? There was one that was sent out before saying get ready, start packing up stuff at least that's what I heard from residents. Is that not true?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed58:45 · ≈ 9:58 AM

That was not part of the alerting that was done by us.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role58:50 · ≈ 9:58 AM

I guess that's how strange the fog of war can be, that people think they got two calls instead of one. So that's interesting.

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction58:58 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Supervisors and Chair Williams, I think addresses Supervisor Wolfe's question in that was some residents say they did get notification. I think that the news media like we said did a great job, KYT in particular and there was lots of social media happening before the official alerting happened because I think they were monitoring dispatch. And I think that's what led to just listening to individual calls, led some news media and some residents who have social media to get the word out. I think that's what happened we'll be looking to trace back to see but I think that is what happened prior to the official notification from dispatch through the official learning systems.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed59:42 · ≈ 9:59 AM

And Chair, just some clarification on the calling. We need people to sign up for Aware and Prepare but people that are not signed up for Aware and Prepare will receive a phone call to their landline when we send out those alerts. However as we all know there's diminishing number of people with landlines. We're down I think about under 45% of the population now has landlines.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:00:06 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Okay, and then this for the sheriff. So the compliance rate that you cited was pretty high. Is that higher than most

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:00:16 · ≈ 10:00 AM

events? I don't have numbers for you on that but the indication what I was told is that some people chose to stay. And my impression both from what I heard and from what I saw that evening was that most people did comply and leave the area. There were only I think a small number that actually stayed and it was a pretty dramatic situation. With the flames as visible as they were at night, it was pretty obvious to most people that the prudent move would be to leave the area as soon as possible.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:00:48 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Now the numbers I thought you just mentioned was about 2,500 evacuated out of 3,200 residents estimated to be in

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:00:59 · ≈ 10:00 AM

the area. But the delta of 700 isn't necessarily people who stayed because we didn't

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:01:03 · ≈ 10:01 AM

contact

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:01:04 · ≈ 10:01 AM

them so

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:01:04 · ≈ 10:01 AM

many

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:01:04 · ≈ 10:01 AM

of them had already evacuated or left.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:01:07 · ≈ 10:01 AM

And is that something, along with what we can do better to make sure that we get this out faster. Is that something you could report back on us? Because that seems to me the positive side if we got out that high of a proportion then some things worked but I do agree with Supervisor Wolf's point. If I got out something on Facebook and KYT got out something before our emergency personnel got out alerts, something's not happening fast enough.

Well, go for it. I think it's an issue because otherwise people are going to not rely on what the county says they're going to rely on. KYT does not have

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:01:56 · ≈ 10:01 AM

to be right and I think the media shows that all the time is it's who's first not who's right? And I'd rather we wait. I think what they said it's a perfect balance you have to wait and be right otherwise You're going to get into this situation where everybody's trying to be first. There's a balance, and we can't expect people to have instantaneous exact perfect information. I think that's the standard that's never gonna be met in an emergency.

You're doing the best you can with the technology that you have and the people that you have but we have to be right. And we can wait

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:02:31 · ≈ 10:02 AM

until we have perfect information either so it really is all about that balance. Supervisor Adam?

1:02 – 1:099 turns

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:02:40 · ≈ 10:02 AM

I'm not gonna impugn the media as being wrong. Let some other people do that, but they have to be accurate enough. There's a balancing act that you have to do in turn. You can't have Nixles going off in Orchid because then nobody wants to pay attention to them and so You have to go through a process of evaluating what you think the reasonable risks are, and then put the next alert out or all the alerts. You can't just go put something on Facebook and That's just not accurate and it doesn't get to the right people at the right time.

And they can't just rush in, I don't think it's reasonable to expect our safety personnel to be rushing into that kind of activity without some review and consideration and maybe some prediction and some good luck frankly. Because you guys aren't gonna get it right all the time, because the fire may move in a different direction than you're anticipating. And you may have evacuated to wrong place at some point and for that I'm not gonna be issuing recriminations. Because I expect y'all The best ways you know how and if it turns out that wasn't the best thing, you can do a post game show on it. But I know that you guys are acting in your best capacity that you know how every minute of every day. So if it's not a perfect result, I don't think you should be crucified.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:04:47 · ≈ 10:04 AM

And I don't disagree with either of those points, I just think that there is the need for that post-game wrap up. Of course it's always easy to have perfect vision and hindsight but it also is part of our learning process to keep on doing a better job. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:05:08 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Thank you. I think the overwhelming message is, you did a tremendous job all of you and under horrific conditions and we're all grateful for that. The message I take away is one reason you did is again the pre-staging red flag alert. We had all this in place and now the question for me is how do we back that up perhaps to dispatch certainly to everybody Who in Santa Barbara County should have their cell phones ready under red flag conditions. So I think that's the message for me is when we have extremely perilous conditions predicted, we have procedures in place for all of us and it backs up beyond simply on the ground to messaging and people being aware.

When we get the after action report in more detail, what more we can do including citizens themselves to take more responsibility that red flag this is what it means.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:06:17 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Supervisors, I appreciate those comments. Thank you, Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Hartman. And certainly there's no question that all of us want the same thing. We all want to protect the safety of the people of Santa Barbara County to the best of our ability. And that involves taking a long hard look at what happened and reviewing it. There is always room for improvement and we recognize that and we are committed to doing just that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:06:46 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Chair, can I make sure how people get notified? We don't care. We want them to know if they got it from the media that there's something going on maybe not we're glad what we want is to use everything ten years ago they would have only got it from the media We are fortunate now that we have so much technology. So our goal is to make sure we're using our media as a partner, and that we're using all of our agencies and technology to get the word out. And because someone heard it first somewhere, I don't have any ego on that. I just want to get it out so they know. Thank you sir.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:07:23 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Thank you Rob. And just one more thing Sheriff. The other part of this is you had personnel able to visit each one of these homes. You know core area, how many were able to be visited sounds like most if not all. Is that the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:07:40 · ≈ 10:07 AM

case? Yeah we actually got very fortunate in this instance because the actual area that was impacted was fairly contained. It was really the top end of Fairview Avenue and with really no ingress and egress points other than Fairview Avenue and a number of streets that branched off from one circle that came around where near the origin of the fire. So it was a fairly compact area and fortunately we were able to with the assistance of Not only the deputies that were on duty, but people that were called in. And of course our search and rescue team that came out very rapidly and deployed very rapidly as well as the mutual aid that I mentioned earlier. We were able to get that message out in a fairly timely manner and got people evacuated from the immediate area where those fires were burning and the ones that we're most concerned for the potential for it to spread so On balance, I think it was excellent work by the people that were involved.

But as I mentioned there's always room for improvement and we're always seeking that improvement

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:08:50 · ≈ 10:08 AM

I know that's the hairiest and most crucial duty for your personnel is to get up there in the danger zone, and get folks out, and get them notified. So please extend our thanks to them. And I also want to extend a thanks to our CEO who also was evacuated. So I guess it's convenient for you to work. In the place where you're going to sleep, where you just bivouac in the emergency operations center. So I want to thank you for that too from us as well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:09:23 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Thank you Chairwoman.

1:09 – 1:1422 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:09:26 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Okay, we're going to go to the A items. Is there anything that's been pulled from the public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:09:33 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Chair Williams and members of the board, would you like to make a motion on this item to approve recommendations A, B and C?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:09:40 · ≈ 10:09 AM

I will do that but first is there public comment on this? And no request to speak. No requests to speak. Can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:09:47 · ≈ 10:09 AM

I will move items A,B and C.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:09:51 · ≈ 10:09 AM

There is two motions and a second, so let's do roll call. Ms.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:09:58 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Wolfe? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adams? Aye Mr. Lavinino? Aye Mr. Williams? Aye Passes 5-0 Is

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:10:08 · ≈ 10:10 AM

there any items that the public wishes to pull from the A agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:10:12 · ≈ 10:10 AM

No request to speak.

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

Is there any items that supervisors wish to pull from the A agenda? I have A1 pulled. Any other requests to pull? Can I get a motion on the balance of the A agenda?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:10:30 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Second.

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

So this is a motion on all items on the agenda except for A1. Motion and second, please call the roll. Ms. Wolfe?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:10:42 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam? Aye Mr. Lavinino? Aye Mr. Williams? Aye Passes 5-0

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:10:50 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Item A1.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:10:51 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board, item A1 is from the Auditor-Controller in the County Executive Office. The recommendations are regarding year end transfers and revisions of appropriations. This requires a fourth or fifth vote.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:11:06 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Mr. Adam? Yeah I'm looking at number 8, sorry 5668. It's the second page of my book and it's regarding community services, parks division general fund from services and supplies to committed park projects. I'm wondering is this money that is taken from all over the county and spent at Goleta Beach?

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction1:11:50 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Supervisor Adam to the chair, I know that our elected audit controller is in the audience in Santa Barbara and he can speak to this as well. But what this really is there are funds set aside in the 17-18 budget within CSD to address the Gleada Beach issue that work was not done and has yet to be done will be done now in the new current year so this is taking money your board approved last year and moving it forward essentially.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:12:21 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Does Mr. Filotti have anything to say about that to add?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:12:26 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Mr. Filotti is here, he's coming to the podium. Okay.

CommentFrappoProposed · by introduction1:12:35 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Supervisor Adams through the chair. No there's nothing to add. Mr. Frappola's description of the money being rolled over is accurate.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:12:46 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Okay, all right. I appreciate that thank you well, uh, I thought this was new money and um You know, I just wonder how long this is gonna go on and how much are we going to spend ultimately? And So

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:13:04 · ≈ 10:13 AM

I agree, I mean, I think that it'd be one thing if it was money for a solution. In my view this has been pretty clear that this is not money for a solution. It's money to keep on throwing at doing the same thing over and over again that has failed the beach. If it wasn't for the disaster at this point we probably wouldn't even have a beach. Because the beach has eroded over the years, and it's due in no small part to the fact that we're incrementally and And without permission of the Coastal Commission, armoring the entire thing.

So to me the concession to the Enviros of having a section at the west end of the beach I think that's parking lot seven that allows room for the beach to exist is a small concession in the scheme of things if we concede to armoring the rest. I think it helps our permit application if we went to the coastal commission and I just, I don't feel like this is good policy and I won't support it.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:14:23 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Supervisor Adam? Well, I'm wondering what happens to this money if we don't approve this budget adjustment.

1:14 – 1:2219 turns

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction1:14:35 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Supervisor Adam to the Chair, if your board elects not to approve this budget remission that those funds would fall to the general fund and be carried forward into new fiscal year. Okay

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:14:45 · ≈ 10:14 AM

so general

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction1:14:45 · ≈ 10:14 AM

fund?

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:14:46 · ≈ 10:14 AM

County General Fund or Parks General Fund? County General Fund. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:14:54 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Mr. Chair?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:14:56 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Supervisor Wolk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:14:58 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Thank you. It's concerning to re-litigate the issue about what we're doing with the Coastal Commission. We've had this discussion many times, we had a full board hearing on this and there was a vote to move forward. This money was allocated and it would just in my opinion To change direction now would be a substantial change in public policy of where we were going.

And I think we should just move forward as was planned and not change direction right now.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:15:37 · ≈ 10:15 AM

I would just say that we've changed direction at the board on this matter several times in the history of its matter. And I defended your previous stance on this and Don't feel right about approving money for what I think is not only the wrong solution, but really robs the beach. You can't have a Goleta Beach Park without a beach and I don't want to participate in that exercise. Supervisor Adam?

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:16:15 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Well, I'm going to make a motion to deny this transfer and put the money back into the general fund. Because I think we've, this has gone on long enough and if the Coastal Commission wants to retake over the management of this thing, I think they should be able to do that and not just keep sending us bills for large amounts of money.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:16:40 · ≈ 10:16 AM

I'll second, but I don't know if there's going to be votes for you. But I'll second it because I support that. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:16:52 · ≈ 10:16 AM

I would like an update, a reminder of where we were on this issue. I believe we sent it to the Coastal Commission. We requested that it be a five year period. Anyway, it seems to me like we're making a right hand turn or a sharp turn away from where we were going and we still have an opportunity to do what you are suggesting Supervisor Williams in the future.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:17:19 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Supervisor Hartman through the chair, that's absolutely correct. We started the process with the Coastal Commission. We're still in discussion with them about the new revetment that we did put in and taking away some of the parking lot six and seven in the future. And they are also requiring some additional studies 50 year or 100 year retreating studies. So this money was going towards that process and that effort.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:17:44 · ≈ 10:17 AM

I just strongly feel that doing something in five years is five years too late for the beach, and five years too late for the grunion. And five years too late for our responsibilities to balance stakeholders. We've kind of landed on one side of this very hard as a board and I've been asked by the public to take positions on this for 15 years, and I'm just going to stick with where I've been. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:18:16 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Hartman? If I could Mr Chair, this is incredible what is happening right now. But I would, again we've had public hearings on this. I know Mr. Williams you've been involved for 15 years. This is in my district. I would venture to say that my term on this is longer than that having reviewed extensive environmental impact reports and listening to the public and listening to the Coastal Commission.

I'm almost speechless that this is coming forward right now and that what is normally just a routine matter to fund different projects, it would be like me saying I don't want to transfer money for something that is going on in Waller Park that we had already agreed to. This is nothing new, this is something that everyone has been apprised of and yes, I know Supervisor Williams you voted no when we went forward on this but this was a board decision and That if for some reason this does not pass because we need four-fifths vote, and I'll make another motion. But actually, I don't even think I need to because staff will find the money somewhere to pay for what we have already been doing.

had agreed to as a board to do so. If this transfer doesn't go through, there will have to be money somewhere else and by the way for those who think that we're just throwing money at Goleta Beach I always hate to bring this up but I think you should all be aware that the money that comes out of Goleta Beach from our concessions is what pays for a lot of the other parks in the county. In fact between Goleta Beach and the Boathouse Restaurant at Henry's Beach The percentage is probably 80%, if not more, of the concession money that we get that goes to all of the county parks. So to pick on Goleta Beach continuously from this board is really absurd and who does it hurt?

The most vulnerable people in the city of Goleta and in unincorporated areas, and actually in the entire county who depend on this beach for their recreational needs. And to have this kind of conversation come up at this time I think is incredibly unfortunate. So fine if you're going to vote and we're not going to fund it from this pot of money then it will be funded from another pot.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:21:05 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Supervisor Adam. Well, I'm just going to say that it's a cash negative situation all the time we're making about as I recall about $250,000 a year roughly off of that facility and we spend over a million dollars a year

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:21:24 · ≈ 10:21 AM

over the last 10 years We do make about $250,000-$260,000 from the one concessionaire and another $30,000 from the other concessionaires. Over the years I think we did give you figures of what we've spent. But over ten years we've spent 10 million bucks? Okay, you didn't make 10 million bucks. You didn't make anywhere near that. But if I may, we've committed to the Coastal Commission. We did put the revetment in and this is the process to either keep the revetment or take it out. My fear is if we don't continue with this process they may say take it out all together and that's millions just to take it out. I mean we spent about a million dollars to put it in.

If we had

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:22:00 · ≈ 10:22 AM

to take it up- You know what George? The problem is these guys are never satisfied. They keep telling you could put it in and then they want you to take it back out anyway. Yeah, they haven't

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

said that,

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:22:10 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Supervisor. They haven't said that just yet. Yeah, this iteration. I mean, that's the problem with this thing. It just it's like Minuto, you know? The more you chew it, the bigger it gets. So just stop!

1:22 – 1:2921 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:22:26 · ≈ 10:22 AM

I don't know how to have a serious conversation after that one. To me it's just, I feel very strongly this is throwing more money at destroying the beach and I don't want to participate in that.

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction1:22:41 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Supervisors, Chair Williams and supervisors. So I think you've put us in a difficult situation because the past board action was to comply with the Coastal Commission's wishes and do exactly what we've done now whether we agree with the Coastal Commission or not that was the last boards action. In addition Mr. Chapman is correct that then that would leave us a choice of having to take their event but now I would be coming back to you asking you for more money but because this is an issue one thing you could do If you deny this appropriation, the board has not changed its direction to staff to comply. So I would come back to you then at a subsequent meeting for a policy discussion about whether we should comply so I could come back to you with that policy discussion and a further request for money.

That could be an action because really what's on the agenda today is the budget revision. It has a lot of impact obviously but you haven't changed your policy direction to the staff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:23:41 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:23:43 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Gazzani? Chair Williams, just to bootstrap on that I think it would be useful also as you're making a decision whether to take any action on this particular revision to hear from CEO and the department whether any amount of money would allow this to maintain status quo until you could have that more informed discussion agendized separately.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:24:02 · ≈ 10:24 AM

And I'm okay with having that discussion. I mean, I just think that throwing a bone five years down the line after we probably don't have beach anymore is just a little too late. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:24:20 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Well, maybe what we should do is what you suggest. Procedurally I think this is really wrong or we made a decision as a board and now we're not allowing the money to be transferred and that doesn't seem to me the right way but I also remember and maybe we could get an update. We basically if I remember correctly punted to the Coastal Commission and it's possible that they would come back And at that point we would have an additional discussion about those parking lots and about where we could get money to do some additional beach creation there. Mr. Chapman, could you remind me where we were on that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:25:04 · ≈ 10:25 AM

I'm sorry, we're in a discussion. So are you asking? There were several options of creating a beach parking lot seven and parking lot six in terms of phasing it. And I think those were the discussions that we were having with the Coastal Commission. Those would be options that we would be presenting to the Coastal Commission for approval to keep part of that revetment that

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:25:24 · ≈ 10:25 AM

So that's still open, that is still being discussed. We haven't made a final decision on that and Supervisor Williams I would strongly urge you to consider that we have another bite at this apple.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:25:38 · ≈ 10:25 AM

If I could, I appreciate Supervisor Hartman reminding us of that. So this is still a work in progress. And where Supervisor Williams wants to end up, I don't know that that's where we will end up but we're moving in a direction to work with the Coastal Commission and I think it's, I don't know what that saying is pounds penny wise and pound foolish to not move forward with this but If it does, I'm going to suggest that CEO Miyasato rather than. If we bring this back it opens up everything again and basically re-litigates this whole issue. And I would suggest that we find money from contingency or you use your discretion To follow up on the board action that we took and all of the public input that we took from many of our constituents to move this forward.

If we stop now, all of the money and all of the time will have been for naught so we need to keep this project moving. We're very close to the goal post and to not see it through would just be Well, I guess I can't even find the words. So I'm hoping that the board will move this forward and if not, that CEO Miyasato will continue moving forward with previous board direction. Thank you Mr Chair.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:27:19 · ≈ 10:27 AM

I just want to make sure, because there seems to be maybe a little bit difference of what is actually in the permit application. My understanding of what's in the permit application does not include removing the rocks from parking lot seven and allowing that A beach zone and that is only sort of an expected fallback position if we don't get our way. Can you clarify that?

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:27:50 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Sure, Chair Williams, actually those are the options that we are presenting to the Coastal Commission. They're looking for some sort of managed retreat. And those are some of the options we are presenting to them is the removal of parking lot seven and six, to create a beach in that area. So it is part of the

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:28:08 · ≈ 10:28 AM

plan. So explain to me that because that was not the motion made by the board last time. In fact I put that forward as a motion and it failed

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:28:17 · ≈ 10:28 AM

so- I think those are requirements that the Coastal Commission's asking us for plans for managed retreat and that's what we're presenting to them. So that has been

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:28:27 · ≈ 10:28 AM

in correspondence

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:28:30 · ≈ 10:28 AM

right now? With the Coastal Commission. Discussions with the Coastal Commission staff, yes.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:28:34 · ≈ 10:28 AM

And that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:28:35 · ≈ 10:28 AM

is something that you're agreeing to or not? I'm sorry we are going to be presenting it as options for the coastal commission staff to present to the coastal commission Supervisor Hart.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:28:48 · ≈ 10:28 AM

And I believe you're also considering other ways we might fund that, natural resource damages or other things. So let this process unfold, I would beg you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:29:00 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Supervisor Lavanino? Thank you Mr. Chair. I'm just more and I know this is going to shock everybody. I am curious about the process like how did How is this requiring a four-fifths, I understand it's a transfer. But if there was board action and I'm just worried about the next time it happens on my side that I've got a project that gets approved with board action which is tough enough but then if it has to go through, how come it's coming to us as a transfer when we had a board action that allowed it? And why don't we see this like on every project?

It seems like we need three votes, and now all of a

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction1:29:39 · ≈ 10:29 AM

sudden- That's an excellent question. Mr. Filotti can answer that. Mr. Farrell is here too but I'll let Mr. Filotti come to the podium. Mr

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:29:48 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Filotti is coming down

1:29 – 1:3810 turns

CommentFrappoProposed · by introduction1:29:53 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Supervisor Lavinino through the chair. This requires a four-fifths vote because it is putting the money into a committed fund balance account, and so part of the County Budget Act requires a four-fifths vote when there's any change in the fund balance of any fund. And so that's the reason it's a four fifths vote as opposed to what could be done during the budget hearings.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:30:21 · ≈ 10:30 AM

So this was, but the last hearing we had on this that directed staff to move forward with this piece of it was outside of the budget. And we had direction from I don't know what the vote was at the time, but there was at least three votes to do that. I'm just trying to figure out under what circumstances. So why doesn't parks just spend it out of non-committed fund balance and it just go out of parks with the three votes that the board gave for direction or four votes, or whatever we had at the time?

Why does it have to go to that committed fund once it had board direction?

CommentFrappoProposed · by introduction1:31:10 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Supervisor Lavinino through the chair. I'm not aware of when the action took place the first time on this issue, if there was any kind of budget revision required at that point in time or if this money was part of the adopted budget for 17-18. So that could be the difference. As far as the reason to put it into a committed fund balance is so that it doesn't fall to unassigned fund balance at the end of the year, but then this is your board committing to put an account to be spent for this specific purpose.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:31:51 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Okay, I'm not. Okay, Mr. Brown?

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction1:31:53 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Supervisor, glad to meet you through the chair. So this really is a budget year and timing issue. So the funds were appropriated in the 17-18 year for a purpose. That purpose wasn't accomplished so those funds weren't expended and so this action would put it into fund balance. Now if it gives you any consolation then to take it out of the fund balance in the current fiscal years now the 18-19 fiscal year but also take a four fist vote.

So if your board was inclined to do this today, the action that's presented today. You have another bite of the apple so to speak with respect to understanding your board's direction and policy and it would take a four fist vote. Now let's say hypothetically your board decided to do something other than what we plan to do in your current board direction. Your board could then move it out of that committed fund balance into Unrestricted fund balance, they use it for some other purpose. But today's action is really a function of crossing the fiscal year line.

It is holding the money aside for the board direction that we currently have and it gives you one more bite before you then appropriate that money into the current fiscal year, now the 18-19 fiscal year if your board chooses to change direction.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:33:18 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Okay, after hearing all that I'm still very confused. But you know, I always assumed that when we had a policy call on the board and we voted to move forward on a project to fund something, that automatically then happened. And I understand since it didn't happen in that fiscal year and has to be transferred over a fiscal year that added another vote. And really, to me that's kind of a technical way to allow a change. And it's good that somebody found that technicality.

I'm not one that would hang my hat on that and whether I agree with it or I don't agree with it got three votes. And I just know that this is going to be used, I see this all the time happen at the federal level where somebody's using the rules to their advantage. However then when things flip you gotta also accept what happens on your end so. All right, so I personally would rather if we're going to make a policy call like this to rather have it come back and weigh the merits in the entire thing instead of holding up the transfer.

Supervisor Adkins. All right, look

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:34:38 · ≈ 10:34 AM

here's the deal if I thought this was going to be over You know, if I thought this was the last time you were going to ask us for money for this and you were going to have the permit and everything is going to be permanent and all that, I would just support it. But, you know, it's not. It never is. And they change their mind and then they tell you to go do more studies and then you come back and say well I've got another half a million to do another study And you know, if you would take an excavator out there and spend a half million taking out the rocks at least you'd be done. And then somebody else has a decision whether they want to protect all the utilities that are going to be imperiled by the loss of the park.

So we keep getting entrained in this discussion over whether we're going to allow the park to be lost when I think the park is the ramparts for the utilities and California 217. And I think somebody else should have this discussion and not us, because I'm just tired of it. And I just see us getting worked over repeatedly and I'm sick of it. So, and you know this is very proper. It's four-fifths for a reason.

That was then and this is now. And now we're on the other side of a huge expensive disaster. And we can talk about, I think it's a legitimate concern to talk about $435,000 and how we're going to spend that. So you know, I think we should have the policy discussion and not spend any more money until the Coastal Commission commits to what actually it's gonna require. When you talk to them demand finality.

This has to be the end. So, Supervisor Adam to the chair. Excuse me just a second Joe. And I don't want to spend any more money until I find out what that is. Go ahead.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:36:47 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Yeah, Supervisor Adam through the chair. I think you know recall that we county had an original 1200 feet of revetment we added another 935 feet and 940 feet. I think the park is protected at this point and the intent is to try to get that permitted but try to get that emergency revetment permitted and that's where we are in this process they are asking us for some additional studies longer-term studies you know what happens in a hundred years well we're not sure so we're pushing back on that

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:37:17 · ≈ 10:37 AM

That's the ridiculous part of this thing. And that to me, that shows just their lack of good faith. I mean why don't they ask us for a study of what's going to happen in 1,000 years?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:37:30 · ≈ 10:37 AM

I think our pushing back is going to help but I think this could be the finality of it except that if parking lots 6 and 7 were agreed that has to be removed, that could add some additional cost in terms of creating that beach. But other than that, Well, I'm not sure there's any other revetment needed for Goleta Beach at this point. But my fear is if we don't go through the process without this funding, they just may say you're not adhering to any of the permit processes and just take it out. They may require us to take it out which will be another 900,000 or so a million to take out.

So I mean, we're treading in kind of dangerous waters I think but that's a coastal commission issue.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:38 – 1:4418 turns

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:38:17 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Should not be lost on the Coastal Commission and I think that you should be able to take from this discussion that we're sort of at the end of the rope. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:38:26 · ≈ 10:38 AM

certainly can

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:38:27 · ≈ 10:38 AM

convey that to them,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:38:28 · ≈ 10:38 AM

yeah? And I'm sure they would watch this and they would know. Yeah.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:38:36 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Being super trusting in Mr. Gerard is because sort of the comments seem to hint that Mr. Adams gonna get his way, this is gonna be the amount of money and then it's gonna stop. But I'm going to get my way, which is actually going to take a little more work. And for my purposes if we're not solving the problem then I'm with Mr. Adam that we should stop but if we could solve the problem Then I'm okay with spending some money, I just want it to actually help.

And I felt like our previous direction was not helping but I think Supervisor Hartman is the recipient of some very excellent staff work and may have the motion from last time. So Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:39:31 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Well, what I have before me is the minutes and we did say to go forward to the Coastal Commission and try to permit the emergency. But then we additionally had a motion to reach out to the various easement holders and interested parties to participate in stepping this back over time because We all understand that there's sea level rise and that we need to do something. And so, that process is still unfolding and actually Supervisor Wolf made the motion I think it was seconded by let's see Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Williams was the only one who voted no on that but I think that is your goal Supervisor Williams is to get the broader look and I'm with you on that but If you don't get the money to get the permit, then we become not a credible partner.

So please let this unfold and I'll give this to our CEO so she can look at that too.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:40:41 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Mr. Gazzani? Chair, I think you've been talking about this among yourselves and with staff but one of the issues you have is as you start looking at the upcoming budget build for future years, there's a way Do this through majority vote or to take care of any project through majority vote with enough granularity in the budget. But that comes with it, other issues make the budget build much more complicated and restrict your ability to move money around. I would just caution that if you have a couple things that are in front of you right now one is the year end close out that Mr. Fretwell and Mr. Floddy alluded to. And the second is just if you're going to take a different approach to building the budget for future years by having less, By having less flexibility with these adjustments and moving money in and out of funds.

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction1:41:31 · ≈ 10:41 AM

And just one more thing, Chair and Supervisors. As Mr. Frapwell said, good or bad this action is asking to move this money that was unspent to Parks committed fund balance. You're going to have to have a four-fifths vote to take it out of the committed fund balance. And so that's why he was saying that there can be another policy discussion. We could figure out where we are at the Coastal Commission but before Park spends this money, it will have to come back to you for a four-fifths vote to take it out of committed fund balance. So you do have another chance to have this policy discussion.

And I would just hope that for our process and how we move with our departments, I don't want departments now after hearing this discussion trying to finagle and do things that we wouldn't normally do to avoid the kind of consternation we're facing today.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:42:25 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Supervisor Atkins?

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:42:27 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Does anybody recall if this thing was supposed to come back one more time prior? Cuz we're thinking that it was supposed to come back and I wasn't ready to say that. But see, this is kind of the problem is, and there was a disaster in there and But this should have come back

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:42:55 · ≈ 10:42 AM

more timely. Supervisor, it is going to come back to you. We can't do anything without the board approval and we've told, and the Coastal Commission staff knows that. So whatever conditions they put on this project, we have to come back to you to get approval. We're not moving without board approval on it, absolutely.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:43:12 · ≈ 10:43 AM

And I hear you and people I trust are giving me good advice here. Not trusting about this particular item because there seems to have been so much momentum in this project that predates Mr. Chapchian in the department, where it's just seemed to be that is something that is just the department is wedded to no matter what the Coastal Commission says, no matter what the board says. And so I guess I'm going to go along with it today as a matter of trust but I half expect that we're not going to hear about it again until the permit's done and And you somehow convinced the Coastal Commission to move forward without any concessions. But I will go with it today,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:44:02 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Mr. Lavanino? Well then, I'll go ahead and make a motion that we move this item and with the idea that staff come back to us obviously before The money's expended with the strategy, with the Coastal Commission discussions that you've had with Coastal Commission staff.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:44:22 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Can I second?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:44:23 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Absolutely and

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:44:24 · ≈ 10:44 AM

we'll come back with an update too in between so maybe. So there's been a substitute motion made. There was an original motion but the substitute motion if there is four-fifths would obviate the original motion. There's a motion and second on the substitute motion. Please call the roll.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:44:42 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Ms. Wolfe Excuse me, aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adam? No. Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Mr Williams? Aye Passes 4 to 1

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:44:54 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Is there any public comment on items not on the agenda?

1:44 – 1:497 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:44:58 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Chair Williams members of the board we have one request to speak from Deb Andrews

CommentDeb Andrews I'mProposedself-stated1:45:09 · ≈ 10:45 AM

Was actually closed session The labor negotiations on your agenda, my concern as many. Pension deficits and my name's Deb Andrews I'm from Mission Hills And video arraignments, and of course the funding issues, the budget issues. Government exists for health and safety of its citizens, number one. Citizens don't pay union dues. Citizen services are increasingly being reduced. Video arraignments impact citizen liberty and freedom.

These citizens have lost their freedom. They should not be denied any remaining rights. Pensions are moving government toward bankruptcy. It's not sustainable. Debt is socialized. Socialism is adolescent communism. It's important to note all unions are interconnected and international. 20 years ago, union leadership took the anti-communist clause out of the Union Constitution by unanimous vote.

Communism is inconsistent with our state and federal constitution. Citizens should be aware the government union drafts laws and rules. I've had the opportunity to be at the table, I've seen how it works. Whenever they have a seat at the table they control the vote. They make their position known. When you are presented with options, I implore you to first determine does it serve the citizen or does it serve the machine running California into the ground?

I urge you to pause union contracts, grandfather benefits and alter them for new hires. Decisions should be made on behalf of citizens not labor contracts. I have time for what I came for. I was at Lompoc Valley Medical Center and overwhelmed while eating breakfast in the cafeteria by the chemical odors, it was so strong and burning, I opened an exterior door. The chief operating officer was notified, came closed the door and dismissed my concerns which got my interest. And I talked with environmental services and the engineer they were not familiar with what air purification is used in that facility kind of alarming. I heard that the continuing care center has a large population with pneumonia.

What you smell is particulate in the air. Particulate has a positive association with many cancers, heart disease and lung disease. I've asked what they use for air purification, preferably HEPA and activated carbon. I have not received a response. The engineer didn't know and there's been no information. I urge you to ask that question. Are you funding a quality care facility or facilities?

Or are you funding a health hazard? Very important. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:48:24 · ≈ 10:48 AM

That concludes public comment.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:48:28 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Supervisor Adam. Just a question for the CEO, do we fund Lompoc Hospital?

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction1:48:36 · ≈ 10:48 AM

We do not.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction1:48:37 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Yeah that would be news to me.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:48:43 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Disagree with some of the sentiment of the speaker. I do think that however equating unionism with communism is really Too far and does with disrespect to the many men, union men and probably some union women that perished in the Vietnam and Korean Wars. And I just think it's not okay. But I agree that there are other issues. We'll take up D1.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:49 – 1:555 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:49:29 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board. I believe we did have a request to pull D5 out of order this morning and hear that as our first departmental item from the probation department? Is

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:49:42 · ≈ 10:49 AM

there a request to take up D5? Sure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:49:58 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board. We're going to hear item number five from probation as a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a juvenile justice data presentation.

CommentTanya HeitmanProposedself-stated1:50:12 · ≈ 10:50 AM

Good morning, Chair Williams and supervisors. I'm Tanya Heitman, Chief Probation Officer and thank you for accommodating the request because I need to travel later this afternoon. I want to express my appreciation for the opportunity to update you on developments in our local juvenile justice system. The information that Deputy Chief Kim Sheehan and Manager Karen Milligan will be presenting today is the result of many months of work auditing cases, comparing juvenile data and exploring appropriate policy and procedural changes.

Although the information that prompted us to launch this effort was concerning, I'm pleased to be able to report that the staff within our juvenile and institutional divisions have made such significant strides that we've turned around the trends for a number of key indicators. In a relatively short amount of time, we've been able to ensure that our resources are being used more appropriately. And we've implemented additional opportunities for community-based services that will assist in diverting youth from incarceration.

Although we still have a tremendous amount of work ahead of us, with the recent appointment of Deputy Chiefs Sean Small and Holly Benton. We now have a complete executive team that will be able to continue this important work while also freeing Deputy Chief Sheehan up to return to the important initiatives that we're launching in the adult division. Today is an opportunity to celebrate the accomplishments already achieved and officially hand off the effort to Deputy Chief Small and Benton.

Kim and Karen have done an amazing job on both the data analysis, as well as the juvenile plan that was approved by the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. I want to acknowledge them for taking such an enormous project at a challenging time. And with that, I want to turn the presentation over to them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:52:01 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Thank you chief. The field of juvenile justice has evolved significantly in the past decade through the utilization of evidence-based practices and increased transparency and reliance on data to inform decision making. More recently, both at the national and state levels, experts in juvenile justice reform such as the Annie E Casey Foundation and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention have indicated that best practices in juvenile probation rest on three fundamental principles.

One, reducing probation caseloads by diverting a greater share of cases from the juvenile court system. Two, redesigning probation into a more strategic and effective intervention for the higher risk youth. Three, ensuring that the interventions we refer to youth and their families too have a rigor of research supporting their effectiveness. With the launch of Renew 22 and its focus on transformational strategies, leadership changes within the probation department. And new perspectives it became apparent that in many realms the Santa Barbara County Juvenile Justice System of Care has not kept step with state and other county trends and strategies.

Statewide, the number of youth in the juvenile justice system is down 42% since 2013. And youth entering juvenile halls have decreased 14% since 2015. Santa Barbara County was not experiencing these same trends. In August of last year, the Probation Department embarked on a comprehensive county comparison data mining and analysis project. This process included comparing various data elements of our local juvenile justice system with four other counties that were selected for proximity, demographic similarity and progressive practices.

Additionally, the project encompassed a comprehensive review of all 597 youth who at the time were under supervision of the department. The first phase involved collecting the data from comparison counties to better understand our local trends and for early identification of areas needing further exploration. This phase also included internal focus groups to better inform and direct our efforts.

Next, our team mined data existing in our case management system and within each of our case files of the youth under our supervision. This included demographic information, geographic distribution, types and locations of offenses, ways in which youth entered the justice system, factors that contributed to their arrest and subsequent legal adjudications, and decision points within our department and their potential impact.

Through this analysis, we have identified opportunities to inform our practices. This project has been shared with numerous stakeholders including the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Commission, the South Coast Task Force on Youth Safety and our juvenile justice partners to help identify and prioritize strategies to positively impact the trends.

1:55 – 2:083 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:55:07 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:55:07 · ≈ 10:55 AM

mic. I'm new to this. This graph represents the national, state and county violent crime rate. The teal bar is Santa Barbara County while the other two lines represent the national and state trends through 2016. The FBI Uniform Crime Report will be released again this fall for 2017 and collects the number of offenses that come to the attention of law enforcement for violent and property crime. As you can see, Santa Barbara County has continued to remain below the national and state rate for violent crime.

Likewise, the property crime rate in our county also remains below the national and state level. Having this baseline was an initial first step to determine if crime trends are similar in Santa Barbara County. They are in fact lower by comparison. Through our data mining, it became apparent that we had substantially more juveniles under supervision by our probation department than did other counties. As Kim mentioned, comparison counties were selected for proximity, demographic similarity and progressive practices.

Here, we looked at the number of all youth in the county aged 10 to 17 and what percentage of those youth were under some type of probation supervision. You can see here that when compared to similar and adjacent counties 1.5% of all youth in Santa Barbara County were under supervision at the time of this snapshot in August of last year Also noteworthy, in 2014 while other counties began a decline and bringing less youth into the juvenile justice system and diverting lower level crimes. Our department began to trend upward which continued through the 2016-17 fiscal year.

There was some input that perhaps our overall county youth population was growing during that period at a faster rate than other counties. We examined and subsequently determined we did not have a disparate increase in youth of that age span. Through various targeted approaches, we have now reduced the percentage of youth under probation supervision to 1.1%, bringing our rate closer to our comparison counties.

Opportunities exist in the juvenile justice system for numerous lower level or diversion options prior to the most restrictive intervention, which is wardship under court jurisdiction. This slide demonstrates the continuum of available options. Our initial data mining and comparison indicated our county tended to move youth more quickly through the continuum and did not readily utilize the lower level options as often as comparable counties.

Once declared a ward of the court, the possibility of entering into an institution or risk of being removed from the home for non-compliant behaviors which in and of themselves are not a public safety issue is greatly increased. The unintended consequence can result in the increase of the juvenile's risk level through contact with the more criminally sophisticated and destabilize both the youth and family.

Here, the TL Bar comparing fiscal year 16-17 reveals that Santa Barbara had only 13% of its youth on some level of diversion. With 87% supervised on the most restrictive intervention of court wardship. By comparison other counties examined had as much as 40% of its youth on some type of diversionary supervision. Once declared a ward of the court, the possibility of entering into a detention facility is greatly increased. Research by the Annie E Casey Foundation's Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative shows that placement into locked detention can cause young people serious harm both immediate and long term. Detention disrupts schooling and the experience inside detention facilities can exacerbate symptoms for youth with serious mental health problems or history of trauma or abuse.

Over the long term, youth who spend time in custody are less likely to complete high school, less likely to find employment and more likely to suffer mental health problems than comparable youth who are not detained. Knowing that the research entering detention facilities can cause young people serious harm, both immediate and long term. We wanted to examine the average daily population or ADP in juvenile halls by county.

As a point of reference, the brown boxes contain each county's population of all youth age 10-17 in fiscal year 16-17. Santa Barbara County's juvenile hall population was higher than comparison counties including those with larger youth populations. One of the immediate strategies was to ensure appropriate youth were detained, which has positively influenced our juvenile hall population.

Not only has the population declined, we are also ensuring that the youth that present as the greatest risk to themselves and the community are detained pending evaluation and appropriate disposition. In March, we hit a low of 29 detained youth, and as of today, our hall population is 34.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:00:03 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Here, we have highlighted a few of our most significant early findings. We learned that we had a substantial number of youth declared wards of the court for misdemeanor offenses that could have been considered for some type of diversionary option. This included youth that were low risk to recidivate and some youth whose behavioral problems were rooted in abuse and neglect, trauma, mental health, and or family crisis including some that may have been better served by other systems.

Additionally, the one day snapshot revealed a high percentage of misdemeanor citations were generated on school campuses. And this data in conjunction with our education partners will need further review. A request for higher level of court intervention on misdemeanor offenses was often driven by parents. It is clear that additional resources are needed for families including educating parents of the possible negative implications of bringing lower risk youth into the justice system.

A review of our juvenile institutions indicated some change was needed specific to the age and the behaviors of the youth that led to their episodes of incarceration. Our overall review of juvenile hall detentions indicated that youth aged 14 or under were being detained, and on our snapshot day 20% of the youth in juvenile hall were of this age category. Safety issues may require the removal of this age youth from the community. However, increased caution and a focus on expedited release to avoid early overexposure. And the negative effects of incarceration is even more important with our youngest population.

The susceptibility being negatively influenced and the ability to be affected by trauma associated with incarceration is enhanced in this aged population. Inconsistencies were identified as to system responses to behaviors that were not criminal, but rather non-compliant with the terms of probation supervision. One third of the youth at the time of our snapshot were in custody for these technical type violations.

New staff guidelines have focused the use of juvenile hall as a sanction for youth behaviors that present as a contemporaneous risk for self harm or as a risk to the community. Further, the development of a response matrix is in progress. This will promote a uniform approach that is based on risk and the use of evidence-based interventions that are shown to positively affect behavior change.

Additionally, these concerns relative to age and seriousness of behavior were also seen at the Los Prieros Boys Camp. 14% of the camp youth were 14 years of age or younger and over half of the youth in the boys camp were serving a commitment for a misdemeanor offense as their most serious sustained crime type. The strategies previously mentioned are also being deployed at the camp to promote more objective and consistent use of incarceration for our highest risk youth.

Through our data mining process, it became apparent that we needed a newer and more comprehensive evidence-based tool to provide an objective assessment. And to also differentiate and individualize our approach with the youth. One that could provide a wider span of criminogenic risk in needs domains so we could tailor interventions and responses to each youth and their family.

After reviewing tools utilized throughout the state, we have narrowed to two options and will be selecting and Our new tools soon. One of our first strategies deployed early in this calendar year included objective criteria for the booking of youth into juvenile hall, for probation violation behaviors not amounting to new crimes. Quality assurance mechanisms were rolled out to ensure that criteria being used for youth recommendations for camp commitments were consistent throughout the county.

A target population now includes older youth, those that represent as a community safety concern. Youth not appropriate to receive services in the community and those requiring removal from their home for an extended period. We have provided further direction to our staff regarding the review and consideration of the use of diversionary options with a focus on community safety when moving youth further into the justice system.

We continue to review our internal practices and those of our community providers, to eliminate the exposure of lower risk youth through those that are presenting as medium to high risk to recidivate. We have launched a complete juvenile justice program inventory project collecting from community organizations and from our staff programs that our youth and families are being referred to. And determining if those programs are evidence based interventions designed to reduce recidivism and other criminogenic risk factors.

Further, all programs in the coming year funded by the Youthful Offender Block Grant or the Juvenile Justice Crime Prevention Act are evidence based, family focused and culturally and gender responsive. A cognitive behavioral intervention reasoning and rehabilitation for youth was specifically selected as it has a separate and distinct curriculum for girls and young women and will be provided throughout the county.

So where do we go from here? Our next steps include launching strategies to positively influence our trends. Our community supervision caseloads are being redesigned to allow for smaller case loads of the youth that pose the greatest degree of risk to the community and have the highest need. This will allow our officers to have sufficient time and resources to be proactive in their case management.

Also with the assistance of the Burns Institute, we have designed a response and incentives matrix that will help with providing guidance and increasing department wide objectivity by our officers when addressing behaviors By youth that are both non-compliant and positive behaviors. We will continue to leverage the tremendous amount of data this mining project has produced to assist us in our strategies moving forward. We plan to again examine our youth under our supervision and determine what progress we have made, what work still needs to be done, and any strategies that need to be deployed or modified.

We will also provide additional training to our external stakeholders. The juvenile providers will be joining the standing quality assurance committee that our adult providers have been part of for several years. This will aid in maintaining fidelity to the new evidence based interventions being deployed. Internally, further training will be provided for our juvenile officers on supervision strategies under the risk needs and responsivity model. And existing research that has become available in adolescent brain development and trauma informed approaches to case management.

Again, similar to the adult processes in place, we are instituting a standing work group. A subcommittee of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council. This committee will oversee and monitor the implementation of the strategies that we've outlined and report progress back to the council. These identified strategies resulting from our data mining and comparison efforts are ambitious, and yet fundamentally essential. When fully implemented they will transform juvenile probation in Santa Barbara County into a focused intervention that promotes personal growth, positive behavior change, and long term success for youth who pose significant risks for serious offending.

Our overarching plan is a three prong approach. Through the reduction of the size of the probation population by diverting more youth from the court system to community resources, designing our caseloads to focus on the highest risk and need. And ensuring that the interventions we refer youth and their families to have significant research supporting their efficacy. We will provide a strong comprehensive framework to enhance public safety. This investment in our youth.

Involved in the justice system is an investment in our future. I'd like to thank all of our staff that have assisted in this data mining analysis project, and our officers for their extremely hard work and their investment in deploying these strategies. Thank you for the opportunity to share this information with you today, and we welcome any questions or comments.

2:08 – 2:137 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:08:09 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Questions or comments from the board? Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:08:17 · ≈ 11:08 AM

First of all, how long did it take you to do this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:08:20 · ≈ 11:08 AM

study? Supervisor through the chair, we began our data mining project at the end of August when we pulled our first data. I would say by the beginning of November, we had developed our strategies. Early January, we launched our initial strategies and have been monitoring it and making adjustments the last four or five months. I have to say,

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:08:43 · ≈ 11:08 AM

I think this is one of the best examples of applied research that I've seen in the public sector. I think this is just absolutely superb. It really lays out a whole framework for us and allows us then to delve in and see different points where we could intervene. And I just think you've done a fabulous job, and I think this is kind of the example when our CEO says we want audits, I think this is in part what you're talking about.

How do we do our job more effectively and focus our resources where they're really needed? I had a question about diversion, and I wonder if you could just walk me through a case example. How a youth would come to you? Just help me understand how this is applied once something happens, shoplifting or whatever. Walk me through it so I can better envision it. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:09:47 · ≈ 11:09 AM

to the chair, absolutely. Youth can come through two different ways as an out of custody matter or as an in custody matter. First let's take the out of custody matter this would be the type of crime committed where the youth receives a citation to appear before probation officer. The youth and the family would come in to see us. We would review any history we may have with them, and then based on certain statutorily mandated guidelines as to types of crime, age of youth, prior contacts with the system. We could either at that time choose to refer the matter onto the district attorney for review for filing or if they did meet certain requirements then handle what we call typically informally which is a diversion option. And then as that one slide demonstrated, there are several.

Options that are less invasive than court wardship. If a minor comes into juvenile hall, typically they're held it's a more serious matter and they would have a detention hearing before the court and at that time the district attorney would review file petition and then we would move forward on doing a social history of that youth, a more extensive report and then provide a court with a recommendation.

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

Well, for my part I've seen your staff in action presenting and discussing this with other jurisdictions. It's great to see that. Just it stands out most organizations do their way of doing things based on momentum, tradition and practice. It's very seldom for any organization in government or business to actually do this level of introspection about what we can do better and is what we're doing the right thing to do. Because some of these numbers look weird, and that's I think really commendable. It says a lot about all those involved.

Is there any request to speak? Absolutely. Supervisor Wolk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:12:02 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Thank you, Mr Chair. I couldn't agree more with what you and Supervisor Hartman said. This department and in particular this analysis by Kim and Karen has been outstanding. I've served on the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Committee for almost, well my entire time. And I continue to be impressed by the department and the juvenile division in particular but these two women as you mentioned took a really hard look into practices of our county and have come up with incredible recommendations for the benefit of our youth.

I think the combination of their research and working with our community partners for those youth who are not incarcerated in Juvenile Hall or at Los Prados is quite outstanding. You guys are just incredible, and I think this is something that to take a look internally into what can be improved not just financially but based on evidence is really crucial. So I thank you for all of your work and thank you.

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

2:13 – 2:1812 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:13:33 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Chair

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:13:33 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Williams? Supervisor Lavinio and I just want to check if there's any public comment. No

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:13:39 · ≈ 11:13 AM

requests.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:13:40 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Okay, go ahead and then we'll go to Supervisor Lavinia.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:13:44 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Thank you Chair Bones. I also wanted to thank Chief Heitman for her vision. This was a decision she made internally to allocate resources to help us move this effort forward and this was her leadership that brought this to the table and made this possible so I want to make sure we included her in that, thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:14:03 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Smart move, smart move, very wise. Thank you and part of that too is I also want to. I think this is just another example for me of what Renew 22's trying to do, is I appreciate the fact that Chief Heitman didn't come back and ask for more people or for more money. It's let's figure out a way to do something different that works. And so it's breath of fresh air, really appreciate that. So my main question is, so I totally get the idea of diverting youth and moving them into more community resource for less violent.

And I think it's something we've tried to do at the mental health arena also is not just taking the patient, putting them in the most acute care right off the bat. The problem on the mental health side is we really don't have those other resources to move them too. So my question is have we coordinated with these CBOs and others that hey you're going to get a new influx of youth that we're going to try to divert your way and how are they able to respond to that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:15:13 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Supervisor through the chair, we do. We have four new juvenile contracts and providers with CATA, Good Sam, Community Solutions Inc., and we will be launching new interventions this coming year that are evidence-based. And so we did allocate our resources to fund those programs. And on this side with behavioral wellness, we are meeting with them to look how we can better design our mental health partnership and improve our re-entry. I think that's an area of our next steps would be looking at a re-entry system. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:15:53 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:15:54 · ≈ 11:15 AM

I just had a question, what jumped out at me is the families. And they're exasperated and just take this kid because I can't handle it. So what are we doing and what more should we be doing to help parents in that situation?

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

Supervisor through the chair, that's a really good question. That was something that came forward when we looked at our internal how we developed our case plans and what resources were available so we are funding two new family programs this year one is strengthening families it's an evidence based curriculum behavior wellness currently uses it it's a multi-family intervention it will help working with the youth in the families Separately and then bringing them together at the end.

And then also we're funding multi-dimensional family therapy, MDT which is a intensive home based program and we'll be directing that towards families to keep families together for youth that might be at risk of removal into placement. But this is just a first step, we realize we need to move further this year and allocating more resources. And also tapping what's out in the community for our families so definitely it's an ongoing process.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:17:18 · ≈ 11:17 AM

One more question. Thank you, I was much influenced by Dr. Burke Harris when she was here talking about adverse childhood experiences. It sounds like your trauma informed approaches is following up on that trying to identify when behaviors stem from some kind of a traumatic experience. Could you elaborate a little bit more on what you're doing there?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:17:44 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Supervisor through the chair, we're approaching it from two different ways. One would be training for our staff and we're currently in negotiations with providers who have expertise in the trauma and also in the new research for adolescent brain development and response to punishment and consequence and how that all pulls together when someone has been exposed to trauma.

The second portion of that is, along with training for our staff would be training for our providers. Not all of them have their staff going through those type of trainings and we also are going to be utilizing our juvenile risk assessment tool for a screening tool for our staff on our first contact to be able to identify those traumas and then make appropriate referrals.

2:18 – 2:2617 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:18:37 · ≈ 11:18 AM

I also want to compliment the chief. Part of having an organization that's willing to question itself and look at other practices is empowering, both allowing and empowering this bunch of young Turks here to do their work. And that's an example of leadership so want to thank you for that. There's no request to speak and is there a motion to receive and file?

And determine that this is not a project under CEQA. Janet, would you like to make the motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:19:14 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair I'll move this item. Second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:19:20 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:19:22 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adam? Aye Mr. Lavagnino? Aye Mr. Williams? Aye Passes 5-0

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:19:35 · ≈ 11:19 AM

So I am looking at folks in the room, and I do try to move around items to save the county money. So why don't we take D3?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:19:51 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board, item three is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the response for the 2017-18 grand jury report entitled Mandatory Overtime in the Sheriff's Office.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:20:04 · ≈ 11:20 AM

And I will note that if anyone is waiting and I check, there's three people in the audience over in Santa Barbara. I don't know if it's for this item but the development fee ordinance we will take up after closed session. Meaning the cannabis development fee ordinance. Depends how fast Jeff is.

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction2:20:30 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Mr. Chairman, members of the board, so before you today is our proposed response to the grand jury with respect to a report they did on the mandatory overtime in the Sheriff's Department's office. You should have in front of you also are revised. We did make a modification to our proposed response and I'll talk about that in a moment. You should have that in front of you but we'll talk more details.

The report was published in May, and the grand jury released their report called Mandatory Overtime in the Sheriff's Department which contains results of their review of the overtime policy in the Sheriff's Department. The Board of Supervisors was named as responder to findings 2, 3 and 4, as well as recommendations 2B, 3D, 4A and 4B. Under finding two, which was recruiting is a low priority in the Sheriff's Department.

Our proposed response for your board is that you disagree partially with the finding. This is based on the sheriff and human resources departments having worked together to ensure that recruitment is a high priority and recruitments are conducted as fast and efficiently as possible to identify qualified candidates. Recommendation 2B

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:21:43 · ≈ 11:21 AM

here

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction2:21:43 · ≈ 11:21 AM

on the screen.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:21:43 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Just before you move on, Supervisor Adam has something on this slide. Just a procedural

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:21:49 · ≈ 11:21 AM

question. When we vote on this is there I mean what are we voting on? Are we going to approve that statement or?

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction2:22:04 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Supervisors, you're approving the response to the court. So you're basically approving our response which includes these findings and so if you have a disagreement with the findings we can have that discussion with the board. The board can change any of the responses that staff has provided.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:22:30 · ≈ 11:22 AM

I kind of wish that I'd have been consulted on this. And, you know, I don't know how you would do that given the Brown Act but, you know, I hate to see you have to walk this back and I don t know if I'm the only one who feels this way but I think this has been a chronic problem and I don' t disagree with recruiting has been a low priority for the Sheriff's Office so Wherever we go from there, if anybody agrees with me I guess we can try and walk it back.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:23:03 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Well, I agree that it has been in the past but I'm bolstered by a lot of the moves that the department has made and a lot of the suggestions that the department has made so I could see how the board disagrees partially with the finding would reflect You know, reality and our opinion which is that there's been a lot of work in the last two years. And especially in the last six months to try to figure out another path.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:23:39 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Well I would agree with that but I don't know what period of time the grand jury was really reviewing and it's a little hard what their information was, obviously because that's all secret. But I don't think they're crazy and that's sort of what...I don't want to tell them no you're wrong You know what I mean? Because they've done their work and that's the conclusion that they came to.

And depending upon the time period that they were reviewing, which probably was at least six months ago I don't know how fresh their information has been and I know that this has been a problem. And the sheriff and I have discussed this on a couple of occasions, my feelings on this subject. And so I'm kind of uncomfortable telling them you're crazy, this is not a problem.

In any respect, you know what I'm saying? Because if they came to this thing more than six months ago, they'd just be straight up correct. So now that we've got this Santa Maria experiment going and it looks like it's going the right direction, that's one thing. But in the larger scheme of things, it's a pretty fresh development. And so I don't know that they would have known about that in advance of writing this report.

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction2:25:25 · ≈ 11:25 AM

Supervisors, that's a very good point about what information the grand jury had at the time of writing their report. I think typically we would just respond as to what we believe is current situation. You're right, we've been talking about recruitment a long time in the difficulty. Just to remind you, the only choices that we have and to answer the grand jury according to the penal code is to either agree or Disagree wholly or disagree partially. And so when we were coming up with these responses given our information, this is what we concluded but again your board can provide us other direction before we finalize these at this meeting.

2:26 – 2:316 turns

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:26:04 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Well, and maybe that's good enough is to make the observation that maybe their information was accurate at the time that they were doing it. And maybe it's become- Dated now. Dated now and we also have to see the actual numbers go down. I'm not ready to let go of that rope yet because Yeah, I'm not ready to declare

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:26:31 · ≈ 11:26 AM

victory either. Right. But I don't think

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:26:32 · ≈ 11:26 AM

the

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:26:32 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Sheriff is either. They're working

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:26:34 · ≈ 11:26 AM

on it. Everybody's working on it and that's great. I think there's more work being done on it today than there has been since I've been around but we're just getting a little premature on declaring victory. Mr. Frappo please

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction2:26:55 · ≈ 11:26 AM

proceed. Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. So recommendation number two contained in the grand jury's report was that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to have a market survey conducted to determine how recruiting and personnel policies including incentives in the Sheriff's Office compare with the local police forces in Santa Barbara County and the sheriff's departments in other counties.

We've worked to revise this to provide additional clarification from what we had originally submitted to your board. And it's revised as here on the screen, which is that the recommendation has been partially implemented. The County Human Resources Department has completed a salary survey in May 2018, so near the end right before this report came out from the grand jury which reviewed the county sheriff's deputy pay. And the Sheriff's department will work with the county HR to evaluate incentives and recruiting as pertains to comparable agencies in the upcoming fiscal year And compared with other jurisdictions. And the results of these two surveys, essentially will be considered for future improvements and changes to pay and benefits for sheriff's deputies in order to improve recruitment.

So I'll pause there for any board input or questions as it relates to our proposed changes. Please proceed. Under finding number three, the Sheriff's Office has not considered all possible measures that could reduce mandatory overtime requirements in the short term. Our proposed response to this is that the Board of Supervisors disagrees partially with the finding.

As part of the Sheriff's 18-19 budget development, additional measures to address the overtime issue have been developed and communicated to the board during the April workshops and just to further editorialize has been included in the adopted budget that your board approved in June. There are dollars set aside to allow the Sheriff's Department to really make this full-court press on addressing this issue within the department.

Under recommendation 3d, the report stated that the Board of Supervisors direct staff to conduct a comprehensive staffing study in the Sheriff office to provide a clear understanding of staffing requirements shortfalls and costs Our proposed response to this is that a recommendation will be implemented as part of the annual budget process. As part of the budget development process, operational reviews conducted by the department throughout the fiscal year. The issues outlined in recommendation 3D will continue to be studied and discussed between the Sheriff's Department and the CEO's office.

And ultimately being incorporated in our budget recommendations for your board's consideration during upcoming budget cycles. Under finding four, the Jail Operations Division's Transportation Unit is particularly understaffed creating an acute mandatory overtime requirements. In this our recommendation response is that the Board of Supervisors agree with this finding.

We do know this to be an issue. Recommendation 4A stated that the Board of Supervisors direct a near-term assessment of the timeline and costs to the county Of implementing video arraignments of the main jail and the northern branch jail once open, and the impact on custody deputy staffing requirements. Our proposed response is that the recommendation has been implemented.

The county has started the assessment of the requirements for video arraignment as it relates to needed equipment, staffing and related costs at both the main jail and soon-to-be open Northern Branch Jail. And just again anecdotally that assessment of the requirements will also be offset or compared with the potential savings so that'll help make a business case decision for your board.

Recommendation 4B stated that based on the results of this assessment, the Board of Supervisors seek agreement from the courts to implement video arraignments as soon as possible. Our proposed response is the recommendation will be implemented once the assessment as described in recommendation 4A above is completed and if the assessment shows that a video arraignment program can be implemented at a reasonable cost.

So our action that we're requesting of your board today is here on the screen. I won't read that, but it is consistent with what was submitted to your board in our board letter. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. Our HR director, Lori Gentles, is here as well as the sheriff is here should your board have questions of them as well.

2:31 – 2:3816 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:31:50 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Supervisor Lavinia. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Questions or should we go to public? We can go to public comment first. Let's go to public comment first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:32:00 · ≈ 11:32 AM

We have no request to speak.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:32:03 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Well, I'm glad I didn't jump in front of that. I just had a question about the video arraignment. So who all has to be on board for video arraignments? The court's okay with it and then we also have to have our district attorney and public defender, correct? And have all those agreed that this is the right way to move?

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction2:32:20 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Supervisor Lafferty to the chair. It is going to be a discussion that we have and you're right, the participants are the DA, the public defender, sheriff and courts are your primary stakeholders in that decision. And one of the issues that will be focused on this year is bringing that group together and figuring out what that looks like going forward. But just to say everybody's on board with it would be a little premature but it is certainly our effort

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:32:45 · ≈ 11:32 AM

and goal in the upcoming year. I've done the walk through on the jail and seen the area and everything. I just want to make sure that we get that ironed out so that we do have those savings, and we are letting the grand jury know that it's something that we are working on.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:33:06 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Well, again I think that it is good that the grand jury prepared this report. It's obviously a big issue but I also think that you strike the right kind of tone because the sheriff's department has been making what I think is the changes that can help lead to a solution and so I'm okay with Clarifying as Supervisor Adams said that this may have been true at one point, but we disagree that it's true presently.

Partially though I felt like the language struck that balance but if the board wants that additional clarification, I'm okay with that. Supervisor Hartman?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:34:02 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, I can't help but notice or in my own mind reflect on the presentation research we just had and thinking going forward it would sure be nice to have something like that directed to our Our jail population and a clearer sense of how many misdemeanors and how we compare to other counties, etc., etc. So we're sort of piecemealing this with different answers to the grand jury but I don't have a good picture of the overall and it would sure be nice to have that.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:34:38 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Supervisor Adam? Well, I would say that the point is well taken and As I say, they're not crazy. We just have to go with what we know at this point and think that things are being done better than they have in the past and hope for the best in the future.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:35:06 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Sir, are you okay with the

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:35:08 · ≈ 11:35 AM

report

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:35:09 · ≈ 11:35 AM

as written?

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:35:09 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Yes, I will make a motion to adopt staff's recommendations. And

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:35:15 · ≈ 11:35 AM

I will second. Any further discussion? Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:35:21 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a question. Some of our findings overlap with what the sheriff was to respond to and I just am curious, do our findings match those of the sheriffs? Our response, I should say, to the findings. Do they match what the sheriff's responses are or are there any discrepancies?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:35:47 · ≈ 11:35 AM

And thank you, Sheriff,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:35:48 · ≈ 11:35 AM

for sticking with the meeting. Certainly. Supervisor Wolfe to the chair. If we go through the responses, the sheriff's office issued its response to the grand jury on Friday and there are some differences. The overlap areas in particular for Excuse me a second, to be in particular finding too that the recruiting is a low priority for the Sheriff's Office. We responded that we disagree wholly with that notion, that recruitment is and has been one of our highest priorities in the sheriff's office.

We recognize that the men and women who work in the sheriff's office are key to the success of our organization. And for many years, our Human Resources Bureau has regularly participated in recruitment efforts that have heretofore been effective but currently have not been effective just due to the fact that there have been many, many changes. Social condition changes, market changes, It's a competitive process now to hire people for our organization.

And some of those factors have caused us to rethink and change some of our approaches, but never has recruitment been a low priority for the Sheriff's Office. So we disagree wholly with that assessment. In terms of the other area where there was an overlapping recommendation, I think that would be... Can you put that slide back up Jeff? Which one? Yeah so the next one. 2B is essentially a part of that response we did.

The next one would be 5 I think or 3.

2:38 – 2:4317 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:38:11 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Yeah, it's really the findings 2, 3 and 4 that I'm just curious about.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:38:18 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Yeah, our response to finding three is that recommendation 3A has been implemented prior to the publishing of the grand jury's report. The described activities occur every year during the county budget process as part of the January through April budget workshop. The sheriff's office has coordinated with both County HR and the CEO's office to free up additional resources to assist in meeting our anticipated recruiting and hiring needs.

3B also has been implemented. We recently completed a civilianization study that identified assignments and posts that have the potential of being completed by non-sworn personnel, and the budget includes the addition of several new civilian positions and newly developed job classifications that will accomplish this. And a new job classification entitled Sheriff Service Technician has been created and 10 FTEs are scheduled to be funded or have been funded in our In our current budget, recommendation 3C.

Our response was that recommendation 3C will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The available pool of staff in the sheriff's office is too low across the board to consider reassignment of law enforcement staff to the custody operations branch. The staff shortage situation in law enforcement isn't as acute as it is right now in custody. But nevertheless, it's just as critical and we need to manage those resources accordingly.

I

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:40:01 · ≈ 11:40 AM

just needed to know, you don't need to go through the recommendations. Just what did you state in finding number three? Because our finding was we disagree partially. What was your finding or what was your response for finding three?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:40:17 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Our response was the Sheriff's Office disagrees wholly with the finding and that is- Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:40:22 · ≈ 11:40 AM

so okay and how about finding number four Where we say that the board agrees with this finding. What is your, what is the sheriff's response?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:40:38 · ≈ 11:40 AM

To finding four- We were not asked to respond to finding four.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:40:44 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Yeah it says here in the report Santa Barbara County Sheriff needs to respond to findings one two three four and five That had to do with the transportation unit. But regardless of number four, it looks like and I guess this is for county council or Mr. Frapwell. So items are findings two and three. It looks like we have different responses to the grand jury than the sheriff's department.

Is that okay to do? What are the implications of that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:41:34 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Chair and supervisors, under the penal code these are sent separately to the department head and to the board. So it's not required that they overlap entirely. It's the opinion of both bodies separately so the sheriff can have a different opinion than the governing body, the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:41:52 · ≈ 11:41 AM

All right, thank you for that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:41:54 · ≈ 11:41 AM

And if I could just interject-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:41:55 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:41:55 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Mr. Finding four of the notes that I was looking at were some preliminary ones. Finding four is that we disagree partially that the Sheriff's Office concedes that the transportation unit is understaffed just as our other areas of custody operations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:42:19 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Okay good, thank you Sheriff.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:42:22 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:42:23 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Thank you, regarding recommendation 2B and this isn't necessarily for the sheriff I just want to be clear so we'll be getting back Mr. Fropwell a salary study as well as a study of incentives and recruiting I guess strategies That we do compared to other counties, is that our response to the grand jury? We're going to have additional information in the future based on these studies to evaluate our own program.

GuestJanet WolfProposed · by introduction2:42:55 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Supervisor Hartman to the chair. That is correct and that the results of the surveys, both the salary survey as well as the incentive and recruitment surveys is information that your board will have available to it in order to make decisions that are going forward about how we do this better or how we change the current method of how we recruit. So its information that is critical I think for your board to have in figuring out our future path to success.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:43:25 · ≈ 11:43 AM

And then I just had a question on finding number two. Having to do with streamlining the recruiting process, and I just didn't understand this. Changes have been made to civil service rules allowing for a larger number of applicants to be placed on the certified list for sheriff to review. Get that? But then thus eliminating the need for new lists when applicants drop off the original list. I didn't quite understand that so how does the process work? What have we done to streamline it?

2:43 – 2:5012 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:43:58 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Good morning. So a couple of things that we did, Supervisors. The Civil Service Rule 804 pertains to rule of the list and the way it works now is that when you have a recruitment, the department typically gets about one name from a list of ten. And so we changed that process so the department can get everybody that's qualified to the list. The other thing that we did, so that the lists last for so long, six months, nine months, 12 months and people will fall off of that list. One of the things that we did was extend the life of the list so that we would have a constantly a pool of people on the list for the sheriff to select from.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:44:40 · ≈ 11:44 AM

So if I might, we haven't changed the qualifications for recruiting. It's just more personnel strategies and how long the list and how many people we put on the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:44:49 · ≈ 11:44 AM

list. How many people we certify to the department changed? And the life of the list changed.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:44:59 · ≈ 11:44 AM

But it's an opportune time to highlight that over the years, the department has become more tolerant. For instance as I understand it of past like longer than a year or longer than three years marijuana usage. So for all those folks who are reformed potheads who want to give a service Community and country, this is still a great way to do that is joining the Sheriff's Department.

That wasn't the perfect tone, but you know. I gotta say just to head off your criticism of Supervisor Adam, you know I have taken it as part of my cause to have a connection with young people involved in politics and there are a lot of young people out there who want to have a career in some form of public service and they're waiting to do it. But they're stoned while they're waiting?

And part of it is fear over this very issue, because obviously the stats are that 80-something percent of certain generations have at least tried those things. We can't get by without 80 something percent of the population as a recruitment pool. So it's the department made that change, it's good they made that change we should support it. We should just maybe in my view highlight it because not everyone in the public has done so and let me make a further soapbox comment if you're one of those people To make sure that law enforcement is just and as relevant to the community, then there's an even better place to do so than waving a placard. That's useful and that's part of our democracy but being in the department shaping Law enforcement by your participation, in my view is the most powerful way possible.

And so I think there's a lot of need and potential for young people in the department and I just want to put that out there in case any of them are at home watching.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:47:31 · ≈ 11:47 AM

I appreciate your comments, but I don't think we're going to incorporate former potheads into our recruitment strategy. Well you know is it my

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:47:41 · ≈ 11:47 AM

turn yet? Yes. Okay so to evade your verbose attempt to head me off Marijuana use as an occasional or a one time or a couple times thing, that's okay. But people that have been affected by it and that's the thing about marijuana. Nobody knows who's gonna get affected by it. Some people can probably smoke a lot and it won't affect them. And other people smoke very little and it affects them greatly.

So I hope you're not going to lower your standards to the point where we can tell when we get pulled over if we've got that former pothead as a member of our sheriff's patrol deputies. You're not, right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:48:34 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Absolutely not. It's like Cheech and Chong. Our standards are such that, I think the same way. I don't think anybody would want to be operated on by a surgeon or flown in a commercial airplane by a pilot or have a deputy sheriff show up to help them that was a regular current user of marijuana and that is not acceptable in terms of our recruitment but nevertheless- And that

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:49:01 · ≈ 11:49 AM

is not what I was saying. We do recognize exactly what Chair Williams was saying. It's a little mischaracterization of what I was saying.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:49:10 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Well,

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:49:10 · ≈ 11:49 AM

maybe she just let me talk for a stick time. Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:49:15 · ≈ 11:49 AM

I just wanted to highlight what I think you were really trying to get at and that is that working for the Sheriff's Department is really a community service, and I see this at UCSB there's UCIV, the Student Patrol, the CSOs. There's tremendous interest and a salute to Under Sheriff Barney Melekian who teaches there and sees that. We need to do better on our recruiting to bring in more people because I see tremendous interest in the students that I deal with and so we just have to figure out how, in our marketing, how reaching out.

We really can make this understood to be community service and so I'm eager to see how we do that.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:50:05 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Supervisor Lavigno. Thank you, Mr. Chair and I would just say that part B of recruiting is also retention and making sure that we're keeping especially in your department it's we invest a bunch of money into these folks and we just want to make sure that we're keeping the best and the brightest and I know you're implementing some new ways to do that so I just don't want us to forget about that portion of it as well.

2:50 – 2:5511 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:50:36 · ≈ 11:50 AM

So there was no request to speak and we have no further items. Can I get, did we get a motion on this? We have a motion on the table. Roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:50:52 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam? Aye Mr. Larino? Aye Mr. Williams? Aye Passes 5-0 We will take item D1. Chair Williams, members of the board, item D1 is from community services. It's a hearing to consider the fiscal year 2018-19 special tax levy for the county of Santa Barbara Community Facilities District number 2002-1. This is in the Orchard Community Plan and for the County of Santa Barbara Community Facilities District number 2004-1 that's Providence Landing. This is in the third and fourth districts.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:51:31 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Good afternoon supervisors, I think it's afternoon. I'd like to introduce Ryder Bailey our CFO who will do this item and the next

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:51:38 · ≈ 11:51 AM

one as well. Good morning Chair Williams, members of the Board of Supervisors. Today you'll be receiving a presentation on ORCA and Providence Landing Community Facilities Districts special tax levies for fiscal year 2018-2019. The Community Services Department annually coordinates changes to the special tax levy for ORCA and Providence Landing Community Facilities Districts.

For Orcutt CFD with the adoption of this resolution, levies within the CFD will be increased by 3.6%. This is per the CFD's original resolution that the levy is adjusted annually by a Los Angeles Consumer Price Index or 2%, whichever is greater. For Providence Landing CFD, the adoption of this resolution levies within the CFD will remain at $672 per parcel. The same assessment as the prior year, Province Landing CFD has a balanced budget. As such there is no need to increase the levy at this time.

Staff's recommendations are as follows. Receive and file the admin report summarizing the 2018-19 special tax levies. Adopt a resolution levying the special taxes, certifying the list of all parcels subject to the special tax levy including the amount of the tax to be levied on each parcel and direct the clerk or the board to file the certified list with the county auditor. And to determine that this is not a project subject to CEQA.

That is the conclusion of my presentation I'm happy to answer your questions you may have. Supervisor

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:53:12 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Adam. Is there any way that we can connect benefits to these properties separate and apart from other properties in Orkut?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:53:30 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Supervisor Adam to the chair. I'm prepared to speak for the Parks Division, we do have one park and a couple open spaces within the CFD boundaries and this does help offset our costs at those parks. It still requires general fund subsidy for Orcutt Community Park and some of

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:53:46 · ≈ 11:53 AM

the- Right but I'm asking about a differential benefit. So the people that are paying the benefits on this thing are going to the parks. We assume they're utilizing them and so is everybody else, right? I mean there's no admission you don't have to show your driver's license that you live at an address that pays the tax, right? That's correct, Supervisor. So at what point does that become unsupportable? I mean is there any and I understand you're not going to want to speak for the sheriff or fire anybody else but Does anybody know any special benefit that gets conferred on the people that are paying these taxes?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:54:40 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Well, anybody can walk into the Goleta Library and check out a book. And they're not going to say oh you're from Orcutt. That's

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:54:49 · ≈ 11:54 AM

not my issue

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:54:50 · ≈ 11:54 AM

here today. But we're about to hear an item that's the same deal, it's additional taxation that local people have that helps their services but its open access because thank God we don't have any parks or library police right? We just have people can go use the park and

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:55:14 · ≈ 11:55 AM

people can- We have this thing about taxation, especially with special benefit districts like this that have to have, there's rules and they have to have a direct benefit. And so far I've asked several times and not gotten an answer that was really adequate.

2:55 – 3:0016 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:55:40 · ≈ 11:55 AM

I think Supervisor through the Chair, as Ryder stated and we know what we spend there. We have an accounting of the Parks Department not sure about the other departments. It was part of the development process here is part of the agreement or the permitting process to allow the development of this housing. I don't want to say track but it was all part

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

Any further comment or questions? Any requests to speak?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:56:16 · ≈ 11:56 AM

No request to speak.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:56:20 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Can I get a

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:56:21 · ≈ 11:56 AM

motion? Supervisor Adam. If you don't mind, can CEO or County Council because we don't seem to have any sheriff left over in the room here or fire guys, can you represent to me how anybody's getting a special benefit conferred by this or not?

CommentRyder BaileyProposed · by introduction2:56:45 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair, I can speak in regards to the Sheriff's Department. The funds that we have been receiving, we have been using for hardening projects within the, for the Santa Maria Station which has allowed us to provide security fencing for the Sheriff's Department giving us additional storage and provided electronic locks and such for our unit to help keep our personnel safe.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:57:12 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Okay, again Mr. Gazzone is there a special benefit conferred here through the use of that money for that purpose to the houses and businesses that are paying that tax?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:57:27 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Chair and Supervisors I think we've discussed this in prior years under the Community Facilities Act it's not A tight fit on benefits. They're not but for benefits that if you were not paying this tax, you would not get that. That's not the legal requirement on that. So it's a community planning tool that was more in vogue in the 70s and 80s, that area as one way of preventing the general fund from absorbing a cost of a new development. And the standard was set at that time to be not a tight, as we say, a but-for standard. So if you look at an area of the county that might have had reduced sheriff services or library services or recreation services without adding this fee, the fact that you are increasing it from that fee is within the standard and it does not have to be a one for one standard.

Okay, well

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:58:30 · ≈ 11:58 AM

I think I'm not going to be able to support this thing because And I don't understand exactly the standard of judgment. Is it a preponderance of the expenditures are useful for the people, specifically for the people who are paying the tax? Or is it not anything detectable to the people that are paying the tax other than anybody else?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:59:07 · ≈ 11:59 AM

I think the dissatisfying answer is it's not a CRSP standard and the prohibition is on using that money to essentially to supplant funding for service that would otherwise be provided at the same level. Okay, you're right.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction2:59:20 · ≈ 11:59 AM

That's not very satisfying. So anyway okay so I'm gonna assume that there's going to be a motion to approve staff's recommendations and I'm not gonna be able to support it. What's the pleasure of the board?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:59:39 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:59:40 · ≈ 11:59 AM

I will move staff's recommendation A through F.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:59:44 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Is there a second? Second. There is a motion and a second. Roll call, please. Ms.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:59:53 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Wolfe? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adams? No. Mr Lavinino? Aye Mr Williams? Aye Passes 4-1

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:00:06 · ≈ 12:00 PM

We'll take item 2 briefly Even what I always think they're going to be brief.

3:00 – 3:0212 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:00:13 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Members of the board, item two is some community services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding consumer price index adjustment for the fiscal year 2018-19 library special tax rate for county service area number three, greater Goleta area second and third districts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:00:31 · ≈ 12:00 PM

And I'll turn this over to Ryder. Good afternoon, Chair Williams and members of the Board of Supervisors. Now you'll be receiving a brief presentation on CSA 3 Library Measure L Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2018-2019. Annually the Community Service District coordinates changes to the special tax levy for CSA3. For fiscal year 2018-19, with the adoption of this resolution, parcel levies within CSA 3 will be increased by 2.8%. This is the Los Angeles Consumer Price Index for the calendar year 2017 per its original resolution. This is an increase of approximately $6500 over the prior year for a total annual assessment of $195,000.

Staff's recommendations are as follows. Adopt a resolution confirming the report and adjusting the 18-19 library special tax by 2.8%. And determining the adoption of this is not a project subject to CEQA. This concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer questions you may have.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:01:32 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Any requests

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:01:32 · ≈ 12:01 PM

to speak? Mr Chair? No requests to speak.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:01:34 · ≈ 12:01 PM

I'm going to go to Supervisor Wolfe first because her district's as well. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:01:39 · ≈ 12:01 PM

you Mr. Thank you Mr. Chair, if there's no speakers I will go ahead and move staffs recommendations. Second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:01:48 · ≈ 12:01 PM

And there is a second by the other person in his district that says so let's do a roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:01:56 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Mr Adam?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:02:01 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:02:02 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Mr Lavinino? Aye Mr Williams? Aye Passes 5-0

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:02:07 · ≈ 12:02 PM

We'll break for closed session. Mr. Gazzone, would you like to talk about closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:02:12 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Chair and Supervisors, I estimate the closed session will be just slightly over an hour. You have two litigation items. Existing litigation, Samarasena versus County of Santa Barbara is one case. Flath versus County of Santa Barbara is a second case. You also have conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units on represented employees, managers, and executives. As well as one public employee appointment for consideration of child support services director.

3:02 – 3:562 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:02:43 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Then we will return about shortly after 1 o'clock.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:07:01 · ≈ 12:07 PM

Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. Music Oh, Mm hmm. Thank you. Mm hmm. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Music Thank you. Hi, everyone. Yeah. Hi, everyone. . . ♪ Hi. You. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. ¶. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You. You. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. ¶. ¶¶ ¶. Welcome. Hello.

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

3:59 – 4:067 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:59:50 · ≈ 12:59 PM

Call this meeting back to call this meeting back to order Mr. Guzzone, can you give a report from closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:00:00 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered four matters, two cases of existing litigation, Sam Sarina v. County and Flath v. County, one conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives as well as consideration of public employee appointment for child support services director. There are no reportable actions.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:00:24 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Then let's go to our final item of the day.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:00:27 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Chair Williams, members of the board. Item four is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a proposed amendment to the Planning and Development Fee Ordinance for Cannabis Appeals

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:00:38 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Good afternoon Chair, members of the board. Steve Mason with Planning and Development before you as a proposed ordinance amendment for planning and development fees if approved by your board it would require that cannabis permit applicants fund the full cost of appeals. But before I begin, I want to note that we have been evaluating the cost of appeals for some time and You don't normally have that problem with my voice.

As a result, we've proposed to renew 2022 initiative to study appeal funding for all types of permits and that will be proceeding along with the renew program. So cannabis permitting commenced back in June. We've had about five permits come in, lots and lots of inquiries and we probably will be getting another five or ten in the next couple of weeks so it's just starting to pick up. In the coastal zone, we've seen 20 planner consults for properties in the coastal zone preparing themselves to get permits once the Coastal Commission takes action.

Cannabis permit types, we have three types that will enable people to or entitle cannabis land use permits, coastal development permits and conditional use permits. All of those are appealable to either the planning commission and board as appropriate as all of our other permits. While we can't predict exactly how many appeals will get, we do have 145 state temporary licenses for cannabis operations today.

We've got an expanded noticing for these permits from 300 to 1,000 feet so we'll have a bigger buffer to notice residents and today we've already had substantial interest as well as complaints regarding these operations throughout the county. Currently the filing fee is $505 for an appeal and the general fund picks up the remainder of those costs. There are two exceptions, projects in the Coastal Commission Appeal Jurisdiction there is no fee.

And Energy and Mineral Projects, the permit applicant reimburses the full cost. Over the past four years, we've seen about 25 annual appeals and our lost revenue from those has been between 250 and $320,000 a year. So we wanted to bring this forward in advance of the 2022 appeal proposal. Because we thought it would be prudent to alert your board that we may have a substantial cost processing appeals for cannabis permits. And that would conclude my remarks, happy to take any questions.

This is the recommendation.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:04:00 · ≈ 1:04 PM

Questions from the board? I guess I have a question which is just And this may be more of a question for County Council than for you guys, but it seems to me that That the fact that we set appeal fees so low for appellants just simply attracts appellants. I mean, somewhere between zero and 500 bucks isn't much of an impediment to appealing and sometimes multiple appeals. And I'm not just talking about this, I'm talking about land use appeals as well.

Why does it have to be so low? I know you don't want us to, we can't raise it to the point where it's cost prohibitive for the public to appeal things. But it just seems like this is almost inviting every single one to appeal and we want to have a quality differentiation between bad operations and good operations. It's hard to do that if every single one gets appealed.

Mr. Gazzone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:05:17 · ≈ 1:05 PM

So Chair and Supervisors, I think you put your finger on the legal standard which is the appeal fee cannot be so high that it's a bar. As it's referred to, a bar to justice, so that somebody who has legitimate concern would not have access. And there have been some cases also maybe for the self-interest of the county in processing that if the appeal fee is up in the thousands There have been at least some cases that have held that appealing to the board is no longer prerequisite before suing across in the Superior Court because you're not providing an actual form for appeal. So there's an interest for the county in finding the right number there, to both allow appeals and to not be deemed by a court later to have prohibited appeals as too uncostly.

There could be some adjustment north of $500 that we have seen cases in the thousands of dollars that were deemed to be too high.

4:06 – 4:1217 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:06:14 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Maybe a question to staff, I mean your sense of it. Couldn't we go higher than 500 without it being? Prohibitive, I mean we get a decent amount of appeals already. Right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:06:32 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Supervisor Williams or Chair Williams. We certainly have some appellants that are well-heeled. There's also neighbors that end up not filing appeals and we've had some of those for home businesses. We had one for long standing case about oak trees where they did not file appeals in the third district. I guess it's really hard to put a, that's why this is a tough one. Back in 94 when this was considered by the board they conducted six hearings over the course of a year before they ended up in this position so- That sounds real fun.

We'll try and-

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:07:18 · ≈ 1:07 PM

What did those cost? We spent the money we saved. So can't, I mean but can't we at least look at how many appeals are filed versus the trends of appeal fee versus how many appeals are filed? Doesn't that give us some sense of whether it's providing a barrier meaning if we have almost as many appeals after we've raised appeal fees then it's really not serving

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:07:43 · ≈ 1:07 PM

as a barrier. Chair Williams, and that would be the type of full analysis that we would look at when we brought forward any kind of options under the renew program. We didn't do that for this just to try and get it to the board before we really got into cannabis permitting and were exposed to the appeal costs.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:08:10 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Supervisor Labadino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well I have comments but I'll just stick to my questions for right now so is there first off how do we come up with 505? Is it a percentage of something or it's just it's not 500 I was wondering if it was tied to something

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:08:24 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino. We have a cost adjustment that we do and so it's

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:08:34 · ≈ 1:08 PM

the CBI on that. Got it. So then other questions for county council is like I always feel like okay, I'm okay with the neighbor. I think that the price should be low for a neighbor that is, he's got a new impact next to him and so there is some significant impact. That person should come and have redress before the board or the planning commission. Is there any way to have a nexus tied to who can appeal? Because what I have heartburn is with somebody 100 miles away says hey, there's a smell issue here or something.

Is there anyway to tie nexus to it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:09:18 · ≈ 1:09 PM

Chair and supervisors, we had looked at that several years ago. We could update that at the time we had recommended against having some kind of geographical limit that there would be a separate standard for in the county or outside the county across the line. We could go back and look at that and provide an update but our answer about four years ago was that there was a risk on that.

I think the other thing in response to the question of how these fees are set again at 10,000 feet, the difference between the fee and a tax That is subject to voter approval would be that it bears a strong connection to the actual cost of providing the service. And that's the study that planning goes through on any of these

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:09:56 · ≈ 1:09 PM

fees. Okay, and then another question for you would be is there anyway to kind of put some parameters in to discourage serial? Appellant, so that I noticed we had a rash around here of ADA lawsuits from a particular individual. It was just targeting everything and finally a judge came in and banned him from filing anymore.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:10:18 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Lawsuits. So the standard on the actual frivolous litigation is actually pretty high to achieve that one has to work pretty hard to be deemed frivolous or vexatious in that area and for the same reasons that we had recommended about four years ago, I'm not having a geographic limit on that I would recommend against having some number count because then, for example, maybe a community organization that feels strongly on an issue would be barred and it'd be hard to actually slice that in a way that would allow a public service organization to have access and somebody else not

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:10:51 · ≈ 1:10 PM

to have access. Okay, one other question and I'm not sure if it's for you or for Diane. But so if somebody comes in and there's an appeal to the planning commission, it's $505. The planning commission comes back with a unanimous recommendation for approval. The person can then file another $500. So my question is, I get that it's 500 dollars to go to the Planning Commission. Isn't there some way to step laterate that if you go to the Planning Commission?

They deemed staff recommendation, I mean the staff recommendation is approved. The planning commission is 5-0. Now you're just kind of messing with somebody to take it to the board and I've seen, and it's not so much the cost for me, it's the time that it takes because we've seen where appellants also will say well I'm not available, I'm not available. And if you do that at the planning commission, you can draw it out then you get your 5-O against you. You put your other 500 bucks in and you can monkey with the system for months if not a year.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:11:51 · ≈ 1:11 PM

So Mr. Chair and Supervisor Lavinino, unfortunately I think the answer is kind of the same. It's really that are you barring access to our appeal process by having a fee that is so high that a normal reasonable person wouldn't pay them would just go to court? But I understand

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:12:11 · ≈ 1:12 PM

your issue. So that's why, I mean, I'm going to have some other comments but so then one last question for you is then on the permitting and the licensing that we're doing right now for cannabis those are at full cost recovery correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:12:26 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Yes Mr. Chair and Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:12:28 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Levine

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:12:29 · ≈ 1:12 PM

yes they

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:12:29 · ≈ 1:12 PM

are. Okay thanks

4:12 – 4:189 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:12:34 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Request to speak Chair Williams, members of the board, we have four requests. We're going to start with Jared Ficker in Santa Barbara and Liz Rogan if she is in the room after Jared Ficker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:12:55 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Hi, Chair Williams, members of the board. Jared Ficker with California Strategies representing a number of cannabis operators in the county. Just so I'm clear on this, maybe I want to clarify. This doesn't seem to be about actually setting the fee it's just the cost reimbursement that would be borne by applicants in the recommendation and it still looks like there wouldn't be an appeal fee in the coastal zone is that correct?

Is there a way I can get that clarified?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:13:30 · ≈ 1:13 PM

We'll ask that question. Just proceed with your public comments.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:13:34 · ≈ 1:13 PM

So if the proposal here is simply cost reimbursement to planning and development for processing the appeals, I think in theory we've been very supportive This meeting is being recorded. Unlike oil and gas, we have an excise tax both at the local level and the state level. And we have annual business license fees at the local and state level that are quite expensive. And so if the issue is reimbursement for appeals I guess I would have two recommendations. One, we have a fund in the excise tax locally that could reimburse the cost related to processing appeals.

If you want some of this borne by applicants, we would recommend that there be a cap on that. Because we don't know what that cost will be in the appeal process something like $10,000 or something like that we think would be reasonable and cover some of those costs but it shouldn't be a blank check for an endless appeal process that's borne by the applicant who is already feed business licensed taxed To oblivion, unlike any other industry that doesn't have those. So in many of our cases we're dealing with land use permits where simply it's a crop change. We're not proposing new infrastructure or other things and then having sort of ideological appeals for which we're incurring costs seems like an unfair thing when we are doing things to generate revenue and other things that are already bare.

So I guess I would ask that this either be, that cost reimbursement be considered out of the excise tax fund or there's a specific cap put on it. And we certainly would support an appeal fee that would be applied to the coastal zone just like other areas. I understand the rationale for keeping that low, but it should be uniform across the board so that there is some stake or standing in these appeals.

Those are my comments and look forward for clarification on that beginning question. Thank you.

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:16:01 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Is Liz Rogan in the room? In Santa Barbara?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:16:08 · ≈ 1:16 PM

She does not appear to be here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:16:10 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Okay, thank you. Then we're going to come back to Santa Maria for Bruce Watkins and then Lisa Bedrogi.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:16:24 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Hi Chair, Supervisors, Bruce Watkins. With provisions we support the idea of the county recouping some expenses associated with the appeals process. Our concerns just fall into two domains. First, you know, we want to be sure that this doesn't inadvertently evolve into just another artificial source of county revenue. There's got to be some incremental level of control to mitigate any unforeseen egregious uses in the future of this provision. So basically, we just request provisions to assure that an artificial appeals process is not created to bolster county revenues.

Second, we worry about the hopefully unlikely possibility that cannabis applicants may not always be the ones doing the appealing. Basically it wouldn't be right for us to be financially burdened if some disgruntled third party files appeal after appeal as a tactic to impede our ability to do business while we're spending the money on the appeals process there. So we just suggest a few provisions. One would just be that whoever files the appeal pays for it, if we file an appeal great, we pay for it. But if somebody else files an appeal and the appeals have to be paid for to the county then whoever that party is or maybe as was suggested they just pay their $505 fee. We just don't want to be burdened if somebody else files an appeal.

Since we all make mistakes, sometimes even the county, there should be some provision to reimburse the appealing party some portion of the appeal expenses if it's found during the appeal that the appeal was prompted by county error in the appealed ruling. Finally, suggestions along the lines of capping it. We would recommend capping all appeals related expense reimbursements to increments $10,000 or some other reasonable incremental figure so that the appeals-related expenses don't become open ended just because we're paying for it prior to exceeding the increment or $10 thousand dollars or whatever it is We would just suggest that, insert that there'd be a private hearing. It would take place between the county and the appealing party to review where things stand, what is anticipated, and approve any next increments prior to moving forward just so we can keep controls on those level of expenses that might be incurred.

Thanks, that's all I have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:18:51 · ≈ 1:18 PM

Lisa Bedrogi?

4:18 – 4:274 turns

PresenterLisa Bedrogilot of agricultural rural land owners and I'm here to talk about the appeals proProposedself-stated4:18:58 · ≈ 1:18 PM

Good afternoon Chairman Williams, members of the board. My name is Lisa Bedrogi of Kuvae Connections and I'm here today because I represent a lot of agricultural rural land owners and I'm here to talk about the appeals process itself which is really seriously broken. The current process has allowed rampant appeals on applicants who have spent countless time and money to get approval for projects. Meeting all of the zoning and policy and procedural requirements under the law, only to be appealed by a neighbor or sometimes not even a neighbor but some member of the community. And for a nominal fee of $505 it doesn't dissuade appeals that may have real no grievance or standing against the project.

This is an issue that is seriously broken and needs to be fixed, and not extended onto new industries. I'd like your Board of Supervisors to take this opportunity to reevaluate the process for appeals rather than expanding a seriously broken system. There should be a better system to consider appeals only when there are legitimate grievances and standing. An appeal is not only an assault on an applicant who has met all of the requirements in meeting county code, but also an assault on the decision makers in finding consistency with projects that meet all the requirements.

Everyone loses in the current system. A new system should be developed that puts more of an onus on the appellant and not all of the burden on the applicant and or the county general funds, i.e., taxpayer dollars. And at present, the only appeals that are reimbursed now are in the oil and gas industry. And appeals that are mandated by the Coastal Commission apparently the fees are not even collected so there's a real inequity and unfairness here.

I believe this item should have been brought before the Ag Advisory Committee for input as many ag related projects have fallen by the wayside due to appeals. And now we do have an appointment on the AAC representing the cannabis industry. Again, staff has spent close to two years developing the cannabis ordinance. A voter initiative was passed to put money into the general fund.

I kind of was surprised to see this come up at this time and would like to again impress upon your board as I will be doing to the planning commission tomorrow if we're talking about process improvements and streamlining let's do something about the appeal process thanks

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:21:37 · ≈ 1:21 PM

That concludes public comment.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:21:40 · ≈ 1:21 PM

Supervisor Lavinia? Thank you, Mr Chair. Well Lisa read my speech for me so I appreciate that. Yeah, if we look at just the appeal process and I'm just going to take it as a whole right now and then get into cannabis. But by my rudimentary Catholic school math, if we did 25 appeals at 500 bucks, the appellant paid $12,500 last year and the taxpayer picked up $300,000.

So we have been subsidizing, the rest of us have been subsidizing quite a bit of general fund dollars that went to these appeals. So obviously and I think our director has stated that this is right for reform and I think in Renew 22 we're going to be coming up with some new ideas on what to do but It does sound like, from what I'm hearing is there's not a lot of wiggle room because we're kind of got our legal handcuffs on so I get that as well.

The reason why I think that the cannabis industry, the few that were here came up and said yeah we'd be okay with some of it is because they haven't been through the process yet and haven't really watched years of how it can be abused. So I would caution them to not raise their hands so quickly to say yeah, I think it'll be okay. They're thinking if it was capped, it would be okay. But when I look at this for me, Licensing fees and permit fees, and completely covering the costs of those.

They're also paying a state tax. And we are going to be collecting tax on every single element of their operations. So my thinking is that we would track the cost as apparently we have been doing if we can come up with an estimate. At the end of the fiscal year, we just backfill whatever that loss was to the general fund with our cannabis tax dollars. I just don't think it's fair to this would be not a double dip but almost like a triple dip.

On an industry, and the only reason I think that we're kind of even thinking about this is because everybody's got the assumption that it's a cash rich industry. To lump them in with the oil industry, I'm not really sure how they get in that boat other than people feel like they've got the money to be able to do it so let's go ahead and hit him. I do think that they should have some skin in the game, but no more than what the appellant does. Because as somebody already stated, as Lisa said, you've already gotten to the point where you've got an approved project which is nearly impossible in Santa Barbara County. So you've done everything you're supposed to do and you finally get that approval.

You really shouldn't be held hostage by somebody that's, you're putting your entire operation on hold while somebody writes a $500 check. So for me it's if we can't increase the $500 which I understand. Let's at least, I think we're all committed to working these appeals as fast as we can. But I think we do have to track this and instead of making them pick up the cost of this they're already paying taxes and fees. We should just backfill at the end of the year with the money that we're already collecting from them.

Supervisor

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction4:25:21 · ≈ 1:25 PM

Adam. Well, Mr. Guzzone could we potentially have everybody in your office kind of brainstorm a way to create a standing test or have some kind of a nexus? to a project and filter out some of these things. Because I think if a bunch of smart people like those in your office were to put their heads together, they might be able to figure something out here because this process has undoubtedly been abused and abusive.

And for everybody not just Cannabis, I don't think we've had a cannabis appeal yet. But there ought to be some way to filter this to some degree or another in the first place. And then the other thing is for me is just consistency. You know? I think everybody should be treated the same whether they're an oil company or a cannabis producer or just some guy with a house someplace and I think that if we're already gonna do a study to try to figure out how to recover more of the money from appellants, let's just do that before we do anything over here on this cannabis circumstance.

Let's just go figure out what we wanna do for everybody and then fold cannabis into that. And that would be my preferred alternative. Because I just, I feel like if we're going to single out a particularly an ag operation, I think that's really kind of a bad idea.

4:27 – 4:3628 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:27:30 · ≈ 1:27 PM

Well Mr. Kucinich if you'd like to respond?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:27:38 · ≈ 1:27 PM

Chair and Supervisor, we could certainly update looking at the standing issue. And when we looked at it last time, we looked at this as well as these steep barrier concepts which essentially would be the risk of the county concluding someone did not have standing for administrative appeal and then end up in Superior Court with that same party but we can update the research on that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:28:05 · ≈ 1:28 PM

I agree with the sentiment

CommentFrappoProposed · by introduction4:28:08 · ≈ 1:28 PM

of

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:28:09 · ≈ 1:28 PM

both of you, and I do think that we should make some adjustments to this that might consider, might necessitate not moving forward today. I guess, I don't think we should wait for any larger process. I'm okay with this process being a little bit different than other land use appeals. To me it's only a practical matter that we should start essentially adjudicating this matter as quickly as possible and I don't want that to be delayed for some larger question in But that being said, I don't think the applicant should bear this heavy of responsibility. I'm fine with them bearing more than the appellant. I am fine with them even paying 50% of the costs but to me the idea that they would be capped and not all the burden is on them is a reasonable ask Though we've heard from the speakers today.

And my only worry about putting this all on marijuana revenues, we really don't know how much is going to be produced yet. We really don't know how long it will be produced at that level. It just sounds like creating even more framework around something that were uncertain of the revenue on. I don't mind putting a portion of that, but I just kind of want to hedge our bets for the future.

But I feel like some kind of rubric between an applicant's portion and appellant's portion and a county portion is probably unacceptable, not perfect but an acceptable solution. And I would hope that we would try to hammer something like that out. Supervisor

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:30:23 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Hartman? I just had a question for Director Black, and that is the larger ordinance to recover fees for appeals. What is the timeline and will that be looking at other counties and how they do it? And again the standing issue as well as various cost recovery

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:30:57 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Madam Chair, Mr. Chair, Commissioner, Supervisor Hartman, we haven't picked a precise date to come back to the board but I imagined it would be before- You

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:31:08 · ≈ 1:31 PM

can call me Adam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:31:09 · ≈ 1:31 PM

anytime. Within the next six months is what I would expect. We actually have two items to bring to the board and this is one of them associated with Renew 22.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:31:25 · ≈ 1:31 PM

So I'm just thinking out loud here. Is there any way to have a, in some instances the growers will be the appellants right? And in some instances it will be the applicant so we're making an assumption that the growers will always just, they're the ones who will be appealed, decisions favoring them will be

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:31:53 · ≈ 1:31 PM

appealed. Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hartman, that's correct. I mean we could deny a permit or approve a permit with conditions that a grower chose to appeal. In that case they pay the $505 fee and that's all they pay.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:32:12 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Can I ask a question right there? Of course. Sorry so wouldn't it be smarter For a cultivator to come in with a project that didn't get approved, he pays his 500 bucks and then works his way through the system instead of getting one that does get approved and opens himself up to a $20,000 bill. Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:32:28 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Chair, if that would be smarter- Too clever by

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction4:32:32 · ≈ 1:32 PM

half

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:32:32 · ≈ 1:32 PM

right there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:32:33 · ≈ 1:32 PM

That would be smarter if we said only the property owner paid if it were a third party appeal but that's not what we said. We said they would pay. So whether they're appealing or third party appeals, this proposal was that they would pay the costs. And-

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction4:32:50 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Six weeks from Sunday man.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:32:52 · ≈ 1:32 PM

And to be clear, the reason we came forward with this recommendation is it aligns with the board's policy. And I think it aligns with the cost recovery. It's not what we're doing in other appeal situations and we're going to bring that back to the board for consideration as well. And then with respect to cannabis, we thought we should come sooner because cannabis appeals may happen relatively soon.

And we won't be in a position, they happen soon and they happen once. So that was part of our rationale for coming in advance. Mr

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:33:37 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Chair?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:33:39 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Supervisor Wolk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:33:41 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Thank you, Mr.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:33:42 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:33:44 · ≈ 1:33 PM

I know this item was being brought to us once before and it was rescheduled for today. And unfortunately, I have to leave in about five minutes so I'm not sure I'm going to be here to vote but I want to make my comments and my comments are that I think that this is wise that planning brought this item forward knowing Maybe appeals coming to the board or to the planning commission, or just to staff.

It's going to be costing money for staff to be processing these appeals. So if we don't do something today to at least keep us at a status quo I think that that's That will hurt us financially. And that's not to say, as was mentioned before, that we can look at this whole appeals process and cost recovery at a later time. But I do think it's important that we act today and follow staffs recommendations. Thank you Mr Chair.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:34:50 · ≈ 1:34 PM

I have a question for Supervisor Wolff. Go for it. It's not bad. So I'm just curious then so would be your okay with then Anybody that gets appealed would have to bear full cost recovery, or is it just this industry? Because otherwise we're losing money on every appeal we do and we've been losing money on every appeal we do. So I'm just curious if we do change it then we should change it. Is it your recommendation we change it for everybody or are we only lose money on the other ones?

Because we're losing money right now, 300,000 a year on appeals.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:35:35 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Are you asking me? Yeah

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:35:36 · ≈ 1:35 PM

I was just asking you what your thoughts were on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:35:40 · ≈ 1:35 PM

No, I don't like losing money and that's why I think it will come back to us for review. I also believe in the right of a citizen They have a right to appeal and we have to, I think in my mind make it somewhat reasonable. What that reasonableness is, right now we have a standard. Can we change it? Yes, I think we probably could change it but I don't disagree with your premise, but it's all and it varies too. The amount that you quoted I think varies on the appeal as well so anyway.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:36:33 · ≈ 1:36 PM

Supervisor Adam?

4:36 – 4:419 turns

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction4:36:40 · ≈ 1:36 PM

I think yeah you have a right to appeal but And this gets down into some stuff that I know I'm not qualified to talk about, but I have an opinion on. Which is the constitutional guarantee of an appeal and I don't know if it's really the thing we want to get stuck on here but Is that an affirmative right and unlimited or is that a right to appeal a decision that affects you personally?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:37:21 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Chair and supervisors, it's actually a different concept. And that is that it's providing administrative appeal The appellant or applicant appellant can litigate in district court or superior court. So by affording and requiring an internal administrative appeal, that's what allows the board to have a cut on the project before it goes into litigation directly from either planning or from the Planning Commission. So the board could have a more streamlined appeal process that gets to superior court quicker, but over time you probably conclude that's more expensive than having the appeal process internally.

Well what I was really talking

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction4:38:09 · ≈ 1:38 PM

about is The right to an appeal, that's the constitutional right to appeal. Was that the fourth amendment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:38:19 · ≈ 1:38 PM

So I think what we're talking about there again, there are due process rights that were talking about and the cases that have looked at this say that you could have less steps in your internal appeal process if there is a path over to the superior court for example. We do that with administrative fines, that after a certain point the fine is imposed. They don't go to the board, they go directly to superior court so that's a process that has one less step than land use appeals but we end up in superior court on those.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction4:38:55 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Well, yeah I'm getting hung up on the fact that we're just not being consistent and we seem to be taking an industry which we already did with oil that we perceive as the industry who can afford to pay. And so you know we're just gonna make them pay all the costs and I find it I certainly can't support such a thing because it's just inherently unequal and discriminatory.

So, you know, I think until and unless we do something with everybody and we figure out what's fair for any appeal, I can't do anything with this. I kind of won't be able to support this.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:39:52 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:39:54 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Thank you, yeah I think we're all struggling because we're taking this out of the larger context and so it's hard to have a full appreciation for how it will fit when we eventually look at the whole From my perspective, I think that full cost recovery of appeals may not be where I land. I think that part of this is a public service it is a right and so partial cost recovery maybe In order, but I do think that the public should have an opportunity and maybe full cost recovery isn't in order. I'm wondering though if I also see what if we have all these appeals coming forward and were paying a huge sum from the county general fund?

Is there any stopgap measure could we could we have a higher fee for Temporarily until we look at the whole appeal process. Or some certainty to the industry so that they, so there's a flat fee.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:41:15 · ≈ 1:41 PM

I think that's a good question because regardless of who pays the fee, if the fees are this low we could have 80 appeals. That would paralyze the function of our government. Mr. Guzzone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:41:35 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Well just as a starting point, again we talked before about the difference between a fee which is something that the board can set after study and a tax which requires voter approval. So this would be an area where there needs to be a pretty tight relationship between the cost of providing the service and the charge of that fee as opposed to deterring appeals through a higher fee.

4:42 – 4:5013 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:42:02 · ≈ 1:42 PM

Yeah, we're not suggesting charging anywhere near higher than the cost. We're talking about how much of a cost recovery are we really wanting to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:42:11 · ≈ 1:42 PM

get? And I think the other point as you look at this and The board has lots of policy discretion in this area. In moving forward on other cannabis related ordinances and licenses and fees, we keep coming back to it is something that is prohibited by federal law. It's a more complicated area to deal with so there's at least a rational basis for applying different costs on that industry. Now the board certainly for policy reasons could say you don't want to do that but you have some room on this.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction4:42:49 · ≈ 1:42 PM

Supervisor Adam. I don't find much comfort in that, I mean we've already crossed the river into legality here so now that we've crossed the river into legality I hate to kind of keep a rope back to the other side all the time and say okay but this is still illegal so we're going to do things to you that we don't do to other people Well, that may be but I think it's unjust in all cases.

So you know that being the case and I just still can't, I just don't find any comfort in that and then you know I want to make the point that I don't think industry may understand what they're agreeing to here and they may massively underestimate what the costs are in this thing even at 50%. And maybe in the end, the answer is we just take all the cost of appeal out of the general fund.

Because that's the only way to truly, I mean if we can't create a nexus or a standing test and there's just no way to filter this. Maybe the community just needs to bear the cost of being sort of an appellant community. And they'll do it until they get tired of paying for it.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:44:23 · ≈ 1:44 PM

Well, I have two issues with that approach. One is you've argued for plenty of additional requirements on marijuana than we have on other ag through this whole process through a year. So consistency is not always what we've gotten. None in Ag 1, I believe. That was also Mr. Adam. But here's to me we have to plan for kind of the nightmare scenarios. If we are already subsidizing appeals by $300,000 and how many appeals do we get a year? 25. Today

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:45:09 · ≈ 1:45 PM

without cannabis.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:45:13 · ≈ 1:45 PM

With cannabis, we could have three times four times that in one year. We should not be making a move that means that the county has to pay all of that when we don't know how much the revenue is. So I am very sympathetic to the industry. Very sympathetic in limiting that appeal fee. I am very concerned about having any framework that attracts appeals, that's why I think we should raise the appeal fee not just for cannabis but for everything.

But I think there's A compromise framework that does not put everything on the applicant, does not put everything on the appellant. It does not put everything on the county because I think it would be if you're asking for a concrete suggestion, I think staff said the average cost of one $10,000 to $14,000. I think it would be fine to say cap the industry cost at $6,000 or something like that and go forward from there but with the goal being that the county portion shrinks and the appellant portion goes up.

And the applicant, I guess stays static at roughly 50%. That would be the framework that I would suggest. And it's not saying that's perfect, I'm not saying that's perfectly fair but I think it's just what's practical to move forward when we don't know what kind of revenue comes in from the taxation and we don'y know how many appeals are going to be filed. Supervisor Harmon?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:47:14 · ≈ 1:47 PM

I think Supervisor- Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:47:16 · ≈ 1:47 PM

Lavagnino. Yeah, it sounds because that's doable but is it the right thing to do? The reality is we've kind of just glossed over all We have a lot of folks that like to appeal in our county and What their impact to the rest of the taxpayers is. I mean, the reason why we're talking about losing money and there's going to be this huge onslaught. We've been subsidizing a quarter of a million dollars a year for very few people that come before our board.

And so now that we think there might be some more, now we're like well, we don't want to do that anymore. Yeah, I got you. So instead of fixing the problem We're going to single out somebody that's got the money to be able to do it. Now they've got the money now, but I just think we could probably get three votes to do that. I just don't think it's fair or good policy to single out an industry that you're going to pay full cost recovery. You're going to pay something, but no other industry has to do it.

And this is- I hear you, but if we don't have an appeals process for them, we're not going to be able to process permits either. But here's the other thing. Well, if you don't do anything right now What's the impact? The impact is they go through the process and it goes to the general fund, right. You're talking about a single amount in industry that's already, the only industry that's doing full cost recovery on permitting. The only industry that's doing full cost recovery on licensing.

Okay, who else gets taxed like the cannabis industry right now? And I'm good with it. But to take licensing fees, permit fees, annual business license and then say you're the one guy that we're going to also say you got to pay $6000 anytime you get appealed. I just think it's too much and as much as I would like to move forward on the permitting process and all that, And I just don't think that's fair.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:49:32 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Yeah, I didn't say it's fair. In fact, What are you going to take it out of? If we have 80 appeals, and we've got $2 million of appeals cost.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:49:47 · ≈ 1:49 PM

That's not 2 million dollars. Or a million. Okay, a million dollars. Let's say we get an increase of a million dollars. What are we going to take that out of? Well, we said cannabis was going to generate 5-25. We already allocated what the auditor controller was

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:50:00 · ≈ 1:50 PM

ready to allocate. So are we going to take that out of infrastructure? Are we going to take that out of... No. What are

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:50:07 · ≈ 1:50 PM

we going to take that out of, right? You're going into the one industry that's creating, that's actually bringing us tax revenue.

CommentLisa BedrogiProposed · by introduction4:50:16 · ≈ 1:50 PM

All right.

4:50 – 4:5511 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:50:21 · ≈ 1:50 PM

Did Ms. Black have... Ms. Black.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:50:25 · ≈ 1:50 PM

I did about five minutes ago, but I think I've forgotten what might be useful at this point. I did want to make a point which is if you do nothing on appeal fees today or in a month we're still going to process permits. So I heard somebody say that might put a hold on processing permits. It will not put a hold on processing permits. The other thing I think is probably helpful for the board to know is, this ordinance would take 60 days to become effective after the second reading.

So it doesn't sound like we're close to a first reading today. It's just a comment about the amount of time that it takes for this to be in effect and the fact that there will be some permits, I would imagine approved during that period of time and we'll know more

GuestWolfeProposed · by introduction4:51:17 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Supervisors, I was going to make that suggestion. We could come back to you once we have actual experience because we don't know if it's going to be 10 appeals, 20 appeals, 30 appeals, 80 appeals. We just don't know and we may not know much more in six months but we will have more information than we do today so we can come back to you at an appropriate time. I can talk to Mr. Mason and Ms. Black about when that would be but not until at least after the first quarter.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:51:48 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Yeah, I'd be okay with having more information and more experience even if that meant we paid for some of the appeals ahead of time. We have to try to be as fair as we can, but we have to protect the taxpayer and that's by protecting the county general fund. That is part of protecting the taxpayers so I think we need to do both and what we are united on is this is not the right proposal to do both.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.844:52:20 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Can I answer that one before you go? Sure. I would just say that I hope we have the same argument, that the next time an environmental group comes up and appeals a land use decision, that we're also saying they are basically taking money away from the general fund. There's no doubt about it. I think the appeals process is something that's great for our community, but I think it does get abused.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:52:47 · ≈ 1:52 PM

And I'm with you in that not that I don't think there are good appeals out there. There are good appeals out there, but having appeal fee this low invites people to appeal more often than is rational. In my view, and so I do hope that staff continues to look at what that level is. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:53:14 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Thank you. I do get a sense that most of us up here find that singling out this industry apart from the larger discussion makes it very difficult for us and so holding off might be a good idea. I just, in light of the last point though, I think full cost recovery for appeals may not be what I would support. But higher fees and I think certainty so you don't get a bill afterwards and get surprised.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:53:48 · ≈ 1:53 PM

So Mr. Chair, I guess what I would recommend to the board is that we come back in probably November or December with the whole package, some experience on cannabis permitting and then we can present options for the board on appeals across the board.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:54:09 · ≈ 1:54 PM

I think that's a good option, unless you have 40 appeals already racked up before then. But sure-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:54:17 · ≈ 1:54 PM

Once they're filed it's not going to matter.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:54:19 · ≈ 1:54 PM

Let's just say bring it back to us as quickly as you can because there is, I think some danger in this process and Supervisor Lavenino, I don't think the danger is just to the county. As long as we have appeals this low and by not taking action, we do have appeal fee this low. It's a danger to both this institution and to people trying to do the right thing and get permitted because one person could appeal them all. And so I urge staff to come back as soon as possible.

I think no action is where we are at today. Do you want a motion to? Great, okay. All right, we will reconvene to next week the 17th in Santa Barbara at 9 AM. August.