UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:04 – 0:0912 turns
Roll call, please.
Mr. Adam? Here. Mr. Lavinino? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Here Ms. Hartman? Here Mr. Williams?
Here
We usually do that in reverse order. That's the explanation for the audience Can I get a motion for the approval of the minutes of October 2nd?
So moved
There's a motion and second all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? We have no CEO's report this week, but why don't we take the motion on the resolutions. We have A18, A19, A20 and A21.
I'll move those resolutions. Second?
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Let's start with one of our favorite subjects, A18.
Chair Williams and members of the board, our first resolution today is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. This is a resolution proclaiming the week of October 7 2018 through October 13 2018 as National Fire Prevention Week in Santa Barbara County and Steve Oaks who's here I think? Steve come on up and I'll read the resolution into the record Or as October 7 through 13 has been declared National Fire Prevention Week, as a time to reflect on our nation's past fire history. Remembering the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and how a national interest in fire prevention and safety emerged out of a national tragedy. And whereas, in 2018 National Fire Prevention Week theme is look listen learn be aware fire can happen anywhere. Works to educate people about three basic but essential steps that can be taken to reduce the likelihood of having a fire and how to escape safely in the event of a fire including looking for places where a fire can start, listening for the sound of a smoke alarm and learning two ways out of each room.
And whereas Santa Barbara County has particularly been affected by fire, including the Thomas Fire and Holiday Fire among our long history of large and dangerous fires. And we need to keep doing our part to help prevent the likelihood of even more frequent and devastating fires from taking place. And whereas fire is a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and homes are the locations where people are at the greatest risk from fire.
And whereas Santa Barbara County residents should identify potential hazards in their homes and move to eliminating these hazards. And whereas the 2018 fire prevention theme, look listen learn be aware fire can happen anywhere effectively serves to remind us that we need to take some personal steps to increase our safety from fire. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors does proclaim the week of October 7 through 13 as National Fire Prevention Week in Santa Barbara County. And encourages everyone to participate in fire prevention activities at home, work, at school, and all locations making this fire prevention week the beginning of a long lasting effort to improve fire safety passed and adopted today.
Thank you for this resolution. And I just wanted to reiterate some of the things that the theme was look, listen and learn especially to help us identify some of the fire hazards that are out there and you can do that in your own home. To try to identify some of those, and then also listen for your smoke detectors. Test them, make sure that they are functional and to learn two ways out of your home. That great Chicago fire killed 250 people and destroyed over 17,000 structures. So that's one of those things that are an urban conflagration but they're still things we have to be vigilant about today just last year.
At this exact time, in fact the northern California fire storms took 9000 structures and 44 lives. And so our own Thomas Fire a little closer to home consumed about 1000 structures and then the two lives that were lost there including the 23 as the result of debris flow later. So I just want to try Use this opportunity to remind folks to be vigilant and to, and to be careful when dealing with fire. I also want to remind folks a little on a little more happy note that our 28th annual firefighter breakfast It is happening in Buellton at the Albertson Center on Saturday.
And there'll be a static display, there will be firefighters and their equipment talking with the kids. A lot of things to do with the kids and a great breakfast served cooked up and served by your local firefighters so thank you very much.
What time?
That's 8 o'clock, 8 to noon. Thank you.
0:09 – 0:157 turns
Item A19.
Chair Williams, members of the board, item A19 is sponsored by Supervisor Adam. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2018 as Arts and Humanities Month in Santa Barbara County. And Hannah Rubicava is here with a few friends. And I'm going to read off some of the names that I have. I don't see Dennis here, but I do see we have Madison Lee, Caitlin Corbo, Melissa Johnson and Karen Rotundi perhaps?
All
right no worries and then I'm gonna go ahead and read the resolution into the record Whereas the month of October is recognized as National Arts and Humanities Month across the nation, as well as by the White House and Congress for 33 years. And whereas the Board of Supervisors formed a County Arts Commission in 1977 to support, foster, and encourage participation in and access to arts and culture for all county residents. And whereas the county acknowledges the vital role of artists, performers, and creators enriching our quality of life while fueling innovation in our local economy. It encourages residents to engage in the tremendous diversity of local arts and culture.
And whereas, the county celebrates student artists, art teachers of all disciplines and arts in the schools recognizing the benefits of arts instruction for the entire community. Whereas this year the county commends two students from Ernest Righetti High School Madison Lee who won first place in the 24th District Congressional Art Competition in May 2018 for her work titled The American Dream which will be displayed at the US Capitol for the next year and Caitlin Corbo who received the People's Choice Award for her painting Sweet Creature And whereas the county praises Ernest Regetti High School art teacher, Melissa Johnson for mentoring and supporting these students in Ernest Regetti High School for producing an environment that stewards aspiring young artists to develop their skills while creating bright futures.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors proclaims October as National Arts and Humanities Month and commends local artists, cultural practitioners, and institutions for their vital role in building community preserving cultural traditions And improving the economy and quality of life for all residents. Passed and adopted today.
Chair Williams and members of the board, good morning. I am Hannah Rubel-Cava with the County Office of Arts and Culture. Thank you so much for your time this morning. It is such a pleasure to be here to honor Melissa Johnson, Madison Lee, and Caitlin Corbo. Unfortunately, Melissa Johnson has stuck in traffic this morning. There is no greater way to celebrate Arts and Humanities Month than by recognizing the hard work of teachers and their students. Teachers like Melissa Johnson are inspiring and educating the next generation of artists, and are the foundation of the county's vibrant arts sector. Melissa Johnson has been teaching for the Santa Maria Joint Union High School District for the past 20 years, the last five of those as the Fine Arts Instructor for Regetti High School.
She is dedicated to her students and is always looking for ways to showcase their talent and to provide them with opportunities to learn and experience more. Melissa is also a talented artist, and her work can be found on two of the utility boxes here in the city of Santa Maria. I'm also thrilled to have two extremely talented young women here representing the next generation of artists. Often when we recognize an artist's talent, it is seen as a gift. Something that they were born with. But we need to recognize that these students here aren't here because they are merely born with artistic talent. They're here because they have practiced and practice some more. They have worked for hours and hours on their skills and have had the great fortune of having amazing teachers like Melissa Johnson along the way.
It is such an honor to celebrate Arts and Humanities Month by presenting these two young artists Madison Lee and Caitlin Corbeau with these awards for their hard work, dedication, and creativity. Thank you.
Thank you and I appreciate staff for doing the slides that I was just about to ask and say next time we'd like to see the paintings but then you brought it. A20.
Chair Williams, members of the board our next resolution is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino this is a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2018 as Energy Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County and Dave Cross who's here to receive the resolution come on up Dave Read the resolution into the record. Whereas, the county is an active member of the Santa Barbara County Energy Watch Partnership. This partnership is between local governments in Santa Barbara County, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the Southern California Gas Company as well as the cities of Santa Maria, Builton, Guadalupe, Santa Maria, and Solvang.
And whereas, the Santa Maria Chamber has served as the implementer of the Santa Barbara County Energy Watch Partnership since 2008, and the program has assisted municipalities and over 400 businesses in North Santa Barbara County to become more energy efficient. Whereas it's more important now than ever to encourage energy efficiency and sustainability for all residents, businesses and municipalities. It's good public policy to conserve energy empower others to take action and join together to save energy and money.
And whereas energy efficiency programs enhance our environment by improving air quality, reducing greenhouse gases and other pollutants in conserving natural resources. It is vital for communities to incorporate energy efficiency into everyday business practices and their personal lives. And whereas, Santa Barbara County seeks to promote innovative methods and advanced technologies in the design and construction of new residential and commercial buildings within the county. Whereas energy efficiency improvements can be realized through wise energy attitudes, behaviors, and organizational decisions.
And whereas Energy Awareness Month is a national effort first proclaimed by the White House in October of 1991. Now therefore it be hereby ordered and resolved that the month of October 2018 is declared to be energy awareness month, to be celebrated in Santa Barbara County its employees, residents of all ages and businesses throughout the community pass and adopt it today.
0:16 – 0:203 turns
Supervisor Williams, members of the board. I'm Dave Cross here today representing the Chamber of Commerce Santa Maria Valley. We do administer the Santa Barbara County Energy Watch Partnership Our territory is north Santa Barbara County, and since 2010 we've helped literally hundreds of businesses through our direct install program become more energy efficient. This last year we've done work in Santa Maria, in Guadalupe, the unincorporated areas around Lompoc, Orchid, San Yanez even out To Lake Kachuma, we upgraded Circle V Ranch to LEDs through our non-profit grant program. And that saves them considerable energy and cost. Good Samaritan Shelter in Santa Maria and outside of Lompoc, we did the same thing with them through a nonprofit grant program updating their LEDs, lights to LEDs.
And they save literally $20,000 a year that goes back into For good Samaritan shelters, so it's great. So we've done work in the 3rd 4th and 5th district and Supervisor Williams just so you know wasn't too long ago We worked with supervisor Carbajal in Nuku Yama for significant outreach out there So I'm hoping down the road we can work together with your office to continue that effort So October being Energy Awareness Month gives everyone an opportunity to look at their energy use, save a little bit on energy and on cost. And there's some great tips at pge.com and socalgas.com to do just that. So thank you.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item 821 sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino this is a resolution proclaiming the week of October 7th through 13 2018 as National 4-H Week in Santa Barbara County and we have a few folks here to come on up I think Emma Bishop, Emma, Justin Bradley, Janelle Hansen and anybody else you'd like to come on up bring it up that's great And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas 4-H is America's largest youth development organization supporting nearly 6 million youth across the country, and whereas 4-h has helped over 700 club enrolled youth in Santa Barbara County to become confident, independent, resilient, and compassionate leaders. In addition, 4- H has provided about 12,600 hands on research based curriculum opportunities for youth in Santa Barbara County.
Whereas 4-H is delivered by Cooperative Extension, a community of more than 100 public universities across the nation and provide experiences where young people learn by doing through hands on projects in important areas such as health, science, agricultural and civic engagement. And whereas California 4-h is led by the University of California's Cooperative Extension, the research and outreach arm of the University of California's Division of Agricultural and Natural Resources. And whereas National 4-H Week showcases the incredible ways that 4-h inspires kids and highlights the remarkable 4- h youth in Santa Barbara County who work each day to make a positive impact on those around them.
And whereas 4- H's national network of nearly 500,000 volunteers and 3500 professionals provides caring and supportive mentoring for all 4-hers helping them to grow into true leaders entrepreneurs and visionaries Now therefore it be hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County proclaim the week of October 7th through 13, 2018 as National 4-H Week throughout Santa Barbara County. And encourage all of our citizens to recognize 4-h for the significant impact they've made and continue to make by empowering youth with the skills they need to lead for a lifetime. Passed and adopted today.
Good morning, Supervisors and fellow Santa Barbara County residents. It is a pleasure to be here today to receive the 4-H proclamation. My name is Brader Raposo and I am 12 years old. I'm a seven year member of La Graciosa 4-h in Santa Barbara County. 4- H has given me opportunities to learn and grow. It's given me the tools to become a confident speaker and leader too.
I've learned ethically raise and market livestock and how to use my earnings to save for my future. 4-H has helped me pursue my greatest interest, which is horses. I've had the opportunity to explore STEM, which helped me better understand how things work. My school's also started using STEM. I've seen how being active in the community helps others and that things I do for my community can make an impact.
I appreciate your continued support of the 4-h Youth Development Program. Thank you.
0:21 – 0:2516 turns
We have several items being pulled. A5, not for a separate vote. A8 and A11 so let's start with A5.
And just to note that we have no request to speak from the public on the administrative agenda today.
Why don't we actually just take a motion on the balance of agenda in case there's some staff here that can go onto another task? Can we get a motion on the balance of the agenda?
Yes, Mr. Chair I'll make that motion.
A5, A8
and A11.
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, A5.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A5 is from a clerk recorder and this is the action today to appoint in lieu of election Keith Haddock incumbent to the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District Division 3 Casey Tuttle Conrad incumbent to the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District Division 6 both candidates filed a declaration of candidacy for that district and are qualified to hold office. The appointments take effect on December 7th 2018
Supervisor Labanino, I wanted to explain what's going on though. I honestly question the wisdom of that with how long it took us to explain
what was going on last week. I'm not trying to throw a little mud in the water. Now, I appreciate and this doesn't have anything to do with District 3 and District 7. I am sorry, District 3 and District 6. My question is about the open seat, which is district five. And I just want to get clarification because it was in the newspaper and I just wanted to get clarification of how people that would be interested in that open seat of how we would go about accepting those applications and reaching out to the public and then what the process is for appointing that person?
Chair Williams, Supervisor Lavagnino. So what's going to happen is that our office is going to engage in some outreach. We have four districts that we need to appoint to. We have two in the Carpinteria area with Carpinteria Valley Water and the Carpinteria Summerland Fire Protection District. We have one in Quiama at the Quiama Valley Recreation District and then the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District Division 5.
So we've been contacting, and will be contacting all of the representatives of those districts. And then working with the board members on searching for candidates that qualify and could be appointed by the board. And we're encouraging anybody who's interested to apply for those positions. We'll do some outreach in the newspapers. For example, for Carpinteria, we would use Coastal View. And then for Santa Maria, obviously The Santa Maria Times, and also Quiama, we've used The Santa Maria Times in the past. And we've also posted the ads out in Quiama at the community services district offices and also at the recreation district office to try to get the word out, out there. So that's basically the outreach effort and then we'll be coming back to the board in November with the applications and requesting that the board make the appointments to the districts.
Can I get a motion on A5? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? And thank you Mr. Holland for being there. If you do want to chime in, you're welcome but there were no other questions. A8. There he is coming back.
Come on up. Just thank you very much and Michael Allen is corrected. It's really in his purview now to accept applications for those vacant seats, so thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Holland.
Just one more thing I just would note that for individuals who would like to, you can apply online www.countyofsb.org on the county's website. You can apply and those applications come straight to our office through that online portal.
Thank you.
A8? Chair Williams, members of the board, item A8 is from the County Executive Office. It's to consider recommendations regarding re-ratification and proclamation of a local emergency caused by drought conditions.
0:25 – 0:3116 turns
Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you, Chair Williams. I asked to pull this item because I'd like an update on Lake Kachuma. We've had a lot of focus on other emergencies but the drought emergency continues and so thank you for being here Mr. Payam.
Thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair and members of the board. We've been adopting these drought proclamations for quite a long time and it's important to recognize that we have been and are still in a drought and in fact now I would categorize it as a record drought with the trailing seven-year rainfall being at Gibraltar Reservoir which is the indicator for the San Ynez River watershed, the record drought for the last hundred years To that end, Lake Kachuma now is at 31% and is looking to be at a fully allocated state again as we were in 2016.
And that's very concerning because all sorts of problems start to come from that one is that a pump barge may be required by the end of next summer if there's no additional rain this winter And it also puts a lot of stress on calculating exactly how much water is in the reservoir, because it's a moving target and a lot of variables. So we've been working with our member unit partners and maybe not agreeing on how much water is available. We're taking a very cautious approach and incrementally looking at this to make sure we don't over allocate the lake that as your board remembers, the lake was over allocated in 2016 and we don' need to return to that state.
So we're all hoping for rain this year. Also, how ironic last rain year was a 50% rain year yet look at the damages we suffered in the Thomas fire and the resulting one nine debris flow so it's an important reminder that even in a drought We are at risk for flooding and other causes but we do need rain Hopefully we'll see some inflow into Kachuma, but until then your water agency as it started in about 2012 is very carefully calculating water available in Lake Kachuma. So with that I answer any other questions.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you. I did have a question about the effect of the Whittier fire on Lake Kachuma and how much recovery we've seen, revegetation, how much we're still at risk for siltation to come into the lake this coming rain year?
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman very good point with the Whittier fire and the Thomas fire I would point out that we had a heavy rainstorm in the Montecito area which also on the backside flows into Jameson and Gibraltar Reservoir. The water quality that resulted from that debris flow rendered that water unusable for a significant amount of time and I don't know that either the city or Montecito are using water from those reservoirs yet because of the water quality. Eventually, I believe it'll be usable. We didn't suffer that at Kachuma because the rain wasn't quite as intense there but there is an ongoing risk from having water quality impacts in Lake Kachuma from heavy downpour and also the sedimentation but Just at subjectively looking at the relative watersheds, the Whittier Fire area has recovered much better.
It is on the sun shadowed side of the mountain so it gets that benefit tends to be cooler. We see a little more recovery on the Whittier fire I drive that every day so I take note of that and so that's good news but the risk is still there as you know.
Supervisor Adam?
It may be just a little bit off topics, but since you're here I've been getting some questions about the fourth and fifth ramps And do you know anything about the fourth and fifth ramps there that are not going to be accessible? Some of the voters are giving me hard time about
yeah, I think maybe mr. We've been providing the forecast of where we think the lake is going to go and that affects the elevation.
Supervisor Adam through the chair, I haven't heard yet. I'll check with Jeff Lindgren to see. We do move it once the water does go below a certain level, we'll move the ramp out.
Well apparently, because I'm hearing from more than one person that as it goes down if it goes past the third ramp there's not going to be any access at the fourth and fifth ramps.
Let me check on it with Jeff and I'll get back to you on it.
Do not need a separate vote on this item but well I guess since it's the only item of 1 or 2 we'll take a motion. Motion on A8.
Move staff's recommendation.
Second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. A11, just a request for a separate vote.
Yep. Roll call please. Chair Williams, members of the board, A11 is from Human Resources. It's to consider recommendations regarding an amendment to Ordinance 5018 setting compensation and benefits for members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
0:31 – 0:3510 turns
Is there a motion? Is there a second?
Second.
Roll call, please.
Mr. Adam? No. Mr. Lavagnino? Aye. Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Mr Williams? Aye Passes
4 to 1. Is there any public comment for items not on the agenda?
We have one request to speak we're going to go to Santa Barbara for Ed Kolaski. Mr Kolasky
Good morning. I call my talk, I cannot remodel my house because of our supervisor in the second district. This has nothing to do with the guidelines this is a personal thing apparently she feels that we're not suited for of having our house remodeled. You know with all the resolutions there, why don't you have a resolution to investigate the illegal activity of one of the board members? I could list at least 20 things we can go down through them at one time if you need help.
Today I was going to start off with our 64 page report on our house and in the summary of that report. They say that what we submitted is built solely over the garage and therefore in violation of guideline 4.7. They tell you to look at attachment E1, and that the building that we're adding is extended to the north If you can put up the other drawing there, first of all if you've noticed on my drawing it shows that the outline shows that our second story is over the dining room, garage, kitchen, laundry room and part of the living room. But if you look at the drawings submitted by the Board of Architectural Review, try not to laugh, this has nothing to do with the overlay of the second story.
Yet they put it out there because when you're telling a lie, you've got to fill in the pages and make it so that people don't realize that the whole thing is nothing but a lie. Our property's really extended to the west not to the north and he avoids saying that it's over the kitchen, the dining room, and the laundry room. I can't believe The people could go on and on with this criminal activity and not do anything about it.
You know you say a pledge of allegiance for liberty and justice for all, you should delete the for all or at least add for all those that are willing to pay our second district supervisor. Alex was chairman of the Board of Architectural Review One day he's voting five to two in our favor. The next meeting, he won't let us show our project. He won't let us speak.
It just so incredible I don't know how to say it or express it. Why can't someone who pays for the meeting be allowed to speak? Why are we ejected in 15 seconds not allowed to say a single word Why is our supervisor still on the board? She should have been investigated and fired a long time ago. Why is Alex still in charge of the Board of Architectural Review?
He should have been fired and let go a long time ago. Hail to our dictator, is that what it is? Hail to our dictator? Why do we have a
dictator?
That concludes public comment.
We will go to departmental item number one.
0:35 – 0:407 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, item number one is from community services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the formation of a library ad hoc committee.
Chair Williams I'm going to turn this over to Roger Bailey who has been involved in our library project.
Good morning, Chair Williams, members of the Board of Supervisors. Today we'll be receiving a presentation on the formation of the Library Ad Hoc Committee. Staff will be seeking your approval for the creation of the Library Ad Hoc Committee, the appointment of two board of supervisors, the four library directors, Library Advisory Committee member Judith Dale, Library friend member Patricia Saley, the CSD director for the purpose of addressing the need for an effective long term library service delivery model.
And to determine such action is not a project subject to CEQA. I will begin with a brief summary of how we got to today. Back on May 2nd, 2017 after a library presentation to your board staff was directed to engage a library consultant for the purpose of evaluating the current County Library Service model and service delivery system and funding model. On October 17th the Board approved the Library Consultant Selection Committee's recommendation of management partners to provide countywide library consultant services On April 3rd, 2018 the Board of Supervisors received a presentation from management partners.
The board directed staff to contract with the city of Goleta in fiscal year 2018-19 for the operation of the Goleta Valley Library and also earmarked 5% of the annual award for determination by the library advisory committee. And it also capped administration charges at 20% and excluded friends donations. However, the 5% earmark and administrative caps were later rescinded.
On June 5th, the Board of Supervisors restored status quo county funding allocation and administrative charges allowed and received an update from staff on fund balance deficits. And potential reductions in hours and programming in fiscal year 2018-19. At this time, the board directed staff to create an ad hoc committee to address the need for an effective and sustainable long term service delivery model.
During June's budget hearings, in addition to keeping per capita level at $7.80 at a total cost of 3.5 million, the board provided an additional $200,000 to prevent smaller libraries from reducing hours and programming. At the September 19th 2018 Library Advisory Committee meeting, the LAC unanimously recommended for appointment Library Advisory Committee member Judith Dale and library friend member Patricia Saley to the ad hoc committee.
Earlier this month on October 2nd, your board approved the countywide library agreement. The Library Ad Hoc Committee members are as follows. Two County Board of Supervisors which staff is seeking the appointment of, Judith Dale as the LAC representative, Patricia Saley as the Friends representative, the CSD director or his designee. Additionally staff will be seeking an external consultant yet to be selected to assist in driving the process.
The objective of the ad hoc committee will be to develop a funding formula that is based on socioeconomic factors, geographic location, literacy rates And contributions from partners. There are other issues the ad hoc committee may address as well, those may include reviewing the sustainability of the library system. Revisiting the management partner recommendation to add Buelton and Solvang to zone four. As well as administration charges charged by administrators, standardizing library hours and evaluating governance options.
In summary, staff is seeking the formation of the ad hoc committee and appointment of two Board of Supervisors. In addition to the four library directors, LAC member Judith Dale, friend member Patricia Saley, and the CSD director. Thank you. Staff is available to answer any questions you may have.
Supervisor Wolfe? You have some questions?
I do.
Please proceed.
One thing that you just mentioned that wasn't in our board letter about what the ad hoc's charge is, was reviewing the built-in solving possible move to Zone 4. I thought that that...I don't know maybe I just misunderstood but I thought that decision would be separate from any ad hoc What this ad hoc committee would be doing. They were moving forward or not moving forward, but it was a separate issue so I just want to make sure that we're on the same page.
0:41 – 0:5015 turns
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. It is a separate issue, you are correct. The main function of this ad hoc committee will be to address the funding formula. We did have a lot of recommendations from management partners and we ultimately landed on just the per capita. I put it down as a potential issue that could be discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee but is not the reason for its formation.
But it's not in the board letter and that's why I think we really need to be clear when we're talking to the Ad Hoc Committee What is their charge? So, can we be clear that that's not their charge?
Supervise both. Yes, we will be clear
that that's not their charge. And I can tell you that logistically it's not even possible for it to be their charge because and the committee members that were recommended to the board are well aware of it because Black Gold needs to know by December Whether they are in zone four or not. So
they need to know by December?
There's an incredibly urgent deadline for a resolution to this matter.
Okay, well then thank you so that we're all clear about that. The other thing, so just given what you said about December, that they have to make a decision about moving into zone four or not. This is kind of a broader question. Why not wait until January when we have a new board representative from the second district seated? There may be some movement on who sits on the library advisory committee.
And I'm just wondering if there's any reason why this action couldn't Until January, because and not just because of a new seat of the supervisor. But also because it looks like there's going to be some action on the change of zone perhaps.
Supervisor Wolfe through the chair. The solving and built in issue has to be resolved by December and that's something we can do internally. I guess waiting will take some time. It's going to take some time for the ad hoc committee to move forward, schedule the meetings and get the work done. We've got contracts coming up next June we'll be here sooner than you think.
So it's really policy decision on the board's part whether or not you want to wait. We can move forward. We'll follow whatever direction that the board wants to take on this one.
So your hope is, Mr. Chapman that the ad hoc committee will be acting quickly to make a recommendation to the board so that it can go into effect for next year? Is that what you're thinking?
And I'll just tell you from the perspective of the members of the library ad hoc, I think their frustration with board process is that we seem to want their opinion in the first half of the year. And then there's sort of like one or two meetings to reach resolution and then we don't want their opinion for the second half of the year. And then we go, yeah, we'll figure out something better for next year. But then perhaps do not meet enough to hash out a lot of the issues. So I'll just speak for at least, I know the opinion of Judith Dale who's one of the recommended folks that tackling issues this complicated will take a little bit more Meeting and waiting until January would be essentially repeating what we do and kind of rush the process before June.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you. From my perspective, we've spent the last two budget workshops and hearings with libraries being very contentious and so we did get this study and at the last hearings I guess I did volunteer to serve on the committee if the board would agree to appoint me. I think it's very important that we come up with some recommendations, that we not once again be mired in uncertainty. But we have something clear to go forward because we were putting it off for the library study. We got that and we still were floundering so I think it's time that we really take the bull by the horns and figure this out instead of just muddling through yet again and all the uncertainty and all the contentiousness that that raises.
And I've also volunteered as your designee to the Library Advisory Committee and hope that the Board of Supervisors is willing to at least look at the recommendations and meeting process for this committee between next month and the spring. Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, let me just state that what the Board of Supervisors does in our allocation of over $3 million is to ensure that the money does go to each person in the county. And I know that some folks brought up the issue of whether or not we should be funding cities and so forth. I think if there was any change to maybe reduce or eliminate our funding to cities, that there would be a significant impact to our cities and our constituents.
I'm pleased to see the makeup of this because we have someone from, we have all the library administrators. But and I don't know if Supervisor Lavagnino or Supervisor Adam Would be interested, but this could potentially impact your districts as well as South County. It's always seemed to be focused on South County, but as we're talking about ad hoc and what the charges of this, the potential implications could be significant to the city of Santa Maria, And so that's one thing and also I don't mean to, I appreciate that Supervisor Hartman has volunteered and Supervisor Williams has volunteered.
I think that since Supervisor Williams already sits on the Library Advisory Committee, that we should have another supervisor serve. That would be another reason to wait until January because whoever is on the chair of the Library Advisory Committee, I don't think should also sit on this ad hoc committee. So that's why I'm suggesting that either one of you serve and Otherwise, I just think that it's.
Otherwise, wait until January. See how things fall out. Whoever is the chair of the Library Advisory Committee I don't think should be on the ad hoc. So if you select someone else on the Library Advisory Committee, I think it's great to have Supervisor Williams serve but it's kind of like a double dip on an ad hoc committee that really will impact the entire county.
Supervisor
Lavenino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Actually, I prefer to have somebody on the ad hoc committee that...I don't see the problem. I don't see it as a double dip. It's going to be that person who is probably going to have more information and knowledge of library functions than most of us on the board and I know you used to serve in that capacity so Yes, any decision that we make is that the ad hoc is going to make. It's going to be a recommendation to come back to the full board and if my district is impacted then let's be the time where I will feel like it'll be time for me to weigh in. But I'm very concerned about, we've discussed these library issues to death with absolutely zero resolution.
So waiting, and I understand your thought process on that. But for me waiting until January, we know how January is by the time you get through the holidays. We're just a couple of months away from budget workshops in April. I just don't see them coming to a resolution in a month or two. And so, I would prefer that it move now and I'm comfortable with the two supervisors that have volunteered unless Supervisor Adam, I don't see him raising his hand too high on this one.
Yeah?
0:50 – 0:5216 turns
Thank you for that, Supervisor Lavagnino. And you're right, this will come back to the board with recommendations and I think, I trust that it will be a fair hearing from folks. And I think you know how important this issue is to my constituents in the third districts and the folks who are paying CSA3 funds to supplant the funding that the libraries get. So, I just want to make sure that that issue is not overlooked because as you rightly point out this has been contentious and Is that issue in particular? So, I just wanted to make that point. And of course it's always nice to have two volunteers and I appreciate them stepping forward and if that's the choice of the board, I'll agree with the motion and expect that it will be a fair representation of recommendations.
And we may have public comment before we-
No request to speak. Okay.
Any other, I guess we're through questions and any comments or motion?
If
you'd
like.
I'll make a motion that we move forward with staff recommendation to create an ad hoc subcommittee and that our two appointees to that subcommittee would be Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman.
Second.
There is a motion in the second. All those in favor, please- I have a comment. Supervisor Wolff?
And I don't know if you want to make this as a motion but I think it should be stated that on page three of the board letter are the objectives of the library ad hoc committee so I just think that we should make sure that they're clear on what their
charge
is.
We can include that in the motion.
Okay thank you Mr. Labagnino
There is a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Departmental item number two.
0:53 – 1:162 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, item two is from Human Resources. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the classification and salary plan for unrepresented executives and managers.
Good morning, Chair Williams and members of the board. Thank you for hearing the proposal and recommendations pertaining to the unrepresented management and executive salary plan changes. The compensation plan is one of three HR priorities that you gave to me in 2016. The charge was to evaluate, review, update, and enhance existing management class and comp salary. The recommended changes that I'm going to present to you today represent second phase enhancements.
So please let me just take a moment to remind you that the county's management classification and compensation plan had been in a state of flux for approximately ten years, and was a source of contention for many managers primarily because there is no mechanism to advance employees on the compensation scale There was no clear and transparent philosophy regarding comparable counties and market evaluation. And there was no way to correct the unintended consequence of tenured employees being stuck in a salary bubble due to the lack of funding for the leadership series. This resulted in newer employees being hired at much higher wage rates than existing employees, which created internal equity issues and disparity.
So since the first phase that was adopted in 2016, we have made great strides toward a functional system. The four major changes that I'm proposing to you today will further normalize the county's broadband system. We're one of only a handful of organizations that still utilize the defunct broadband compensation system. To fix this permanently and to revert back to a step system would cost the county millions of dollars. Instead, we are creatively finding ways to make the system workable. With little to no cost. We're doing things such as reducing the spread between the minimum and maximum salary band by the COLA amount, I'm sorry, reducing the spread between the minimum and maximum salary band. Adjusting the band by the COLA amount so as to keep pace with the market and better align with represented employees' salary structure.
This will also prevent management employees from capping out or maxing out at the top of the range prior to them receiving any type of approved COLA. So the recommendations, if approved, would also provide the CEO with greater flexibility to compensate individuals performing extraordinary duties for prolonged periods of time during a declared disaster. Many of the other changes are simply administrative language clarification and cleanup.
So I do want to caution once again that the plan is not a panacea and will not fix every little issue. However, the plan is solid. It is logical. It is progressive and it is fiscally responsible. And if adopted we'll move the county in the right direction to achieve our recruitment and retention goals. So before I begin with the presentation for the second phase of changes, I did work with several employees to ensure departmental input. And I want to thank and recognize those individuals right now. First one is Betsy Byrne from the Auditor Controller's Office.
Jen Butterfield from General Services, Tom Fairam from Public Works and a myriad of HR staff including Don Nguyen who is with me today, June Liggins, Aaron Jeffrey and Yvonne Torres. So we'll go into the project scope. So the project scope, revamping the class and comm system is a major undertaking as you've heard me say several times before. The overall goal of a functional system is to attract and retain talent, be competitive with the labor market, integrate flexibility for managers, and reinforce performance management and accountability.
Salary is just a small piece of the attraction and retention of employees. Other areas that really need to be addressed is affordable housing, or alternative work venues and organizational culture to enhance engagement. Although affordable housing is beyond the scope of this project, this project does emphasize performance management and accountability. By tying all increases to performance and adherence to certain mandates such as sexual harassment training, cyber security, civil treatment training. And in the near future financial management training.
Moving forward we may also recommend incorporating attendance at the county's new employee orientation as a requirement for salary increases. Only 25% of new employees attend the county's new employee orientation. And this is really the time where we can reinforce county culture and create connectedness and engagement. So I'm going to strongly recommend that that's one of the things you look at in the future.
Next slide, so let me quickly just review some of our successes today. None of this could have been done without your decisive action and implementation of smart policies that build upon each other and work holistically together, and eliminate the need for these one-off case by case Decisions, compensation decisions that result in inconsistent practices. Since 2016 the first phase of changes and I won't go through all of those just highlight a couple of them.
We implemented a new control point which has saved To date, $357,000 and growing in new hire cost. You may recall that prior to the control point managers could hire up to 90% of the salary band. This resulted again in new hires making more than existing employees a skewed compensation system and higher placement costs. The control point adjusted the starting salary based on market data.
The goal was to hire at least 80% of all new hires at the designated control point and we have succeeded. And since 2016, 27 of 33 of our new management hires were hired at or below the control point for an ongoing savings of approximately 387,000. We provided a provision within the salary plan to address internal equity. In addition to the general salary increases or the compensation pool you may be familiar with, or the COLA is another way to say it, managers can use a portion of those funds to address equity.
By providing what we call an ESI, Equity Salary Increase. And since implementation of this provision, we have not had one request for a compaction adjustment since this implementation and I think that's pretty astonishing. You may recall that our previous practices created compaction between managers and employees. And by incorporating this ESI, we've eliminated that problem. Most managers are using this tool fully. And one of the departments in particular that is really using this ESI is the Department of Social Services.
So kudos to them. We also established a non-based building pay provision which allowed us Successfully implement one time pay incentives such as the succession incentive pay, the longevity pay and the voluntary early separation incentive program or VSIP. The VSIP program alone is on track to save the county $775,000 net dollars in first year savings. All of your policies, as I mentioned before, work holistically to create a functional system.
You can see that in 2016 on this chart here because of a lack of logical policies we had an abnormal distribution of employees and salaries. Most people fell within 90% of the band because everyone was hiring at the maximum capability. However with the new control point requirement that you adopted The unit cash being added to base wages that you just approved earlier this year in the spirit of total compensation.
And the shrinking or reducing of the broadband, which is one of the recommendations I'm presenting to you today. All work together to normalize and create a normal distribution. And this is really what a healthy organization looks like in terms of salary distribution. The holistic approach is the way to go, it creates consistency and fairness of practice and eliminates the need for these one-off compensation decisions that result in uncoordinated and chaotic results.
The next slide, just to drive the point home a little further. You can see this scattered diagram and in 2016 you had employees with zero to one year of service on the job making way more than employees with 10, 15 or even 20 years of service. With the changes that you've put into place to date, you can see that we are slowly yet systematically starting to see a shift. There should be a positive correlation between years of service and salary and that's what you see there on the right. And this is just with one-and-a-half years of changes.
Next slide. Our retention longevity incentive, this was a new provision that we adopted in 2016 as well. And July 2018 was the first time that we implemented the longevity or retention pay provision. We paid incentives to 28 employees who had either 5, 10, or 15 years of service as of June 30th, 2018. The total one-time non-base building payout was $87,000.
We conducted a survey post the payout and asked employees how likely it would be for them to stay, for them or their coworkers to stay an additional year if it meant receiving the incentive. And a total or an aggregate of 92% said either somewhat likely or very likely. I think that this is a huge number because it's quite expensive to recruit, to train, to onboard purchase equipment for new hire. It takes time to receive a return on our initial investment and you typically don't even see a return until maybe year three of someone's new hire unless the person is just exceptional.
So every week, every month, every year you can keep an employee on the job and keep them engaged. You increase your return on investment. Research shows that the cost to replace one individual that leaves the organization can range from between 20%-70% of your initial cost. And that does not include the training and the equipment and everything else that goes with onboarding a new employee. So just to give you an example, one enterprise leader making let's say $125,000 a year. If they left it could cost between 25,000 to 87,000 just to recruit and get somebody back on board.
The amount that we paid in this retention provision for 28 employees was 87,00 so you can understand the math there. Next slide. Okay, so the four main recommended changes that I'm presenting to you today are fairly straightforward and simple. The first one is to normalize the percentage spread from approximately 60% to 45 to 49%. The second one is to adjust the leadership classification salary band by the negotiated percentage increase in market data. Basically this is unfreezing the management salary band which has been frozen for years.
The third is to establish a new classification and salary band for chiefs of staff for the Board of Supervisors. And the fourth one is to add a special project or extraordinary assignment pay, and I will touch on each one of these individually. So the first one. The biggest problem with the broadband salary structure is that it is ginormous and it's misleading. It is rare that we ever hire at the bottom of the range, and it's rare that we hire at the top of the range. When evaluating our comparable counties, we found that all of their salary bands ranged from between 40% and 50%, and ours was like 67%, 65%. In order to achieve a similar structure We examined the market along with our current compensation practice and decided that it was best to eliminate the first quartile of our salary ban.
Because we don't hire people in that first quartile anyway. Also because the external market has increased since 2016, we adjusted the top of the band by 5%. When we went back out and did a salary survey of many of our positions in the management classification. We saw that a lot of them had moved on average 6%, 7% some as high as 10%. So we are recommending a 5% which is even lower.
Than what the market is actually doing. So as you can see in this example, this is an enterprise leader position. You can see that the new minimum salary is 108,000 a year and the maximum is 159. And now the spread is from 60 some odd percent to 46.5%. Next slide. In addition to eliminating the first quartile and adding on 5% at the top of the band, we are recommending that each year the pay scale adjust by the negotiated salary increase. So for example, the Board of Supervisors approved a 2 1⁄2% increase for SEIU and unrepresented managers mirror that increase. So the entire ban for the enterprise leader would move by two and a half percent. Now this is a critical change, and specifically addresses your concerns about employees maxing out at the top of the salary band prior to them receiving their COLA like everyone else.
So you may recall just this past year in July 2018, you approved a one time lump sum non-based building pay Of a maximum of 3% for those management employees who are at the top of the range. You did this reluctantly and with the proviso that the system would be fixed going forward. Without this change, the number of employees reaching the top of the scale would increase exponentially. So for example in 2016 there were 11 people who did not get an increase when everyone else did.
There were 20 people who didn't get an increase because they were at the top of the range. In 2018, there were 30 people but you gave them the one time salary increase so that alleviated that issue a little bit and if we don't approve this change in 2019 it will be 50 people and it will continue to grow as people reach the top of the range. So this is a very normal process, and what we're trying to do is normalize the very abnormal system that we have.
And it follows a practice that I'm familiar with in every organization that I've ever worked in. This is exactly the practice that occurs with represented salaries. And when an increase is negotiated for represented employees, the entire salary band increases by that amount. It grows with the market. So for the managers, the salary band has been frozen for years which has caused several problems.
Okay next slide. My first proposal is to establish a separate class and compensation structure for the chiefs of staff. One of the other fixes I was asked to make was to address the non-conventional titling structure that exists within our broadband system. So no one simply knows what an enterprise leader is. When the broadband was established, several regularly classified people were kind of just put into this enterprise classification.
Many were placed in this enormous band inappropriately. And in order to fix this, it will be a major undertaking to really deconstruct the previous actions. However with the shrinking of the salary bands that I'm recommending we saw clear opportunity to address one or two of these issues. So the chief of staff was the one position where we had incumbents in the first quartile.
Since we were eliminating the first quartile, this was an opportunity to create a new band that reflects the reality of the Chiefs of Staff versus artificially placing them on a higher scale. To confirm our theory, we also conducted a salary survey of our comparable county chiefs of staff and found that the comparable county market average is very close to our proposed Chief of Staff Salary Band. So you can see that on the slide there.
Ideally, we'll also want to do this with the CEO's fiscal and policy analyst. It's another very obvious opportunity to adjust their salary bands and create a classification that's more appropriate and more conventional versus enterprise leader. So the proposed chief of staff salary ban is realistic and it's based on current salaries. It aligns with the market, and it is occupationally-based.
To do this on a larger scale, I mentioned this before, you will need to most likely hire an external firm with in depth classification expertise. We just don't have it within our current organization. And because of the complexity, time and potential controversy I would recommend that this be outsourced if you decide to move forward on a larger scale. And the last recommendation is the request from the CEO to enable her to address unrepresented management staff that's not subject to overtime who exert extraordinary effort and prolonged extra work in response to a declared Uh, natural disaster because of our current structure. The CEO did not have the ability to address employees who exerted this extraordinary and prolonged effort in response to the Thomas fire and the Montecito mudslides and this provision if approved would allow the CEO To grant up to 5% of base pay for the time period worked not to exceed a maximum of $10,000 gross.
Again it would need to be a declared disaster as defined by the management resolution or applicable MOU and there are some other provisions and parameters put around this particular provision I won't go into detail here but it was in your packet Okay, next slide. Summary and recommendations. So as with all of our programs and proposals that we present to you, we try to ensure that we are fiscally responsible and good stewards of public funds. And that is why I'm pleased that all of the changes that are recommended to you will yield far greater savings Have a positive impact on morale, which is incalculable. And establish a solid and coherent compensation system to build upon and this will cost you very little.
So the first one, adjusting the salary bands by the negotiated percentage. Which aligns with every regular compensation practice, keeps pace with the market and avoids capping out at the maximum before the general salary increases applied will cost you zero. Won't cost you anything. Establishing a new classification in salary ban for the chiefs of staff which is market based and reflects reality again that is a zero cost proposition.
Normalizing the salary bands to reflect realistic earning potential and the market will cost you approximately $47,000. And this is due to the fact that there are seven employees that will have to be adjusted upward on the new scale because they were lower in the scale. The bulk of these employees come from, there are four in the fiscal analyst CEO's office. One in HR, one in the sheriff's department and one in the treasurer tax collector And the last proposal is to add special project or extraordinary assignment pay, which is a tool that is specifically reserved for the CEO. To provide her the flexibility to address unusual disaster related circumstances and because this is variable and we don't know what lies before us. The cost for this is unknown but as I mentioned before there are specific fiscal controls that are incorporated into the provision.
So with that, that is the end of my presentation and I will address any questions that you may have.
1:16 – 1:186 turns
Supervisor Adam? When
you say Ms. Gentles it's going to additional cost zero, that means that its budgeted?
That is correct.
So it fits within the budgeted amounts of money. And so when you're saying approximately $47,000 for normalizing salary band spread that is unbudgeted?
That is unbudgeted but we believe that the departments that I mentioned will be able to absorb that within their existing budgets. So we are not asking for new money for that.
Okay well I think in the real world when you move the band and the midpoint goes up, there's a cost associated with that. How normal people with normal businesses think about their costs of production or cost of goods. I don't see how you come up with a zero on that unless you're just talking about how much money you already have.
1:22 – 1:3321 turns
Thank you. Testing 1, 2, 3. Testing 123. Supervisor Adam,
please proceed.
Okay well I'm sorry Miss Gentles but I think we're gonna have to redo just a little bit of that. We were talking about how some of these things have zero cost and I was I was about to say that I disagreed based on the fact that if you if you were any other business There's no way you could say that it had a zero cost when you're shoving the band up. Eventually, what's going to end up happening if we don't end up with more money in the end and correct me if you think I'm wrong, if we don't end up with more money in the end, we're going to have to terminate positions to continue to have that salary ban respected within a department Somehow, if you're going to raise the pay and in an environment where you don't have any more money then somebody's going to have to be terminated.
You can have a service level reduction of some sort to allow you to continue to pay at that rate, right?
So I would say no. I would say this is not quite correct. So the way the plan is now, what you adopted in 2016. The board adopted that we would start to mirror the largest bargaining unit which is SEIU. So when they get a negotiated increase, we would get that same kind of amount. That is a policy decision that is made every time, right? So we've made that kind of global policy decision that we would mirror and that's the plan.
But I'm assuming that if there were ever any difficult budget situation where we entered into another recession or something of that nature, the board always has the decision to freeze the salaries. Or to freeze that which is what you've done in the past. What we're recommending here today, Today or immediate cost you are right in saying that yes with the bigger band and if things continue as they are.
You continue to approve the increases to mirror SEIU, yes eventually it will grow but the action that you're taking today and the reason why I like I'm driving this point home is zero is because the last time I was before you presenting This first phase, I was asking for about 300 or so thousand dollars new money that it would cost you just to get us to the spot that we're at today. And so we did all of the heavy lifting early on and this second phase is really A simpler phase that will cost you $47,000 and not even a new money. The departments will have to absorb that the five departments that I mentioned to deal with those seven people. So I think I see where you're coming from but I think it's not exactly the same we wouldn't be looking at layoffs or reduction in force because we approve this salary scale.
The board- No, no, no.
I'm not saying that that's the case. Because you've already budgeted for it,
right?
So you're saying that since we budgeted for it. So if we put 3% salary increases in the budget Then it's all budgeted and it costs
nothing
right, okay Well, that's not the rest of the rest of the world Does not look at things like that They just, their cost of production just went up 3%.
And Supervisor Adam, I appreciate your intensity on this but could we with staff allow them to finish sentences? I know you're passionate.
She
was
speaking- There is some HR director decorum that we should I think are you feeling that? I'm not being Decorous, no.
I feel that you're being just fine.
Okay. Well, thank you very much Thank you Any
department headworth or salt would say that they feel just fine even when they don't so let's just preserve some decorum here and
If I could just say this because we're talking about the same thing but on two different tracks. You are 100% correct that the cost increase, even though it's budgeted for there is an increase. Everybody knows that? That's just math right? So yes it has increased. The action what I'm talking about today is the action that you're taking today And for the rest of this year, has no new costs. And that's why I say additional cost. Additional cost is zero. I'm not asking for any new money whereas before, I was asking for new money somewhere to the tune of $300,000. So you're right there's no escaping that there is an additional costs we've already budgeted that. That was already approved months ago.
This is just putting a little bit of structure around the system.
Well, I love the intellectual honesty that we're going to come to this with because. Offended is the wrong word but I got a problem when we say it costs zero because it does cost something and It may not even be a tremendous amount because There's that many people, but I appreciate very much. You're willing to have the intellectual exercise with me Where we can agree that it costs something it doesn't cost zero Okay, so second problem for me is You have in the past told me that we don't have a retention problem.
That's correct.
We have 8 to 10 percent, which is sort of at the low end of normal retention issues
I would say it's within the realm. I mean, you could be lower to 5% to 7% will probably be good but 8% to 10% is okay. Anything really above that starts to get a little concerning.
1:33 – 1:4226 turns
Without listening to public comment. I'm just going to say that you know, I've always supported two kinds of raises one of them is for compaction and And you're right we haven't had the compaction issues since we've put into place the other the other program and that's been good and then lack of applicants for a position and And I don't think that that's where we are right now. We're we have Everybody but the sheriff probably has pretty good applicant pools when they do a recruitment, right?
I would say so. Yeah we have pretty decent applications overall. Some of the positions in behavioral wellness we have difficulty finding people to
And we have addressed that with the physicians there and the psychologists and stuff. We have given raises, which I voted for. So this is where if you don't have a high turnover problem that you're trying to address, Short pools of applicants, I think you're kind of prophylactically trying to solve a problem that may never exist. Unless you allow it to exist or develop then it doesn't exist.
So let me just clarify a little bit of what I've said in the past so based upon the numbers overall Our retention rate is average, 8 to 10. When you look at different departments and break it down, it does go higher or lower. One of the biggest factors that creates some of the feeling that there's a turnover issue and a recruitment issue is the loss that we experience within the first five years of employment, which I mentioned to you within the first year. We do lose 22% of the new hires that that's a big issue and then we have the retirees which again it depends on how you look at turnover if you think that retirees is a part of turnover which it can be it is or if you're looking at people who just voluntarily leave they're not retiring but they're leaving for other reasons.
That's a bigger concern And so we have those issues and we have engagement issues, is what I like to say. Everything that you do, all of the policies and programs that you put into place, it all goes hand in hand. You really can't isolate just one issue and say this is the remedy for that issue. We're trying to create a culture, a cadre of policies and practices that speak to that whole basket of issues.
Recruitment, retention, engagement. All of those things are important and so I'm not bringing this forward just as a tool for one specific thing. So if we could kind of just think of it more globally and see that we're putting practices together that in the long run and even in the short run as demonstrated today in my presentation has already saved you hundreds of thousands of dollars and will continue to do that
Okay, well I just want to say that I really appreciate you going through the exercise with me even if it seems a little bit strenuous to some. Thanks.
You're welcome.
Supervisor
Laveny no.
Thank you Mr Chair.
Well maybe in additional costs we could just put unknown. Right, because it might be zero instead of saying zero. It could be something in the future. It will be something in the future but anyway so a couple other things I'm concerned about was one of the things you mentioned have a question about the So did you just say like 22% of new hires and is that within the first year we lose?
That is correct
Okay, and then another portion we talked about only 25% of them actually go to an orientation or to the main county in orientation. So they might be going to a department orientation?
That is correct.
I don't know how the rest of you feel, but to me. I think I know you'd said you'd like to see it mandatory sometime in the future for me that future would be next week because I don't see how we employees that come in need to understand the entire makeup of the county and what our goals are and what our culture is. And maybe the reason why they're leaving is because they're And maybe they don't see growth in that department, not understanding that there's a whole other life outside that department.
Or they have some kind of interaction with the supervisor that they don't like and they don't see that there's an ability to move because for me I feel like if we hire an employee unless it's for something technical. Super technical that only exists, maybe it's IT. But some of these skills can be transferred around to different departments and if the person is not a good fit in general services they might be employee of the month in public works or something so I don't want to lose talking about retention.
There's got to be a significant cost associated with losing a quarter of your people in the first year. That's also scary to me that Why is that happening? And I don't know if we're finding out what the main reason is.
We've broken it down, Don has done some good analysis work on that and when we look at the 22%, it's split between just a wrong fit. Unrealistic job description like they didn't this is not what they anticipated or thought the job was. Very few of them, very small percentage maybe accept a job and then something else happens in their life and they need to move away but mostly it's failing on probation so there's a disconnect somehow either we hired the wrong person or we weren't clear enough in what the job really was.
Well I know the one where that kind From what I've seen, at least talking to people who get hired by the county, they beat out a bunch of other applicants to get to that position. Even if it's for an AOP, it's competitive and so I hope that the, I don't know. It just seems strange to me that we're, you would think that once you went through that entire process, we've got the gem and so okay. So, I don't know how we implement that folks need to go to the orientation. To me, that's mandatory.
Yeah, yeah. The other thing is about retention and so when we talk about cost savings associated with the retention pay. So is that for a one year? We basically, we give people a bonus to stay for one more year if they hit a certain. Or is it just that you've hit that year mark- Yes. That 15, 20, 25 year, okay. The
5, 10 and 50 so we looked at, we did a longitudinal study and we saw when people are leaving 22% in the first year and then it slows down through year two, year three, year four. So we thought if we could keep people to year five
I
totally think this is probably the best thing that we're doing as far as these changes because there
were people
that It's hard to
look at people In the eye that slept at the EOC and tell him, hey, that's just part of your job because you know it's above and beyond some of these things people worked months on end. But how many people are we talking about? I mean for the public out there, we're not talking about the entire workforce this is dozen
Yeah, and it's really discretionary. I would assume that the CEOs will exercise great discretion in that I know that this last year, I can just think of at least three or four people
All right, so I just wanted to kind of put that into perspective for folks. I mean, I trust the CEO, she is very conservative and it will go to people that actually went. So we're talking probably less than ten in the last disaster, Mona? In your mind, 10, 15?
Supervisor Lavinia through the chair, yes. And if you look at the Ms. Gentles didn't go through this specific language but it says a recipient must be in good standing have engaged in the activity above and beyond normal and customary duties for a period greater than four months. So there's been few people who've actually continued to work on the disaster greater than four months and I think we know who they are.
Okay great thank you
1:42 – 1:4711 turns
Any supervisor? Supervisor Adam. And I'm probably not going to be able to support the whole thing, but if anybody wants to break that special project extraordinary assignment payout, I would support that.
Is there public comment on this item?
No request to speak.
Is there other questions, comments or motion? Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr. Williams. Ms. Jentles, this broadbanding that we've had in the county I think it's over ten years has always been a concern of mine and there was a time when I just wanted to dismantle. I thought we should just dismantle the whole thing because it was so unwieldy and To dismantle it is really unrealistic. Maybe you didn't use those terms, but that it would cost a lot of money and a lot of time to dismantle. So what you have consistently presented to us since you've been here Has to normalize an unnormal situation. I think those were your words as well, and that's maybe the best that we can do.
And what I've been so impressed by your work is how you've taken us incrementally through this process. And also knowing that we're not done, that there are other, I mean you pulled out chiefs of staff. I'm sure you're going to be pulling out other distinct Job titles as we move through this I think CEO Miyasato is on the same page and is very supportive of this.
I think you're working on normalizing the salary band for managers makes so much sense, and I know when We've talked or I've had a question about this Your response is not just to show me the scatter chart, but you've put a lot of work and expertise behind this. And statistical analysis behind the numbers that you're giving to us. So it's not just, you're just not pulling numbers out of the air. I think they are based on a rational reason.
I love that you're condensing the band. I think you're right, and you've shown that a lot of folks would start at the high end of the band. And by actually increasing the minimum range, that there's the opportunity for more people to start closer to that control point rather than at the maximum. And that will, as you pointed out, it will save us money. And it also gives people room for growth.
I think maintaining the manager's salary with our other units is very important. Otherwise we get into the compacting issue that we've seen and then we have to come up with additional money. This will keep us in line with the other groups. I also think the, what is the pay that's called for the emergency services folks?
The special assignment-
Special assignment pay is also a brilliant move. And as CEO Miyasato brought up, there are some limitations and some guidelines to follow. So and I also appreciate your fiscal analysis that you have on the last page which does show the allocation of these other funds for what we're looking at for these for the managers. So I am in total support of what you've done for us in the past, but really what's before us today. To you and your team, I think you deserve a lot of accolades for again moving us, I just loved what you said, normalize a very unnormal situation to the best extent that we can.
I'll make a motion Mr. Chair first that, oh I don't know if there's other, I'm sorry Joan. I'll make a motion and then do you want me to make a motion and then you wanna speak or? That's
fine
whether
there will be more to the motion after I speak I donno.
Well so I'll make a motion to Supervisor Adams point. I'll make two motions. The first one is to add the special project extraordinary assignment pay.
1:47 – 1:5312 turns
And then let's vote on that.
So there is a motion but no second. Oh, Supervisor Adams second so the motion is to vote separately on the special assignment pay. There's a motion and a second all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Supervisor Wolf
And now I'll move the other three points to normalize a percentage spread and salary band from 60% to between 45 and 49%, adjust the leadership classification salary bands by the negotiated percentage increase in market data, and establish a new classification in salary bands for Board of Supervisors Chiefs of Staff.
Supervisors, if I may, there are some other administrative changes and language changes in the plan that's provided to you. So if you could just adopt the balance of that, that might be more helpful.
I'll adopt the balance of the plan. I'll move that we adopt the balance of the plan.
There is a motion, is there a second?
I'd like to hear Supervisor Hartman's comments before I second that, and then we vote on it so that we get everybody's
input. So normally a motion would die for lack of a second but we will suspend that for a moment. Supervisor Hartman?
Well, I just wanted to say that I certainly agree with what Supervisor Wolf had to do about the incremental changes. This could be very disruptive and you've been able to do it bit by bit in a way that has been very smooth and fluid. I'm like Supervisor Lavinino, concerned about that 22% in the first year. And my early career was in the academic world where it's well understood that retention is key. You spend all this money on recruitment and advertising and traveling By the time you get students, you want to keep them and you invest in that. It seems to me with the county that's even more of the case because you're investing in training them.
And so I would like to hear you talk a bit more about what we're doing to make it a better fit And then following up on, again what Supervisor Lavinino said about the orientation. I think that is a critical component and with only 25% of our people involved in that how can we act sooner rather than later? Is there anything we can do today to say this is required? This is something that being an employee of Santa Barbara County means you've gotta learn what that means.
So I'll start off with the 22% in the first year. This was a statistics that we've been sharing for the last couple of years, because it is pretty astonishing. And what we put into place is we said that we were going to try to reduce that number by 2% each year to within a certain range. You've got to have some turnover. And so I think we reduced it this last budget cycle, I think we reported that it was about 19. So we had done some things. Some of the things that we're doing is the new employee orientation. Again those people that are coming, we are trying to get them to understand that there's a social network because that's part of what keeps people on the job as well as having friends, having a social network, understanding what the county is all about.
The other thing that we've put into place, and quite frankly it hasn't taken off as it should is the state interviews. We encourage people to do state interviews within the first six months of a person's hire just to check in with them to say are you Still convinced you made the right decision. How's it going? Are you getting everything that you need? So, that's one thing that we could just reinforce a little bit more. We've implemented it but it has not taken off the way it needs to take off.
The other thing that we've incorporated is what we call, we call it a mixer so for all new hires that were hired within this was for management. Employees that were hired within the first six months, we invited them to what we called a mixer. Where they could get together and it's a cohort group again just to try to build some of that connectedness. But there's a lot more than we could do. We really need a sophisticated onboarding system.
That identifies specific training that people need to have within the first 30 days. Specific things that they should be doing, that will increase their retention. We just don't have that but there's great opportunity there. We revised and implemented a new employee orientation in April of 2016. At that time, we chose not to make it mandatory because it was new and we just really wanted to generate enthusiasm from the ground up.
And that hasn't worked because some departments have their own orientation and they want to just have their people go to that. But I think that if we're really trying to enhance large scale organizational change, mandatory new employee orientation where we talk about the specific values Of the county, specific expectations of the county. It does need to be mandatory. That is a policy decision that you all can make and if you make that decision then that's what we do.
Mr. Gazzani, do you have any guidance for us here?
Chair and supervisors, so it sounds like a very positive thing but for the CEO's implementation of this She also has elected department heads that she'll be interacting with So one possible action today would just provide direction to CEO on this and that would provide her some latitude for rollout
1:53 – 1:5817 turns
Supervisors
So instead of a motion requiring mandatory employee that we direct to explore some sort of mandatory, whether it's in order to achieve a raise of a certain amount or something.
It could be pretty directive on this. I'm just sensing that with elected department heads, some of whom control the deployment of their personnel, it gives us CEO an opportunity to talk with them before implementing?
Supervisors, I'm happy to take that direction. I think it's I Think it's necessary It's something this the HR director I just spoke about and it's not for a lack of not wanting to do it We want to understand the department's issues but also ensure that HR has enough staff To continue to do these on an ongoing basis and frequently enough to meet our departments needs so it's both things But I'm happy to take that direction
So.
So I would second Supervisor Wolfe's motion, and then I think this direction doesn't need to be part of the motion.
Okay.
I have a question Mr. Chair.
Thank you for belated second. Yes, Supervisor Wolfe?
So on the 22%, how many of those are ones that didn't meet the probationary period?
So I don't have today's data in front of me, but going off of memory. I would say that gosh out of the 22%, I'm going to say around maybe 11% of that was failed on probation and then a split between some
other
things.
And you know I think none of us when we hear 22% it is a lot and I think there's things that you've mentioned that we can reduce that number. But the flip side of that, and something that I have especially in public employment is these probationary periods are really important. And evaluations are really important. And if there's ever a time or determination that there is not a good fit then that is the time to move in that direction otherwise becomes part of our county system and it's much more difficult to take any action. So that probationary period, even if it's 11% and we may not want that and perhaps the onboarding will help us decrease that number. But I also think it's important for department heads to know, at least for me, that I appreciate the fact that they are doing the evaluations and making those tough calls early on.
Because sometimes if they don't make those tough calls it gets much harder. So anyway, I just wanted to make that comment otherwise I'm ready for the vote and thank you for your addition to the
second. Supervisor through the chair, if I could just make one comment on that and on behalf of departments. I appreciate that on the probation period but I also want to say That our departments are now hiring people who are third fourth fifth top of the list meaning they've offered and the candidates are declining So it means that sometimes we're getting candidates who meet our criteria, but they're not the best candidate that we wanted for the job. And we are hiring them because that's the list and that's our process and they'd like to get someone into the position. And through the probationary process, they're finding out they're not a good fit. So I just want to make sure your board also understands that we're having challenges in finding the right people and we're often being declined by our candidates as we go through the process.
And if I could just say, I think by increasing the minimum on our band that might help as well.
I'll be supporting the motion, I think as long as I've been here there has been this quandary of some of the heavy lifting managers being in the doldrums. And obviously that's not a good thing for the culture and we've said no to a lot of proposed solutions so I think we have been discriminating about how to not Breaks the bank or sends the wrong signal. So I think this has been a prudent and restrained response, and we'll be supporting it.
There's a motion and a second. Any other comments? All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Four to one. Next item our legislative platform.
1:58 – 2:049 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item three is from the county executive office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the draft 2019 County of Santa Barbara ledge platform.
Mr. Bozanich please proceed
Thanks Chair Williams, members of the board. I'm here presenting the initial draft of the 2019 County of Santa Barbara Legislative Platform for the purpose of a board discussion. You will not be acting to approve the legislative platform at today's meeting as I will mention in a moment that will come in December So at this point we'll get the slide presentation. So just a brief update on what has been, has led us to this point so the review of the current planks and principles for the ledge platform you know we start with the 2018 as our starting point. The committee, Ledge Program Committee In July, I considered any additions or deletions new planks they might want to do or any new principles.
At that time the alleged program committee suggested we added material on disaster preparedness, disaster response and recovery to our principles and you'll see that in the draft before you today. In August, the departments reviewed and updated their planks. So we send the planks out to all the department directors who are the subject matter experts on all of these planks and We asked them to update them and provide us with their comments and reviews updates And we're going to go through those in a moment Then in September, the Ledge Program Committee took all of those updated planks and principles.
And reviewed and commented on those for further clarification. And then at their October meeting, the committee received an initial draft of the 2019 ledge platform which is what is attached to this board item today. It includes the state of the platform at this point in time, subject to your comments and suggestions today. And so really the purpose for today is to review discuss and recommend additional changes to the 2019 platform for the entire board here And then the committee will review those at its November 5th meeting for inclusion of those recommended changes.
And then we will return for final approval on December 11th to this body, to the board as a whole on December the 11th. Also at that time, we will have added the year-end summaries and some of the other front matter that we include as part of our document of the past year. And we'll also have a report from the advocates will be joining us on kind of a review and you're able to engage them in discussion at that meeting on the 11th.
So just to walk through the changes today it might be helpful for the board and if for the public if they want to follow along. Just to go through the red line versions, the attachment that is the red line version of those and I just want to point out Those items not where there are minor changes, but where there are more significant changes for example to requested actions.
I think those are often the most kind of critical things that your board would want to have some conversation and discussion about. And so I'm just going to review them. So on the advancement of women and girls, we didn't have any substantive changes, just some minor editorial changes. On the arts and cultures plank again no changes of significance. On the comprehensive immigration reform plank, no substantive changes.
On the economic enhancement and revenue diversification plank, we did at the request of the committee go back and make sure that those tied out to what is in our ECAP plan. And so we did get a note from the department about the elements in the requested actions that do tie back to the ECAP. I'm looking at the Lower Mission Creek Project plank. What was updated by the Public Works Department was the spending associated and updated those financial numbers, the funding tables for the Lower Mission Creek project flood control project on the marketplace equity and consumer protection plank no changes On the sustainable groundwater management funding plank, there were some additional kind of editorial changes and narrative changes to the summary of the issue.
But nothing significant in the requested actions. And we
fixed the basins and their priority levels, correct? Because that was updated by the state board
this year. That is correct, Chair. On the US Highway 101 regional piece, again no changes of substance there.
Mr Chair?
Thank
you. If we have a question as we go through this should we stop or do you want us to wait?
If you have a significant one let's do it at the end if it's just clerical please go as we go.
2:04 – 2:127 turns
Okay, I'm going to say it's significant so we'll wait. I don't know how to- We'll judge that. Everything I say is significant but I'll wait. So let's come back to that one. You
want me to come back? I'll kind of hold that one out then on the highway 101?
Yeah.
Thank you, I will put that aside. Next was the child support access to sealed court files no changes by the department. On libraries, no changes. No changes on the local governance and unincorporated powers plank. No changes on the modernization of child support programs, no significant changes to the farm bill funding for 2018 on disease management. There were significant changes added by the Ag Commissioner's Department on the next plank, which is new pests of concerns.
And so you may want to review those but again supplied by our ag commissioner and staff. Moving forward the public safety plank had some minor updates based on the Public Safety Realignment Plan that was approved by your board recently On the sustainable infrastructure funding plank, no significant changes. No significant changes on the Hollister State Street Improvements Project. Minor funding updates on the Lake Kachuma Plank provided by the department. No significant changes on the telecommunications legislation plank.
No significant changes on the Trimal Gaming Compacts and Land Use Plank. No significant changes on the access to quality health services. Some minor requested action changes on the Health in Our Community Plank, again suggested by the Public Health Department. On the homelessness plank, we added at the request of the behavioral wellness department a support statement for no place like home regulations that provide local discretion on program design.
The ocean water testing plank was suggested that it be removed by the public health department.
Why?
We've asked the department directors to be available in Santa Barbara, so I'm hoping that we can come back to that one. So I'll put that aside but I don't recall off the top of my head but I'm hoping Dr. Reynoso is available. On the organized delivery system, we didn't have any changes on that particular one. Safety net preservation just some minor updates to statistics that are embedded in the narrative On senior services funding, some updates were provided by the department about the impacts.
Especially the update on the demographics. On social services TANF reauthorization no significant changes. I will note that on the next plank which has typically been the state social services funding cost of doing business increase plank was requested that we remove that by the department The subsidized child care plank has some fairly significant, though not important kinds of changes mainly just to the wording and to the description of where we are with the financing of childcare in the state.
The next plank is the Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act funding, and there's some narrative changes to the summary of the issue there. Moving now to the Agricultural Williamson Act subvention, no changes to that particular plank. Nor are there any changes to the Air Quality Marine Vessels Emissions Plank. Next is the Community Development Programs Plank and there are some wording changes for both the summary of the issues as well as the requested actions again these changes were recommended by the department.
Similar kinds of changes to the energy and climate plank were added by the department, both to the summary as well as to the requested actions. It appears as though we got two versions of the energy and climate changes. I believe the first one is the one that ought to, is driving the changes that are included. So we'll make sure if there's comments on that one, we can clarify which changes are included in the energy and climate. I apologize for the double entry on that one. Some minor changes to the Healthy Soils Initiative plank.
Minor changes again, or actually no changes were recommended on the historic courthouse plank. No changes on the oil and gas infrastructure safety and compliance plank. Next on the parks and open space plank, the second district with their eagle eye noted that we had provided in the original draft attachment a older version of this parks and open space plank which we corrected on Friday to make sure that we included the Goleta Beach Park.
Project as the final item on that first page So if you have not already moved over the attachments from attachments three and four that were added late on Friday It's important to note if you're just looking at attachments one and two That the Goleta Beach Park needs to be added back into that which would make it Have it be consistent with what we did. What your board approved in 2018 would now be approved in 2019 Almost at the end here, the Regional Coastal Management Projects Federal Authority plank no significant changes.
No changes for the support of waste recovery and reduction programs plank. And no changes for the wastewater treatment systems plank. Sorry that's long and tedious but I wanted to give everybody opportunity to see at least what the changes were for each plank. At this point, that concludes my presentation of the draft legislative platform. I'd ask you to receive this report on the issues and projects included as part of that draft 2019 platform. Provide your staff with any direction about recommended changes and also make the CEQA findings if this doesn't constitute a project under CEQA.
Supervisor Wolk?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. On the sustainable groundwater management funding, I just saw this letter from Heal the Ocean and they had a couple of issues. One I just wanted to ask was about the ground water basins. And as I'm looking at this, as I am looking at the platform do we mention their ground water basins?
2:12 – 2:2323 turns
We do. Chair Williams, Supervisor, we do on that groundwater plank. Are you sure? I'm trying to get back to that point. They
say that there's actually six within the county.
That's the point that we brought up at the last committee
meeting. So has that been fixed?
Chair, Supervisor Wolk that has been fixed.
Okay and I know on the US 101 regional That's the next one. I was just wondering if there might be an opportunity to update that because some of the Highway 101 project has been completed and there is a few remaining sections that need to be completed and So if you could just also contact Margie as another contact person on that, just to update. because we've had the same plank for many years and I think we should probably say what we've done and what's remaining.
Then, I think Supervisor Hartman was going to talk about this too. She asked a question about why ocean water testing was eliminated and I'm concerned about that as well. So you said it was removed from the public health department? So I'd like to hear from the public health department about why that was removed and if there is, well let's just hear from her first.
Supervisors, I've just checked and it looks like Dr. Doreno is not in the Santa Barbara hearing room We did bring this up at ledge committee And I believe if you look at the plank the last plank was asked for funding For the ocean water testing so I believe as I recall her answer Was that they wouldn't stop doing is that there they were no longer requesting funding for it But we can double-check this comes back to you In November and we can put that question out and come back do with a more definitive answer Well,
one thing I remember this was from a few years ago. It had to do with the timing of the water testing that our system allowed us to get the results in a few days but there is a system that you can get it within 24 hours that would cost us additional funds. And so I'm glad, so thank you CEO Miyasato. You'll look into that and that would be one of my questions about that is getting additional funds for that.
And thank you for clarifying the parks piece and there was also something else in that because it says about said something about, I know. That we have a aquatic facility, actually we have two aquatic facilities. That's in the first paragraph of the parks and open space. And then my same comment would apply to APCD when it comes to the marine vessel that I think if you could just check in with And get an update on that because we have seen some improvements and there may be other more updated information from APCD. So it would be good to see them as a contact.
Chair Williams and Supervisor Wolfe, I did talk to Arlen and they definitely were comfortable with staying with the existing plank as it was written. It made a specific point since there had been legislation that had been passed and funding provided to that program through cap-and-trade funds. So they were comfortable with leaving it as is because it's not necessarily an ongoing funding source that's
associated with that. Well, that's good to know so I would just add her name then as a contact? All right, thank you Mr. Chair.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you Mr. Chair. Dennis I just had a question about context. How do we use this? I assume we give it to our lobbyists in DC and in Sacramento but are there any priorities and how do we share? How can we, the board better work with our legislators and you know work on priorities? I mean it seems like we really...I like to have these are the three to five things were really working on and then try to take them away. And this is sort of overwhelming and I don't know how we think about priorities and how we hustle for them.
Chair Williams and Supervisor Hartman, it's an excellent question. So we as both your staff and then the committee regularly are taking positions on pieces of legislation as they move through the process either in Washington DC or in Sacramento. And we're constantly evaluating through the great work of our advocates, our contract advocates in both of those locations to identify how pieces of legislation either align. In which case we might support a piece of legislation or don't align and so we might take an opposed position.
We also use individual planks, often in doing administrative advocacy both with the administration of Sacramento or with the federal administration in DC. And the nice thing when we try to keep these planks to kind of the single page they make good leave behind kind of resources as we make visits with legislators in their offices to say here's why this is important to the county of Santa Barbara so They provide a nice individual leave behind piece of material for those legislative advocacy moments and lobbying efforts that we conduct on a regular basis in the capital.
Largely, the principles are what really drives a lot of our positions. It's often not likely that a particular piece of legislation aligns perfectly with one of our planks. There are some general things but the principles often do align with what we are trying to accomplish and so that is often the basis of our advocacy letters that we send. Supervisor Adam?
Well two things. One is I didn't know that back to that Hillary Houser letter from Heal the Ocean, I didn't know that Santa Maria was a medium or high priority groundwater basin The state board did
just change several of the designations within the last couple months.
Well, that one's adjudicated so it's pretty much not on the list. That's what I was understanding and I don't know if she's right or she just misunderstood. Yeah,
I can't speak to it just because I'm paying attention to the ones in my district but several have changed just in my district.
Okay well I know that one intimately. The other thing is, you know I've always had a problem with the legislative platform. And there's a couple poison pills in there that I just can't support and it keeps me from supporting the whole thing so I don't know if there's any Interested in trying to break that thing up and seeing if there's There's things that we could have a five-oh vote on if not You know, I've fought that fight before and it's I have a new board here. So part parts of it so I thought I'd ask again and you know if nobody wants to go through that then that's fine and
As chair, I'd just say that would be an unwieldy process that might never yield an end because there's not everything in any legis platform that even I agree with. And so it would make the process far more time consuming at very least.
Supervisor Lavenino? Thank you Mr. Chair and I just wanted to let folks know too, I've always had a problem kind of with the whole thing but As a member of the Ledge Committee, just remember that this is a guideline and these are when legislation comes through we try to fit them into here. But if something's you don't want to hear I don't think you want to hear every bill otherwise we would be at the state assembly or the state senate so there's things in here I have a problem with as well but overall I don't think we want to go through each individual plank because there's really nothing. We could craft that plank to where we would get a 5-0 vote maybe, but then there's nothing that fits into that plank so.
I'm okay with the way it is. The one comment I have is just as the NACO rep, just wanted to let the board know that I think there's from what I'm hearing is that there's a move back to earmarks at the federal level maybe under reform process but so I just want to kind of throw A signal out there to our staff that we should have prepared, not just little leave behinds like this. But we kind of need to do a top, as Supervisor Hartman was saying, here's our top five projects that need to be funded that are in need of federal funding.
It goes back, I think this Kachuma page probably goes back 10-15 years, I know it was when I was working with Congressman Gallogly. These same projects, boat ram extension, boat dock replacement, those types of things were still on there. So I don't know if those are in our top five priorities for the county. I'm sure 101 is up there but we should have Getting ourselves ready for shovel-ready earmark projects that might come out of some sort of transportation project, either through the administration or Congress looking for projects in our district that are ready to be funded. So just a heads up on that.
Supervisor, just for some clarity, for today's action it's receive and file and provide direction which I think you've done. We're coming back on December 11th for your approval of the legislative platform?
We have two requests to speak.
Chair Williams, members of the board, we're going to go to Senator Barbara for Hillary Hauser and then back here for Andy Caldwell.
2:24 – 2:302 turns
Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. Hillary Halter from Heal the Ocean. Interesting to hear you speaking on these issues and we agree with a lot of the things that you brought up about the... I'm glad our letter reached you at the late hour. We really do agree with the recommendation for the county to seek funding a program of financial assistance in the form of grants for septic to sewer conversion.
During the Rincon project, it was really critical that we had money for assessment engineering and other engineering. We think it would be good to put into this document the problematic areas that the Board of Supervisors has recognized previously as you've done with the SGMA section. We made a comment about updating the groundwater basin list, so I'm not sure what the final statement is on the Santa Maria Basin, but anyway.
In any case that list should be complete by the time the legislative platform is passed. We agree with the comments made about ocean water testing. It's inconceivable that Santa Barbara would Delete that when it's the basis of our existence and tourism and so forth. It's important that we keep that somehow. Also, could we recognize the issues of flood control and water quality related to homeless encampments in waterways? We need to address this and see if we can get some funding for help for this.
And lastly, there's a dire need for actual IPR-DPR projects in collaboration on a regional solution which includes the city desal plant as a regional facility along with all agencies adding reclaimed water to their profiles. So I don't know which section that belongs in but if we could Mr. Caldwell?
Chair Williams, members of the board. Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. Before Supervisor Adam came up with the term The Colonies, the late great county supervisor Joni Gray used to make it a point to try to bring every newly elected South County supervisor and anybody else you could find on a tour of the North County to show the difference in the communities.
And the way she used to explain it is that the South County is urban. It's entirely urban for the most part now, and it's highly educated. The industry is high tech. You've got a college, a university, couple colleges, university city college, lots of government employees and the like. And she juxtaposed that to the North County. North County is rural. There is an absolutely stunning number of people in the North County that don't have a high school education.
A stunning number, there is a stunning number of people in the North County that don't speak English or Spanish. English or Spanish. So the question is and this is my life story on myriad levels. Even though I got a college degree in social science, I didn't go to law school. It was worthless in the job market at the time. I started as a straight graveyard laborer at Sinton and Brown. Seven years later I became industrial relations manager. One day I was sitting there hiring somebody that didn't speak English and I realized well this is Jamie Gonzalez's dad, my best friend growing up.
That's what I was thinking, this is my best friends. This is 40 years ago. This guy's going to go from field work to factory work. He's going to send all four kids to college. Is he going to own a couple of houses? Because we provided the transition with manufacturing and industrial jobs. We had a ladder that had all the rungs in it, in the North County. We had all the rungs. We had high tech, Vandenberg Air Force Base and a lot of other things but we also had blue collar manufacturing, a gateway to middle class with people with a high school education or less, English speaking didn't matter.
Those jobs are gone. The last ones left is the oil industry. Look at your policies. How many people, the shoe doesn't fit the foot of the North County? The shoe doesn't fit. The jobs you want to create, the energy policies you want to implement getting rid of the oil industry destroys what's left of upward mobility for a permanent urban underclass drive through Lompoc someday and ask them how high tech jobs whether that fits that foot.
Thank you.
2:30 – 2:326 turns
That concludes public comment.
So I think we provided some direction, is there other direction that the board would wish to provide? Supervisor Hartman.
Well, I just wanted to follow up with Heal the Ocean Hillary's comments about the septic system. I think I saw you taking notes Dennis but just wanted to reinforce that
And I don't know if it's something we should do this year, but something we definitely should consider integration with this idea that Ms. Houser just brought up of Of funding to take care of not only the homelessness aspect of impacts from camps but water quality impacts. We do have a issue in Summerlin, there's obviously an issue in Lompoc and to Ms. Houser's credit when she Came to me on the Summerland issue. I said, okay let's do something that solves it in the long run and instead of Telling me off which would be maybe anyone's first Instinct given that our respective strong personalities she said she did it She they are funding an effort with the United Way of Northern Santa Barbara to try to address The root causes and come up with some substantive solutions.
But sure, I'm sure the help from the county for getting funding on that would be appreciated. Just
chair on that note, I found a place it might fit well in our health in our community plank to include both water quality issues in the stream bed as well as the practical. Health challenges that are faced by the folks that are homeless. So I'll work with the department, I'll work with Dr. Renoso on crafting that. Thank you. Sounds
great. Other comments, questions? Then motion to receive and file. There is a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. With one person not doing a bio break. Can we take the next item and then we'll go to lunch break?
2:32 – 2:3921 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, Item 4 is from Supervisor Adam. It's just a hearing to consider recommendations regarding discussion of the hoop structure ordinance amendment project.
And we will wait for Supervisor Adam unless you're ready to proceed.
Great. Are we done voting on receiving the file? I'm up. Well, I told you there was a bio break necessary.
I tried to provide a-
I stayed in the saddle as long as possible and at some point I got to get down. All right, so we are going to have Chief of Staff Bob Nelson give us a little primer here of why we're here today. I'm gonna let Bob start out. Well heck, we haven't even read it in.
Please proceed.
Chair Williams, members of the board, I already read this into the record.
You did? Well it wasn't here.
Thank you. Chairman Williams and members of the Board, Bob Nelson, 4th District Chief of Staff presenting for Supervisor Peter Adam. Our office's board letter sets forth our concerns and outlines the needs for board action but for this presentation I will quickly provide background and then report on the current status On July 27th, 2017 the Board of Supervisors took action to pursue option four of the five options presented to them in dealing with hoop structures.
Option four included an LUDC amendment exemption of hoop structures equal to or less than 20 feet. It also considered a range of permit options for addressing hoop structures greater than 20 feet including development standards. Staff planner Julie Harris clarified in her presentation, in both options three and four we would propose an exemption for those hoop structures less than 20 feet tall.
Supervisor Williams.
I guess, you know, I can support option 4 as long as we are willing to continue to exempt who passes under 20 feet and not start messing with 12 unless there's so many acres of a person that want to rent. And just keep it real simple and keep it straightforward that all who pass is equal to or under 20 feet, for example.
So we have a motion and a second. Should we get a roll call vote? I don't know if Supervisor Loomis... The
clarification on the motion. Is that in the motion or not?
That's the way I understood option 4, but the way that the discussion went sort of drifted
from there. I think as I'm looking at Ms. Black, that is within the parameters of option 4. Supervisor Adams?
So could we read back the motion?
The motion is to give direction to staff that the board would like you to pursue option 4 And then all the other, there you go. Receive and file this report, provide the direction to staff to pursue option four, and to determine today's actions are not a project or service to
Supervisor Williams?
And that part of that is exempting requests under 20-T
in all cases? That's part of it.
As you can hear from the video clip, Supervisor Williams clarifies the motion twice. Supervisor Wolf confirms within Deputy Director Black that an exemption in all cases for hoop houses under 20 feet would be in the parameters of the environmental review for option four. Fast forward to today. The current staff-directed process has fallen short. Planning staff has failed to include as a project alternative an exemption for hoop houses less than or equal to 20 feet, as directed by board action and thus it was not studied as part of environmental review.
Upon our office learning of this problem the 4th District has worked with planning staff to try to resolve the incongruence between board direction and staff's actions. Planning has taken steps towards correcting this problem But they have represented to us that they cannot fully correct their course without board intervention. Without a course change, the planning commission and the board will have a limited array of options in bringing this item. It is not our office's intention to influence the planning commission's independence or decision making process or the boards for that matter.
Mark Chatillo, in his public comment at the July 27th hearing recommended that the board chart this course broadly at first. So you can come up with a wide range of options and alternatives that you can then consider as you move forward within the policy realm. Our intention today is to make sure that the planning commission and your board have those options. And we respectfully request more direction in this matter.
And these would be our recommended actions.
2:39 – 2:463 turns
Okay, thank you Mr. Nelson. For me this is about who runs this place? You know the board I've always been told since I've been here the board creates policy and the staff executes it. And in this case, and I didn't even vote for this thing. I don't have a dog in the fight, really. But just as a policy matter, the question is do we give direction and have it followed or do staff run off and do something other than what we asked them to do? And I think it should be possible for us To pull it back at this point, or to give some direction. And I know we can't give direction to the planning commission.
But I think it should be possible for us to work out a way to do a redo or a partial redo on this thing so we can go back and get what we wanted to get in the first place. And have that as an option that gets studied in AIR, and not run all the way by this. Without having even studied the option that we told them specifically and graphically. That we wanted to have studied, and then the planning commission is entirely possible. The Planning Commission comes up with a different set of answers. And then they send that back to us, I mean the way the whole thing's wired.
Is we send them some ideas, they flesh them out. Staff does the EIR and then they can say we don't like an exemption under 20 feet. That's a possible outcome. And I'm not trying to influence that outcome. The Planning Commission has their own independent opinion. And if they send us back something that looks an awful lot like what they're queued up to send us now because of the limited nature of what we've studied, then that's fine. And then we have some alternatives, we can do a number of different things.
But the problem at this point is what got studied Is a limited set of things, which we didn't ask for to be studied. So I'm just kind of wondering what my colleagues think about that and you know, I would think that they would kind of jealously guard their power that's been vested in them by the people that elected them and But that may be something that you guys are really comfortable with just deferring to staff. I don't know, but this is such an egregious and graphic example that I couldn't just let it go by.
So I'm interested to hear what my colleagues have to say about that. Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you Mr. Chair, well the first thing I have to say about it is that there may be a difference of opinion about what the board asked for. I think the 20 foot exemption was pretty clear but that it be without any development standards whatsoever, to me that isn't demonstrated by the clip or the text you have. This comes to me without any record. So one, there's problems of notice. I don't even know what to do with this but I would like to ask Ms. Black if you could just frame this for us where have we been? Where are we today? I believe the planning commission was to consider this tomorrow and it got pulled so the whole thing is delayed by this rather odd procedure.
Chair Williams and members of the board, I want the board first of all to know that the department did not provide the consultant preparing the hoop CIR specific enough instructions. To implement the direction of the Board of Supervisors to exempt hoops under 20 feet or 20 feet or under in all cases. We treated this project like all other long-range planning projects, and as is the normal CEQA process where the project description is studied in the EIR and mitigation measures are identified to address potential impacts. This is a long answer to your short question.
I regret and I'm sorry, I didn't catch this misunderstanding of the board's direction earlier before we were so far along in the process and after the Planning Commission hearings started. I was not aware of this issue until Bob Nelson informed me of his concern in late June. Immediately following that, I watched the same tape. In fact, I watched it many times and I watched a much longer piece of it Um, and reviewed the EIR. And by that time the draft EIR had been completed a proposed final EIR was prepared and the ordinance was before the Planning Commission. There was no opportunity for staff to address mitigation measures without obtaining direction from the Planning Commission.
At the next and third planning commission hearing on this matter, which was on August 29th. Staff outlined what would be necessary to address each of the mitigation measures in the EIR consistent with the board's initial direction and advised that for the biological mitigation measures recirculation of the EIR was advised. The Planning Commission provided direction at that hearing to eliminate all of the mitigation measures related to aesthetics Water resources and one of the biological mitigation measures, and recommended modifying one biological mitigation measure and retaining another.
They did not direct recirculation of the EIR, and that was clearly before them. They continued their hearing to October 11th to make their final recommendation to the board based upon the direction that they gave us at that August 29th hearing. And then that hearing was later moved to October 3rd
2:47 – 2:546 turns
Okay. Appears suspiciously. That section, so maybe turn it the other way.
We are reconvening. Mr. Guzzone, did you have any guidance on this matter?
Especially about CEQA I have some questions about that
Chair and Supervisor, let me maybe at 10,000 feet start at some tension among three areas of law. First our county code says that any supervisor has the unfettered ability to place an item on the board agenda. That's at one end of the table. At the other end of the table, less flexible is California Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA which for zoning ordinances and amendments spell out a prescribed order of operations for actions by the planning commission and the board of supervisors.
And then in the middle of the table is case law which says that legislators including supervisors should be given the widest latitude to express their views on issues of policy. So all of that boils down to, I can't think of a more elegant way to say we are where we are in terms of the Planning Commission's actions. But planning and zoning law in CEQA provide great flexibility for the board and great discretion upon receiving the written recommendation of the Planning Commission but are really silent about the Board's authority until then.
So really when you receive the well-developed written recommendation by the Planning Commission Both under planning and zoning law in CEQA. That's really what enables the board's discretion on this matter Do
you have a follow-up supervisor Harmon
Well, I would like to send this back to the Planning Commission as soon as possible and get it back to the board with a fuller record for us to consider. Again, I think there may be a difference of opinion on what the board directed the Planning Commission or the P&D to look at. And there may be a difference of opinion on what the law requires under CEQA But again, my understanding was a height that we would exempt the 20 foot and less lower height. But in my mind there's no sense that we would eliminate any consideration of any development standards. I never meant that, would never do that and I'm very eager to learn more about that because there are different agricultural interests including vintners in my area Who are concerned about this?
2:54 – 2:5913 turns
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you, Mr Chair. As the maker of the motion that was noted on the screen and also in a review of the action that was presented in the minutes which reflected the board letter of June 6th 2017 where option four was spelled out. There was definitely, as Supervisor Hartman mentioned, an issue that CEQA would be looking at these options. You can have an exemption and also have development standards, as we know.
I don't think that they're mutually exclusive. I feel very uncomfortable getting into the middle right now of this discussion. And I think as Mr. Gazzone said, this piece right now is a little bit less flexible which is a little red flag to me that says maybe we shouldn't be going down this path and maybe I've already said too much but We should follow the process that has been initiated and we will have that discretion when it comes back to the board. That is, we will make those decisions at that time after the planning commission reviews all the information.
Supervisor Adam.
Well, there's two things here. One of them is it was repeatedly stated in all cases That the exemption would apply to all cases under 20 feet. And I do think it's mutually exclusive to have an exemption, and it's just my stupid opinion so maybe that's wrong. But to have an exemption and to have development standards? Is that mutually exclusive?
Chair and supervisors, I can envision that when this comes back to the board From the Planning Commission. The board will have as I said great discretion as to what would be exempt What would have development standards? You will have to make some findings, you know along the way But the board will have a lot of discretion both under planning and zoning law and under CEQA
okay, and then the second and and of course that's At that point, whenever it comes back. The second point is they didn't study a complete exemption and study it. So now I'm not, would it be possible? Yes, I know there's quote great latitude or great discretion but Is it possible for us to do something that they didn't study at all?
Chair and supervisors, under two different prongs here. For planning and zoning law we look at whether it was discussed below in under CEQA. We frankly look at whether the change is so significant as to require revision or recirculation of the environmental impact report. So the board has very few limits on its discretion, but may have a procedural step along the way of recirculating the EIR or sending it back to the planning commission if it's an area that hasn't been discussed at all. Although in this case I think there's been a pretty broad discussion below.
And I'll just say,
I do think that is the good point that you have raised. It's been addressed by Director Black and the fact is, I think there's several questions here today. One of them is just that and I think I agree to that we should protect our broad discretion But I think the other question is whether we should take a preemptive action of doing that now, or whether we should wait for what the planning commission recommends.
And- That's really the question is how do you get to their fastest? And if you're going to end up having to let it go all the way through the planning commission and then recirculate the EIR because they didn't study what you asked them to study in the first place, then where are you? How long is that then going to take? To have it recirculated and then go through the entire, Ms. Black is vibrating out there, come on. He might
as well join this commission. Mr. Gazzani also has a response.
Chair and supervisors, this would be an area where when you're looking at time or the fastest approach, I would say the fastest approach to a final result would be what you're
looking for? Well, excuse me but final being what we asked for in the first place or final being a whatever it turns out to be. I would
say that once you have an ordinance that the board actually approves, I always have concern on these cases not just this particular case but with planning and zoning law in CEQA that you're following a process that will be clear to any reviewing court if it comes to that. And in this case, again the board has great discretion upon receiving the written recommendation of the Planning Commission and that would be my recommendation.
3:00 – 3:066 turns
I'm going to go to Director Black.
Mr. Chair, if I can just address two points including Supervisor Adams question first of all with respect to the project description the project description was Exempting hoops under 20 feet and under that was the project description think what we're really talking about is The classification of impacts and identification of mitigation measures so And that's the tension between the boards Recommendation and CEQA.
With respect to the time that would be necessary to recirculate the EIR and reconsider the project, Or we consider an action. I would say it will take six months to recirculate the EIR, which means we have to prepare a document, circulate it for 45 days, respond to comments and then present that EIR to the decision making body. I think that could be the board.
It could be the Planning Commission, but it could also be the Board of Supervisors because we have studied hoops under 20 feet. It's really about the mitigation measures and how to treat those
And just to that point, I think that's why I feel like there is an understandable misunderstanding here. I do zealously guard our ability to direct policy but I do think that staff by making that the project description but also understanding that a good environmental impact report has Mitigations in it. Has done some environmental review that makes our action that we will arrive to legally defensible and I believe that staff pursued that faithfully.
I do think that the end result after the Planning Commission makes a determination may May involve recirculation, but honestly if the thrust of what our policy is and thus far our policy has been to search for an option that is not overly burdensome to hoops. Because of the necessity of hoops to have certain crops survive economically in the county which by the way are easy statement of overriding considerations to make for economic reasons.
If we have to take some actions, but the downside of taking six months from today or taking the date of the planning commission hearing. Six months from the data planning commission is not greatly different and delay just means that we continue So I don't see really the downside of trying to get this right, including hearing what the Planning Commission has to say.
Mr. Chair if I can just add one additional item on schedule. In order to recirculate an EIR, we will need to come to the Board of Supervisors to have the contract amended with our EIR consultant. And I fully intend to bring the Planning Commission's recommendation to your board at the earliest date possible if If they are allowed to go forward on November 7th and on that same agenda. And with the item, I'll bring a contract amendment for the board in case the board chooses to recirculate the EIR so that we're not looking at additional time from that hearing when you've made your policy choice.
Mr. Ghazani? Chair and supervisors, before the board discusses or considers public comment I would offer that given the prescribed paths in planning and zoning law and CEQA that probably the most understandable action in a record if ever reviewed down the road would be for the board to simply take no action on this item today.
Supervisor Lavinino Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well I actually really want to thank Peter and his staff for bringing this forward so that we don't find out about this down the road but also appreciate Ms. Black's comments and accountability and that's always appreciated. My big question is, and I'm all about time right now. And uncertainty is never a good thing.
And these things are prolific throughout our county and all of them right now are unpermitted and all of them there's really nothing that kind of controls them. And we're also trying to permit cannabis operations that use hoops. And if you have a hoop, I don't understand how you would be able to get permitted if this ordinance doesn't go through. So, I relayed these Fears to Chief of Staff Nelson, and it mentioned a possibility of maybe an emergency ordinance or something that we can cover this next. because I know what we say when we say if we recirculate it's going to be six months. I've been around long enough to know that that would be fingers crossed everybody hoping that happens and people can have a tendency to be able to drag those things out not our staff but others.
Where this thing could drag out for a while. What I'd just like to see is let's come up with some ordinance that says existing operations right now, somehow we've got to cover people that are out there. That are currently using hoops or trying to go through a permit path that have a hoop. Somehow we're covered, grandfathered something under some emergency ordinance so that we can continue doing the business of the county while we're working on this future hoops ordinance. So I just want to know if that's a possibility? Or how do we deal with the whole cannabis issue while we're dealing with this?
3:06 – 3:1222 turns
Doesn't sound like there's anybody who's rushing to answer that question. Was that rhetorical or? Okay, so whom in particular would you like to answer that since-
Can I just say something?
I think we have a question.
I was going to respond Mr. Chair to that question,
okay?
Oh, okay
And we still
have not
gone to public comment
right now folks
Supervisor Wolk
and maybe someone from staff could address this question in my possible answer to the question is that That seems to be what we already discussed before which was option one which was moving this quickly and And I'm getting my meetings confused, but we had that as an option. I think it was a three to two vote then it was appealed then this latest motion that we just heard was a three to two vote.
And now you're bringing up something that goes back a couple meetings, it appears to me. I think that we are getting ourselves into kind of a mud trap and I would agree with Mr. Gazzone that we let this process move forward just as As we had done when we took action, let's not interrupt the process and thank Mr. Adams for bringing this up but we need to move this forward because I think-
And I'm fine with that. I'm just wanting to know what happens to that huge list of folks that we had applying for cannabis licenses that were counting on that revenue? And now we're going to hold these folks up so I want to know how that all plays out.
Mr. Chair and board members, first to Supervisor Wolf's comment that option one really was the emergency ordinance. They're really two different things. Option one was a director determination that was appealed and so that's why your board reconsidered and chose to move forward with option four. We haven't looked at or thought about an emergency or urgency ordinance, so I think that's something we would have to look at and I'm just not prepared to address it today. With respect to cannabis operations that rely on hoops you're correct. We can't permit a cannabis operation with hoops at the moment without them going through a discretionary review process. So they have a path And it might be faster than the ordinance path if we recirculate the EIR, but we do have a path.
It's just not a path that anybody has chosen to take.
Thank
you for clarifying my error. Why don't you stay up there Diane? Because there is one more one that I have.
Chair and supervisors, just as Ms. Richardson and I were going back and forth on the urgency ordinance, the actual text of the government code section dealing with urgency ordinances states it is a tool to prohibit uses not to allow uses.
Well that throws our monkey wrench right? So my question is another path to help Maybe facilitate this since if it goes to Planning Commission and Planning Commission's recommended action requires recirculation, then you'd have to come back to us for the money to do the recirculation. Perhaps we today could direct a certain amount of environmental review if be Money be allocated or work be allocated Pending requests by the Planning Commission So we essentially could give the planning commission the carte blanche to request more environmental review and have it Already approved by the by the board so
Mr. Chair, I think the action that would be necessary from the board is an actual contract amendment We have sufficient contract dollars in our budget to address it so it's not a an appropriation issue. It's really a contract issue So I still think the fastest way to get there is for the Planning Commission to take their action on November 7th and for us to Bring that action forward for your board's consideration as well as a potential contract amendment to recirculate the EIR. I don't see a faster way to get there.
In that case, we could simply empower the CEO and the chair to sign a contract amendment instead of you having to agendize it back for the board discussion, correct? Mr. Gazzani?
Chair and Supervisors, again I think the clearest action down the road for the board to take would be to take no action today. I mean, I think CEO's office, county council in planning understand that timing concerns of the board and upon this matter coming back to the board would be prepared to bring a wide range of options but I think the most clear record for review down the road would be for the board to take no action today.
Well, why don't I make my question then hypothetical. Hypothetically if the Planning Commission did ask for an action that would require recirculation, would you feel comfortable putting that on an A item on the next agenda of the Board of Supervisors the next week?
3:12 – 3:199 turns
Mr. Chair and members of the board, I would feel comfortable doing that. I'm not sure I could actually do it because there's a process you have to go through to put together a contract amendment. We already have an estimate from our contractor and a time estimate so that's not the process I'm talking about. It's the approval process within the county. So we do it as quickly as possible.
The last hearing at the planning commission, they were not inclined to recirculate. To request recirculation of the EIR.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you. Hypothetically we may not need to recirculate. We could in fact find that mitigation measures are infeasible or that they really fail to lessen the impact. If we have substantial evidence, or we could have overriding considerations. So it seems to me that hypothetically may be a very likely scenario and if it had gone to the planning commission tomorrow, we'd already be on that discussion and the cannabis operators could be getting their permits.
Okay let's go to public comment now that things are clear as mud.
Chair Williams, members of the board we have four requests to speak on this item. We're going to start with Lisa Bedrogi followed by Claire Weinman
Good morning Chair Williams, members of the board. My name is Lisa Bedrogi of Cuvee Connections and I've been tracking this issue as it's made its way through the decision making process and continue to assert that the EIR is flawed in the premise for which a project was identified under CEQA is misguided. And I appreciate the struggle here. I think it really comes down to almost a matter of semantics. It's an understandable misunderstanding.
But the record is clear that the intent of your board was not to regulate hoop structures less than 20 feet. While we commend the planning director and your board to exempt these facilities, there's a subtle distinction between something that is not subject to regulation or something that is exempt. And staff's premise to consider hoop structures and to regulate them is based on the lack of explicit reference in the table allowed under the Land Use Development Code. And if you would put that up, I'd appreciate that.
The fact that hoops are not explicitly listed in the Table of Allowed Uses is not an oversight but rather an acknowledgement that these farming implements are on par with irrigation lines, plastic covering, and trellising. More to the point, and as shown here, cultivated agriculture orchard and vineyard is referred to in the table of allowed uses. Therefore, cultivated agriculture is the land use, and acknowledging that the use of land for cultivated agriculture is exempt.
A use is the activity. To say that the implements to perform the use is a use, is redundant and nonsensical. This would be like saying the walls of a building are used and must be included in the table of allowed uses. Clearly this type of logic unravels quickly, and I think that's why we're here today. It is clear in your county policies under the agricultural element that the growing of plants is the purest form of agriculture. Hoop apparatuses are simply another tool or farming implement for the growing of plants, and practically speaking hoops only serve to elevate the plastic covering above plants to improve plant growth and resource efficiencies.
Moreover, the agricultural element states that the county shall assure and enhance the continuation of agriculture shall be encouraged. And where conditions allow, shall be supported. Your planning commission repeatedly grappled with the fact that hoops do not precede cultivation rather they are a tool to enhance the production of agriculture. To conclude and continue a pursuit to regulate hoops for the virtue of exempting them is inconsistent with your agricultural element. Therefore, we recommend that you take the preemptive action and not send this back to the Planning Commission for further deliberation and consideration of recirculation of ENR but prepare the findings that hoops are not a regulated activity on their own. We appreciate your consideration of this important matter to our agriculture community, the number one economic driver of our county.
Thank you.
Claire Wineman to be followed by Chip Wolbritt
Good afternoon, my name is Claire Weinman. I'm the president of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. We've been actively engaged in this process since the beginning. As we mentioned previously it offers employees choice in work environment and also in seasonality. It offers extended periods of employment if that's something that employees are interested in. But it also offers employers diversification and in years like this, it really highlights why that's important. Both Romaine and especially strawberries, most growers had really bad years rough markets and it highlights the need for options for economic resilience and competitiveness in an increasingly global economy.
You know, those things and we're definitely staring down the barrel some very real and very serious challenges that are affecting agriculture here in the coming years. Both our association, the Grower Shipper Association and the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Advisory Committee have consistently expressed major concerns with the direction and process to staff in the Planning Commission. These issues were timely raised with the draft EIR comments that were submitted in March.
We have standing issues related or including impacts to the existing operations and also introducing very concerning new precedential components. And so we have to question, what will this mean for long-term agricultural vitality in Santa Barbara County? We're concerned about the immediate and ongoing impacts of this direction. So for these reasons, we would be supportive of a reset on direction and approach to better fulfill the project's purpose to support continued vitality of our county's agricultural economy. Thank you.
Chip Wolbrandt followed by Andy Caldwell.
3:19 – 3:3212 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair members of the board could you put up the the Elmo and and I think that staff's going to pass out to a couple of pages that I have here just kind of as a preparatory remark. I now understand what happened and I've been trying to figure out for several months what happened because this seemed to me such an absurd thing that was going through the Planning Commission and I now understand Ms. Black didn't find out what was going on until sometime in June and has valiantly, I think tried to fix something that probably can't be fixed without restarting.
I note the county has an agricultural advisory committee it has very specified purposes And it is the committee that staff and the Planning Commission are supposed to listen to about all things agricultural related, including in particular related to the viability of agriculture. I don't know if Mr. Ghisoni has seen this, but the Agricultural Advisory Committee on March the 15th sent a letter to staff commenting on the EIR and they noted that the EIR was fundamentally flawed and they actually called the baseline absurd and said it belies reason If you move forward with an EIR where your advisory committee has said that the document baseline is absurd and belies reason, there is not a way to defend that. So you need to stop, and if you're going to do anything, you need to go back and reset the baseline.
Now I'm going to try, and I'll try and do this. I'm sorry it may take me a little more than the minute I have left but There are some very important provisions in it. One is the definition of agricultural improvement and people keep using the term agricultural implement ordinance actually uses a defined term agricultural improvement and it says agricultural activities and I've underlined or structures because when I tried to talk with staff they told me this didn't apply to structures, the words or structures are in there On agriculturally designated lands which are not subject to building rating or brush clearing permits so if it is one of those things.
It is an agricultural improvement for purposes of your zoning ordinance you now go to the second page The definition, which is the most fundamental thing in the Land Use and Development Code. The definition of development and there's some history to this. This notes that the definition of development differs within the coastal zone in England And it's because several years ago you guys updated the land use and development code, including adding these really fun little tables that everybody has been worried about.
And it went off to the Coastal Commission and the Coastal Commission rejected the coastal part so what she did to fix it is you just implemented the inland part and you were going to go back and do everything for the coastal zone and it never happened. So moving down for the inland area This notes that, I'm reading the part I've highlighted and underlined. Agricultural improvements as defined and I gave you the definition of agricultural improvements are not considered as development within this development code.
As Miss Brody just told you there's a difference between something which is in the code and is identified as exempt. And something which is not development and so not subject to I would give you some other you know at least one other example agricultural grading. If agricultural grading meets the exemptions in the grading ordinance, then it's simply not subject to the land use development code and that's well well well accepted.
In this instance you all adopted with a notice of exemption Many years ago, a provision that provides a building code exemption for all shade structures and for hoop structures that are less than 12 feet in height. And then in 2016 the Building Department came forward to you with an amendment to that that would exempt from building code Hoop structures as defined and it's very well defined hoop structures which are 20 feet or less in height.
You all approve that you actually all adopted a notice of exemption The time period to challenge that for CEQA purposes had run, passed already when you looked at this in 2017. You were threatened with a CEQLA lawsuit on something where the notice of exemption had been properly adopted and the time period had passed. So I think you've got a very fundamental problem and I would urge you to stop and rethink what it is you're trying to do. And work with your Agricultural Advisory Committee, which is the body that you are supposed to work with on this.
Finally, I've got a very simple attachment and I used the staff's attachment from one of the Planning Commission staff reports, which was much more complex than this one. I think this is a very simple matter. Right now, for the inland area only not the coastal zone there's a definition and if a hoop structure or shade structure meets that definition which I just provided you- Chip since you've
gone well over why don't I allow you a question? Sure Can you explain to us attachment F?
Yeah no I'm trying to And I'm trying to do it very quickly. So if you meet that definition, there's currently no permit required. If you all want to create a permit requirement, if you all want to create development standards, you can do that. It's just your EIR needs to be different. It needs to look at the impact on agricultural viability and in my opinion you will lose that lawsuit if you certify the EIR that you have.
I'm suggesting that then if you go to the know on this simple chart. There is a permit requirement and you all should have your planning commission think about the no side to this which they haven't staff hasn't presented them these no concepts and so you're going to get something that doesn't even look at what you need to be looking at and I would urge you there are 3 things that need to be looked at one is structures in the coastal zone because right now There is not a path for structures in the coastal zone.
You need one next is hoop structures over 20 feet. The Planning Commission spent all this time only looking at potential regulation of hoop structures under 20 feet. They haven't talked about what do you do with the stuff that's over 20 feet, and the third is cannabis. And I'm going to go back to the definition of agricultural improvement because I don't know the answer to something.
Agricultural improvement is agricultural activities or structures Agricultural activities, including cultivation are exempt. In fact agricultural cultivation is exempt and then you all created a cannabis ordinance and your cannabis ordinance requires a land use permit for agriculture which suggests to me that cannabis is not within the exemption for agricultural cultivation. I don't know what it is but it's not there so you all need to have An ordinance that addresses this issue of what do you do with hoop and shade structures for cannabis which is in fact regulated unlike agricultural cultivation. And I would urge you stop, send this back to staff, ask staff to talk with the Agricultural Advisory Committee and perhaps the Planning Commission about And then if you all want to have hoop structures of whatever height wherever.
Then figure out the regulation for that I'm going to put in one final thing that is absolutely missing Staff has been telling, and by the way I didn't mention I represent Driscoll's berries. Driscoll's has more acreage under cultivation than the EIR identifies as in hoop structures so the EIR is wrong about that already but just from Driscolls' and Driscoll's members perspective We've been told for 30 something years that hoop structures do not require any permit.
The reason hoop structures do not require a permit is because they are not development, the same reason that disking land doesn't require a permit. There is no, I'm gonna call it a saving provision in the ordinance and staff has been actually telling The public the Planning Commission and I think you've gotten the feeling that the existing structures are illegal.
They're not illegal and when you now adopt something that regulates for example hoop structures that are within 50 feet of the center line of a road right-of-way they there are ones that exist right now. That's a standard That for an exempt project exempt activity exempt as opposed to not subject to. They can't be within 50 feet of the center line. What are you going to do about those hoop structures that cannot be permitted under or cannot be allowed under the exemption?
You're going to have a taking. So where you're headed, again I don't think that Mr. Gazzone had had the chance to look at all of this in particular the March 15th letter from the AAC but I think you've got a really horrible takings and CEQA problem if you don't stop and reset your baseline thank you
Let me just ask you one question. So essentially, because it's already under the definition, you don't think we should take any action?
I am saying I think that you should take an action. Again, I have those three items on there but people need to know how do they get those things permitted? I would ask you to go send staff back to come up with Process or an exemption and frankly, you know, I'm Driscoll's berries here today. Driscolls berries is not any of those three things We're not going to have hoop houses that are over 20 feet high. We're not gonna have hoop houses in the coastal zone we're not growing cannabis so we're fine with with the world the way it happens to exist right now and But those people who are in those three categories, I think this is what Supervisor Lavagnino was also alluding to.
You got a bunch of people who want to do something and there's not a permit path for them that really works right now. Ms. Black said there is a permit path, it's really involved in an expensive and complicated. It essentially requires going to the planning commission with a proposal for development plan. I will tell you as a citizen of this county, I'm worried that if that's what you leave in place You're going to have the problem that we have a lot right now, which is people look and they say it's cheaper and it makes more sense to just ask for forgiveness than permission. And I think you're already getting that with cannabis. I'm reading about what the sheriff's office is doing- All
right, Chip, but I think we're outside the bounds of the question at this point. Unless another supervisor has a question Supervisor Adam.
Yeah, so so your position as far as if you're representing a berry grower is this stuff under the LUDC Is a production tool and is not subject to permitting.
It's an it's an agricultural improvement as defined
Okay, and
it's and it part of cultivation and it in the chart
Well, I've been trying to advocate for that without understanding that there that that specific provision exists but Thanks Thank you all very much
Mr. Caldwell
3:32 – 3:375 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. The reason I'm bringing what I'm going to talk about before you is this is one of the hangups In getting an exemption or considering an exemption, and it all has to do with the fact that the US Fish and Wildlife declared some 180,000 acres of this county as critical habitat for the tiger salamander. And one of the hangups with the EIR in this process is how do you grant an exemption if in fact there's critical habitat and there may be a tiger salamander there?
If you can go to the other one first. What you have here in your handout is an official document from U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Critical Habitat, what is it? And if you look on the second page this is dated March 2017. It's current and I want to draw your attention to the green box there. Missing realities number two does a critical habitat designation affect all Activities that occur within the designated area. The answer is no, only activities that involve a federal permit license or funding and then says and are likely to destroy or modify. If there is no federal nexus, no permit is required farming to put up a berry structure you don't need a federal permit.
Critical habitat designation does not apply. And just for the sake of redundancy, you can put up the next one. I've given you this handout. This is testimony before the United States Congress by the Director of US Fish and Wildlife from April 2016. And again he says the same thing here. Critical habitat designations do not affect land ownership or impose liens on property. Designating critical habitat does not allow the government to take or manage private property, nor does it establish a refuge, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Designation also does not authorize in any way government or public access to private land. The only effect of designating an area's critical habitat is to trigger the ESA requirement that actions authorized, funded or carried out by federal agencies must not destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat.
So what I would like you to do for the sake of another policy clarification is explain your planning commission The tiger salamander issues are irrelevant with regard to this exemption, as are other species. Now you still can't kill a tiger salamander if a farmer killed the tiger salamander it's a felony. But as far as for blocking an exemption critical habitat designation does not apply. A taking would apply but just the fact that it's critical habitat designated There's no federal permit required, it doesn't need to hang up this issue of being able to grant an exemption. And again, this needs to be a policy clarification because between tiger salamanders and all these other species, farmers can get hamstrung. And that's one of the issues hanging up this issue at the planning commission right now.
Thank you.
That was our final speaker.
Supervisor Adam. All right, so the question is what if anything do we do here today? And you know of course I'm in Mr. Wilbrandt's camp with respect to the fact and you know I didn't even support this motion last time because it's a production technique it's not a structure And as Mr. Gazzone so eloquently said, we are where we are. So now what? I'm okay. And Mr. Gazzone, can we have a parallel track?
Can we allow the thing... I know what you want to... You seem to want us to just let this thing go on its natural course through the Planning Commission, right?
Chair and Supervisors, yes my recommendation is to take no action today and let the process come to you with a written recommendation from the Planning Commission
Okay Can we have a parallel track where we also go to the AAC? Anything wrong with that?
3:37 – 3:4610 turns
Chair and supervisors, again my recommendation would be to await any action on this proposed hoop structure ordinance amendment until receiving the written recommendation. I think that the record will be much clearer if you take that path.
Okay, well what's everybody else say? Supervisor Wolfe.
So the AAC, thank you Mr. Chair, the AAC would have an opportunity to comment during and after the planning commission.
My understanding, and Ms. Richardson can address this in more detail is that the AC already has provided comments during the process and will have another opportunity when it comes to the board.
So my inclination is to follow our attorney's recommendation, which is to not take any action today. I'll make that as a motion.
There's a motion. Is there a second?
Second.
There's a second. Any other requests to speak? I am really wrestling with this because I fundamentally, philosophically agree with the first point that you had and Chip's first point. That this is not development to me. This is a tool. But I do think that we my my understanding is that County Council's belief was that that was no longer defensible at the time of a stance and You know, I guess I could use at some point either here or privately a review of that because it really doesn't make any Sense to me if that's our code If If if we had The that that was the preference if you remember at the first board meeting in 2017 to proceed along that route and And as a second option I was persuaded that we needed to go along with this idea of just doing an exemption.
For the 20 feet or under, and now that has gotten very complicated. So I continue to wrestle with this. The only reason why I would not support a large about face in direction is because I do feel like it's important for our process and important for the law that we allow the planning commission to chime in. But I will be extremely vigilant in what that recommendation is.
And I guess for the other side, I guess have just challenged county council to give me a good answer. But for the other side, For the purposes of non-cannabis farmers, what would be really the drawback if say the planning commission said let's go forward but let's deep six one of the mitigations. Ask us to make a statement of overriding considerations and approve the EIR and the exemption with one or the two exemptions or none of the two exemptions?
My challenge out there would be what would be the issue legally and operationally for you in that circumstance. And so I guess I don't need all of that answered today because Some of the policy questions here being discussed are really important, but a procedural question that is also important is should we allow the Planning Commission to finish their work? And I do think that's important.
Supervisor Adam.
Yeah, I think as much as I don't like the direction that this thing has taken. And I think that the planning commission didn't have the full range of operations placed in front of it which we all know at this point and so maybe they couldn't study what wasn't given them as a choice. But at this point, I think that I'm inclined to listen to counsel as well and let that thing cook and go where it goes.
And as an informal ask, I think what we need is a BLO on that LUDC regarding improvements. Because I think that's a key distinction here. And I think it's really, It's a clarification and a distinction that needs to be made for these things because just because it's three dimensional and it resides on the surface of the earth doesn't mean it's a structure For building purposes, and so I think we need to make that distinction. And it's easy to come up with the fact that it's a building and you need to permit it. That's our knee-jerk reaction in this county is just to permit everything.
And so that's why we're having such a hard time with this, because it's the preloaded MO all the time here. But in this circumstance and you can kind of now see because there are so many different crops and different places that it gets done for different reasons and all, And that's why, you know they have these exemptions on or carve outs. I don't know what you want to call it but in the LUDC for legitimate agricultural purposes which this is.
So if somebody starts using this as a garage You know, obviously that's not if they're parking a motor home in it then that's a different animal. But you know as long as this is used in and I don't know anybody that's parking a motor home in one but I suppose you could 99.999% of these things are probably not being misused and so you know if they get misused then that's a different thing but Again for the off ramp, I think we just have to let it go. I guess you know, I'm going to reluctantly support the motion and just let it go and ask for that BLO clarification.
And hope that we can get this also to the AAC. That would be my fervent wish short of emotion. And get some input from those guys as well.
Well, I'm in full agreement that further legal clarification is in order. And with that, I don't see any more lights so we have a motion and second. All those in favor to take no action today please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It is unanimous. We will take a break for closed session.
3:46 – 4:173 turns
Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board is agendized to consider only one matter which is conference with labor negotiators. All bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives. And I don't believe this will be a long closed session item.
So we're talking about half an hour-ish? Okay. Hopefully that gives people some guidance on lunch plans then we will reconvene in about a half an hour.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
4:21 – 4:339 turns
We'll reconvene the session. Report back from closed session.
Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board had conference at labor negotiators concerning all bargaining units on representative employees managers and executives and there was no reportable action.
Okay then we'll do our last item of the day which is departmental item number five.
Chair Williams, members of the board. Item 5 is planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of amendments to the County Land Use and Development Code Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance to streamline the permit process for agricultural employee dwellings in the Ag 1 and Ag 2 zones in the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County
Good afternoon, Chair Williams and supervisors. My name is Jessie Steele and today I'm going to be presenting the Agricultural Employee Dwelling or AED Ordinance Amendments. A high labor demand and the county wide housing shortage have created a significant need for affordable housing for agricultural employees and their families. And the 2015-2023 Housing Element Update seeks to address this need through programs 1.4 and 2.4, which encourage the development of affordable housing and direct the county to also streamline the permit process for agricultural employee housing respectively.
Accordingly, staff is proposing amendments to the County Land Use and Development Code and Article 2 of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance to streamline the permit process for AEDs in the Agriculture 1 or Ag 1 and Agriculture 2, Ag 2 zones within the unincorporated areas of the county. The proposed LUDC amendment reduces the permit requirements for AEDs in the AG1 and AG2 zones as follows.
First, it allows for AEDs for one to four employees with a zoning clearance. Second, it increases the number of employees allowed to occupy dwellings at each subsequent permit level. And it also modifies the employment location requirements for AEDs within certain zones and permit levels. So this slide here shows the current AED permit requirements in the top table as compared to the proposed requirements and LUDC amendment in the bottom table.
And these changes that we're proposing reflect public input from four planning commission hearings, one Montecito Planning Commission hearing and also input from the agricultural community. First, the proposed amendment creates a zoning clearance permit level for AEDs for one to four employees. Next, it increases the number of employees allowed to occupy AEDs at all subsequent permit levels. So the AEDs permitted with an LUP can house 5-24 employees.
AED's permitted with a minor conditional use permit or MCUP can house 25-34 employees and AED is permitted with the CUP can house 35 or more employees. The proposed amendment also modifies the employment location requirements for certain AEDs. For example, the proposed amendment requires
full-time
on site employment for AEDs permitted with a zoning clearance and an LUP in the AG1 zone. Whereas currently all AED's in the AG 1 zone require full time onsite employment. In addition, AEDs permitted with a minor conditional use permit in the AG-1 zone require a majority 51% or more full time on site employment. Whereas currently this is required for most AEDs within the AG-2 zone.
And this also means the AEDs can now be located, or excuse me. And lastly there's no restriction on the location of employment for AEDs permitted with a CUP in that AG1 zone and also all AEDS in the AG2 zone. So this means that AED may be located off site on lots with no active agriculture. And the Planning Commission recommended removing the employment location requirements in the Ag 2 zone, in order to assist property owners with larger agricultural operations on non-contiguous lots.
And finally, the proposed LUDC amendment includes footnotes within the AED permit table to indicate that a higher level permit such as a land use permit or minor conditional use permit and environmental review May be required for the utilities to serve certain AEDs that are permitted with a zoning clearance or land use permit. Similar to the LUDC amendment, the proposed Article 2 amendment streamlines the permit process for AEDs in the Ag 1 and Ag 2 zones by allowing AEDs for one to nine employees with a Coastal Development Permit or CDP.
It also increases the number of employees allowed to occupy AED's at all following permit levels. And it modifies the employment location requirements for AEDs within certain zones and permit levels. So once again, you can see here the current Article 2 permit requirements versus the proposed permit requirements in the bottom table. And the proposed Article 2 amendment adds a CDP permit level for one to nine employees.
It also increases the number of employees allowed to occupy AEDs so that now ten to nine employees can occupy AEDs permitted with an MCUP and 20 or more employees can occupy AEDs permitted with a CUP. And next, the proposed Article 2 amendment also revises the employment location requirements so that AEDs permitted with the CDP in the Ag 1 zone require full time on-site employment.
As opposed to previously where both Ag 1 and Ag 2, one to four employees required a full time onsite employment And then next, AED is permitted with the CDP in the AG-2 zone and an MCUP in both the AG-1 and AG- 2 zones require a majority 51% or more full time on site employment. Now AED's permit with the CUP for 20 or more do not have a restriction on the location of employment.
And similar to the LUDC, the proposed Article 2 amendment adds footnotes to indicate that a higher level permit may be necessary for the utilities to serve certain AEDs. The proposed LUDC and Article 2 amendments also clarify that mobile homes, manufactured homes, and park trailers complying with state law may be used as AEDs. And through the course of four public hearings, the Planning Commission recommended that park trailers be allowed as AEDs.
These are types of RVs that can be connected to utility services and use for human habitation. And they have a maximum size of 400 square feet and 14 feet in width. The proposed amendments allow all three of these types of units to be installed with or without a permanent foundation, which allows property owners to move the units as necessary from farm to farm.
However such units must be connected to utilities regardless of the type of foundation. Next, the proposed amendments also add definitions of park trailer and manufactured home to the zoning ordinances. And lastly during the planning commission hearing of August 29th, the planning commission recommended that the proposed amendments expand the options for documentation of proof of employment.
And can you tell us a little bit about what the standards are for, the state's standards are for those two things park trailers. And you don't have to this moment if you want to go back during other questions or comments but that's something that I'm wonder about.
Chair Williams and board we can certainly come back and address that question. And just to give you a visual example, this is what a park trailer looks like. It's one of the cabins at Lake Kachuma that use park trailers there. And the proposed amendments also retain existing requirements that would apply to all AEDs. For example, applicants must submit employment verification documents every five years and also upon any change in occupancy for the AED.
Applicants also must record a notice to property owners stating the intended occupancy and employment requirements for the AED. And lastly applicable design and board of architectural review requirements have been retained. Where applicable. On September 11th, planning and development staff submitted the proposed article two amendment to the California Coastal Commission for preliminary review and to confirm that the amendment qualified as a minor local coastal program amendment.
And on September 19th, coastal commission staff stated that the proposed amendment would require changes in order to be processed as a minor LCPA. In general, the Coastal Commission recommended clarifying when an AED is considered a principally permitted use. They also recommended limiting the cumulative size of AEDs along with other development on a lot and they recommended adding language regarding development on prime soils and also the removal of AED trailers within six months of a discontinuation of the use.
These changes would result in substantive changes to the proposed amendment, and would require further coordination between Coastal Commission and Planning and Development staff. And they would also require the board's review. Therefore, staff recommends that the board adopt the proposed article two amendment without these changes, and submit the amendment as part of the county's third and final major local coastal program submittal package of 2018.
And staff plans to return to your board in late fall, early winter of this year with a resolution authorizing the submittal of the amendment to the Coastal Commission for review and certification. Staff recommends that your board determine that the negative declaration adopted for the housing element fulfills the environmental review requirements for the AED ordinance amendments pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15162.
In short, this section provides that a lead agency shall not prepare a subsequent environmental document for a project when the lead agency has already analyzed the scope of the project in an adopted environmental document. Since the proposed amendments will not allow new land uses, increase permitted densities or otherwise alter the purpose or intent of the housing element for its programs 1.4 and 2.4 this project does not require subsequent environmental review.
Lastly, staff recommends that your board take the following recommended actions. First make the required findings for approval including CEQA findings. Second determine that the housing element negative declaration fulfills the environmental review requirements for this project and no subsequent environmental documents shall be prepared pursuant to CEQAs guidelines section 15162.
And lastly, adopt ordinances amending the County Land Use and Development Code and Article 2 Coastal Zoning Ordinance. And that concludes my presentation and staff is available to answer any other questions you may have.
4:33 – 4:399 turns
Questions from the board? Supervisor Wolk.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. In attachment three of the board letter there's a section on trailer use and it says that a minor conditional use permit is required for trailer use and Examples would be a permanent, if someone wants to put a trailer next to a construction site or something like that. And then down below, then they talk about a trailer being used for ag employee dwellings.
So my question is, so right now it seems like trailers require a minor conditional use permit. And that's what was shown in your chart on table one. So now there's only a requirement for a land use permit. But it doesn't say that it's not changed Well, let me put it this way. How is it that for farm worker housing, it only requires a land use permit? But for someone who's living in the trailer having their home constructed, it requires an MCUP. How can you make that distinction?
Supervisor Wolfe through the chair. As part of these ordinance amendments, we have removed the distinction that previously existed between AEDs used as quote-unquote trailers and those that were used as dwellings so as part of this project any mobile home or manufactured home or park trailer those would be the only three types of trailers that can be used as AEDs and with those We are able to include within the notice to property owner provision that those are removed from the property upon discontinuation of use.
But for something like a trailer used on a construction site, the condition that it be removed upon discontinuance of use would need to be written into the conditions of approval. That's my
understanding. Let me just ask it this way, it seems that there is more oversight with a minor conditional use permit than there is with just a land use permit, is that correct?
That is correct, yes.
So it just seems like you're, that staff, that it is being recommended that we, that there's not as much oversight or inspection for a trailer for farm worker housing. That it's lower the standards.
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. With these three particular types of mobile units, they're all inspected prior to sale either through the state or a federal agency. So therefore our building and safety division doesn't need to do as thorough an inspection on them as they may require for Dwelling and they do do some inspections though for the foundation and things like that or any accessory structure Or alteration that may occur to the trailer but that's why there's Less involved with permitting these dwellings in a lower permanent level
okay, I think the validity of your point depends on what the intent of the minor CUP is for the construction trailer If the purpose of the minor CUP for a construction trailer is the health and safety of the occupant, then your point is very well taken. I believe that the intent of the minor CUP is to protect neighbors against nuisance. Which would not be the case in for instance, an act to zone conceivably. So I guess that's the question though that doesn't mean that we shouldn't wrestle with whether the state standards are sufficient which is what I'm.
Definitely curious about is your building staff's opinion of the state standards and what
those are. I did look at the State Health and Safety Code for trailers, and frankly it doesn't really say. It just says a park trailer is designed for human habitation for recreational or seasonal use. So that was health and safety code section that was in our packet. It says it contains 400 square feet or less of gross floor area, etc., etc. But it doesn't really talk too much about, in my opinion, health and safety.
So, but that's why I was thinking that a more robust inspection that you might get from an MCP would ensure some degree of certainty. But I appreciate the comments maybe it is because of neighborhood compatibility but I also see it as potentially a health and safety issue in more oversight. Thank you.
4:39 – 4:4512 turns
Are there questions before we get a public comment? Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a letter from one of my constituents concerned about ag employee dwellings that are then used for short-term rentals or long term rentals and so could you tell me what exists today in terms of verification that people are actually working as on the agricultural property A related one. What we do now and what we're proposing to do?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, currently for all AEDs there is the requirement that the applicant provide proof of employment for all of the occupants that will be living in the AED. And that proof of employment does need to show that the employee or employees work in agriculture either on site or off site. And any time that there's a change in occupancy, the applicant has to provide those documents as well. So that is in place to ensure that when a structure is permitted as an AED, that it remains for stays being used as an AED and there are provisions that state The applicant no longer is using it for housing agricultural employees, then they have to either convert it to another use or remove the AED.
And so that's not anticipated to be changed and it's very, I mean it's up to the landowner to do it. We don't check or ask for anything periodically to verify that.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair we do have a five year requirement as like a checkup every five years the applicants submit documents verifying The AED is still being used for agricultural employees and have that proof of employment documentation.
But if I remember a case in another area in my jurisdiction, we don't do that as a matter of course. That is, we don't go back every five years and make sure that somebody submits the proper documentation. Is that correct?
That is correct, yes. It is something that is the responsibility of the applicant to report to us and we do have this information in our system, our permitting system that says when the AED's were permitted but it doesn't provide us with for example a reminder yeah
Seeing no other questions, we'll go to public comment It's our custom when we have more than 10 speakers to have two minutes each. So How many speakers do we have?
Chair Williams members of the board we have 14 requests
Please proceed
I'm gonna start with Claire Weinman to be followed by Andy Caldwell and
Good afternoon, my name is Claire Weinman. I'm the president of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. We'd like to thank the planning commission for all of their work on this. All of the revisions that were made were made with purpose. For example, the provisions related to the employment location and employment documentation all reflect modern agricultural circumstances.
A lot of this is in response to the ongoing labor shortage and challenges related to housing. There's certainly tools that can be used to attract and retain employees and guest workers, in response to the ongoing labor constraints that we're experiencing. Just to put it in perspective briefly, in our last survey in September 2017, our members were reporting between 16% and 20% labor shortage.
We're supportive of the ordinances presented if you were to make a minor change and we would ask that it would be related to the identification Of specific occupants and that's just for the AG two zones. That's an attachment three of page five number d2 You know with the larger number of employees in the turnover And we'd like to see it linked more to the use as an AED rather than the specific identities of the occupants That could be accomplished by trimming down the section D2 and to provide that documentation once every five years. And really, as the discussion indicated earlier, it's something that makes it more feasible to comply both for the agricultural employers but also for staff to be able to keep up with those changes as they're occurring.
So if you're amenable to the edit for AG2, again just for AG2 that would be helpful. But either way these ordinance changes are much needed and much appreciated and we appreciate you moving them forward. It's a significant need and we continue to engage with the cities in addressing it in that pathway but a lot of questions are what is the county doing to help with this problem? So as we're pursuing solutions at all levels, we appreciate the county helping to engage in this issue.
4:45 – 4:5210 turns
Supervisor Adam wants to ask you a question. So I'm looking at page three of five of the board letter, Claire?
Board letter.
It's highlighted. I think you provided it to my office. I'm not sure that everybody has it. Up here. Highlighted version and what you're asking for is I just want to be clear on this because you only had two minutes. This section 2 submittal of proof of employment of occupants, you'd like to have section sub 2 removed where somebody has to report every time an employee changes? Yes.
And I will say that You know, we have tremendous turnover. We have just just tremendous turnover and you know unlike the county that has a reasonable rate of turnover point we just don't and so it would even if somebody moves in there their chances are they're It'll help with retention maybe but it's not gonna stop that I don't think in today's world, you know, it's possible to Somebody gets mad and moves across the street for almost nothing. And everybody can get a job across the street, so I think that's pretty reasonable to remove that subsection 2 inside there and then the Sub A underneath it. Thank you.
Mr. Caldwell, to be followed by Hazel Duvalos. Then Hazel Duvalos to be followed by Joanna Barretta.
Good morning board, my name is Hazel Davalos with Cause. We believe this current proposal was developed with great intentions but did not take into account the rapidly changing landscape of agriculture and immigration particularly the explosive rise of H-2A. In current form this could do more harm than good. We urge you to send this proposal back to the planning commission and allow a few months for meaningful engagement of farm worker and farm worker organizations. In shaping design review guidelines and approval processes that set basic standards for the livability of farm worker housing.
We've come a long way from the Bracero Program era of migrant workers living in isolated labor camps and shacks on the sides of fields. Today, Santa Barbara County farm workers mostly live integrated within our communities able to raise families and build lives here. But now we're at the risk of taking a big step backwards. In the last few years, we've seen the industry rapidly shift to the use of H2A where workers are brought to the US and work here for a season and head back home.
And anti-immigrant voices in many of our communities are pushing for those workers to be housed far away from residential neighborhoods, out in the fields on unincorporated land where they can work and live out of sight, out of mind. In this new reality, eliminating review of farm worker housing standards in the county could lead to a very different outcome than this policy's original intent. Rather than helping the many farm worker families in our community, in need of quality permanent housing. This could accelerate the shift towards H2A and have this housing used for low quality bunker style housing designed to squeeze in as many temporary workers as possible for a few months at a time.
Temporary workers unfamiliar with the country whose employers hold power over their visas are highly vulnerable population. Housing them in the fields far from town with limited transportation and access to healthcare and legal services is a risk. We all want this program to accomplish its original intent, meeting the housing needs of local farm worker families. But policy only meets the needs of people when we listen to the people whose lives will be affected most.
Please don't approve the program today. Take time to listen to farm workers about the huge changes that's happening in our field. Take time to make sure that what you're about to do will help farm workers not hurt them. Send us back to the planning commission and let's work together to create farm worker housing that benefits our local families.
Joana Barrera to be followed by Jorge Gil.
Good afternoon board, I have some documents my name is Joanna Barrera with CAWS. I have some documents I'd like to hand in these have also been submitted electronically for the public record So again, my name is Joanna. I work with CAUSE. CAUSE is opposed to the AED in its current form because we fear that this ordinance can streamline and encourage the practice of the housing H-2A guest workers in unincorporated farmland.
While we are comfortable with zoning clearance of housing with one to four residents, we fear that loosening the regulations for projects from five to 35 workers would be harmful to H-2A farm worker living conditions. These are job orders from the Department of Labor Registry. These orders are from the past year and 30 miles within Santa Maria. These job orders are submitted by employers planning to use and house H-2A workers, and indicate how many workers will be living in a house.
Six out of the ten job orders are under 35 workers. It is common to see less than 24, and certainly less than 35 H-1A workers housed in one home. It is clear that this ordinance would impact H-2A housing in our county, particularly the sections addressing housing projects built for 5 to 35 residents. We have emailed the clerk the website where county staff can find this information.
So I urge you to make changes to this proposed ordinance. Thank you so much.
Since you looked at these numbers, let me ask you a question about them. So you're saying that it's very common for it to be between 24 and 35? But I don't imagine it's common that it's five or six. So can you give me the sort of little more detail on what you're seeing?
Right, so by providing these job orders it's proof and evidence that farm workers they come in small numbers. And so they would essentially it's easy to build housing within the city right? And I know there's a lot of backlash from anti-immigrant people in the community. But we're saying that it's possible to, and it's necessary to keep H2A workers here within the city because not only that but their resources are here.
We see them right? Not only that but there's also agencies. That's
good but it's not answering my question. My question is just
4:52 – 4:5713 turns
Yes,
yes we do. And what level is the ones that are less than 24? Are you seeing 10 or are you seeing 15 or are you really seeing
6? 24 is a common number.
Okay good okay that's helpful.
Jorge Gil followed by Amancio de la Cruz
Good afternoon, board. I appreciate the effort that you've made to address this issue and I share the concern that also growers have in terms of addressing their worker shortage and I know that you also have a concern regarding housing shortage in our community. And so if we were to look at the proposal To regarding building more housing in the rural areas. If it were for our farm worker families that are already existing, that'd be great because we need it. The farm worker families need it.
It's a concern for me if its focus only on the H-2A workers. Because of their limited access to services that are needed. I mean, these are workers who are coming specifically for a short term contract but the reality is they're going to have other needs that aren't not addressed by that contract and it's specifically their health needs. Currently those contracts only address work related health issues But when you're living in such cramped conditions, there are going to be public health issues that arise from those living situations. If they're in rural areas they cannot address those issues and so that's of great concern to me and I share the concern that Supervisor Wolf expressed regarding the reduced oversight for the trailers and the living conditions The health and safety issues that creates.
So I greatly appreciate the effort you've made, and I encourage you to continue this dialogue. Do not vote just yet on this. And please include those most impacted by this which would be the farm workers themselves. And include the farm worker if you have a limited access to farm workers, then we are here. There are plenty of farm worker advocates who are in direct contact with farm workers and willing to discuss this further with you. Thank you very much.
Armencio De La Cruz to be followed by Lupita Rios.
Good afternoon, my name is Amancio de la Cruz.
I'm here to talk about farm workers that have been working in the field for 20 years here in Santa Maria. And I want to talk about the H-2A program. I live here and I worry about the H-3 workers in the fields.
It's possible to build out in the county, but it's better to build this housing within the city. Safe and calm and secure. The people living out there face a lack of safety and security. If something happens in the city, they have all the resources they need for in case of an emergency.
For those workers living out in the county, there will be a distance from community.
And that's why I'm here to speak in support of them. They're humans too, just like you and me. That is all, thank you.
Next speaker is Lupita Rios to be followed by Ricardo Garcia.
4:57 – 5:0311 turns
Good afternoon. Right now, most H-UA workers live here in Santa Maria like most farm workers. I live in the northwest part of town and see them walking down Broadway when they're carrying their groceries. My mom who works at La Princesa food market near all the motels they live in on North Broadway has met many of the contracted workers and they have shared with her their experiences and living conditions being a contracted worker. When the program began she offered to help them fill out their paperwork.
Their bosses are responsible for providing food, but they would talk to my mom about how much they miss home. So they'd spend their money on local groceries. They felt sick of the food sometimes. They would talk about how tired they were from the long hours. And I just think that when farm workers are a part of our community, they get to live alongside and interact with people who can make them feel less alone in a completely new country. Placing them in isolation means this community values profit, labor and revenue over meeting the needs of these human beings. My grandfather was a Bracero, and when I see these young men, I see their hopes and dreams. I see how they must be homesick, and they're here to have the ability to provide.
I can listen to you all contemplate and review all these permits and stuff, but I just can't stand in support for my hometown building a labor camp when, sorry. I just hope that we can hold off from approving this project and I think there are better solutions so that we can assure these contracted workers, you know, are safe and have a sense of community while they're here. I think Santa Maria has great potential to remind them of home, you know? And their people too. So thank you.
Ricardo Garcia to be followed by Barbara Bellow
Hello,
good afternoon. I'm Ricardo.
I am an H-2A guest worker and I've been here for several months at a time. I'm here supporting the cause that our housing should stay here in the city.
And the reason for that is because here we can go walk, we can be free, de-stress from the work.
If you know we want to eat something different, we can do that. If we feel bad, we can walk to the doctor. Everything's close by. And plus when we're here, we want to learn more about the country, the United States. We want to learn from you and grow and learn something new. Yo como trabajador de los H2A, pues estoy a gusto aquí. Estoy como aquí en la ciudad porque yo miro a las personas, miro cómo viven, miro sus leyes, sus costumbres y es bonito aprender algo de cómo viven ustedes ¿verdad? Y yo creo que lejos de aquí no conocería nada.
And as an H-2A worker, I feel comfortable here in the city. I get to see people how they live, learn the laws, the customs. It's nice to see how you all live and if we live out far away, we won't get that experience.
I would like for the program to continue here, for the housing to continue in the city so that we can be close to you. It's not about us moving away but being close so that we can live together and also learn your language, right? So that we can communicate with each other and have better communication.
So again, I'd like to see the program continue here. But please don't push us away. Don't make us distant. We want to be here so we can learn English, learn to communicate with the community. Gracias. Thank you. Thanks.
Barbara Bello is our next speaker followed by Kate Adams.
5:03 – 5:1113 turns
Good afternoon, Chairman and Board. My name is Barbara Bellow and I'm here on behalf of myself and the homeowners of Tanglewood Development which is in the unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County outside of Santa Maria. Well I agree with the City Council and the planning on the land development codes to streamline the permit process. Except when it is proposed, when the proposed house is to be occupied in an existing inland Seven are one single family residential neighborhood.
We, the homeowners of Tanglewood are requesting an environmental impact report be performed on how this type of housing affects the existing neighborhood to be completed before granting a permit is granted. This is include parking, noise, water, human trafficking meaning people coming and going. And just hanging out and how it affects the surrounding property owner's value. The tangled development already has its share of farm work housing. The street I live in on which is Briarwood Court has at least three homes that are occupied by three or more families.
These homes have no front lawns landscaping at all. Cars line the property day and night, and two of these homes now have sheets just hung up on their windows for curtains. These people have no buy-in to the neighborhoods. I have no idea who lives next to me... Ma'am,
I'd just have to say our rules or procedure require you to speak to what is on the agenda, and there is no residential development on the agenda. This is only It has nothing to do with any development being proposed in the residences. So please confine your comments to that
which is on the agenda. Okay, well in the paper it said I just don't want it to be like, it says that this is part of what was supposed to be talked here about today. So I don't want it to be a part of it and not give my input.
That it is not on the agenda today. Supervisor
Adams? Was your intent that you're...
Well, just how it affects the
neighborhood. Hang on, I'm asking you a question. Okay. Was your intent that you would like to support housing built on farms rather than in your neighborhood? Right. On farms but... That would be on point.
Okay well many of the farms are just right outside the city limits As we are. So I would rather them be built on the farms than in our neighborhood. That is my intent on this whole thing, and how it affects the rest of the neighborhood. Right now we have many farm workers that live out in our development. I just don't want to see it because it is right outside city limits, be the dumping ground for everyone. To take into consideration the property owners that have lived there And what it's doing to their property value. Okay, thank you.
Kate Adams is our next speaker to be followed by Gail McNeely.
Good afternoon. County Supervisors, my name is Kate Adams. I speak to you today as a 20 year resident of Santa Maria, a homeowner in Santa Maria which makes me actually a minority in Santa Maria as in California more of us are residents or excuse me renters than homeowners and as a student of American history and as a student of California history. I appreciate your efforts and your engagement with the crisis in not only farm worker housing, but just sort of housing in general here in the state of California. I recognize that anti-immigrant pressures in our current moment are flowing downstream.
I recognize too that global disruptions of labor are challenging farmers and growers in California. But I speak today to encourage you to think again before you move forward with this amendment. To look at it again, because I support the integration of even temporary workers who are so signally important to the economy of my home. I don't think it's right to isolate them as we have done in the past, when they were internal migrants coming from Oklahoma in the 30s. And when they were external migrants coming from other countries during the Bracero program. These are, as one of the speakers reminds us part of our historical memory.
A granddaughter of a Bracero spoke with you just a minute ago. I fear that the amendment or the project as it stands now may do more harm than good. It sets an historical precedent, it returns to a historical precedent that puts labor out of sight and out of mind. And I don't mind the integration of economic laborers within my community that are so vital to my community's success.
By quoting poetry to you, Gwendolyn Brooks in about 1940 wrote in a longer poem lines that I think about a lot when I remind myself that government needs to value empathy. Those lines we are each other's harvest. We are each other's business. We are each other's magnitude and bond. Thank you.
Thank you, I'm just going to remind folks that we're doing time limits. Trying to be generous when there's translation but please try to keep it to the time limits.
Kale McNeely and then we'll hear from Sandra Espino.
Good afternoon. I have three suggestions today, one that you should require housing approved under the AED program to be used for year-round employees rather than just H2A. In Salinas growers built housing for H2a and discovered that local farmers wanted that housing and now they live there and they live their year round this happened If you look at Los Adobes de Maria, those are the types of things that we should have. To the City of Santa Maria has not stepped up to the plate but if they did, we'd have more developments that the county and the city would work with Los Adobes de Maria to create more permanent farm worker housing that keeps people in the community.
I talked to growers and they say the need for strawberries is plummeting So the need for H-2A housing workers will plummet also. And with that happening, what is going to happen to the housing that might be developed out near the farmland? What's gonna happen to that? The litmus test for that housing should Would seniors live there? Would students live there? The type of housing you develop should be transferable to other populations when H-2A goes away, or the great need goes away.
And I agree with Supervisor Wolf on the issue of safety. Trailers are not the best solution. More permanent housing is the solution. Permanent housing for our own workers is the solution. And when we need H-2A, the conditions under which they live should be as good as yours or mine. Your mother, my father, your brother, my sister. So that has to be in your mind as you approve these. I would say this needs more work. It needs to go back to the Planning Commission. Thank you.
5:11 – 5:1710 turns
Sandra Espino to be followed by Elvia Salazar
Good afternoon. My name is Sandra Espino, a current homeowner of the Northwest section of Santa Maria where various H-2A workers are housed in the city. I am the granddaughter of a Bracero who lived in migrant labor camps. He picked your family's fruits and vegetables. My parents have worked for over 30 years in the fields and have made a life in this country so much so that I'm able to buy a city in my hometown.
When I see the H-2A workers walking our streets, patronizing our businesses, I see them. My Papa Gabriel, my father, my mother. I welcome them in my neighborhood. These farm workers are more than the fruit of their labor. They're someone's sons, fathers, brothers. This proposal would isolate workers and thus diminish their humanity. I ask you to please send this proposal back to the Planning Commission and to not approve this project as it stands today. Thank you.
Elvia Salazar to be followed by Jerry Salazar who is our final speaker. Is Elvia or Jerry here?
Hello, good afternoon. My name is Jeremias and I'm with the Food and Water Watch. And I have two concerns. There's a lot of I've been hearing that a lot of people are struggling to pay rent, and I have experienced that myself. I have relatives that can't afford housing because it's so expensive. And another thing is that we are bringing the aids to aid workers. And I don't think it's safe to have them in a labor camp.
I believe that they're here to help us and Have a place where they feel safe and where they can enjoy their evenings. I have worked in the fields myself, and when you wake up five in the morning to get ready and work for eight hours, you want to get home and rest and at least be able to enjoy your day and go get something healthy or You don't want to eat tacos or McDonald's every day, so I think we can have these workers here helping us out.
We should have a place where they feel safe and they can enjoy their time being here. And also I believe that These problems can be solved if we can have more housing. Like Mr. Pinelli said, like Los Adobos de Maria, those kind of apartments help and I think people that live out of Santa Maria or other cities, like for example Fresno and Madeira. I think they're willing to come here and help us work but rent is so expensive so they just stay there because even though they come here to work all they're going to do is pay rent. So yeah that's my concern thank you
And sir, it's our custom to do speaker slips. So if you could fill out one of those blue speaker slips so that we have a record of you.
All right, so I just have Elvia. Is Elvia here? She's not. Okay, that concludes public comment.
Looks like there is a public commenter in Santa Barbara. Have you done a speaker slip in Santa Barbara?
I turned one in, but there's no staff member.
You can go ahead.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Frank Rodriguez here from Santa Barbara and working with coordinating the Central Coast Immigrant Rights Coalition we've worked tremendously in the last year to make sure that we have community members that are part of our community. Here in South County we've been dealing with a lot of our especially immigrant community members Latino families being pushed out because of increasing rents so we know this housing crisis is hitting every Part and corner of this county. And being also the grandson of a farm worker, of a Bracero.
I want to make sure that when we're reflecting on people that I see like him, our farm workers I just spoke today over in Santa Maria, that they're taken into account and not living in conditions that were going to be less supervised. That are going to be away from our communities let it be in Santa Maria or anywhere else. We just want to make sure that we're not separating and Thank you.
After the Thomas fire that really affected us and the Montecito mudslides, making sure that undocumented members and people that are working here in our community migrants are able to take advantage of the safety nets that every society should have. So thank you for everybody speaking on how do we really address the lower supervision that's going to be placed on these new housing units for H-2A workers? And how do we really try to think about the networks that a city and a society provides, to make sure we're really taking immigrants into account and showing love for them. Let it be workers in Santa Maria or throughout the county. Thank you.
5:18 – 5:232 turns
That concludes public comment.
Supervisor Lavinia? Thank you Mr. Chair. I appreciate everybody that showed up today. You know, I don't think there's a really good answer to this really because I think the thing that people haven't talked about today, it's rampant throughout Santa Maria is if you don't build first off we don't control the city. And we can go out and build a bunch of housing in this city.
That's up to the City Council. So the only place where we can actually make an impact is by allowing A smoother permit path for agricultural worker housing out in the county. What I am concerned about, one of the things that people aren't talking about is we talk about the conditions of what might happen in a quote unquote labor camp. But we're not talking about with the conditions that the farm workers have to live in today.
There are thousands of people that live in Santa Maria that have dozens of people living in one single family home. Neighborhoods are impacted and they're impacting other farm worker families too. So it's not like with parking, traffic you're having dozens of people living under one roof. When you do something like that, you create a public health powder keg. You create a public safety problem. People jammed into one house like that especially when you have multiple houses on a block where there are many people living under one roof.
It's not conducive to a great neighborhood. So yes, would I like to see every one of those people go out and be able to purchase a new home in Santa Maria and have their own house? And have pride of ownership in their own place? That'd be the utopia. However there is no affordable housing being built, not good affordable housing outside of Los Adobes de Maria where people that are farm workers are going to be able to buy a house in Santa Maria.
So, it's really a choice between do nothing and continue to let people live in substandard conditions. Or try to do something to improve the situation for a number of people. I don't think there's anything Mr. Gazzone might be able to help me with this but I don' think there is any provision that says it has to be used for H2A workers so And I also know that there's a lot of conditions on housing that we all might not be aware of on H-2A farm worker housing, how many beds per square foot and all kinds of different things.
So I'm not excited about going out and building housing out on county property near farms to house Itinerant workers, H-2A workers. I don't think that's a great situation but I do think it is better than what we have right now. I also think I support Claire Wineman's, I think it would be ridiculous to try to track individuals through the process of who's staying there and who isn't staying there so I think we do need to control that and change that.
And I am concerned that it will, I also see the people walking up and down Broadway. And they're in groups of five or six and they've got their groceries with them or they've been to JCPenney's and it's a good thing. It allows people to be together in the community. And I'm concerned that there is going to be that disconnect So I'm sure that we can't force people to take people into town and those types of things. But my hope is that, and this is something I want to follow is how are those people being brought into the community? How are they being able to go see a doctor that they need to see and those types of things. But like I said for me the alternative is just much worse. I can't continue to watch the city.
Deteriorate by this overload of dozens of people living in single family homes. It's just not conducive to their own public safety, their own public health and I think this might be a small step in the direction of trying to fix that.
5:23 – 5:319 turns
Agree that the danger here is that we would continue to do nothing. The county cannot produce housing in the incorporated areas, we can only produce housing in the unincorporated areas and we have to do our part to address the crisis. And this has been a little bit disconcerting for me because In the South County, the message that I get from cause and from other folks who are concerned about this is of the dire need for production now.
And I believe that, I'm on board with you on that. The statistics that you've brought to me and brought to the community is that a quarter of people living in the Santa Barbara area that are Latino have been forced out of the community by the price of housing. That our vacancy rate is 0.1 or 0.2% at a given time, so landlords can demand almost any level of rent.
I can't in the context of what that's doing to my community, do nothing. I can't do nothing and so I can do what you're asking me to do today. That doesn't mean that we can't try to create more protections in it but we have to walk a fine line because the whole purpose is to make the building of farm work housing easier not harder. And so I will try to examine some of those avenues.
And I can understand your viewpoint, but for farm workers that are commuting to Cuyama it's much better if we produce housing in Cuyama. The folks who work in Cuyama generally would rather live there, be a part of the school system, be a part of life in Cuyama rather than drive an hour every day each way from Santa Maria. And I've got a lot of people who'd rather do that, and they're risking their life every day on dark highway.
One of the highways that has the greatest level of accidents in the whole county. And those people can't vote for me because they live in Steve's district and they work in mine but you know what? We should make room for them in Cuyama. Similarly, this crisis is substantively we can address in the community of Carpinteria. Carpinteria has the lowest production of housing per capita in the county and yet we have jobs, we have ag jobs there.
And the growers there, they want to produce small unit housing. They don't want to take advantage of the H-2A program. They want to keep their workers permanently. They want to create farm worker housing for their best workers because they don't want to lose their best workers to some other area. And when most of those workers are commuting from Oxnard or That's really significant to me.
So I'm wrestling with how to proceed, and I want to ask staff a couple questions on this. Could you put up the graphic on which permits are required in which case grid? That's helpful. First, a question for county council. I mean could we create different set of restrictions on H-2A projects and non-H-2a projects? That's brilliant. Brilliant.
Chair and Supervisor, we actually looked at this and the summary in this area is that the courts really look at the use not the user of property. And that lesson comes to us from the city of Santa Barbara some years back on looking at users instead of uses so our recommendation would be to focus on the use.
That's kind of a bummer. Maybe I can help you a little? Okay, well we'll go back to that but let me go down a couple other things. I think the other thing for the advocates to look at is a CUP and a minor CUP my understanding from staff is those are appealable correct?
Chair Williams and supervisors yes that's correct those are appealable
So if you're seeing the H2A projects at over 24 employees, then you could appeal any project and it would come to us for an additional level of approval. Or first to the Planning Commission and then to us for a different level of approval so that is a stop gap against sort If the H2A became a runaway program and monopolized our housing. I agree with you 100% on H-2A, it is we need to fix our immigration system, our broken immigration system not Sort of try to get all the benefits of labor without any integration into communities, is my feeling. And plus I feel like ultimately we're going to need immigrant families for the community in the long run. Otherwise we're going to be a state full of old folks only with no young workers to help support those old folks.
So I actually think it's a demographic inevitability that we have to integrate and support immigrants into our community. I just don't want to have affordable housing become the casualty of a federal program that we don't like, so One is, we could also mandate better standards than say H-2A has in terms of size. And H-1A standard I think is only 100 square feet per person.
We could have a higher standard than that, correct?
Chair Williams and Board of Supervisors, the minimum size would be an efficiency unit of 150 square feet for a single person. I don't see why we couldn't do a minimum size of more than that, but it would be something that would be done under some sort of design standards which would require more review and going back to the Planning Commission.
But we could mandate the 150 because that's what we do for efficiency unit projects already right? The Housing Authority if they build it they build at least 150 square feet per person
Chair Williams and Supervisors, the 150 square feet efficiency unit is actually something that's based on the building code. And it's the minimum size of a unit.
Well I mean that makes a little bit of a difference as I don't know how many people have lived here in less than 100 square feet before. I have, 150 is a lot better than 100 when you're living in 100. And I guess the trailer issue, I think what people see is when they think of a trailer. Well let me handle that last, let me come back to it. So what do those have other requirements? Can you put up the little notes? That's also I think useful to look at.
So on ag, for instance you couldn't put an H-2A project on Ag 1 from 25 to 34 employees under these proposed rules because those require that 51% full time or onsite employment. Correct?
5:31 – 5:4711 turns
Chair Williams and board, if someone was proposing to house H2A workers for 25 to 34 employees. As long as those workers work at least 51% of the time on the site upon which the dwellings are built then that would be fine. Otherwise it would kick them into the CUP permit level.
That's also good to look at as an additional. Somewhat protection. And I think when we're talking about trailers, at first I was like do I really want that? And I think I saw in my mind's eye what I've seen in some parts of the Central Valley. By the way members of my family have been farm workers before so I have a degree of empathy for that, mostly my wife's family. But even my dad who is a white guy, he was a farm worker so there's- Yeah but I mean a picker, he was a picker, not a landowner.
Okay, I'm trying to bring this together. Sorry. Well, I guess I would love the slide on the trailer to be shown. Because I think what at first what I thought of is some rundown trailer in the park trailer in the Central Valley and- Do you know?
I'm sorry to interrupt do we want the photo or the regulations here? The
photo. I'm not sure that when people think park trailer, that they're thinking about this. But I do actually think of this as an acceptable solution for some of our housing crisis. So I guess I don't want to Deep six this possibility when that seems to me a viable. Tool in the toolbox for addressing the housing need so Chair
Williams and Supervisors. And to follow up on your question from earlier regarding the state laws for trailers, those state laws that we've mentioned within these zoning ordinance amendments they refer to the California Code of Regulations and they deal with regulations for the installation of mobile homes manufactured homes and park trailers on foundations connection to utilities and also any type of other Structural alteration that may occur. They provide regulations for that and provide that our building and safety division would have jurisdiction over anything that changes to the unit.
And that helps prompt me on my last is just one other idea, I guess I'm going through different questions to see if there's anything we could do to tighten this up without going through the six month process for design standards. Could we have an, because it's within the jurisdiction of building and safety. Could we have a increased inspection regime for trailers and mobile homes that are done as farm worker housing?
Chair Williams and Supervisors, state law dictates that it's not something that's necessary for building and safety to do simply because these units come pre-manufactured. And they're already inspected and labeled and certified by state or federal agencies. They come with a special insignia that indicates that they've gone through this inspection process. So when they're bought brand new, It's just not something that's necessary for our building and safety division to look into except for their installation upon some type of foundation.
What happens down the line when they're moved, say after they're ten years old? I mean who inspects it then?
We would, our building and safety division would inspect it if it was moved and placed upon a different foundation or if there were any changes to it. If it didn't move for ten years and no one proposed to change anything with it then I can imagine the situation where they wouldn't inspect it but anytime you're messing with the unit beyond its original brand new state then our building and safety division would be able to inspect that and permit it
Great, I guess I meant to try to unify and not divide further on that. So I apologize for that but Supervisor Adam?
Well there's just so much of this that comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what agriculture does and what the needs are and who it has to have where when. You know, your guys are seasonal. You put houses out there and put them in it and all you're going to do is make more H2, or not, H2A more, oh my goodness what's the... You know all you can do is make more section 8 housing.
Because that's a that's up temporary job out there here in Santa Maria we have quite Strawberries all the time, but that's and that's becoming a less and less seasonal Production as well. You look at the Season that we produce strawberries and it's no longer a four-month season you know, it's a ten month season now so there's new varieties that are coming in all the time and There's even new production methods where they're growing them on tables elevated tables Inside hoops There's a new project right there on On better avia. That's no not Winsett. No, it's a somebody else who you know So, you know, there's just new things happening all the time but you have to look at where these people have to be carpentry a for instance, there's a lot of Year-round jobs there, but somehow somebody allowed that to be surrounded now with high dollar housing and The the remaining spaces within that are used for high dollar production.
So it's pretty tough to justify economically a You know a subset subsidized housing Building In the middle of that, because it prevents the economic viability of the production. And these rules are very nice rules like 51% of the people have to work on the site. I mean do you understand? I farm 1800 acres in the Santa Maria Valley and there isn't one piece that's more than 280 acres in one spot.
So that's just ridiculous, that's impossible. So, it's very difficult and I'll tell you the racial racist undertones of this whole thing are really driving me nuts. And it's like if people and I think held maybe at least partially frozen over here because I agree with cause. About not wanting to put HTA housing out on the ranches. Probably for a different reason than they want to not do that. But God, I got so much in my head right now it's really difficult to get it all out.
We're doing this H-2A thing out of just absolutely self defense. I don't think there's a farmer in the state of California that would prefer to do H- 2A for a labor source. We would much rather have a local labor source, and we would much rather not have to cover up good prime farm ground with housing. If that becomes a self-defense mechanism because farmers are out there investing massive amounts of money In crops that have to be harvested in, I mean a very short window. You don't get to come back and get it two weeks later, it's not going to work. And as Claire said we're 16-20% short all the time.
It's just a chronic condition so farmers are trying And then you have these people that come from town and say, I don't want my neighborhood destroyed. And this is why the racist undertone of this thing bothers me so much because we heard the exact same thing with short term rentals. I mean, we gotta let that soak for a minute because this whole thing. And Supervisor Lavinino is absolutely correct.
This is something that almost defies solution because of these conditions and I've said this on numerous occasions. You have 12% of the nation's population and you have 34% of the national welfare cases. I would contend that we have the people to do these jobs here right now. But for one reason or another, they will not come out to work. And as I mentioned earlier, my turnover rate out there at the ranch is tremendous and I'm assuming that we're about like everybody else and Claire could probably tell me if they have massive turnovers like we do.
We'll just assume that's the case at this point but I think that we're going to create these housings on the farms that are necessarily low quality and almost temporary, if you could think of it that way for H-2A. Because nobody wants to go and put something up. It's like the granny houses in my neighborhood. You know when granny dies, granny moves into every single one of them.
And when granny dies somebody rents it and one of my neighbors calls it the rental hood. It's not the neighborhood anymore, it's the rental hood. So that's May Lou, to quote Doreen Farr that we find ourselves in here. And I think there's a lot of it caused by the welfare state that we have to deal with and see the housing is all used up. The available housing.
Is used up and then we're having in self-defense, absolute self defense. Bring in the H2A guys and there's no place to put them. And then, you know people are trying to do something because we can't do nothing and we got to go. You know rent buy Existing housing and then the neighbors get all cranky which you know I totally understand and We all should really totally understand that because we've heard The same thing out of even even high dollar renters of short terms so I don't know what we're going to do.
I'm not a big fan of this, and I don't think that this solves the H-2A problem. I think where this really benefits somebody Is in the smaller AG areas, you know like the lemons lemon orchard cattle ranch where you got one or two or three employees are few employees that are year round and then you can provide some housing for them and you know make them. You know want to stay with you. We'll return reduce the turnover so You know, that's a that's a good thing but you know for for these larger amounts of people and I'm telling you the amounts of Human labor that it takes to get all of the crops, you know we've gotten really good at producing yields and Turning fields over and you know, we're getting 2.8 crops in acre And when I was a kid there wasn't anybody out there and right now, you can't swing a dead cat out there without hitting a human.
They're everywhere! There's somebody everywhere. You know it's it's not like it was in the old days there is and then the traffic in the morning I mean if my son goes out there every morning. He he couldn't wait for the start time to increase the 7 o'clock so we started 6.30 until last Saturday. And Monday we started 7 and so he's going leave the house at the same time and get out to the ranch on time you know.
So It's a concentrated mix of economics and some bad policies, both on a welfare system level and on the immigration front. It's kind of like the perfect storm. I don't know what we do, but you know this is a little bit of a to chip away at something But I wouldn't think that you've solved anything This is this is a chip
5:47 – 5:5320 turns
Supervisor Hartman.
I just wanted to follow up on a couple things you mentioned First was the the 51% requirement on a ranch You mentioned you've got different 200 acre parcels, but
some of them are as small as 80
Right, but so is your what I don't want. I'm trying to understand the definition here So would supervisor Adams property be a ranch or a farm or would you look at each? Parcel and say that the people have to live 51% on the parcel am I making my question clear
I think you are, Supervisor Hartman and through the chair. So the 51% requirement dictates that the employees living in the AED on that site would need to work on the site 51% of the time or more. On that acreage, almost 200
acres now,
That's correct. It would give the property owner the flexibility to have other lots where they do need the workers to go, but for the majority of the time they will be working on site where the AED or AEDs are located So it would work in some instances for folks who have larger but maybe non-contiguous lots.
Or more of a vineyard or an orchard setting where you typically may be working on a particular site and never leaving there, that could work. For cattle ranch, that could work potentially. But even most cattle operations have multiple locations so... And I don't know how you are going to tell a cow guy Yeah, right. You know maybe there's a lot of this I also think is just untrackable and untraceable and you know I don't think anybody's ever going to follow up with it but you know that's not really the way that you want to make law right?
That was a rhetorical question you don't have to answer Mr. Gazzone.
Supervisor Wolf
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a really interesting discussion and I think it's difficult from a policy standpoint because there's just so many different sides in looking at this. So I really need to understand some of what we're talking about. So can you go back to the slide that Supervisor Williams had asked? The one with the chart, yeah, that one. Okay, yeah. That one right there. So the top is our current that we're working with right now. What is the definition of a dwelling?
Is it a house? Or is it the other manufactured homes, mobile homes? What is the definition?
Supervisor Wolk through the chair. To put it very generally a dwelling would be any type of unit upon a permanent foundation that's used for habitation. Okay
so that was permanent and then the reason that next to it is a trailer because that's not permanent. That is correct. So now what we're doing is down below, we're taking away the dwelling and trailer and we're saying the three things are manufactured homes, mobile homes, and park trailers. Right. That's correct. And are all of those not, they're not connected? What's the word? There's no foundation?
They're
all mobile?
Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolf. All three of those types of trailer units can be placed upon a permanent foundation. And for purposes of considering something a dwelling, mobile homes and manufactured homes essentially mean the same thing. Mobile homes are just permitted before or excuse me built before a certain date and manufactured home is the term we use now.
But whenever those are placed upon a permanent foundation, we treat them the same as a single family dwelling. And so for those three types of units through all these planning commission hearings it was recommended that we use those three types of trailers because they could be placed on a permanent foundation and because they can be connected to utilities properly and not just using for example a water tank or something like that or An RV sort of septic tank.
So I guess I'm a little confused because I thought a park trailer cannot be, is not permanent or should not be considered like those other two. A manufactured home and a mobile home that a park trailer is different but am I, is that incorrect? They're all the same.
Supervisor Wolfe through the chair. A park trailer is a type of RV unit, but it is possible to hook it up to utilities and place it on a permanent foundation similar to a mobile home or manufactured
home. So then the way you've set up the chart is all three are pretty much equal?
That's correct.
Okay, and then I have a question about up on the top what we're dealing with right now on egg one you can have a dwelling but you can't you're not allowing a trailer is that right?
5:53 – 5:588 turns
Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolk. We're just removing the distinction between AEDs that are used as trailers and those that are dwellings. We're no longer distinguishing between the two and requiring a higher level permit for a trailer.
Well it actually doesn't look... It looks like down below you're allowing those three that we talked about And the number of employees is so much greater, so it seems to me that there's less oversight. But okay, that's just my perception. The other question I have is, I looked at the staff report and then the planning commission modified your staff report. And honestly, I'm more comfortable with your staff report than what you have up here. And I think the planning commission enhanced the numbers but What staff had recommended was one to four employees in the first box.
5 to 9 in the second, 10 to 19 in the third and 20 plus in the fourth. And that seemed much more reasonable and workable than when I see these numbers up here because I'm trying to envision and this is where I'm trying to balance but 25 to 34 employees and that's not including the families, right?
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. That's correct, these numbers are only the number of employees allowed to occupy the AEDs not potential family members that they may have living with them. But just to clarify these amendments that we have here on this slide are for the LUDC amendments and the numbers and permit levels you're referring to up to 20 or more is for the Article 2 amendment.
Those numbers are different.
Well actually I'm looking at the hearing date of June 6 and it says staff's initial proposal, the LUDC permit requirements. It was dated May 29th.
Supervisor Wolf through the chair, I see what you're saying. The Planning Commission did recommend that we bump up the numbers for the inland area. That's why you see that difference. Originally staff had proposed that both the LEGC and Article 2 amendments have the same number of employees across-
And I'll just repeat, I think I like staffs recommendations with all due respect to the planning commission. And I think you also talked about the challenges that were inherent in the Planning Commission's recommendations. Can you talk a little bit about that, with the higher numbers and the zoning clearances?
Supervisor Wolfe through the chair. So one of the unique challenges that we ran into with downshifting the permit in the inland area to a zoning clearance for 1-4 employees, and sometimes at an LUP permit level as well is that there's a disconnect between the permit for the dwelling with it being so low and the permit for the utilities water and waste water to serve that dwelling. Because staff is not proposing to change the permit that may be in the level of environmental review, that may be required for the utilities to serve.
The number of employees and potentially depending on how many family members are living with them, the number of occupants that are going to occupy these dwellings. So we can't control the type of system that's required to serve water and wastewater to these units. We can only downshift the permit for the dwelling itself, so that's why we had to add these footnotes to the table indicating that you may have a lower level permit for the dwelling but in some cases depending on how many employees or occupants you're proposing to house in these dwellings, you may actually need a higher level permit for utilities.
That was a really succinct answer, thank you for that. So that explains exactly why you have those other footnotes. But so let's go back then to the family members. So if we just look at your chart, the first one 1-4 employees. And you have one trailer, and you can put one to four employees in one trailer. But say each employee is a family of three so that's 12 people in one trailer?
5:58 – 6:0425 turns
Still have the limitations of 150 square feet per person correct?
Well, that's is that I don't know. That's a
good Planning and development would not regulate the number of occupants We can't regulate the number of occupants that are in a single-family dwelling
Well, it's not a single family dwelling it's a trailer
welcome to Santa Maria's world They've been down this road
now
you cannot you cannot regulate how many people live in it?
Instead of one to four employees, you could regulate it and say one employee. Right? So that you could regulate. I'm just trying to
And you can make it zero. No,
no, because I'm trying to work through this to get to a point where you could have employee housing on ag but that you don't have 12 people in a trailer so- Well one of
the things, the differences too is and I know people have said they don't want it for H2A but H2 does not allow family members. So it's only the worker allowed.
And I don't think this would be the H-2A, and going to what Peter said. You're probably looking at some of the smaller numbers but why would we say one to four employees in a trailer when you could theoretically have an unlimited number? If we can limit, the only thing we can limit is the number of employees. So why don't we say one employee per trailer? No, no one's going to build the trailer?
Yeah. Then you're building one house for every employee and I'm not sure that's going to...
You're building a trailer for every employee. I'm not saying this is easy. I just can't imagine because the alternative is 12 people in one trailer or 10 people and that's not good. So how do we find the balance?
Can I say?
We do have one other supervisor with the light, but go ahead. Supervisor Adam.
Okay, I'm just going to say that when you contemplate some number of employees whether that be 1-4 or 5-24, I think that's all H2A. That's if you had one then they have a family and their year round employee. But if you have any more than one employee. You know, I mean, I suppose there's the husband and wife combo or something like that that it's potentially out there sometimes but practically I think that that's some number of employees equals H 2 a and some number of dwellings like dwellings in trailers is is more along the lines I would think of You're not really telling people, and I don't even think we can.
Legal is going to tell us we probably can't tell people what constitutes a family. For purposes of whoever's living with the family in the dwelling or the trailer, Right, yes. Okay so I think the distinction and I would love to be able to make the distinction which he's going to nod up and down we can't do that either between H2A housing and permanent housing.
As as
you can't do that either. Yeah, as would I circle shall not be squared
and I got at least give the carpentry perspective the people would like to build a 4 or 5 or 6. A housing for four or five or six employees in their families, not H-2A. They are not looking at H- 2A as their path.
So why don't we just look at the top box and work with the zoning? If we're not talking H- And we're at 1 to 4 or 5 plus. Why are we going into the huge numbers of 25 to 34 and 35 plus if that's not what we're talking about
because we just heard that the h2o projects are mainly above 24 employees
Well, and I would say that that's not totally
Either we're dealing with it or we're not so
I guess my point is if that's the majority of H2A projects, then we already have the additional protection of a CUP. A CUP is appealable on a case by case basis. Anybody can bring an appeal for a CUP process and if somebody, you know, I'll even put it out because I'm making eye contact. If there's another suggestion for what the cutoff is. I'd be happy as chair to hear that suggestion if it is an informed one.
But, I'll just say the caveat shouldn't be made to what 10% of the applications are. It should be being framed around what a large proportion of the applications are. So, I'll give you a chance to think about it and if you want to answer my question.
6:04 – 6:105 turns
Application for a major age to a housing right or is that off the table. Okay, so that one's been approved. Okay, but there is there any others? No, there's not even any in the pipeline
seeing that which is which is illustrative of the problem There isn't there's hardly any farmworker housing and the pipeline That's non h2a or h2o right
Well then and I was gonna say that I would rather loosen up on the h2 a to Because I mean you have to We don't have any choice if we're going to have These crops grown here, if we want to have crops grown here. We have to make sure we have people to pick them from someplace and see this is my problem you go invest a major. See I tore down all the Bracero stuff. I cleaned up a bunch of Bracero buildings like Quonsets and Barrick style buildings and stuff. I tore those things down when I was a kid they had me clean that stuff up.
And so I've cleaned up after the Bracero program. And so that cost them a lot of money to build those things, and then they just became dilapidated and in today's world they'd become a crack house or something and cause other problems. You think that there is going to be somebody living in these things after ten years? And I'm saying there may not be. So while the conditions are so frustrating and imperfect in today's world, I think we have to allow for the possibility that somebody might have to have 35 people or more. How many was the one application?
Was that in the hundreds? Yeah, that's an enormous and you know that begs the question what's going to happen to that at some point?
I think that's a good question. In Carpinteria someone will be in that housing 10 years from now. And arguably unless it's underwater 30 years from now and 40 years from now so yeah Are there other inputs as we search for a landing? Supervisor Hartman.
This is one of the more difficult things that's ever come to us, and I think one of the reasons is because we've just got a very small slice of it. We're trying to say okay what can we do given the authorities we have to just downshift a little bit to make it somewhat easier. But it's kind of without a bigger context, we understand that there is a labor shortage. But it seems to be different in Kiama than it is in the Santa Ynez Valley or Carp or Santa Maria and so it doesn't really lend itself to a one size fits all solution.
You know, where is the labor needed and who's doing what now? And what are the projections over time? What are best practices being used elsewhere? I tend to think that while everybody might like a single family house with a lawn. That's not the future even in urban areas we see tiny homes. We see dormitory living was shared. We see co-ops, we see things subdivided. So with more people and not as much housing, we're having to live in smaller and smaller places so that's even in urban areas. And I think in general, we want to see housing in urban areas especially because of wastewater and water when you build a big facility out in agricultural land. What are you doing about wastewater treatment? What are you doing about water? I mean, to me those footnotes hold a lot of the story.
So I think we're all kind of tearing our hair out how do we deal with this little slice. I did hear a lot of people from cause saying it to go back to the planning commission, but I don't know exactly with what direction. What would we like the Planning Commission to do? I would really like a white paper that gives me a bigger picture Down the road, but I think I'd really like to move forward on something today. A lot has been invested.
We did hear about one suggestion that the owner has to report on the use not on the people because there's so much transition. I think the 51% that I know the Planning Commission worked hard on to hear Supervisor Adam, that doesn't really make sense. And I've seen a lot of people at least in Santa Maria where they do own many parcels that are not contiguous.
And then we've heard Supervisor Wolf talk about, well are the numbers right and how do we accommodate the family? So those are the three issues that I've heard. I don't have solutions but it seems we have to maybe the first one we agree on report on the use rather than the number of people. But the other two if we're going to get some forward momentum, I think we need to discuss those a bit.
6:10 – 6:1519 turns
Well, as much as I like to sit here and discuss it all night. I don't think we could talk about it and come to any sort of epiphany. I think that the majority full time on site, the reason why I wasn't making a big deal about it is because I think it's unenforceable. It's like a lot of the things that we do is we create something and I don' know who's going to go out there and check all that and then look through all the paperwork.
It would cost you a fortune to do it. But then again, so I wasn't raising a stink about it but it's also not good idea to make policy that we can't yeah go ahead Peter. I'll just tell you
what's going to happen there is we get neighbors complaining because they get in a fight with the neighbor and they know that they got somebody living there that's that's not working there or something like that. I mean that that's what where are you gonna get into? Well
I think if we just changed it to the fact that they are a An agriculture employee that, I don't know why it has to be 51% on site employment. That just seems strange to me. I mean, I don't know how you would ever enforce that. I'm sure there was good reason for them to put it in but- It's a great idea. It's difficult. Okay, so Okay, well I don't have any problem with it being there because I don't see how anyway that's ever going to impact anybody. So if it makes people feel better to have it in there, that's fine.
Like I said, I just don't think that's going to be a stumbling block for anybody.
I don't understand how that's a good policy.
Well, even the twos is unworkable.
So I would be supportive of at very least changing the ones to twos and support getting rid of the twos just simply as well-intentioned but unworkable.
I think it's well intentioned and unworkable.
Yeah.
Well, if I...I think that one reason that it might be a good thing is so that And you know what, everyone's talking about their districts. So I have a lot of Ag One and I can imagine that if you had housing on some Ag One parcels and then it's different than residential right? I don't know, I think what staff was trying to do is to have these footnotes to better give some security because they...I don't mean to speak for you guys. But when you increase the numbers that gives some degree of restriction to what is happening on the properties.
So if it's for, if you're going to allow all of those employees and you need to have some restrictions on their employment. Because that's why you're building the housing is to have them work on the land.
Not that land maybe.
Well, that's what-
Otherwise, you'd end up with housing on every single one of your pieces of property.
But I think that's why AG 1 is the one that has the ones on it because they are smaller parcels. I'll tell you as the other person who has a lot of AG-1, if you
only do it on AG-2 that means Carpinteria doesn't get
any
No, no, it's saying that requirement of the majority full time on site employment is only on active property. No, it's not on any active
property.
Yeah, the requirement is on Ag 1 and that's my point is that It essentially is prohibitive for you know any meaning this will That'll mean even with this no farmworker housing will be done in Carpinteria because they like most growers They have more than one site.
Why don't we go then Ag 1 is footnote 2
6:15 – 6:2131 turns
I could go there.
Okay, and then act two has no requirement on it except for the other ones. Good with that.
Mr. Gazzani? Chair and supervisors, I think it might be helpful at some point to just hear from the planning director on what level of changes staff might be able to accomplish today and what would require a scrub through the findings in the rest of the package.
Sure come up here but I guess, I would be really suspicious that changing that would require us to send it back to planning commission.
Not the Planning Commission just to take a look at the findings in the rest of the documents.
Mr. Chair and members of the board, no I don't think anything you've talked about so far has to go back to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had three or four hearings on this they talked about pretty much everything you're talking about. So I feel very comfortable that you don't have to send this back to the Planning Commission but I do feel uncomfortable about making changes to these without us having an opportunity to review the findings.
We can look at them quickly and see if anything triggers it so far.
Why don't you look at them quickly?
So far I'm not sure.
But let's go over what else we-
And so far the only thing you've talked about is changing these footnotes,
so. We would do certain things. Okay.
It's the Claire.
Can I just say one thing? I'm fine with a 1 to 4 changing the footnote to 2. But as soon as you get to the next box of 5 to 24, I think it should stay as it is, a 1. Thank you.
So we'd have an on-site requirement for 524, but we wouldn't have it for more or less number of employees. It seems strange, very strange.
You drive a hard. Mr. Chair, I think the better practice we've learned this lesson a couple of times is for you to tell us what you want us to change and for us to come back because we're not even in Santa Barbara where we have access to our own computers to do things and the hour is a bit late so Just given the two changes you've talked about so far, incorporating Claire's and some changes to the footnotes. I don't think it's a good idea to move forward today.
But direction would be great, so we could come back and be ready.
You still want to make a motion or do you?
No, I think we've hammered it out so much that my brain is turning into oatmeal and I'd rather deal with it another day, to be honest with you. We still need to give them a direction. No, we gave them the direction of the two items that we talked about. You had a third? No,
I just wait is direction clear. I don't think from an observer. I wouldn't know what our direction was
We
can
always go back and look at the tape again right
like we did I'll just give one thing that I thought I heard that on the egg 1 1 to 4 employees Remove the footnote 1 and make it a 2 and And that
was across the board. So in the five to not across the
board,
what? No, I think there might be consensus on that outside of you but I'm sorry I said I think there might be consensus outside of yours so I mean if we gave direction I think we'd have to vote on what
you said that not me
So I guess there's some not consensus on the 5 to 24 Ag 1. Some would like to remove one and make it a two for a footnote, so maybe you could come back and see if you can make that finding? Is that
right? We're changing it from a one to two?
Well, in actuality then you might as well eliminate the whole footnote one.
Yes. I would eliminate two as well because it's just confusing.
And I'm just going to say that I think Even when it comes back, I'm going to have a hard time on this because of the number of employees potentially on Ag 135 plus on Ag one. Even if it's H2A, it doesn't make any sense for a small. That's what we're trying to do is we're looking at making these Um, production areas be able and have less requirements to build housing.
And for an Ag One property I just don't see it. Don't see the need if you look up above what we've had before is five plus and now all of a sudden We're at 35 plus that's just a huge jump for an egg one property. So my suggestion is we get we eliminate The 25 to 34 in the 35 plus four egg one so I'm gonna Do we have consensus on that looking at that?
6:21 – 6:2927 turns
Repeat that, I was just making sure your suggestions were consistent on the coastal zone side too. So what was the last suggestion?
On Ag 1, just eliminating the 25 to 34 and the 35 plus on Ag 1 given the size of the, yeah.
So, Mr. Chair just a comment that would be more restrictive than the ordinance is right now because right now anything over five to whatever number you want to say Is permittable through a conditional use permit? so There wouldn't be a permit path at all. Yeah, then that's that's different than what we have today today We have a permit path It's just at the highest level
And it would be limited at 24 and it is somewhat restricted on ag land, that's true. And that would be my intention is to make it more restrictive on Ag 1 land. and less restrictive on Ag 2, but you still have the MCUP and the CUP on Ag 2.
Can we also just highlight that when you talk about 24 employees, that's not 24 employees necessarily in one unit. That's 24 employees in one development?
Correct. So
it could be Separate casitas or single-family homes that you would therefore be Prohibiting so
I know on egg one. I mean that you have egg one and you're allowing 24 Casitas on egg one. I would like a
terrible housing development of more than 24 units on in in in AG 1 in Carpinteria because there's no housing production at all I can think of one in particular, there's one right next to the high school that is being proposed. That's Ag One. I can't think of a better place for housing than right next to Carpinteria High School.
You think it wouldn't be on the Ag One property? It would be on Ag One. Well then you're taking... Yeah because then you're doing it on Ag Property
Supervisors, can we hear from our staff? I think they were going to try to summarize maybe some consensus. What they heard is maybe a way to further this discussion.
Chair Williams, pardon me, CEO Miyasato, I'm not prepared to summarize what happened. That was actually my suggestion. I needed more clarification in order to be able to go back and do the work to return such that I could give you something that you're asking for because I'm still kind of unclear about that. But the reason I was pushing the button is I just want make it clear.
At the 25 plus level, that requires either a minor conditional use permit or a conditional use permit. I think it's important to keep in mind, a conditional use permit is for a use that's typically inappropriate for the zone but under specific conditions might be found to be appropriate on this. So there's no guarantee that you're going to get the farm worker housing at
those levels. And I understand that my suggestion is more restrictive. But it's actually, no, I get that. The numbers are huge if you're thinking of that number of employees plus their families out on Agawam property and little casitas sound lovely but that might not happen. You might have three trailers to house I don't know 100 people. So that's my concern. That's why I don't on egg one, I think it's a it's a concern.
So we would not have that because we do have building standards. The building standards are at least 150 square feet per person which is the guidelines also you do see affordable housing projects that everybody in this room has supported That are 220 square feet per person in the city of Santa Barbara. So it's just weird, we're like what we all throw up our hands and I'm like that's awesome because the housing authority did it. We're questioning if a private entity does the same thing.
Josh you're forgetting zoning and we're talking about ag land. That's really the difference.
Don't
talk to me
about- All those projects were much more dense than the zoning,
so. We all know about affordable housing and we're all on board but I think we're talking something a little bit different. This is ag zone property putting housing on it.
Okay, well I'm going to make an attempt at a motion because I think we're having a hard time. So I'm going to move staff recommendation with the amendment of Dispensing or moving preparing the documents to proceed with staff recommendation with the following changes. The elimination of footnote one both in the inland and coastal zone areas, clarifying that No units can be constructed that have less than 150 square feet of living space per person.
I guess those would be the two amendments.
Mr. Chair, I think the third item you discussed and I'm not sure you reached consensus on it was Claire Wineman's suggestion about validating- The use, not the person. Use, not the person.
And I would hope that that would be In some cases in person, obviously it can't be each time. But I do think that there's some necessary oversight if this program ever got off the ground. Right now we don't have any production whatsoever except for that one project. So but in the future if we're trying to validate use and not the people, I do think that means that we sometimes do it with due diligence. Mr. Gazzone?
Chair and supervisors, and we would work with staff to scrub this past both state law section 1188 from the Department of Labor to make sure that the provisions that you're talking about are actually permissible at the local level. And it will give you a update on that working with planning on that.
Doss before you get a second on that I'd like to suggest something. Before I had wanted to eliminate the 25 to 34 and the 35 plus, would you consider as part of your motion leaving the 25 to 34 and make that a CUP? And eliminate the 35 plus.
Let me ask staff what's the difference between how a minor CUP and a CUP is treated?
Minor CUP goes to the zoning administrator and conditional use permit goes to the planning commission. They're both appealable ultimately to the board.
I don't know if that, both of those in a case of a controversial project would go to the same place. So I'm not sure there's much of a difference there. But I'm persuadable if people feel strongly about it.
6:29 – 6:4138 turns
Mr Chair and Supervisor Wolff really the only difference is the decision maker. The process is exactly the same. So it's a discretionary application. It's subject to the same findings and ordinance requirements, and it's really just the initial decision maker.
And the other part of why I wanted to do that was to make the cut off at 34 and not do the 35 plus. That is just so I can't even foresee that on AG-1. So it's the number, it's the number that's really most concerning to me. Thank you Mr. Chair.
So how- Supervisor Lavinia? AG- 1 can be a rather large parcel
Could
have a
100-acre
parcel
that's Ag One.
Right, I just got a text from somebody that has a 75 acre parcel and it's like 35 people on that is not wouldn't be out of the ordinary you're thinking of a 10 acre or 5 acre Ag One
So Mr. Chair, that's why this is a conditional use permit. It requires that you make very site specific factual findings and finding some consistency with the general plan including the ag element so every parcel is really looked at uniquely based upon those findings.
So, where are we so
there's a motion is there a second I need a clarification
sure to provide direction to staff right to provide
direction Supervisor Adam Are are we did we knock out the the plus? On 35 because did did we limit it to 34? No. Okay
You're going 35 plus?
Yes, because it's not my intention.
No I just said- When we're producing no
form
of browsing to make it more restrictive than our current rules. And then for the one to four employees you're getting rid of the one that they don't have to be full time.
That
they don't have to be on site. Yeah. Is that gonna get replaced with a two?
That's the direction you've given so far.
I'm persuadable that we would get rid of both, but I kind of feel like it's an unworkable thing. What
if we come back with
findings for both?
Yeah because-
Okay why don't we, that's a very good idea. I will ask that you come back with both elimination of one and two, and just elimination of one. Second.
Mr. Gazzani? Chair, that's certainly a direction the board can provide. I would say that the package you'll be receiving is not just the findings but actually complete textual and tabled ordinances inland and coastal for both of those options. So it'll be two complete packages.
And I guess that would be a very useful thing to understand, the workability and the function of what footnote two is. And I don't expect you to tell me that right now considering I think the planning commission came up with it but- Can I
ask another question? Can you explain the processing for a land use permit versus an MCUP? What is it who
so Mr. Chair and Commissioner Wolfe, Board Member Wolfe excuse me, it's late So a land use permit as a staff issued permit It is appealable but it's not subject to a hearing and it's typically not subject to full CEQA document
okay, so I If you just look up above, one to four employees the way we have it now for a dwelling is an LUP and for a trailer it's an MCUP. And we're dropping it all the way down to five to 24 employees could have a trailer and it's a land use permit much less regulation for many more people. I just find that really hard to deal with. If we're putting all of these people out on ag land and there's little to no review, especially where they're not going to be full time employees. We have no idea the number of people out there. I think this is really folly.
Just agree to the one to four employees getting the zoning clearance that meets the requirements of what we are trying to do. To make it easier for people to get housing, put housing out on their property with a zoning clearance instead of a land use permit. I would be fine with that and forget everything else so I don't think I'm going to be able to support the motion going forward because I think we are going way too far In oversight of this plan, which frankly I don't think we really know the implications to what's going to happen to our ag land. What's going to happen to the people out there? How many families are going to be there? What's the impact on the schools that they all may have children?
We haven't discussed that so I don't feel comfortable with anything other than that one to four zoning clearance as it's written. I've gone full circle because we have gone so far from where we are currently to the proposed that it's almost, it just doesn't make any sense to me.
Okay, we have a motion. I
need to, I'm seconded so- Sure, Mr. Adam? With all due respect, you know I love you. I'm just about to eviscerate everything he just said though. I know, I know. I don't expect to change my mind. I'm looking at staff having to come back with a dual entire usable ordinances and I'm just thinking if we have the support Maybe we could just do both one and two on everything, and save ourselves. Just come back with one ordinance that's actionable. Look I don't like this thing that much.
No, I know but that the thing is is I don't like it. But it's you have to chip you have to Know you can't because it's not going to chip away at the problem one to four employees You know that may get the horse doo-doo picked up in the second district, but that's not gonna get anybody any Stuff picked or you know, I mean it It's it's the wonderful employees And as we were talking about earlier, the 1 to 4, the 5 to 24 and those numbers rather than units is more along the lines of an H-2A deal. So it just doesn't get you any groceries. You gotta get more done if you're going to bother doing anything but just do something legit. Mr. Gazzone?
Well, let me ask on that. Remember when I said that I was going to ask you what the planning commission's logic of the 51% is? But now I am going to ask you if we have to decide whether we're going to deep six two or not. What was the purpose? Because at first I was thinking, well maybe this is a way to discourage H-2A but it doesn't look like it is. So what was the planning commission's?
Mr Chair so if you look at the top table under the current requirements that's existing board policy for probably since the early 80s in terms of there was a relationship and not to say and I think part of this change was recognizing there's a change in agriculture but what we're working with now That full-time requirement is an existing requirement. It's generally on the smaller Ag 1 properties, and it has a relationship between a demonstrated need for the housing and what the agriculture is on that property.
When we got to the Planning Commission there was a clear distinction that doesn't work for Ag 2 North County Santa Maria Lompoc properties. And so that's why you'll see On the bottom table under Ag 2, they removed those employment locations and they were okay with that. They did struggle on the Ag 1 particularly some of those middle ones like even the 5-24 thinking about, they talked a lot about San Ynez Valley and the interrural area and have a lot of Ag 1 properties that you have a mix of Residential ranch at some agriculture limited resources. So it was the intensity of use of why they wanted to keep that not they were more flexible in keeping at least that there's a demonstration between you're primarily working on that property And then the intensity of use.
So those are still, I think they recognize there's changes. They were in agreement which is tough to do but collectively they were in agreement for the AG-2 properties that they need to remove that employment location restriction. But they felt that it was important because of intensity of use to keep it on those Ag One properties. And that also carried forward with their thought for the coastal regulations as well.
He's
a little persuasive there,
can we keep it in for Ag One? Let me just say I think that what scares me is you may have an Ag One property that may be the most appropriate place to build that structure. And I'm thinking of myself, and we're renting properties. Sometimes we lose a ranch. I've got a few hundred acres out there at Sisquawk Ranch and then we've got a couple hundred acres all the way down to Guadalupe.
The stuff that I own, that I'd build something on because I can't build it on a rental. I got to be able to control it and so it may be an Ag One piece. And then I'm stuck with, I'm supposed to work 51% of the time. And then if I'm put in the terrible position And all of us are put in a bad position. The landowner is sitting there saying, I know damn well I'm going to violate on the first day when I go in with a permit.
I can't comply with the 51%, but You know we have to create some housing here because I got people come in and they have to have someplace to live. And you know with the then the other thing is the county is is- you know at some point somebody's gonna call and say hey I think that. You know this doesn't qualify and then what are you going to do your income out and issue a notice of violation Don't even allow it. I mean, let's all just go with Janet and just don't do it at all. If you're not going to do something that's workable and isn't going to cause problems that we know we can anticipate in advance then just don't do anything at all and maybe something good will happen.
6:41 – 6:4720 turns
Well, to prevent total gridlock I guess I will exceed to the elimination of two as well. Okay, there's a motion and a second. Is there any other comment? Yeah, if you played ball maybe I wouldn't be forced into that situation. Hold on,
what did you just say?
I said maybe if you played ball I wouldn't be forced into that situation.
But my playing ball was to include one and so you're getting rid of one and two. And I was actually originally going to go with two. So please don't talk to me about playing ball, okay? Please, thank you.
Chair, again just so we have expectations on this. I understand the motion and we would also work with planning to scrub this through state employee housing law, Department of Labor's section 1188. And then we'll take a hard look at the enforceability of the 150 square foot initially was described as per person that may turn out to be per unit but we'll look at that. But I just want to let you know we will be looking at that as part of bringing it back to the board.
Okay. Yeah, that would be I think helpful to meet some of the objections that people have brought up is what is the protections under state law? Because I'd like to know more detail on this. Any other comments, questions? Chair Williams.
Sorry to interrupt. I know this is getting late but I just want to clarify part of your motion also includes a continuance of this item to allow us to go do the work and return back to your board. It's important also for noticing requirements and then we do have some possible target dates if-
Okay, I will add a continuence onto the direction in the motion. Is that okay with the seconder? And what is your target date?
Provided this works with the clerk of the board's agenda, as we were looking at November 13th. I
think that would be compatible with our schedule. So it will be a continuance to November 13th Okay everybody clear on the motion? First, second. All those in favor please say aye. I think
is there any discussion?
Absolutely. Okay
good.
I've been kept on looking for your light.
I know everybody wants to go but I'm with Janet in terms of not understanding the implications of getting rid of one and two and so I just want to reserve the right. If you're going to do a lot of work maybe that I won't vote with it I'm wondering on two, this question hasn't been answered yet. If it were linked that 51% requirement not to the parcel but to the landowner does that solve the problem?
For me it would solve the problem because that would be more functional policy.
And if that happened then we wouldn't have to get rid of one and two we'd have a different strategy
So I'm not to complicate things but hearing something that Supervisor Adams said you might want to say Operator farmer. Yeah, something not not landowner because a lot of people do lease property
operator would be what regulations typically use? I mean, I think I could support that I also need to say something else. As we downshift to just a zoning clearance or an LUP, especially for that 5-24, one of these projects came when I was on the Planning Commission so we had a CUP so we could say there's gotta be transit, there's gotta be activities on the land so that people aren't just stranded and isolated But now with an LUP, you don't have that opportunity. So that's still a concern of mine and I put it on the table.
And just in reaction, I don't know if the right cutoff is 24 to 25. I felt like there was some logic in it because the majority of H-2A visa applications were above 25 and it seems that the larger impact would be but Well, then that would be a useful piece of information. So if 50%, I guess the useful information to bring on the 13th would be what threshold? It would be a higher threshold is 50% or more of the projects. Is it more than 10? Is it more than 12? Is it more than 14? Is at more than 18?
I don't know the answer to that, but I'm persuadable on that basis because I do think there's an additional level of scrutiny. That should be the proper mechanism for is that CUP on certain projects? So there's a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? That's 4-1. 4-1 or abstain? 4-311. We will, Mona?
6:47 – 6:5115 turns
Chair Williams and board members, I just wanted to do a little bit of some agenda planning just quickly. Some of you know we're trying to schedule a special meeting in the next couple of weeks following the Coastal Commission's hearing of our cannabis ordinance which is happening tomorrow. And given timelines, we've been looking at different dates. The clerk of the board has a board letter ready to go for next week to affirm some dates. But we're looking at right now the date of Monday 1022 at 9 AM for a special meeting and I'm announcing that now if your board would either Like to vote on that or for the the chair can also just set the meeting because planning would need to do noticing That would go out this week To announce that date. So we're looking at Monday 1022 at 9 a.m For a special meeting in Santa Barbara I
I could have done every day that came to us in the last few weeks, and now we hear the 22nd. And that's just the one day I can't do it.
I cannot do it either. Was it that more board members could do the 23rd? I thought that date was worse for folks.
I'm in DC on the 23rd, and so 23rd's out for me and 24th. Okay,
so is there at least some of us that can do the 22nd? Or is the 18th too soon for staff to be able to prepare?
Mr Chair we can't do the 18. That just won't work. So we need to submit a notice 10 minutes. Okay, well if we're going to go on the 22nd
No only three of us can but
if there are three If you have three
that's enough
I believe you just need a quorum of the board. It's difficult, we know, we apologize it's just trying to schedule this with different schedules involved has been hard.
Yeah since this is the fifth date we've now tried and we got ten minutes to provide direction. Okay so
I still am not sure though on the 22nd I'm working travel plans right now. So the 22 I'm good but I'm not 100% sure I'm going to be in Santa Barbara. So I want to also schedule it so that, is there a possibility that we could schedule it with
me being remote? So the rule for this on a teleconference is that a quorum has to be inside the county. You can have members participating electronically from outside the county- Well, I'll be
calling you all when I land in DC at 1 o'clock in the morning and wake y'all up. Tell you I got there safe. I'm sure you're all going to be worried. And again, when I check into the hotel, I'll call you all again.
No, no, I think what Steve was communicating to us was we will have a quorum but it's an unwilling quorum because he will be arriving extremely late at night because of attending the meeting. Sorry, we have tried just about every date that's within the window between the Coastal Commission's decision and the next time. We would have to have the Coastal Commission matter agendized so I think I'll just have to as chair make the 22nd the day Okay
6:51 – 6:5315 turns
So 1022 at 9. We are
adjourning to the 16th in Santa Barbara.
Quick, wait before we do that so is there a possibility of making that meeting any quicker because for some reason I can't get my flight plan up? I think it's like 145 well I'm not saying quicker sooner date I mean earlier in the day.
We could start the meeting 8 o'clock I believe 8am we just notice it as 8 am
I hate to put you guys out, but eight sounds good to me.
We'll do 8 o'clock on 1022? All right. That
sounds great. Thank you. Mr. Chair?
All right, solutions can be found. Mr. Gazzani?
So Mr. Chair since you're discussing a special meeting that can be set either by you as chair or by a majority of the board I just think we should have clarity since it's a special meeting whether this is an action by the majority of the board or by the chair.
With how much we've been talking? You want to make a motion?
I'll make a motion that we have a special meeting October 22nd, 8 o'clock AM in Santa Barbara.
And there's a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed?
Okay.
Thank you
You.