BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 June 4, 2019

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:00 – 0:023 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.910:02 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Good morning everybody, we're just going to wait a few extra minutes. Supervisor Williams is caught up in some traffic so we'll- If you're interested in speaking on any item on the agenda Make sure you have your speaker slip in ahead of time because once we get to for example a3 We're gonna have a lot of public comment I'm going to turn off I'll put it in for Mrs. Wilkins, the A2.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:27 · ≈ 9:01 AM

I'll just say thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:07 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Good

0:02 – 0:0512 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:23 · ≈ 9:02 AM

morning everybody. I'd like to welcome you to this Tuesday, June 4th meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Chair can I...Madam Clerk can I get a roll please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:34 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Mr. Hart? Here. Ms. Hartman? Here. Mr. Adam? Here, Mr. Williams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:39 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:39 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Chair Lavinino? Here

Pledge of Allegiance, led by Steve Lavagninoceremonial · click to expand · ≈17s recited, not transcribed
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:40 · ≈ 9:02 AM

We're going to do something a little bit different today for our pledge today since we have our veteran of the month that will be recognized a little bit later. We're going to have Steven Baird come forward and lead us in the pledge and I think he's bringing another veteran OJ with him as well so if you could all

please rise.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:06 · ≈ 9:03 AM

All right, let's join in together on three. One, two, three.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:25 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:29 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Kind of jumped the gun, you're not really Veteran of the Month yet we haven't voted on it so I'm hoping it gets through. So yeah, stick around. It could get ugly. Let's see if we can get a motion to approve the minutes of May 21st. Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of May 28th special meeting?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:57 · ≈ 9:03 AM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:59 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. All right, any changes or additions to today's agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:08 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board I do have one announcement to make today we posted an addendum To our hearing today adding administrative item number 50 to our administrative agenda Which is sponsored by Supervisor Adam is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Sergeant Stephen So we are going

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.914:34 · ≈ 9:04 AM

to do, we're gonna change the agenda around just a tad to make it run a little bit smoother. We're gonna take items A2 and A50 which are our honorary resolutions. We'll come back to A1 for a separate vote on that resolution. We will do the balance of the administrative agenda and then we will come back to A3 so that we can get some of our senior staff back working And not sitting through a bunch of public comment, so Can I get a motion to accept items a 2 and a 50 so moved?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.765:05 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Second

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:06 · ≈ 9:05 AM

moved in second it all those in favor. Aye Anybody opposed they pass unanimously can we read a 2 in please?

0:05 – 0:095 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:16 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number two sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring the exceptional life of local civil rights and social justice champion Mrs. Nanny Elizabeth Browning Wilkins. And if I can have Lawanda Lyons-Pruitt of the NAACP and members of the nanny's family. I believe they may be in Santa Maria so we can go there.

I think they're both in Santa Maria and down here in Santa Barbara. Thank you. Whereas, Nanny Elizabeth Browning was born in Mabane, North Carolina on March 13th 1927 And whereas Nannie graduated with a bachelor's degree in business administration and commercial education from North Carolina A&T University, which was an extraordinary feat for women of color in that era. And whereas in 1951 Nannie married Air Force officer Smiley Edward Wilkins and raised three children Gwendolyn Pearl, Smiley Edward Jr., and Marcus Henry And whereas, when Smiley Sr. retired from the U.S. military in 1972, the family settled in Lompoc and engaged in a life of community service and volunteerism to improve the fabric of our community. And whereas, in addition to volunteering for hospice care for 25 years, Nanny was a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, for 43 years where she served on the executive committee of the Santa Maria-Lompoc branch until her heavenly transition.

And whereas Nanny's husband, Smiley Sr., was the longest serving president of the NAACP Santa Maria Lompoc branch. And together they tackled race-based discrimination most notably taking action to end the Elks Lodge black ball policy of membership discrimination. Which led to the nationwide change to allow people of color to become ELKS members. And whereas Nanny, Smiley and NAACP also work to end discriminatory housing practices in Lompoc. Therefore let it hereby be resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognize the exceptional life of Mrs. Nanny Elizabeth Browning Wilkins and her tremendous service to civil rights and social justice passed and adopted today.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.767:52 · ≈ 9:07 AM

I just wanted to say that I had the privilege of meeting Nannie. She was a stalwart in our community and her influence in civil rights was felt nationally, so it's really an honor to celebrate her life today.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.918:12 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Very good. LaWanda would you like to say a few words?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:22 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Good morning Supervisors, Chairman Lavinino, members of the Wilkins family. Thank you so much for recognizing Mrs. Nanny as she was affectionately known by The Santa Maria Lompoc community. Thank you so much, we tried to recognize her every day but I feel it's important that everyone know the great work that she did in the community which actually transcended on a national level. So thank you so much for recognizing her and we're humbled that she did so, thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.919:17 · ≈ 9:09 AM

All right, that takes us to 850.

0:09 – 0:122 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed9:19 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number 50 is sponsored by Supervisor Adam. It's to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Sergeant Steven Baird as Veteran of the Month for Santa Barbara County. If I can have Sergeant Steven to the podium please? Whereas Santa Barbara County is home to more than 22,270 veterans who have given the ultimate service to this nation by serving in its armed forces and are deserving of recognition and gratitude by all Americans. And whereas 4th District Supervisor Peter Adam has the privilege of recognizing Sergeant Stephen Baird of the United States Marine Corps who served honorably from December 12, 1994 through December 11, 1998.

And whereas, Sergeant Baird received honors throughout his military career serving as an infantry platoon sergeant which included the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal, President Unit Citation, Expert Pistol and Rifle Markmanship, and Personnel Accommodation while conducting operations in Indonesia. And whereas after completing his service and returning to his home in Orchid California, Sergeant Baird funded and served as the president CEO of Echo Vets Nonprofit Corporation, Band of Brothers. An organization focusing on camaraderie amongst veterans through recreational sports programs and community volunteering.

And whereas Sergeant Baird opened and operates Camp Flores, a residential stability home for homeless and at risk veterans. Which has improved the lives of over 30 veterans since 2017. And whereas, Sergeant Baird was established a groundbreaking collaboration while working with law enforcement agencies to provide emergency assistance to veterans in crisis 24 hours per day. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors Sergeant Stephen Baird as Veteran of the Month for his service in our armed forces and commends him for his continued commitment to better the lives of all veterans on the Central Coast passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed11:47 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Chairman Lavinino and board members, I am honored to be here today. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to meet you. What we do is representative of North County and going forward we look at bringing this whole program throughout Santa Barbara County In its entirety, I believe that what we are doing with Banner Brothers and Echo Group is something that's not being done anywhere in the nation where we have veterans that are working together not only to mentor other veterans but also mentoring our community.

Give back to the students, volunteer for events throughout the city and housing homeless vets. We

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed12:25 · ≈ 9:12 AM

have built something that's amazing and I would love your support to continue this going forward. And we are here to assist in our county and our community however we can. Thank you for nominating me. I'd also like to thank Bob Nelson and this one here in true veteran form. May say some things about me, but this is indicative of what Banner Brothers does. And I accept this on behalf of Banner Brothers, our organization. Thank you very much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9113:02 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Most veterans, I think the time that they actually serve in uniform is probably the pinnacle of their service. And for Steve, that hasn't actually been the case. He's come back into our community and really just given himself really helping. He has been a pillar for stand down as well and really assisting those. As it said in here 24 hours a day seven days a week he He's always on call for that veteran in need. So we really appreciate all the service you've given and an honor well deserved, so thank you very much.

All right

let's move on to item A1 if we can read that in.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed13:46 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hart to adopt a resolution proclaiming the weekend of June 7th 2019 through June 9th 2019 as Wear Orange Day Weekend in Santa Barbara County in recognition of National Gun Violence Awareness Day weekend

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9114:05 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Okay, I think we need

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed14:06 · ≈ 9:14 AM

a separate vote or do you have a comment? Just a short one. I just I think everybody can agree that we're all against violence of all types But I think some of my colleagues who may have authored this have a potentially different Definition of common-sense Solutions than I would and I'm afraid to jump on this thing So I'm gonna be abstaining

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9114:31 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Okay, let's go ahead and read the resolution. I think we're going to be presenting it today so Okay, let's do can I get a motion to accept the resolution so moved second seconded roll call please

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed14:47 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Mr.. Hart miss Hartman aye mr.. Adam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed14:50 · ≈ 9:14 AM

abstained

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed14:51 · ≈ 9:14 AM

mr.. Williams aye chair Levin you know hi motion passes four to one with one abstention I And if I can have Tony Wellen and anyone from the Coalition Against Gun Violence to the podium. Whereas gun violence is the cause of nearly 40,000 deaths annually in the United States which includes homicides, suicides, accidents and other causes. And whereas June 7th through 9th 2019 is recognized as Gun Violence Awareness Day weekend across the United States and citizens are encouraged to wear orange to support common sense solutions that will save lives. And whereas the Wear Orange campaign was started by high school students from the south side of Chicago to commemorate the loss of their 15 year old friend and classmate Hadia Petleton. Who was shot and killed just one week after performing at President Obama's second inaugural parade in 2013.

After her death, they asked us to stand up, speak out, and wear orange to raise awareness about gun violence. They chose the color orange because it is the color hunters wear in the woods to protect themselves and others. And whereas the communities of Isla Vista, Santa Barbara, and our nation continue to grieve from the mass shooting five years ago on May 23rd 2014 killing six people and injuring 13 others.

And now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors do hereby proclaim June 7th through 9th, 2019 as Wear Orange Day weekend in Santa Barbara County. And encourages all residents to remember the victims of gun violence by participating in scheduled community events passed and adopted today.

CommentTony WellenProposedself-stated16:32 · ≈ 9:16 AM

I'm Tony Wellen, and I want to thank the board for this resolution. And thank everyone here in the room for doing whatever they can to reduce gun violence in our community. This weekend is National Gun Violence Awareness Weekend. David Hogg, a survivor of the Parkland school shooting said during a very recent speech at the University of California Santa Barbara quote thoughts and prayers don't stop shooting.

We have to work to build a less violent generation in a country founded on violence. I hope everybody thinks about that deeply. Tragically, the number of deaths from firearms has increased to 40,000 in 2018. When I first began doing this it was 30,000. We are virtually experiencing a war within our nation Now firearms are the leading cause of death for American children and teens.

Why orange? Because it's the color that symbolizes the value of human life, and the color worn by hunters for safety. The Coalition Against Gun Violence thanks the Santa Barbara County for honoring this weekend and this day. And remember to wear orange today, Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

CommentJacqueline EndaProposedself-stated18:17 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Board of Supervisors, my name's Jacqueline Enda. I'm part of the Coalition Against Gun Violence and I'm here to invite the public to something that we do every year. A part of Wear Orange and a part of our campaign has always been to do something to prevent gun violence. And so the Coalition Against Gun Violence holds a gun buyback every single year. This year, we're holding our gun buyback again at the show grounds on June 15th.

It will be open to the public, completely confidential. It's not the end all solution but it's one of many and it takes a village. So if we all participate in it get the word out about this gun buyback. I want to inform you that in the last five years we've collected over 1100 firearms in just the two hours a year that we have it. And we happen to be the only county within the three counties put together between Solvang and Ventura that holds a gun buyback.

We have people lining up to those gun buybacks. And we have to actually turn people away within the two hours because we don't have enough resources to be able to collect all of the firearms that people want to get out of their homes. It's an important tool, it's one of many, it's not the only solution but we're glad to be able to do this work with the county and with other sponsors throughout the city.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed19:34 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Williams? Just wanted to chime in for Jackie and support of Jackie's point here with the gun buyback, again that's Saturday June 15th at 8 AM is when it starts. Get there early we planned on having it for three hours the first time I think we ran out after two and a half of enough gift certificates to buy all the guns that came in. Unsecured weapons that are being stored for long periods of time are a significant source of accidental gun deaths.

And, a significant source of crime as well since unsecured or stored guns can be stolen and so if you got a weapon from a family member, you really don't know what to do with it or you're just not into it anymore. Please bring it down, weapons floating around the community is not a good idea and they will be properly disposed of.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed20:36 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9120:37 · ≈ 9:20 AM

All right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed20:37 · ≈ 9:20 AM

great thank you very much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9120:46 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Are there any items besides A19 that board members would like to pull? Is there any items from the public that have been pulled besides A3?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed20:59 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. We have requests to speak on item A3 and one request to speak on item A19.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9121:05 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Okay let's read A19 into the record please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed21:10 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item 19 is from community services. It is to consider recommendations regarding the execution of the State of California Emergency Solutions Grants ESG program agreements for 2018 and 2019. And if I could have Michael Burton to the podium please?

CommentMichael BurtonProposedself-stated21:35 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Morning supervisors, my name is Michael Burton. I'm development manager at New Beginnings Counseling Center. Want to thank the county for their recommendation regarding the execution of the state of California emergency solutions grant for 2018 and 19 that will allow our safe parking program to continue assisting vulnerable individuals and families in our community.

Safe Parking Program is the only program in the county that provides safe overnight shelter nightly for over 150 families and individuals who live in their vehicles. During the point-in-time count, we found that more than 42% of our unsheltered homeless population are living in their vehicles. Through safe parking, we've housed approximately 70 individuals and families this year.

We're also tremendously grateful for the recommendations for the 2019 to 2020 CDBG public service funding,

0:22 – 0:249 turns

CommentMichael BurtonProposedself-stated22:25 · ≈ 9:22 AM

which will also support safe parking and our supportive services for veteran families program where we've served more than 100 veterans this year. With your funding, we'll also be able to hire a housing retention specialist who will help ensure the long term housing stability of our clients. We are depending on your continued support of our efforts to end homelessness throughout Santa Barbara County. Thank you again for the committee's recommendation and for your time and consideration of the recommendation before you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9122:52 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Thank you, can I get a motion on A19 please?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7622:57 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Move approval

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed22:59 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Second, and I just want to remind folks out there that New Beginnings is looking for parking spots. There's still a significant waiting list on the program if you control a commercial Parking space The program uses it at night not during the day they have programmatic requirements that ensure significantly less incidents and problems And a great staff that makes sure that's enforced.

So if you want to or have the ability to extend that compassion, but want there to be accountability this is a great program for you to participate in. Sorry for

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9123:45 · ≈ 9:23 AM

that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed23:45 · ≈ 9:23 AM

long second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9123:45 · ≈ 9:23 AM

No problem we got a motion and a second all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed passes unanimously Very good, so that moves us to A3. So how many public speaking requests do we have on A3?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed23:59 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, we have 14 requests to speak on item A3

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9124:03 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Okay, we're going to go at this point if you don't have your speaking slip in for A3 You've got 20 seconds to get it in Otherwise I see everybody's not moving so that's gonna end A3's ability to turn in additional speaking slips at this time We will go two minutes a piece, so please call the names.

0:24 – 0:274 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed24:28 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution supporting the principles of the Green New Deal. And we are going to Santa Maria first with Joe Armaderas to be followed by Roy Reed.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9124:46 · ≈ 9:24 AM

I think we need to read it in. Before Joe starts speaking. Okay, you already read it? We're not going to read the resolution or do we need to read the resolution? That's fine. Mr. Armendariz.

PresenterJoe ArmendarizSanta Barbara County Taxpayers AssociationProposedself-stated25:05 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Good morning members of the board. I'm Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. I have some mixed feelings about this item. We all, of course, want a clean environment. We all want to make sure that our policies are consistent frankly with environmental integrity and economic vitality. I would argue that in California where we do indeed lead the world in trying to strike that balance between environmental integrity and economic vitality It's a little disconcerting to watch your hearing a couple of weeks ago, as though Santa Barbara County in particular and perhaps California in general is ground zero of where no environmental activism is taking place.

The state of California through its cap and trade program, through its greenhouse gas reduction programs at the APCD level. At the city municipal county level is leading the world in this attempt to reduce greenhouse gases not just worldwide but locally and at the state level. The oil and gas industry, which was the poster child to be beat up on last hearing. I would argue is doing more perhaps disproportionately than any other sector of the economy to address this issue primarily through the cap and trade program. I don't know if we have a cap and trade program in Santa Barbara County, I don't believe we do. But I would submit to you that just as in California, we need to be focusing on carbon pricing. We ought to be doing that at the local level and the state level.

And then if we do that, we can unleash the kind of market forces and the sort of incentives through technology to address these issues and to guarantee these pessimistic kids which it pains me that they're so pessimistic, they can have a brighter future.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9127:08 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Thank you. Thank you, before we go to our next speaker apparently we didn't move the balance of the agenda so can I get outside of A3? Can I get a motion to accept all the other items?

0:27 – 0:328 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7627:17 · ≈ 9:27 AM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9127:18 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right very good. We'll go to our next speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed27:24 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Chair Lavagnino, we are going to stay in Santa Maria with Roy Reed and return back to Santa Barbara with Robert Perry. Roy?

CommentRoy ReedProposedself-stated27:33 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Hi, good morning Chair Lavinino and board members. I'm Roy Reed, resident of Santa Maria. Appeasement is never an attractive process. I find it disappointing that despite the fact that our county has a very comprehensive climate management plan in place And that many of the activities in the county are managed by arguably the most effective planning department in this state, particularly with respect to energy. A couple of our supervisors seek to take time off the board's busy agenda in attempt to appease a vocal but very small minority of voters in our county.

I think that this support of the Green New Deal, which contains many elements that are actually outside the purview of county governments. This support and This endorsement will really accomplish nothing for the citizens of the county, but it will accomplish two things. It will certainly forever cast a shadow over the objectivity of the Board of Supervisors in their capacity as in approving land use applications for the county and it will certainly increase the polarization that so often impacts the ability of the Board of Supervisors to work together in the better interest as the citizens of the county.

So I could definitely like to register my displeasure in this act, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed29:16 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board we're going to return to Santa Barbara with Robert Perry and to be followed by Vijay.

CommentRobert PerryProposedself-stated29:25 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Supervisors of the Board my name is Robert Perry and I am a member of the Climate Mobilization it's non-profit organization and the operative word in our name is mobilization. And what I find in the resolution that is before us is a lack of that word, of that intent. I would like to submit that we need to put more active language and measures into the resolution.

The climate mobilization Not only looks to the Green New Deal, which I would add would generate far more taxable revenue than what we're currently experiencing right now. Because we would be developing infrastructure producing energy here in the county and used in the county. But that we need To approach this much as we did back during World War II. This is an emergency that we're in and I would ask, I have copies of an amended resolution I would like to submit it to the board but basically to declare that we are in a climate emergency I think we can all agree that what happened in Montecito was an emergency, but it was really a symptom of a much larger emergency that we're in. And I think we all have to recognize that we're all Montecito.

Where we live is all subject to these types of events and take concrete action in developing plans. So, in my revised resolution I would first resolve that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors declares that a climate emergency exists and that threatens our region and that we take actions and we have a number Uh specific actions that can be taken. I think uh we should resolve to to assemble all the county staff, great people and work towards fashioning solutions that will move us in the right direction because our climate energy and Climate Action Plan while laudable, we have not made significant progress on We can not only fulfill the needs, the objectives of that plan but move it forward even faster so that we can truly reduce our emissions.

Thank you. Okay.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9132:23 · ≈ 9:32 AM

So I guess I should have given you a few rules. First off, we don't clap or boo otherwise we're going to be here for ad nauseum and the other thing is there is two minutes. The clock's up there. You'll have a red light. The last one went 251, so just be cognizant of that. So I don't have to cut you off. I don't like doing that. Go ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed32:45 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board, our next speaker is Vijaya to be followed by Jim Richardson.

0:32 – 0:3911 turns

CommentVijaya Jamala MadakaProposedself-stated32:54 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Good morning Mr. Chair and members of the board. My name is Vijaya Jamala Madaka. I am speaking for the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara The league met last weekend in our statewide convention and we passed a resolution on climate change. Declaring it an emergency. It was unanimous, there were over 200 delegates. We know the scientific consensus on this, it is an emergency. One million animal and plant species are now threatened with mass extinction and would require 10 million years of recovery according to a new United Nations report.

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are already at 415 parts per million and sequestration methods to reduce the drawdown may not be sufficient to reduce it to the target level that we had set off 350 parts per million. Climate disruption will have a disproportionate effect on impacted communities such as indigenous tribes, rural communities, coastal areas, workers, low-income households and people of color who typically have fewer resources for adapting and are more vulnerable to displacement adverse health impacts job loss etc.

So in the absence of effective engagement at the federal level, it is the responsibility of individual states, counties and cities to take immediate actions to address this climate crisis. We are pleased to see the county take another step in acknowledging the climate catastrophe that we are now facing and we thank you for your leadership. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed34:46 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Our next speaker is Jim Richardson to be followed by Linda Kropp.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed34:55 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Good morning. It's good to see you all again. You know, I deserve it as I was sitting here. I have an envelope that's green but then on there somebody pointed out to me there is a smudge of oil on there. Uh-oh. I wanted to say that the goals and desires of the new Green Deal are admirable but difficult to attain. I think we have to understand that in the first place these proposed Senate resolution House resolutions have not been passed. They were presented to the Senate, they failed with a 0-57 vote with the Democrats voting present rather than taking a stand.

It's important to know that the cost of the New Green Deal is going to be somewhere between $51 and $93 trillion. That's estimated at a cost per household of $600,000 in the United States. The cost for eliminating carbon emissions from transportation systems is $1.3 to $2.7 trillion, and guaranteeing a job to every American is $6.8 to $44.6 trillion. It's been suggested that we can raise an increase in the margin level of taxes to 70%. Over 10 years, that's just going to generate six or seven hundred billion dollars which won't even pay for half of the correction in the transportation costs.

There's a lot of organizations that are opposed to it. The Building and Construction Trades Council represents more than 400,000 workers demonstrated before the California Democratic Committee meeting last Saturday. And they argue that the measures gold would endanger thousands of jobs in Southern California oil industry alone. What to do?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9137:03 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Mayor Richardson?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed37:05 · ≈ 9:37 AM

I'm done

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9137:06 · ≈ 9:37 AM

already. I hate to do this to you. I'm sorry. You know what, my guess is that's not oil but knowing you it's probably chocolate on the outside of that.

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

Actually it's hamburger

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9137:16 · ≈ 9:37 AM

dripping. Thanks for being here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed37:19 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Our next speaker is Linda Kropp to be followed by Owen Bailey.

CommentLinda KroppProposedself-stated37:24 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Good morning Chair Lavagnino, members of the board I'm Linda Kropp chief counsel of the Environmental Defense Center wearing my green. I wrote a whole speech about the climate crisis but we all know the facts And I wanted to alert you all that on May 15, the University of California San Diego Scripp Institute measured an unprecedented level of carbon in our atmosphere of over 415 parts per million.

And we know what the United Nations has said about the million plants and animals going extinct, Through its fourth National Climate Assessment affirming that the Earth's climate is changing faster than at any point in history, primarily as a result of human activities. And the International Panel on Climate Change report in October pointing out that global carbon emissions must be reduced by half by 2030 which is only 11 years away and fully by 2050 but we all know this.

So instead, I want to focus on the opportunities that are presented by this resolution. The Green New Deal is intended to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change. The goal is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers. The Green New Deal will create millions of good highway jobs and investment in clean infrastructure and industries.

The result will be to provide us all with clean air and water, healthy food, a resilient environment and safe communities. This proposal is called the Green New Deal for a reason in the 30s President Roosevelt established the New Deal to take a crisis and turn it into opportunities for individuals and the country. We say we face a crisis now. We'll take this crisis, turn it into opportunities for individuals to secure jobs and training. And benefit our communities, our nation and the planet as a whole. If you believe in these principles please support this resolution in the Green New Deal. Thank you.

Our next

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed39:29 · ≈ 9:39 AM

speaker is Owen Bailey to be followed by Jeff Leninger

0:39 – 0:445 turns

PresenterOwen Baileythe Environmental Defense Center and I appreciate you giving us the opportunityProposedself-stated39:39 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Good morning, Chair Labenino, honorable members of the board. I'm Owen Bailey. I am the Executive Director of the Environmental Defense Center and I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to speak briefly with you about this critical issue. The Green New Deal has been demonized by many looking to score cheap political points. The fact is there's no honest debate about climate change anymore. It's here.

It is happening and it requires action. We're witnessing a global collapse of biodiversity and seeing unprecedented, extraordinary devastating natural disasters as this community can attest to. So the options before us are we can either act in a way that creates good jobs, shores up clean infrastructure, ensures clean air and water and builds healthy communities Or we can wait until the next unfathomable disaster hits and we can respond expensively and inefficiently.

I applaud the County of Santa Barbara for addressing once again this urgent climate crisis and adding our voices to those who are calling for a just transition to 100% clean renewable energy. By supporting the Green New Deal, the county puts itself on the right side of history and supports a set of policies that invest in building stronger safer communities and addressing historic injustices that have defined our nation's economic growth.

By passing this resolution, the County of Santa Barbara is simply acknowledging reality and endorsing a strategic conversation about how we can best act in the face of a climate crisis. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed41:26 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Our next speaker is Jeff Leninger to be followed by Ricardo Arias

CommentJeff LeningerProposedself-stated41:32 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Good morning. I'm Jeff Leninger, and I'm the site manager for the Phillips 66 Santa Maria refinery. And while we operate in Slough County, 52% of our workforce lives in Santa Barbara County. We're members of the community just like all of you. So we clearly want to cleanest air and safest fuels in the world. And we take great pride in producing the cleanest fuels and safest fuels in the world to meet California's transportation needs.

California is the third largest consumer of gasoline and diesel in the world, behind only China and United States as a whole. The Santa Maria Refinery has been in operation since 1955 and has 165 employees and contractors represented by the USW, IAM, and as of 2018 after SB 54 our current contract craft workforce is represented by Building Trades. We connect to the Rodeo refinery up in the Bay Area Which employs another 480 employees and 205 contractors.

This represents approximately 6.4% of the overall total California refining capacity. Any impacts to the operations of the Santa Maria Refinery will also affect our workforce in the Bay Area, and the gasoline fuel production in the state of California. Our refinery provides highly skilled good paying head of household careers with an average salary of $102,000 a year.

75% of these jobs don't require college degrees. We ask that you take into consideration the importance of protecting these blue collar careers and ensuring California has a strong refining industry to meet California's transportation demands with the cleanest burning fuels, thank you.

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

Our next speaker is Ricardo Arias to be followed by Adalberto Velazquez

PresenterRicardo AriasopportunitProposedself-stated43:21 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Morning Chairman, members of the board. My name is Ricardo Arias. I am a member of United Steelworkers Local 534. I've been working in the oil industry for the past 11 years. This industry has provided me with the opportunity to be financially stable. I have a good paying job and I live in an area where it's getting increasingly harder to live. Everything is already more expensive than most other places in the country.

The Green New Deal as proposed would drastically increase our cost of living and shut down jobs for many of our working families. Oil has been a big part of California for decades, and we should keep that at bay. For if we don't, we will run into an unrealistic 2030 deadline of 100% clean and renewable energy. That is just setting us up for failure. Furthermore, we should not be transporting oil into California while lowering gas prices and supporting good jobs for Santa Barbara County families. I am proud to be part of this industry and work for a company that is best in class when it comes to safety.

An industry where we manufacture and deliver affordable clean products in a safe and environmentally sound manner. Thank you.

0:44 – 0:507 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed44:43 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Our next speaker is Adalberto Velasquez to be followed by Chris Wheeler.

CommentAdalberto VelazquezProposedself-stated44:50 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Morning, Supervisors. My name's Adalberto Velazquez. I'm a migrant. Been in the United States for 47 years. I've been working in the oil industry for 27 years of that. My parents worked out in the fields in the Santa Barbara County for their whole life and I am proud to work for a company that is in the oil industry, as it gave me the opportunity to provide for my kids.

The opportunity to go to college. My kids are going to be the first generation in college. Safety is our number one goal in our industry. I'm sure you've heard it all, all the time. Our company supports a lot of the activities in the community. They allow us to volunteer for youth programs, and then they also provide financial support for our kids and make it better for everybody.

Well-paying jobs in the area, we can't afford to lose well paying jobs in the area. And I'm just totally opposed to this. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed46:02 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Our next speaker is Chris Wheeler to be followed by Zach Blumenstein.

PresenterChris WheelerUnited Steel Workers Local 534 representing and working at the Santa Maria RefinProposedself-stated46:13 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Good morning everybody. My name is Chris Wheeler, I am the president of the United Steel Workers Local 534 representing and working at the Santa Maria Refinery. We have 76 members currently employed at the refinery. I myself have been there for 24 years as a direct hire and four years prior to as a contractor. I'm a disabled combat vet. I have volunteered and am volunteering through the PTA, the local food bank, diversion program. You may have seen me on the side of a highway with a highway cleanup.

I donate time to the Humane Society and I'm also part of the Welcome Home Committee that welcomes veterans home. I'm member of the VFW. I am a member of the American Legion. I have spent many hours coaching rec soccer, recreational football, softball, basketball. I've been an AYSO board member. I have been a club soccer coach. I have refereed high school football games.

I have been a Baptist youth minister. My daughter is a graduate from Allan Hancock College and is currently enrolled in Antioch University here in Santa Barbara. My son works at a nursery who sells and delivers houseplants to local small businesses throughout Santa Barbara County. I've been a small business owner, I have two rescue cats at my house. I am a homeowner. I bring all this up Because all this was made possible for what I do, where I work within the oil industry.

I would not have had the time nor the finances to be able to do any of this otherwise. Thank you very much for hearing me.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed48:12 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Our next speaker is Zach Blumenstein to be followed by Sean Van Valkenburg.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed48:26 · ≈ 9:48 AM

So I thank you all for the opportunity to speak If we do not fully decarbonize our economy by 2030, we are facing a crippling loss of biodiversity, the loss of coastal cities on the East Coast and our own coast, hurricanes, wildfires, extreme heat and drought of a frequency and intensity never before seen or imagined, and a worldwide refugee crisis that will make these Syrian and Libyan crises minor by comparison.

So we have 11 years, 11 years to change perhaps every facet of our economy and our civic life. So not only should the board put its unequivocal endorsement behind the Green New Deal it should immediately start to carry out its mandates that means Revolutionizing our public transit system, drastically reducing our dependence on cars. Providing a guarantee of jobs and health coverage.

And implementing an unconditional moratorium on all new extractive projects, which includes immediately spiking the North County monstrosity known as Cat Canyon. The consequences of failing to act immediately and drastically are quite literally unacceptable. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed49:57 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Our next speaker is Sean Van Valkenburg to be followed by Steve Decker who is our final speaker.

0:50 – 1:125 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed50:05 · ≈ 9:50 AM

I want to sincerely thank this Board of Supervisors for considering passing this resolution. I just want to make the point that this is a common sense position to take. The Green New Deal has 59% support nationally, 66% support in California so this is not a vocal minority of support for this position. This is a silent majority. And I get it, I get that this seems crazy.

We are sort of like the frog, the proverbial frog in the pan where the temperature is rising so that a crazy situation actually seems normal to us. So I thank this Board of Supervisors for hopefully taking a leap of faith in passing this resolution. I just want to make the points that this is actually in many ways a very practical and sensible thing to do We lose sight of how much wealth there is in this country, wealth that can be used to provide good jobs for people.

This wealth will come from the wealthy through higher taxes on the wealthy. It can come through limiting our inflated defense budget. So I'm asking this Board of Supervisors to take a leap of faith. We need to fake it until we make it. And I'm asking anyone who is employed within the oil industry to not trust the oil executives, who will have your back until it no longer serves their interests. But to instead trust the many grassroots organizations that we do indeed have your back and we will do everything in our possible to make this a just transition so that all oil employees will have jobs that allow them to live in this community and also have dignity in the workplace. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed51:57 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Our next speaker is Steve Decker, who's our final speaker.

CommentSteve DeckerProposedself-stated52:07 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Good morning Chairman Lavinino and members of the board. I'm Steve Decker, I'm here as a concerned citizen. I was here when the group calling on you to resolve to endorse the New Green Deal presented you copies of the book entitled The Uninhabitable Earth Life After Warming by David Wallace Wells. I read the book. I also at the encouragement of Supervisor Adam Read Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker.

The Wallace Wells book in my opinion proved to be nothing more than academic hyperbole, not of practical relevance of only theoretical interest. I say that because after 231 pages of scaring the hell out of you, the author states on page 233 that all science is speculative to some degree subject to future reconsideration or revision. He goes on to say exactly how the warming global warming will play out Over the next decades and the next centuries, it's less certain. Both because we don't know how quickly humans will drop their addiction to fossil fuels and because we don't know precisely how the climate system will calibrate in response to human perturbation.

Wait a minute I thought we were all fried if we don' stop using fossil fuels by the end of the next 11 years? The far better read and way more helpful in putting the issue of climate change into proper historical perspective, as Supervisor Adam counseled, is Steven Pinker's thoroughly researched tome along with the many citations to his scientific searches for proclamations he sets out generally lacking in the Wallace-Wells book.

It's better for this board to resolve to support environmentally efficient energies, such as safe fourth generation nuclear power or clean hydrogen fuel production through solar electrolysis. As is being perfected by our own local company, Hypersolar, see hypersolar.com. Or hemp that can produce biodegradable plastics that can replace many petroleum based products.

Plus, produce thousands of products at far less energy consumption than is currently used. I ask that you not adopt this resolution as written.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.9154:08 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Okay, that closes out public comment. Thank you very much. I'll bring it back to the board for comment. Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed54:22 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Well maybe I should just get it over with. Get yourself comfortable. After our meeting on May 21st, I went home and watched the public comment portion with Mrs. Adam mostly to make sure she understood what a tough day I had suffered. But thoughts raced through my head as I watched the public comment including my own and the comments of my colleagues. I continue to be disturbed by and disappointed in the public comment, most especially that of our youngest participants.

The unbridled nihilism on display should send shivers down the spine of every responsible adult. The only listeners who do not cringe when they hear these self-destructive comments are the ones who have fomented this meaningless hopelessness intentionally. These people have shamelessly used these impressionable children to further their own selfish political ends.

These children, age 15 to 17, are the very stuff of our future. The future that we continually say we're acting in fiduciary care of However, it seems that if we have talked them into a bleak paradigm of wretched futility and despair, we have sterilized that very future that we sought to encourage. We have failed miserably to equip the next generation to succeed.

We have infantilized and distracted them. How many hours have these children wasted by spending their precious time and talent protesting and worrying themselves to death? What useful thing could they be learning or studying to make their futures, and the whole world a better place? What scientific achievement might have been discovered by one of these brilliant kids, but for the fact that they had been convinced that all is empty and useless.

They have been persuaded that the world is going to end badly for them anyway. Why try? Even if this turns out to be a temporary condition, time that they can never get back has been squandered. These young adults should take a look at who's telling them these things, and consider why exactly they might be trying to convince them that the world is literally coming to an end.

Perhaps they should follow the money. Who benefits from lowering the future standard of living? Certainly not the young. Who has a higher standard of living now? The boomers. Speaking locally who has financed their utopian experiments by deferring two billion dollars of maintenance on our roads parks and buildings and unfunded pension obligations boomers Who will die before they pay for these financial transgressions against the future?

boomers Who will suffer with the aftermath of this shamelessly horrible management with crappy roads, parks and buildings. And be enslaved by higher taxes for their whole lives to pay for these pension obligations promised by boomers to boomers. The young and their children. This age has managed the largest transfer of wealth ever seen in this country, stolen by the generation in power for the one who cannot yet vote.

It is obscene. Children look closely at the motivations of the people who are leading you to these very dark places and by all means follow the money. How many times do these people have to get it wrong before they lose their credibility? For those of you who are old enough, you might remember Paul Ehrlich's book Population Bomb from 1968 that predicted that by 1985 the population would have died of starvation and that there would only be 1.5 billion people left on Earth.

Instead, there were 4.8 billion people inhabiting the planet in 1985. By 1999 according to Ehrlich, the over-consuming United States would suffer such devastating environmental catastrophes that the life expectancy of its citizens would have dropped to 42 years and its population would be a mere 22.6 million. The actual population of people in the United States in 1999 was 279 million.

Life expectancy was 76.7, that's 12 times as many people living almost twice as long as Ehrlich predicted. Worldwide we're just short of 8 billion today so I'd say Mr. Ehrlich was spectacularly wrong. But he had and still has a very large following. In fact, most of the Green New Deal concepts are based on the scarcity approach that Ehrlich originated. For Earth Day 2008, the Washington Policy Center issued a press release quoting other outrageously alarmist and outrageously wrong predictions that accompanied the first Earth Day in 1970.

Here are a few, and I'm going to skip citations. Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against the problems facing mankind. By 1995, somewhere between 75 and 85% of all species of living animals will be extinct. Because of increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor the planet will cool. The water vapor will fall and freeze and a new ice age will be born.

The world will be 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age. We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation and the world as a suitable place of human habitation. Man must stop pollution, and conserve his resources not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from the intolerable deteriorations and possible extinction.

By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by one half. Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. By the year 2000, the entire world with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia will be in famine. And remember, this is 1970. Quote, it is already too late to avoid mass starvation.

Obviously none of that happened. With the passage of time you might expect that after these environmental chicken littles were proven dead wrong people wouldn't be so eager to entertain other apocalyptic notions but alas 18 years after Ehrlich, you may remember Ted Danson telling us in 1988 that we had 10 years left until the oceans died. His prediction which someone no doubt convinced him to deliver since he's a fine actor but not in any way a scientist Stated that soon after the oceans died, so would mankind.

As you can see 21 years after that nothing none of that happened. And you will likely remember Al Gore's prediction in 2009 that some of the models suggest that there is a 75% chance that the entire North Polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years. Ten years later, that did not happen either.

And now the latest official prophet of the apocalypse, millionaire socialist Bernie Sanders tells us in a YouTube town hall on climate change that by 2030 just 11 years from today there will be mass migrations away from the coastal areas globally because of melting ice caps. Funny how none of these people feel the need to apologize for these hysterical predictions or even celebrate the fact that they did not occur.

You would think they would be happy to be wrong, but like Nostradamus, they all insist that catastrophe is just around the corner and next time it's for real. There's a reason for this condition. It is because all of this is a pretext for controlling the behavior of the populace. They need a reason to get people to allow them to be in control. They need to convince you that they are smarter than you, they alone have the insights you don't have and wouldn't understand.

There is a calamity out there not here, not now but soon and only they have mental power to deal with it. And they're willing to deal with it for you but you have to give them extraordinary powers to do so These things that will happen are very, very bad. But it will be worth giving up your freedom, your comfort, convenience and economic security to escape the oh so terrible consequences of what they see just over the horizon but you cannot.

The screws get turned at a regulated set tempo as they tell us against the evidence that things are getting worse and we're gonna have to do more faster. It is perplexing how the proponents of these theories can ignore the fact that there is such a tremendous body of evidence that should cause skepticism, but for some inexplicable reason does not inspire enough to prevent the suspension of disbelief.

Back to the comments by my colleagues on May 21st. Ms. Hartman indirectly but inescapably compared me to a Nazi She directly equated being a climate change skeptic with people who ignored a developing Nazi threat. She was wrong. The Nazi regime actually existed. It was an absolute truth. It, it was apparent to anyone in Germany at the time plans were openly communicated.

Climate change despite all of the declarations that the science has settled is not There is much disagreement among the scientific community whether it exists and if it is occurring, whether it is anthropogenic. There is disagreement regarding what the ultimate effects could potentially be, if any. Predictions as noted earlier invariably turn out to be wrong but range from a lot to a little so the situation is entirely different.

This comparison is a moral equivalency. Ms. Hartman condemned me in the same way as the people who understood perfectly well that the Nazi regime presented an overt existential threat to the Jewish and other people. That is simply wrong, it is bullying behavior. That is a violation of civility that demands that I do not say the things that she disagrees with.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean that I am standing idly by and watching the planet and humanity be destroyed. Ms. Hartman and others asked repeatedly what I plan to say to my children and grandchildren when the catastrophe they predict occurs, and I vote as they anticipate wrongly. They are demonizing me, demonizing people as an attempt to damage their reputations and disqualify their opinions.

They're saying that if I do not agree with their opinion, I do not care about the people of our country, our state, and our nation. I take this as a personal insult, and I'm deeply offended by this utter lack of cordiality and collegiality. I have had many disagreements with the current and former inhabitants of the seats on this dais. Some quite strident, but I have never felt so viciously and wrongfully attacked by a colleague as I did on May 21st. I have never felt that I was being obliquely threatened for stating my opinion as is my right under the First Amendment and my duty in good faith to say what I believe as a consequence and privilege of sitting in this seat as I did on May 21.

I have never felt that my reputation and my character being acceptable, valid or appropriate was contingent on my agreement with any certain precepts. Especially as controversial as these. This was as unreasonably as I have been treated in my six and a half years on this dais. It was an effort to shame me. Shame me into saying the politically expedient thing, politically correct thing.

The science is settled. The debate is over. Wrong! The debate is not over. The science is not settled. I do not agree. Many residents in this county do not agree. Freedom of speech compels me to state the position that 85,000 people heard during my first campaign and watched me repeatedly stayed over my first term. And heard me stay during my second campaign yet sent me in here again to represent them. That is exactly what I will do.

I will not lower my eyes. I will not shut up. I will not shy from my duty. I will tell you all when I think you are wrong, you may disagree with me that is your right and your duty. Please do not be disagreeable. Please do not disrespect me. Please do not respect disrespect my constituents. We are not deniers. We're not Nazis. We are not a basket of deplorables.

We are your neighbors, and we are your friends. My constituents are your constituents. They're county residents and taxpayers. They deserve your respect, and so do I. It's always the things that we're sure of that turn out not to be true that cause the biggest problems. Consider the possibility that you may know something that is not true to some degree or another.

I would advise you that respecting those who disagree with you in the event that they turn out to be right might be a good idea. If you are punitive and rude, you might suffer indignancy at the hands of those who you insulted when you were in the majority. It's worth mentioning at this point that dissenters in Germany at the time were arrested and imprisoned if not executed.

And if any of you think that you would have had the courage to stand up to that type of personal risk, I think you should reconsider that assumption. If you need help with that reflection, I would recommend Gulag Archipelago by Alexander Solzhenitsyn. We are all entitled to our opinions. And yes, you have three votes with which I expect you will use to disappoint a great many residents and taxpayers in this county.

I am using my place on this dais as are you all to engage in the discussion that keeps our country civil. You do what you do at the end of the day. You answer to your constituents posterity and your maker for your actions. I will answer for mine. To answer the question of what I will tell my grandkids, I expect that as in all the cases cited earlier this theory will turn out to be epically wrong.

I expect we will find things to talk about besides failed theories and predictions that did not come true. And since Mr. Decker brought up Steven Pinker and Enlightenment Now thank you very much. I will not invite everybody to read that again

1:12 – 1:317 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:12:22 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Okay, you want to go next or do you want? Okay, Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.761:12:27 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Thank you Mr Chair The Green New Deal is already performing. In a matter of months, it has sparked a national conversation about global warming so it's becoming untenable to just say no. In 2016 there was virtual silence on the issue in national debates and since the current administration took office, the terms global warming and climate change have been expunged from many government websites.

But denial and dismissiveness are not a strategy to deal with the most urgent issue facing humanity. Now, finally some GOP lawmakers have joined the issue and few besides the administration dispute that climate change is a problem. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee is calling for a new Manhattan Project for clean energy He said, I believe climate change is real. Adding, I believe humans are a major cause of it and I think a new Manhattan Project for clean energy is something that most Republicans could support and I would hope most Democrats could too.

Republican Representative Matt Gates of Florida is drafting a green real deal that stipulates climate change is a threat to national security. We know from a DOD report that two-thirds of American military bases are threatened. We see at Tyndall Air Force Base, that was devastated in Hurricane Michael, $5 billion to repair. Most military bases have quietly begun installing solar energy. Note Vandenberg Air Force Base. It's acknowledged as the clear force multiplier in military planning.

Republican Senate Energy Chairman Lisa Murkowski, whose home state of Alaska is warming more quickly than the rest of the country has said that government must do something about climate change. She said what we need to be doing today and tomorrow is to be making sure we're putting in place practical pragmatic solutions that work toward addressing our level of emissions and moving us toward a lower carbon future.

Republican representative from Illinois John Chimka stated, it's just not worth the fight anymore. And he signed onto a letter with the top Republicans of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that said prudent steps should be taken to address current and future climate risks. Two Republican former Secretaries of State George Shultz and James Baker have called for gradually increasing the carbon tax.

Leaders of Exxon Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and British Petroleum have acknowledged the risk of climate change and that steps must be taken to address it. It's time for us to join hands and acknowledge that this is a problem we need all our ideas and we need to move forward.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:15:35 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Supervisor Williams? Well the essence of environmentalism to me is simply That taking responsibility for society as a whole and for our future generations is more important than my individual convenience. To me, that really encapsulates environmentalism. I happen to be an environmentalist because I'm a Christian, moral and ethical paradigm convicts me to believe, and to take action that my convenience is not as important as the welfare and future of the society.

Now there are many spiritual and moral underpinnings that people operate under But I know very few that would argue that individual convenience is more important than the future of the society. I only know of one paradigm that says that, that individual convenience is and that is our current consumer culture, right? Which is pervasive we get told it every day. Every time we look at a TV or an Internet ad work that's pretty much what we get told is that our convenience matters more than everything else.

And so you know I I to me when Joan asks a Essentially a rhetorical point in order to stir our thinking and our individual consciences. I do not believe it's a bullying attack. Last hearing, I defended Mr. Adam and Mr. Lavagnino's ethics under attack by some of my allies- Which are

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:17:44 · ≈ 10:17 AM

appreciated, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:17:46 · ≈ 10:17 AM

And this time I guess I'll defend Joan because I think she is the farthest from bully of any elected official that I have ever met. So, you know, I understand that this can be a sensitive subject. I know I've made some people mad when I responded to emails about oil with also asking people individually what they're doing. So there's a little bit of sensitivity that goes all around when you ask people to really think about themselves and about their actions, and about whether we're really doing the right thing. And so to me, the crisis of this age which I do believe is climate change, I don't believe it's a question of if it's happening All the data suggests it is happening. I think the points of disagreement that people point to is really a point of disagreement about severity and causes perhaps, but not whether it is happening.

And whether there will be refugee crises is pretty clear. Syria itself is in large part a climate kindled, I won't say caused But the kindling and fuel of the Syrian conflict also lies in climate factors. And Syria is a small country, you know? I think you just have to... You know those planners on the Pentagon are smart folks and they go well, you got Syria it's 20 million people but what about other low-lying areas?

Bangladesh, The Philippines Large areas of India, Florida. I don't think that it takes a huge shift in climate or a large sea level rise to cause a severe refugee crisis that will be a humanitarian disaster. And so to me we should care about this problem and care about this age not just for what it does to the ecology but what Because in terms of human suffering.

And that we are called to take concrete actions, and I think the county and the state are taking concrete actions. Point made by one of the speakers by Mr. Armendariz. Thank you for your more collegial tone this time around Joe. I think that's a constructive tone. The state is leading unfortunately, We're only beginning to. I mean, I think the county is taking some strong steps. We did the groundbreaking for the Tejigas Resource Recovery Project which will reduce methane emissions that would be the equivalent of 26,000 cars' CO2 emissions so that's a pretty good start and the largest reduction we have in county history when it starts up next year or year and a half but it's not enough The progress that we are making in transitioning our fleet, the progress that the state has made in transitioning our energy is threatened to be overcome by the amount of individual driving we're doing.

And so all of us have a part to play and I think the Green New Deal is not a whole lot more than saying the stuff that we are doing in California, we should be doing nationwide. And despite the, I would say the economic doom and gloom coming from the right about the Green New Deal, I heard that same economic Doom and gloom when we started initiating the decarbonization of our energy sector in the state of California.

And instead it's created a whole lot of jobs, and we've gone from the eighth largest economy in the world to the fifth largest economy in the world. In that time that supposedly we were going to tank our economy by being too worried about the environment. The mobilizations that take place when a society retools infrastructure can be enormously beneficial for the economy, not harmful for the economy. And so I think the Green New Deal is a step forward in environmentalism and environmentalism is responsibility it's not socialism. This is a symbolic act but while the country has convulsed in debate over this I think it's appropriate for us to take a stand and make an aye vote.

Supervisor Hart?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:23:04 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Well, I'm not a big fan of resolutions. I would prefer that we spend our time doing policy that makes a difference, addresses this issue in a substantive way. The words in this resolution matter. They are very factual. It's a shame we actually didn't read the resolution because What folks have been talking about and the discussion that's happened here on the board dais does not relate to the words that are actually in this resolution. And so I will be supporting this resolution because it's very modest, it affirms that we are addressing climate change with our individual policies here at the county level. And it urges the federal government to get back in the business of leading that effort and it simply says that.

I think we can do more, we will do more. We are doing more and all of us need to do more. I disagree with my colleague Supervisor Adam that the science is as unsettled as he describes it. My read of the science is that that is not the case. That scientific community in an overwhelming way believes that humans are causing climate change that will have devastating consequences to our planet. And we need to act in that regard. And even if they're wrong, the policies that are being advocated for are good and beneficial to all of us anyway. And so I don't think there's as much debate about what needs to be done but it is complicated and it takes time and it takes focus and energy. And I wish we spent our time doing that than doing this.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:24:38 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Very good. So I'm going to piggyback on that a little bit. Anybody that's holding a Green New Deal plan Did Supervisor Adam change your mind at all? No. Did anybody from the steel workers or any of those guys hear what these guys had to say and change your mind at all? Okay, that's why I'm not a big fan of hijacking the time we have set aside for honorary resolutions to force meaningless non-binding votes on politically charged wedge issues. It's great for sound bites, it's great for theater but for me, all it does is ramp everybody up and get everybody upset.

And some will say, well climate change is not a wedge issue. It shouldn't be called a wedge issue. It's not a political issue. But the reality is as the presidential campaign winds you can see contenders are either gaining support or losing traction based on this very issue. And the progressive movement has really made this the litmus test moving forward for their candidates.

One thing that really scared me this week was presidential hopeful and self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders rallied supporters last week with the line, on this issue there is no middle ground which works really good as a hashtag but it's terrible public policy. Otherwise if there's no middle ground on this issue Why isn't there a call for the elimination of the tourism industry? I mean, how can we in good conscience encourage people to drive here to Santa Barbara or worse get in a jet and fly here while they're polluting our atmosphere.

Why if there's no middle ground are we supporting the widening of the 101 freeway? We're bringing additional people here and more pollution. The idea that we haven't had a conversation about this I think is misleading. This county has not ignored climate change. We spent over a million dollars on a 300-page energy and climate action plan, which we adopted in May of 2015, which calls for us to reduce GHG levels 15% below 2007 by 2020.

At the time, the Santa Barbara Independent lauded it as quote, the strictest in the state. And by the way, I'm going to shock all of you and tell you I voted for it. To electrify the county's fleet and place solar panels over the county's parking lots. We have a plan, and we are aggressively trying to lower our county's carbon footprint but we have to be balanced.

Yes it makes sense for us as elected leaders to study the effects of sea level rise on our coastline and to plan for the changes we see coming our way. But it also makes sense to collaborate with the business community to achieve our goals That was a sentiment that got Governor Hickenlooper booed this weekend. And in the world of unattended consequences, Brian D'Arcy, the business manager for LA's International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers stated that the progressive environmental ideology is moving his membership to the GOP.

If you think they're moving now wait until the next wave of progressive policies hits. How long before you are told we can't eat meat any longer? How long you're banned from using the fireplace in your own home? How long before you have to say goodbye, in my area, to Santa Maria-style barbecue. And if you don't think it can happen try getting a straw in Santa Barbara or limits on soda sizes in New York or wood burning bans that already do exist in California.

Those pushing this agenda, in my opinion, shown very little respect for differing opinions. I watched Senator Dianne Feinstein elected five times to the United States Senate, a trailblazer for women's rights. The first woman ever elected as Chairman of the Board of Supervisors in San Francisco. The first woman to ever chair the Senate Intelligence Committee. The first woman to hold the Democrats top spot on the Senate Judiciary and a huge environmental leader for the last 30 years. She holds a 90% lifetime score on the National Environmental Scorecard. She was rated 100% by the Senator for Biological Diversity, 100% by the Defenders of Wildlife, 100% by the Clean Water Action and 93% by the League of Conservation Voters. But since she had the gall to question the wisdom of pushing this agenda, she's all of a sudden been labeled quote out of touch.

Challenging the system is a good thing. Standing up for what you believe in is the American way, but you cannot fall into the trap of excluding others who might think slightly different than you do. That's why I read the book that was presented to us two weeks ago. I'm looking at the same information as you are and I'm trying to figure out the best way forward.

But the one factor I feel is missing from all of these doomsday scenarios is progress. In man's ability to create technology that fundamentally changes how we live and adapt. No scientist from 1930 could accurately predict our lives in 2020, just like I believe it is impossible for us to look at 2100 and pretend that we know with any certainty what that world will look like.

In fact, we don't have to go back to 1930. As Supervisor Adams said, during the first Earth Day in 1970, the speeches were hitting on overpopulation, mass starvation. Our oil and gas supplies at that point were running out. Nuclear winter was around the corner and so was a second ice age. The truth is our air is cleaner. The water more pure than when I was a kid in the 70's.

I now have seven grandchildren and I am doing my best to leave them that is cleaner, safer and more resilient. But to me this resolution would do more to jeopardize their future than to enhance it. And so for that I will not be supporting it. So we've all had our say. We've heard from the public. I appreciate the public's interest and I will now call for a motion I'll move the resolution.

Second. It's been moved and seconded, roll call please.

1:31 – 1:3917 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:31:17 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Mr. Hart? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adam?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:31:21 · ≈ 10:31 AM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:31:22 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Mr Williams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:31:23 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:31:23 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Chair Lavanino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:31:25 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:31:27 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Motion passes 4 to 1

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:31:31 · ≈ 10:31 AM

You voted... I voted no right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:31:36 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Voted aye. I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:31:37 · ≈ 10:31 AM

voted aye? Oh!

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:31:40 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Chair Lavanino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:31:40 · ≈ 10:31 AM

I was a no I was like did you vote for it? All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:31:45 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Motion passes 3 to 2.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:31:48 · ≈ 10:31 AM

OK. I'm getting old. All right that one slipped by me. Let's take let's take a good 10 minute break. Oh I'm sorry. Oh the resolution I'm sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:32:04 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board as previously read into the record item A3 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Williams And this is to adopt a resolution supporting the principles of the Green New Deal. And if we can have Heather Carr and anyone from the Sunrise Movement, the podium? Whereas in November 2018, the federal government issued the fourth National Climate Assessment NCA that makes clear that urgent public policy action is needed over the next decade to avert catastrophic damage to our planet. And whereas climate change is causing extreme weather events that threaten lives as well are built and natural environments. And whereas according to the 2018 NCA report, climate change causing the planet to increase in temperature at or above two degrees Celsius, the equivalent of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will cause hundreds of billions of dollars in economic losses up to 10% of GDP from severe storms sea level rise drought and wildfire all compromising our national infrastructure and threatening our national security and economy And whereas Santa Barbara County has faced unprecedented extreme weather patterns in the past decade, which was also the hottest in recorded human history including prolonged drought, extreme and intense wildfires.

A year-round fire season and a deadly debris preceded by a torrential one in 200 year storm burst. And whereas to address the urgent climate crisis members of Congress proposed House Resolution 109 and Senate Resolution 59 collectively known as The Green New Deal. To start a conversation to create nationwide federal policies, to mobilize sectors of the American economy for fair and just transition for all communities. And works to attain 100% clean and renewable energy by 2030 in the spirit of the Federal New Deal policies implemented during the Great Depression. And whereas the New Deal of the Great Depression facilitated the transformation of the American economy into achieving unparalleled prosperity, security, and created the world's strongest middle class And whereas the County of Santa Barbara has a long-standing tradition of promoting policies that empower and connect people to protect our environment and our quality of life by reducing our carbon emissions in light of global climate change, including registering as a signatory of the We Are Still In Paris Climate Agreement.

And whereas the county's energy and climate action plan already encompasses many of the goals expressed by the Green New Deal including providing funding for community based solutions To climate change, expanding the use of clean renewable and zero emission sources of power. Transitioning the county fleet to zero emission vehicles creating smart power grids Working with farmers and ranchers to increase soil carbon sequestration, and retrofitting our home in places of work to better utilize energy. Therefore let it be resolved that this Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recognizes that we are already experiencing the adverse consequences of climate change. And that we understand the urgency of the federal government to lead in creating public policies to advance clean and renewable energy infrastructure implementation.

And to transform the American economy to support a strong middle class and save our planet passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:35:12 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Today the City of Santa Barbara has voted in support of a resolution that not only seeks to protect the welfare of the citizens of our local country, but that of our children and future generations ahead of them. A resolution that not only addresses protections for the environment of Santa Barbara from our pristine beaches to our extensive chaparral backcountry and numerous parks, but for the entire planet and with it humanity as a whole.

Climate change is the greatest threat to the existence of mankind which we face today. The science is indisputable. 97% of scientists have agreed that climate change is occurring and numerous studies have documented its effects, the majority of which comes from man-made fossil fuels as including more severe droughts, more frequent and intense wildfires, enormous special extinctions, and sea level rise to name a few.

The extent of the threat to which climate change poses for our communities then is not a question of whether they exist, but rather how we are going to plan it to confront them. This is not a political issue. This is not just an environmental issue. This is our lives. This our children's lives. This the fate of the human race which we are dealing with and we cannot afford to remain silent or irresponsive towards this issue any longer.

Approving a resolution in support of a Green New Deal, a piece of legislation which offers to help navigate our way. To avoid the worst effects of the climate change crisis is a positive indication that we as members of this community understand the extent of the threat to which we are facing. Since we can no longer afford to keep our head in the sand and ignore the threat to which climate change poses for our jobs, our lives and our futures.

The Green New Deal's promise of a 100% renewable energy economy offers us the chance of a new start. We have the opportunity to retrain and redevelop workers who are currently in other sectors including fossil fuels. To lead higher paying jobs, ones that will not have a direct negative impact on the air we breathe. The water we drink and the beaches and parks our children play in. They, we all deserve this sort of future for ourselves and for our descendants We therefore can no longer think of the here and now. We cannot look at a green park and think to ourselves, oh we have achieved this much, the environment is being protected and some people are happy. There's no more to be done. We cannot take the easy way out by limiting ourselves to such a narrow viewpoint.

The majority of the negative effects of climate change will impact the young and the marginalized within our community, and we can no longer ignore that especially in the increasingly diverse society that we live in today. Facts and overwhelming scientific evidence numerous institutions including the military which has cited climate change as a threat to national security And the visible reminders in our day-to-day lives from the charred remains of a chaparral brush left over from the Thomas fire, to the slick tarry sands left on the beach after another recent oil spill. All these factors demand that not only is it irrational but that is it is immoral to continue adhering to the status quo.

So thank you again, speakers for helping to pass this resolution. By doing so you have helped secure the community of Santa Barbara's commitment for providing good jobs and a livable future for not only your constituents but for their descendants and for humanity as a whole. You have shown like the rest of America has shown, as majority of Americans recognize climate change as a serious threat that we cannot afford to remain naive and to close the door on the facts which managed to choke us out, smother us with flames and threaten to take away all which we hold dear.

You've helped demonstrate that we are not here to remain quiet in the face of this. We are here to fight for ourselves and for the planet, and so from passing this resolution, we're one step closer to doing just that. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:39:11 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Thanks for being here. All right? So before we take a break, we have one public comment speaker, so we will hear general public comment for items that aren't on today's agenda.

1:39 – 1:444 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:39:22 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board, we have one request to speak today, and that's Ed Kolaski.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:39:33 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Good morning. I call my comment today, public comment, the Alex Anne Remodeling Design. For the last five years, I've been trying to present my design to the Board of Architectural Review. We were kicked out of the fifth meeting and never got a chance to show it. This past May 3rd, I got a chance to show it. Terrific! There was no mention at the meeting about our second story being located solely over the garage It's for five years. I've been fighting this, having my second story solely over the garage when it's not solely over the garage. It's over the dining room, the kitchen, the garage, the laundry room and part of the living room.

There was no mention that back in 2014 we had a seven to zero vote that we did not have to have setbacks The zoning ordinances are the only way that you can have a setback mandatory and Reviews a review committee like the Board of Architectural Review has no right to implement a setback and They agreed back in 2014 they agreed 7 to 0 so now I go in there, and they want setbacks apparently they talked to my architect before the 2018 meeting and besides wanting $1,000 They wanted to have setbacks. So I go in there and I find out, oh now we got setbacks. Now this is gone.

So the 64 page report is just a lie. The five and a half months waiting for the 64 page report back in 2014 is a lie. The PC, the public commission that I appealed to didn't know that this is a lie And this is the way I've been living my life for the last five years under this lie. So now they're going to come up with setbacks, a thing they agreed we do not need setbacks.

It's just crazy. You know, the guy who designed the streetscape, the view from the street where they now want setbacks? He is on the member of the board, John Bartak. He designed it, and he didn't design it with a setback. He actually designed it with a two-foot motion forward portion of the second story. So now, he wants an eight foot setback. He claims that he never said that.

And that actually might be one of the meetings where it still hasn't been erased. You can't play the tape and understand everything. You have to amplify it, and I haven't done that. This is like crazy, just totally utterly crazy. Thank you. Thank you.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:43:05 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Okay we are going to take a ten minute break and come back at about 10 till.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:43:23 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Hello. Music

1:44 – 1:491 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44:36 · ≈ 10:44 AM

The Hello. Hello, everyone. . . . Hello, everyone. Music Hi.

1:54 – 1:5712 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:54:15 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Yeah. What is going on? Thank you for agenda management

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:54:37 · ≈ 10:54 AM

purposes.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:54:50 · ≈ 10:54 AM

All right, Supervisor Hartman wherever you are. We can go? Okay, let's go to item D1. Do we have an announcement about D3? Would you like to make that now or do we want to go D1? Let's go D 1.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:55:13 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number one is from community services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding extra help services and retirement waiver for a community services department position.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:55:27 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Good morning chair Lavinino and members of the board I'd like to turn this over to Sherman Hansen our community services business manager who oversees our special events program and veterans buildings

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:55:36 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Good because this is a very controversial item, Sherman. I don't know if you know this. Go ahead. I'm about ready to grill you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:55:43 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Good morning Chair Lavendino and members of the board. The Community Services Department is seeking a retirement waiver for retired or county employee and U.S. Air Force veteran Russell Barker to provide on-call monitoring and general custodial services at our Lompoc's VEC building. CSD currently staffs the building with one Extra help is only available one day a week and a full-time AOP 2 who works also has duties at Kachuma So she's only at the vets all three days a week Besides the general custodial duties. We also use the staff to monitor for after hour and weekend events we've had a challenging time trying to find people to work on an on-call basis because we're still trying to Increase our usage at the Vets building. It's a very inconsistent work.

Mr Barker has expressed that he is Really interested in doing this kind of work and excuse me, as after his lengthy county experience and being a military veteran and also a resident of Lompoc we think he's an ideal candidate for this. The plan is to use him for about the next three to four months during our busy event season and then we will evaluate how we want to move forward with off-season coverage into next year.

Thank you at this time I'll be happy any questions you have.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:56:52 · ≈ 10:56 AM

Okay is there any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:56:55 · ≈ 10:56 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board we have no request to speak on this item.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:56:58 · ≈ 10:56 AM

Okay does anybody have any questions? I want to thank Russ for stepping up, Supervisor Williams. Move the item?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.761:57:06 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.911:57:06 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay passes unanimously. All right let's go to Item D2

1:57 – 2:055 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:57:15 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number two is from community services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding approval of the fiscal year 2018 through 2020 action plan and draft fiscal year 2018 through 2019 action plan substantial amendment and final human services commission funding approvals.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:57:36 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Good morning chair Lavinino and members of the board with me today is Lori Baker grants and program manager for the housing and community development division Ted Tiber, Housing Program Specialist Senior and James Francis, Housing Specialist as well. We're here today to consider recommendations for the CDBG program, HOME and for the Human Service Commission Public Services.

I should have mentioned my name is Dinah Lockhart and I'm Deputy Director for Housing and Community Development. And at this time, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Ted.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:58:22 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Good morning members of the board. The draft action plan and prior year action plan substantial amendment for your consideration today Must be submitted to the US Department of Housing and Urban Development annually. These plans include funding recommendations for federal community development block grants, and home funds which are allocated to the county by HUD. The action plan is due to HUD no later than June 14th. The action plan and amendment were made available to the public for a 30 day public comment period which concludes today at the end of today's hearing.

The Community Service Department has not received any comments as of this morning. The plans will be revised to reflect any direction provided by the board, any public comments that are offered at today's hearing and will be submitted to HUD by the June 14th deadline. So I'm first going to walk you through the community development block grant and home fund recommendations contained in the action plans. And we'll finish with a summary of the public services grant recommendations of the Human Services Commission. Unlike the CDBG and Home Funds, the HSC Public Services Grants are county general fund dollars that you, the board approve annually during your budget process.

The county and its partner cities receive an annual allocation of funds from HUD to administer programs under both the federal CDBG and HOME programs. The county is the lead entity of the HOME Consortium and CDBG-Irwin County Partnership, and is responsible to HUD for administration of these federal funds. The CDBG allocation this year is just over $1.2 million, which is just about $16,000 higher than last year. This chart shows how CDBG funds are distributed to the partner cities. 20% of the allocation is used by the county to cover administrative costs up to 15% may be used for public services.

The cities may identify projects in their own communities. Otherwise, these funds are pooled with the counties and distributed through the annual grant process This year the city of Carpentry identified two programs for its public services funds The prior year funds column shows a hundred twenty seven thousand seven hundred and five dollars available for capital projects from unexpended prior-year funds The staff's the staff reports recommendation is to amend the fiscal year 2018 19 action plan Which would roll these prior your funds into the proposed? 2019 220 plan And with that recommendation, that brings the total amount of CDBG available to just over $1.3 million.

So ANOFA was issued in October of 2018 to solicit CDBG applications for this 2019-20 program year. As shown on this slide, the total request for funds exceeded the amount available. We had 16 applications for public services programs requesting over $460,000. Examples of public services programs would be legal aid, Mules on Wheels and senior programs. And we had eight applications for capital projects and assistance to micro enterprise businesses requesting over $1.7 million.

HCD staff reviewed the applications for eligibility, capacity and other considerations. And then they were forwarded to respective review committees. The Human Services Commission Allocation Committee made funding recommendations for public service projects. And the Capital Loan Committee made funding recommendations for capital projects and assistance to micro-enterprise businesses.

The Human Service Commissions or HSC allocations committee The City of Carpentry identified two programs for its pro rata share of the CDBG funds for public services, which are shown in italics on the last few rows. The Capital Loan Committee met on February 14th to make funding recommendations for CDBG capital and economic development projects. This slide shows the projects recommended for fiscal year 2019-20 CDBG funding by the Capital Loan Committee.

The home allocation for 2019-20 is approximately $1,166,260 which is an increase of $128,260 over last year. The increase is due to an increase in the congressional allocation and the addition of Lompoc to the Home Consortium. This chart shows how home funds are distributed to partner cities. 10% of home allocation is used by the county to cover administrative costs.

And the cities may choose to use their share funds for eligible projects in their own communities, or can also pool their funds towards county wide housing projects. Good Samaritan Shelters Pine Street Bungalows project in Santa Maria was reviewed and recommended for funding by the Capital Loan Committee on February 14th. The new unit on Good Samaritans existing property will provide permanent housing for a homeless family. The city of Santa Maria has allocated approximately $149,000 of their home funds towards this project and it is recommended that the county's home funds be used for the balance for total of about $291,000 for this development.

The City of Santa Maria has allocated the balance of their home funds for tenant-based rental assistance, and the City of Lompoc has also allocated their home funds for tenant-based rental assistance. Applications for housing projects are accepted year round and staff will return to the board for additional home funding approvals as needed on an ongoing basis.

Moving on from the federal home and CDBG programs, the Human Service Commission public service grants rely on county general fund dollars that you, the Board approve annually in the budget. The HSC allocations committee convened on February 8th to make a final funding recommendation for public services programs, which were adopted by the full commission on March 7. The HSC allocations committee selected these programs up on the screen for the county's basic services grant. The basic services program provides grants in non-profit organizations for the provision of food, shelter, transportation and services to low income persons or families with the priority on programs that provide freedom from abuse. Agencies provide programs crossing all socioeconomic, cultural and language boundaries.

Grants between $15,000 and $50,000 are awarded under this category and are renewed annually by the board for up to three years. Another county general fund program approved by the board is the Best Practices Grant. This slide shows the HSE allocations committee recommendations for the county's best practices grant. The best practices program is similar to the basic services program, but with added outcome measures. Best practices combine new cutting edge research, quality data that track results, clinical expertise and client needs to determine measurable outcomes that demonstrate meaningful life changes. Grants are provided in the 50 to $100,000 range and are renewed annually for up to three years.

So again the board recommendations today are to consider public comments, make final funding approvals and direct staff to submit the action plan and amendment to Housing and Urban Development. This ends the staff report we're available to answer any questions. Susie Cawthon of the Human Service Commission Chair is also here to answer any questions you have related to specific Human Service Commission program funding recommendations. And with that I'll open it up for questions.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:05:14 · ≈ 11:05 AM

All right, very good. Are there any questions of staff from the board? Seeing none are there any public comments on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:05:23 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board we do have two I'm sorry four requests to speak five requests to speak on this item And we're going to begin with Joanne Sizemore to be followed by Marsha Bailey

2:05 – 2:1019 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:05:43 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Good morning

PresenterJoanne SizemoreDeveProposedself-stated2:05:44 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Good morning, I'm Joanne Sizemore. I'm the program director for St. Vincent's Family Strengthening Program and I have here Catherine Ferguson our grant writer and our new Vice President of Development Virginia Ruiz who we're very happy to have here. Can you move the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:05:58 · ≈ 11:05 AM

microphone

PresenterJoanne SizemoreDeveProposedself-stated2:05:58 · ≈ 11:05 AM

just a little

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:05:59 · ≈ 11:05 AM

bit? It moves around

PresenterJoanne SizemoreDeveProposedself-stated2:05:59 · ≈ 11:05 AM

there

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:06:01 · ≈ 11:06 AM

you go.

PresenterJoanne SizemoreDeveProposedself-stated2:06:02 · ≈ 11:06 AM

We received one of the best practices grants and we're just here to say thank you this is a long-term transitional housing program For women who are homeless with children ages five and under at the time they join us. And because of grants like this, we're able to keep the services moving forward and help these families move from a very traumatic past to more hopeful self-sustaining future. So thank you for supporting us. It means the world to us.

Do you have any questions about our program or anything? Nope. All right well thank you so much. Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:06:33 · ≈ 11:06 AM

so much. Bye

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:06:34 · ≈ 11:06 AM

bye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:06:35 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Our next speaker is Marsha Bailey to be followed by Dean Paleus.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:06:47 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. I want to thank the staff and the volunteer committee for their recommendations to continue to fund women's economic ventures. And I just wanted to take my time to communicate with you a little bit of the impacts that we've been able to have thanks to your funding over the last five years. In Santa Barbara County We have served 1,621 clients in the last five years and made $861,000 in microloans to small businesses that could not get funding through traditional bank loans. Those people represent 649 businesses that we've helped either start up or expand and they have created or retained almost 2,000 jobs in the county.

I think many of you know that after the Thomas fire and mud debris flow, that we was very involved in long-term recovery for our local businesses. Those efforts are still going on. Part of that effort was the organization of I Love Local Business campaign to really educate our community about the importance of supporting our small local businesses. I just wanted to take this opportunity also to really encourage the county to invest more in sustainable economic development outside of the CDBG process and the CDBG funding. That funding has a lot of strings attached to it that make it difficult for us to serve as many clients as we could.

If you have any questions, love to take them at this time.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:08:32 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Don't see any. Thank you very much for being here. Great program.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:08:35 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Our next speaker is Dean Pellius, to be followed by Anne McCarty. Can I just

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:08:39 · ≈ 11:08 AM

say thank you from here? Sure. Dean registers his thanks from the cheap seats for those watching on TV.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:08:48 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Then our next speaker is Anne McCarty, to be followed by Idalia Gomez. Does that mean I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:08:54 · ≈ 11:08 AM

get his three minutes? Nice try. Yeah

CommentAnne McCartyProposedself-stated2:08:57 · ≈ 11:08 AM

well... Good morning, Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I also want to thank the Human Service Commission for the very hard job that they had to undertake and the staff that worked so diligently on this process. We thank them for their careful consideration and for recognizing the challenges we face in North County.

I'm sorry, my name is Anne McCarty. I am the Executive Director for the North County Rape Crisis and Child Protection Center providing services in Northern Santa Barbara County. As the only agency in northern Santa Barbara County providing 24-hour crisis support services to victims of sexual violence and human trafficking as well as the only agency providing critical education programs to children in all elementary, middle, high schools, and charter schools.

On sexual assault, child abuse and human trafficking prevention. We thank you in advance for approving the recommendations for funding as put forth by the Human Services Commission. The funding that has been suggested for our agency will ensure that we are able to continue Much needed crisis support services, advocacy and accompaniment to those in crisis. We also educate children that they have a right to be free from harm, something that they are not hearing when they are in the throws of abuse.

We work tirelessly every single day toward a healthier, safer community and we greatly appreciate your support in helping us achieve our goals. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:10:41 · ≈ 11:10 AM

And our last public comment is Idalia Gomez.

2:10 – 2:148 turns

PresenterIdalia GomezStanding Together to End Sexual AssaultProposedself-stated2:10:48 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Good morning, again my name is Idalia Gomez and I'm here representing Standing Together to End Sexual Assault, formerly SB Rape Crisis Center. And we want to thank the Human Services Commission for the time and diligence that they spent reviewing all the grant applications as well as the staff for providing these recommendations to you. Standing Together to End Sexual Assault empowers people through healing and social change to eliminate all forms of sexual violence. We're committed to transforming lives by providing services and education that meet the needs of our diverse community.

We want to thank you for your support in providing the Human Services Grant, which allows us to provide community education services, crisis intervention, and counseling services. In addition to that, the county has been supporting one of our projects in Isla Vista. As you may know, sexual assault is a widespread problem. Research states that one in three women and one in six men will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime. It is a traumatic experience that is not limited to any racial, religious or socioeconomic group. However according to the Department of Justice individuals with low household incomes have a higher likelihood than the general population of becoming victims of sexual assault.

Over 74% of Isla Vista residents are low income. This community has experienced several cases of sexual violence and thanks to the CDBG grants, this community has been able to receive services. Over the last two years, STESA provided services to over 1,500 residents of the Isla Vista community. In this fiscal year we have already worked with over 350 Isla Vista residents. Our program in Isla Vista targets those individuals who are not connected to the university such as Santa Barbara City College students, monolingual Spanish speaking community members and low income Latino families. This program supports services to sexual assault survivors and their significant others. We also provide rape prevention presentations that explore ways in which to support those who have been victimized and combat the harmful myths that contribute to a culture that tolerates sexual violence.

This year, Isla Vista will open its first survivor center. It's going to be a safe location where sexual assault survivors can meet with a STESA advocate to receive vital services. CDBG funding has allowed STESA to build relationships with other service providers in this community Which have led to the increase in resources. Isla Vista residents have prioritized the issue of sexual violence as one of the most important to address within their community, and you have supported them by allowing us to participate in Isla Vista community events and reaching more community members. Our work in Isla Vista has been partly funded by the CDBG funds over the last two years, and we ask it to continue extending your support. You help us reach our program goals.

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:13:37 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Is that close a public comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:13:38 · ≈ 11:13 AM

that was our final speaker.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:13:40 · ≈ 11:13 AM

OK. Can I get a motion anything else from staff. We're good.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.762:13:46 · ≈ 11:13 AM

That's all

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:13:46 · ≈ 11:13 AM

OK. Very good thank you Supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.762:13:49 · ≈ 11:13 AM

move staffs recommendation

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:13:52 · ≈ 11:13 AM

second moved and seconded. All those in favor. Aye. Anybody opposed. All right. Thank you and thank you to all the hard work for those who went through all the grant applications we appreciate it. That takes us to item D Three.

2:14 – 2:2119 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:14:09 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number three is from planning and development it is a hearing to consider the Patterson Avenue Holdings new office appeal case number 18 APL 22 filed by Paul Bradford, appellant of the Planning Commission's December 5th 2018 approval of case numbers 16 DBP 13 and 16 BAR 154. And this is in the second district.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:14:32 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Okay just a matter of agenda management this will be the last item that we hear before lunch everything else will be after lunch and Mr. Gazzone can you give us a rough estimate on?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:14:45 · ≈ 11:14 AM

My estimate for closed session is between 90 minutes and two hours

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:14:49 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:14:50 · ≈ 11:14 AM

And Chair Lavagnino, members of the board I do have one announcement to make prior to this item. That's right. We received two public comment on this item after noon on Friday May 31st since this item is a land use appeal anything received after noon on the Friday Prior to the appeal must be accepted into the record and voted by the board. Our first public comment we received was of the Trudy Carey letter from the Carey Group. This was received yesterday, June 3rd, 2018 at 9 o'clock a.m., and that was seven pages. And the second public comment we received was from Cindy Pure today, June 4th, 2019 at 1051, and that was two pages. If we could just get a vote on those too. Okay if

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:15:30 · ≈ 11:15 AM

we can get a motion to either accept those into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:15:33 · ≈ 11:15 AM

All those in favor of accepting the 2 late items in as public comment.

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:15:56 · ≈ 11:15 AM

We've read D 3 correct. Okay, so we will call for ex parte start with supervisor Adam. This item and to report nothing or you know what let me let me wrap back around Okay, Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:16:16 · ≈ 11:16 AM

On May 23rd I had a meeting on the site with Carlos Armiento DeVicente, Jim Youngson and they showed me the project design in relation to the neighborhood and the site and where the grading and driveway was going to be located. And then yesterday on June 3rd I had a phone call with Paul Bradford who's the appellant and he described His views additionally about the project.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:16:48 · ≈ 11:16 AM

Okay, perfect. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.762:16:53 · ≈ 11:16 AM

No ex parte communications I just drove around to get a better sense of the site in light of the proposed project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:17:00 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Supervisor Williams? On Wednesday May 29th I met with Mr. Youngston and Mr. Sarmiento and Mr. De Vicente And right before or within two weeks before our previous hearings, I met with the appellant. And then I had a phone conversation at 855 this morning with a member of the public, John Price about the project.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:17:37 · ≈ 11:17 AM

And that's why you were late? No. Just sick and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:17:41 · ≈ 11:17 AM

dragging.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:17:44 · ≈ 11:17 AM

My apologies, Mr. Chairman. No problem. So I had a visit on May 31st from Mr. Sarmiento with Mr. Youngson was on the phone call just discussing the actual property itself again and then a quick phone call also with Mr. Bradford on June 3rd Just asking he was just asking if there were any questions additional questions. I had so we didn't really get it far into the discussion So with that let's move to you have oh, yeah Sorry,

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

I was just that first time April one with Paul Bradford

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:18:21 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Okay All right, so we will go to our staff presentation Mr.. Wilson or mr.. Stewart who's gonna kick us off here? Oh

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:18:35 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Sean Stewart, the planner side of this will give us a presentation and it'll be available for questions as well. And I just want to acknowledge that we do have members from the Department of Public Works here with us to help answer any questions as well. Very good,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:18:52 · ≈ 11:18 AM

thank you very much. Okay Mr. Stewart? Hello Chair Lavinino, members of the board. I'm here to present an update regarding potential traffic mitigation strategies for the proposed office building. At 80 North Patterson Avenue that is currently before you on appeal. In response to your feedback at the April 2nd hearing, the applicant has proposed the following modifications to the project to reduce traffic impacts.

Designating two parking spaces for carpool vehicles only, adding four bike lockers on site in addition to the already proposed bike rack and amending the floor plan to include an employee break room shower and locker facilities. Additionally future tenants Additionally, future tenants would implement a new employee orientation to educate employees on the alternative transportation resources available to them.

Offer subsidized bus passes to employees. Maintain a sustainable transportation information center in the employee break room. Implement a transportation coordinator position that would manage the transportation information center in the break room. Conduct the orientation on the alternative transportation resources available to employees. Encourage and assist employees with registering for the ride share matching service, an emergency ride home service that is offered by traffic solutions.

And work with traffic solutions to fine tune the tenants alternative transportation methods. These proposed changes were reflected in the updated project description contained within the board agenda letter submitted for today's hearing. Shown here is a detail of the updated floor plan which shows the break room, shower and lockers. Shown here is an updated site plan which shows the two designated carpool spaces and the addition of four bike lockers to the site.

Additionally, a note regarding the site plan as the withdrawal of any proposed landscaping within the highlighted portion of the Caltrans right-of-way. This was in response to Caltrans recent review of the project which indicated that no additional planting is allowed within the freeway right away. Notably, the hammerhead turnaround and landscaping proposed within the remaining portion of the Caltrans right-of-way is permissible.

And this is a good segue into the traffic control opportunities you asked staff to review which included restricting the right turn on red at the northbound off ramp to which Caltrans objected. And then regarding the additional traffic control opportunities within the county's jurisdiction Gary Smartt is here to present on those.

2:21 – 2:295 turns

CommentItem D2Proposed · by introduction2:21:46 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Mister chair board members. At the last meeting we talked about the U turns and then also I wanted to present to you what we're doing currently to improve the circulation out there. This is Patterson Avenue, the we're looking toward the left is north And we have the freeway off ramps on the right-hand side and on ramp, and then Chi Real is at the lower left hand side there.

We do allow U-turns here. We can restrict them if it's a desire of the board. Typically, we don't restrict them unless there's a problem. We like to have that circulation there. Going back and looking at our collision history, we did have one collision over the last 15 years that was associated with a person turning Right on Kyrie L onto Patterson and somebody making the u-turn So we did have one collision in the last 15 years on that We do have issues with storage in this area. And currently we are working on a project That is independent of the development, but I would like to present to you. We're removing the Center median it's a four foot median. We're moving the lanes over and Doing a surface treatment right now and once the surface treatment is done we're going to restripe the road going toward the freeway or Galita and add a additional lane for that section this will be Lined up with the freeway off ramps providing Additional lane of storage for people to get onto the freeway.

We're gonna be to preventing you We're going to be installing a temporary median through the roadway. It's a plastic curbing with delineators In the future, we'll be coming back to look at projects to do something better out there with beautification and also to solve the issues with The interchange we're going to need a regional approach. Goleta's and Caltrans facilities are right there, so it's going to require all agencies to work on those solutions

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:24:01 · ≈ 11:24 AM

So with that, I will now conclude staff's presentation with the recommended action which is that the board deny the appeal. Make the required findings for approval. Determine the project is exempt from CEQA and grant De Novo approval of the project. I'm now available for any questions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:24:19 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Okay? Any direct questions right now or would you like let's go ahead and move towards the appellant Mr. Bradford. You'll be given ten minutes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:24:47 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Chair Lavagnino members of the board. Thank you for your deliberations and direction on April 2nd, and thanks to the applicant For incorporating several of the TDM items my letter to you contains the bulk of our position So I'll use my time to sort of recap things so fundamentally this is about three things for our neighborhood traffic complexities design compatibility and uncertainty of intensity so as you can see right here As I put in my letter What you're effectively charged with if you approve the project is your betting that this 100 foot section from roughly the light pole at the 101 off ramp to the curb cut, which can be traveled in less than a second and a half.

That those drivers are going to be able to handle exiting traffic coming out potentially of a 90 degree angle onto Patterson. That's the lynchpin, that's the wild card that your board will be betting on. Supervisor Hart correctly pointed out at the April hearing that the likely reason that Trudy Carey's driveway hasn't produced more accidents is because of the hyper low intensity of use.

So in terms of confluence and complexity, I'll spare you the animations from the last time. But just to reorient again, you've got northbound traffic on Patterson coming in and effectively two lanes, two right-hand turn lanes of which there are seven different configurations where they can go reasonably adding this potential project at potentially adding and exiting out at a 90 degree angle on Patterson to access the U-turn lane to then do the U turn and face traffic coming off of Chi Rail to southbound Patterson.

So staff confirmed at the April hearing that headcount in occupancy, if I get this right, aren't necessarily monitored at the building permit level. So again we go back to the issue of load capacity and certainty. While we appreciate the TDM measures they still don't answer the fundamental issue of load capacity according to this chart for the GSA if the applicant were to install cubicles at a particular level this property could support 65 people In terms of use, the project has always been represented as a single tenant office.

However it's my understanding based on a conversation I had yesterday that perhaps the applicant does not intend to build after obtaining entitlement. While that would certainly be within their rights, it does somewhat heighten the neighborhood concern about certainty of use and impact. So as I kind of wrap all this up here, I previously noted our desire for all landscaping to be on site rather than rely on right-of-ways, be that Caltrans or county. And for the site design including the landscape buffer to be redesigned to mirror that of what's across the street 50 feet more or less versus 10 to 20 feet.

So it goes without saying that one of your board's key roles is to make decisions on intensity of use, and I was reflecting back to April 2nd when I was here early and I caught the tail end or most of the tail end of the discussions on marijuana use. I've been thinking about the parallel, and the reality is that it's a similar use. You all were having worthwhile discussions on intensity of use. And Supervisor Adams, you're a grower, I'm not, but I would presume that planting and rotating crops is relatively easy. Planting and rotating a building is not.

So my encouragement to the board is to think about that. You've all seen a quote by Commissioner Cooney and as Supervisor Lavagnino so aptly commented at the last hearing when he was summarizing his reflections about observing a bad intersection, and he said I want to find out who approved this one So the issue you face with the marijuana cases and the intensity is the same of this surrounding neighborhood that we have an intensity abuse.

You've all acknowledged the traffic complexities, and I encourage you to apply an overabundance of caution to avoid having others in the future say well who approved this one? So as you recall There was no second district representation at prior hearings the Planning Commission level and we're thankful to have a chance for that Representation today as Supervisor Hart knows his district. Well, so on behalf of the 224 neighbors Who opposed this project? And you've received postcards from all of them Thank you for your time and diligence and we encourage you to uphold the appeal and deny the project. Thank you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:29:22 · ≈ 11:29 AM

questions Thank you very much. We'll get to questions in just a little bit. We will now hear from the applicant, Mr. Carlos Sarmiento. You will also be given 10 minutes or your duly selected mouthpiece.

2:29 – 2:362 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:29:51 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Thank you for hearing us again on this important project. So the issues raised previously is the appeal to the Planning Commission approval with a landscape buffer inadequacy that there's landscape primarily built on Caltrans County right away, the site design where the building was located, the height of the structure lower in the plate and the intensity of use at the last hearing though here's what we heard from you.

The traffic intensity, you ask staff and the applicant to pursue transportation demand management measures to mitigate project traffic. And for transportation reach out to Caltrans with northbound off ramp and look into U-turn prohibition. So before we dive into our response to that I'm gonna let our project owner provide you a little project history so you can understand the complexities of three and half years we've been at this thank you.

PresenterCarlos Sarmientoproperty in 2014Proposedself-stated2:30:51 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Good morning, my name is Carlos Sarmiento. I'm one of the owners of the property at 80 North Patterson. I got involved with the property in 2014. My wife owns Santa Barbara Gymnastics Club. It's been in business in Santa Barbara for almost 40 years. In 2014 we lost a lease and that's when I got involved with the property because my wife and I wanted to find a permanent location for this business.

At the same time, the years-long Goleta Community Plan update was about to be finished. They were going to change the zoning from CH to C2 as we all know. It was a very clear message what the community didn't want. They didn't want a drive through restaurant and at the same time the C2 zoning sent a pretty clear message of us what they would allow it to be built and that is an office building.

Shortly before the Community Plan update was adopted SBAR allowed us present what we wanted to do with that project. Originally the building was located on the north portion of the property, as Mr. Bradford requested and it was designed to fit in with the existing self-storage and landscaping as Mr Bradford wanted but through many meetings with SBAR and the Planning Commission the building was what you have now in the location and style The building can't serve as a gymnastics school anymore, it's too small. We needed 30 feet but we only got 14.

So at about the same time our building was reduced from 30 feet to 15 feet, we were able to secure a long term lease so the owners of the property, we decided let's just get this finished. Let's get an entitled project and then shop for a buyer or tenant. And we wanted to build a building that's as flexible as possible Considering the economic changes we're in right now. We don't know if how many office buildings will be needed what a retail we need it So we wanted to do something different I'd also like to mention at this time that Cecilia Brown recused herself from the Planning Commission meeting because I believe she acted as a neighbor and Every SBAR meeting and planning commission meeting I attended she was there I think it's a pretty pretty good review of our process to have someone on the Planning Commission looking at every step along the way And even when we finally got our approval after the second Planning Commission meeting, Cecilia Brown congratulated us on the type of building we have.

She thought it was a well-designed and good building. After Mr. Bradford filed his appeal, your council encouraged us to meet to see if we can negotiate some type of settlement. Mr. Bradford refused to meet with us and even at the last board meeting, Mr. Bradford said we didn't approach him. Honestly I didn't think, I didn't even know he existed, I didn't even think we needed to approach him. I thought that changing from C2 zoning and Cecilia Brown watching every step of the way was a pretty good community input.

I really believe they didn't want us to build anything other than to sell it to Trudy to build self-storage. And it's not zoned for self storage. And let's come to a little reality of self-storage. When we were meeting with Supervisor Hart, in 20 minutes I saw at least 8 maybe 10 cars drive out of the driveway and I can imagine what that's like at the end of a month when people are moving in and out.

We also saw a large box van turn right and execute that U-turn that everybody says is a very unsafe maneuver. And I actually have video of that. I'm not going to bore you with it. That self-storage opened about 20 years ago, and you would think that's just over a 20 year period. Just the sheer number of cars going in and out, a lot of them with rented box fans. There would be accidents. I know little about self storage.

My partner builds them with split block face and those big steel corner pillars Why? Because people renting those vans don't know how to drive them, they're always crashing them. So I would think there would have been a lot more accidents here if this was a really unsafe traffic situation. And so I'd like to address a couple other things from the April 2 meeting. Mr. Bradford, I believe created a false narrative that permeated the entire meeting and that was that intersection is the most dangerous intersection you have people flying over that intersection catching air like one of those bee car chase movies and I don't think that's really the case.

He also quoted Mr. Cooney and if you go to page 24 of Divya Sensei's presentation, he also quoted Mr. Cooney and it was mentioned several times and again today where he actually went out there and test drove the driveway and he basically said that there is a clear and present danger of collisions. I think Mr. Kooney drove out of the wrong driveway He goes, well stop that there. If you look at the driveway, if you look at that street pole in the middle or that power pole, the proposed driveway is right there, right next to it just to the right.

I don't know how he got in there. Backed in, his car would still be sticking out. I think he went out of the wrong driveway and that's really the only evidence that Mr. Bradford presented. He didn't present any studies from traffic engineers. He didn't present any type of evidence that this is really an unsafe intersection other than what Mr. Cooney said and what he said. And you'll see from Ed that we have great sight lines and everything is safe enough actually once we do the landscaping will be much and even safer Thank you, Carlo.

2:36 – 2:428 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:36:30 · ≈ 11:36 AM

So diving into the traffic intensity, the C2 is a retail commercial zone. The project meets all the CEQA thresholds and it's one of the least intensive uses allowed. Some of the other uses, indoor entertainment, fitness facilities, auto rentals, plant nursery, convenience store, mixed use or multifamily. The last three were talked about a little bit in the last hearing. So let's compare traffic generation with ITE rates on this. Plant nursery, these are all buildings of about the same size you can see the peaks there 17 and 49 daily trips 477 neighborhood retail peak trips 7 and 27 daily trips 264 apartments we think we could could fit about 30 on a site like this 14 peak and 17 pm 439 average daily trips our project 82 average daily trips, 13 and 12 peak.

Lowest of what you see here in some of the allowed uses. And another note, mini storage is not an allowed use in C2 zone. This was something that was brought up in the last hearing. Helen also suggested some lower use intensities warehouse furniture store senior care facility. Of course these are cherry pick their lower rates and I T E but questions are these appropriate uses for gateway project as requested early on by S bar do the suggestions truly result in a safer more compatible project.

And would any proposed development be supported by the appellant? Even the initial appellate after the process we went through with them. At the Planning Commission hearing in December, it's a well-designed building as a plus for this strategic location and for our community. A better project for the neighborhood. The TDM measures, staff has already mentioned those. I'm gonna skip over them.

The important part though is that these TDM measures they're not typical for projects with such a low traffic impact. They're usually for bigger developments but at the supervisor's suggestion to incorporate these we believe it is a sensible approach and any potential tenant reviewed as a tenant benefit so again as an applicant we've been accommodating to issues that have been raised all through the process And it ties in directly with our regional traffic solutions. So thank you for the recommendation.

On the second piece, transportation spoke a little bit about reaching out to Caltrans. They said no on the off ramp and going looking at safety safe maneuvers and thankfully transportation is here for specific questions but we did work in 2017 about six months on the design and ingress and egress with Caltrans County Fire Transportation And we went through this. Caltrans required only one ingress egress as north as far as we could and also site distance analysis We made that encroachment submittal. We got a response back at the end of 2017, there were no major issues raised and they just wanted full landscape irrigation plans in standard details and the project's condition for Caltrans encroachment permit prior to zoning clearance.

Here's evidence of that record and staff got this along the way. And we also did a site distance analysis both for the northbound off ramp, we exceed the site distance requirement And for southbound looking up Patterson the project as well exceeds this was in the Planning Commission Hearing report and a little bit buried so we decided to bring it forward and you can see The distance you can see we're fortunate at the top of new freeways. You can see this driveway from quite a ways So

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:40:12 · ≈ 11:40 AM

your time your times up? I'm sorry Thank you. You'll have time and rebuttal if you want to pick this back understood. Okay, thank you. So now we'll move on to public comment. How many requests to speak do we have?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:40:23 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board. We have four requests to speak on this item.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:40:26 · ≈ 11:40 AM

We'll have three minutes piece.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:40:28 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Chair Lavinino members of the board. We are going to begin with Robert Murr to be followed by Trudy Carey

CommentRobert MurinProposedself-stated2:40:46 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Yes, my name is Robert Murin. I live in the General Patterson area and the concern that I have and I don't know exactly where this fits in the plan but I have a diagram here it says up to 85% could exit this is from the site to access the U-turn lane now I'm not sure if that's officially approved U-turn Provision or something like that, but I just wanted to say that By driving south on Patterson and coming off of Calorie L Wanting to go to you know South to Santa Barbara. That'll be a challenging u-turn to say the least They're very contentious about getting into the southbound lanes And if this is an approved U-turn lane it shouldn't be Because it's I've never seen when I went down there somebody making a U-turn, but it's bad enough between the several lanes of Cal Real traffic and South Patterson people everybody vying to get into the two lanes.

And that is a big problem. I would consider a big enough problem that what I do is Go from where I live down to Turnpike and get on to, you know southbound for the freeway. Okay? That's all I have.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:42:06 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Thank you. So we did accept one more request to speak but after that our public comment slips are going to be closed at this point so go ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:42:15 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Our next speaker is Trudy Carey to be followed by Cecilia Brown

2:42 – 2:4811 turns

PresenterTrudy Careyowners of The Self Storage that adjoin and are across the street from the subjecProposedself-stated2:42:25 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Good morning. I'm Trudy Carey, I'm representing the owners of The Self Storage that adjoin and are across the street from the subject property. I am also an architect and have a pretty good knowledge of the subject site as I did look at it to develop it before this applicant bought it so I've drawn on it and kind of understand it. At your last hearing, traffic and safety were the primary concerns for the neighborhood. And I think we all don't want to be the ones that – I don't know if you've driven down Upper State Street where Chick-fil-A has now got people backed up the street or even outside your own building where the parking garage now had to lose a lane, lose on site parking and backs up.

On Anna Pamu, so we're trying to avoid that and I think we may have mixed Missed the bigger picture. I gave you a detailed letter too, but I'm not going to go over all those things The things that we need to mitigate the least amount of traffic is to make sure the building is designed for a single tenant office use and can't morph into something else and And I brought the same thing that you have, but if you look at page 4, the one I have open for you in the handout.

You'll see a person of about 5'6", I sketched in there onto the applicant's drawings. I just don't know because you're kind of late in the hearing process on this. If you understand the scale of this building, you need to picture it's the size of a gymnasium not the size of an office building. And the problem with that is, if approved with a building shell of this type.

Either this applicant or future applicants can use this building for other uses and they're going to be uses that are not described in the traffic study. So, for example with this high of a shell you could put a gymnasium in it. You wouldn't come into planning for a tenant improvement permit. You just roll your trapeze and your trampoline in. If you want to make an R and D building or any of those uses already shown there. You'll never trigger a permit because you'll just roll the things into the building. I think that's where the traffic can get screwed up, because right now according to the traffic study This is the biggest square footage for the least amount of parking and that's what's generating the traffic study. But when they define a single use tenant, it can't even afford to have two separate office tenants.

It's that close in the parking and the traffic? I wonder what's going to happen if it becomes like a phone bank tenant or cubicles or something other than what you might think of like an insurance company tenant. Because the new age, you have a laptop, you only need about this many square feet. They don't give people a whole desk anymore. So nationally that's all shrinking. And property is expensive, so more employees, more profits. So I think that's the real problem is the building size and if we could reduce that or have it designed for what it's intended, that would be better. This building will also take a complete second floor in a mezzanine if somebody wants to do that.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:45:40 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Can you

PresenterTrudy Careyowners of The Self Storage that adjoin and are across the street from the subjecProposedself-stated2:45:41 · ≈ 11:45 AM

wrap up

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:45:41 · ≈ 11:45 AM

quick?

PresenterTrudy Careyowners of The Self Storage that adjoin and are across the street from the subjecProposedself-stated2:45:42 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Thank you. We need to have the use of the building better defined by the traffic study. How many people will be in this building? And I have to ask you, from a business side it doesn't make any sense. Why would a developer invest extra construction dollars to build a two story shell, no post, no load bearing walls at a two-story height?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:46:04 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Mr. Chair, I meant like real quick. It's over.

PresenterTrudy Careyowners of The Self Storage that adjoin and are across the street from the subjecProposedself-stated2:46:06 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Done. Okay, I'm done. I hope you deny the project and uphold the appeal. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:46:12 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Our next speaker is Cecilia Brown to be followed by Val Naronha.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:46:16 · ≈ 11:46 AM

You have a very short three-minute window, Miss... No! I usually

CommentCecilia BrownProposed2:46:20 · ≈ 11:46 AM

get ten minutes. Anyway, thank you. Cecilia Brown, I'm a neighbor. I'm also a planning commissioner but I'm not speaking in that capacity. You probably know the history of this site. Over the last 20 years, there have been four appeals on a project at this site in 1998 an appeal and 2002 appeal both based on traffic. The one in 2008 that my neighbors brought was about traffic and Intensity of use and the current one is about both as well. So traffic has permeated any project at this site for many years, and it is a concern because over the years as you Some of you may have driven the roadway but for those who have traffic has gotten like Being on a ride in Disneyland You just hope you get to the right turn lane so that you can make your turns So it is a problem and it will continue to be a problem But I think one of the bigger issues is A shell building where we don't understand about what is going to be in this building.

So it's about the intensity and the certainty of use, and I know that my good friends in both planning who are here and also in transportation have told me yes shell buildings are a problem so I'm not sure why we're permitting a shell building at this site because we need to have about certainty about what goes here because it will affect the traffic. I'm not about no project. I've never been about no project. I think the applicants have, in fact, designed a very handsome building. We got the height down to help reduce some conflicts with some of the viewshed standards in the community plan. But I think there are some ways to reduce the impacts and Ms. Carey gave you a list. One of them is to shrink the project, make it shorter, reduce the footprint.

You know, the burden that is going to be imposed by any project here is going to be imposed upon the public who use this roadway. And it's for those of us who drive it, it's substantial now and traffic will do nothing but increase over time so I just request that you look for a revised project to make it smaller to help reduce some of those impacts. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:48:28 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Our next speaker is Val Naronha to be followed by Cindy Pure

2:48 – 2:536 turns

CommentVal NeronaProposedself-stated2:48:38 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Good morning and thanks for the opportunity to speak here. My name is Val Nerona, resident in the neighborhood slightly north of Cairo Real. I've seen a few arguments on this matter over the past few weeks The issue that concerns me is the uncertainty. There is a tremendous lack of information on what is planned here and what this intersection is going to look like in 10 years and 20 years.

We've seen some data saying it's going to be an ADT of 80 vehicles, what do we compare that with? We're comparing it with shopping and other things. That's not what we are discussing, that's not in the realm of our discussion. What we need to be looking at is what is the AADT today from the existing land use as a storage site? What is that going to swell to if we have told it's gonna be 80 maybe?

What impact will that have? If we've had one collision over the past several years, how many more collisions are we going to tolerate here? What does this multiply to? I don't think we've seen proper guidance on this. And as a neighbor, I'm concerned about the lack of information. I'm concerned about the uncertainty of what the structure is going to house. In the future.

I've heard some anecdotal stuff about, um, I've never seen more than so many vehicles or I have seen so many cubes. I don't think anecdotal is the way to proceed on this. So let's have some information and pending such information please deny the project. Thank you. Uh, yes.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:50:39 · ≈ 11:50 AM

And our final speaker is Cindy Pure.

CommentCindy PureProposed2:50:49 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Good morning. I did submit a letter for the April 2nd hearing, and I basically rewrote that letter and resubmitted it. My main issue is the traffic and having an adequate traffic assessment of those turning movements based upon the spatial layout. That has not been addressed on this project Levels of service have been addressed, but that's not the concern that has been addressed by the neighbors in the area.

Also the findings that were made without that information I don't agree that you can be making those kinds of findings and that's in my letter So I would agree to deny the project until there's more information and more assessment of some of these impacts. That's all I have.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:51:53 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Thank you very much. All right, that takes us to the close of the public comment section and we are back to rebuttal so the appellant has five minutes if there is anything you'd like to add?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:52:06 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Board, I think a couple clarifications are in order. So I've tried to be as respectful of the applicant as I possibly could. I think I made comments last hearing that the aesthetics are quite nice. Mr. DiVicente has done a great job designing a building and is in keeping with the area. It's just too big. And I did that, I believe also at the Planning Commission hearing in December.

I went back and watched the tape, and as I looked at it my comments toward the end of the last meeting was I'd be happy to talk to staff and the applicant further. Mr. Sarmiento mentioned that he had met with me, and that is to date I have not received a request from the applicant to discuss uses for the project or the potential modifications that they've incorporated.

I did know one thing in the traffic distance study. Mr. DeVicente, I believe it said 150 foot visibility at a 25 mile an hour Speed yet posted is 45 miles an hour So don't know I want to go back and revisit that but that's one thing that would just caught my eye And the other issue on the 82 trips per day, I think Ms. Carey talked about the intensity on the actual use based on a single tenant. I'm just curious what the head count is that staff used to come up with that 82 unit count because the head count could be a lot higher as we've talked about.

Other than that those are my comments.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:53:33 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Okay very good thank you very much. The applicant now has five minutes for rebuttal

2:53 – 2:582 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:53:45 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Thank you Chair Lavagnino and fellow board members. I will back up, it is important to get clarity on these issues because it wasn't really talked about the site distance in the last presentation so I'll pick up here and back up a little. So this was submitted again this was a requirement of the Caltrans process when we submit our encroachment permit And there's two analyses they needed. They needed first northbound off-ramp and that is the design standard there is from that off ramp a 25 mile per hour design speed so the folks coming off the off ramp making the right hand turn, and that's where the calculation from Caltrans of 150 feet And where the project meets that and we exceed the site distance to 160 feet. The second portion is from folks coming northbound from Patterson, and there's actually visibility as measured all the way up just below the red line here 630 feet so when you are coming past the southbound on-ramp and you come up over it, you can see the site and its driveway, our proposed driveway from that point.

That's what the traffic study alluded to this is the Caltrans standard That we're all every applicant in proximity to the freeways have to abide by that is a stated 45 mile per hour Area, so just want to make that distinction of how the two different traffic components are looked at and Caltrans it requires us to measure that So 360 feet is the stopping distance. So again, these are the facts and analysis that was done here's a visual of it you can see farther up much further up so what we talked about I think there is laser here so The freeway right-of-way and the right hand turn lanes that will be abandoning both existing driveways. The new driveway is going even a little further north, again to maximize the site distance here.

And that's at approximate 160 feet from where our car making the right hand turn off the off ramp to where folks would be exiting our site. Specifically to the safety, one accident in 15 years per transportation. That is a large storage facility. A lot of cars come and go. It is a lower use on the ITE rates, we saw a number while we were there on site but I imagine on a Saturday afternoon at the end of the month when people are moving in and out of homes it's a busy place. We are not saying the project doesn't have traffic or the neighborhood doesn't have traffic or our project doesn' have traffic or the neighbor's property doesn't have traffic. There is traffic.

As evidenced by the public notices, you got the concerns from 224 residents. We're not discounting that question is, is this safe? And the facts show and the history shows one accident in 15 years by a poor choice of a driver is not a bad intersection. It's a congested one and there should be a big distinction Additionally the project does have a condition to work with transportation prior zoning traditional insights signage or whatever they think helps our future tenants to be safe to make to maneuver and what direction they should go.

So we looked at the actual driveways this is where our proposed driver will be Part of it, the mitigation will be to clean up all these hedges and to clean up the view. Probably some of this infrastructure would be pulled back too, all that in a Caltrans right-of-way and we can work through that through the encroachment process and that approximate 160 foot distance to improve that situation also for our neighbor too.

So all the evidence by the applicant, they have not given any evidence of this claim that what we're proposing is unsafe. If that was again indeed the case our neighbor would've had many more accidents and many of these trucks are large rental vehicles that people just aren't familiar with so now it's decision time after three and a half years. The project has been revised to address the issues by staff, SBAR, Caltrans, fire.

It's been revised to address issues raised by the initial applicant As appropriate conditions of approval to address the concerns of eventual tenancies and the TDM measures we've incorporated. It follows all county regulations presented in SBAR nine times, two sets of story polls, two planning commission hearings. It was a highly visible and transparent process.

And it results in a gateway property as we were directed with low intensity compared to other C2 uses. And there's no evidence of an unsafe condition. The appellant proposes additional conditions. These are outside of the normal process and in conflict with their own concerns about proposed TDM measure monitoring. This is a dangerous precedence to hold applicants to uncertain rules and regulations, and they have not provided evidence of the contrary to staff evaluation of CEQA issues. Deny the appeal. Grant de novo approval.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:58:52 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Thank you very much. Staff do you have any other comments that you'd like to make based on anything you heard?

2:59 – 3:0419 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:59:02 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Chairman, members of the board we don't have any additional comments at this time.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:59:05 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Okay very good I'll bring it to the board Supervisor Hart's in your district.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:59:08 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Yeah Mr. Smart do you have any traffic speed survey information in for that area specifically?

CommentItem D2Proposed · by introduction2:59:19 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hart I don't have that with me. I believe it was 48 85th percentile is 48 miles per hour and the average of 44 in that section but

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:59:33 · ≈ 11:59 AM

that's really good off the top of your head

CommentItem D2Proposed · by introduction2:59:35 · ≈ 11:59 AM

well I'm pretty close to it if I if I'm wrong I'm only up by one or two

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:59:39 · ≈ 11:59 AM

thank you I Don't have any other questions and if other board members have questions

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.912:59:44 · ≈ 11:59 AM

anybody else have questions are we ready supervisor Hartman I

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.762:59:48 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, I did have a question about the applicants, I think it was the second slide where it compared the different uses for the zoning with traffic estimates and I just had questions about how we know that given that the building is designed to be flexible and will change over time, uses potentially could change over time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:00:28 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Chair Levin, you know Board Member Hartman. She's pulling up the calculations. So what we did is take some of the things that were discussed and also other uses in the C2 retail commercial which the community plan rezoned this property for just to give you a comparison and contrast And these are based off ITE rates is where they come from so they take the project of the same size So a 7,000 square foot building and from that they have the ITE rate supply that calculates the peak Morning and evening trips and the daily trips in total for each of these uses. So this was provided as a Comparison to what we're proposing. So does that answer your question or do you have a more specific? I thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.763:01:22 · ≈ 12:01 PM

I mean, I just I'm wondering if a single tenant office how do we given again that the issue is uncertainty in the future for how this flexible large building will be used? How do we know we can rely on that number?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:01:39 · ≈ 12:01 PM

This is a standard of that they again from the IT records are standards so. But I think what's important is the context of this C2 as well as what is It's clear any traffic is has been a problem for this project. The question to the board is what is a reasonable traffic for this property and development? So I'm like that's the answer I can give you other types of office spaces have lower intensity some have more we trust the process. We've lived it for three and a half years. The process moving ahead and questions been answered before staff review every tenant Application relative to what was approved. That's what we all count on and lean on as applicants

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:02:33 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Mr.. Ghazani

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:02:33 · ≈ 12:02 PM

you're

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:02:34 · ≈ 12:02 PM

going to add something

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:02:35 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Vice chair in the absence of the chair Just when the applicant is done with this comment if the board is done with that comment I would recommend providing two minutes of rebuttal opportunity for the appellant also since we've allowed this additional opportunity,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:02:48 · ≈ 12:02 PM

okay? Thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.763:02:51 · ≈ 12:02 PM

I Think staff may have something to add to this I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed3:02:55 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Supervisors, just to elaborate slightly which is that the trip generation rates based on the IT Institute of Traffic Engineers I believe. Are based on square footage of the structure along with the proposed use So in this case office use and they have established rates based on the size of the building For that use and that's how they come up with the trip rates similarly our parking standards are Approached the same in the ordinance, which is in this for this type of Commercial use it would be one space for three every 300 square feet And so that's how our parking requirements are met is based on square footage. So you get a bigger building, you get more parking, you get more trips and the inverse is also true.

I did just want to point out that the project would be approved if approved for office use and if they wanted to come in for change to say it was mentioned a gymnasium or something that would be a change of use we would look at that and that would require subsequent review and approval.

3:04 – 3:0910 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:04:08 · ≈ 12:04 PM

OK.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:04:10 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Supervisor. OK. Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:04:20 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Yeah, this is a tough site and it has been appealed four times because it is a tough site and it's in a complicated place and the speeds are high or did Mr. Gazzani do you have something to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:04:31 · ≈ 12:04 PM

add? Chair while you were out I just recommended that since the applicant had another two minutes to comment that you provide a rebuttal opportunity for the appellant.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:04:39 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Okay. The appellate like 2 minutes. Like 30 seconds.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:04:44 · ≈ 12:04 PM

So again I want to circle back. Staff commented on the square footage per car, I believe. I'm curious if analysis has been done on per square foot per person to generate that 82 trip load count? Supervisor Hartman, to your point how do we know that's the case is because it's based on a certain number. Staff and what love to have them confirm my recollection from the prior hearing was that at the time of the building permit is pulled there is no analysis of headcount Even if it's a use as a single tenant comes in at 65 the equivalent of 65 people as it possibly could. Thank you Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:05:23 · ≈ 12:05 PM

very

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:05:24 · ≈ 12:05 PM

good, so You back back supervisor sorry I forgot about the rebuttal But this is a tough site, as I said. And there's a leap of faith here with this single-tenant design that doesn't have an actual tenant in mind. There's a lot of volume in this building that does present concern to the neighborhood about what that volume is gonna turn into and I think that is the variable in this design that doesn't fit our design review process well. Square footage generates parking demand, generates projected number Office employees and all of the traffic analysis is based on that volume or that that square footage can Number as opposed to volume. So I think we have a very large ball building with large heights as Miss Kerry Mentioned there's concern about you know mezzanine And yes, that does come back to planning and development for additional design review But it doesn't go through the entire public input process for that design review Is that right?

Is that is this just an administrative decision at that point Regarding the tenants in their construction

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed3:06:38 · ≈ 12:06 PM

Mr. Chair Supervisor Hart, it depends on the proposed change but as we discussed at the last hearing In a case of a mezzanine one that project was That issue came up with the Planning Commission appeal and the height of the plate height of the inside of the building was specifically lowered to eliminate that component of the project but if something like that were to Try to be reintroduced and that would go through. This is a development plan, so they'd be subject to an amendment to the development plan which is publicly noticed it would go through a public process of review and approval through that process. So it wouldn't just be staff level administrative.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:07:18 · ≈ 12:07 PM

Okay, thank you for that clarification. I just think ultimately this does come down to traffic. As Mr. Smart mentioned, the speeds involved here are very high. They're 45 miles an hour. Folks are coming off the freeway off-ramp and they're going right at that speed. They're coming off freeways on speeds if there is a green light at the freeway off ramp, they don't have to slow down essentially. They can make that free ride at very high speeds.

The distance, while it is farther away from that intersection than the existing driveway, is still very tight. So I'm concerned about the traffic safety situation. I think this inherently requires less to be safe. The improvements that the county's making in that intersection, adding lanes points to a future that just is more densely trafficked. Higher speeds, more complex maneuvers of people.

I don't think that's the right direction that the neighborhood wants to see this development take. That kind of intensity really puts bicycles and pedestrians in unsafe conditions because of the volumes and speeds. I think we have to be very careful with this design and I think this project understands that intuitively. The folks involved have worked really hard to get to that place, but I don't personally think that it's there yet. I appreciate the additional TDM measures. That does help.

You're trying to get there, but I just think there's too much building here with too much potential variation in tenant use that can add Maneuvers coming out of this very tight driveway at high speeds that makes this unsafe and not a plus for the neighborhood And I think we just need to be more careful and really Asked the applicant to go back and address those issues and redesign this project and uphold the appeal

3:09 – 3:155 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:09:13 · ≈ 12:09 PM

No other lights Supervisor Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:09:19 · ≈ 12:09 PM

Well, this one's been a real quandary for me because from policy perspective it's really easy to convince me not to want more commercial square footage in Goleta. I mean, Goleta needs more commercial square footage like a hole in the head but you wonder why then did this not be addressed when this designation was changed in the general plan? And maybe the reason is people didn't want housing. And so from a policy perspective, this doesn't give me a whole lot of room to maneuver because I feel like if you're going to say no to a project, you should be able to articulate what should be there.

And I put it out to the appellant and anybody else who would ask that to If in the long term you want to control traffic counts in Goleta or Santa Barbara, really the key is a housing designation or a project that maximizes square footage for housing. Or something else that's a realistic path for a property owner. To me if we don't provide a clear direction of what it is acceptable then we are unduly interfering with property rights. And not to mention, I just feel like if we don't articulate what should go there then we're just being unfair.

So that puts me in a real quandary because again my bar for saying no to commercial square footage in Goleta is real low. But I didn't detect really any support for another viable project and most of the viable projects would either be higher traffic use or would be residential, which has about the same peak hour commute trips as this does larger average daily numbers but about the same peak hour But is more certain, right? You can't really change the housing project once it's built into something else very easily.

So it's put me in a real quandary because I don't feel like we quite have the evidence on the traffic safety thing. I definitely from an intuitive perspective think the whole area is not safe but Evidence means we have to be able to show how much of that is due to this project and not due to the conditions that are already there. Of course, you know the good part about it is it highlights an intersection that we should be paying attention to and hopefully that has good results in the long run for the neighborhood.

Wherever we go today, I think that the neighborhood has won 90% of the fight over 20 years. Because the projects that have been rejected by our processes in the past were all much higher traffic volume projects and we're essentially fighting over the last 10% now.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:12:54 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.763:12:56 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair, this is a bit of a quandary and I think we keep asking bring me a stone and bring another stone but I have a difficult time with the size of the building and uncertainty of future uses And what that means, I have a difficulty making the findings for 211 that the site is adequate in terms of location physical characteristics shape and size to accommodate the density and intensity of the development proposed. 213 that the streets and highways will be adequate and properly designed to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated by the proposed use. And most importantly, 215, the proposed project will not be detrimental to the comfort convenience general welfare health and safety of the neighborhood and will not be incompatible with the surrounding area.

So I can't make those findings so I feel I'm in line with Supervisor Hart.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:13:59 · ≈ 12:13 PM

Well, yeah this is a tough one because both sides have made compelling arguments. I guess for me it comes down to there was years of community input in the Goleta Community Plan and is it consistent with the Goleta Community Plan? It is. It's consistent with our zoning. If not this what right? Four projects has things been appealed four different times I don't really know what else you could get in there. And outside of us buying the property from the gentleman, I think we've put ourselves, we're in a pretty tough spot.

I think this is as good as we're going to get. I think sending the applicant back again. We're getting to the point where, you know, I understand why you would want to do that but you get to the point where I'm not really sure we could come up with anything and the neighbors would be happy. I also have to say on a neighbor's point, I totally agree that there are so many intersections that I feel when I'm in the middle of this intersection or this part of town in Santa Maria, you feel like how is this done?

But then when you go to Caltrans or at Public Works, they say well it doesn't meet a standard. The perception is one thing and the standard is another. I feel the same way sometimes with speed limits. You're like there's no way that this speed limit should be on this certain street but it doesn't meet a certain standard so we're left with something that feels like it shouldn't be there.

Having said all of that for me it's a real Supervisor Hart.

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:16 – 3:2126 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:16:06 · ≈ 12:16 PM

I'll make a motion to uphold the appeal and deny the project for the reasons Supervisor Hartman made, mentioned that we can't make the findings for 2.13 and 2.15. Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:16:17 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Mr. Gazzani? Chair and Supervisors, I think that staff came in today prepared to support an approval of the project denial of the appeal and recommend just hearing from planning staff how long they might need to prepare denial findings.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:16:33 · ≈ 12:16 PM

So What you're saying is you don't want a motion at this point for that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:16:40 · ≈ 12:16 PM

I think you could hear from planning and they can give you a date as to when it could come back. If denial was the action, I think they would need some time to prepare the denial package, bring that back at a future meeting.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:16:51 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Mr. Wilson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:16:52 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, we would ask if that is the direction of the board today that it be continued to July 16th hearing in Santa Barbara for staff to return with findings for denial.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:17:04 · ≈ 12:17 PM

Okay, so I'd amend my motion to make the motion to uphold the appeal and to schedule a future hearing for consideration of the findings.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:17:19 · ≈ 12:17 PM

Chair and Supervisor, I think it would be very clear if the motion was to continue the matter to the date certain of July 16th and direct staff to come back with findings for consideration towards denial of the project in upholding the appeal?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:17:35 · ≈ 12:17 PM

Okay, the motion then if that's okay would be to continue. What Mike said. July 16th what county council said and then just one point that I would like to make is you know in speaking to the concerns other board members have about you know The incompatibility of design To our common understanding of what oughta what ought to be achieved in neighborhoods and how these things should work Interestingly enough the last item on our agenda today is a local road safety program And I think that is a great place from policy perspective for us to look into this. That we're building things that are accommodating higher speeds and are accommodating traffic circulation at the expense of bicycle and pedestrian safety, and that is the place where we need to wrestle with this issue.

And Patterson is an intersection that is A great example of that conflict. Okay, good

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:18:27 · ≈ 12:18 PM

point. Okay so there's a motion I

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.763:18:29 · ≈ 12:18 PM

would second

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:18:29 · ≈ 12:18 PM

and a second let's get a roll call on this is to move to July 16th.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:18:36 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Mr. Hart? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:18:40 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:18:43 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Mr Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:18:49 · ≈ 12:18 PM

I'll say no.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:18:52 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Chair Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:18:53 · ≈ 12:18 PM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:18:54 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Motion passes 3-2

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:18:56 · ≈ 12:18 PM

Okay, so the direction for staff is to return. July 16th and what was the rest of the motion Mr. Gazzone so that we're...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:19:12 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Chair and Supervisors, I'll summarize continuing the matter to July 16th with direction to staff with return for findings that would support denial of the project approval of the appeal and then final action will be on the 16th.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:19:27 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:19:28 · ≈ 12:19 PM

thank you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:19:28 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:19:28 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Adam Yeah, I'm having a really hard time here too. Cause you know we have, you know, we've talked about our bifurcated County and we have our way of doing things up there and we would like to have some more deference in our area. And you know, I am always in favor of anytime somebody wants to put a nail between two boards. Um, But I don't want to inflict that on you.

So if you and your constituents decide that's not what you want to see, okay fine. That project would be very welcome up in Orchid. Especially that staff found that it was consistent with the community plan and consistent with common sense or general standards. I know that's not usually part of the deal, is it? So I would love to support it, but I kind of don't want to Do what? I get done to me all the time and I'm Trying to be deferential so you know maybe we could come back on The 16th and talk about it again. And maybe something will change in the meantime And and we'll be prepared for both ways

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:21:01 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Okay Would we be prepared for both ways at that point? Are we going to do a whole nother hearing again?

3:21 – 3:224 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:21:12 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Chair and Supervisors, so the direction would be to come back for findings for denial you already have of the project. You already have findings for approval of the project. So those would not go into the shredder. They would be available for the discussion on the 16th.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:21:28 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Which always just that system just irks me that we actually have findings for approval and findings for denial. So it's like, which one you want to pick from? So what you're saying is we can't deny the project today. We could have only accepted it but because we are looking towards leaning denying it, you're going to come back July 16th with findings for denial. Yes okay.

All right, well that was the motion it was voted on. You have direction staff? I guess we will all meet again in the middle of July and we will move to closed session. So Mr. Gazzone can I get a report on closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:22:11 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board is agendized for five separate matters. I estimate taking a total of between 90 minutes and two hours so some place around 2 o'clock. The first item of existing litigation Schaefer versus County of Santa Barbara. The next item of existing litigation Shepard versus County of Santa Barbara. You have one meeting with county council to decide whether to initiate civil litigation.

You have conference with labor negotiators for two groups, Civil Attorneys Association and Deputy District Attorney's Association. And you have one public employee performance evaluation for county council. Again my estimate is longer than 90 minutes but less than two hours.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.913:22:51 · ≈ 12:22 PM

We'll be back no earlier than 2.15 but probably more like 2.30.

3:26 – 3:411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:26:58 · ≈ 12:26 PM

you You. Hi, everyone. Yeah. You. Hi. Hello everyone. Hello everyone.

3:42 – 4:202 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:42:25 · ≈ 12:42 PM

♪ The Hello. Hi, I'm Barbara. the new

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:45:17 · ≈ 12:45 PM

Hello, everyone. Hello everyone. Music Hi, everyone. you you Hi. Yeah. Hi, everyone. Yeah. You. you Hello. Hello everyone.

4:21 – 5:002 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed4:21:51 · ≈ 1:21 PM

♪ The

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:22:52 · ≈ 1:22 PM

Hello. Hello, everyone. . . You. Hello. You. Hi. Yeah. You. Good morning. Yeah. Music You. you Hello. Hello everyone.

5:01 – 5:252 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:01:17 · ≈ 2:01 PM

♪

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:01:47 · ≈ 2:01 PM

The Hello. Hello. Oh, Welcome to the board meeting. Music You. Hi. Yeah. you

5:28 – 5:3213 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:28:45 · ≈ 2:28 PM

Zoni, can we get a report from closed session please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:28:49 · ≈ 2:28 PM

Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered five separate matters. Existing litigation two cases, Schaefer versus County of Santa Barbara and Shepard versus County of Santa Barbara. You had conference with legal counsel concerning one matter of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. Conference with labor negotiators for two separate labor groups, Civil Attorneys Association and Deputy District Attorney's Association. And public employee performance evaluation for county council there are no reportable actions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:29:18 · ≈ 2:29 PM

How are there no reportable actions we did all that work. All right. We will go to item number four. Yeah this is the public works Afternoon man. Yeah, Scott. Mr. McGaulpin. Oh wait we got to read item number four in I'm sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:29:38 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board departmental item number four is from Public Works Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the flood benefit assessment program for fiscal year 2019 through 2020

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed5:29:54 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair, Board Members and Madam Clerk and as Madam Clerk mentioned we're going to focus on the flood control benefit assessments first this is the first of five different items this afternoon to adjust our various fees and rates for fiscal year 19-20 prior to your board's consideration of the annual budget next year so up first Flood Control and Tom Farrum is going to present

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:30:17 · ≈ 2:30 PM

Thank you Scott, Mr. Chair, members of the board. Pleased to be in front of you today as we are about this time each year to update the Flood Control District's Benefit Assessment Program Been through this, but I remind your board the flood control benefit assessments are all voter approved assessments. The voters approve these assessments to augment the funding of the district to provide the critical services that the district provides and whether it's levee patrol on the Santa Maria River or cleaning out debris basins in Montecito This funding is actually absolutely critical to do the work that we do both on the maintenance side and also To do the capital projects that we plan each year The assessment that was approved by the voters includes an annual CPI adjustment to preserve that funding level so we can continue to deliver these services as time goes on.

And I would just note that other flood control districts in the state do not have this benefit, so we're very fortunate to have that. This year per the CPI our proposed increase is 2.71% for fiscal year 2019 and 2020. I show this slide, the highlighted area shows what the annual assessment is for each of the flood zones in the county. Note that at the south coast that annual assessment for an average home is about $25.53 and then the other zones are to a lesser extent.

So your recommendations today, Mr. Chair is to approve actions A B C and D This is the first reading of the ordinance to amend the district's assessments And then we would return to your board on June 18th For a second reading and final adoption and that will be on the admin agenda and staffs available for any questions

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:32:04 · ≈ 2:32 PM

All right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:32:04 · ≈ 2:32 PM

there any questions of staff?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:32:07 · ≈ 2:32 PM

There any public comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:32:09 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Chair let me know members of the board. We have no request to speak

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:32:12 · ≈ 2:32 PM

okay I Can I get a motion to move staff recommendation on item 4?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.765:32:18 · ≈ 2:32 PM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:32:20 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Go to Item 5, can you please read that one out?

5:32 – 5:393 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:32:30 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, departmental item number five is from Public Works. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding solid waste tipping fees, collection rates, and parcel fees for fiscal year 2019 through 2020.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed5:32:44 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair and board members and this is our item for our solid waste tipping fees around the county. One item I meant to mention is this is where we make the change in our tip rate for the Tahigas Resource Center so Ms. Wells will do our presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:33:02 · ≈ 2:33 PM

So good afternoon Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. As Scott mentioned these are a series of different types of rates that we're proposing for solid waste management for fiscal year 19-20. There's three basic categories of rates. The first is what we are proposing to charge as tipping fees at the county solid waste management facilities. The second are parcel fees charged to residents in the new Cuyama Valley. The third are the collection rates that the franchised haulers or service providers are authorized to charge their residential and commercial customers.

And lastly, our solid waste program fees are a subset of those franchised hauler collection rates and we're proposing to make an adjustment to those as well. So the first category of the rates are the tipping fees charged at county solid waste facilities. As Scott mentioned, the most significant increase is for the franchise trash and recyclables which will be increasing from 102 to 150 per ton.

As a reminder, again this increase is tied to the financing for the resource center. This increase has been pre-approved by your board and all the other participating jurisdictions when each of the agreements were previously approved. We are anticipating a much more typical increase in the future. So this is more of a one step up to get us starting on the debt service, but in future years we're anticipating a much more typical 3.5% increase.

We also are suggesting other modifications to less used tipping fees for self haul trash, mattresses, tires. Those types of commodities and those adjustments are mainly by CPI. So just for folks in the audience who are not familiar with the Resource Center so they have an understanding of why their rates are going up, very briefly it is composed of a material recovery facility. They'll be able to process materials that are currently in the trash can. As well as in the blue bin to recover recyclables for sale. In addition, it includes an anaerobic digester which will compost organics both from the trash can as well as those collected or separated from our customer base and we'll be capturing the biogas and converting that to energy.

Probably most importantly, the facility will enable the region and all of the jurisdictional users to be in compliance with state solid waste regulations moving into the future. In addition to the gas generated from the anaerobic digester we're going to use landfill gas and solar panels so that the whole facility will be largely energy self-sufficient. So our second category of rates relate to parcel fees to run, operate. We have two very small scale transfer stations in the New Kuyama Valley both in New Kuyama and Ventucopa. Again this is a very remote area of the county. Currently it's a fee of $77 per year to operate these transfer stations and we're currently recommending no change in that fee.

In our third category of rates relate to our franchise service providers, which is waste management in the North County and Marburg Industries on the South Coast. These are for residential and commercial customers that are charged for solid waste collection services. So a typical rate that each of us receive is made up of three components. The first is the cost to collect the material from each of the customers.

This collection portion of the rate is subject to a CPI adjustment per their contract, which was 2.5% this year. The second component are tipping fees that are charged by facilities. That's for trash, recyclables and organics. We're looking at again as mentioned earlier, a 47% increase on the South Coast for both trash and recyclables. In North County the cost for trash is holding steady but the cost for recyclables is going up 33%.

And lastly, the county charges a program fee. So this is a percentage that's assessed on all the residential and commercial bills. What this program fee pays for largely is operation of our hazardous waste collection center and collection events. It also covers our code enforcement, backyard composting education, a lot of the community programs related to solid waste management. So because the rates are going up The cost for our programs aren't necessarily increasing at that same rate, so we were able to reduce the percent that we assess on these rates.

It has been 12% and we're reducing that down to 11%, and we can still meet the costs of our programs. So to get a sense of what do these factors mean to a customer, residentially on the South Coast we're looking at between 11 and 18% increase which is higher than usual. About $5.80 of that per month is related to the resource center and the remaining 94 cents is related to those other factors that I mentioned.

In North County, they're looking at closer to a 4% to 6% increase and this is largely the increase on the cost to process recyclables. On the commercial side of the business, there's a lot more variation because it really depends upon the type and frequency of their service. So that percent increase on the South Coast is going to go up between 13% and 20%, and then in North County it's about 1%.

So to wrap up our presentation today, we are requesting that you approve the recommendations to adopt the resolution for the county facility fees. The resolution for the parcel fees for the Kiyama Valley as well as the fee schedules for the franchise collection services and solid waste program fee. And that is the end of our presentation if you have any questions.

5:40 – 5:4312 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:40:01 · ≈ 2:40 PM

I just have a question about the Cuyama Valley parcel fees. Why no fee increase? Aren't costs going up there as well?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:40:10 · ≈ 2:40 PM

So Supervisor Hart, costs are going up not significantly. We actually don't charge for the disposal of waste that we collect in that area at the Tahecus Landfill so it's just the collection portion of the rate and Marburg is the service provider. That services roll off box is there. They do increase the collection portion of their rate by CPI which will be two and a half percent.

With regard to Prop 218 in that area, my understanding is we wouldn't have to seek approval before setting a new rate. But we would be vulnerable to protests to the proposed increase.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:40:53 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Okay but the Marburg fee is being increased by the 2% cost of what they charge additionally to the customers there. They're paying for

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:41:03 · ≈ 2:41 PM

that? Supervisor Hart, that is correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:41:06 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Okay thank you. Supervisor Williams So one of the things that we have discussed over and over I want you to articulate Whether my understanding is correct. Is is that the the While we can attribute much of the rate increase in the south coast to the Resource Center if we had not built the Resource Center there would have had to be similar rate increases To prepare for a faster closure of the landfill. Can you articulate is that my understanding? Is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:41:47 · ≈ 2:41 PM

So Supervisor Williams through Chair Lavagnino There's actually a couple of contributing factors that are going on there. There are currently, on the books, state requirements to recover organics from being landfilled. The state is currently determining they're going through a rule making process to figure out what exactly those fines are gonna be. So communities are going to be incurring higher costs in the future to manage this material. We're a little bit ahead of the game, so we're gonna be in a position to not incur any fines when that goes into effect because we will have the infrastructure Really why we started this whole process is that we wanted to double the life of our existing landfill. And that's because it's very, very difficult to site a new landfill and frankly the board at that time was not interested in moving into another canyon in our area.

Let's try and maximize the utility of what asset we currently have. And so yes, we're able to extend that life at a much cheaper cost in the long term.

CommentSteve DeckerProposedself-stated5:43:02 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:43:04 · ≈ 2:43 PM

I think this board has the same feeling, actually. I don't think we're looking for a new landfill. All right so that's done with questions is there any public comment on this issue?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:43:14 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Chair Lavagnino members of the board we have no request to speak on this item.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:43:16 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Okay can I get a motion to move item number five?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.765:43:22 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:43:24 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Motion has been moved and seconded for A through D. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Mr. McGaulpin, number six.

5:43 – 5:486 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:43:36 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number six is from Public Works Board of Directors in the Laguna County Sanitation District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Laguna County Sanitation District ordinance relative to service charges connection charges and trunk sewer fees and resolution relative to collection of service charges on the tax roll this is in the third fourth and fifth district

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed5:43:59 · ≈ 2:43 PM

thank you Thank You Mr. chair and board members again our next three items will be presented by our utilities manager Marty Wilder

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction5:44:09 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Hello members of the board of directors. Today is the day to consider the annual action to adjust and set rates for Laguna County Sanitation District The district is a dependent district. The board governs, created in 1958, provides wastewater services to Orcutt and the unincorporated Santa Maria area as regulated by various permits, does our best to conserve and protect resources.

The annual rate fee ordinance was noticed according to Proposition 218. Mailer to the residents was mailed out. In addition we posted it in the newspapers as required at the hearing times and we held an open house on May 11th attended by six people And we have a small number of written protests. I can do it now, but if I can confirm with the clerk of the board, the number is eight protests were submitted?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:44:57 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Yes, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, the clerk of the board received eight protests in total.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:45:02 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Thank you. Out of how many customers?

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction5:45:05 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Out of less than 11,000 customers. Okay, thank you. Sewer charge rates Pay for the annual operation, maintenance and replacement in reserves to run the district. It's collected on tax roll. We're a sewer only provider so we assess the sewer charges on the tax roll for convenience. The CPI used is the annual average of the 2018 and that was 3.8% this year. So based on the CPI, we're proposing a rate increase of 3.80%.

There were a series of larger increases historically to help get us set in position for debt financing for the plant upgrade that we're proposing to initiate later this year. That was presented to the board in October 2011 At that time, we presented a master plan that assessed the condition of the plant looked at our future needs reviewed regulatory criteria and compared treatment discharge alternatives it broke the Plan improvements into two phases.

Phase one is to replace the existing facilities which are approximately 60 years old, normal useful life tends to be up to 40 or so. So we're at that point in time where it's time for a replacement. Phase two is a capacity increase that's planned to address future development that's outlined in the Orchid community plan and it also evaluated our cost and revenue needs.

Bottom line, the proposed sewer charge is proposed to go from an annual number for To $1,047 from a thousand nine dollars and rate increase annually of $38.36 or equivalent by month at three dollars and 20 cents therefore the monthly rate would be 8732 multiple family is approximately 81% of a residential family schools are set per capita per year and commercial is based on the flow and load based on the type of commercial facility restaurant business etc How we compare countywide, just to give some feel for it.

The tertiary treatment facilities are shown on the top with the average monthly rates and based on what we learned proposed rate increase for the year. The remainder of the agencies are treating at secondary levels and in total the average is 6913 per month again we're at 8732. Note that some agencies in the secondary treatment area, namely Santa Barbara and Goleta. It's the water fund that pays for the tertiary treatment there. Therefore we like to also show a comparison of a total water cost.

Here you can see based on a normal monthly water bill and a normal sewer monthly bill, you'd see that Laguna Sanitation coupled with Golden State Water Company is actually less than average at $142 per month. The average being 161. Developer impact fees we do have some of those they're paid for developments further equity buy-in to the facilities We have two trunk lines and we have a connection fee or capacity charge to pay for the treatment plant buy-in.

The connection fee is proposed to increase by 0.6% this year based on the construction cost index, would go to 7,502 per single family home. The two trunk line fees are due to our trunk line that the district built in 2002. Again also the construction cost index as at 0. 6% would go to 1,064 per home. And the Bradley trunk line fee which is based on the prime lending rate is a reimbursement to a developer is set to go to 2006 86 per single family residential unit. Therefore, recommends that the Board of Directors by the district is to adopt the ordinances to set the rates and fees for next fiscal year.

5:49 – 5:5320 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:49:03 · ≈ 2:49 PM

I have a question about any time if we have constituents that are, uh, that would like to come out and take a look at the facility. We can contact you and you'd be happy to take them on a tour and show them the upgrades, correct?

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction5:49:16 · ≈ 2:49 PM

Yes, we would. We take requests all the time from the public individual or plan tours. Yes.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:49:23 · ≈ 2:49 PM

All right. So if you want to go tour a sewer facility Which I've had people call me and ask for. Yes, you gotta see how it all works. Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed5:49:34 · ≈ 2:49 PM

Yeah, I had a tour few years ago. It was a great time and it really was. You wouldn't think going to a sewer plant would be a great time but it was and there were a few people that were opposed that we used to hear from frequently and when they went out there and actually took

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:49:53 · ≈ 2:49 PM

a look at the cracks in the tanks and stuff like that they stopped complaining pretty much huh? So that was time well spent thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:50:03 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Yeah, I think that would help. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:50:07 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Yeah, I think touring sewer sanitation facilities is pretty cool.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:50:12 · ≈ 2:50 PM

I've done four though

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:50:13 · ≈ 2:50 PM

I haven't done Laguna so

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:50:15 · ≈ 2:50 PM

but... Well you know what they say if you haven't ever been to Laguna that's the place to be.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:50:21 · ≈ 2:50 PM

You really

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:50:21 · ≈ 2:50 PM

haven't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:50:21 · ≈ 2:50 PM

seen one. In my opinion it's actually mothballed ones that are the most interesting because they're really creepy but So what are we doing with the gas? Do we have an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell, what do we do with the gas? We're good. Chair

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction5:50:41 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Lavagnino, Director Williams. Until recently, we did have microturbines to consume the natural gas generated by the digester. The grant opportunity we had maximized using natural gas as well through PG&E. Those facilities recently met their useful life and we decommissioned them in 2017, they got to be very expensive to operate from a replacement standpoint. The Laguna Treatment Plant doesn't generate all that much natural gas to make it cost effective but to help alleviate some of the operating costs for electricity, we have installed a one megawatt solar facility as well.

So that apparently at this time offsets about, if I recall correctly 85% of our PG loads and about 60 some odd percent of our cost.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:51:30 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Well the experience, I think Mr Hart and myself at the city has been replacing equipment with internal combustion engines, these great German models that just don't break down especially with our weird mix of gas so Hope you guys look at it, would love to know what the scale of gas uses is because it's an awful waste of fuel to just vent that stuff.

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction5:52:04 · ≈ 2:52 PM

Chair Lavagnino and Director Williams should point out, we still do use to the extent possible the natural gas created on site to actually run our boiler to heat the digester. So to the extent possible we do. We have reviewed internal combustion engines and at some point in time perhaps after our next plant upgrade that was going to be reviewed at that time because we don't know how much gas we will produce After we do the plant upgrade because we're going to can be converting The use of the digester to air dried sludge and driving beds, so we won't be producing that much gas But at that time it'll be re-evaluated

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:52:40 · ≈ 2:52 PM

All right, is there any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:52:43 · ≈ 2:52 PM

Chair Lavagnino members of the board. We have no requests to speak on this item all

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:52:47 · ≈ 2:52 PM

right Can I get a motion to move item six still moved? Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We

move to item number seven, again Public Works. Can you read this one in Madam Clerk?

5:53 – 5:555 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:53:06 · ≈ 2:53 PM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number seven is from Public Works. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding County Service Area 12 Mission Canyon Sewer District ordinance relative to sewer connection charges, sewer service charges and resolution relative to collection of said charges on the tax roll. And this is in the first district.

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction5:53:27 · ≈ 2:53 PM

Again, good afternoon Board of Supervisors. This is the annual action to consider setting rates and fees for the Mission Canyon Sewer District also known as County Service Area 12 for next fiscal year services provided. The southern area in the mission are on sewer based on a 1983 Regional Water Quality Control Board prohibition on failing septic systems. There currently are 857.1 residential unit equivalents connected to the sewer system, that's because there is some commercial uses in the Botanic Garden.

Wastewater then is collected and further transmitted to the city of Santa Barbara pursuant to a joint powers agreement for further treatment and discharge. Sewer service rates are billed also on the tax roll. And they are proposed to increase from $306 to $312.10 this next fiscal year. For your information, the City of Santa Barbara further bills the city sewer services along with the city water bill. Most of the residents in Mission Canyon are on city water as well. The reserve balance is set at approximately $1.44 million.

Routinely, our goal has been about one and a half million. We've done some repairs which is why there's a slight increase proposed this year to catch us back up to the reserve balance goal. Therefore, this year we recommend the board set the rate and adopt the ordinance for next fiscal year based on our findings to plan ahead for the proposed repair and maintenance costs we are going to plan for next year.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:55:03 · ≈ 2:55 PM

All right, any comments? Supervisor Williams. So moved. Do we have any public comment on item 7?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:55:09 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, we have no request to speak.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:55:12 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Okay, do we have a motion? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Item number seven. You guys are batting 1,000 here. We've got to throw a curveball at you. Item 8 is going to be a tough one. Alright, item 8 can we read that in?

5:55 – 6:0011 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:55:32 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Departmental item number 8 is from Public Works. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding establishing benefit assessments for county service areas 3 and 31 in the Santa Barbara North County Lighting District for fiscal year 2019 through 2020 and this is in the second third and fourth district.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:55:51 · ≈ 2:55 PM

All right second third and fourth district you guys are ready to unload? Supervisor Adam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed5:55:57 · ≈ 2:55 PM

I'm going to have to abstain on this one because it's really too much for us.

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction5:56:02 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Just kidding. Board, this is the annual action to consider setting benefit assessments for street lighting for the agencies indicated. The Goleta Valley was created in 1963, County Service Area 3 that is. It provides street lighting for the unincorporated Goleta and unincorporated Santa Barbara areas. It also provides for open space and park maintenance improvements and also median and tree trimming maintenance improvements.

The funding sources are based on benefit assessments and property tax revenues. Benefit assessments are the sole source in this case for street lighting operations, while property tax revenue pays for maintenance activities associated with street lights, the vegetation pruning, median and open space maintenance, and other park-related facilities that are in CSA 3.

The proposed benefit assessment is Unchanged at a $24 per single family residential unit base and the fund balances as an acceptable level. Isla Vista is the area that's encompassed by County Service Area 31, also created in 1963 provides for street lighting as well as other streetscape and maintenance improvements. In this case, all the revenues that come from benefit assessment pays for street lighting. However in addition some of the property tax revenue goes to pay for street lighting.

Recently we completed a CDBG grant funded improvements. Some of the improvements were also funded by UCSB and we are at this time looking at some other improvements in cooperation with the Isla Vista Community Services District. Here the proposed benefit assessment is proposed to remain unchanged at $12.93 per year for a single-family residential unit and the fund balance is also acceptable.

The North County Lighting District was created in 1994 through the consolidation of five different boundary territories in our county, those being Orkut, Los Alamos, Cazamilia and unincorporated Lompoc and Santa Maria areas and it only funds street lighting. The boundary in the Santa Maria territory does have an available benefit assessment of 1473. However, we have adequate property tax revenues to pay for the streetlight operation and therefore again this year proposing to not establish the benefit assessment that is to let it remain at zero and also the fund balance is acceptable at this time. And with that we propose that the board adopt the resolutions and ordinances to set the rates for next year.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:58:43 · ≈ 2:58 PM

All right. Any questions of staff? Is there any public speakers on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:58:49 · ≈ 2:58 PM

Chair Lavanino and members of the board, we have no request to speak.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.915:58:52 · ≈ 2:58 PM

Okay. We have lights lit up all over the place. This is really close

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:58:55 · ≈ 2:58 PM

to people's heart. Supervisor Hart. Are any of the lights in the Edison territory in CSA 3 or 31 LED lights?

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction5:59:05 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Chair Lavagnino, Supervisor Hart. The streetlights in CSA 31 are all LED with a couple that were missed recently. Respective to County Service Area 3, Public Works briefly signed an agreement with Edison to initiate an LED conversion process. Coincidentally that was already completed in the North County area with PG&E they were just two different timetables.

It's my understanding that the Edison is in the process of designing and rolling out personnel and resources to accomplish those next calendar year.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:59:46 · ≈ 2:59 PM

All within the calendar year, next year? That's my understanding. Okay, great. Then will county staff work with them on potential need for shielding and other things there have been some of those lights are brighter than the past and there are potentially neighborhood impacts. Is that something that I would direct constituents to the county staff or to Edison.

CommentChi RealProposed · by introduction6:00:06 · ≈ 3:00 PM

Yes, Chair Lavagnino and Supervisor Hart. The traffic section staff in the transportation division basically receive calls and on a case-by-case basis consider attaching what they call eyelashes to each LED because it is a change from what a person will see directly below the Cobra head typically from a high pressure sodium vapor to an LED Supervisor Hartman.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:00 – 6:1612 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.766:00:47 · ≈ 3:00 PM

Thank you I just wanted to. Acknowledge our tour that we had in Isla Vista of the lights and thank you last week foot patrol CSD our office and public works and it was extremely well received in the community and I learned more about the physics of photons than I ever would have expected.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.916:01:10 · ≈ 3:01 PM

All right so we don't have any do we have any public comment on item 8

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:01:18 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Chair Levine you know members of the board we have no requests.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.916:01:19 · ≈ 3:01 PM

All right is there, can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.766:01:24 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.916:01:26 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Item eight's been moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Who says that we're so divided on all these votes look at this just one after the other. Opposed photons. Public works brings us all together. All right item number nine. That'd be real anti-science to be just opposed to photons. Item 9, Madam Clerk.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:01:52 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board, departmental item number nine is from Public Works. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County local road safety plan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:02:02 · ≈ 3:02 PM

Scott are you a photon denier?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed6:02:05 · ≈ 3:02 PM

We're going to we're bringing you the local road safety plan- today's the first time- this county's ever done a local road safety plan and we're just that. One of a handful of agencies around the country that have done a local road safety Through that work, we established relationships and the FHWA invited us to participate in a pilot program to develop a local road safety plan. It didn't cost us a dime and these plans can cost a few hundred thousand dollars depending on the size of the agency. You're going to hear about it today from transportation staff who've done a wonderful job. And they've actually been able to leverage this plan already and bring in over I think $600,000 in federal safety money. And it's a programmatic look at our system and looking at ways to address safety issues on the system.

So I won't steal any more thunder, and I'll turn it over to Gary Smart, our traffic engineer right now to kind of run us through the safety plan.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentItem D2Proposed · by introduction6:03:13 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Thank you Scott. Good afternoon Chairman, members of the board. Today we will present the county's past method used to reduce collisions on our roadways and our new method for the board's approval, and then discuss our efforts going forward to reduce collisions on a roadway. The mission statement for our transportation division is to provide a clear road smooth ride in a safe trip to the traveling public And then the four E's of roadway safety is education, engineering, enforcement and emergency response. Without these efforts working together we'll never make that the roads safe. Our partners are law enforcement, CHP, DMV, the courts, vehicle design and roadway design engineers Schools, safety advocates, lawmakers, hospitals, EMTs, car manufacturers and of course the drivers.

Once again without all these people working together we'll never make the road safe. The collision reduction program due to limited resources we must prioritize our Safety efforts based on greatest needs and how much we can do within our limits. The county has been using a traditional traffic collision reduction method. We collect and review collision reports we receive from the CHP during that review, we look for any issues that could be causing a dangerous condition. We study all fatality collision reports we received and all safety issues reported by the public each one is reviewed and studied.

If we identified a safety issue, it is attended to promptly. Each year we do an additional review of the locations with multiple collisions. We look for patterns in the collisions that we may have an engineering solution and install the countermeasures to reduce collisions at the locations. These hotspots typically get the most resources from our county staff.

All of our collision locations, here's a look at the collisions in the unincorporated areas of the county over a five-year period. We have an average of 768 collisions per year for this five-year period and you can see the hot spots are mostly in our urbanized areas. For example of our process we're going to look at Santa Maria Way and Bradley Road This was identified as a hotspot location in 2013. To orient you, the north is up at the top of the slide.

The road to the lower left side is Bradley and the other road, of course, is Santa Maria Way. This intersection is just west of the 101 Freeway. This is one of our busiest intersections in the county. It has about 32,000 cars a day entering the intersection. Each red dot represents a collision, which could be either a property damage only or an injury. We had no fatalities at this intersection.

In our study of this intersection we found that we had three distinct collision patterns. Northbound Bradley before the crosswalk, westbound Santa Maria Way in the left turn pocket And the free right turn from Bradley going on to Santa Maria way toward the one-on-one freeway. From our traffic study we develop countermeasures, we increase pavement friction, we change the signal timing and change the striping of the roadway Which provided a 350-foot merge lane. You can see that there on the right hand side, whereas prior the right turn merge came around the corner and went immediately into the lane. Thank you. There's a mistake on this slide. The time period is supposed to be from 2014 to 2018. It's a five year period that we looked at after the improvements were in place After the project, collisions went from 13 per year to three per year which is a better than a 75% reduction.

So in our program we look at the collisions each year try to find the hot spots look for patterns at those locations see what kind of countermeasures engineering solutions we can find and then apply them and then we review them if the collisions continue at the location then we try do another solution till we can solve the problems Our number of total collisions have been on a steady downhill trend until 2016.

We're not sure why those collisions shot back up in 2016, 2017 as the state has a whole California as a whole saw a similar upward trend in last couple years that trim could be from distracted drivers other changes in the roadways system we're not quite sure legalization

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed6:08:29 · ≈ 3:08 PM

apart

CommentItem D2Proposed · by introduction6:08:30 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Yeah, it could be any one of those or a combination of them. Also the state started a new reporting system in 2016 and we have a feeling that caught some of the reports that might have been falling through the cracks and could be accounting for part of it. We've called and talked to the state and they're looking into that for us. But we did see a reduction in the collisions last year in 2018 and we're hoping that trend goes continues on 2019 looks like it will so far.

So here is the problem with our collision reduction program, we are currently using although we had great success at the hot spots locations. We're only studying about 10% of the overall collisions in our network. 90% of the collisions are not being addressed, also fatal collisions in the county roadway although we do review each report they rarely happen at the same spot and so it's hard to identify what the patterns are or the problems that one spot with one collision.

The bottom line is the hotspot locations are just 10% of the total collisions, but they are getting the most of our resources. We needed a new way to use our data to lower collisions and to prioritize the projects to best use our limited resources. Here's the locations of fatal collisions over a ten year period from 2009-2018. Each red dot on the map is a fatal collision.

Over the last 10 years, we averaged about five fatal collisions a year on our roadway networks. Fatal collisions always are reviewed by technician and engineer once we receive the report. It is studied to try to understand why it happened and what we can do to prevent future collisions. We have made adjustments to our roadway policies and standards based on these findings And we have had some success and progress doing so.

Here's the collisions from last five years, we've seen a reduction of 54% from the previous five years in our fatalities. Here's a graph of our fatals by year-by-year basis. The blue line is the number of collisions, the red line is the number of people killed in those collisions. Our fatal collisions has slowly been decreasing toward our goal of zero fatalities We anticipate we will reach that goal or at least have a year with zero fatalities by 2025.

Once again, this is due to all the partners that are working together towards safety and it cannot happen without that. Another problem with our traditional collision program is the bikes and pedestrians don't get enough of our time and resources because they also do not happen at our hotspot locations. They seem to happen at random locations throughout the county.

Knowing we have these issues with our Collision Reduction Program, we are fortunate to have the opportunity to include a new program started by FHWA, the Local Road Safety Plan. Local Road Safety Plan is a systemic way to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements. We analyze the type of collisions and roadway characteristics instead of looking for collision patterns at hotspots which is our traditional method.

And it provides an additional backup document for grants. These plans are designed to address the problems local agencies are having with collisions in their urban and rural areas. One of the best parts of our new local road safety plan is that the FHWA did pay for it, just as our director mentioned. Our director was instrumental in having the county be one of only three agencies in the United States that were chosen for this new program by the FHWA.

Development process is establish leadership, analyze safety data, determine emphasis areas, identify the strategies for those areas, prioritize and then evaluate an update. This sounds very familiar to our traditional system that we've been using but the difference is how the data is processed and used. Our partners in developing this plan were the Caltrans, the CHP, FHWA, SBCAG and the County Health Agency.

We had several meetings with consultants in the FHWA during the process of developing this plan. And here are our vision, mission, objectives and goals. Our goal is zero collisions and our goal is also it says reduction overall collisions but should be zero collisions also. It's just that probably won't happen anytime while I'm here. Hopefully in the future though.

Data resources we the good thing about this also is we use our existing data We had all the data in place that was needed for developing this plan It didn't require any additional staff time to collect data other than just sending it off to our consultants to process Sorting of data was done by the consultants and it was quite time-consuming. The majority of the time taken to develop this plan is through the sorting of the data.

We sort the data instead of by location, we did severity of collisions, type of collisions roadway geometry speed and user characteristics. Excuse me, we developed crash trees which shows the collision factors of the collisions. If we follow the crash tree down the path to the left, we see rural roads had 27% of the total collisions but more than half of our fatal collisions were on our rural roads and the main reason for the fatals is the roadway departure.

Here's another look at that data you can see roadway departure is the number one cause of fatalities and injuries If you notice, the percentages add up to more than 100%. It is because one collision may be in more than one category. You can have a driver that is speeding drunk and then leave the roadway and they would be counted in those three categories. Here's one more look at the data where we're separating out the injuries and fatalities and then all collisions.

You can see the type of collision factors are mostly consistent over the three collision-type categories, with roadways departures being our number one in all of the categories. With the plan we developed countermeasures to deal with the different situations, lane departures being our number one cause of collisions The data is used to develop the appropriate countermeasures and identify our priorities. When we do safety improvements, we start with the proven low-cost solutions like signage and striping. Then in areas still experiencing collisions, we go to Tier 2 countermeasures. At this point, we'd be seeking grants possibly to implement these countermeasures.

Locations that continue to experience collisions. We go to tier 3 and then tier 4 the local road safety maps this out The local Road Safety Plan maps us out For each collision type we have been told that the state will begin only accepting applications grant applications for roadway safety From agencies that have a plan like this I So we have one leg up on all the other agencies, which is a big advantage considering the competitiveness of the grants in this last cycle.

6:16 – 6:234 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.916:16:31 · ≈ 3:16 PM

What's a road diet?

CommentItem D2Proposed · by introduction6:16:35 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Yeah, supervisor that's where you would have let's say a four-lane facility or three lane facility for example Recently on turnpike we had three lanes to southbound lanes. We reduced it to two lanes in each direction and created a center Alternate yeah left turn pocket for people Vandenberg Village, we've done that also on some of those roads. So when the road is overbuilt there's opportunities to reduce it down maybe get parking or bike lanes on those roadways Here are the countermeasures for pedestrians oops for pedestrians and bicycle crashes With the same tier system has roadway departures We begin with the tier one counter measures in their locations continuing to have Safety issues, we consider the higher tier solutions. We use the document in its draft form to help apply for highway safety improvement plans from the state.

I mean funds from the state and we were awarded over $600,000 in funding including 246,000 for pedestrian improvements in last cycle. How does the local road safety plan compared to other safety plans like Vision Zero? Vision Zero is very popular right now. I see it in the news a lot, other agencies like Santa Barbara City of Santa Barbara has adopted it themselves. Vision Zero has same goals as us zero fatalities that's the name. Vision Zeros is referring to zero fatalities. The premise of Vision Zero is that humans will make mistakes so we should not rely on drivers alone to prevent collisions. Human lives take priority over mobility The human body is vulnerable and speed is the leading factor to deaths.

Vision Zero supports the same countermeasures as our collision program, but it is different. Vision Zero's main way to improve safety is by reducing the speed of the vehicles. Keeping the speed to the level that people will survive when a collision does happen. Cars in the program. The objective is to keep cars and locations where there's bicycles and pedestrians at speeds of 20 miles per hour or lower, where there's only a few pedestrians but still the at-grade conflicts of intersections you want to try to keep speeds at 30 miles per hour lower and then in rural roads you would have speeds 40 miles an hour Vision Zero also has a greater emphasis on education and enforcement than our plan does.

As a reminder, most of our fatalities are in the rural roads in the county. The challenges of Vision Zero It is lowering the speed of cars. It relies on enforcement, congestion and delays to reach those lower speeds. Our community plans are set standards to have a minimal delay on our systems. Speed limits are set by state law. We do not have the discretion to set lower speeds than what we have right now on our roadways.

To set speed limits lower would be deemed a speed trap and unenforceable. Speed limits with no enforcement have been shown to increase speeds on the roadway. Redesigning roadways in urban areas can be costly and difficult to get funding on a competitive grant. My opinion of Vision Zero, I think it's great. I actually love it. In all my time 20-something years in this field, I don't remember ever anything getting this much news coverage and being so geared towards safety but It's not quite the right tool for the county.

The city, it seems to fit pretty well. City of Santa Barbara, L.A., San Francisco, I'm very excited about them adopting those and I'm watching very closely to see their success and I wish them the best but for a rural area like ours that's what the local road safety plan is designed for. Can we use parts of Vision Zero into our We are and all the tools are on the you know available to us And we don't want to throw any tools out that might be good The current status in the future for the LSRP the local road safety plan the draft was finalized in March We're here to see if the board will approve it today. We've already referenced it in the highway safety improvement plan grant application was awarded over $600,000 We look forward to implementing the LSRPs and bringing our collisions down further, and we will retool.

The document is a living document. We will routinely update it to keep the information current. And that concludes our presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.916:21:43 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Any questions for Agent Zero? Supervisor Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:21:46 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Well, I just want to say congratulations to the department and to Mr. McAulpin for getting the funding from Federal government to do this plan. This is a great thing, only being one of three communities in the countries to do that as a big kudos to you and I think this is really going to help us and serve us well to attract additional funding. That's obviously everybody who's trying to give grants to local agencies wants to see a plan ahead of funding that comes with it. In the future, I see this as a living document. You're gonna continue to keep this active and engaged And I think it would benefit from having more community stakeholder investment in it. Engage with folks at Coast, Sandbar Bicycle Coalition. I think there are other ideas they might have.

The county's a big place and I get your point about rural roads and that being a limiting factor in some of the strategies. But in the places that are more urban style solutions are appropriate A lot of potential. And the point that you make on the slide that talks about the challenges of Vision Zero, about the intersection and community plans that are requiring minimum level of service. I think that's a real challenge to the communities to work through because I think that the community has both of those values at the same time and that will require more conversation to figure out that rub. The values about that may be changing in terms of safety versus Supervisor Williams.

not transcribed≈29s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:23 – 6:319 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:23:39 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Yeah, I think this is an enormously hard thing. The quandaries that you guys face are enormously hard to communicate effectively to the public. Just the basic idea that even if we could get past state law and reduce speed limits that if they're unenforceable then it actually shows counterproductive effect that people go even faster and that you know, we have these constraints of human behavior that we're trying to deal with that are really hard to get to act rationally. So the only thing I was curious about is in those lists how much of a factor is these things?

CommentItem D2Proposed · by introduction6:24:36 · ≈ 3:24 PM

Supervisor Williams, that's a very good question. The CHP tries to collect that information but because they're not there to witness the collisions, the collision reports rely on the actual passengers and drivers to report that which rarely happens. Does somebody say oh yeah I was looking at my cell phone and that's why I ran into this guy? Especially since there could be a fine associated with their confession. So the data is not very good at that, I'm sure it's a lot more than what's being reported. The CHP will use numbers like 90% of collisions are caused by driver distraction or driver error but we're trying to overcome that and do what we can on our part.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.916:25:30 · ≈ 3:25 PM

All right, well very informative. Is there any public comment on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:25:34 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board we have one request to speak on this item and we are going to Santa Maria for Todd Wilson.

PresenterGary SmartProposed · by introduction6:25:51 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Chairman Lovick, Nino and Supervisors. I know it's late in the day so I'll be brief. I strongly urge approval of the new measure local road safety plan but my commentary goes a little bit deeper Mr. Smart suggested that 90% of the collisions were not studied, 10% were funded through studies and this was the old collision plan, the former collision plan and it points out one of the weaknesses of maybe we're Seeing and understanding and relying on data and information that's only the tip of the iceberg. Maybe there's a larger problem, much larger problem than what we see on the surface just in the studies.

And the funding that's available to Mr. Smart, long range planners, decision makers like yourself. I did have an opportunity to listen to the commentary regarding your Patterson Road Appeal, and I did notice that Supervisor Adam made comment relating to differences between North County and South County. And I do think when it comes to traffic circulation, health and safety issues. There ought not be any difference between North County, South County if a collision occurs to you or someone in your family. You have a fatality or anything that's related to that. It's tragic, and you all know we're all individuals including supervisors.

You don't want things like that happening. And decision makers even though you're dealing with every single hearing that you have very difficult issues. We'd like to avoid every opportunity and I appreciate Coming online with this plan and effort to increase our efforts. And so as decision makers, and I say this in reference to review of local projects in the North County, I live in Orkut. I live at the corner of Foxwood and Wilson Drive in Orkut.

And there has been a series of planning actions That to me and neighbors are just mind-boggling that there's even the consideration. And you can have political interests, special interests, even the environmental review documenting information that doesn't even come close to recognizing the history and obvious imperfections of the plan. They don't attack the issues, they don't even bring the issues to the public forum and decision makers often times when you get refined products like nag decks etc., you're seeing refined copy. You're usually not seeing hard data that brings that to the table And you're not even aware of some of the imperfections. And looking at the Patterson Road, four appeals on one issue, the time spent on that and so one of my thoughts is I think we ought as decision makers Please be more proactive and pay attention to the large body of information that you have.

And task those people who are providing you with information, including commenters etc., with looking for the facts so that you can make healthy decisions and it all has to do with health and safety. We all care about that. Thanks for your time I appreciate it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:29:54 · ≈ 3:29 PM

We have no further requests to speak. All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.916:29:56 · ≈ 3:29 PM

right, are there any other questions of board members or can I get a motion to move item 9? Receive the report direct staff to implement the plan.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.766:30:04 · ≈ 3:30 PM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.916:30:05 · ≈ 3:30 PM

Second. All right we've been seconded all those in favor aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right that brings us to the end of today's meeting and I do want to close today in honor of Gary Gene Whitman who was known as wit He is my brother-in-law. He was surrounded by his life partner and best friend Lynn, my sister and daughter Sonny. He suddenly passed away at the age of 70 on May 26th.

Loved hard, worked hard, was the life of the party and the best family man. He loved to be with his grandchildren, fishing, music, boating, car shows, parties, and surrounded by his family. He's surrounded by his life partner Lynn, daughter Sonny, son in law Jason, grandson Logan, granddaughter Breslin. He was also an honorary member of the Lavinino family and affectionately known as Wit Daddy.

He's going to be buried in Spokane, Washington on June 7th, and we're going to miss him. So with that, we'll adjourn to Tuesday, June 11th in Santa Barbara for our budget hearing.