UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:031 turns
Hello, everyone. Music playing Hello. You. Good
0:03 – 0:067 turns
morning everybody. I'd like to welcome you to this meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for September 10th. Madam Clerk, can I get a roll call please?
Mr. Williams? Here. Mr. Hart? Here Ms. Hartman? Here Mr. Adam? Here Mr. Lavagnino?
Can I get a motion to approve last meeting's minutes?
So moved, Mr. Chair.
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right at this time I'd like to pass it over to Supervisor Hart with some comments about the
conception. Thank you, Chair Lavinino. Sadly our community has experienced another tragedy. The victims of the Conception Boat Fire came from across the country and like so many Santa Barbarans were united by their passion for the ocean and adventure. Once again we come together to honor and mourn the victims of a tragedy in our community. For those who are struggling with this event or have loved ones who are struggling, the Community Wellness Team Is a collaboration of many local agencies working together to support the wellness of our community that was founded in the response to the Thomas fire and the one nine debris flow.
If you are in need of assistance, the Community Wellness Team can be reached at 805-364-2750. That's 364-2570. Before we take a moment of silence, I thought that a quote that Father John Hedges used at Friday's vigil by Isaac Denison is appropriate to restate today. The cure for anything is salt water, sweat, tears or the sea. Thank
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Supervisor Hart. Okay with that we will go to our CEO's report. Ms. Misato?
0:06 – 0:256 turns
Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and board members. Along those lines we have a report to you today on not only the conception disaster emergency that we had last week but also a couple of others. So I'd like to bring up right now our Sheriff Bill Brown and Fire Chief Mark Hartwig to give you an update on the conception dive boat incident. After they are done, I'd like Chief Hartwig to give you a quick update as to the McMurray fire which occurred yesterday.
In the third district and then followed by Kelly Hubbard our director of Office of Emergency Management will give you a quick update on the electricity de energization or the PSP that was from Friday to Sunday Sheriff Brown
Thank you Ms. Miyasato and good morning supervisors, I'm going to give you a briefing on the overall summary of the overall conception incident. I'd like to just preface it by once again saying to those family members who will be watching this we understand that there's information here that is very difficult and very painful for them and our hearts ache for them We understand that and we want to just let them know that they're still in our thoughts and that we're here for them, doing all we can do for them. The dive boat Conception operated by Truth Aquatics out of the Santa Barbara Harbor was chartered by a company called Finstead's Worldwide Diving Adventures for three day dive trip to the Channel Islands over the Labor Day weekend It left the port of Santa Barbara on Saturday, August 31st and it was scheduled to return on the evening of Monday, September 2nd.
On Monday, September 2nd at approximately 314 a.m., the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles Long Beach heard a mayday call From the conception, which was fully engulfed a 75 foot commercial fishing diving vessel. Crews from the US Coast Guard, the US Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ventura County Fire and Vessel Assist responded as well as ultimately a fire boat from the Harbor Patrol in Santa Barbara.
The Coast Guard launched two 45-foot response boats, a Dolphine MH65 and an MH60 Jayhawk helicopter, and the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Narwhal. The vessel was located in Platts Harbor on the north side of Santa Cruz Island, and at the time rescue crews got on scene they determined that it was fully engulfed in flames. The crews actively fought the fire and got it out somewhere at about 523 AM.
It flashed up again several times, and ultimately the vessel sank at approximately 720 AM. Total of 39 people were reportedly on the vessel at the time of the incident. Five of those victims all crew members We're ultimately rescued from the water during the initial response by a good Samaritan boat, The Great Escape that was in the Platts Harbor nearby. The conception, the vessel itself was built in 1981. The design of the vessel is what's considered to be called a T-boat. 75 feet in length it had a bunk capacity of 46 with 13 double bunks and 20 single bunks all located As you can see on that schematic on the right, on the lower deck of the vessel along with the shower room and toilets.
The center deck or the deck level deck had the galley what they called a parlor deck that was enclosed with doors and then the dive deck at the back of the vessel. And the top deck had the wheelhouse and the cruise quarters and a sun deck. A particular note is that the main stairs and the escape hatch into the galley were on that second deck. The stairs adjacent to the galley and the hatch that came up out back into the parlor deck.
The image here in terms of the site of the fire is such that one on the right depicts the path that the vessel took from its departure. It had bounced around Santa Cruz Island making several dives during their trip and ended up at position number five, the site of the fire. The image on the left is depicting the conception as it was identified by its vessel tracking system The initial response was primarily out of Ventura County. The Coast Guard assets are located there and Ventura Fire assisted with the initial response as I indicated, the Harbor Patrol in Santa Barbara was notified and they launched their fire boat as well.
It's important to remember that this is at some distance from both harbors. The Ventura Harbor is about 26 miles and the Santa Barbara Harbor is about 22 miles to the location of the incident, and the Santa Barbara fire boat was launched at 0351 hours. Ultimately It was determined that this incident occurred in Santa Barbara jurisdiction, and ultimately our EOC was activated. And we and the sheriff's office took initial command of the incident since this was our jurisdiction and had the potential for a large coroner's response.
We have still several of our management team members who are on the local IMT3, Incident Management Team 3 which is assuming management responsibility for the incident. We initially directed them to once the operation shifted from a search and rescue to a search and recovery operation And our investigators were also embedded with federal and state investigators who are also looking into this incident.
Our dive team responded with many others during the initial days in the aftermath of the event for initially search and rescue, and then search and recovery efforts to locate any of the passengers who were lost. We have been heavily involved in directing the search and recovery efforts for the missing passengers. And as we speak, we have an operation underway today and will be heavily engaged in the next three days to that effort. Simultaneously there'll be a salvage operation that barring any inclement weather will be under way tomorrow and Thursday possibly as well.
The coroner's duties have involved identifying and determining the cause and manner of death of the victims, 34 victims who are presumed to have died in the fire. The preliminary indications from our coroner's office and from our pathologist are that all of the victims who we have recovered 33 victims who we have recovered all died of smoke inhalation and that they had died prior to being burned by the fire.
There has been as you can imagine an extensive public information effort underway this is captured International as well as national and local news on this incident. I'm sure you've heard at this point is qualifying as the worst disaster in terms of loss of human life in the recorded history of our county, and it is a significant event obviously in modern times in terms of a maritime disaster in California.
The efforts are continuing to identify and release remains of all 34 victims, most importantly to recover the 34th victim who remains missing. As I indicated we are intending to put divers in the water today to resume that search which has been suspended over the weekend and up through today because of weather issues. The montage only represents a few of the 34 victims but.
Underscores how devastating this incident has been to the families of those who are lost and to our community as well. The victims represented here in this montage are representative of all of the people who were missing and presumed lost. 21 of them are female, 13 of them were male. They range in age from 16 to 62. Many of them were from the Northern California area, the Bay Area, Santa Cruz, Sacramento, Los Altos, Stockton.
But there were others from Southern California, from Oxnard, from Santa Monica, from Goleta. There were also several that were from Phoenix, Arizona and Stamford, Connecticut. The nationalities and the family members are impacted from across the globe and we've reached out to people across our country as well as in China, Japan, India and Singapore. We are in the final stages of doing the DNA analysis. We have been waiting for some of the last samples to get to us for comparative purposes, but we expect that over the next few days we will be able to complete the analysis of the victims.
This list is, I'm not going to read all of these agencies but I just want to give you an idea of the tremendous mutual aid response that has occurred here. And this is something that really should make all of us proud to live in California where we have the finest mutual aid system in the world and we have been blessed with a cavalcade of law enforcement fire Other public safety agencies, dive teams, boating units, air support units as well as our own local assets in terms of behavioral wellness. In terms of our emergency operations center, in terms of all the other support that we have here within the county family as well. It really is truly a team effort and as I said during the debris flow it really is a team of teams that comes together at times like these two to help us manage.
We also have a lot of community support out there as well, everyone from organizations like the Red Cross and Hospice of Santa Barbara, Salvation Army, our chaplains groups, just a host of local organizations that have also answered the call to come and help us and help the victims and the victim's families as we go through this terrible event but That is really about all I can give you at this point. As I say, I hope to have some updated news this week in terms of the last victim and the diligent search for that person is continuing now and we're doing everything we can do to try to recover the remains of that person.
Thank you Sheriff. Before we go to the Fire Chief, if anybody had any questions of the sheriff or comments All right, sure. I just wanted to, before we move on to the fire chief, just thank all of our, the county team that was, you know, I watched the press conferences. I thought there's a balancing act that needs to be done in a time like this of disseminating the information needs to be done and still being very respectful to the families at your office did an outstanding job.
I don't want to miss anybody. But the DA's office, the fire department, CEO's office, our PIO, behavioral wellness all came together as a team. Public health and I think unfortunately we're getting better at responding to these tragedies and would just hope that this is the last one but I thought you did an outstanding job in the whole team so thank you very much.
Well thank you, Chair Lavagnino. And I can just let you know that I'm immensely proud not only of the members of my organization but of this entire county team that came together and as you say we have had more than our share of these terrible tragedies during the last few years but on every occasion including this one our people have really risen to that and Just incredibly professional and they make me very proud as well. Thank you. Thank you very much All right, Chief Hartwig
latest
good morning chair if I could just add just a couple quick things to Sheriff Brown's presentation on the on the conception incident Immediately after being notified of the incident, I was able to contact the Ventura County Fire Chief Mark Lorenzen. And to tag on to what the sheriff had alluded to, the relationship we have between our partners here in this county and our neighbors is exceptional.
Nobody sits around and wonders whose area it is, they just start immediately and respond. And that's what happened here. The Ventura County Fire Department launched two of their fire boats out of Ventura County, of course a long travel time to the scene. Once the fire department realized that they didn't need any more resources on scene we effectively mobilized our incident management team, a team that's been used across the country.
And really supported the incident. And then as the sheriff and his team, and his cooperators search for loved ones to be reunited ultimately with their families. We really shifted our focus to cause in origin of the incident. And as first responders I can let you know that we're not used to not being able to save and preserve life. That was probably the most frustrating part for us and I think I can speak for the sheriff in his team as well.
But after we realized that it was going to turn into an effort to reunite families with their loved ones, we are committed in the fire department to investigate and find the cause of an origin of any fire within the county And we're working closely with, and I must tell you the resources that have been brought to bear by both the ATF and the NTSB. Not just financial but technical resources, I think will go a long way to finding out more about what happened in those last moments on this dive boat.
I do have to give a shout out to OEM. I think we pride ourselves on being all risk in the fire department and the sheriff's department, but I will tell you that the EOC is filled with people who do other jobs during the day in the county and they kind of take one hat off and put the other hat on and they show up put a vest on and they support the incident and the way that it was supported The county's efforts was nothing short of remarkable and impressive as well.
If I could, as we move to the fire yesterday it seems as if we don't get much of a break when we're ready to respond but men and women yesterday were notified Along the 101, we have investigators on scene right now but appears to have been started off of the 101 in multiple spots between Buellton or McMurray Road all the way up almost to the highway 154. So it was between the 246 and the 154 off of Highway 101.
It was all on the east side, immediately put up quite a bit of smoke. And by the evening had laid down quite a bit. We had about 600 firefighters on scene at peak and this morning I wanted to give you the very latest I asked for before I got up here but This morning it is holding at 200 acres, 30% containment. We still have 200 firefighters on scene. We've released most of the help that we received. We'll have 50 again on tonight to continue to cut line and mop up and reinforce what they've already established.
Again, a strong thanks to the cooperators evacuation. Some evacuations were undertaken by the sheriff and the fire department and then all our cooperators all the way from San Luis Obispo all the way down to Ventura County. And it's actually we got a hand crew from LA county so It's great to yell for help and be able to have your neighbors say what do you need? And it's on its way. So thank you again board and I'm available for any questions.
0:25 – 0:316 turns
Thank you. I know Supervisor Hartman was busy yesterday.
Evacuating horses, dogs and cats. Thank you that the response all the planes and people it was quick and it was very effective and we're all very grateful.
Great thank you very much. Ciel Miasato anything further to add?
No, but we're a vast OM director Hubbard to come and give you an update on Friday through Saturday through Sundays Energy D energization which is PSPS. But I also want to also let you know this is Director Hubbard's third week here and I was in it now I was in the EEOC last night for the fire and Assistant CEO Pontus has been standing by her side the whole time and helping direct efforts there but it was first time the OEM staff said that they had actually three things happening at one time. We had the conception, we had the PSPS and then yesterday McMurray Fire so three different events all within that team so I just want to say thank you to our OEM team and to applaud our new director.
And as chair, I knew if I put a list out I was going to forget somebody and I forgot our newest addition. So welcome to Santa Barbara County this is how things happen here so. Thank
you Chair and supervisors. So first I want to speak to the fire yesterday just for a moment PG&E did lose about 20,000 customers yesterday. Our understanding is related to the fire. This was not a proactive public safety power shutdown so just so you are aware it was related to the fire and was not a proactive event and my understanding is that they have all if not most of the customers back up. I think they were having trouble with a few circuits last night but I think everyone's back up and running.
To the PSPS event that we did have with Southern California Edison, just wanted to give you kind of a little timeline overview. Edison did notify us 72 hours out per regulation and their protocols. That was on September 3rd and that was for the Mist and Kachuma circuits is what they call them. So starting on the third, we did start to coordinate with Edison. Those circuits did continue to change throughout the week as wind and weather conditions changed and they were very cooperative coordinating with us the entire time.
Starting that day, we also started coordination with National Weather Service, our department heads, executive leadership here in the county, as well as our OA partners so our cities and jurisdictions that were within that potential shutoff area or closely related to it so they may have impacts. Edison and then following OEM sent a notification to the public on September 4th, which again follows regulation and protocol of trying to meet that 48-hour window prior to shutdown.
Some of those circuits were actually notified more in advance than required but because they were so close we didn't want confusion And as a group, we decided to notify all at the same time. Actual shutdown started on September 7th. I believe that was Saturday. As I mentioned my days are running together a little bit. We did get notification just prior to that shut down from Edison. We allowed Edison to push that notification and then OEM followed up with additional notification to the public.
Due to that, we started OA conference calls. Leadership in the county as well as county family, as well as our OA partners. We did one Saturday night as well as Sunday morning. Opportunity for agencies to check in what are your concerns, impacts, problems? Addressed a few considerations, traffic considerations with our streets, CHP, Caltrans. Considerations of water at some of our parks that may not have water that's dependent more on power. Some continuation of general services, making sure that our generators and our fuel planning was working the way we had planned and intended. And so that's what those OA conference calls were. Additionally, SCE did deploy what they call a community outreach vehicle. And sometimes you might see it an acronym COV.
And so these are modified vehicles that they have. They have water snacks charging on there. So charging for small devices like phones laptops but they also have some larger not sure quite I haven't seen what they are but larger charging generation for maybe equipment like a powered wheelchair that type of thing. They deployed that late Saturday night I think it was out till about midnight at Gersh Park in the city of Goleta, and that was coordinated with the city. And then it came back out on Sunday for majority of the day early morning through early afternoon when the power did come back on We asked us SCE for some count on anyone who came and visited them So we get an idea of how well the community utilized that resource, so we'll know in the future But they're getting back to us on that Power was turned back on To various circuits throughout the afternoon evening on Sunday September 8th and all customers were restored that day great coordination with our leadership here within the county our OA partners and Supervisor Hartman.
0:31 – 0:3612 turns
Thank you. This is a new era for us with these power shutoffs and this was kind of our first one as I understand it, it was in my district. I had a lot of people very concerned about this, concerns about noticing and different notice from the county and from SCE And a lot of concern going forward, particularly about cooling centers and how we're gonna deal with people. So your report sounds very positive and I'm glad to hear that there's good communication but I think this is a very serious issue that's gonna require a lot of ongoing attention and we haven't got it solved and I don't wanna pretend that we have because there's a lot to do on this front.
Sure, so Chair Lavinino and Supervisor Hartman if I can just point out that OEM staff we are going back looking at our draft PSPS planning. We're talking with Department of Public Health who has a lead role as it relates to our more critical care patients in the community. Looking at our notification, talking to SCE about their protocols, procedures. Looking to see what we can continue to improve upon. I know we got some calls about the notifications Why did some customers get them? Why did others not we're working with SCE because that's both on a CE side as well as our side So we'll continue to take those in and rework and refine our processes as we move forward
Thank you, and if I just might add I think the county is doing a terrific job But I think the utilities really have to step up a lot more
Okay supervisor Williams So if you could, either now or later it would be useful to understand in what hours they were able to inspect the line and how quickly after the wind event dissipated. Were they able to repower? Because I think this is sort of Really relevant, particularly if a larger shut off is anticipated. And then maybe your analysis or whether that time frame is radically altered by a number of more people being affected by future shut off.
The accessibility of the lines very much also determines how quickly they can do inspections and therefore repower. But I just wanted to get some kind of idea in a similar event with say three times or four times as many people, are we talking about three or four times as long to repower? We're talking about twice as long.
And Mrs. Hubbard, before you answer Mr. Gazzone would like to weigh in just a second here.
Chair and Supervisor, so I think in the CEO report you're receiving a series of brief reports one of which was expressly agendized the passenger vessel conception and the others I just recommend that they be kept as brief reports or agendize for more in-depth report in the future. Okay go ahead.
Chair Lavignino and Supervisor Williams. So one, we will go back and look at that information so you know as CE anytime a power utility does do a proactive shutdown they are required to file a report with the California PUC within 10 days. That report should have details as to their steps, their justification, customers what were the factors involved for both turning off as well as turning back on that power So we will be monitoring and can provide that information back.
Supervisor Hartman?
Just a quickie, we did have a presentation about these power shutdowns at I think it was our last meeting and now we are actually experiencing it. I think you're coming back in whether three to six months but so we're asking questions now for when you come back. I just wanted to say that one of the issues that I heard a lot about was how difficult it was to interpret the utilities maps And for people to know whether they were in or out of the area. So I hope that gets communicated back loud and clear.
Thank you. Okay, thank you very much for those updates on reports. Is there anything else in the CEO report?
Nothing else, Chair.
Okay, I've got a chair report just for a second. It is very nice to see back in our midst in his holding his post down Is the returning chief of staff for Supervisor Hart Chris Henson is back. So thank you for being here and welcome back in the Henson corner right on. All right so do we have any addendums or changes. Madam Clerk.
0:36 – 0:386 turns
Chair Lavinino members of the board. We posted an addendum on Friday amending the posted agenda for today's meeting. We amended closed session as seen posted and available online as well as in the back of the room We also added administrative items A33 and A34. Administrative item A33 is from the County Executive Office, it is to consider recommendations regarding an update in local proclamation ratification for the passenger vessel conception incident.
Administrative item 34 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams, this is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Patrick Murphy as the September 2019 Veteran of the Month in Santa Barbara County. We also had a request from the department to continue departmental item number four to October 1st, 2019. This is from Public Works General Services. It is the hearing to consider recommendations regarding Fresno Point lane bridge replacement Resolution of necessity project at Romero Creek acquisition of temporary permanent easement in the first district. And lastly, we had a late request from the department to withdraw as administrative item 13 on today's agenda from community services This is to consider recommendations regarding the execution of a grant agreement between the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Santa Barbara for fiscal year 2019 And the only item that we need an early vote on would be administrative item a 34 before we read that into the record.
Okay supervisor Williams. Wouldn't we need a motion on all of them eventually yeah so why don't I'll just move continue and some of item for the addition of items 33 and a 33 and a 34 and the continuance of the of the Agreement between community services in the city of Santa Barbara a 13 813
Mr. Gazzani, mr. Chair just when the board comes to the item D for the departmental item concerning Fresnel point I just recommend receiving any public comment on that before acting
very good Seconded by Supervisor Hart. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, those all passed unanimously so let's go to our honorary resolutions. Can I get a motion to approve items A1, 2, 3 and 34 please?
So moved.
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Those passed unanimously.
0:39 – 0:446 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hart. This is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of September 2018 as Suicide Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Gina Carvalho and Sharon Byrne to the podium please? Whereas this resolution recognizes suicide as a national and statewide public mental health problem, and suicide prevention as a national state-wide responsibility. And designates the month of September as National Suicide Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County. This month overlaps World Suicide Prevention Day, September 10th recognized internationally and supported by the World Health Organization. And whereas in California one person dies by suicide every two hours with 47,173 In 2017, 4,302 Twelve residents of California died by suicide, and several thousands friends and family members were changed forever by losing those people.
And whereas the Board of Supervisors who are dedicated to reducing the frequency of suicide attempts and deaths and the pain for those affected by suicide deaths through research projects, educational programs, intervention services, and bereavement services urges that all Californians One, recognize suicide as a significant public health problem in California and declare suicide prevention as statewide priority. Two, support the development of accessible behavioral health services for all regions of our country implementing national best practices in reducing suicide risk for people of all ages and backgrounds. Three, acknowledge that no single suicide prevention effort will be sufficient or appropriate for all populations or communities.
And four, encourage initiatives based on the goals and activities contained in the National Strategy for Suicide Prevention. Zero suicide of the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention and the way forward by the Action Alliance Suicide Attempt Survivor Task Force is hereby ordered to resolve that this Board of Supervisors recognizes the month of September as Suicide Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Many thanks to. The Board of Supervisors for your ongoing support and recognition of this public health issue that's affected so many of our community lives. Today is World Suicide Prevention Day, and there are many activities locally happening but also around the world to deal with this issue that we all... And I stand here with a team. We are all part of a team that's responding and that's been dealing with this issue over many years.
We are not alone. As the sheriff so eloquently put, we all come together and we have over so many years as part of the community wellness team and all of us have been addressing this issue in the schools and in our communities. And I thank you for this recognition and I'm honored to be part of this community that steps up all the time. All the time. So thank you and Suzanne will announce some of the events that are happening over this week.
A bit of a somber note to talk about suicide awareness on top of our other incidents, but on the other hand I'm glad that we are because it's something that should never be forgotten. So a couple of things that are coming up this month if you'd like to go out and support Suicide Awareness Month and Worldwide Suicide Prevention Day. Tonight in Carpinteria there will be a candlelight vigil. It takes place on Linden Drive at the Seal Fountain at 7 o'clock On September 13th, Transitions Mental Health Association is having a suicide prevention mental health forum taking place at the Pacific Conservatory Theater on College Drive. There will be a resource fair from 5 till 6 and then the forum will take place from 6 until 8 PM.
And then a very special opportunity, encourage all to consider joining on September 16th at Santa Barbara City College. Kevin Hines will be joining and speaking at 630. Kevin Hines is the survivor of jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge and if you've never heard him speak he's very powerful. And again thank you so much for your recognition this month.
On behalf of the Behavioral Wellness Commission of Santa Barbara County, thank you very much for the recognition of how serious a problem this is. What it means to our community and how we can best respond to it. We really appreciate it and want to thank you for that.
Thank you Sharon. Supervisor Hart?
Thank you. I've been hearing a lot recently about teens and especially girls in social media and the role that that plays in increasing rates of suicide in that population in particular, and I just wanted to call that out because that is really alarming.
0:44 – 0:504 turns
Let's move to item A2 please.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of September 2018 as National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County and if I can have Dr. Evando Reynoso, Kristen Hughes, Adrienne Starr and Kelly Berrigan to the podium please? And anyone else you'd like to join with you?
Whereas nutrition and physical activity are the foundation to a lifetime of good health. In America, the percentage of children affected by obesity has more than tripled since the 1970s. And whereas childhood obesity is a major public health problem that can lead to lifelong physical and mental health issues. Children with obesity are at a higher risk for having other chronic health conditions and disease. Children with obesity can be bullied, teased, and are more likely to suffer from social isolation, depression, and lower self-esteem. And whereas in 2018, Santa Barbara County had 40.3% of fifth graders were identified as overweight or obese while 23.8% of children age four and women infants and children WIC program were identified as obese.
And whereas the built environment our children live in become compounded by social and individual factors like gender, age, race, ethnicity, education and socioeconomic status that influence a child's ability to eat a healthy diet, stay physically active and achieve or maintain a healthy weight And whereas the Public Health Department is committed to providing children with healthy futures and provide a number of programs working together to overcome inequities leading to childhood obesity, including the CalFresh Healthy Living, the Women Infants and Children WIC Nutrition Program, the Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Program, the Children's Medical Services Program, and the Federal Qualified Health Centers. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors Does hereby proclaim the month of September as National Childhood Obesity Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County.
Pass and adopt it today.
Good morning chair, members of the board. As you know across our country childhood obesity is a serious problem and it is a problem here in our community putting children and adolescents at risk for poor health. The obesity epidemic in our country in our community is a complex problem with no single or simple solution to reverse the obesity epidemic we're taking a multifaceted approach by building partnerships with policy makers Community organizations, business, community leaders, schools, child care providers. Healthcare professionals and individuals to create an environment that supports healthy eating and active living. An example of that multifaceted approach I'd like to introduce you to my team. Adrian Stark who is a nutrition supervisor in Lompoc.
Kelly Berrigan, our MCAH Director and Dr. Kristen Hughes, our provider at Franklin Health Center.
Good morning Board of Supervisors. My name is Dr. Kristen Hughes and I'm a pediatrician at the Franklin and Carpinteria Health Care Centers. Thank you for addressing this very important issue of childhood obesity, and for proclaiming September as Childhood Obesity Awareness Month. The National Institute of Health characterizes childhood obesity as an epidemic on a steady increase and states that obesity from unhealthy eating and inactivity has rapidly become the social norm in many communities across America.
Childhood obesity affects our youth, In not only physical health conditions such as type 2 diabetes, hypertension, fatty liver disease, bone and joint problems and obstructive sleep apnea but also psychological conditions such as depression and lower self-esteem issues. These conditions not only affect their childhood but many individuals carry them also into adulthood.
I used to think it was a simple math equation calories in calories out. But in my experience every day, I hear how my family struggle to choose healthy options. Find it hard to exercise regularly and worry about the effects of obesity on their children. And now, I've come to appreciate more just how complex the issue can be. One particular case comes to mind of a very bright teenage girl who was really trying hard to make healthy changes. Her mom was with her at the appointment, and we were discussing barriers to her goals of eating more vegetables and exercising daily.
When I asked her mom if she could help her out by having less junk food in the home and more vegetables readily available, she shared with me that she doesn't live with her mom anymore because they ran out of room in their car where her father and brother also live. As it turns out, she'd been couch surfing with relatives for months. Working hard after school just to provide for her own basic needs and shopping at a local liquor store late at night for dinner. Her father had recently had a brain aneurysm that left him gravely disabled and her elderly mom was now looking for work again after years of child rearing.
Tremendous stress, lack of resources in limited parental support are all real factors for her and many of our patients seeking to improve their health. Childhood obesity is multifactorial in its cause and takes many approaches from the entire community to change the social norm towards healthy eating and active living. Some ways that we can help to reduce childhood obesity are by designing cities that encourage walking and other physical activities, increasing access and affordability to fruits, vegetables, and other nutritious foods, and increasing self-knowledge and efficacy for making necessary behavioral changes.
Excess weight is gained slowly over time, and thus reducing and even preventing childhood obesity epidemic is going to be a slow and long term process. However as we bring more attention to the issues that what each of us can do to change the social norm towards healthy eating and active living, we truly can turn back the tide on childhood obesity. Thank you for your time.
0:50 – 0:535 turns
Hi, on behalf of the Public Health Department's WIC program and Nutrition Services Program I want to thank you for addressing this issue. Every day we work hard to help families learn how to change their behaviors and adopt healthy habits. And every day we see kids coming in with pre-diabetes and fatty liver disease So it's a real issue and we're gonna need a team to address it. So, thank you
Thank you All right supervisor Oh, okay Supervisor Williams
Well, I just wanted to be real a little parochial and give special thanks to director do Reynoso and Dr. Hughes And all of their colleagues down at the Carpinteria Clinic for your I mean, they see thousands of patients in teeny little clinic and they do great work for the community of Carpinteria. So wanted to thank you on their behalf.
Very good, thank you very much. Supervisor Hartman?
I believe this board in 2014 passed an initiative, healthy eating active living. And a number of communities throughout the county have now followed suit as well as school districts and our public health department has been very supportive of these across the county. I think we realize that this is not just an issue of individual willpower it really is a social issue and it's going to take a lot of work across departments and across communities One of the most recent findings is from the Department of Defense and how many, how this is interfering with recruitment and injuries among those who were recruited. So it's a national security issue. It's a public health cost issue.
It's a quality-of-life issue. And it really goes to a whole range of things about the designed environment and what we can do. I really appreciate that you described how difficult the issue is and how it crosses all different parts of our responsibilities as a county government. Thank you.
0:53 – 0:596 turns
Item A3 please.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Janine Neal, Tanisha Castaneda and Manny Christostomo of the Public Health Department as the September 2018 Employees of the Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I could have Dr. Ramoso to the podium again, Janine Neal, Tanisha Castaneda and Manny Cristostomo.
I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Public Health Department employees are committed to the department's vision of healthy people, healthy community, healthy environment, and whereas Janine Neal has leveraged Her education coupled with her passion and dedication to public health's mission to drive compliance, incident response, risk mitigation and auditing as the department social security officer. Janine's efforts are critical to the success of public health and play a pivotal role in the county's overarching security posture. And whereas Tanisha Castaneda has been instrumental in building the infrastructure for the whole child model implementation.
With partner SenCal Health and the Children's Medical Service Program to ensure that our most vulnerable children are served. This new model is very successful due to the large part to Tanisha. And whereas Manny Christostomo is held in high regards by his peers and colleagues for his knowledge, skills, and expertise as a scientist and microbiologist he has committed to the work of public health lab and department, and ultimately to the safety of the community. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved on behalf of all Public Health Department employees that work each day toward the department's mission and vision we honor Janine Neal, Tanisha Castaneda, and Manny Christostoma as Santa Barbara County Employees of the Month for September 2018 passed and adopted today
Good morning again. I think I have the best department. I'm not biased either. First, I'd like to introduce you to Janine Neal. Okay, having Janine on our team in the HIPAA security officer role is a bit like a high school coach who has Michael Jordan on their team. We're going to actually name a football player but it was so controversial we stuck with Michael Jordan. But needless to say, Janine is amazing. She joined our department in 2017 as Office Automation Specialist and currently serves as our HIPAA Security Officer. Janine has a Master's Certificate in Information Assurance and is certified in Healthcare Privacy and Security. Janine has been instrumental in our successful response to numerous cyber attacks because of her knowledge Training and relationships with experts at the state and federal level.
Janine's experience and skills have been critical to our ability to reduce the time it takes for us to be aware of the bad actors or an active attack. Janine often handles sensitive incidents that can potentially devolve in explosive situations. She has a no sense approach and professional demeanor that is well received by staff, supervisors and managers often comment that Janine's assistance enables them to understand the issue and what actions are necessary to reduce the likelihood of future occurrences. Janine is dedicated to our mission and she's passionate about protecting the integrity of our operations through her diligence in ensuring compliance, incidence report and risk mitigation. Janine's excellent efforts are critical to the success of our department and contributes to preserving our county's overarching security.
I don't have a whole lot to say, but thank you very much. I very appreciate this a lot and it's so wonderful to have such an amazing group of people to work with. It's made this job a lot easier. Thank you.
And Janine, don't worry that Michael Jordan was actually cut by his high school coach.
Our second honoree is Tanisha Castaneda Tanisha has been with the Public Health Department since 2002. She originally was hired as Office Assistant Senior with Children's Medical Services Program and recently promoted to manage the program. She has been the anchor for CMS through her tenure. She has formed important relationships with the children, and their families, and community partners without whom CMS would not Succeed. Her experience, profound knowledge and can-do approach to problem solving has earned the trust and admiration of our staff in the Public Health Department through her involvement in many, many departmental efforts including the implementation of the Affordable Care Act and also as a key member of the Department Operations Center during disasters.
I think that's where we first met her staffing the lack Over the last two years, Tanisha has been instrumental in building the infrastructure for the whole child model implementation and its transition from the county to Sencal. The whole child model change was incredibly challenging and it would have not been successful here in our county without the efforts and leadership of Tanishia.
Thank you
0:59 – 1:034 turns
Thank you guys for this honor. I'd like to thank the Public Health Department for this opportunity, for allowing me to come on a daily basis and do what I love to do which is serve the members of our community.
Lastly, our third honoree is Manny Crisostomo. Manny has been with our department for over 25 years. Manny started with the department as an extra help and currently serves as one of our senior public health microbiologists. Manny is held in high regards by his peers and colleagues for his knowledge, skills and expertise as a scientist and microbiologist. Manny has been integral to advancing the public health lab's testing capacity to effectively and expeditiously respond to many emerging public health threats ranging from avian influenza H1N1 anthrax and most recently Ebola. Manny contributes to efficiencies and process organizations through his constant efforts to teach and share his knowledge and expertise with others. So that all may benefit from having gained a better understanding of lab testing, results, and operations.
Manny's always willing to assist as he is able. When needed, he has worked late during weekends to ensure lab results are made available especially when dealing with various communicable diseases. During the planning for PSPS, Manny raised his hand and said I'll be here on Saturday. I'll be here on Sunday So that's the amazing individual that he is so please join me in celebrating not only Manny but Tanisha and Janine for excellent contributions to our department and to the county
Thank you very much. Van, Paige and thank you so much for your recognition. Board of Supervisors thank you also. I just want to briefly say that I work with a very dedicated and committed group of professionals in the Public Health Laboratory. And I'm going to name them Aisling, Reseda, Chelsea, Joshua. A lot of the times I feel I ride on their shoulders Because they are a very talented group of individuals.
The Public Health Laboratory is one component of the entire public health system. We work in conjunction with the hospitals here in the County of Santa Barbara, with Cottage Hospital, Lompoc, Marion Hospital. And we are part of a network of public health laboratories throughout the state of California, which also has a basis in the State Laboratory in Richmond, California. And ultimately our communication goes and work goes all the way to the CDC. So whenever there is a major public health issue, infective issue, we're going to be in the middle of it.
So that's just to let you know the scope of the work that we do. So again, thank you very much for this honor. Boy, thank you.
Thank you very much. All right, that takes us to A34.
1:03 – 1:0816 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number 34 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Patrick Murphy as the September 2019 Veteran of the Month in Santa Barbara County and if I can have Patrick Murphy to the podium please?
I kind of had a feeling that was you with that hat on there. You might be the Veteran of the Month.
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution Whereas Santa Barbara County is home to approximately 22,270 veterans. Constituting about 5% of the county's population as a whole and whereas those who have given the ultimate service to this nation by serving in its armed forces are deserving of endless recognition and gratitude by all Americans. And whereas first district supervisor Doss Williams has chosen commander Patrick Murphy to be the recipient of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Veteran of the Month resolution for September 2019.
Whereas Patrick Murphy was born on February 14, 1951 at St. Francis Hospital in Santa Barbara and attended Santa Barbara High School graduating in 1969. And whereas Commander Murphy served in the Vietnam War from 1969 to 1972 continued his service in the California National Guard upon his return home and currently serves as post commander for American Legion Post 49. And whereas Commander Murphy resides in Carpentaria with his wife of 14 years Josephine And now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors Commander Patrick Murphy as our September 2019 Veteran of the Month, passed and adopted today.
Thank you very much, Board of Supervisors. Thank you very much everybody. I'm not going to use the mic because I can speak loud in
there. Hold on a second. Mr. Murphy? Yes sir. They can't see you on TV if you turn your back to them so the camera is this way but they can all hear you but we got to talk to the people at home too.
Okay I told Doss I was gonna plug a couple of things. So if anybody in the room here's a veteran tomorrow morning at the Veterans Memorial building down on the beach we have a breakfast down there show up will feed ya We won't feed you too much, we'll feed you enough.
That's
right.
You were listening.
It was good. So and the other thing too is on November 9th there's going to be a Veteran Day Parade. If you're a veteran and you want to march in the parade, we'll get you in the parade. If you can't walk, we will put you on a trolley. We'll do something for you. And then I think on the 11th we are at Santa Barbara Cemetery for a ceremony And we do a lot of things throughout the year with the American Legion.
I can't get through all of them, so I'm just going to say thank you so much. God bless y'all.
Thank you. Supervisor Williams?
Well, I just wanted to thank in a more personal fashion Commander Murphy because I think it's powerful the sense of camaraderie that people have In the military and then sometimes once they're back in civilian life, they have something missing. And so what I've noticed over the years with Commander Murphy is Is keeping that brotherhood, now brotherhood and sisterhood alive among veterans.
And helping to make sure that they're connected with services and that brotherhood and sisterhood back in our own community so thank you. Thank you Commander Murphy.
I'm gonna plug one other thing. So I don't know if you guys all remember this is up in the park. They used to have the Kiwanis breakfast at fiesta time? If you don't know it, you can come down to the Veterans Memorial Building on Fiesta weekend. On Saturday and Sunday we do the pancake breakfast. We kind of stepped up and took it over because they didn't want to do it anymore. And there's a lot of people show up. We have a good time with them. Anyways thank you so much and have a great day.
Thank you for your service. Mr Murphy was rattling off those events that reminded Supervisor Hartman, that tomorrow is also 9-11. And there will be remembrances and memorials at all county fire departments I believe at nine a.m. tomorrow. Okay so if you want to participate go to your local fire station. All right that takes us to balance of the administrative agenda.
Is there any comments from the public? Anybody would like to
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. I have no requests to speak on the administrative agenda.
Okay and do any board members have any items they'd like to pull? Five and 16. Anybody else? All right let's read item A5 into the record please.
1:08 – 1:1116 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the Board, Administrative Item number five is from the Agricultural Commissioner this is to consider recommendations regarding the Department of Pesticide Regulation Air Monitoring Network AMN Program Agreement Number 16-C0089, Amendment Number A2.
Supervisor Adam?
Well I think Ms. Fisher is going to come down and tell us what we've found so far on the air monitoring.
Good morning, Chair and members of the board. The agreement that you have before you is an agreement to pay for our costs for going to the California Department of Pesticide Regulations Air Monitoring Station in Santa Maria where we go and retrieve samples and ship them off to the scientists up in Sacramento for analysis. They've had the air monitoring station in Santa Maria since 2010 and I'm pleased to share with your board That results from the 2017 air monitoring that of all 31 different active ingredients that they're monitoring for, all were well below health concern thresholds. That's a good sign in fact we're seeing a trend with a lot of these materials declining every year.
That is good news. Thank you. That's all. Awesome thank you very much for being here yeah thanks for highlighting that Supervisor Adam. Alright let's go to A16
Chair Lavanino, members of the board. Administrative item number 16 is from the County Executive Office. This is to approve budget revisions requests and there's an exhibit posted online with the agenda and this is a four-fifths vote.
Supervisor
Adam. And Dona Reynoso did she just leave? I thought she was here. She was. Well, okay so my question is and maybe we should wait for her but we got something here that's supposed to be updated every three years and it was last day updated in 2016 and it's due for an update. Supervisor Adam which
revision number
are you? I'm sorry 6584 page 4 of the 8. So maybe we want to trail that item and find out the question is why wasn't it budgeted because I mean obviously if that's our ongoing And we knew why are we doing a budget revision for this? Unless you will Mr. Frapp, well
one step back
How smart Supervisor Adam to the chair is a good question. You're that budget
guy
Yeah, I'll follow up with about the health
and get a response. Thank you
All right. So let's move the balance of the agenda with 6 5 8 4 are you okay with the other revisions? Okay, so let's include all the revisions except six five eight four can I get a motion to that effect? Moved in second it all those in favor aye any opposed passed unanimously Okay let's move on to public comment. How many requests do we have today?
1:11 – 1:176 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board, we have one request to speak on general public comment today and that is Ed Kalaski.
Good morning. Thank you. I have quite a few drawings here, so I'll try to make this fast. Back in 2014 we were not allowed to submit our drawings because Alex Peugeot decided that he didn't want to see them and he didn't want the other members to see them. So he kicked us out of the meeting without showing our drawings. Instead he showed him our old drawing done in April which has the second story located solely over the garage.
We were trying to submit this drawing, which shows that the second story is not located solely over the garage. So they had a predicament how to write up those 64 page report that they wrote out and Section E in the 64 page report telling you that the garage, that the second story is located solely over the garage. This is the first drawing and if there's a view from the street on the top and the view from the south, and that's supposed to be solely over the garage. I mean, you look at that, there's no way that that is solely over the garage. You can clearly see that that's a lie. I called my talk today, It's a Lie. Yes it's a lie and Alex Boujeau is the liar. This is because one of the members said to me that I was lying and clearly they are lying.
The next drawing you got since they didn't show an overlay, you have steps going upstairs up to the left to the back and it's supposed to be solely over the garage. Clearly, it steps to nowhere if you believe they're drawing because they eliminated showing the overlay. Because they didn't want to show you that it's not solely over the garage. The next one there.
Then we extended the roof For the additional area over the kitchen, dining room and part of the living room and the laundry room. If it's solely over the garage why do we have this tremendous extension on the house? It would've been simpler if I just paid the extortion fee and been done with it. The only problem was I didn't know how much we were supposed to pay. Apparently $1,000 would have worked, I think.
One of the things that led up all to this is that in the summary of the report, they tell you as shown on the submitted plan C attachment E1. The project would be constructed a second story addition solely over the garage of the structure. That's right in the summary and yet they pull all this crap And nobody cares, nobody sees them. We appealed to the PC they could care less whatever SBAR said that's fine with them and the other members didn't even know that this was going on.
They had no clue John said it's a lie that he didn't know this and then I showed it to him and goes oh well let me review it.
Mr. Klasky your time is up.
When is he gonna be removed Alex Pujo?
All right thank you. So that ends our public comment period we are going to take a 10 minute break come back at 1030 to begin item number one on our departmental agenda.
Hello. Hello everyone.
1:18 – 1:232 turns
Hello. Music Music
The Hello, everyone. . . Hello, everyone. Hello. . Good morning.
1:28 – 1:3417 turns
All right, we will reconvene this meeting of the Board of Supervisors and that takes us to departmental agenda item number one. Madam Clerk?
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board Department Item Number One is from planning and development it is a hearing to consider the Patterson Avenue Holdings new office appeal case number 18 APL 22 Okay, and we do have a schedule that we need to follow as far as time allocations. We'll begin with a staff presentation. We'll have some new documents read in. The appellant will have five minutes.
Project applicant will have five go to public comment. We'll have some time for rebuttal staff comments and then our deliberation But we're going to start off with a call for ex parte communication supervisor Adam
I Have a large amount of emails that have been given to the clerk of the board, and I met with Carlos Sarmiento on August 29th Very
good. Supervisor Hart? And I have spoken on the phone and met with Mr. Bradford on a number of occasions since our last hearing. All right,
Supervisor
Hartman? A large number of emails as well. I just had a question just procedurally we heard this, we gave direction now it's back again to re-hear it?
Yes, Mr. Gazzone do you want to weigh in?
Chair and supervisors the board provided conceptual direction to return with findings that would support denial of the project There's been additional materials, and I would just recommend This or an abbreviated version of the agenda that you have in front of you So that both sides have an opportunity to comment on those new findings in the new materials that came in supervisor Williams
I had ex parte communications with both sides previous to the last hearing, but since the last hearing I have had none beyond email communications.
All right and I will echo Supervisor Williams that since the last hearing all I've had is The large amount of emails that have all been pushed moved over to the clerk's office so Alright we'll begin with our staff presentation
Mr. Chair, members of the board, we're here today to bring back findings for denial that were requested by the Board of Supervisors on June 4th. We had been at the hearing on June 4 presenting new conditions of approval regarding transportation demand management strategies that could help reduce any traffic issues. I want to introduce Sean Stewart from the Development Review Division. He's going to be making the presentation today, and then we have of course Jeff Wilson here To help with the presentation as necessary
Good morning chair Lavagnino members of the board this item was last before your board on July 16th where a quick administrative continuance forwarded this item until today's date and The last time this item was deliberated on was June 4th when staff was directed to prepare findings for denial. Those findings are available to you as presented in the staff memo dated July 2nd, alternatively should your board wish to approve the project today.
You can refer to the findings for approval as presented in the board agenda letter dated June 4th. Staff has no further additional information to present to you today and is available for any questions, and then in closing I would like to point out that transportation staff is also present today to assist with any additional questions.
Mr. Chair, members of the board as Mr. Stewart indicated the findings for both approval and denial are presented to the Board for actions today just as a matter of clarification and reference if the board chooses to proceed With findings for approval, they would be found on the legislature attachment number 23 with associated conditions which should be number 24 and the associated board letter that is attachment 22. If the board would like to proceed with motions and actions for denial those could be found on the legislature attachment number 32. So I just wanted to point that out for clarifications for the board and members of the public.
Okay, that's our staff presentation. Okay at this time clerk's office has some documents we would like to decide whether or not to bring into the record.
Yes thank you Chair Lavinino and members of the board. We have two letters received by the clerk after our Friday at noon cutoff that were over a page and the first one we received on Sunday September 8th at 145 from Cecilia Brown And it is 2 pages and the second letter we received on yesterday September 9th to 14 from Cindy poor pure. My apologies and if we can just get those voted into the record of the board would like to approve that.
Is there a motion for that move so moved. Moved in seconded will give the motion to Supervisor Harton supervisor Williams got the second all those in favor accepting those items in the record Aye. Any opposed? Okay, they're now part of the record so at this point we'll move to Mr. Paul Bradford you'll have five minutes.
1:34 – 1:424 turns
So Chair Lavagnino and members of the board thank you again for hearing this I'm Paul Bradford and I want to give you a quick recap if it could go to full screen that would be helpful on that Thank you so much. So again this big picture, it's always been a challenging site and no traffic engineer would design something like this from the ground up today. There is an over reliance on county and Caltrans right away for landscape buffer parking lot in the front of the project along Patterson is not consistent with the existing development on the western side to complement the gateway nature of this intersection.
The director's report had been issued In spite of a long history of controversy principally centered around traffic and load and intensity of use. The mail notice was only done to 12 neighboring residences, although it was done within the 300 foot radius. And as I said before, a number of occasions, the architect in the applicant would be competent. It is a good looking building. It's just the wrong building for this site.
The traffic report we believe to be inadequate. And we believe that it's not substantial enough to make a CEQA finding. Big picture, the uncertainties of use and occupancy load combined with driving complexities and confirmed collision data which we presented to each of you individually and also to Sean Stewart are key reasons for supporting this appeal and backing the 225 neighbors who've sent in response cards on this.
So again, you've seen this before but this is the GSA data that gives you a range of uses per square foot. And for an office tech work use it's about 48 people is what this building translates to or as a call center could be as high as 65 people. So again compare that against 23 spaces and there's obvious parking and traffic implications. So again this is to help kind of reframe the issue from a neighborhood standpoint that light pole at the off ramp of 101 northbound on the top right of your screen from that point, roughly to the access point for the subjects.
Project it's about a hundred feet and if the operative term being if people are going this fifth to 45 mile an hour posted speed limit that distance is covered in less than a second and a half so again you've all seen this I won't bore you with the Animations again. This is just the complexity is to remind you of what's happening here Folks coming off of a 101 northbound off-ramp turn right from not one but two lanes. They can go in a number of different directions as they're turning right, they are always almost without exception looking left at what's coming on from Patterson Avenue. Meanwhile, they would have to face folks coming out of this project at perhaps a 90 degree angle who were vying to get into the left hand most U-turn lane which would then impact folks turning right off Cuyahoga Reale.
You've seen that before. I want to just go back to this issue of the new data again. I'm not faulting the applicant or staff on this, but this has been the narrative that didn't quite sit true with what the neighbors kind of felt to be true with this project and both the intersection and adjacent driveway does not have a history of accident one accident in 15 years.
Evidence is not there. That didn't sit true, there was an accident apparently in mid-July I called the Sheriff's Department to verify that they said well actually CHP Is the entity that has jurisdiction call them? I called officer John Gutierrez The PIO and said can you give us data on this one accident he said would you like the rest of them? I said well what rest of them and this is dated back 2015 that's as far as he has records.
And this just shows that the product, the problem is getting worse in the past 12 months we've had eight collisions in that area so big picture it impacts this project would impact traffic on northbound and southbound Southbound on northbound on Patterson and then of course the Kyrie L folks turning as well Crossing all four lanes on Patterson could lead to a t-bone risk from traffic coming Northbound Patterson as well as the off-ramp 45 miles an hour we talked about that in just a second And then the u-turns from this project would swing into probably the second maybe even the third lane which poses a risk for folks on Kyrie L So it's not a safe bet. The traffic study does not address turning movement counts maximum northbound and southbound queues between intersections, gaps in traffic flows both north and south, timing between the off-ramp and the proposed project.
One thing I did look up is again I know there are apples and oranges but the project on Kyrale and Turnpike its traffic report was 92 pages. The one for 80 North Patterson is 8 excuse me 9. Just by reference when again they're different animals I get that different need of use but you can understand our neighborhoods hesitancy to buy into a traffic report. That is one-tenth the size given the fact that the intersections are arguably more dangerous on Patterson than they are.
On turnpike it's an inaccurate narrative and accurate inaccurate narrative on collisions we just showed you that the actual CHP to confirm that is getting worse not better. And again, indicates need for an environmental document on traffic for this or any future project. It's not a safe bet for the neighborhood with the collision data and by approving traffic flows at a potentially 90 degree angle it's possibility of a collision liability for the county and taxpayers. My encouragement is to support the appeal, deny the project, conduct a thorough traffic study directed by the county and not an applicant. And let the applicant come back with an appropriate proposal. I want to just finish real quickly with this framework. Eight collisions in the last 12, 16 in the last since 2008.
And again, Commissioner Cooney's remarks stand true. Clear and present danger of collision and now we know there is a clear and present reality of collisions as well. Thank you.
Okay I'll note that you did go a minute over so we will grant that extra time on the other side. Supervisor
Williams? So I wonder if you or staff have further detail on those collisions, the CHP reported collisions You know, want to understand the severity and if you have any information on that.
Chairman members of the board my name is Gary smart traffic engineer for the county I did do a presentation for you on June 4th concerning this matter and I did report that there was one collision associated with the U turn movement during the discussion we had at the hearings. There was a concern about safety of the new driveway and we looked at the existing driveway for the storage unit We looked at collisions would be associated with right turners turning into the driveway, right turners coming out of the driveway trying to cut across the lanes in left turn lane and then collisions associated with the U-turn. Out of those movements we only had one collision. Now at the intersection itself of Kyrie and Patterson we average about five collisions a year at that intersection but there was only one collision associated with those movements of the existing driveway.
1:42 – 1:4723 turns
Can you tell me a little bit about what other kind of collisions there are and if those could be exacerbated by more traffic coming out of this location?
Chairman, Supervisor Williams. Yes the majority of the collisions we have at that intersection are as a result of the right turn on red for the CAI rail turning right toward the freeway. Those collisions being done with the southbound traffic. We do have some rear ends that are happening at each approach of the signal when the light turns red, we'll have somebody slow down to stop. Those are pretty minor though. The majority of the collisions we have are with a dual right going toward the freeway.
The collisions at 101 which were also reported in The presentation we just saw, the 101 ramps. Those collisions I don't have information on those are on Caltrans facilities in the city of Goleta so I don't get a copy of those reports
Supervisor
Adam Who did that study? The traffic study for the ATE did it for the project the traffic study normally We don't require a traffic study for a small project. That's only has I think there was 12 trips generated in the peak p.m hour that doesn't trigger it, but we did do a kind of a modified study to see what the trips generation would be for a project like that and
Okay, so do we normally I guess if we normally don't do a study that's start When we do a study don't we usually Do that or did we hire the consultant in this case? Because we usually don't just let the applicant do
The collision
study right
looking at the collision information or the
traffic
study traffic say yourself We have the applicant hire a consultant and then we review it We have information stuff that we can verify the report. Okay,
is there any kind of a rational explanation why? they they have that apparent undercount of of Accidents at that intersection
what whether the traffic state did not look at collisions It wasn't mentioned in the report. That was just my response to the board at a prior hearing And then I came back on June 4th and gave that information that there was only one collision associated with the u-turn Movement, and then we didn't have any associated with the driveway with people cutting across to try to get in the left turn lane are People getting rear ended at the driveway trying to turn right in
Okay, so It's kind of a mischaracterization when, when the appellant comes up and says there's 16 accidents at this location that they didn't tell you about. Is that right?
I would say there was a misunderstanding with what my statement was and what the the pillant thought was the Collision history out there which he got from the CHP. I'm not denying that information is correct It's just typically we don't rely on a project to come in and fix collision problems on our streets We do review them constantly in our traffic section try to prove the safety of the roadway and
So that was, yeah. I'm trying to determine whether that was a mischaracterization or not. Can you help me with that?
I think it was just a misunderstanding of my statement saying there was one collision at the intersection associated with the right turn and it was understood as saying there was only one collision at the intersection and it was just a misunderstanding in my statement.
And Mr. Bradford, I know wants to get out of his chair and come up and answer that but that's what rebuttal is all about so you'll have that chance as well. So-
All right, thank you. Smart.
I'd like to make one more comment while I'm up here if that's okay with the board. Concerning the 1.5 seconds for reaction time at the driveway at 45 miles per hour. The 100 feet away from the driveway is the off ramp and somebody coming around the turn on the off ramp would not be going 45 miles per hour. And so somebody coming over the bridge may be going that speed if they hit the green lights. But you have a visibility of over 500 feet from the proposed driveway to a car coming just northbound on Patterson. Somebody coming off the freeway and coming around the curb would probably be doing 15, 20 miles per hour around that curb. So they would have more of a reaction time.
One more. Yeah, sure. So in your opinion this project is the traffic generated by the project is well within the capacity of the road system to handle it?
Yes.
Okay thank you.
Okay we're going to move to there's no other questions we will move to our Project Applicant Patterson Avenue Holdings. You'll also five plus one minute so you'll have six minutes
1:47 – 1:533 turns
Thank you Chair Lavagnino and fellow members of the board. I am Carlos Sarmiento, my company Patterson Avenue Holdings is the applicant for this project. This is the third time we've been before the Board of Supervisors and I appreciate your time. I have brought no more slides or anything, and I don't want to rehash everything that we've done over the past four years. I will not present all the information that has already been presented to SBAR for almost three years, the Planning Commission twice, and the Board of Supervisors twice before. I'd like to focus instead on the process and the new issues just brought up by Mr. Bradford.
Years ago with the Eastern Valley, Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan in process we waited to submit our project to SBR until that process was finalized. And the community driven rezoning was in place. The site was previously commercial highway, but it was changed to C2 for years, maybe decades. I lived there in the early 80's. It was a convenience store and a gas station with two curb cuts.
The proposed project is one of the lowest intensity uses one could propose within the C2 zone. During the nine meetings in front of SBAR, we listened. We listened to SBAR and the community and modified the project to comply with almost every single recommendation. After the first Planning Commission meeting, we substantially changed the height of the building and the new design was well received by the commission and the community and led to a denial of the first appeal.
After the first meeting with the Board of Supervisors, we heard your concerns and added several traffic mitigation policies to further improve the traffic flow. My consultants and advisors tell me that we have modified this project more in response to the community and the board than most of their other projects they've ever dealt with. We believe we have presented the best project for this site.
The county forwarded to us the emails from Mr. Bradford containing the accident statistics he received from Mr. Gutierrez at the California Highway Patrol. In a short time, we were able to contact Mr. Gutierrez and correspond with the county about the data. We found out that Mr. Bradford's information was merely general statistics of traffic incidences in That as presented are out of context and misleading.
These misleading traffic statistics were also included in the public common emails that you just voted into the record. According to Mr Gutierrez, only one or maybe two incidences were on the northbound Patterson lanes toward Cathedral Oaks. Mr Bradford showed your bar graph with 16 traffic incidents over a five year period. That's three per year. I would bet that's really not much for an intersection with five freeway on-ramps, off-ramps and a big intersection, U-turns and everything.
Four of the incidents that Mr. Bradford listed occurred on the freeway off ramp, not even close to the proposed cut out. The project was designed with safety in mind. The proposed curb cut and landscape plan will provide an unobstructed view that doesn't exist now from the curb cut to the off ramp corner, that will substantially make that off-ramp safer. It will also make Trudy Carey's self storage driveway safer.
So I encourage the board to consult with what you have, with your staff about the real traffic patterns out there. This is a well-designed project developed over years with the community. The findings for approval are supported by the staff and supported by facts. Denial of the project is not supported by the facts or any evidence, but conjecture. We continue to be met with opposition and unclear what more needs to be done to gain approval.
There have been no other alternatives suggested for the property. I think somebody mentioned a nursery which would be even more traffic going in and out of that area. So if this low density, low traffic count project cannot get approved at this site. Then we surmise the board has decided that no realistic development is appropriate for this location rendering our property valueless.
In closing I just respectfully request that you deny the appeal and approve the project. We've acted as good citizens. We didn't force anything through. We followed the law. We listened to the community so please approve our project thank you
All right, thank you. That moves us to public comment. We have a comment question from Supervisor
Williams. So I just had a question for staff before public comment because my issues at the last hearing were whether the traffic issues Would be exacerbated totally understand the level of volume and the level of inherent danger in such a. A collection of multiple lane. Entrances and exits to a freeway on an off ramp. And then the other issue is what other use would be acceptable there so I just wanted to kind I don't remember who mentioned did have more traffic impact overall but it was Less at peak hours is my recollection, but maybe some other examples would be helpful.
1:53 – 2:0011 turns
Mr Chair, members of the, or Supervisor Williams. We're we're going to look up some other sure alternatives but I think transportation staff may want to respond to the question about whether or not this would exacerbate the existing conditions. In my conversations with them they shared that the peak hour trips are very very low with this project And normally we wouldn't even require the traffic study as was indicated by staff.
So if you need more information about that, they may be able to respond to that but we've got other types of permitted uses here. Mr Wilson can you outline what those would be?
Supervisor Williams to the chair. There's a number of allowed uses either through permit or a permitted use in the C2 zone We don't have these specific traffic counts for each of those uses that are identified based on that would be project-specific driven they range from you know requiring a Administrative type permit to a conditional use permit, and they range from auto vehicle sales to bars and taverns.
Convenience stores, general retail stores, grocery stores, then offices that support retail, and then a plant nursery. Restaurants, service stations, and then visited serving commercial which is a variety of different uses. And as indicated by the applicant and his staff has presented in prior hearings, staff's understanding that this project is one of the lowest intensive commercial or uses allow in the commercial area.
And those all are allowable uses in the current zoning?
Supervisor Williams, through the chair, that is correct.
So I think one of the things that I would love to hear either from Appellant or even from people in public comment is one of the things that I really struggled with This is if this is not the right use What what is. And I do not believe that the it would be fair to render this parcel undevelopable if anybody does think that's fair then I hope they're ready to come up with a lot of money to buy it but at the same time I have been honest and been straightforward that I have had heartburn with the project as is so it would be very useful for me.
To know what else would be a. Unacceptable use to the community. And one that makes sense.
OK thank you that takes us to public comment how many speakers we have today
chair let me know members of board we have 2 requests to speak on this item
Okay, we'll give a full three minutes.
We are going to begin with Trudy Carey to be followed by Cindy Poore
Good morning. I'm Trudy Carey, I'm representing Patterson Self Storage which is the adjoining neighbor and the one across the street. Timing is everything because I did look up what other uses it could be and I called a traffic engineer to see which would be less so I can address that. It could be a plant nursery. It could be mixed-use that's probably the best you could have three two bedroom one bath 900 square foot apartments combined with 37 23 square feet of office The AM peak trips would go down by 37% and the PM would go down by 32 percent for our mixed use project It can also be a special care home with six people or less, special care home of seven or more. Can be a sign shop. There's a whole list of things it could be but those would be the least traffic.
But the best of those seems to be a mixed use project with housing and office. I just wanted to clarify something. In the last presentation, they kept saying it works for self-storage and so therefore it will work for this site. Self storage is one of the lowest traffic generators. We only move in three new customers a day on average throughout the year which is much different than an office building full of people going to lunch and coming back and so forth. So it's two different animals when you compare how our driveway works to how a future driveway might work Moving on from there, as you know this project has gone on for many years and I don't think, I'm not sympathetic to why it's going on for many years. If you look up, if you were reading the BAR or SBR minutes, you would see that it was continued for no reason.
They were trying to address the heights. The applicant came in with drawings with no numbers or heights on it then they came back with no finished grades. They dragged it as far as they could drag it in my opinion And that they've even delayed this hearing of their own accord So it's gone on for a long time and there are multiple falsehoods too many to even talk about and unnecessary continuations I don't see any Applicant changes to the height of the building and at our last hearing that was a major issue because why are they building a two-story? building for one story use And the applicant has said on the record repeatedly, he wants a flexibility to maybe change the use later. Maybe add a loft for research and part of the traffic problem is it's the traffic study isn't based on what they're actually going to use the building for or the fact that could have a second level inside.
Um, so I would like to see the building be one story for that we would cut off any future traffic problems if the interior use was increased. Um. Because there's an unknown there. It would be nice if a traffic study was done and told us how many people would actually be in the building, because multiple people have told me that it's under parked. So if it has 50 people in there and we have 24 spots you can say all you want about bicycles. Where are they going to park? They can't park right there. And when they back up because they can't find a space and have to circle what's going to happen?
We need a full traffic study. This traffic study was cursory basically and did not address turning movements, cottage hospitals new expansion, the Christmas tree farm that's all new data and I understand the county is now updating all that information. As far as I'm concerned the well has been poisoned. The project should be denied without prejudice and let the applicants start afresh.
Thank you.
And our last speaker is Cindy Poore
2:01 – 2:0711 turns
Good morning. My name is Cindy Poirier and I'm a neighbor of this area. I also want to point out that I saw the accident on July 9th, and it was at the driveway of the proposed new development. There were two cars, there was a car with absolutely no bumper left so I drive that area Four times a day. Also, CHP has jurisdiction. Sheriff Department, they do not have traffic jurisdiction.
Also in regards to the traffic study I did speak with the traffic engineer and he was stunned at the lack of information of that traffic analysis. In my opinion, you cannot make the findings for approval based upon the safety impacts. You don't have the information in that traffic study. How long you wait at a light is not an issue. It's that turning movement.
So I... That's about all I have. I do have a letter. Thank you.
It looks like we have a new entrance into the race that would like to weigh in. Please identify yourself.
Mr. Chair, Supervisors, my name is Will Robertson, County of Santa Barbara Transportation Planning Supervisor. I want to correct something on the record. I do remember having discussion with Ms. Carey however Pulling up the trip generation rates, it definitely shows here that a nursery does not generate less trips than the proposed project. A nursery generates about 50 average daily trips per 1,000 square feet versus the proposed office building that's before you today which generates 14 average daily trips per thousand square feet. They're not quite even in the same realm.
There's a lot of talk about the adequacy of the traffic study. When a project comes across my desk, the first thing I have to ask myself is do we need a traffic study for this? Our approved policies say if a project comes forward it generates more than 50 peak hour trips, then a traffic study should be done. Anything less than that then it's at the discretion of the traffic engineer or the person reviewing the project and in this case I chose not to do a traffic study but did send the applicant back to a traffic engineer, in this case ATE, to have a trip generation report done just to see what their proposed use was and what they were going to generate for their proposed use.
Once that information was returned back to me, I'm able to look at the intersections, the collision data and again the trips that are generated from the project. And I can make a determination of whether or not an impact will occur. In this case, the project generates 14 peak hour trips. Based on our county thresholds you can send up to 15 trips to an intersection operating at a D In this case, county intersections are operating at C or better.
And the Caltrans facility is operating at a D. They actually accept a D so from just a trip generation standpoint we could see that there was going to be no impact based on our thresholds. So that's where the county stopped analyzing this to move forward with a full traffic study was easily going to cost the applicant 15 or $20,000 and it's not something that was actually going to get any more information for That's why the traffic study was set at a minimum level. It's simply we didn't need any additional information to make the findings based on thresholds.
Okay, Supervisor Williams?
Now on the nursery, was my recollection correct that though the daily traffic counts are slightly higher for nursery but peak hour are lower?
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Williams, based on SANDAG rates, I don't have ITE rates up but they're very similar. The SANDAG rates are showing that the average daily trips are higher indeed. But the percent of peak hour contribution is about the same, it's about 10%. So just by the nature of the project if you're generating less, 10% of a smaller number is obviously going to be smaller.
And was the numbers about mixed use with a smaller office space, is that roughly consistent with your understanding that Ms. Carey mentioned?
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Williams, mixed use becomes kind of a tricky topic because in theory if everything were working as it should we would be able to give a credit for the residential component because they would be in theory again working at the office or commercial use below but there's no guarantee that actually could happen so In the
traffic just depends on whether they are there is a relationship between the commercial component in the residential
correct. So that and the residential component is going to be a lower trip generator just in its nature but whether or not you're actually seeing a huge reduction because of the mixed use it's possible, but it's also not possible. The traffic study would reflect it I don't know if there's any way to guarantee it. The only way to guarantee it is if it were something like in a bigger city, they have live work units where you're guaranteeing that you're working below or living. That would mitigate the impact.
But in this case, I would have to just look at the intersection on a case-by-case basis and see if we're comfortable giving a mixed use credit or whether or not there was the potential to impact the intersection.
Got it.
2:07 – 2:128 turns
We're not normally, Strange to me that we are like, we have a project in front of us. And we're trying to come up with hey here's a project- Point well taken. I know but a lot of the conversation seems to be around whether a nursery fits. He didn't propose a nursery and I don't think he wants to be in the nursery business so. Interesting anyway
supervisor Hart. Well, I just the the real question here is the range of uses that could occur in this building This is a spec office building The applicant and the traffic study point to it a particular Median use of intensity of use in that site It's extremely constrained site everybody recognizes this is really a complicated place to put something and And so the real question, I think for us is are we comfortable with the higher end range that this could end up being and what would be the consequences of that from a traffic safety standpoint in this location? We keep circling back on this. It isn't our job to figure out what the applicant can do. The applicant could do a smaller building that would have less impact and that's really what this comes down to.
There are different facts about the traffic safety issues, but anybody who's been out at that intersection knows it's very high speed. It's very short distances to see the turning movements as cars are coming off the freeway. There is not a lot of room for error there, and introducing a new driveway here with peak hour trips that are going to affect the off-ramp level of service. Going to take the level of service at the off ramp I think from a C to a D is what the findings in their staff report speak to.
There will be impacts from this project and it's going to put people at risk and that's not an ideal planning situation so I think what we're really saying Go back to the drawing board, sharpen the pencil and come up with some more specificity of the shell of this particular building. Shrink it down into something fits in this unique site that's complicated.
We still have rebuttal time so before we get too many more questions go ahead Supervisor Williams.
Well I was just going to say if Ms. Carey has additional information maybe you would allow it as part of your rebuttal?
Okay, so Mr. Bradford or the appellant's designee has three minutes.
So I wanted to respond briefly and again, I think I mentioned earlier when I talked about the CHP data was not to point fingers at staff or the applicant. It was just simply the information we unearthed as a process of this. There is no fault with Mr. Smart or the applicant. A couple things why I went looking for that. The last hearing one or more of you had suggested well gee we need something beyond just anecdotal, we don't like this as a neighborhood and that was what prompted me to call the sheriff and that was referred to CHP who do in fact have jurisdiction I'll just read briefly from the email from officer Gutierrez this email is response to our conversation. We had an 827 we spoke about the collisions that took place in a one-year time period from 827 2019 the specific area being Patterson between us 101 and Kyrie Allen a secondary email He said effectively the same thing there were nine more collisions that occurred between us 101 and Kyrie L That's the data that I have that's the data that I presented to you The location, Mr.
Smart mentioned that the one accident and the 45 mile an hour piece going over the freeway. Those motorists indeed going that fast, the ones getting off 101 northbound, they're not going 45 from the get go but the problem is that they're looking at the folks who are going 45 coming their direction. So again just to reframe your process of thinking about it, that's the behavior piece. This does impact both sides of 101 so regardless, I'm sorry Patterson, regardless of where the impact happened this project is going to have an impact on it. Both northbound from the 90 degree exit potential to the U-turn connecting with or potentially conflicting with Cayo Real traffic And again, I think big picture Supervisor Williams your concern is valid. What can we reasonably hope and give some daylight to the applicant?
I understand that. I think what we're all pointing to is a 92-page report. Again, I'll be at a different project a mile and a half away in a nine page report here. Given the complexities of this project it serves your board to ask the applicant to go back as Supervisor Hart has mentioned. Thank you.
Still have 50 seconds, I'm assuming he's asking you to come up. Hi,
it's Trudy Carey. Just to clarify the data I gave you for the traffic for mixed use, the mixed use rule is you can only have no more than 50%. And those three apartments were done with no credit just based on apartment straight traffic results added to office rates so that had nothing to do with any credits and it was 40% less.
2:12 – 2:2213 turns
Okay, we now move to the project applicant who has three minutes of rebuttal.
Thank you. One thing I'd like to emphasize is there is a positive to this project as I said. There are a lot of accidents on the off ramp. The new curb cut for our project is not going to prevent accidents at the off-ramp, but I think it will. Because the sight lines will be changed dramatically and a lot of people coming off of the right hand turn on the northbound off ramp will be able to see a clearer picture of what's going on in Patterson. That's a positive. We always think about creating negatives on the project.
Trudy Carey says she only gets three tenants in her self storage project year makes it sound like there's only three cars going in and out every day. When Supervisor Hart was gracious enough to meet with us, within 30 minutes we saw six or seven or eight cars go in and out. And before he got there, we saw a lot of traffic. So she's correct that maybe she has three brand new tenants a day but the traffic is a lot more than three cars a day. It's a lot and we saw it within a 30 minute period.
She's also concerned about the height of the building. I know all of a sudden that's coming up again. Mr. Bradford even said that, and the community said they liked that we reduced the height of the building. And I think in today's economy, modern economy you have to have flexibility on anything you build otherwise why build it? We don't know where we'll be 10 years from now, 20 years from now as far as office space, retail space. We just don't know so you better be flexible if you're going to do anything right now.
One other thing too is, as Mr. Bradford made it sound like just having this project here with low traffic counts is going to make the entire intersection unbelievably dangerous. Cars will be flying, Armageddon's going in there. I mean, there are three more undeveloped parcels across the street. I believe it's a city, I'm not sure. But does that mean nothing will be built around here for the next 20-30 years? If we're denied based on just the pure volume of traffic and the lowest use we can come up with Then maybe nothing should be built around here, and I don't think that's really where we're going as a community.
We have housing, we have commercial. If we just all of the sudden say well too much traffic was now dangerous and everybody is gonna die, that's not the case. Let's not paint a picture like that. This is a well vetted project. Vetted many, many times been through all these planning commissions in the board. What more can we do? We've done a lot, and I think we've bent over backwards to comply with everything within the law. But to say we cannot build this because we're going to create the most dangerous intersection in the county of Santa Barbara is completely unrealistic and we shouldn't even be going there. Thank you very much.
All right, thank you. It's back to staff. Staff comments on anything that you heard that you'd like to clarify?
Mr. Chairman, as a board, we don't have any further information.
Okay, bring it back to the board. Supervisor Hart.
Yeah, this is a complicated project and it's one of the few remaining available lots in this intersection. It does require thinking ahead and being smart about balancing the uses and trying to wring out the best project that we possibly can so that everything else fits together going forward into the future for the neighborhood, for the applicant. I know Mr. Sarmiento and his team have really worked hard on this and they've listened carefully. But they're not just quite there yet, and I think it really comes down to the size of this building at the height of the shell. The volume that's available here that could be cubicalized and have an intensity of use that isn't. Imagined right here today, but over time will evolve as those other parcels come forward for development too We're gonna have to find the right balance point between all of these So I think it's important in this situation given the high speeds of this intersection and the short distances for sight lines I appreciate that your projects going to step back from the curb and provide greater sight line to that freeway off-ramp That is a really serious Deficiency right now that exists out there today, but that would be the case for a smaller project too You'd be doing the same thing and we'd have the same benefit But we'd have less impact from your particular project So you know I think our job is to try and find the right balance point in the community The staff has findings for denial that describe the very specific Site circumstances that require this project to go back to the drawing board And I think that they can do that.
I think that they can meet that standard But it's just going to take a little bit more creativity from the applicants and willingness to work within a very constrained site. Okay, thank you very much. I would make a motion to accept the appeal and deny the project. I think it is, I can't remember the designations A through D on our staff report.
Second. Supervisor Adam?
I voted against this project last time and I gotta say, I have a big problem with including all the accidents into consideration of a project. You know when you go out onto the on-ramp, when you go into Other lanes other than you know immediately right turn out. I think you've overreached and I think that the presentation here has been disingenuous and it's a bad characterization and for that reason, I will support the project.
Okay we have a motion and second Supervisor William?
Well, I guess to add to the drama here that I feel like I put out a bar to both sort of the applicant but maybe even more so to the community and to the appellant. To show me that there's more accident data and I think I said, I intuitively feel like there's some safety issues here but I don't have that borne out in numbers. I felt like that was pretty clear bar. And though, I agree with Mr. Adam that not all of those numbers should have been included there are still a significantly higher number than I previously knew about in the lanes between the one oh one and and Kyrie L and so that has given me some pause for concern And then the other bar I set was sort of what other use should be out there. And this is more to try to make sure that applicants don't spend their entire lives trying to get a project approved, which is sometimes unfortunately the case in this jurisdiction.
I really think that if we are to deny a project that is in a zone for use, that it is incumbent upon us to give some indication of what the community would accept and what the board would accept so that an applicant doesn't keep on You know banging their head against the wall. And you know I feel that the appellant and the public have been partially responsive to that bar in that and I think a significant issue is sort of the direction I don't know what other supervisors would say but to me.
As I said before from a macro perspective and this isn't the fault of the applicant because it is a zone for use, but from a macro perspective. Goleta needs additional commercial space like a hole in It doesn't need more commercial to become more of a job center if the goal is to reduce traffic impacts. So in that sense, a mixed use or even housing use in my perspective but particularly mixed use because there seems to be some public support for it seems One concrete route that could be better for the community and could allow the applicant to have a fair rate of return.
So I guess I am not comfortable with either side on this one, but where there is some doubt, I use the precautionary principle on the impact of traffic and would I vote to uphold the appeal.
Mr. Gazzone? Chair and Supervisors, as I understood Supervisor Hart's motion for items A through D for upholding the appeal and denying the project. I believe planning at our recommendation earlier discussed that the findings for denial are at attachment 1 to the July 2nd 2019 memo that on the legistar posting is item number 32 and just wanted to confirm that with planning Mr. Chairman's of where that is correct.
And do I understand that? That's within the motions who raise her heart?
Yes, because I,
and then we were separately looking just as I listened to the motion at the consequences of a denial under the land use code. And um, because there'd been some discussion about going back to the drawing board, but a denial would actually be a flat denial which normally has a, I believe a one year timeout period
2:22 – 2:2810 turns
Okay, I'll just make some comments. It sounds like there's already three votes to uphold the appeal so it'd be easy to piggyback on that but the way I look at it is you know I just went through years and years and years of going through the Eastern Goleta Valley Community Plan that had...I don't know how many public meetings Supervisor Wolf, that was her baby that she was very proud of how much community input had been received.
And properties were rezoned at that time. And so for me, that was the chance for the bite at that apple. This was obviously a piece of property that if the community didn't feel like it met the zoning that it currently has, for me that was the chance to change the zoning. You now have a project that came in after that community plan. And according to our staff report, it meets all the policies of the community plan that was adopted by the community.
It meets the zoning requirements. I understand that the neighbors are opposed and I went and I stopped numerous times getting off at that intersection on the way home to take a look at it It's a poorly designed intersection, there's no doubt about it. But that's not Mr. Sarmiento's fault and his project was studied to determine how much it would impact in our traffic engineers that we pay money to tell us if the project fits. They're the expert.
So the way I look at it at this point is I'm not in the position to dictate usage to a developer. It's not incumbent upon me to tell him what he should build in a certain location. That's why we zone things, and then he comes back with a project and it is correct. We can either accept or deny his project. And now I kind of understand what Supervisor Williams is saying that we might be able to send signals of what might be acceptable in that area.
But I will bet that if he comes back with a mixed use project, that there will be another 200 emails and there'll be a bunch more people that have an issue with whatever that is. It's a difficult piece of property. So if the community's not going to go out there and raise the money and buy this piece of property, And the county definitely doesn't want it. It's not like we're going to turn it into a park, we can't maintain the ones that we have.
This provides the lowest production of additional traffic in that area or close to the lowest and I just can't in good conscience have somebody go through the process It's not the best project for That's not how it's owned and the man owns the product of a piece property and is entitled to at least have a chance at developing itself. I'm not sure what to tell other folks in the county that own a piece of property, but I understand where you're coming from and anytime We waive the safety flag. It provides a little bit of protection for everybody, so I'm going to vote against the motion but let's call for a roll call.
Mr. Williams?
Aye.
Mr Hart? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Mr Adam?
No
Chair Leveny
no. Motion passes 3-2. One last thing I did want to say is, I do appreciate all the people in that community. I wish I lived in a neighborhood that was that tuned-in, that advocates that strongly. There was plenty of emails. We definitely knew where you were on this issue and I always appreciate when the community gets involved in something that's going on in their neighborhood so thank you Supervisor Williams.
The appellant said I set a bar for the appellants. The appellants reached it, but I guess my intention was also to put us a bar out for the applicant for future so that the story doesn't change right? If the applicant does come with a mixed use project, I think that's more what we're looking for.
Okay very good. So we're going to
move to item D2 and then we will break for closed session and lunch after D2. And just also heads up that after D2, we'll go back to A16 with Dr. Reynoso so that she can weigh in before lunch. Okay? Let's go to D2.
2:28 – 2:3515 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number two is from general services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Northern Branch Jail Project authorized signatory for the AB 900 phase 2 California State Public Works Board project financing documents.
Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and board members. This item before you this morning for your consideration includes the approval as to form of the facility sublease and also the authorization of county signatories required by the state in order for them to issue bonds under the AB 900 phase two Jail financing program, which is funding a large portion of the northern branch jail construction project Just a little background on January 15 2013 the county entered into agreements with the following state agencies to fund a portion of the costs of construction of The northern branch jail which is currently under construction in the city of Santa Maria and Under the state's AB 900 phase two funding program.
The Board of State and Community Corrections, the BSCC, the county entered into a jail construction agreement and also a project delivery and construction agreement. The State Public Works Board, the SPWB and the California Department of Corrections and Rehab, the CDCR. The county entered into the project delivery and construction agreement with those two agencies.
The county was awarded $80 million through the AB 900 phase two jail funding program. The county has received $76 million to date from that program. The state is withholding the remaining $4 million as a retention, which is also equivalent to 5% of the award. And we'll release that $4 million to the county once final construction completion and occupancy requirements are met.
Currently, the Northern Branch Jail is projected to be completed in the December 2019 time frame.
Mr. Abel I have a question. So we received, we're awarded 80. We've received 76. How much have we spent?
Approximately 96 million to
date. And what was our original guesstimate of what the construction cost was going to be?
The budget currently is at $110 million
total. Thank you. Well, one last question. How close are we going to be to that 110? Do we know yet?
We don't know yet. I mean, we will obviously report that to the board as we near the completion and get to that point.
OK. Thank you.
The State Public Works Board intends to issue lease revenue bonds for the AB 900 phase two financing program upcoming now in the next couple of months this fall. Santa Barbara County is actually one of four counties that is receiving funding for jail projects. Riverside County, Tulare County and Sutter County are also receiving funds through this bond issue.
Concurrently with the issuance of the bonds, the county and the State Public Works Board will enter into a facility sublease. Concurrently there are also some other leases that will be entered into over the coming months. Both the site lease and the facility lease will be entered into with the CDCR and the SPWB. In turn, this facility sublease will be entered into with the county.
That sublease requires the county to operate and maintain the Northern Branch Jail Facility for the life of the bonds which is estimated to be 25 years. The county will be required to sign and return documents, including the facility subleased when it's finalized for the state to complete their bond sale. The state requires the county to delegate an authorized officer to sign the documents on behalf of the county To ensure that these documents are going to be executed in a timely manner.
The turnaround time may not be very long time from the point when we receive those documents from the state, to when they will need them back fully executed. It is the state's obligation to make the bond payments. The sublease does not obligate the county for And the state's bond sale is expected to be completed in December 2019. So today, the actions that we are looking for the board to make are to approve as to form the attached facility sublease and authorize the chair, the county executive officer or designee to sign this sublease as part of the California Department of Finance's AB 900 bond financing To adopt the attached resolution authorizing the chair, the county executive officer or their designees to execute the facility sublease in substantially the form attached.
And to do any and all things and execute and deliver any and all documents and agreements which they may deem necessary to consummate the execution and delivery of the facilities sublease and Public Works Board AB 900 Phase 2 project bonds for the financing of the Northern Branch Jail after review and approval by General Services, County Council and the Auditor-Controller.
And to make the CEQA determination.
Okay do we have any public comment on this matter?
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, we have no request to speak on this item.
Okay. Board Members, Supervisor Adam.
Well, if nobody else has any comments I'd just make a motion to approve staff recommendations.
Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay very good thank you very much let's go back to A16 if you want to read that back just in case somebody missed it.
2:35 – 2:3818 turns
Chair Lavagnino members of the board returning to administrative item number 16 is from the county executive office It is to approve budget revision requests as posted on with today's agenda, and there is a four-fifths vote required.
Good morning Chair, members of the board. First off I'd like to apologize for leaving before the admin calendar. I have a good reason. I rushed, I was distracted because my staff were planning a birthday brunch and I just got distracted so I apologize for inconveniencing you. It is my birthday
today. Well happy birthday! Thank you. Here comes your birthday present, Supervisor Adam. I'm
glad you were able to come back. And I just want to add something that Director Dobernoso typically spends her birthday every year doing some event for suicide prevention or
another. Yes,
I'll be there
tonight.
So we have a good emissary.
Well, I'm glad the mimosas didn't get you down. You understand the question
yes, so why didn't we budget? So we It was an oversight on our part and as soon as we loaded the budget and realized that we had made that mistake we sought to Include it in the revision. Okay
All right. Well, that's all I needed. Okay. I was just wondering why in the heck that happens?
We have new staff and it's a transition year or so.
Okay. Yeah. Alright thank
you. Good as answer as any. Alright how about a motion?
Motion to approve.
Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Nope okay did you Okay, so the next two items three and five look like they're going to take more time than that. So what we're going to do is we're just going to take a break. We'll start closed session at noon and then we'll finish up in the afternoon. Supervisor Wood? Mr.
Chair I don't want to invoke Mr. Ghazani with him right here but should we should give the public in case there's somebody here a chance to do public comment on item four.
Is anybody interested in speaking on item four? Which is the public works recommendations, you want to read it in?
2:38 – 3:159 turns
Chair Lavinino members of the board. Yes, thank you department item number four is from Public Works and General Services It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding for an all-point lane bridge replacement resolution of necessity Project at Romero Creek acquisition of temporary and permanent easement in this is in the first district We have a request from the department to continue this item to October 1st 2019 And as of now I have no requests to speak on public comment on this item
OK, we will break now for closed session. Did we get a vote on A16? We did, yes. On A16, Supervisor Adam moved it so we're talking about D4 now. So D4 is moving continuing into October 1st.
So moved. Second.
Moved and seconded all those in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed? Passes unanimously. All right, we'll meet for closed session at noon.
Mr. Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board is scheduled to consider three items. The first is conference with legal counsel concerning existing litigation in the manner of Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District as well as the county of Santa Barbara concerning the Southern California fire cases which are coordinated proceedings in Los Angeles Superior Court. Then you have two separate items for conference with labor negotiators. The first is all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives. And the second is the board sitting as the Board of the Santa Barbara County Public Authority concerning in-home supportive services. My estimate is that closed session will take about one hour.
Okay so we should meet back here about 1 o'clock Hello, everyone.
Music Hi. Thank you. You. Good morning, everyone. Yeah. you Yeah. You. you Hello. Hello everyone.
3:16 – 3:542 turns
Music playing The Hello. Hello, everyone. You.
Hello, everyone. Hi. ♪ Hi. Thank you. you Hi. Good morning. you Yeah. you You. you you Hello. Hello everyone.
3:55 – 4:342 turns
Music
The Hello. Hello, everyone. Oh, Hello. Yeah. Music Music Music You. You. Thank you. Yeah. you You. you Hello. Hello. Hello.
4:35 – 4:412 turns
Music
. . Hello. . . . . . Hello, everyone. Hello. Music Thank you.
4:52 – 4:5612 turns
All right. Well is it one o'clock yet? We should wait until we said Sorry about that, our closed session got a little bit longer than we had anticipated. But Mr. Gazzone can I get a report out of closed session?
Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered one matter of existing litigation concerning the Southern California fire cases that are coordinated in proceeding number 4965 Los Angeles Superior Court. We had two matters of labor negotiations, one for all bargaining units on representative employees, managers and executives, and a second for in-home supportive services. There are no reportable actions.
So Madam Clerk, can you please read in item 3 please?
Chair Lavinino and members of the Board. Departmental Item number three is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding our response to the 2018 through 2019 Grand Jury Report Suicide in Custody. All
right Mr. Frapwell
Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and board members Our item before you today is really to, for your board, consider your proposed or the draft response to the grand jury report titled Suicide in Custody. The report was published by the Grand Jury in June and what's before your board today is just your boards portion of the report that was referred to your board.
The report prepared by the grand jury had a total of nine findings and recommendations. Only finding number 9 and recommendation number 9 were referred to your board for response. Attachment A to your board report is the draft response that I'll go through, attachment B is the full copy of the Grand Jury Report, and attachment C is the Sheriff's Department's response to recommendations and findings 1-8 Finding number nine specifically is that the jail is operating without national commission for correctional health care accreditation contrary to contract requirement.
Our proposed response for your board to the grand jury is that you agree with finding number nine. Recommendation number nine corresponds to that, is that the Board of Supervisors closely examine the provisions of the existing medical provider contract and enforce all of the current providers' obligations especially with regard to the continuing failure to obtain the accreditation for the jail.
Our proposed response for your board is that it has been implemented. The Sheriff along with representatives from WellPath or CFMG are scheduled to present a report to your board a week from today As part of their annual report and as part of that specifically discuss their progress in achieving this accreditation. So with hat, we have the sheriff's departments here are happy to answer any questions your board might have with respect to our proposed responses to the finding and the recommendation number nine in the report.
If you have any broader questions obviously there's the department's here for those as well.
All right. Do we have any public comment?
Chair Lavanino, members of the board, we have no request to speak on this item.
Are there any questions from board members? Okay. Can I get a motion?
I will make a motion to adopt staff recommendations
Second.
Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously, thank you. Moves us to item number five.
4:56 – 5:065 turns
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, departmental item number five is from community services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a strategic energy plan SEP report
Good morning. Good afternoon, Chair Landino, members of the Board of Supervisors. Today I'll be receiving a presentation on strategic energy planning. I'd like to introduce you to Ashley Watkins who is the Division Chief for Sustainability Division and Marissa Hansen our Program Specialist who will be giving this presentation.
Good afternoon, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. We're here today to present the outcome of the county's strategic energy plan project For the agenda today I'll go over the project objectives some background on how strategic energy planning came about as well as an overview of our process And then I'll discuss the content of the plan and phasing in of the recommendations within it You may hear me refer to strategic energy planning as SEP throughout the presentation So the overarching goal of strategic energy planning is to stimulate renewable energy development within Santa Barbara County.
The specific objectives of this project were to determine the renewable energy resource potential within the county, conduct in-depth assessments on high potential sites, identify barriers to renewable energy development that currently exist and recommendations to overcome or mitigate those barriers. The motivation behind strategic energy planning is the county's Energy and Climate Action Plan, which seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through strategies such as increasing adoption of renewable energy.
In October of 2018 when it was unclear whether a local CCE was feasible, the board directed staff to engage our consultants, Optini Inc., for strategic energy planning services as both a complement to a potential future CCE program and a beneficial standalone strategy. Strategic energy planning was a very collaborative effort. The cities of Carpentry and Goleta both participated in the project, and the city of Santa Barbara pursued a similar parallel project with the same consultant.
Stakeholder engagement was also a very integral part of this process. We held kickoff meetings with internal county departments which provided context for work that's already been completed or that is planned related to SEP goals. And it was also an opportunity to solicit input on potential opportunities and challenges. Outreach to external stakeholders was also conducted via a survey and a series of six community workshops.
Participants at those workshops provided feedback on the draft SEP, and were also encouraged to take advantage of free solar PV site assessments. Input from all those stakeholder groups really helped inform the barriers and recommendations that are included in the plan. But one overarching priority that emerged from meetings with both internal and external stakeholders is the need for grid reliability and resiliency.
Following those initial kickoff meetings, Atenee conducted a renewable energy potential study to assess the availability of a number of renewable energy resources within the county. They looked at sources that are eligible under California's renewables portfolio standard and those include solar, wind, biomass, biogas, small hydro and geothermal. You can see that solar PV is by far the most abundant resource with an estimated 1,251 to 1857 megawatts of generation capacity. And that's enough to power between 595,000 and over a million homes.
Only a small percentage of that potential has been installed to date within the county. And while solar is the most abundant resource there is sufficient potential in wind biomass and biogas to justify further investigation.
There's lights on, or you just have lights on? Or do you have questions? Sorry. Go
ahead. So because solar has the highest potential there is a heavy focus on it within the SEP and often we analyze solar potential for both urban and agricultural areas separately Urban solar projects are primarily sited on rooftops and carports at residential, commercial and mixed-use sites. They're typically smaller in size and installed to offset electricity use at that site.
A local example of an urban solar project is Direct Relief out in Goleta. They store life saving medications some of which require refrigeration. And their rooftop solar system coupled with battery backup can keep their operations running and medications protected even if the power's out for months. Some factors that contribute to how much urban solar can be developed are load concerns. A system can't produce more than is needed on site for behind-the-meter connections, or if it's a front of the meter connection where it's selling power back to the grid, the grid must be able to accommodate that extra generation.
Rooftop availability and shading from nearby trees and buildings are concerns as well as structural integrity of available rooftops. Total urban potential for Santa Barbara County includes three urban pockets within the unincorporated county, the participating cities of Carpentria and Goleta and the non-participating cities in the county. And it amounts to 1430 to 1950 gigawatt hours of annual generation or enough to power 550,000 homes.
Urban solar potential accounts for a significant portion of the countywide solar potential, and coupled with battery storage could provide resilience to residents and businesses as well as utility savings with time-of-use charges and future rate increases. Agricultural solar projects are primarily ground mount systems, and while they may be used to offset onsite use generally there is more space, and ag land is where the opportunity for utility scale solar projects lies.
One benefit of utility-scale projects on ag land is the potential for a new revenue stream for ag land owners whose land is no longer productive. Factors such as the proximity to transmission lines, again line capacity, topography of the land and regulatory environmental concerns such as protected habitats can affect feasibility of utility scale solar projects on agricultural land.
You can see that the solar potential is much greater in North Santa Barbara County than it is in South County, and that's generally a matter of land availability. Most of the ag land in South County is either in production within the coastal zone or on hilly terrain. Another distinction you'll notice in the chart is whether the land is Williamson or non-Williamson act.
This is one of the major barriers that we'll discuss a little later in the presentation. The total agricultural solar potential is between 270 and 975 gigawatt hours per year. That's a pretty wide range, and the reason for that is just that there are more variables to consider for ag land than urban rooftops. To give some extra context to those numbers, that's enough to power between 90 and 325,000 homes. And the greenhouse gas emissions reduced by adding that much solar to the grid is equivalent of taking about between 40 and 140,000 vehicles off the road for a year.
In addition to the countywide solar potential study, Optiny conducted individual site analyses at a number of county-owned and private sites. We worked closely with general services to identify potential county sites and facilities, and they included these three sites with multiple scenarios at the Northern Branch Jail. A rooftop and carport system at the Santa Maria Mental Health Building could offset about 99% of the electricity demand, and a rooftop system on Fire Station 11 out in Goleta could offset about 90% of the electricity use.
For the Northern Branch Jail, a couple scenarios were analyzed. Both a behind-the-meter system for offsetting on-site use and a front of the meter system for selling electricity wholesale back to the grid. The system sizes shown in the table are the maximum for the space available and for the ground mount system there are five design variations included in the SEP that would provide options that might be compatible with any future expansion plans.
Often they conducted detailed site assessments for 15 private sites as well. And the combined annual generation for those 15 sites is 123 gigawatt hours, which is enough to power approximately 42,000 homes. So based on the research that we had done, based on research that we did on county policies and procedures and conversations with both internal and external stakeholders. We developed a list of barriers in corresponding recommendations that fell into five key program areas.
And those include institutional county barriers, regulatory utility and infrastructure education and public awareness and financial and funding. And based on departmental work programs, potential impact timeline for development and budget. Staff is recommending a phased approach to implementing these recommended actions. So for phase one, we have three recommended actions to develop and implement.
The first is to create a formal Energy Assurance Plan or EAP. Following the Thomas Fire and 1-9 debris flow, the Office of Emergency Management began to draft a multi day power outage contingency plan that is not quite complete and focused solely on the South County. So with the continual risk of disaster related power outages and Public safety power shutdowns, like we experienced this weekend.
This recommendation is to develop a formal county-wide energy assurance plan to ensure reliability at critical facilities with the combination of solar and battery storage systems. In addition to the reliability and resiliency benefit, the critical facilities identified could take advantage of utility cost savings opportunities on a daily basis by charging the batteries while power's cheap, and then discharging the battery during peak usage hours when prices go back up.
5:06 – 5:1615 turns
Supervisor Hartman has a question.
Yes, could you define critical facilities or do we have a definition?
Sure Chair Levening or Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Critical facilities could include both county-owned and other facilities in the county and those would be things like schools and universities hospitals churches places that people would go in times of emergency
And that would include for example cooling centers if we develop those correct
The timeline estimated for creating an EAP is between 12 and 24 months. Costs are estimated to be between $250,000 and $350,000. And those estimates include staff time and consultant costs but not project construction costs. The second action in phase one is to develop a utility scale solar ordinance. Utility scale solar projects are currently limited to the Quiama Valley and developing utility scale solar ordinance will expand the areas throughout the county where utility scale projects are allowed.
Planning and development currently has this action included in their work program for this fiscal year, and budget has been allocated. The third action in phase one is aimed at reducing barriers for solar development on land that's under Williamson Act contract. Large amounts of ag land in the county are under Williamson Act contract and while the county has little influence on statewide Williamson Act requirements, there are changes that the county could make to its uniform rules which are used to enforce Williamson Act contracts.
Changes to those uniform rules might include incorporating a sole use easement provision consistent with government code, which would allow owners to rescind unproductive bag land from their contracts for significantly lower fee 6.25% as opposed to 25% of the assessed value of their land. The uniform rules may also be amended to allow community scale solar, which is typically between 1 and 10 megawatts in size as a compatible use. Or to allow utility scale solar as a compatible use if it qualifies as a dual-use project, which means it could coexist with shade tolerant crops or smaller grazing animals.
And it should be noted that these amendments target non prime agricultural land. The timeline for updating uniform rules is estimated to be between 12 and 18 months. Planning and development does not currently have the budget allocated for this task, and will return to your board with cost estimate. Phase two actions build on the progress of phase one. The first recommended action, first recommended actions are related to regulatory barriers and would be under the purview of planning and development.
The first recommended action is to update the coastal zoning ordinance to allow small and utility scale wind energy systems to be developed within the Gaviota Coast Plan area. This will be west of the Gaviota Pass viewshed with a major conditional use permit and a public hearing process. And this recommendation is consistent with several recommended policies and actions outlined in the Gaviota Coast Plan that was adopted in 2016.
The second recommendation is to work with neighboring jurisdictions and local solar and storage industry to compare protocols, technology standards, and industry best practices to create a set of standardized permitting criteria for residential solar and storage systems. Since residential storage is relatively new and there's currently a lack of standardization for permitting those systems, creating a uniform set of criteria for those systems can provide opportunities for more streamlined permitting and inspection procedures beyond state requirements.
Planning and development would be the main department responsible for both of these first two recommended actions. They do not have either action budgeted and would return to your board with cost estimates. The third recommendation in phase two is meant to address the lack of public awareness around renewable energy costs and kind of amid constantly improving technology and lowering prices. The recommendation is to create a one-stop shop education center, and to conduct outreach to businesses and ag landowners once phase one's actions have been implemented.
The timeline for this recommendation is 12 to 18 months, and the estimated cost is between $50,000 and $75,000. The last recommendation in this phase is to investigate a community solar project in partnership with either an IOU or through a CCA. Community solar projects are smaller than utility-scale projects and can be subscribed to by residents and businesses that can't install solar on their own facilities.
Local siting of a community solar project can also reduce the reliance on the transmission grid, which is a known issue in the Goleta load pocket. During transmission outages, a community solar project could still serve a portion of customers though not in the case of a distribution outage. The timeline for this action is between 12 and 24 and 36 months, excuse me, and costs which do not include project construction costs are estimated to be between $150,000 and $200,000.
There are two actions in the final phase and both of these are related to financial and funding barriers. The first recommendation is to create a loan loss reserve fund to back up loans for renewable energy projects. This would be modeled after a past program and could enable low-interest financing for commercial renewable energy projects. The second final recommendation is to provide financial incentives to make up for the reduction in economic value due to time of use rate changes and the elimination of the federal tax credit.
Both of these recommendations would be later stage strategies. So just to recap, staff is recommending that the board direct us to begin to undertake phase one recommended actions which includes the development of an energy assurance plan, creating a utility scale solar ordinance and updating the county's uniform rules for agricultural preserves. Staff also recommends undertaking Phase 2 recommended actions with the expectation that we'll return with cost estimates and further detail as necessary.
Staff are proposing to use $650,000 in CCE fund balance to fund the initial activities and the board also allocated $391,000 for CCE in the current fiscal year. Planning and Development only has the Utility Scale Solar Ordinance in their current work program and budget allocated for that task. Additional funds would be required for the other tasks assigned from the SCP.
Staff are not recommending this, but some revenue-raising strategies that were included in the SCP are a utility tax or sales tax increase. By addressing the barriers that were identified and creating a regulatory environment more conducive to renewable energy development here in the county, we can expect increased development of both distributed and utility scale projects throughout the county. Greater reliability and resiliency at critical facilities and the creation of local renewable energy jobs.
Here is a summary of the actions we're recommending your board take today. That concludes my presentation Before I finish, I just wanted to introduce Jonathan Wayland. He is our consultant from Obstiny as well.
Great. Supervisor
Adam? Ms. Hanson on page 70 of the strategic energy plan and following there's some depictions of the jail that have large amounts of the property used in solar array familiar with that? Okay. Does the sheriff support using the flat ground for that?
Supervisor Adam through the chair, I think the idea was just to get an understanding of what is possible and anything that was included in the plan would just be an option that would be on the table and it would be dependent on any future jail expansion plans.
Yeah because that pretty much tams you in for 20-30 years If you put it in some of these configurations, it would take up all of the usable space there. I know there's a pretty large south-facing slope there that's too steep to be doing anything with jail wise or even any other Any other county purposes, because that's a pretty large piece of county property that I think we should be very careful with expanding on. And then the other thing was, this is a Mr. Guzzone question, I think.
That $650,000 that we put away for a CCE, what's the level of restriction of that money?
Chair and supervisors with me today are our budget director and our auditor, and we've actually spent a fair amount of time looking at that question.
I
saw the
three of you walking
out. And I would say that our combined summary answer on that is that the board during the June budget hearing appropriated $650,000 for the purpose of community choice energy but did not actually restrict Those funds and therefore that money is available through majority vote today But the purpose was for community choice energy we looked carefully at the County Budget Act as to whether this was a motion or Movement of funds that would require four-fifths vote and concluded it does not
Okay. Thank you
5:16 – 5:2217 turns
Have a couple questions So I'm trying to Put all this together. Okay, so we've joined or we're going to join Monterey Bay and part of CCE I thought was that there was gonna be this fund that existed for us to then use to go ahead and build projects here locally. So I don't have any problem with going out and looking where we would do that. I was supportive of that, but what caught my attention was the sales tax increase, the oil extraction increase tax that we would have.
I assume that whatever we did through CCE was going to create enough money for us to do these projects without going and getting another revenue stream. So where am I confused or how's this all play out?
Yes, you're correct. With CCE we will have the ability to participate in a micro grid project and solar and storage project that will launch in mid 2020. The work with CCE was happening simultaneously with the work that was being done through the strategic energy plan so We didn't know what was going to happen With CCE, you'll see it's still a recommendation or was a recommendation to move forward with forming our own as part of that. So-
Okay so hopefully that there wouldn't be an added revenue stream necessary at that point that CCE would provide the funds?
That is the hope for specifically for critical facilities because that's where the micro grid project program that Monterey Bay Community Power is going to launch it's going to be directed at as critical facilities. If we're looking at other facilities, we may still have to go out and find additional funds if we want to have solar or storage there.
Okay so one of the other things kind of scared me with this is it sounded like there were a lot of great sites that were analyzed that could produce a lot of solar But a lot of it's in the North County. We talked about open space ag, but nobody is interested in doing it on their property. So I noticed that you had public awareness and education on solar in phase two, but that almost sounds like that's like a phase one of...
And I'm really I'm really, I'm trying to imagine open space. And then when you talk about open space and agriculture in North County, I can't imagine anybody that's doing any sort of development now whether the farming that they're doing now whether it's row crops or whatever switching over. So are you just looking at range land? What exactly were you looking at that we determined that was agriculture that you thought might change but that the owner was not interested in?
I'm sorry what does that mean. That's no longer in a condition to produce crops. Rangeland anything that
doesn't. We've got a farmer here so.
I
think they're talking crazy. Yeah, yeah, I think so. But is that what you mean? Like open range land?
Correct.
Okay. So this is another question and I'm just asking these because I need to get educated. So are cattle and like a solar array compatible?
Cattle wouldn't be, they're a little too large and could destroy solar panels. But smaller animals like sheep and goats are compatible.
Okay,
just one of your questions that I don't think we answered chair Levin you know regarding education the reason why it's in the second phase is because one of the things that we heard from Site owners was that they've been approached by solar developers in the past but they've sort of hit a hit a wall in terms of actually being able to move forward because of Things like the Williamson acts and the uniform rules So the idea is remove some of the barriers and then go back and do some more education outreach
I was going
to say cattle can is perfectly compatible with wind and can be compatible with solar with fencing. I mean, I think as some people that know a lot about rangeland know that it's it requires a vast acreage to support A decent herd of cattle and as a component, a solar facility could be great especially if you're close to transmission. But in a lot of cases not only do our rules not currently allow them to do so but the uniform rules in addition to our permitting rules make it tricky.
Okay,
so talking about the rules. So do we have a status of where we are on the solar ordinance or when that's planned to come to us? Is that this year and next year? Do we know where we're at on that? Mr. Clemon.
5:22 – 5:2814 turns
Good afternoon Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Yes actually what we were waiting on was the completion of this study Your board's review of it. Give it the thumbs up because that was an important study for its scoping out the solar ordinance amendments So provided that there is action taken on this soon We could then go ahead and start for example putting out RFPs for consultants If for example, we already published a number of RFPs for consultant services We're gonna be reviewing those proposals if we don't see somebody That's qualified as result to those will publish a separate RFP And then we will start with planning commission hearings.
Likely probably about the end of this year, beginning of the next calendar year was when we had started up with the Planning Commission hearings. Likely take a few hearings to get through those and then we would hopefully be getting a project description and getting environmental review up and running early spring. We don't know what sort of environmental document would be required It's anywhere from six months to a year to prepare that and then we'd be returning back to the Planning Commission ultimately to your board. So cool,
okay Thank you Last question for me on solar too is like how much just I'm trying to figure out what the scale would look like Because I know how much people You know you put up hoops and visually people all of a sudden have an issue with that And I'm sure, I've driven by like the one at Vandenberg and to me it just looks terrible. But what is an acre produced? What kind of scale are we talking about for the numbers that you have in here?
We have projected in here that you could do half a million homes. What's that gonna look like on the county footprint?
I'm gonna ask Jonathan to come up and answer this question.
Good afternoon. I am Jonathan Whalen with Optenee. Basically, I hope this helps. I'm not sure if it will but about three to five acres equals about one megawatt of solar energy and so one megawatt is generally enough to power approximately call it about 300 homes more or less So about 100 homes per acre, 60 to 100 homes per acre. That helps.
Okay so about 100 homes an acre and we're talking about half a million homes
which you don't have in
the
county. Right, we don't have those. So we're at about 150,000 households I believe. As households, and then of course there's commercial and industrial as well. But certainly so that's just the max capacity
using pretty consistent- So can you do that math for me so I don't have to do it? So if it's 150,000 homes at 100 acre, come on, that's easy.
I might remind you that just last week or just a couple weeks ago, you argued that 1559 acres wasn't that much. That would be enough for about 400-500 megawatts of solar.
You think I'm arguing the wrong way and I'm with you so I'm trying to figure out what the number is. So maybe about
15,000 acres? If I'm doing my math correctly and I apologize if I'm not.
I'm not a lawyer, so I'm asking questions. I don't know the answer to which I know is something most people don't do but I'm not trying to catch you. Figure myself out here if it's, you know 25,000 acres or 500 acres or something like that. So okay cool Those are the only questions I had so thank you anybody else the question supervisor Hartman
And these are in part response to your questions. I believe we, the Chamberlain Ranch in my district has been a pioneer in carbon farming and I know they've expressed some interest in solar and it to have an ambassador to have a pilot program to show that it works and how it works I think is Very important, so that's a piece of the education is getting that in place. And I've seen Russell Chamberlain's name on conferences throughout the country talking about carbon farming and the benefits. So glad to claim him in my district.
The other thing I wanted to say was in terms of the financing, of course Monterey Bay Clean Power and the CCE programs are very important. There are also a lot of grants and I think we're going to see a lot more grants because this is a way towards greater resiliency and dealing with power shutoffs and all of that so We don't want to lose sight of that because I believe through cap-and-trade and through other programs, even through the utilities we're going to see more money available for this.
And then I had a question that I don't know the answer to and that is community solar and microgrids. How do they compare? Are they the same or how does that work?
5:28 – 5:3311 turns
Good afternoon, I can take that one as well. So for community solar typically that would be a project that would be located in one location with the energy being essentially virtually transferred through you know The energy would go back onto the grid but virtually it would be transferred to Typically either residents and or businesses who cannot otherwise have solar on their own properties so that's often renters that might be somebody with trees all around their home whatever it might be So that would be community solar. Microgrids would be typically a facility, this might be another one of those critical facilities that you're asking about and your fire stations are a great example where you the county might be very interested in maintaining power service even during a disaster.
And so a microgrid could potentially island off of the grid and function without a connection to the grid during an outage. And then otherwise could still be connected to the grid.
All right, so while you're there I did the math. So 150,000 homes, so it would only be 1,500 acres not 15,000. That helps me a lot more than 15,00 acres. So all right great. Yeah 1500 is not that many. We've learned 1,500 acres is not a whole lot of anything. Public comment.
Chair Levin, you know members of the board we have eight requests to speak on this item.
Okay let's go three minutes each.
We are going to begin in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Joe Armaderez. Andy?
Andy had to leave
All right, you can take all this time Joe. I'm just kidding.
You
got
three minutes. I have no sense of humor Steve, you know that. I am Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. Fascinating discussion. I would submit to you what you all know already, energy the most important commodity perhaps second only to water. Energy is the industry that powers every other industry when the cost of anything goes up or when the cost of energy goes up everything goes up whether it's food clothing shelter health care you name it and when things go up they obviously become less affordable as is the custom of the US Census Bureau every September we come out with our Overall poverty measures and our supplemental poverty measures. And not to be disappointed today, the Census Bureau came out and released their report today.
And again we have a poverty level in California that is number one in the nation. Poverty in Santa Barbara County is third in the state. And so it can't be overstated how important energy is to the standard of living and the quality of life of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands. Indeed millions of people from one end of the country to the other. There's been several buzzwords that have been shared on the PowerPoint today. One of them of course is resiliency and reliability. What I haven't seen is affordability.
And it seems rather peculiar to me that we could have a discussion, any discussion as it relates to strategic energy planning and not talk about the abundance and the reliability and the affordability of natural gas and fossil fuels particularly oil. I believe, I continue to resist this notion that we have to make these false choices in Santa Barbara County or California for that matter between renewables and reliables. And I would submit to you that it's not just me saying that no less of an environmental utopia than Norway is proving that you can actually have both choices. Today, Norway is literally five years away according to their goal of 100% electrification in their transportation system. That's five years away from a 100% electrified transportation system.
The reason they can afford to do this is because Norway produces oil and gas and exports it to the world. In fact, Norway is the 15th highest oil exporting country in the world. They're the number one gas exporting country in the world and interestingly enough, one of their major customers, in fact two of their major customers for both oil and gas are France and Germany. That's significant because the Clean Coalition, which you have public comment from today, references Germany and France as being leaders in renewable energy. It's important to remember that even France and Germany are heavily reliant on oil and natural gas to back up their renewable energy system so keep that in mind. Thank you.
We're going to stay in Santa Maria with Claire Weinman and then we're going to return to Santa Barbara for Robert Perry. Claire?
5:33 – 5:396 turns
Good afternoon. Are we live?
Yes, we are.
Perfect, thank you. My name is Claire Wyman I'm the president of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties We'd like to encourage ongoing collaboration with county agriculturalists in the design and implementation of the strategic energy plan Consultants presented the process at the Ag Advisory Committee early in the year But AAC did not have an opportunity to review the specific recommended actions including in the plan presented to you today The design and implementation of policies to generate energy for off-site use, whether community or utility scale or something we'd like to discuss with our colleagues at AAC and with our Board of Directors at our next meeting. We would also like to consider the changes to the uniform rules and we continue to advocate for the importance of the Williamson Act to continued agricultural competitiveness.
We have also articulated the importance of policies facilitating onsite generation, storage and use. Especially when there are needs for guaranteed uptime for things such as coolers and irrigation systems and supply uncertainties such as the public safety power shutoffs. We encourage the Board of Supervisors to direct ongoing engagement with the County Ag Advisory Committee on these important concepts, and we will seek direction from our board of directors on the development and implementation of these policies along with prioritization and phasing. Thank you.
We are now going to return to Santa Barbara for Robert Perry to be followed by Colin Jones.
Chair Lovino, Supervisor of the Board. I was unable to provide comments prior to the meeting but I've emailed them to you and your staff and I have copies here for you in case you'd like to see them. My name is Robert Perry. I'm with the World Business Academy. We're a non-profit think tank. I'd like to congratulate the county staff and Optiny, and the sustainability staff for all the cities in their stakeholder process.
It was very coordinated and collaborated, and I think it contributes to the strength of the document you see before you. In my comments, I just want to address five points that I feel need to be focused in implementing the strategic energy plan first. And foremost is the current definition of utility scale and the county land use development code needs to be redefined to exclude sites on built environments. These are areas that aren't really capable of hosting utility scale generation, and should be opened up for distributed energy development.
Given the scarcity of undeveloped land, built environments are the most feasible sites for local development within population centers. Commercial industrial properties also constitute the largest load centers i.e., consumers of energy and these sites are generally capable of exporting energy to the local distribution grid. Amending the definition is a relatively quick and easy fix. I support developing a more comprehensive solar ordinance which introduces distributed energy concepts and implements that.
We need to develop a robust and granular solar siting survey, much in line with zoning analysis and other planning elements. We have the tools today to do this and it should be incorporated in order to provide direction for strategic energy planning. There must be strategic development of public property, school and commercial industrial sites. I want to focus here on schools. I believe schools provide a huge opportunity for cross section.
They are generally can host large amounts of energy that can be used for community. Solar and storage facilities. They are generally shelters in staging areas during emergencies more importantly they open up the opportunity to develop educational curriculum So that students can learn about it educate their parents, and that's I mean that would be a great development outreach development Central one-stop shop It's definitely needed, needs to be integrated and needs to leverage technologies such as virtual inspections and electronic submission system. And finally the strategic energy plan is an inward looking document in my comments I've directed you to an upcoming proceeding at the Utilities Commission that is meant to facilitate micro grid development and also advanced energy Advanced Community Energy Initiative, which is focused on bringing local governments into the energy planning process.
So I encourage you to read through those materials and contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Colin Jones to be followed by April Price
5:39 – 5:469 turns
Chair, members of the Board. I am Colin Jones and I'm speaking for the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara. We support the adoption of the Strategic Energy Plan and we very much agree with the goals. The reduction of greenhouse gases, increasing resiliency Meeting state and local goals on clean energy, and doing this by investing where possible in local economy and jobs.
We feel the report does a good job, excellent job of defining the goals, listing problems, describing options and cost. It is an important step to important action. We also appreciate the boards taking the first steps outlined in working as quickly as possible to speed the solar application process, lower fees and changing the county laws and regulations that were holding back solar projects.
We are encouraged by the resources available and what can be done now in mostly behind the meter solar and battery storage. We're also worried about the problems faced. Joining the Monterey Bay Community Power, CCE goes a long way to securing funding and administrative support to cover the state mandates and local goals in clean energy, greenhouse gas reduction Joining the Monterey Bay CCE was a viable financial pathway but it involved losing some local control and local investment, especially in the area of resiliency.
To address this we would encourage Monterey Bay Community Power where applicable to move some of the programming and funding decisions to smaller local government groups to better meet local needs. The Clean Coalition has estimated that we will currently only be able to provide resiliency for about one-third of the local needs. We feel it is important for the county to follow and be involved in the State and California Public Utility Commission and their response to the local microgrid development.
We will not be able to develop full resilience for our area unless we work out equitable solutions to the size of solar installations allowed, the incorporation of local generation and storage into the grid, payments for excess power generated and utility fees to customers who join a CCE. With these hopes and concerns, we fully support the adoption of the strategic energy plan.
Our next speaker is April Price to be followed by Ben Schwartz.
Good afternoon, Honorable Chair and Supervisors. My name is April Price with the Community Environmental Council. I'd like to applaud the work of county staff and Optenee in developing this strategic energy plan. The plan was developed with strong community engagement, and we were happy to see our comments carefully addressed by staff and the consultant, and several of our comments already have been incorporated into this plan.
On behalf of CEC, I urge your board to adopt the Strategic Energy Plan and to pursue the implementation of Phase 1 and Phase 2 as recommended by staff. In these next implementation steps, we urge your board to be bold in updating the ordinances and design of county programs with the goals of the County's Climate Action Plan front-of-mind. For instance, in your Energy Assurance Plan, the County is poised to set a strong example for the community with successful battery backup implementation That will be beneficial for the grid on a day-to-day basis, rather than investing in the alternative which is polluting diesel generators.
In the next steps of implementation, we urge the county to continue with careful and transparent stakeholder engagement. And work diligently so that the barriers discussed today that currently block energy projects from moving forward such as permitting hurdles, lack of access to all financing options and the ordinances with strict limitations can be removed.
I'd also like to echo Bob Perry's comments about getting solar on schools because it's just another example to set a great example for our community. And thank you again for your commitment to improving energy opportunities and resilience within the county.
Our next speaker is Ben Schwartz, to be followed by Gregory Young who is our final speaker.
Good afternoon chair and board. My name is
That's not me
okay, what'd you do Ben? Come on let's try that again I guess So my name is Ben Schwartz And I'm here on behalf of the clean coalition we want to applaud Optimae and the county for the SCP and urge that the board approve it However, the Clean Coalition also wants to highlight some short-term amendments and changes that can surrounding permitting of renewable energy projects. So for standalone solar projects, storage projects and solar plus storage projects currently excessively long Waiting periods and high costs are preventing renewable energy from being unleashed throughout the Goleta load pocket. So we want to prioritize first, the SEP solution in phase two that would call for an independent commission made up of authorities having jurisdiction, AHAs, and local members of the solar plus storage industry to determine new guidelines and proper guidelines for expediting this process.
Second, pre-approve any electric vehicle charging infrastructure projects and reduce costs associated with them. Third, pre-approve any project on a built environment especially if it meets these new criterion determined by this commission. And I just want to point out that projects on built environments don't have to go through CEQA environmental analysis which means that they should be able to occur more quickly. And until the step can be achieved if it's a long term step Next, the same logic should apply for built environments in the coastal zone.
The Coastal Ordnance Zone is a long-term process called for in the SEP, but we should make sure that any limits for built environments are erased. So allow for construction of solar projects on built environments without a CDP And provided that this project is compliant with county rules and regulations. There should be no restrictions with anything having to do with on-site consumption, net metering, virtual net metering or any community solar programs. Thank you.
Great thanks.
Our next speaker is Gregory Young and we have an additional speaker who's Craig Lewis.
5:46 – 5:559 turns
Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Gregory Young from the Clean Coalition talking here on behalf of myself as well and wanted to thank Optimi as well as the county and Blue Strike Environmental for their hard work in developing the strategic energy plan. You know I per se In conclusion, I want to talk a little bit about the feed-in tariff. The Street Energy Plan mentions the feed-in tariff as an alternative energy offtaker mechanism that might help to unleash solar energy in the description of seven per se sites it focuses on.
The Clean Coalition supports the creation of this feed-in tariff. A feed-in tariff is defined as a standardized long term guaranteed contract that allows smaller local renewable energy projects to sell power to the local utility or other load serving entity, possibly including the CCA. We recommend this implementation of a feed in tariff which could also include market responsive pricing and a dispatchability adder.
Market responsive pricing allows subsequent contract prices to adjust based on a market response to pricing of current contracts. Ensuring the energy contracts are always set at the best market price, To ensure deployments while protecting rate payers. A dispatchability adder essentially is a fixed cents per kilowatt hour capacity bonus on top of a fee and tariff rate, which attracts energy storage. Which also makes renewable energy fully dispatchable.
The implementation of a feed-in tariff within the GLEA load pocket essentially would require pressuring the CCA to establish one. Another option would be also to pressure SCE to create a feed-in tariff for critical facilities within the GLEA load pocket. Going through SCE essentially would not require the $0.02 per kilowatt hour PCIA cost That essentially a CCA would require to charge.
Establishing a feed-in tariff would reduce cost barriers associated with participating in any RFP process, allowing the most cost innovative and best price solutions to succeed. Separately, we also recommend pushing investor-owned utilities to install proper grid isolation switches to island from future damaged power lines. So essentially during extensive power outages, this is stated in the Strategic Energy Plan, during extensive power outages caused by the Thomas Fire and Montecito debris flows damaging the transmission line serving the county, the Elwood Peeker plant did not turn on for reasons not entirely clear.
The set then states that this is likely had to do with worker safety in repairing damaged power lines. To solve this problem for the future occurrences, investor and utilities need to install power grid isolation switches to island from future damage power lines. Thank you. Thanks.
And our final speaker is Craig Lewis.
Chair, Supervisors thank you for this opportunity. My name is Craig Lewis I'm the Executive Director of the Clean Coalition and I recently moved back to Santa Barbara. I grew up here and after about three decades for college and career I moved back to Santa Barbara following the Thomas fire and debris flow because those disasters were very personal to me. And the reason I move back to Santa Barbara is to lead the Goleta Load Pocket Community Microgrid Initiative so I don't know if everybody is familiar with the Goleta load pocket, but it is the area served by the Goleta substation. Which is this area's, the Santa Barbara region's only connection to the transmission system. We are super vulnerable to a transmission grid outage. The Goleta substation is up at the top of Glen Annie Road, single point of failure.
That connection to the transmission system comes over a route along the backside of the mountains 40 miles long which comes up from Ventura. Backside of the mountains right through the heart of the fire zone, the landslide zone and earthquake zone. We are super vulnerable, right? To power shutoffs. And obviously to those disasters themselves. So the Gleada Load Pocket Community Microgrid is an initiative to set the stage for renewables driven resilience to this region.
Renewables driven resilience in our analysis, and we've gone very deep in this analysis, we're happy to share it. We need 200 megawatts of solar. And 400 megawatt hours of energy storage for 100% protection for the entire Goleta load pocket, which is point conception to Lake Casitas. Right? So everybody in Goleta, Santa Barbara, Carpentaria and the outside boundaries to Point Conception, Lake Casitas 70 miles of coastline will keep their lights on in a transmission grid outage. 200 megawatts of new solar, 400 megawatt hours of energy storage.
This, I just want to clarify to get 200 megawatts of solar would require about 500 acres. It's two and a half acres of space needed for each megawatt of solar. And I do want to be clear that in order to do this on built environments, we're talking about rooftops, parking lots, parking structures. We would only need about 7% of the total built environment siting opportunity in the Glee Load Pocket.
And 200 megawatts is only in about five times more built environment space than what already hosts solar in the Goleta load pocket. We have about 40 megawatts of solar in the Goleta load pocket today, we need 200 megawatts additional five times more. This is all within reach so I do have some specific recommendations first of all is to make sure that the county Mandates that the energy assurance plan includes alignment with the Goleta Load Pocket Community Microgrid. The Clean Coalition has done a lot of work on this, we're happy to share it freely with the county. So we want to make sure that the energy assurance plan is aligned with the Goleta Load Pocket Community Microgrid which is totally about bringing renewables driven resilience to this region.
Secondly, we want to make sure that the county is very courageous. We're in a new world here with the power shutoffs. We're in a new world here with the PG&E bankruptcy. City of San Francisco has made a formal offer to purchase the distribution grid from PG& E. It's not impossible that that could happen in the Goleta load pocket as well. There are parties that are approaching the Clean Coalition, that have billions of dollars of investment opportunity and could easily take over the distribution grid here in the Goleta load pocket. So I want to encourage you Be courageous, do not let Southern California Edison come back in here with an LCR solicitation process that is trying to get big chunks of 10 megawatts of solar when we need to do it on built environments and we need to do it through a feed-in tariff.
Thank you.
I have a question. I'm trying to hear, you're saying the Goleta? I'm not familiar with it. There's a second word in there that I'm missing between Goleta and microgrid.
Yeah, the Goleta load pocket. Load pocket, okay. It basically means this is the portion of the Southern California Edison service area that is served by the Goleta substation. The name comes from the name of the substation, the Goleta substation up at the top of Glen Endy Road, not named after the city of Goleta.
Got it, thank you. All right,
that's our final speaker. I
had a couple questions based on some public comment too so and then one that popped into my head so how sophisticated was our site? Do we have like a scoring system or was it just like a Google Earth search or how sophisticated was it when we started looking especially like up in North County is what I'm mostly concerned about
Chair Levine, I will let Jonathan talk about their process.
5:55 – 6:0111 turns
So for the site selection, we actually often came into the project thinking that we would analyze most or all of the county facilities. What we found was that general services had actually done a lot of that work already and so the sites, the county sites, the county owned sites that we analyzed were actually just the few that hadn't been analyzed in-house already.
Yeah I'm not so much concerned about the county owned sites. I'm more like private
property
stuff yeah
It was mostly through the outreach of the different stakeholder engagement meetings. I mean, really asking for private property owners and other public agencies to self-select and respond. And as Ms. Watkins mentioned we did hear quite a bit that there were a lot of folks that would have been interested except they had previously run into obstacles.
I just want to piggyback on what the Farm Growership or Vegetable Association, what Claire had to say is that you know I think it's when you read the report. It's pretty obvious that you're going to have to have private property buy-in and I just wanted to encourage you to use the AAC because there's going to have to be at some point there's going to have to be some large landowners in North County that are going to have to buy off on this strategy.
And then Mr. Schwartz brought up something I was wanting to bring up as well, and that is talking about, I mean, and I think others said the same thing. It's like if we're going to do this, this is something that we kind of have to get out of our own way. This is us writing our own rules for once before we have a chance to actually write the rules. And I noticed on one of them it's talking To amend the coastal land use plan to allow new scale community scale and utility scale wind energy systems with a major conditional use permit in public hearing process. And I look at that, and I'm thinking small-scale that would require a CUP is basically, I mean, I don't know who's going to do that. Who's going to go spend $100,000 to put in a $50,000 project?
So I guess what I'm looking at If we're going to do this and we're going to do it and be bold or what you know. We got to get out of our own way at some point say OK, this is important to us especially on as bill obviously that's not going require much but somewhere in that solar ordinance. You know I would like to see. And I wish everybody had this option but his sense for writing a new one.
The rest less regulatory So I think supervisor Hart was first and Supervisor Hartman.
Well, I think that's a great segue to exactly what this plan is all about. It's trying to figure out how to get out of our own way and get going on new projects. So I really think that the collaborative effort that this plan represents is a great start. That's the ethic we need to move going forward is keeping that collaboration going and having all the stakeholders fully engaged.
Expertise here in this room and in the community that are very interested in moving forward. And we're fortunate that the decision to go with Monterey Bay has allowed us to have these resources available to dedicate for this next phase, the next two phases of this effort. Doing the planning work to get the county ordinances in the way, making our own infrastructure sustainable and reliable. The micro grid technology is much more preferable than a generator driven On resiliency and reliability strategy.
And it's a good thing that we're at this moment able to take advantage of that, of this emerging technology and be smarter and invest that way. So I appreciate the Chair's comments. This really is an opportunity for us to figure out a smarter way to do business and promote renewable energy. And I just want to commend all the staff and all the community members that have been involved on this effort today. Let's keep going and do this as fast as we possibly can.
Thank you. I was puzzled by one of the answers to a question in the North County sites, it was my understanding that we weren't just looking for volunteers in the public outreach process but we were trying to identify where in fact there was transmission appropriate orientation perhaps not species and this is the basis for moving forward with environmental review that we have in P&D We're going to go ahead and get started. I know we've got a lot of questions that have come in on the budget
already so could you comment first on that question I have some other things. Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Yes, Approximately transmission lines, any sensitive habitats that would have to be considered. And Williamson Act was another one to try to determine which areas would be kind of the highest priority or be the most feasible land to develop solar on.
So we do have that basis for the next step by P&D to do the environmental review and it's not just based on who volunteered already? Correct. Okay, second question could you comment about the utility scale definition and how that affects, it should exclude the built environment I believe can you tell us what the status is now and how that fits into your recommendation that you're bringing to the board?
Sure, I might ask for planning and development's help on that utility scale.
6:01 – 6:0919 turns
So right now my understanding is there's a utility scale solar ordinance limits development of utility scale solar to 600 acres within the Quiama Valley so that would be what we would be proposing to make changes too.
OK I thought it had to do with the size. Not I mean we do have an ordinance in Kiyama. I was on the planning commission when that went through but I thought there's a definition for utility scale as opposed to community scale and how does the built environment fit into that? And can we pull it out or am I misunderstanding something? Could we have an answer here if I might request? Sure,
you can request whatever you want. Yeah, the Clean Coalition has researched this thoroughly. We provided the solution to the county many months ago It's very simple, the utility scale solar definition today says that anything that's interconnected to the utility side of the meter is utility scale. Santa Barbara County is the only place that I have ever seen in the Clean Coalitions work across the country that has defined utility scale solar in such a way.
Unfortunately, that definition means that if you've got solar up on a residential rooftop and you interconnect on the utility side of the meter It's utility scale it would be disallowed in Santa Barbara County. Every project that's going to come in through a feed-in tariff, whether it's through Edison or whether it's through the CCA Every project that comes in through the LCR solicitation process, if there had been some solar projects those would have been utility side interconnections. It would have been disallowed in the county. So the definition right now just needs to be changed and it needs to be changed in two places. It's super simple. It is a phrase add to the definition that says with built environment projects are excluded.
Right? So utility scale solar is any project on the ground that interconnects to the utility side But no project that's on a built environment rooftop parking lot, parking structure is excluded or included in the definition of utility
scale. And that's our county code that has to be changed? That's within our power?
It's land use development code and it is in the There's two places.
Thank you. I want that. There's two places. OK.
And Clinic Ocean submitted a letter via email last night. Sorry it was late but it has the the two places where that needs to change in there.
OK I think that's very important because that's part of my vision is the built environment that we already have especially in South County and the area where you're working
In everything in the SEP, that is the biggest no-brainer to move forward with immediately and it doesn't require an ordinance. So I would separate that from the ordinance. It's just a definitional change super easy should be next meeting you guys should vote on that.
Thank you all right if we want to hurry things along. I had two more things maybe I'll mention this mandate that our plan actually be consistent with the Goleta load pocket I do not favor any policy that encourages people to come out of the Williamson act but I would be very much in favor of seeing this as compatible with the Solar panels, so but I and then I want to echo what supervisor Lavinino said that is we really want to work closely with agriculture in North County in the AAC and those stakeholders Because I think that's this this this helps give them another use for their property and to be to stay in agriculture. So
Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Williams
Okay, so I got one question which is opt in the going to do any of the proposed phases.
Supervisor Adam through the chair We have all county staff Slated to take on the actions in the phases
All right,
well You know I'm trying my staff is trying to figure out how many acres of ag property there are In Santa Barbara County that had privately held and I'm gonna guess it's a half a million so 1500 acres is really Nothing. I mean, I could see that happening and and if you um, I've told this board before There just is very Very very thin money in in cattle And uh, and I don't know what crop grows underneath solar panels You you that's news to me I Well if we can if we can solve the
The broccoli the green leafy vegetables have actually been shown to grow pretty well under in the end shade or partial shade and then then Pollinator flowers are also have also been used quite a lot In solar dual dual.
Okay, well I'll tell you what You give me a bunch of money and I'll grow some and you can check it out because In my experience, if it's grown in the shadow, it's a mess. And if you're going to try and harvest the field and part of its in shadow and part of it is not, it screws the whole thing up because the biological time clock going on the one in the shade is totally different than even if it was part of a day.
So that's not really a thing. But you change the rules though and the cattlemen will come You know, if there's money in it and it won't be hard to show cattlemen more money out of a solar panel I think than a cow. And so 1500 acres I think will get sucked up. I still don't like this whole thing and maybe I don't know enough about it, and I'm gonna go find out some more. But I just think it's so far outside our wheelhouse.
And there's other things which I won't go into that we don't do very well that we should. That is our primary responsibilities And I just think we should focus on what we're supposed to do and not, oh here we go. I guessed a half a million and the answer is 581,642. And that's just crazy. So on the prices
right you're still under
so you're good? Yeah. So and that's just grazing land. So I was more wrong. Yes Well, yeah, but that wasn't the actual question. So the actual question is how many in private hands so That includes everything else too anyway I'm Maybe being persuaded a little But I still don't like it and I'm gonna vote against it because I can't just be moving It's a soft. No, there you go
6:09 – 6:149 turns
Well, yeah, Supervisor Williams.
You're going to vote against a proposal to make permitting easier?
Don't
poke the bear just keep moving. Okay well I guess I'm curious you know I agree with one of Mr Adams points which is that there Is some cattle grazing sites that because of topography would be more removed from view sheds and because of certain topography would still have pretty good price points. If there is a market for PPAs right now at a utility scale, and I think that's one of my questions is how far away?
A year or two ago we were kind of in a lull as The IOUs had already procured their last milestone of renewables. Where are we right now, where are we going to be in the next couple years? Is there going to be a market in the IOU's or are we looking at mainly the market from CCAs locally?
I think that's a really interesting question, and I think some other folks here could also speak to this. I would say that the CCAs really are going to be probably the key driver for the market moving forward in California. A lot of CCAs are, of course we're seeing proliferation of CCAs, and a lot of them are procuring their energy from out-of-state, and would prefer to procure it from in-states. So I think that that's certainly going to be a piece. And then what we've seen over the last few years, energy demand actually decreasing in California. But we anticipate that's going to shift a bit with the proliferation of electric vehicles that are on the way. And so yeah, it's a really interesting industry question.
And then I do want to ask Planning and Development about the idea of a definition change. To me, the logic would be that rooftop solar is already Provided an exemption from from CEQA right and the The fact that our rule essentially Doesn't take into account the size of the array seems to be counter counter counterintuitive So I wanted to ask that of planning development, and I wanted it also but my main thrust for what I would hope to see is something a Number one, I think this strategic energy plan is great. Both phase one and phase two we should be moving ahead with but there's one thing missing and to me it's the central part of the show which is there's five and a half megawatts of potential right on our own property so I think I need to hear from general services about What is the expected demand of the North Branch Jail?
How much could be billed there to, essentially what is the potential for a net metered project there versus a project that exports energy. What do you expect the demand to be at the Northern Branch Jail?
Supervisor Williams, to the Chair. We haven't looked yet other than what Optiny has done at the Northern Branch Jail. Quite honestly we're trying to finish it first but we are very interested in that and I think the rooftop piece is probably what we would start with. I don't have details other than again what Optiny has looked at but I think it's one of the first things we'll be looking at once it's constructed and assuming funding is available. We definitely want to look at that So I don't have a lot of answers on that right now.
Stay up there, let me ask opt to be the portion of it which is just our plan basically rates the rooftop at the jail a little more viable than the ground mounting. Is that because the jail is so built ready for it? Or is it because the necessity PPA for an exporting amount, meaning would it be cheaper to do a ground mounted amount that is net metered rather than a rooftop amount that's net metered?
Right, and I think those are good questions. I think it would likely be cheaper to do a ground mounted system there at the jail. I think part of the potential preference for the rooftop and carport array at the jail is that it maintains the use of the land for alternative purposes as was discussed earlier. And so it's certainly an option. They're both good options they can based upon the preliminary energy usage for the jail that we have have seen so far. We're anticipating that the that the roof and carports or the roof and carports could offset about 80 to about 80% of the energy usage on an annual basis ground out could be built a little bit bigger could get up to 100% on a net meter basis and the
6:14 – 6:206 turns
The essentially my question about the ground mounted system is, is that comparable to any PPA's that choice aggregators are purchasing in the state?
Not at that stage, at that size I'm sorry. So if we're talking about just the roof and the carports, it's a little over one megawatt- No, I'm asking about the ground mount. For the full ground mount. It's still a little bit small for utility scale. You wouldn't see the really cheap pricing that you would expect to see with a 30 or 50 or 200 megawatt system. I think we were talking about four to five megawatts. So it'd still be a little bit pricier than what you would see at the wholesale level. This would be probably more appropriate for actually the community solar type of project that could be worked out with
Monterey Bay. Just what I was thinking, so I guess what I am hoping that we might do in addition to phase one and phase two is just direct general services Meet with the Sheriff's Department and work with our sustainability staff on a proposal for, at very least, a net meter system that takes care of most of the energy use of the jail. And secondarily explore with Monterey Clean Power the viability of a community solar project That would be up to 4.5 megawatts, but I suppose it's whatever we could create there that would help fulfill the energy needs of Monterey Clean Power and our community. I think the one heartburn we had moving towards Monterey Clean Power as opposed to our own CCA is having some local generation.
Here we got a spot. And ground mounting doesn't mean that it never could be used for another purpose. Meaning if, I would hope that 20 years from now we don't need more jail facilities but the life of one of these solar facilities isn't forever. You either need to replace the stuff or it has a finite life. But that would be my hope is that This is really substantive in that you're moving us forward. But I'd like something that's even more substantive, which is a project on our own facilities that is sizable.
5.5 megawatts, that's not massive utility scale but that's the real deal. We're like in the ballpark of substance so that's what I would propose for
Supervisor Hartman.
Two quick questions, one for you Skip. Status of Beteravia and then the other question I'm not sure who but is on bill financing another way to pay for these and would that work for public solar facilities?
I might be able to answer at least part of that second question. So BetterAvia is almost shovel ready, I'll call it that. We'll basically, and again if you remember it's about a .8 megawatt system on top of ground-covered parking structures. We've got a lithium iron battery energy storage system, which I would propose that we look at for the jail as well some sort of a battery system backup for that.
We'll be using that battery for backup and demand shaving at that location for the Better Avia campus to lower our energy costs and We'll also be installing daylight harvesting solar tubes and replacing all of the interior and exterior lights with cost-effective LED lighting, and really cool controls that you can actually control the lighting from your cell phone.
In addition, the project includes connections for up to 30 electric vehicle charging stations as we start to roll those out. So when we came to you in March of this year, if you remember with the list of possible capital projects, the Beda Arabia project at that time had a financing mix Of on bill financing to pay for the lighting portion. 1% California Energy Commission loan that we were going to apply for, and then we're gonna use either debt or cash for the remainder of that $4.3 million project.
We were approved by PG&E for the on-bill financing for the lights. And just a few weeks ago in August, we were approved by the CEC for our 1% loan. So that mix remains the same and we'll be using cash as the final component. As soon as we go back to the Debt Advisory Committee for approval on that loan, we'll come back to your board for approval for the construction contract and then we can actually get Get going and so hopefully in early November because the DAC meeting there isn't one in September And we'll be going to the October DAC meeting which is on the 29th, and we'll come right behind that To to the board and and finalize that project and get going
6:20 – 6:2426 turns
Okay supervisor M. Well I'm just wondering if we ever thought about the Tahigas landfill site When we get done with closing stuff out as we go, we could just keep stacking it on there. It's got
transmission so I think you're right on the
right track. There you go.
Let's do
it. And then you could do the courthouse lawn
next. Oh, you're starting to step on toes. Figured you would.
All right, Supervisor Williams. Okay, I'll make a motion that we, I'll move B1, B2, B3 and recommendation A and C. And with the addition of directing staff both community services, general services, To work with the Sheriff's Department on a phase one at Northern Ranch Jail that would maximize the net metering potential of the facility. And a phase two, that would maximize potential for either community solar or PPA at the small end of, I guess you could call it small end of utility scale but a PPA or community solar whichever is more viable financially.
And Supervisor Williams, would you also have that definitional change?
Yeah we never asked staff about that definitional change. That's something we could do without environmental review so let's include the definitional change of excluding built environment projects from the definition of utility scale.
Mr. Gazzone
Chair and supervisors, I would just say that we've looked before it at some solar issues And we'll make sure that that definitely Definitional change is as easy as it sounds and it doesn't tie back to the earlier EIR that was done And they will say that we have worked on the northern branch jail project pieces that would be amenable to solar and Pieces that would run afoul of any of the of the lease issues that we talked about and that the board approved earlier today So I think there's a pretty big universe but it's not infinite as to what can be done on that site. Okay, so we have
a motion. Oh Second motion is second CEO Miyasato
just to clarify just to clarify to set expectations So on the on the recommended recommend actions include some Long-range planning items and so we would have to come back to your board as they suss that out more and get a cost estimate And tell you how that fits in their long range Planning workload. Yes,
please bring bring it as soon as possible. I
All right, we have a motion and second. I'll just throw my last comments on there before I vote and I didn't want to let this slip by but that I will be supporting it. My energy generation strategy is all of the above solar, wind, geothermal. And I would like to remind people petroleum since right now planes, trains and cars are not running on wind and solar yet.
So when we get there let me know. But I will support this. So we have a motion and a second, let's do a roll call please.
Mr. Williams?
Aye.
Mr. Hart?
Aye.
Ms. Hartman? An enthusiastic aye. Mr Adam?
A tentative no.
Chair Lavanino?
And a chill
yes. All
right. Motion passes 4 to 1.
All right so with that... Qualifying adjectives. That could get scary when we're disagreeing All right, so that takes us to the end of today's agenda. We will adjourn to Tuesday September 17th in Santa Maria.
6:25 – 6:251 turns
Yeah.