BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 October 1, 2019

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:00 – 0:0212 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.880:24 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors to order for October 1st. All right, all right like to call this meeting of the Board of Supervisors to order for October 1st can I get a roll call please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:40 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Ms. Hartman? Here Mr. Adam? Here. Mr. Williams? Here. Mr Harte? Here Chair Lavagnino?

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈21s recited, not transcribed
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.880:47 · ≈ 9:00 AM

I'm here please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:11 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes from our last meeting?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.821:15 · ≈ 9:01 AM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:17 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Pass unanimously. Madam Clerk do we have any changes additions to our agenda for today?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:28 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Yes Chair Lavanino members of the board I do have one announcement to make this morning we received a memo yesterday from the department regarding departmental item number one from public works and general services this is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding for an all point lane bridge replacement resolution of necessity project at Romero Creek acquisition of temporary permanent easement and this is in the first district and we received a continuation request to move this item to our October 15th hearing.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:57 · ≈ 9:01 AM

All right will there be any Mr. Gazzone, do I have to ask for a public comment on? Okay any public comment on D1 just on the continuance matter?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:07 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board, I did not receive any requests to speak on this item. Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:12 · ≈ 9:02 AM

then can I get a motion to continue D1?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.822:14 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Move that we continue. Do we need to specify

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:17 · ≈ 9:02 AM

a date? Chair Lavinino, members of the board yes they request to move this to October 15th.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:23 · ≈ 9:02 AM

October 15 great. Second. Motion and second all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Do we have a CEO's report today?

0:02 – 0:064 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:31 · ≈ 9:02 AM

We do, good morning Chair Lavagnino and board members. As you know, one of the board's priorities has been working to reduce the number of those with mental illness in our jail and to address them through our justice system. So I'm pleased to announce that the county's Sheriff's Office and Behavioral Wellness have been awarded a grant of more than $2 million to staff and support two law enforcement mental health co-response teams, of which one will be in the North County. The funded staff positions include crisis intervention trained sheriff deputies and clinicians from behavioral wellness. The funding is from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, known as Byrne JAG.

And it's been allocated through the Board of State and Community Corrections. Dr. Cheryl Lynn Lee who manages the Sheriff's Behavioral Sciences Unit will oversee the grant in its operations. And generally, as you know, co-response teams involve a sworn officer who has partnered with a mental health or substance abuse professional and may include mobile crisis intervention teams, outreach and support teams. So it's great that we've gotten this. We'll be having more co-response teams in the field and we'd like to recognize the city of Goleta who helped provide grant writing assistance. A team of staff and community partners will work together on implementation data tracking analysis and outcomes and as it progresses we'll provide updates to the board.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:47 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Great news, very good. Okay we have Supervisor Hartman with a few comments.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.823:54 · ≈ 9:03 AM

At our August 27th board meeting we celebrated World War II veteran and D-Day paratrooper Bindo Grasso of Guadalupe for his extraordinary service. Last week I was saddened to hear that we lost former Staff Sergeant Grasto to undetected liver cancer. Staff Sergeant Bindo Stasi Grasso was a member of the greatest generation who fought in the most significant war in human history. In not one but two of the most consequential battles in the annals of the American military, D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge.

Staff Sergeant Grasso was a very important part of our community and the pride of Guadalupe. It has been 75 years since D-Day and Bindo was the last surviving Pathfinder. On the day that we honored his service, we had a packed room of supporters who wanted to be here to honor him and share in the celebration of his 96th birthday. The outpouring of people eager to honor him is expected to reach record numbers at his funeral services. Services will be held Saturday October 5th at 930 AM at the Guadalupe American Legion and there will be a flag line for family and friends with full military honors.

Bindo was a humble, unassuming man who didn't seek out the recognition. But I wanted to take the time to acknowledge him once again and express gratitude that we were able to honor him and his efforts because they were nothing short of remarkable. Let's observe a moment of silence to reflect on the life and service of World War II paratrooper and Staff Sergeant Bindo Grassl A member of the greatest generation and consider the debt we owe to that generation.

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:50 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Thank you very much Supervisor Hartman All right, that takes us to our honorary resolutions. Can I get a motion to accept items A1 through A5? Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Pass unanimously. Let's move on to A1.

0:06 – 0:103 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:11 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of October 6th 2019 through October 12th 2019 as National 4-H Week in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Ron Vieira, Carolina Barajas Rodriguez and any members of the Carpentry 4-H Club to the podium.

And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas 4-H is America's largest youth development organization having supported almost 6 million youth across the country thus far. And whereas, 4-h has helped 790 club enrolled youth in Santa Barbara County to become confident, independent, resilient and compassionate leaders. In addition, 4 H has provided 12,643 hands on research based curriculum opportunities for youth in Santa Barbara County. And whereas, 4 h is delivered by Cooperative Extension a community of more than 100 public universities across the nation That provides experiences where young people learn by doing hands-on projects in areas including health, science, agriculture and civic engagement. And whereas California 4H is delivered by University of California Cooperative Extension the research and outreach arm of the University of California's Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

And whereas National 4H Week showcases the incredible experiences that 4H offers young people and highlights the remarkable 4H youth in Santa Barbara County who work each day to make a positive impact on those around them. And whereas 4-H network of 600,000 volunteers and 3,500 professionals provides caring and supportive mentoring to all 4-Her's helping them to grow into true leaders entrepreneurs and visionaries Now therefore, I, Supervisor Doss Williams, do hereby proclaim October 6th through 12th 2019 as National 4-H Week throughout Santa Barbara County and encourage all of our citizens to recognize 4-h for the significant impact it has made and continues to make by empowering youth with the skills they need to lead for a lifetime passed and adopted today.

CommentEmma BishopProposedself-stated8:21 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Hi, my name is Emma Bishop. I'm one of the three Santa Barbara County Ambassadors and a member of Lucky Clover 4-H in Los Olivos. I am also a junior at San Ynez Valley High School. I've been in 4-h for eight years. I show goats and poultry but I also participate in non animal related projects such as sewing, leadership and public speaking. 4-H is important to me because it has taught me a great work ethic and a large sense of responsibility. With this proclamation at 4-h, I hope that our members can spread the word about 4- h and help bring more youth into this wonderful organization. I hope that more adults like yourselves can learn about the value of 4- H and continue your generous support of this important youth development program. Thank you Supervisor Williams and thank you for all of you today.

PresenterOlivia BermanLProposedself-stated9:16 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Good morning, Supervisors. Think for a moment of one important influence in your life as a kid. Maybe it was a parent or a coach or it might have been a class or an experience that helped shape your character or your future. For me, that's been 4-H. Hi! I'm Olivia Berman. I am a senior in high school and this is my ninth year in 4-h where I am Santa Barbara County Ambassador and President of the Lucky Clover 4- H Club.

Now think again for a moment about 4-H. Do you think only about animals and agriculture? If so, that's actually what most people think what 4-h is about. 4- H is an important program for growing American farmers but it is so much more than that in 4- h I have discovered my passion for public speaking and want to study communications in college so I can be a positive voice for the ag industry in America I may have never found my spark without the training I received in the public speaking program that 4-H provides.

As America's largest youth development program with more than 6 million members, 4-h offers learning opportunities such as robotics and rocketry and sponsors a nationwide STEM program. Thank you for supporting this very important program in Santa Barbara, and I encourage you to become a 4-H volunteer where you can lead a civics project on local government. Thank you again.

0:10 – 0:132 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:56 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of September 29th 2019 through October 5th 2019 as American Institute of Architects AIA Architecture Appreciation Week in Santa Barbara County and if I can have Michael Holliday and any members from the AIA Santa Barbara chapter to the podium please?

I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas more than 100 licensed members of the American Institute of Architects, AIA practice in the Santa Barbara area where they serve the public interest through their concern for and understanding of sustainable design practices. Energy conservation, accessibility for people with disabilities, urban planning, historic preservation and sensitivity to the relationship between nature and the built environments.

And whereas, architectural foundation volunteers guide public tours of the history and architecture of Santa Barbara. Provide children the opportunity to sketch local architecture with Kids Draw Architecture. Work with teachers to establish a built environment education program, BEEP, in Santa Barbara's public schools and provide scholarships to county students. And whereas, Santa Barbara's architects have worked diligently to preserve the architectural heritage of our community through service on local architectural review boards various public outreach and education efforts, and service projects. And whereas the AIA Santa Barbara Chapter has produced Architect Tours, an annual inspirational and educational tour of noteworthy residential and public projects focused on high-quality design and showcasing application of sustainable and green building practices.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors designates the week of September 29th through October 5th as AIA Architectural Appreciation Week in Santa Barbara County, and commends the American Institute of Architects and the Architectural Foundation for over 160 years of preserving and enhancing the architectural heritage of Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed13:01 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board, we're very honored for this designation thank you very much. This is our biggest celebration ever in the history of AIASB for architect tours. We've also got a city proclamation for architecture appreciation week so it's very special. This Saturday we have architect tours, we have nine projects that are selected from Goleta to Montecito If any of you would like to come, we can get you the bro deal. So let me know but it's going to be very exciting everything from direct relief one of the largest newest commercial institutional projects to custom residences here so thank you very much there was a powerful quote by Winston Churchill that said we shape our buildings Thereafter, they shape us. And I can't think of anything more powerful than for us here in Santa Barbara with the architecture that's around this community to reflect upon that and to celebrate that.

So thank you very much for all you do to acknowledge this. Thank you for being here.

0:14 – 0:194 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8814:05 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:06 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution honoring the Crisis Intervention Team of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office and the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness for a successful first year of service. And if I can have Dr. Sherri-Lynn Lee and Dr. Alice Gledcorn and anyone else who'd like to join you to the podium?

Go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas since September 14, 2018 the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office Behavioral Sciences Unit under the direction of Dr. Sherri Lynn Lee has deployed the Crisis Intervention Team a mental health co-response team staffed by a sheriff's deputy and a mobile crisis services clinician of the Department of Behavioral Wellness. And whereas the Crisis Intervention Team serves our community by responding to calls involving people experiencing mental health crisis and by proactively building relationships with people living with mental illness in our community.

And whereas since the launch of the program, the Crisis Intervention Team has worked more than 130 shifts, responded to more than 350 calls and conducted more than 370 proactive engagements. And whereas the Crisis Intervention Team has used diversion efforts to prevent criminal justice system involvement in more than 70 situations that would have otherwise resulted in arrests. And whereas the Crisis Intervention Team has helped de-escalate interactions between law enforcement officers and people with mental illness And whereas the Crisis Intervention Team has received the California State Association of Counties Merit Award and has received grant funding from the Department of Justice Burn Justice Assistance Grant Program, and the state of California's Prop 47 Grant Program.

Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors congratulates and commends the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office and Department of Behavioral Wellness on a successful first year of the Crisis Intervention Team passed and adopted today.

CommentDrProposedself-stated16:09 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Thank you Chair Lavinino, members of the board for your support and recognition of this important work. My name is Dr. Cheryl Lynn Lee. I'm a first responder psychologist and I'm the behavioral sciences manager for the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office. Thank you to our sheriff Bill Brown and Dr. Gleghorn for your leadership and willingness to work diligently and collaboratively to execute missions such as co-response.

The numbers tell a story. It's these guys Bradley and James that are writing that story. It is my absolute pleasure and honor to work alongside these gentlemen as they care for some of our community's most vulnerable persons. What they see and what they do is extraordinary, from helping the kid in Isla Vista through his first psychotic break, to assisting elderly patients who are too afraid to sleep in their own bed, to keeping persons with mental illness and a propensity for violence away from firearms. This is the team that gets the job done.

I am grateful for the opportunity to support and guide them as they serve our community. Thank you.

PresenterDr. Alice GlykornBehavioral WellnessProposedself-stated17:13 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Good morning. I'm Dr. Alice Glykorn, I'm the Director of Behavioral Wellness. A year ago we began a small experiment with a simple question. Would pairing an experienced mental health crisis professional with a law enforcement officer have a positive benefit for individuals in the midst of a crisis? For their families, for the community and for law enforcement itself.

While the team started with less than a full-time allocation of effort It soon showed benefit in all of these areas. Crisis situations deescalated, families proactively requested the co-response team during crisis events but also prior to a crisis developing in response to concerning signs with their loved ones or behaviors that raised questions from neighbors and other community members.

And law enforcement was also able to function more efficiently when the co-response team was available About half the team's time was spent responding to crisis as they happened and half in proactive visits. The data collected from this small experiment allowed us to apply for grants to expand the model, and we've successfully received, as you've heard this morning, two three-year grants that will provide three fulltime dedicated co-response teams to Santa Barbara County.

The Department of Behavioral Wellness has also launched a small pilot program With Santa Barbara City Police, which is focused on co-response with homeless. And we hope to expand this model to other police departments in the county as well. I want to appreciate the Sheriff's Office and other law enforcement partners' willingness to join us in developing these innovative approaches to reducing community harm and to the Board of Supervisors itself for early Encouragement of the stepping up initiative whose ultimate goal is to reduce the criminalization. Of those with mental illness in three years we hope to return to you with data that will support long term sustainable local funding of these efforts and we appreciate your support.

0:19 – 0:222 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed19:29 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Well, I just asked Deputy McCarroll if he'd like to say anything and he deferred to me. But I will just say at the risk of sounding like a mutual admiration society, I want to thank behavioral wellness and particularly Dr. Glaghorn for her leadership The collaborative effort that has come together as a result of our two organizations looking at ways to do things differently, to get out of our silos and to deal with the common problem and common issue.

And as a result of that, and as a result of the incredible efforts of these two gentlemen right here who were the pilot, the first ones to trailblaze the way into doing business differently in how we deal with mentally ill people in the field. As a result of that, as you've heard, Receive these additional grants we're going to be expanding this program- as a result of it already we've seen a decrease in the number of people in our jail. We have seen- more appropriate treatment for people with mental illness. We have seen that through the follow up process people who are adhering to community based treatment which is really.

Always preferable to putting someone in jail typically that. The jail has been used as a last resort for Coming into contact again and again and again with people in public and creating disturbances or creating problems or issues that really can be, and we're proving are being better served by delivering services in the field and encouraging people. And these two guys have an incredible knack for just that to be able to encourage people to seek and obtain and benefit from treatment as a result of that there's a lot of hope In the community that there wasn't before, I'm incredibly excited about what's going to happen with our expansion of this wonderful program to the North County where it is also desperately needed. And I want to thank you, the board for taking the effort to fund Dr.

Lee's position in the last budget which has been instrumental in working to craft this program and coming up with a framework for not only this but many other initiatives that we're involved in, in terms of mentally ill people in our community. So thank you to everyone who's standing behind me and all the other people and the two organizations that have made this work. And to you, we much appreciate it.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8222:05 · ≈ 9:22 AM

I just needed to add that I used to get a lot of frantic emails and calls from parents of adult children who were in the jail because of a crisis. And lately, I've been getting a lot of emails grateful, thankful, singing the praises of the response unit. James and Bradley are fondly known as the gentle giants, and they go out and they're calm just de-escalates And can find the proper mode to serve people so this is a tremendous program. It's one that I like to tell people about Government the local government can be creative and I think the prevention aspect of it can't be overstated to have you out in the community and identifying people and Item 8-4.

0:23 – 0:278 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed23:06 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number four is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Juan Rueda de Leon of the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office as the October 2018 Employee of the Month in Santa Barbara County. And you're already at the podium, so go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Juan Rueda de Leon began his career with the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office in 1999 providing exceptional IT system and desktop support. Juan's contributions to the department over the last 20 years have resulted in continual process improvement, new technology implementations, and IT security compliance. And whereas property taxes are the largest source of discretionary revenues for the county and are significant revenues for many of the cities, schools and special districts within the county.

And whereas WAN manages and supports the county's critical property tax billing. property tax collections, and treasury systems. In addition to providing critical system support, Juan provides desktop support to all department staff. And whereas Juan's varied responsibilities include security administration, mobile computing administration, server hardware and software administration, desktop and printer administration, cashiering system support, and banking services support. Whereas Juan is a very patriotic American and believes in giving back to his community Before coming to the county, Juan served in the United States Marine Corps 1st Marine Division 4th Battalion Weapons Company stationed in Hawaii. In his spare time, Juan works as the NCAA Division I softball, football and lacrosse official.

In addition, Juan provides volunteer income tax assistance. Now therefore be it hereby resolved and ordered that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Juan Rueda de Leon as the Employee of the Month for October 2019 passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role25:21 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. I'm very honored to be able to present Juan today. You know every department has these people behind the scenes that make the department and the department head look good? Juan's one of those people. He does...I mean when you read the resolution there are so many things that he supports in our office and property tax being one of the largest When Juan says he's a patriotic American, he certainly is. He is a Marine still. If I asked him to bust through that door right there, he would. He would do it for me.

And you know one thing that's really interesting in this world is so small when Juan was stationed in Hawaii in the weapons company Sergeant McGulpin was there too. They served in the same company together. What makes this county and this country and this world great is how small it is, but I don't want to take up one's time. Do you want to say anything?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed26:19 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Sure. A few words. Good morning supervisors. I'm honored and humbled And I would like to thank Harry and all my co-workers for the years we've had together, and being part of this highly successful and productive department. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8826:47 · ≈ 9:26 AM

All right, very good. That takes care of our resolutions for the day. Are there any items that board members would like to pull from the administrative agenda? Supervisor Allen. Nine and 19, just need a roll call. Nine and 19 for separate vote. Anybody else? You're missing your...

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction27:08 · ≈ 9:27 AM

I'll live. What's that? I'll live. You'll live?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8827:13 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Oh, oh without the, okay. And then from the public we have a few.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:18 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, I've request to speak on A3, A15, and A16. Three, 15, and 16.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8827:28 · ≈ 9:27 AM

OK let's start with three.

0:27 – 0:303 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:31 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Chair Lavinino members of the board administrative item number 3 was previously read into the record this was our resolution on crisis intervention team and I have one request to speak and that's been remote.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed27:50 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Thank you. I was a little confused it's been awhile, but I just wanted to come as a private citizen. I'm not working for any agencies or anything like that but I just want to share that crisis intervention team project and that program. It warms my heart as someone who grew up here and has seen the The many systems and efforts to help those living with mental illness in our community.

And I think it's super important that we, as a community, commend bureaucracy when it does a great job because we often bash that bureaucracy. That bureaucracy is made up of people who care a lot. It's made up of people in government. It made up of people in the nonprofit sector. And it's all meant to serve people in the community, many of whom are very vulnerable And dealing with life situations that many others could never fully comprehend. This partnership, the Crisis Intervention Team to me is bureaucracy working the way that it really should and I think those leaders who are implementing it, folks on the ground, I forget their names but Sheriff Brown, Director Gleghorn should all be commended and just really supported and I think it's important for To to say that we appreciate it as well.

I've seen other examples that I'm really excited about and that you'll you have on your agenda later, so I won't Take all your time with public comment on all of those but all the efforts that are being made in terms of housing. I recently Was able to visit Polly's house an opening of a permanent supportive housing program that behavioral wellness is supporting in partnership with the mental Wellness Center all examples of multiple agencies including your community services department coming together and working together in a highly efficient highly effective way saving taxpayer dollars as we're Preventing challenges and difficulties in people's lives that lead to incarceration.

And that is the most costly option, and the least humane for how we deal with our friends and neighbors who are living in homelessness and who are living with mental illness. So I just want to commend the county, used to be part of this family was always proud to work for the county but as a citizen who no longer does by choice you guys didn't can me or anything but just as a private citizen I just wanted to commend you from that vantage point as well so thank you. Alright thanks Ben.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8830:32 · ≈ 9:30 AM

That was positive public comment October 1st 2009. Item 9.

0:30 – 0:3316 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed30:42 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board administrative item number nine comes from community services it is to consider recommendations regarding an annual coastal permit service agreement with Wood Environment and Infrastructure Solutions Inc for the Goleta Beach project and this is in the second district.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8830:58 · ≈ 9:30 AM

OK

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed30:59 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Supervisor Adam I just want a separate vote.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8831:04 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Can I get a motion to move item 9 please? So moved. Second. Moved and seconded, roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:13 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8831:15 · ≈ 9:31 AM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:15 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Mr. Williams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8831:16 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:17 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Mr Harte?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8831:17 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:18 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Chair Lavagnino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8831:19 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:19 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Motion passes 4-1

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8831:21 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Go to item A15

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed31:26 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number 15 is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding amendment number one to the agreement for services of independent contractor with KPMG LLP to perform departmental financial organizational and operational reviews. And I have one request on this item and that's Tracy Farhad.

PresenterTracy FarhadSanta Barbara County Coalition for Responsible CannabisProposedself-stated31:54 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Good morning, Chairman. Supervisors, member of the county staff. I'm Tracy Farhad. I am here representing the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. We are a small but mighty group non-profit organization of concerned citizens, farmers, business owners and parents. That's me! And it is for the protection education and advocacy for all. We saw two items that were actually up on todays agenda which was A15 and 16 and even a little in 19 as well. They came as a bit of a surprise to the coalition, and we were just requesting if you could please put those on departmental agendas in the future or be given a little more advanced notice so we can get some of our questions answered. We had a lot of questions regarding the taxation et cetera but there wasn't enough time to go for the Public Records Act.

And of course we understand the need to be able to keep things going. Regarding 15 it is an increase for the third party contractor to review departments and quote, to perform an assessment of the cannabis permitting process for ways among other things to reduce permitting time. Well we're concerned that that focus could substitute for a thorough environmental impact review due process and essential public notice so we ask you to please keep the public in the loop and we will post all the workshops and the meeting notices on the santabarbacountycoalition.com And I know I'm number 16.

0:33 – 0:419 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed33:26 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Chair Lavinia and members of the board, administrative item number 16 hasn't been run into the record yet but I can. Go ahead. Administrative item number 16 is from the county executive office it is to consider recommendations regarding an update on cannabis compliance enforcement and taxation for the fourth quarter.

PresenterTracy FarhadSanta Barbara County Coalition for Responsible CannabisProposedself-stated33:44 · ≈ 9:33 AM

And along that same line, because they tied together very nicely. We do appreciate the opportunity to have a public forum with community and public officials in charge of the cannabis ordinance for some real outreach and education on both taxation issues, health concerns. There are many. There are a lot of people who have a lot of questions. We ask you to please seek those answers from your staff as well In your board letter, there was no mention about the direction you gave staff two months ago to quote engage the planning commission and return to the Board of Supervisors with recommendations and strategies to mitigate the odor and other impacts end quote. When Chairman Park asked when the potential amendments were coming back to the Planning Commission your planning director hinted at quote sometime next year So please reiterate that directive to your staff today.

For immediate attention, this is all equally important. Thank you for your time.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8834:44 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Thank you. Any other speakers on A16?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed34:47 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board we have a final speaker on A16, Winford Van Winkerdon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed34:55 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Good morning. Members of the board, staff thank you for allowing me to speak my comments are also very positive Very important today. I'm here to comment on A16 on behalf of Carp Growers, which is a local association of licensed and compliant industry leaders in carpentry. We represent over 20 licensed farmers and continue to foster positive relationships with the community and the members of carpentry.

For example at one of our farms we host over 50 people on tours each month. Everyone is welcome Whether you're for or against, we want to show you who we are, what we do and how we operate. More recently, Carp Growers funded a full-time school counselor at the Carpinteria Middle School which was identified by the school district as a top priority for the school year.

Of course, we still require new members of our association to have the best available oat control We continue to support the county's effort to regulate the cannabis industry. This includes enforcement of bad actors, collection of taxes to fund important county programs and the land use permitting process. We are all seeking to secure our land use permits and have been in the process for several months.

This is an exhaustive, expensive and time-consuming process especially for those of us in the Carpinteria Agricultural Overlay. Additionally we're also focusing on submitting our business license applications and look forward to the online portal being active so we can submit our applications electronically In conclusion, we continue to support the county's efforts to regulate this program and enforce those who are not playing by the rules.

And again, this is really important to us. Again, we've been here for over 50 years. We've been in the nursery industry. We've done and are still doing flowers and vegetables. This is a new crop for us. We want to be compliant. Remember 100 years ago, we were in prohibition You know, we were all looking at alcohol then. We're looking at cannabis right now. It was approved in California. It was improved and approved in this county and we want to play by the rules. We want to pay our taxes. We are paying our taxes. And so thank you very much for all your support.

And we hope that this process will continue to move forward in a very expedient way. Thank you.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction37:30 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Supervisor Williams? Well, I'm going to take the opportunity just to urge carpentry growers because they're represented here. To ensure now that I guess the last place in Carpinteria that doesn't have odor control will have it this month. To really move on to really internally policing the efficacy of odor within your association and obviously help us do it within the whole Carp Valley, especially since we're headed into one last warm spell.

And it's a more complicated phase but it's a phase we've been looking to is now really trying to make sure that all of the odor control systems out there work well and that people are not engaged in venting techniques that frustrate their own odor control system. So just implore you to work hard, particularly in the next month on that and then a just a thing out to all of our personnel in the Sheriff's Department and in planning it's obviously from this report that some of the numbers of the folks who either did not report or reported no gross receipts are folks that have expired temps because there's more operators that you guys are tracking. Then there are folks who have provisional or permanent licenses in the county.

And just, I would love to hear back that we have made sure that all of the folks with expired temps are not operating. Since if you have an expired temp and no permanent or provisional license, you cannot legally sell onto the legal market. And so just hope that is a priority that we articulated on the 16th of July And I hope that that continues to be an area of where you're spending a lot of time.

Thanks. Supervisor Hart?

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed39:53 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Yeah, I'm interested in the cannabis tax compliance audit process and I know that's a very high priority for the board to make sure that that program is going. And I see in the staff report that it is only beginning to get ready to start in October that the vendor And the program's gonna begin. That is money that really is owed to the county, that is helping to properly balance the black and legal market. And it's extremely important to get those tax revenues in. So could you give me some more update as to why it's taking a little bit longer than ideal to get this program going? And what's the status of that effort?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed40:28 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Chair Lavagnino, Supervisor Hart happy to provide some little bit of additional clarity. So one of the considerations we were actually the first entity in the state of California looking at a fully tax compliance audit system and so part of that has been to create the scope of work that we would go out and look for a vendor in order to accomplish that So that's been one of our major tasks. There wasn't anything we could go and grab off the shelf, and just plug-and-play that would work for us here in Santa Barbara County. So being on the vanguard sometimes means it's a bit more of an iterative process so that's why it's taken a little bit of additional time.

Additionally they can't... One service provider kind of Embellished some other services in there. We wanted to pull some of that out and really focus on the meat of the of the tax compliance piece So it's very close And so we should have some something very soon for your board to consider

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed41:36 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Is there any concern that there won't be vendors that bid on this work?

0:41 – 0:445 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed41:42 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Supervisor Hart through the chair, I don't think there's a concern overall. I think the real challenge is getting the right vendor that can work within the state's track and trace system and be able to pull meaningful data out of that to be able to do that tax compliance work. And so I think that's the real trick of it. So we want to find the vendor that is most capable of doing that.

It's important to note that with now the provisional licenses that are mentioned in the staff report that you have today, that conversion from temps to provisionals required them to now enter every single plant, every single transaction into that track and trace system. And that has been a dramatic learning curve for many of the operators in the county because These little blue RFID barcoded tags have to literally follow every single plant throughout the supply chain, all the way to the store shelf for a licensed retailer.

That takes a lot of effort. Many other growers are having to hire additional staff to do that but that data is now available to us in terms of being able to do this kind of tax compliance work.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed43:00 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Is there any concern that there is a level of transparency at the state level that isn't transparent to us, that we need to get through to be able to make these things fit together?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed43:12 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Supervisor Hart for the chair. I don't believe at this point there's an impediment on the state level to us accomplishing what we need to do locally.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed43:20 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8843:22 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Okay and I'll just address As far as noticing goes, it's the same noticing for an administrative agenda item as a departmental agenda item. But I do feel that in the future we've talked with the CEO and the clerk's office and our cannabis updates will be on a departmental agenda from here on out. And as far as the frustration with the timeline at the planning commission I think both sides have expressed the same frustration that we do have a major backlog right now at the Planning Commission. And for items, whether they're projects to be heard or ordinance changes to be heard, it's going to take awhile. So I know the Planning Commission is going and trying to deal with this as best as they can.

But we actually have to, as our board being independent You know my wish is that they would look a little bit more at maybe scheduling more meetings, doing some things differently so that we can get through the backlog that we're seeing there right now. So that takes us to item A-19.

0:44 – 0:5221 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:34 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Administrative item number 19 is from Planning and Development. It is to consider recommendations regarding consulting services for the Cannabis Program Environmental Impact Report Agreement for Services with Wood Environmental and Infrastructure Solutions Inc.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8844:49 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Supervisor Adam. Roll call please. Okay can I get a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Motion and seconded roll call please

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:04 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Ms. Hartman, Mr. Adam?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8845:06 · ≈ 9:45 AM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:07 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Mr. Williams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8845:08 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:08 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Mr. Hart?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8845:09 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:10 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Chair Lavagnino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8845:11 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:11 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Motion passes four to one.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8845:13 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Okay so that takes us to the balance of the administrative agenda can I get a motion to approve all the items that were not well the balance of the agenda?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8245:23 · ≈ 9:45 AM

So moved

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8845:24 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Second All those in favor? Aye Any opposed? Alright moving into public comment How many speakers do we have this morning?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:36 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. I have two requests to speak on general public comment this morning. Okay. We are going to begin with Ed Kolaski to be followed by Viviana Saavedra. Ed?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed45:52 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Good morning. I call my comment today two episodes. The past two weeks, I've had problems with my blood pressure. Couldn't get it down below 165. My doctor quadrupled my dosage and I doubled that by taking two pills instead of just one. Being here I'm a little more calmer. The second episode, I had a little vandalism at my house at 115 in the afternoon. I don't know what was going on.

Maybe this is a message to me from Alex. I don't know. Clearly I was sitting at my window most of the time working on my computer. I went off to the restroom and then all of sudden I hear a bunch of noise going on Okay, this drawing wasn't originally shown by me. I would just cut out the sections and show the individual sections but Alex doesn't allow the members to ask questions down at the Board of Architectural Review and one of the guys John Verdiac stated that this is all a lie so I'm just lying So I presented this to him, showing that this is an architectural drawing and also showing the date on the architectural drawing.

And his comment was, oh, I'll have to look into that. He had never seen the drawing before because Alex didn't allow the members to see the drawing that we were submitting in June of 2014. You know how do you write a 64 page report describing the location of the second story with respect to the first grounds floor, the ground state and not show this drawing. 64 pages telling you that the second story is located solely over the garage.

It didn't take Supervisor Peter Adam two seconds to look at that and say, that's not solely over the garage yet Alex took Some provision not to show the members, not to describe the situation. He ordered us out of the meeting in 15 seconds and he had one of the members jump up and scream at us so we couldn't ask any questions every time my architect stood up.

So you know, had John been able to vocalize this five years ago, this little charade might not have gone on for five years. We need to put an end to this and I hope soon. This is a democracy, 64 pages describing the location of the second story and they don't put a picture in? Why? Because they wanted a little extortion money. And that day is Alex Bujold. It used to be Alex and Janet Wolfe, but now it's just Alex Bujold. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:12 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board our final speaker on public comment today is Vibiana Saavedra.

PresenterViviana SaavedraUDWProposedself-stated49:21 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Good morning! Good morning. My name is Viviana Saavedra, I drove down here from Santa Maria. I'm speaking on behalf of UDW, United Domestic Workers and of course you're all aware that we're in bargaining with the county. Now one of the items under consideration is training. You know dollars for training. Our in-home care workers through IHSS if you're not aware, we receive almost no training after orientation unless it comes to a time sheet then we get that kind of training However, our workers have and continue to request training for their workplace just like any other employee would request.

Now UDW in coordination with AFSCME, our parent union also has been working in coordination with the California Independent Provider Training Center. They do nothing but provide training for in-home care workers. Now, this is something we've worked on to develop this infrastructure to identify and provide curriculum specific to the work of in-home care workers.

So these are adult ed classes. They're very interactive and they receive after completion a certificate stamped by OSHA. This is not kiddie kind of curriculum. This is adult curriculum specific to the workplace. So what classes would you be interested in for our in-home care workers? Well, the top two requested are, of course, CPR. Nobody needs to have any more information on that one. We work with a vulnerable community. The second one, safe patient handling.

Not only to benefit our clients, but you do know that in-home care workers are among the top 10 occupations when it comes to back issues. Right? Injured backs. We're right up there. Firefighters, people who work in hospitals like orderlies and nurses, in-home care workers. So we talk about the ergonomics of our work. Other things, safety in the workplace both in making sure that we have a safe physical environment as well as making sure That we are safe in the workplace from any kind of violent situations. How to handle those? Safe chemical usage, I won't be using 409 in my house anymore after this class. I discovered it's not good for asthmatics but I didn't know that. The print is very small but also infectious diseases who doesn't need to know also about blood borne pathogens in this day and age can we talk about measles All right, so infectious diseases.

Now again these classes are so important to the work that our people do. The trainers are very well trained. We go through hours of classroom instruction before we even get to go to a class for in-home care workers. So we know you'll take this to heart when you go into bargaining because this is something we can provide. I don't think anybody else can do it for the dollars that we're requesting. Thank you for your time.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8852:22 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed52:25 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board that closes public comment.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8852:28 · ≈ 9:52 AM

All right closes out public comment I've had a request to take a let's take a 10 minute break our next item is going to be like an hour and a half long so why don't we take a ten minute break and we will be back at five after

0:59 – 1:041 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed59:01 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Hi. Good morning. You. you

1:05 – 1:128 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:05:36 · ≈ 10:05 AM

you This meeting of the County Board of Supervisors, we're

moving to item D2. Madam Clerk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:06:12 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding public safety dispatch separation.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:06:23 · ≈ 10:06 AM

All right, Mr. Melchion. Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, good morning. My pleasure to provide you with the latest update on the Public Safety Dispatch Center. Now the separation being referred to as the Regional Fire Communications Facility. This morning you're asked to provide staff with direction on two primary areas. One is the selection of one of two locations for a location for the possible, for the new center and secondly to authorize staff to enter into negotiations with potential regional partners.

As part of a background for this project, we have been before the board on four previous occasions in July of 2017 and then August of 2018 with a significant break due to the fire and debris flow. And November of 2018 and then last May. At that time on May 7th of this year you directed us to return with cost estimates for construction and staffing Estimates for an expansion of the existing Emergency Operating Center.

Construction and staffing estimates for construction of a new facility in the parking lot adjacent to the existing dispatch center, and to identify a potential location north of the Gaviota Tunnel. There are some assumptions built into this project, and I just want to remind you of what those have been. One is that the Regional Fire Communication Facility needs to meet what's referred to as essential services construction standards. That any regional fire or emergency medical partners participating in the Regional Fire Communication Facility will contribute financially to the cost of running that center.

And I should note that to date, all of the county fire chiefs have expressed support for this concept. However, only the boards of the Montecito and Carpinteria Fire Districts have taken formal action to authorize negotiations with the county. Under this model there will be two public safety answering points referred to as PSAPs, a primary and a secondary. The Sheriff's Office will continue to operate the primary PSAP.

The change should not impact in any way the Sheriff's ability to operate this primary PSAP and the general fund will not be negatively impacted by this action. And lastly, should the EOC expansion option be selected there should be no loss of space or functionality at the existing EOC. First with respect to the construction options that were looked at, the Fire District retained the services of the RRM Design Group who worked with General Services to develop a design option for the EOC and to develop some preliminary cost estimates.

As you can see from this slide, the estimated cost for the expansion of the EOC is just over $10.3 million dollars. I should note that that is a 6200 square foot project with a cost assumption of $700 per square foot. It does not include a new joint information center or a new call center which is an additional 1363 feet At a cost of $954,000 and that cost would not be borne by the fire district.

I believe it was part of the capital improvement plan in the budget earlier this year. The aspects of this option that I have recommended, one is it is adjacent. It's part of the fire headquarters campus. It is adjacent to the headquarters in Station 19. It is in close proximity to county IT resources and uninterrupted power sources and it does have a lower construction cost about $2.1 million less than Option 2.

The challenges of this option are the lack of geographic separation in the event of a major disaster or emergency in the South County, the potential to disrupt EOC operations during emergencies and the lack of proximity to affordable housing. Option number two, at the direction of the board staff studied a number of locations in the North County including in the Santa Maria area and in Buelton. And ultimately felt that the best location north of the tunnel so to speak was located at the San Ynez Airport. That project and again RRM was asked to do general services were asked to do something slightly different For the purposes of option 2, they were asked to design a template for a new regional fire communication facility that essentially could be placed anywhere in the county.

Staff just landed on the Santa Ynez Airport as probably providing the best location to do that. The cost of that template is just over $12.4 million for a 7,177 square foot project and the costs would obviously vary depending on the location selected as a place to put the template.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:11:54 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Supervisor Adam has a question

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:11:57 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Can you tell me why we're talking about 6200 square feet at the EOC and 7177 at San Ysidro Airport or elsewhere?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:12:09 · ≈ 10:12 AM

There are some economies of scale that come with simply expanding the EOC, particularly in terms of access and lobby and restroom areas. Whereas the, and the sleeping quarters as was referenced on the previous slide would simply be up at station 19 which is on the same campus. The Santa Ynez Airport or the template construction takes all of those things and puts them under one roof.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:12:39 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Yeah because the difference is 977 square feet which is significant at 700 bucks a square. So I get that, but maybe we just decide we confine ourselves to 6200 and knock off 700,000.

1:13 – 1:202 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:13:04 · ≈ 10:13 AM

The advantages of option two at the airport, it is centrally located. It eliminates the need and I'll talk in a second about the need to develop a redundant facility if we put the new center in the South County. The South County partners, potential South County partners, fire chiefs have expressed support with this location. It is adjacent to some existing fire facilities including County Station 32 and the U.S. Forest Service and it is in closer proximity to more affordable housing which hopefully would help with the retention and recruitment of potential dispatchers.

The challenges as was pointed out, it is more expensive than the expansion of the EOC. Although this $2.1 million figure will be offset somewhat by the need not to have to build or find some capacity for redundancy in the North County. It is a construction project from scratch. And we do not have formal clearance yet from the FAA. We have had informal discussions with them about whether there were any issues with the airport.

They have indicated offline that they don't see any, but they're not going to give formal approval until we submit them a formal plan. So that still remains an unknown. The third option we were asked to look at was the construction of a new facility in the parking lot adjacent to the existing Public Safety Dispatch Center for a variety of reasons. That option was ultimately discarded as unworkable, the disruption, the biggest one being the disruption to the operations of the current center and the lack of geographic separation and it was not desired either by the Fire Department or the Sheriff's Office.

Moving on to the operational costs, there is an expansion of staffing and of FTEs. This slide demonstrates that the current dispatch center employs 37.3 FTEs and the new system which is a two facility system would have 49.3 FTE's This slide, I'd like to spend a couple of minutes on it because it requires, I think, a little bit more explanation. If you look at the column that's labeled the current cost, you'll see that the Sheriff's budget is just over $5.9 million dollars.

The cost of that center is 5.9 million dollars. I should point out that fire currently contributes 1.67 million dollars a year to the operation of that facility An AMR ambulance contributes 1.55 million. The 766,000 that you see in the current column is the cost of two fire captains that are permanently assigned to the current center and they're not part of the operating budget. Fire has simply put them in there for the purposes of equipment ordering and some other emergency response items.

In the event that this separation takes place, you see that the law enforcement budget of the primary PSAP is $4.88 million. The $481,000 figure that is listed in that column refers to the county budgets office estimate of what fire would need to contribute to operate the primary PSAP, the most obvious example being the five call takers. 100% of the calls that come into this, the Public Safety Center now will continue to come in through 911. That's the definition really of a primary PSAP.

And then the second, the last column, the secondary PSAP is the Fire Department budget. So the new system cost total is just over $9.2 million for a cost, system cost increase of 2.48 million Those, that cost increase will be the same regardless of the location that is selected. And it is estimated that funding from partner agencies will only partially offset that amount.

Depending on the number of partners that finally enter into agreement with the county for this system It's estimated that up to $1.1 million, best case would not be covered or rather would be covered by the fire district if we were unable to identify some other sources. I have been in discussion with the county budget office and given that this project is at least two years away it would be feasible to develop a funding plan to prepare to initiate operations for that system.

The staff recommendation, although both of these options are good and viable options. Staff recommends option number two the building of the new facility at the San Ynez Airport. It ensures redundancy in the case of a regional disaster in the South County. And as I've mentioned a couple of times, if we select the EOC expansion, we will have to find another location. Either the city of Santa Maria or some other place to have a redundant facility so that in the event that something happened in the South County, we could transfer operations smoothly. That redundancy would be built into a new fire communications facility if it was located north of the tunnel.

Fire District has indicated they have sufficient funds for the construction at either site. The County Budget Office concurs with that, and the ongoing system cost will need to be addressed. It's just over $2.4 million if there are no partners and it comes down proportionally depending on which partners we enter into an agreement with. With regards to next steps, once you give us direction as to which site you prefer we will do a more thorough analysis of the construction costs and issues associated with the selection of that site. We will develop an operational funding plan We'll also come back to you, this was mentioned at one of the previous board members or board meetings with a determination of the upgrade cost to the existing public safety dispatch facility and conduct a redundancy study if necessary.

Again, the recommended actions are to receive and file this report and direct us to which location Is your preference and authorize us to enter into negotiations with potential partners? And to provide any other direction as appropriate, and determine that this action is exempt from CEQA. I have Chief Mark Hartwig and Sheriff Bill Brown who wish to address the board. And I'll leave it to the Board's discretion whether you want to ask me questions now or after they're finished.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:20:32 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Why don't we hear from both Chief Hartwig and Sheriff Brown, and then we'll go to questions.

1:20 – 1:382 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:20:42 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board. I'm Ms. Miyasato. I understand that for over four years the fire chiefs in Santa Barbara County have discussed and in fact planned to join together to provide seamless and closest resource fire rescue and EMS dispatching. A joint Fire Rescue and EMS public safety answering point, or what we would refer to as a secondary PSAP will reduce call processing and transfer time and increase the efficient and appropriate use of fire resources countywide.

Ultimately, an accredited EMD call center, Emergency Medical Dispatch Call Center We'll provide comprehensive pre-arrival and post dispatch instructions on all calls to county residents and visitors. We have worked hard over the last four months with the CEO's office as well as general services, to develop the options that you have in front of you today. I'm fully aware of the contention associated with the topic that you have and are deliberating on today.

After analysis of fire and operational or financial and operational issues associated with the location of the regional fire dispatch facility To the county Fire Department. I have expressed my clear preference for the EOC location again, I understand that The issue that you have in front of you is contentious and there's a lot of different We have staff here that was active in our participation with the CEO's office and general services specifically related to some of the operational and financial issues associated with the issue you have in front of me today. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:22:47 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the Board. This morning I would like to reiterate some of the concerns that we in the Sheriff's Office believe are compelling reasons to not separate our dispatch function. You have been previously made aware of those but I'd like to also update you on some additional information that has come to our attention and to advise you of some steps that were taken to explore alternatives to this model and could still be looked at as an alternative.

First of all, some background information. Our current dispatch system was consolidated in 1977 by the Board of Supervisors. The current building that we operate out of is designed...was designed and built in 1996 as an 8000 square foot regional dispatch center It still has plenty of room for expansion to make it a true regional center. The Center has a stellar record of handling some of the most difficult public safety challenges imaginable.

It has handled multiple brush fires and other major critical incidents, including the recent Thomas fire and the related debris flow, the Refugio oil spill, the Isla Vista mass murders the Deltopia civil disturbance, and the recent Conception tragedy. All of these incidents required coordinated dispatching, communications, and status management of our public safety disciplines – law enforcement, fire service, and or emergency medical services.

Having a consolidated dispatch center was a key ingredient to the exemplary response to and handling of these disastrous events. The next point I'd like to make is that the trend is to consolidate, not to separate. For many reasons, the current trend for public safety dispatch centers across the nation and throughout our state is to consolidate. As identified in the Delta Works 2017 Consultant Report commissioned by the Santa Barbara County Fire Department Quote, this approach is common for public safety dispatch centers and has worked effectively in jurisdictions as diverse as Albemarle County, Virginia, Deutsches County, Oregon, Monterey County, California and Ramsey County, Minnesota.

And it's important to point out that two of those counties are smaller than ours, one is larger and one is a similar size. In order to advance the trend of dispatch consolidation, legislation has been passed in the states of Illinois and Indiana to limit counties to having no more than two public safety answering points per county. And we currently have six PSAPs in our county.

I am concerned that you have not been provided with enough facts about the benefits of consolidation and the liabilities of dispatch separation, particularly with respect to the law enforcement and emergency medical services points of view. Nor with additional options and alternatives that are available in order for you to make a well-informed final decision on this very complex and very important matter.

What is especially concerning is that at the same time Delta Works was working on the consultant report for the Santa Barbara County Fire Department that you relied heavily on in making your direction at that point, they were preparing another report for Chittenden County, Vermont entitled Dispatch Consolidation Roadmap. That report articulated many advantages of consolidation that were not included in the report you relied upon in providing direction to explore the separation of our dispatch services.

In that report, Delta Works wrote that consolidated public safety dispatch services improve the efficiency with which resources are dispatched to life-threatening emergencies. The report indicated that executives in Chittenden County said that emergency call response times could be cut by up to 71 seconds through dispatch consolidation. That was based on a survey of 16,000 calls made statewide in December 2016.

The Chittenden Report also identified benefits of consolidation to include the facilitation of interagency communication, cross-trained staff that ease the burden of providing around-the-clock shift coverage and the sharing of capital costs. In addition, Delta Works in that report pointed out that a consolidated dispatch center improves the likelihood of obtaining grants and federal funding that supports interoperability.

There are many other benefits to staying consolidated as well. The three major operational benefits of consolidation are vertical communication, interoperability and unified command. Vertical communication. Just as the trend is towards vertical investigation and vertical prosecution, where one person or one unit handles an activity from start to finish without referring it to another, so too is the trend toward vertical communication.

Time is saved and efficiency is improved By both external vertical communication, such as staying on the line with a 911 caller without transferring them to another center. And internal vertical communication, such as interdisciplinary face-to-face communication by dispatchers who are working at separate consoles within the same center. With respect to interoperability, this means using the same language, the same radio system, the same computer-aided dispatch system and the same reporting systems etc.

And unified command having all three disciplines housed together in a dispatch center allows for unified command to commence at the very start of an incident We wouldn't want to have incident commanders in the field base themselves at three different offices and only communicate with each other by telephone. So why would we want to do that with our dispatch system?

Face-to-face communications amongst disciplines is always preferable in rapidly unfolding, and often confusing emergency situations. The other point that you've just seen evidence of with the report that you've just had presented to you is the cost of separation. It's huge! You've just heard the extraordinarily expensive costs of initial construction, equipment acquisition and the ongoing and escalating increase in operational costs to run two separate dispatch centers.

These expenses would place a significant and unnecessary burden on the county's fragile budget during very uncertain economic times. I ask that you consider, one, that the county lacks a supplemental sales tax at a time when all of the larger cities in Santa Barbara County have either passed supplemental sales taxes or are in the process of putting them on the March ballot.

This is going to make it much harder for the county to compete with the cities in the provision of existing public safety services, let alone additional ones. We believe that spending such a huge amount of money unnecessarily is the antithesis to the rebalance component of the Renew 22 plan which we have adopted. And lastly, in this area please remember that we have some very significant current and future public safety projects that are going to need large amounts of funding.

The main jail remodel and staffing, the remodel alone is estimated at $20 million plus. The Firehawk helicopter estimated to be about 7 million by the time it's completed, at least four or five of which is still to be paid. The big boy of all of them, the Public Safety Infrastructure Project, which is going to cost upwards of $40 million dollars. And New Quiama's public safety building and the probation department headquarters buildings that are both in the planning phases.

Perhaps the biggest argument against separation are the delays in response time and emergency medical dispatch initiation. When an I-1-1 caller has to provide crucial information to numerous call takers and wait for each handoff, the consequences range from dissatisfied residents to potentially harmful delays in response. EMS authorities estimate that for every minute that emergency medical intervention is delayed in a cardiac arrest case there's a 10% decrease in the victim's chance of survival.

And make no mistake about it, with separation there will be delays in transferring 911 calls, in dispatching emergency resources, in initiating emergency medical dispatching and ultimately in providing emergency aid to victims. If the adopted model requires that the law enforcement PSAPs stay on the line as the call is transferred, there will also be an additional drain on staffing to the primary PSAP, the Sheriff's Dispatch, that doesn't exist in a consolidated dispatch center.

Next point I'd like to talk about is borderless dispatching or closest resource dispatching. This has often been mentioned as one of if not the primary reason for dispatch separation But in reality, it has nothing to do with dispatch separation. Our existing Dispatch Center is fully capable of borderless dispatching and could become operational in the very near future.

If the funds that you have already authorized for a new computer-aided dispatch module are released from their present embargo related to this project And if the allied fire agencies involved will share their resource availability information with us, closest resource dispatching could begin here in a matter of a few months. This concept is in no way tied exclusively to a new Regional Fire Dispatch Center.

Despite our great respect for our colleagues in the fire service, we strongly disagree with the notion that separation will provide a better level of public safety service for members of the public. In reality, the exact opposite is true. The largest concern is the delay and inefficiency that will be built into the delivery of service by adding a secondary public safety answering point requiring precious additional time to interview the caller, extract information and dispatch appropriate resources.

Even under ideal situations there will be call transfer delays under the proposed system. There are also numerous occasions where callers are upset, confused or so excited by the underlying circumstances of the 911 call that dispatchers are simply unable to initially decipher what is happening. Time must be spent calming the caller and extracting vital information.

Transferring such callers to another dispatch center, sometimes twice if the California Highway Patrol Dispatch Center was called initially would further increase their anxiety and extend the amount of time it takes to determine and dispatch the required emergency resources in some cases by several minutes. And lastly I want to leave you with the thought of one other option to consider that has not been discussed but which I believe should be discussed, examined and considered as an alternative to what's before you now.

If you still feel that a split should occur then consider only moving fire dispatch and not emergency medical services dispatch from the current primary PSAP. This would address the most critical concerns in the delay of emergency medical dispatching and of the dispatching of emergency medical resources to the call. Our county's cardiac survival rates have outperformed the national average by 7% for the past three years, and that's a relative 7%. In other words, the difference say between 33% survival rate and 40% survival rate. If you take that 7% differential It really represents a 22% improvement over the national average.

So with statistics like that, I believe we should not move to a system that would inevitably impact those numbers negatively. We believe our American Medical Response partners are providing excellent high quality emergency medical services in our community. We have a track record of working very well together and they are pleased with the dispatch service that's provided by the Sheriff's Office.

I have no doubt that a law, an EMS dispatch consolidation or in fact remaining consolidated would work very effectively here. Indeed it works to the north with our neighbors in San Luis Obispo County where they have been doing this for upwards of 30 years. In addition to solving many of the aforementioned delay problems, such a model would also eliminate delays or premature call transfers in the dispatching of multidisciplinary calls such as traffic accidents, shootings, stabbings, assaults with injuries and the like.

In closing I ask you to please recognize that you have an outstanding dispatch system already here in Santa Barbara County. And it's staffed by some of the best public safety communicators in the world. Instead of separation, please consider instead for a fraction of the cost enhancing that already excellent system with some additional staffing and improvements in technology to make it even better.

If we do that We can provide enhanced, more efficient, more cost-effective, but most importantly, more effective public safety services to our constituents. Thank you. Thank you Sheriff.

1:38 – 1:4710 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:38:35 · ≈ 10:38 AM

All right we'll open it up.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction1:38:39 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Supervisor Williams? Well I just wanted that because for me the Reason to do this precisely is the potential for consolidation and for efficiencies in consolidating fire multiple fire agencies. So I want to ask Chief Hartwig and I want to ask Dr. Salvucci to provide us their viewpoint on this question of what Delays in transfers could be incurred versus efficiencies if most of the fire agencies and EMS is consolidated in one dispatch center.

Because to me, I've just been... My holy grail in this whole thing is borderless dispatch as the facilitation Of a system in which we can dispatch the closest available resource. And I mean, the only reason why I've been moving this direction is simply because we've given the Sheriff's Department a couple years to see if any agency would consolidate with them and we don't yet have takers whereas we do have Takers for consolidation with fire dispatch. So could I have each of you speak to that, to your viewpoint on that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:40:26 · ≈ 10:40 AM

Supervisor Williams through the chair. So my complete experience over the last 27 years is all a consolidated fire rescue center. So my experience comes from that perspective, what we're talking about today practically here in this county is we're talking about moving from a system in which fire and rescue resources with their EMS personnel are dispatched Out of the same center under the same roof, but on different frequencies.

And in fact on a different computer aided dispatch module than the EMS resources. We're talking about moving from that to a center in which all fire rescue and EMS resources are not only dispatched together Dispatched on the same frequency, but then are used specifically through a call differentiation A determinant code to decide what is the most appropriate? Resource to be dispatched to that call Today we don't have that today We now I believe the evolution of dispatch, the natural evolution is for disciplines to come together. I would certainly support that from the Sheriff's comments but today we are separate and there has been a lot of discussion and planning underway to come together. It occurs to me as we look at the differences between law and fire typically and the use of mutual aid Multiple times throughout the day today, fire agencies will move back and forth between jurisdictions.

It occurs to me that doesn't necessarily happen as often on the law side they don't rely on each other as much perhaps because we have fewer resources. That's the system we're looking to so that when the call is picked up at the PSAP, it's transferred to the secondary PSAP and then is immediately started on a call interrogation process that would result in a determinant code ultimately to be able to refer them to the appropriate resource and not just the general resource from multiple agencies that happens today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:43:19 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Supervisor Williams. So the interests of EMS are as I said at the last meeting to have universal countywide emergency medical dispatch which is structured caller interrogation Priority dispatch and post-dispatch instructions. That should be done for every caller regardless of their location. That's not being done now.

We are also interested in, as has already been mentioned, borderless or closest resource dispatching. Those are the two functions that EMS wants Regardless of the structure that's being done. Last time we talked about a combined fire EMS dispatch center being an avenue, and I spoke in support of that because it is an avenue if there's another way of achieving that function.

That's what we want. So from EMS' perspective, from my patients perspectives those are the two functions that we need to have and I'll leave the way that occurs up to all of you. To further answer your question yes there is a small delay in transferring from one center to another as you can imagine That has been made, we compared this to Ventura County. That has been made up by the efficiencies of the fire EMS dispatch center within Ventura.

If it could be done all in one center and I agree with Chief Hartwig on this that may even be a better way of doing it but to date that hasn't been part of the mix.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction1:45:03 · ≈ 10:45 AM

So you believe that Efficiencies of an integrated fire EMS dispatch center will exceed the, so the efficiencies, the decrease in delay will exceed the increase in delay of the transfer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:45:25 · ≈ 10:45 AM

What I'm saying is that in Ventura because the combined fire EMS dispatch center is so effective at processing calls more effective than the individual centers were before we're able to combine them that we've been able to make up for that delay. I'm not saying that it couldn't be done in a different way, and I'm not saying that delays won't occur. Just then in the system in Ventura, it works well because having multiple EMD centers not as busy and not as efficient wasn't as good as incurring that small delay into having one Fire EMS Dispatch Center that is highly effective.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction1:46:07 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Thank you. I'll just say for my part this is the crux of where I feel the decision needs to be made. If we want to have a better fire EMS system, then this kind of integration is vital. If we wanna have borderless dispatch, this type of integration is vital. I have not wanted to choose between our children, the departments, right? We don't want to see mommy and papa arguing, right? It's a little distressing. But

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:46:52 · ≈ 10:46 AM

in this case,

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction1:46:53 · ≈ 10:46 AM

you know,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:46:54 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Dawson- I hate to interrupt but we're having technical difficulties and I just want to make sure that we get it. We can't. Okay so we have to take a 10 minute break because I don't think we're broadcasting or we're not streaming or something so that we have to get ironed out. So we will take a ten minute break sorry about that

1:48 – 1:566 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:48:18 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Background music playing. Hello everyone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:50:07 · ≈ 10:50 AM

♪ The Hello. Hello, everyone. you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:53:04 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Hello, everyone. Hi, everyone. ♪ I'd

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:56:07 · ≈ 10:56 AM

like to call this meeting back to order, please. We're having a little bit of technical difficulty so I'm going to have our clerk make a quick announcement.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:56:27 · ≈ 10:56 AM

Yes, thank you Chair Lavagnino and members of the board we are having issues streaming on our Channel 20 channel. I think the issues have been resolved but I did also want to let the public know that our streaming of the video on our main county website at countyofsb.org is working as well as our YouTube channel which if you search CSB TV 20 you can find us on there. Thank you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:56:50 · ≈ 10:56 AM

All right, very good. We're back to Supervisor Williams. Want me to cue you up where you were?

1:57 – 2:059 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction1:57:00 · ≈ 10:57 AM

So I think I speak at least for more than one of us to say that we don't like to see maybe the two departments having a dispute but I at least for last two years have put out The idea that I'll entertain any option that involves our different PSAPs consolidating. And that means, I've given the Sheriff Department nearly two years to find other departments that are willing to consolidate with a integrated primary PSAP and I don't I don't see any of those happening. I don't see any agency, and surely not three or more agencies that are willing to consolidate at this point.

So my constituents want to get to borderless dispatch as quickly as possible. This issue makes imminent sense to them, particularly those that live close to the city county line To the Carpinteria County line and to the Montecito Carp Summerlin line. They see all of the advantages, and so I don't want to wait for the hope of a borderless dispatch someday under the Sheriff's Department's leadership because I don' see that day in the near future.

On the other hand, if we are willing to spend the money, we have a path to get to borderless dispatch under an integrated fire EMS dispatch. So to me that's the thing I'm searching for is to get to borderless dispatch as quickly as possible.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:59:04 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Very good. Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Hartman.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:59:11 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Okay, so I was a little confused here and frustrated a little bit by Chief Hartwig's comments. I had understood that you were fine with the, I don't know if you need to come up, with the staff recommendation of the Santa Anaz airport and I really feel strongly that for geographic redundancy and close proximity to the labor pool If you're going to spend the money, you better get the other benefits as well. And I want to hear from some of our other, I see lots of other agency faces out in the audience and I want to hear from you guys about You know why, why that would be less good than spending that much money to go to the EOC because I'm kind of in this place where.

If we're not going to get those other benefits, then maybe we should just stay in the Sheriff's Department and just keep it going and not spend the money. I think the sheriff hears that we want borderless dispatch, so if we're not going to get the other benefits as well then maybe We can strong arm the sheriff a little bit into borderless dispatch. I mean, and I've been hearing about this. I've been here seven years and this has been a chronic problem for seven years in terms of the way the operations go at the Dispatch Center between the two agencies.

So I think, I want to hear from everybody about how they think that it's going to go in the future and what they're willing to sign up for.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:01:24 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Okay just a reminder we do still have public comment so if we have questions of staff this is good time to ask them. So we're doing Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.822:01:35 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, Mr. Mielecki and I think you've done a terrific job on this and I appreciate all the work you put in over the months my question has to do with the challenge that you talk about potential to disrupt EOC operations during emergencies I'd like you to expand on that. My experience during the Thomas fire and debris flow was that there seemed to be, the more consolidation around a disaster in a certain place is very helpful so I think there are various advantages to locating the dispatch at the EOC.

So I'd like you to talk about both the challenges and the benefits.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:02:16 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Supervisor Hartman to the chair that the reference to disrupting EOC operations was really twofold. One if you remember from the Thomas fire and the subsequent debris flow, the EOC was really operating at 100% capacity probably beyond 100% capacity. In terms of the number of agencies that were in there, the ability to park cars where people were placed. And so what we wanted to make sure was that if the EOC expansion option was pursued, it's very critical in these operations that whatever is going on in the EOC and whatever is going on in the dispatch center Needs to be separate.

You don't want a situation where decision makers in the EOC are somehow sort of filtering into dispatch and either intentionally or unintentionally influencing ongoing operations. The second part is the issue of logistics, things as basic as restrooms and lounge areas and parking and those things. Those things can be overcome But one of the things, one of our assumptions was that whatever we designed and whatever we did needed to ensure that EOC operations would not be disrupted as part of that process.

I don't know if I answered your question but I hope I did.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.822:03:52 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Maybe I'll come back to it. So you said, or I think the sheriff said there are six PSAPs already so that has to do with different police departments throughout and so far I think this is what Supervisor Williams was getting at. There's been no discussion about coordinating consolidating across the police sheriff PSAPS. Is that correct?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:04:16 · ≈ 11:04 AM

That's correct. I don't think the discussion of consolidating law enforcement resources, and there are... Chief Hartwig alluded to it. The fire service for a variety of reasons is able to integrate their operations cross-jurisdictionally much better than law enforcement normally does. So that's I think at least part what he was referring to. And secondly, it's never really been part of this discussion although I think as a strategic effort certainly would be worth pursuing about whether you could consolidate law enforcement response in the same way that we're talking about consolidating fire response.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.822:04:55 · ≈ 11:04 AM

And that to me seems like a worthwhile avenue to pursue in the future. My final point for now is that yes, the borderless dispatch is very significant. In addition to me is the most appropriate resource. I think right now everything gets every resource. I've been out with Station 11 and lots of different Supervisor Hart.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:05 – 2:1932 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:05:40 · ≈ 11:05 AM

I had just a couple of questions. I was surprised that there are not additional landfill construction costs related to the St. Agnes Airport facility. That location, I believe is on top of the abandoned landfill and I would imagine that there would be additional construction costs in dealing with that geologic situation.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:06:02 · ≈ 11:06 AM

It's adjacent to it, and that's one of the things that we would have to look at going forward if that was a location that this board chose us to pursue. But our preliminary evaluation suggests that the landfill has been inactive for a number of years. And there are, at least on the surface, there are no issues anticipated.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:06:24 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Okay so that's a potential unknown that will be investigated further and we'll have more clarity in the future. And then you mentioned the potential use of the Santa Maria Dispatch, the City of Santa Maria's dispatch as a redundant, that's the wrong word frankly, a backup emergency dispatch location. What would that model look like? Would that be Using, having a contract with them to use a portion of their space. Would that be building an addition to that facility? What does that look like and how is that going to be investigated in this process?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:06:58 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Supervisor Hart to the chair. If you recall when at one point early in this process there was serious consideration giving given to partnering with the city of Santa Maria and for a variety of reasons For that for the totality of dispatch fire medical dispatch operations for a variety of reasons That ultimately, it was determined probably wasn't feasible. But what would be feasible would be to set up some county consuls inside the existing city of Santa Maria Police Center as a place where county dispatchers could go in the event of a South County emergency. We have not had any discussions other than kind of a concept, what do you think of this?

with them. So I wouldn't have any information at this point for you on what it would look like or how much it would cost, but that would be part of probably the next presentation to this board about what redundancy would look like and what it'll cost.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:08:01 · ≈ 11:08 AM

So the cheapest option is to expand these EOC, saves you a couple million dollars but it doesn't provide this backup geographic location. So is there a scenario where contracting with the city of Santa Maria results in a less cost than that $2 million delta that provides that geographic diversity and provides the same capacity for a less cost to the taxpayers?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:08:28 · ≈ 11:08 AM

If I understand, I'm not sure if I understand the question. Do you mean the City of Santa Maria as a dispatching partner or City of Santa Maria is a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:08:38 · ≈ 11:08 AM

redundant location? Maybe I'll just clarify the whole thing. We have two options here. One is the expansion to the EOC and that's, you know, as we're looking at it today, is a $2.1 million lower cost effort than building the new facility at the Santa Ynez Airport The advantage to building in the San Ynez Airport is that it provides a backup location that does not afford it on the South Coast. So if you didn't do the San Ynez location, but you did have a contractual relationship with the City of Santa Maria to provide that backup, is that a potentially cheaper option overall than the San Ynez Airport option?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:09:14 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Supervisor Hart through the chair, I don't have a definitive answer for you but my belief is that it would be. That I do not believe that it would cost 2.1 million dollars to have a backup option with the City of Santa Maria. But that's one of the things we will come back to the board with a more definitive answer next time.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:09:40 · ≈ 11:09 AM

So let's continue on that with the City of Santa Maria. So in this model, as we have it from what I understand, so explain to me what the issue is? Let's get down to like why... Is it technical with the city of Santa Maria or is it another issue?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:10:01 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Are you talking about the partnering? The two biggest issues with the City of Santa Maria, the biggest one was the fact that they are Absolutely committed to the use of a CAD system that really is not the best fire system that there is. It is not a fire-based CAD system that is in use almost anywhere else in the state. And there was some real concerns on the part of the fire service and quite frankly all of us that were looking at it from an overall perspective. In the beginning our hope was that there was a way around that, but ultimately it was determined that there really wasn't.

The secondary issue, and it really was secondary because we never got that far, was the issue of governance and what the county's relationship with the city would be in this environment.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:11:08 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Okay so if we moved forward with this one of things I'm concerned about is of course the closest responding resource is very important to me especially in that Orchid Santa Maria area Where people don't know really where the dividing line is. What's the current understanding there? I mean do we have, are we at all, you know if we are responding inside the City of Santa Maria, is the City of Santa Maria responding into the county?

I'm just kind of curious how that works with that weird dividing line there.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:11:45 · ≈ 11:11 AM

I would look to Chief Hartwig for an answer on sort of specific responses. But as a systemic issue, I can tell you that no there is no formal process. There's certainly the reality of picking up the phone either from the county dispatch or from the city dispatch and having a communication that way but the two systems do not share Do not share CAD systems at this time and they're not on the same operating frequency.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:12:17 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Okay, I mean if you want to add something that It sounds like our area would be the only area not benefiting from this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:12:28 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Sir, I think you highlighted an issue. We face that in Santa Barbara as well so it really depends on which side of the street or which block the call comes in on and then you have multiple departments responding with multiple resources we see that in some of the county outlets here in Santa Barbara and of course up there.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:12:44 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:12:45 · ≈ 11:12 AM

That's disconcerting but go ahead. I had one more question for Dr. Salvucci. Dr. Salvucci would you mind Helping me understand some of your comments from before. You mentioned that there is not a consistent system on the EMS side in regards to all the jurisdictions countywide as to what happens You know, with the call and post-call. Is that because of the different jurisdictions all throughout the county and the way they handle fire dispatch?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:13:17 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Yeah,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:13:17 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:13:17 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Hart, the short answer is yes. There are different levels of service offered in different ways that the primary PSAPs communicate with the secondary PSAP.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:13:31 · ≈ 11:13 AM

And so there is higher level of medical training for dispatchers in different jurisdictions throughout the county. Is that your point?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:13:40 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Yes, the County Sheriff's Combined Communication Center, their dispatchers or call takers offer something called emergency medical dispatch which I mentioned previously which is a structured caller interrogation prioritized dispatch and post-dispatch instructions That's also available at Montecito. It's available in Santa Barbara City it is not available in for example, Santa Maria and Lompoc with the exception and they've done a really excellent job in identifying the very very critical cases and The Sheriff's Dispatch Center has been kind enough to take those calls but the majority of calls don't get that three Component emergency medical dispatch service. Okay, thank you for that clarification Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:14:34 · ≈ 11:14 AM

I had a couple other questions too So it at station 32 so we talked about if we do it at the EOC We would have Some room there for there's already housing their beds and Do we not have any room at station 32 if we built it in St. Inez? Or is there room there, have we already factored that into the construction cost?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:15:04 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Station 19 is a former station and so essentially it's an open area now. That's why it lends itself to additional conference rooms Sleeping areas station 32 is an operating fire station, and I don't I don't know what what space they have But I doubt that it would be the same okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:15:25 · ≈ 11:15 AM

And then for the increase in the amount of FTE so there'd be 12. It looks like FTE for ongoing How is that? Broken down how's that modeled as far as are they civilians? Are they sworn house how's that all

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:15:44 · ≈ 11:15 AM

What's that look like? All but in the law center, the sheriff's commander who actually makes up the one-third FTE because that person is funded from a couple of different lines would probably be the only sworn person. Everybody else is a civilian. I have not sat down with fire and walked through The distinction between their sworn and non-sworn employees, but I would believe that again most of those people would be non-sworn except for some command oversight.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:16:26 · ≈ 11:16 AM

Okay thank you and then I think this one's for Mr. Ghazani it's what protection do we have As a county, if we go ahead and build this facility, we obviously would have MOUs with our partners. But at some point down the road they decide we're in the middle of a recession and times are tough. And what protection do we have that we're not sitting there with the building and we're financing the entire operation by ourselves?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:16:57 · ≈ 11:16 AM

Chair and supervisors. There's a couple vehicles for that we could actually have contracts With the entities, you know some entities use a joint powers agreement Which which is one form of a contract which also shares some other powers The short answer is that the contracting Approach would be what? Gives you a document that says payment should be coming and then you're depending on the source of funds You know coming from those entities But presumably our partners would be able to pay and you would spell that out through a contract for the services Those typically would have some kind of lifespan and termination provision, but they'll be part of what we would work with CEOs office on

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:17:36 · ≈ 11:17 AM

okay And then for CEO Miyasato so today. We are deciding on Just to move forward and would be entering into negotiations correct so if at some point we just we determine that some of our key partners. Although their fire chiefs might think this is a great idea that they're governing bodies decide they don't want to spend the money on it or not at the level that we need them to we do have off ramps correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:18:03 · ≈ 11:18 AM

That is correct. We're all we're asking for today is for a selection of a site so we can start working with General Services on Detailing that more and then authorization to negotiate and I think after negotiations would come back to the board with our findings And if there's a larger gap to fill talk about that And how the plan would be for the fire district to fill that gap the board wanted to continue,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:18:24 · ≈ 11:18 AM

okay? And chair, as we talk about what the future looks like on this. We've talked about being at 10,000 feet. This is a planning discussion right now there'd be compliance with CEQA depending on what sites were looked at and whether that was in any way an exemption or would require a negative declaration or some kind of site review. And that would also address Supervisor Hart's concern about what's underneath the topography we're looking at. Great

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:18:48 · ≈ 11:18 AM

okay so we have some public comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:18:52 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board we have five requests to speak on this item today. And we're going to begin in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell and then we are going to return to Santa Barbara with Joe Ayala. Andy?

2:19 – 2:245 turns

PresenterAndy CaldwellColabProposedself-stated2:19:07 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Chairman Lavinino, members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. I kind of feel like I'm watching Rambo Part 6, i.e., Guns and Hoses, another edition. Obviously what we're talking about here is an issue of potential redundancy, separation versus unified command. But I like to look at things like this from the 30,000-foot level Maybe I should say square foot at $700 a square foot, but that's another issue.

You have this ginormous list of tens of millions of dollars in expenses for public safety that you're staring out in the face and they're going to probably borrow money. Add to that hundreds of millions in backlog maintenance of existing buildings As a taxpayer representative, there's a part of me that says if you need tens of millions in new equipment and hundreds of millions in maintenance of existing buildings.

Do you really need to be building something new right now? Because we're still waiting for that recession downturn in the economy and another pension crisis. Years ago before they built the EOC, I suggested...I grew up poor so I always tried to think of a cheap way to accomplish something. Before they built that EOC which was $10 million plus if I remember, I asked about why not buy three one-million dollar Winnebago command centers that truly are mobile and can go to wherever the emergency is and that are self Contained and sustained.

Of course that got blown off We've asked about Butler buildings that don't cost $700 of square foot we usually get blown off even though other jurisdictions have used them, and they're beautiful and they last forever I would like to know why you can't for instance Maybe separate fire and sheriff within the existing building. If there's enough room for both, is there enough room for two separate command centers in your existing building?

Then go buy the Winnebago for the North County. And I think you're gonna save 10 million bucks at least not to mention the additional staffing that comes with additional pension costs If they can't get along, maybe they should separate but stay in the same house. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:22:15 · ≈ 11:22 AM

We are going to return to Santa Barbara with Joe Aiella to be followed by Lisa Matheson.

CommentJoe AiellaProposedself-stated2:22:28 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Supervisor Lavenino, members of the board good morning. My name is Joe Aiella. As a 21-year dispatcher at the Santa Barbara County Public Safety Dispatch Center, I also support the technical aspects of the dispatch center and the operations. I wanted to talk about a couple of the big points here. The biggest one is closest resource. Our existing CAD system or computer dispatched system can handle closest resource provided we spend the money on developing it further.

When we're talking closest resource, we're not talking just the simulated agreements where like for example in the Orchard area if we get a medical call we'll send a county fire and also call Santa Maria because it's likely their station is going to be closer. If we purchase this module we can get it for a fraction of what the figures were seen on the board here.

We can get real time evaluation of the units that are available and we could also reach out to the dispatch center say hey that engine is available can we have it? And the same goes for us with them. And it's not just in the city of Santa Maria, it's also the cities of Santa Barbara, Wampoag, the counties of Ventura and San Luis so that can be done with our existing CAD system we just need the funds to start it and we haven't done less than a year again for a very mere fraction of the numbers you see on the board here.

The next item is the call transfer time When we do get a medical call and we do have to transfer it to another agency, there is two call takers online at the same time. One to listen to the call as they transfer it to the next PSAP or secondary PSAP and they listened to the call to figure out if the need has come needs to come back and my manager Lisa will be able to talk The multidisciplinary collaboration we do with these calls.

And the next step is for EMD for all, the entire county. EMD is currently not being done because of limited staffing. We currently cannot bear EMD 100% throughout the county until we have more staffing. If we add more people then we can have people dedicated to just EMD and nothing else then we can cover the whole county in that manner. So again, more staffing.

And also we do EMD for Carpinteria and Summerlin for the Montecito Fire Department as well. Even though they are EMD capable being the primary PSAP, we handle EMD for that area as well. If you have any questions I'm available. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:24:43 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Our next speaker is Lisa Matheson to be followed by Fire Chief Kevin Taylor from the Montecito Fire Department.

2:24 – 2:3213 turns

CommentLisa MathesonProposedself-stated2:24:58 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Good morning Chair Lavagnino, Board of Supervisors. My name is Lisa Matheson I am the communications manager for Santa Barbara County Public Safety Dispatch. I started in 1981 yes that's 37 and a half years ago. I am an emergency number professional through National Emergency Number Association. I'm also the 9-1-1 coordinator for Santa Barbara County representing the state of California Office of Emergency Services.

So during my career, the trend has been consolidation for 30 years because it increases Efficiency decreases response times and when we handle major incidents in our center, everybody's right there under one roof. And one dispatcher can be taking information on the call and putting it into the CAD system that dispatchers dispatching the resources another one is taking another call everybody's working together seamlessly efficiently with no break in in having to call some of their dispatch center to relay information we do with like say that the debris flow we are coordinating with a lot of other agencies but when it's something that's being handled by County Fire, County Sheriff and AMR. We're all there under one roof handling it quickly and to separate the centers will increase response times Especially with emergency medical dispatching as Joe said we can do that all under one roof We can also do the closest resource under one roof all it takes is upgrading our CAD system and Trying to think what else.

My co-workers or people I know in Ventura County have told me that when they have to transfer, because each agency in Ventura County has to transfer all their medical and fire calls to Ventura County Fire. Ventura Sheriff has told me that it's usually about a minute response or a minute time of time to transfer so that's adding an additional minute Cardiac arrest calls, CPR. You got four minutes until brain death that's adding an additional minute so you know we don't want to do that here we want to be able to save lives continue to save lives with CPR and emergency medical dispatching. I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:27:34 · ≈ 11:27 AM

have a question because I figured I was gonna ask somebody else but since you've been there forever you probably know better than most. So in the group of where you work where did most of your employees live?

CommentLisa MathesonProposedself-stated2:27:45 · ≈ 11:27 AM

They generally live everywhere. It's all over. We have several that several live in Santa Barbara several live in Santa Maria they live Ventura further south I don't think anybody lives north of Santa Maria but it's very spread out.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:27:59 · ≈ 11:27 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Williams

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:28:02 · ≈ 11:28 AM

well your last comment seems to indicate that Ventura would have a worse result with cardiac arrests but I mean to my knowledge we've been trying to imitate what Ventura has been doing and EMS calls to improve cardiac arrest. So how, I mean if Ventura was doing so much better than we were for so long and we've sought to emulate Ventura County in improving our results with cardiac arrest How do you jive that with, you're essentially saying they're doing worse with response to our cardiac

CommentLisa MathesonProposedself-stated2:28:45 · ≈ 11:28 AM

arrest? Supervisor Williams through the chair. Actually the sheriff addressed that in his address too, that our statistics for cardiac arrest saves has been for the last three years much higher than the national average and we've been In several years we've been higher than Ventura County.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:29:13 · ≈ 11:29 AM

For the last decade, Ventura County has been consistently better and then just recently we've imitated some of their methodology and methods better, you don't think that's the case?

CommentLisa MathesonProposedself-stated2:29:28 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Supervisor Williams through the chair. Actually we have been making steady improvement for the last four or five years and made several changes and we have surpassed the national average and Ventura County both. And I believe that Dr. Selvidge can...and he actually mentioned that too.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:29:51 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Got

CommentLisa MathesonProposedself-stated2:29:51 · ≈ 11:29 AM

it.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:29:53 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Thank you very much for being here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:29:56 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Our next speaker is Fire Chief Kevin Taylor from the Montecito Fire Department to be followed by Fire Chief Eric Nichol from the City of Santa Barbara.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:30:02 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Good morning Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, Kevin Taylor, Fire Chief Montecito Fire Department and I'm representing the Santa Barbara County Fire Chiefs Association today. We respectfully request that you direct staff to focus their planning efforts on the expansion of the existing EOC to accommodate the Regional Fire and EMS Dispatch Center We make this recommendation because the EOC is essentially shovel ready.

The building and lot were constructed with expansion in mind, it's built to the essential services standard and it has an antenna capable of supporting the proposed operation. It's in close proximity to the Santa Barbara County Fire Headquarters and the necessary information technology infrastructure. Additionally, Old Fire Station 19 is currently vacant next door providing access to sleeping and conference room and training facilities.

Finally this expansion will facilitate the EOC JIC expansion and the addition of a call center both which are essential emergency management functions during a disaster. The question of backup and redundancy have come up several times today, and we're comfortable that we can work closely with our partners in Santa Maria to relatively easily solve that problem.

In closing, we feel that the Regional Fire EMS Dispatch Center will provide our communities with quicker response times, borderless emergency response and the redundant infrastructure that meets the needs of all of our community members during critical emergencies. It supports the state's initiative to improve emergency communication procedures by quickly responding to any person calling 911 The Regional Fire EMS Dispatch Center will also elevate, as you've heard, our level of care and delivery of service to the public by providing emergency medical dispatch capabilities to everyone calling into the center.

Our community members do not currently enjoy this at any one central location today. The Fire Chiefs Association remains united and committed to achieving what many other communities in jurisdictions across California are already doing, and we're encouraged by the support and attention that each of you have invested in this effort, and most certainly recognize the incredibly difficult decision facing you today.

We thank you for your time.

2:32 – 2:3714 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:32:33 · ≈ 11:32 AM

And our final speaker is Fire Chief Eric Nichol from the Santa Barbara Fire Department.

GuestEric NickelFire ChiefProposedself-stated2:32:40 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Well good morning Chair Lavagnino and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Eric Nickel, I'm the Fire Chief for the City of Santa Barbara and I want to provide a little perspective. I've been in the professional fire service for 32 years. I've been a fire chief for the last seven years. The last eight months here with the City of Santa Barbara. I have always worked under a regional dispatch center for fire and EMS, and I've seen the advantages that we get when we function as one seamless delivery system.

This week, the City of Santa Barbara Fire Department is hosting our strategic planning session, and we heard yesterday from 42 members of the community their number-one expectation of the Santa Barbara City Fire Department is timely response for fire and EMS. That comes directly from our community members, as well as some of your staff members who so graciously offered their time yesterday for us.

The City of Santa Barbara Fire Department does believe in regional solutions. Please don't take our thoughtful and deliberative process as non-interest. On the contrary, we support this. The direction that was given to me from my boss, City Administrator Paul Casey, was to identify a source to pay for any additional costs out of fire budget. I've been able to do that. Now not wanting to get ahead of my council, I have not had the ability to get back in front of them. As many of you know, I was out the last six weeks dealing with a family tragedy.

The last thing that I will share with you from my perspective, again of building fire stations in neighborhoods and taking them out of neighborhoods or relocating them. The two hardest things to do is to put one in a neighborhood and take one out. The same thing goes with any type of public safety building as you've recently witnessed with our conversations with the farmers and locating the police building. Which is why from my perspective I would support the location at the EOC because there are fewer barriers to get that thing ready, that site ready as Chief Taylor just talked about in terms of it being shovel-ready.

So those are my comments and I thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Supervisor Adam has a question for you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:34:55 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Chief, do you think there's fewer barriers at the EOC than at the San Ynez Airport?

GuestEric NickelFire ChiefProposedself-stated2:35:02 · ≈ 11:35 AM

So from my perspective, anytime you relocate a fire station and you put it on the same site, it's much easier than to go find another site.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:35:12 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Okay, but are you familiar with this spot at Santa Ynez Airport?

GuestEric NickelFire ChiefProposedself-stated2:35:16 · ≈ 11:35 AM

I am familiar with the spot and as you were mentioning earlier there were some studies that would need to be done in order to get to that point to start to build it. We don't have clarification on siting a tower there from the FAA whereas a towers already located at the current site

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:35:35 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Yeah, see that's the thing. You have a fire station there which is not going to change and if you put the dispatch center there totally different building.

GuestEric NickelFire ChiefProposedself-stated2:35:46 · ≈ 11:35 AM

I understand that but from my perspective in terms of siting a public safety building whether it's a police station an EOC, a dispatch center or fire station if we already have an existing site that is currently being utilized as a public safety type of building which we do with the EOC That there are typically fewer barriers to site, to do an expansion or decide a location. They're then going to a new site and trying to understand all the things about the new site, whether it be it's on a landfill, whether it be the FAA issues from my perspective, there are fewer barriers with the EOC side.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:36:21 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Okay. Well, I respectfully disagree.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:36:24 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Thank you. Okay. Any more public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:36:29 · ≈ 11:36 AM

That was our final speaker.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:36:31 · ≈ 11:36 AM

All right, I'll bring it back to the board for deliberation. Oh one more question from Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.822:36:37 · ≈ 11:36 AM

I'm not sure you'll have the answer to this, Mr. Melechian but in SBCAG we've been doing airport studies of the different airports throughout our county and looking at surrounding land uses and whether given flight paths and expansion plans whether these areas would then become dedicated for legally non-conforming uses and we're having a big issue in the Goleta area The Santa Barbara, the Santa Ynez Airport was part of this but I don't know that this particular facility was included.

Is it, I don't necessarily expect you to have the answer to this. I didn't, I wasn't thinking of this when this came to SBCAG but it sounds to me like this is another issue that would have to be looked at and studied.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:37:27 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Supervisor Hartman, I appreciate your low expectations and I think that we have had, again, both with the airport authority and with the FAA. We've had some very general discussions. Should you direct us to go in this direction? That would be one of several things that we would have to come up with a much more refined answer than we have today.

2:37 – 2:423 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:37:56 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Okay,

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:37:57 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Supervisor Williams. I want to say first of all I have tremendous respect and appreciation for the job that our dispatchers at our primary PSAP do. In fact, one of my conditions on this whole process has been to make sure that one way or another that our dispatchers are protected to be able to continue to do the job they need to do and that we went forward with a call taker position so that they would be able to do an even better job.

I also want to say that it, I agree that the best option would be if we had an option for consolidation under the primary PSAP but the public safety of my constituents is an urgent need now, not five or 10 years down the line. I don't have any jurisdictions and I've asked that are ready to consolidate with the primary PSAP. And I feel that I have given a very fair nearly two years for the department to solicit and to work with if that was the direction that the department wanted to go.

This is a topic of conversation under the previous undersheriff, and it's been a topic of conversation consistently every time we've had this conversation which is several hearings here and as many meetings in private. And so I only can choose, and the board can only choose between The only two options we got. I have to, and we have to of course determine what's the safest thing for our constituents. What will improve our constituents public service?

And with that question, I have to on balance go with the opinion of our EMS experts, our doctors And our fire service on what would enable them to most effectively save lives in fire and EMS. That is their specialty, so in a he said she said I gotta go with the folks whose bailiwick it is to get to our constituents fastest with a paramedic in tow. So I first of all want to continue going towards a consolidated fire EMS system.

Counterintuitively, that means we have to split apart from the primary PSAP which is unfortunate but it's the reality and if To me, the uncertainty of the San Ynez location is a problem. That would be my distant second choice and I hope we will move forward with the EOC option. It's cheaper. The operative question I asked the chief was, you know, would creating a redundant center at Santa Maria cost less than two million bucks?

Absolutely, yes. So in my view that means that the preferred option that I would have would be to go with the EOC.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:42:31 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Can I just ask a question before? So we keep saying it's cheaper but I want to ask so it looks like when we talked about the EOC expansion include the cost of the new JIC and call center. So when you add that extra million dollars in, they really get pretty close to each other and I just have a question about who would pay for that? And how does that?

2:42 – 2:4814 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:42:58 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Chair Lavagnino, the cost of the JIC in the new call center was approved in the capital improvement budget and would come out of that fund it would not be borne by the fire district. The remainder of the construction costs Would be worn by the fire district so that's going forward one way or the other. Now well

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:43:17 · ≈ 11:43 AM

it's excuse me is chill Avenue it's going for to the degree that we're going to do these COPs what you did as you approved a list for us to go after funding

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:43:25 · ≈ 11:43 AM

but what I'm saying is it's in the list

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:43:27 · ≈ 11:43 AM

yes

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:43:28 · ≈ 11:43 AM

of an item already to be funded

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:43:30 · ≈ 11:43 AM

if

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:43:30 · ≈ 11:43 AM

we move forward with COPs and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:43:33 · ≈ 11:43 AM

there are no other capital big capital priors that come up but

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:43:41 · ≈ 11:43 AM

So the other major capital items that you said though they're already on the list.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:43:47 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Correct.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:43:47 · ≈ 11:43 AM

All right. OK let's move to Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:43:54 · ≈ 11:43 AM

I agree with Supervisor Williams' comments. I think that regional relationships are very complicated and require some patience, and oftentimes don't evolve in a straight line. And I think that in a perfect world we would be working toward a consolidated law enforcement and fire service and EMS facility where everyone would have Would be content and energized toward that solution. But for a variety of historical and political reasons and other things, we're not going down that path but we are going down a path toward having consolidated fire regional fire in EMS. And we need to nurture that energy. We need to keep that momentum going in that direction And get as many people into that tent as possible. And I think the fastest way to achieve that is to build and expand the existing EOC.

We had the Chief Taylor specifically say that, that is the preference of the Fire Chief's Association. I think that should carry a lot of weight in our conversation. In addition to that being their preference it is the cheaper option saves us a couple million dollars. And do you think this presents an opportunity for us to work with the City of Santa Maria Emergency dispatch center that can help knit that system better into the countywide service network that we're trying to evolve It's unfortunate that the city of Santa Maria system Technically doesn't fit well with the fire services but this I think this is a real opportunity potentially address that and begin to have better collaboration and There may be a future Technology upgrade that pulls those back together and I think taking this opportunity to integrate Santa Maria into the solution rather than the county separating off and building a separate facility at the Santa Ynez Airport has that, has the potential to be a much more collaborative, integrated process.

And I think this is a real opportunity that shouldn't be missed. We want to be working ultimately toward pulling all the fire agencies and EMS services. As Dr. Salvucci says we want them all to be credentialed. We want them to have the full range of capabilities So that the public is best served by having the highest trained capable folks handling medical emergencies and dispatching the appropriate equipment to the incident in the fastest way possible. And there are certainly legitimate arguments about how we could achieve that best, and the people involved in doing the work today are doing a fabulous job and working very, very diligently and effectively in protecting our citizens but Sometimes in government, the simplest solution is not the best solution.

And in this instance, this is one of those opportunities where we have to pause and take perhaps a step to the side to bring in more partners and keep the momentum going to get to a better, more comprehensive solution in the future.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:46:58 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Supervisor Adam? Well you know I'm gonna... Call I want to throw a flag on the Santa Maria solution because why is it that we couldn't use Santa Maria. To begin with, I mean that was an option that got eliminated and now everybody is acting like there's some workable solution just sitting out there that we're sort of ignoring. And I think we eliminated that up front right?

So can we talk about that for a moment?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:47:37 · ≈ 11:47 AM

We did a supervisor Adam to the chair that that option was looked into in quite great detail actually and a lot of discussions were held. And as I mentioned earlier, the inability to have the insistence really The city of Santa Maria is wedded to the CAD system that they have, and it is not a CAD system that is used by fire operations almost anywhere else in the state. Ultimately we decided that we would not go that route. When we talk about using Santa Maria as a redundant site, we don't have the same challenges because it's really just a matter of physically locating Councils inside their existing center.

But I don't want to get too far down the weeds technically because I'll get to some place I don�t fully understand, but we don't have the same level of complexity in citing county councils in the city center.

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

2:48 – 3:0333 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:48:48 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Well you got further than I understand so I don't know, I'm just having a hard time spending almost the same amount of money and not getting any redundancy and not putting it any closer to what I perceive to be the labor pool. So I think I see what's going on here and I think I'm out. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.822:49:20 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Thank you. Well, I think we want consolidation. The question is consolidating what? We currently have the fire sheriff EMS but there have been historic difficulties so we're proposing to have cross-county consolidation with fire and EMS services And we decided to do that some time ago. I know we keep revisiting it, but I'm still supportive of that in the hopes that eventually Sheriff and police will consolidate and maybe we'll get a grand system. But this is a step in that direction. So then the question is where will we do it?

I think the Santa Ynez Airport, I'm very grateful that Supervisor Adam pressed on it and I'm glad we looked at it. I'm in the Santa Ynez Valley myself and would love to see it there but I think for me the landfill issue is not fully Explored the FFA the FAA issue is not and I think there are additional land-use issues that I mentioned around SP CAG and expanding new facilities around airports that mean we have a lot of barriers that have to be fully explored and That would take a long time. So I Would have liked it, but I don't think that's going to pan out so I really do think the EOC is the best option and And I see the empty fire department nearby having some real advantages for creating some opportunities during emergencies when we need to bring a lot of people together and they're staying there for days at a time.

So, I agree with my two other colleagues that the EOC is where we should do this.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:51:10 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Okay. Well as Supervisor Williams did, I also want to thank our dispatchers and appreciate you being here today Really, probably nobody understands it as much as you do. And as he also said that if we could have found a way and if I saw on the horizon where we could partner and have it in that building and have the structure that we do right now and just upgrade our CAD system there, that would be my number one alternative But I don't see that happening. And so, you know, I guess for me the biggest disappointment is because I have gone down to Ventura County and I've seen what nearest response looks like.

And the average person has no idea that they're not getting that in Santa Barbara County right now. You know, they don't know where their county line starts and the city line stops. So they assume that if they're having a medical emergency, a heart attack, that the nearest resource is going to come to them. What I'm really disappointed about is that we still aren't gonna have that up in my neck of the woods.

And so I'm hoping that somehow through this two-year process of how we move forward with this, End up coming to some agreement with the city of Santa Maria and that they also join in. Because without that, it is our biggest city. It's the biggest population that we have and for them not to be a piece of this is very disappointing. And the craziest part about it is we also have another city right next to it of 30 something thousand people or 40,000 people of Orchid.

And our lines are very confusing in that area. And I just think it's something that we really need to address. I'm not a fan of the EOC location, just because as Supervisor Adam had stated, one of the main reasons we're doing this is for redundancy and I think geographic redundancy is a big piece of that You know, it's really difficult to say what could happen. Well you know we say well you know what catastrophe could happen that would take that area out?

Well all you have to do is live in Santa Barbara County for a few years to realize just about anything is possible and that area actually I believe was part of the Painted Cave fire footprint so You know, I would much rather see us look at Santa Ynez. But I also understand Santa Ynez Valley and how difficult it is sometimes to maneuver in that space. And if there are issues regarding a landfill or flight over, you know, over flights we are going to have many public meetings. We're going to have many interested individuals might be coming out and blocking that, at least delaying it for a significant amount of time. So while I'm not a fan of the location, I'll support it with the caveat that I get to say I told you so if something really bad happens in that area.

What's that? That's correct. You'll have a much better But right, and I would love to do that. But to me voting no is also a signal that I don't support the overall move towards this. And so you know, I can't get everything I want out of this one. So my biggest concern is the nearest resource dispatch. And I think this is the way that we get them. This is Mia

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:55:35 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Sato. Thank you, Chair Laveny and board members before you vote on this I just do want to say from staff's perspective We're fine to have it at the EOC It's actually easier we like the closeness of the EEOC to a new dispatch center. It isn't the fire campus it was really this issue of Not being just solely in SoCal Edison territory quite frankly And having a functional dispatch center rather than just a console somewhere in North County. Your board did give us direction to look at something north of the tunnel, and so that's the location we picked.

I think just going forward after you vote, I just wanna be clear, we are gonna be negotiating and if we can't come back with partners paying the fees that our auditor has worked on with us or will be working on with us, we'll come back to you but I think the board I would like the board just to be clear. If you want to go forward with this, we've been talking about this for many years.

I see a couple of the chiefs nodding their head and obviously it comes down to funding but if we want to go forward with this, I think clear direction is helpful. We'll be looking at the EOC side if that's what your board directs. But again, if we can't negotiate with other of our partners My recommendation is if you want to go forward, we continue to go forward and the fire district would be making up that gap.

Knowing that there could be a recession but I did look back at the old CityGate report for those of you who are on the board. The CityGate report as you know was the basis for which we shifted property tax revenue that would normally go to the general fund to the fire district and one of the recommendations was to get to an improvement of nearest resource dispatching closest call which is what you're trying to do It also had a bunch of other things that you asked or we thought the fire district should do as far as improving stations, spending money on additional staffing all of those. But if this is the priority and it has been discussed for the last three four years as a priority I would say clear direction would be helpful so that we could just move forward.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:57:37 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Okay. So maybe as we go through to vote your clear direction of what your expectation is would be helpful. Is that what you're looking for? Okay, all right Supervisor Adams.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.822:57:53 · ≈ 11:57 AM

I would like further clarification about what clear direction is. I mean clearly we want participation from the other fire districts but we don't have anything in our materials really to suggest what that is or what's a go no-go. Could you help us?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:58:09 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Sure, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So in our board letter we said the funding from the other agencies would help offset the costs but in our rough calculation we still see there's a even if all partners came into what we believe is a workable amount per auditor that were still working with there's still 1.1 million dollar gap that the fire district would have to absorb Which means there are other things they wouldn't be able to do. And so, and it could be more or it could be less. So the question is would you like us to wait and come back once we discuss with the other agencies? Or in your mind, is there a go no-go? We've been talking about consolidated dispatch for the sheriff. You told us direction you want us to go at the separate fire dispatches.

Now we've selected a possible location. I'm just asking, is there a go no-go situation so we don't keep revisiting the issue?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:59:06 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Okay. Supervisor Hurton.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.822:59:08 · ≈ 11:59 AM

I would like to ask Chief Hartwig, is the fire district, I mean would you make up that 1.1 million and do you have any advice for us on direction go no go?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:59:21 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Madam Supervisor, through the Chair we have in consultation with Ms. Miyasato and the CEO's office and maybe it's worth looking at the assumptions that we entered into this at the beginning under which is Negotiation, really the partnership with the county to figure out how we can make up any general fund shortfall. We're still committed to that as we are to make sure that we don't have any disruption to the EOC operations but that was really a key assumption from the CEO's office as we move forward is to work together to try to find some of those efficiencies even more efficiencies than we have today to help reduce that general fund shortfall

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:00:10 · ≈ 12:00 PM

I think Mr. Gazzone wants to weigh in a little bit too,

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

or... Just to be clear because when we're talking about any shortfall your direction to us was that it would not be affecting the general fund so it would come from the fire district's funds.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:00:26 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:00:27 · ≈ 12:00 PM

so Mr. Gazzone? Thank you, Chair and Supervisors. And I think everything that's been discussed in the last few minutes are funding concepts and direction on how to address the funding on this. I would just remind the Board that for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, this is still a planning moment and you're not committed to an actual selection as you move forward. You'll be informed by CEQA as you move forward including if your direction is to pursue the Emergency Operations Center. So you're not committed in the sense of CEQA.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:00:57 · ≈ 12:00 PM

All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:00:57 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Supervisor Adam? Well, if we could handle this in two separate motions, one to separate and one to locate... Let's do that. ...that would be good because I want to be on that as well on the separation because I think it's high

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:01:14 · ≈ 12:01 PM

time. Okay. All right. So let's make a motion that we will...well, let me look at what are recommended. Oh wow! This is one of those with 27 different recommendations. All right, so I see A is receive and file, B's direct staff on... Okay, why don't we do this? See if I can get a motion to approve A which is receive and file the update. And then let's drop down to C, authorize staff to enter negotiations with regional partners, D provide other Direction and E determine that we're exempt from CEQA on this. So moved. Seconded.

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, that passes unanimously. Then we will go to B1. That was to option one, to expand the existing emergency operations center to accommodate an RFCF.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction3:02:30 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Move option

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:02:30 · ≈ 12:02 PM

one. Hold on a second. And I would ask that perhaps redundant but that it would be B1 and E even though you've already moved E to make clear that you're linking CEQA to that? OK. B1

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:02:41 · ≈ 12:02 PM

and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:02:41 · ≈ 12:02 PM

E.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction3:02:42 · ≈ 12:02 PM

I'll move B1 and E a second time.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.823:02:45 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:02:47 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Let's do a roll call.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:49 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adam?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:02:51 · ≈ 12:02 PM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:52 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Mr. Williams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:02:53 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:53 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Mr Harte? Aye Chair Lavendino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:02:55 · ≈ 12:02 PM

No

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:56 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Motion passes three to two

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:02:58 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Okay, so we have going out funding with our going out and talking to our partners And we've selected the EEOC as the location The preferred location And then any direction anybody would like to provide other direction Mine is, as far as funding partners go. That's what this was all about. This was a regional benefit. The reason why we took so long to do it is to bring everybody under the tent. If not everybody's under the tent for me it's going to be a no-go. So I want to make sure everybody's involved And anybody else? Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed3:03:34 · ≈ 12:03 PM

Yeah, to that point I think we've had great collaboration with the other fire chiefs in local jurisdictions and would hope that would continue and hope it'd continue all the way through the funding of this and I do think this is an opportunity to recircle back with the City of Santa Maria about the potential use of their facility as a backup location for dispatch services and I think that could help the longer bigger conversation as well.

Okay, Supervisor Hartman

3:03 – 3:096 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.823:03:59 · ≈ 12:03 PM

I think now we have a location, it'll be easier for the partners to envision what it would look like. And I think it will be very important for the city of Santa Barbara to be involved as well.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:04:10 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Okay. All right. We're good? We have direction? We had a vote? All right. We're going to go ahead and Mr. Gazzone can you give me if everybody could just hold on second takes him like one minute to give us closed session.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:04:26 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Chair and Supervisors, my estimate for closed session today is about an hour-and-a-half. You have seven items, two existing litigation. The first is Rancho La Laguna v. County of Santa Barbara. Second existing litigation, Sobonny Group v. County of Santa Barbara. You have real property negotiations, first for property at 4 East Carrillo Street And then two items both involving 325 Chapala Street in Santa Barbara.

You also have two labor relations items, the first is concerning Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association and then you also sitting as the board of the Santa Barbara County Public Authority for In-Home Supportive Services have an item with United Domestic Workers of America local 3930 again my estimate is about one and a half hours.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:05:12 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Okay so for those folks that are here for item 3 we will be back no earlier than 1.30 okay and we'll break for closed session you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed3:07:10 · ≈ 12:07 PM

Hello. Hello

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:08:03 · ≈ 12:08 PM

everyone. ♪ The

3:10 – 3:471 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed3:10:00 · ≈ 12:10 PM

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

3:48 – 4:262 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:48:25 · ≈ 12:48 PM

♪ Music playing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed3:49:26 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Hello. Hello, everyone. the new Welcome to the board meeting. Hi, everyone. you Music playing. you Thank you. Music Music you Music playing. Hello everyone.

4:27 – 4:3411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:27:52 · ≈ 1:27 PM

♪

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:28:25 · ≈ 1:28 PM

All right, good afternoon everybody. We'd like to reconvene this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gazzone can I get a report out of closed session please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:28:36 · ≈ 1:28 PM

Chair and Supervisors, today in closed session the board considered seven different matters. Two litigation cases Rancho La Laguna versus County Santa Barbara Sabani Group versus County Santa Barbara and three real property items one for property at 4 East Carrillo Street and two for separate interest and property at 325 Chapala Street all in Santa Barbara You also had two labor items meeting with the Santa Barbara County, concerning the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association. And then secondly as the county public authority for in-home supportive services meeting with United, concerning United Domestic Workers local 3930 there are no reportable actions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:29:20 · ≈ 1:29 PM

Okay very good Madam Clerk can we read item three into the record please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:29:26 · ≈ 1:29 PM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number three is from public health. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding emergency medical services EMS system review final report and ambulance agreement recommendation. All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:29:39 · ≈ 1:29 PM

right. Dr. Reynoso, good afternoon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed4:29:42 · ≈ 1:29 PM

Good afternoon Chair and members of the Board. With me today for this presentation is Mr. Nick Clay our Emergency Medical Services Agency Director, Dr. Angelo Salvucci our EMS Medical Director and Dr. Jay Fitch of Fitch & Associates. The purpose of today's presentation is to brief your board on the phase two and phase three of the EMS system review, and to seek your board's direction regarding the contract for emergency ambulance services and 911 emergency response. And whether to negotiate with our existing provider AMR or to begin an RFP process to select a new contractor. And as well to determine that this action is exempt from CEQA.

We are charged as your local emergency medical services to plan, evaluate and implement an EMS system. Following your board's direction last year we contracted with Fitch & Associates to assist us with a review of our county's EMS system. Dr. Fitch will now present the three phases and their findings. Board of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed4:31:08 · ≈ 1:31 PM

Supervisors meeting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:31:27 · ≈ 1:31 PM

How about now? All right, the technology. The second phase involved working with stakeholders to prioritize the issues and opportunities that were identified in the first phase. And then following that we were tasked with outlining an implementation framework to address those identified goals and objectives. Go to the next slide. The triple aim is a concept echoing throughout all aspects of health care and it involves improving customer satisfaction, taking specific steps to improve outcomes and at the same time reducing the cost of care. And our process involved convening multiple stakeholder meetings and gathering input on known system issues. We also, in addition to that, objectively benchmarked the system against eight major system components including 9-1-1 communications, medical first response, operations and medical transportation, clinical accountability, customer and community accountability, prevention and community education, organizational structure and leadership, and ensuring optimal system value.

In that report, we identified areas where the system performed really well and areas that could benefit from focused improvement efforts. And the good news is that your constituents receive good care. There are many dedicated caregivers working throughout this system. The county uses density-based response times and the contracts that you employ outline both performances and penalties.

Best practice systems around the country are constantly focused on enhanced quality improvement and improving clinical metrics because your clinical quality here is good. Dispatch is central to issues of future enhancements to any EMS system. And I think all of the provider groups that we interviewed agreed on that and you've taken steps, I think this morning, to improve that effort and that's a good thing.

You've had demonstrated success with cardiac trauma and stroke outcomes. We have one question.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.824:33:36 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Would you expand on that? I mean, you say that it limits system advances but could you give a couple of examples?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:33:43 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Absolutely! One of the key components to moving toward the future is going to be prioritizing... You heard this morning them talking about emergency medical dispatch and being able to send the right resource to the right patient at the right time And part of, as we looked at your system with multitude of communication centers and different processes. We really think that the future will be able to, what is going to be required is to be able to look at a call from the beginning to the end so that your medical director has really that capability and that's been an issue in the system in the past.

4:34 – 4:453 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:34:26 · ≈ 1:34 PM

Supervisor Williams? So is that in some cases just holding back, say an ambulance resource because there is Maybe not life-threatening call and dispatching of fire resources because we have limited geographical availability of the ambulance resource.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:34:52 · ≈ 1:34 PM

There are a full range of those kinds of options in an integrated center, and having that integrated data to be able to make those decisions is critical to the future improvements of the system. That was the point we were trying to make. Got it. One of the other factors here was that system resources, it came very clear in that first phase was that system resources are unduly consumed by mental health and substance abuse patients that have a negative impact on the system.

We looked at system financials and estimate the systems value at about $20 million per year. This is a no subsidy system where your system requires that users pay for the cost of the system, and the system also supports certain system components, and this was alluded to this morning including 1.2 million to the medical first responders, 1.5 million for dispatch and three quarters of a million to LEMSA and radio system infrastructure. So as you extrapolate those numbers out over the life of the contract it's about 14.6 million supporting first responders and about 24.8 million to the county to support the system.

Those are from provider-collected user fees. Now, our methodology for that system valuation was looking at AMR's net revenues for a three year period and averaging those three years including the interfacility transports, looking at the county fire's net revenues and averaging those for three fiscal years, same three fiscal years, and then looking at billing records and actually cross checking those with the county's annual revenue reports in AMR audited financials.

There are fiscal challenges in the system. Based on the payer mix, there are limited alternative revenue streams available. Now a higher valuation of the system has been suggested by others and we believe that the methodology we used was based on actual data is the most accurate. Again primary funding for the countywide system is from user fees and not from dedicated tax resources.

This next slide really is simply to illustrate that Medicare and Medicaid reimburse ambulance services at a rate typically below cost. The California Ambulance Association data on the right-hand side of the page is a bit dated, but it's consistent with findings throughout the nation including some studies by Medicare itself. Remember, with governmental payers like Medicare and Medicaid the provider has to accept what they pay as payment in full.

They can't go back and bill the patient for additional resources. We surveyed stakeholders to focus on our phase two discussions and those discussions occurred in a collaborative manner through multiple stakeholder meetings. There were four primary goals identified, and the bottom line is that we believe that the enhancements identified by the EMS stakeholders should be embedded in any new agreement Some of those can be accomplished fairly quickly, and others that can be implemented either as a part of a renegotiation or an RFP process.

And subsequent to the stakeholder meetings we were tasked with outlining tasks, deliverables, resources, success factors, and recommended time frames for those implementations. There were four goals for system improvement that came out of phase two, and we're going to dive into each one of those so we'll go to the next slide. First and foremost, the first goal was to improve inter-facility transports.

Your transport system throughout the county is an advanced life support system and other best practice systems around the country have found that with 911 center improvements and enhanced systemic quality improvement efforts, they can safely deliver some of those services at the basic life support level. The difference between advanced life support at the paramedic level and basic life support at the EMT level. And effectively moving patients between facilities is central to reducing ER crowding and wait times And there is an opportunity to enhance the coordination of those services and reduce pressure on the 911 transport system.

When the system's stressed, there's a perception that additional resources are needed despite having a performance-based agreement and those performances being met. So there was another objective that dealt with mining the data and determining where particular surge capacity might be needed. As we look at the second goal was the coordination of EMS for mental health patients. In the phase one report, we described how the care of those with behavioral and other mental health issues was a significant problem for the system. In the phase two discussions it became really clear That this issue had to be dealt with from a variety of angles, some far beyond the boundaries of the traditional EMS system. And hence most of the objectives that came out of this goal related to convening task forces and engaging others within the county structure to help mitigate the issue.

The third goal that came out of the second phase had to do with making sure that we had access for at-risk patients, and particularly aging. And health equity in dealing with at-risk patients are issues almost every EMS system in America is facing. Several key objectives emerged during Phase 2 including working directly with the high utilizers of the EMS system, those that call 911 frequently to ensure that they can get their needs met without abusing the 911 system.

One of the things that's unusual in your county as well, as we did the study was the fact that there are many times that agencies call for what's called lift assists. And sometimes those even occur in communities as an emergency response. So reducing the number of lift assists when someone, for example, in a nursing home falls out of bed, why is that? Our view is that might not necessarily be a 911 emergency response to help that patient back into bed.

And then the last objective on this was researching how to address alternate destinations. ET3 is a term you'll hear me refer to, it's a pilot federal program involving triaging, treating and alternate transport and it's just been set forth by Medicare Center for Innovation I'll speak more about in a moment. The fourth goal involves improving the quality metrics In many California counties, quality improvement efforts tend to be a bit fragmented at the provider level. And across America best practice tends to operationalize more of that function at the system level so that the medical director really is much more deeply engaged in working with the individual provider entities.

We've also found that there are well-developed data and outcome tools used by systems that could be implemented here to provide a simple scorecard for this board's review on even a quarterly basis so that you know what things are happening and how the system is progressing. There are a variety of mechanisms and software platforms available to support that goal.

And that leads me to the next slide, which deals with the fact that there are going to be technology investments needed. As I referred to, the integrated data sets throughout America are best practiced today and measurement—and you heard a bit of that this morning when they talked about how the CADs have trouble talking to one another And it's the same concept here where we want to make sure that all of that data lines up so that when you look at, when Dr. Salducci looks at the care given to a patient or a group of patients he has all that data available to him because measurement and accountability are key to systemic improvement.

And best practice systems dedicate funding for programs that I mentioned to enhance that quality improvement activity and improving that individual accountability throughout the system I think the LEMSA has reviewed our improvement recommendations and will speak to them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:43:21 · ≈ 1:43 PM

Dr. Fitch, thank you. So as Jay mentioned we did carefully review each of these 23 initiatives after review we determined eight were already in progress three require further evaluation two will not be pursued specifically by the LEMSA and ten will be pursued by the LEMSA in addition to the eight that are already in progress For those that are in progress, the LEMSA staff are working to better define what surge capacity is as well as reporting metrics related to that.

LEMSA staff is also working and meeting regularly with system partners to discuss the impacts of behavioral health patients. And LEMSa staff are working with partners such as Santa Barbara City Fire and Cottage Hospital to identify high frequency users who we intend to link them to resources as a part of the HEAP grant. Additionally, LEMSA staff provided redefined several clinical quality improvement metrics as a part of our CQI committee.

And through the Homeland Security Grant, the LEMSA will be receiving data surveillance tool hopefully within the next six months once funding is released which is one of the tools, as Dr. Fitch has mentioned, will drastically improve our ability to monitor real-time metrics and share them. There are few that require further information As we develop a new ambulance provider agreement, the LEMSA will dive deeper into these topics.

And with regards to the two initiatives that LEMSA will not be pursuing, we'll be working with behavioral wellness to identify opportunities to explore those further. And then last but not least, the 10 initiatives that LEMSA does plan to pursue in addition to the eight already in progress. These five on this slide primarily focus on making improvements to our non-emergency component of the EMS system and focus on finding efficiency in that particular aspect of our EMS system And then continuing, we have a variety of topics from preparing for the changes in Medicare reimbursement as was mentioned with the ET3 model to focusing on EMS personnel safety issues to developing an independent third-party patient feedback tool that help us provide better care for the folks who are receiving the care in the field.

And with that I will turn back to Dr. Fitch.

4:45 – 4:555 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:45:32 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Get this right, that Medicare and state Medicaid programs like Medi-Cal are moving away from traditional fee for service models and are moving toward paying based on enhanced outcomes. And while the crystal ball is still very cloudy we do know that solid data is going to be required by systems like yours to move forward. Systems with strong dispatch data and quality improvement processes will be better positioned for the future.

There are a number of EMS issues specific to California that we looked at. There are lots of changes currently that are going to make things difficult for you as a county to know where the sifting sands are going to actually drift. There are a number of counties that have struggled with changes in their system design and their RFPs, and there are multiple legislative efforts that were in play at the time we wrote this report.

Now our view is whether you choose to renegotiate or conduct an RFP Resulting contract should focus on outcomes, not just on clinical outcomes, patient outcomes, not just on response times. Secondly that you need to anticipate the need for flexibility in providing service that includes staffing and the level of service provided There needs to be strong support for the medical director and enhanced systemic QI, and support for the medical first responders who as I've said do a great job in your county. And last but not least address health equity issues.

Now as we looked at options about renegotiation The increased and more equitable distribution of funds and reimbursement for the fire departments could be part of a renegotiation process, and in our view they can be more directly involved in that process. We identified a risk that scope and manner changes would have to be addressed to successfully implement some of the improvement opportunities identified but we've come to understand that county council has corresponded separately with the board on this point and it may not be as large a risk as we thought when we wrote the report.

Balance is the key in any renegotiation. And there are some areas, some items on the risk side that the fire agencies have advocated for relative to a single countywide EOA and fires, the transport agency and forms of government. That could become a scope and manner issue, so that's something you would need to consider. Regarding the timeline for renegotiation typically involves a shorter timeline than RFP and we would estimate that timeline will require at least four to seven month period.

When we move to look at the options and the benefits and risks related to the RFP, now the primary benefit of the RFP process is that it opens the process up. And allow, it is more competitive in that respect. From a risk perspective existing system participants input has to be structured to ensure they don't have an unfair advantage over others in a competitive process.

And as previously noted, single bidder RFPs have been problematic for some other counties throughout the state. And certainly if there are future changes that are not consistent with the RFP or the resulting process then additional processes may be required. When we look at the timeline for the RFP, the estimates differ slightly but the LEMSA believes that the consultant cost for an RFP would be about $150,000 and that the process would require 18 to 24 months.

And you can see as you move through that time frame, there are several points where things have to go to the California EMS Authority for review and then come back to you for approval. And with that I'll turn it back over to EMS Director Clay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:49:52 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Thank you. So as Santa Barbara County has never conducted a request for proposal or RFP process, we felt it prudent to talk to other LEMSAs and survey them in regards to their experience when it came to conducting an RFP. So the Santa Barbara County LEMSA reviewed 16 other LEMSA-initiated RFPs for ambulance service across the state. Of that recent review, three were met with no bid selection or they canceled process We determined the process would be about a 28-month process, although that estimate does vary depending on the variety of injects that occur during that process. As mentioned, the cost is about $150,000. Almost routinely, the state EMS authority requested changes to the initial RFP and a large number of RFPs resulted in the provider that was already providing service in the area winning that bid.

So it's a wide variety of experience we try to consolidate and share that with you today. And next, I believe Dr. Salvucci.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed4:50:55 · ≈ 1:50 PM

So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:50:56 · ≈ 1:50 PM

I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed4:50:58 · ≈ 1:50 PM

going to go back to 1980 and I know you're thinking I look so young but in fact I've been the medical director here for going on 30 years now. During that time, this is the third opportunity we have to renegotiate the contract with our existing ambulance provider and that provider has been grandfathered since 1980. We have made many advances over the years. I'm just going to synopsize a couple of them. We started what's called a performance-based agreement meaning The service provider is responsible for, for example, response times. Prior to that we required a number of ambulances but not the response times. We've actually expanded that to basic life support as well as our advanced life support ambulances which is unique in the state and we've assured there's no underserved areas throughout the county.

We have ambulance deployment and staffing requirements, all of which are new over the last 20 years. And when we started, when I started, the county was subsidizing the ambulance provider and now the ambulance provider subsidizes county activities. There have been a number of other system advancements as a result of negotiation. We have what's called a STEMI system, the most severe type of heart attack and that was done largely because our ambulance provider within their budget not requesting a loan or a rate increase or any other subsidy was able to purchase new equipment for all of their ambulances and we were one of the first STEMI systems into the state as a result The CAD was purchased through this ambulance agreement.

And the first responder support has allowed us to expand our documentation system, our electronic documentation system to all of our providers so everything that's done within our county is now documented electronically for our review. I've been doing this for, as I said 30 years. I've spent 10 years on the state EMS commission. I was the president of the commission for two years. I've become very familiar in our quarterly statewide meetings with every system in the state and I can tell you that our system excels and part of the reason it excels a large part of the reason is for this long-term partnership with AMR We are continuously advancing the clinical components of the system, and this review process you've just heard is part of that.

We've integrated dispatch, fire departments, ambulance services, hospitals. Emergency medical services is not just ambulance and it's not just fire and it's not just dispatch but it's a linking of everything from the time you call 911 until the time your discharged from your rehab facility and we're able to integrate all of these services. We have systems of care that are envied by most.

And I'll start with cardiac arrest management. Two weeks ago, I just came from Slovenia or I just presented in Slovenia at the European Resuscitation Council the outcomes of our cardiac arrest system because they wanted to learn how we did our miraculous results. We have 35% higher than the national average for people who have cardiac arrests and walk out of the hospital and go home Our STEMI system, our heart attack system has received the Heart Association's highest award for every one of its four years.

And our trauma system is one of top performers in the National Trauma Data Bank. Our system has been nimble and responsive. We can simply point to some of our recent large-scale events to underscore that. In summary, and I appreciate Jay's comments, our clinical outcomes are excellent. We can do a better job in being able to present that information but I can give you enough to tell you that what we do is excellent.

4:55 – 5:0312 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:55:28 · ≈ 1:55 PM

And as I mentioned earlier, the LEMSA did talk to other LEMSAs across the state to understand if we did do an RFP process and we did receive a new provider what would be some challenges we could expect to encounter. As a follow-up to that survey some of the information we found and this is based on our understanding and based on the LEMSA's experience ambulance billing can take a while before they actually start to see revenue back into the system meaning that the capital and the cost of operating the expend is required to be covered while they wait for the reimbursements for those services Ambulances are typically made to order, can have a long lead time.

There's not a lot of options when it comes to purchasing ambulances across the nation and they can take six to nine months and again range in cost from $90,000 to $190,000 based on other LEMSAs' experience. So the key was just to share this with the board again as we've never gone through an RFP process it's key that we understand some of the potential challenges and risks that may be in front of us should we decide to go down that path.

Dr. DiBernasso?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed4:56:27 · ≈ 1:56 PM

So we have some last thoughts. Renegotiation allows for innovation and provides the opportunity for our community to negotiate the agreement if any changes are needed. The RFP, on the other hand, does allow for initial innovation. However, if future changes are needed in the agreement, we would have to begin another RFP process. Renegotiation, as you've heard from Dr. Salvucci has proven to deliver the EMS system innovation over the last 40 years.

Renegotiation will maintain the highest level of clinical service being offered today while keeping the cost at its lowest. And we have heard that an RFP process may garner enhanced services and may bring in additional revenues to our county, but unfortunately we don't have the data to evaluate. So based on that, the staff is recommending that we renegotiate.

Again, RFP is a costly process to the county and to the bidders. It's restrictive in that local providers are prohibited from design and that the California EMS agency will need to be involved. And the RFP will need to be It's not something that needs to happen at routine intervals, especially if there are changes. We can essentially when we look at our current system any enhancements of the 23 initiatives can be had without us going to an RFP.

Do you have any additional comments before we go to?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed4:58:26 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Yeah, so I have one more comment back to the advances in our agreements. In the most recent agreement approximately 15 years ago we established something called a Contract Compliance Committee. Every quarter we review in detail the performance of all of our providers, ambulance and fire with response time and clinical performance and annually a soup-to-nuts review of the contract In every single one of those committee meetings, and your board has representatives.

The ambulance contractor has been reviewed and the performance is found to be acceptable actually without deficiencies.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed4:59:15 · ≈ 1:59 PM

Great with that we conclude our presentation.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:59:17 · ≈ 1:59 PM

All right thank you very much Is there any questions from the board before we go to public comment or would you just like to go to public comment and then we'll come back to the board. Go to public comment. All right how many speakers do we have?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:59:30 · ≈ 1:59 PM

Chair Lavinino members of the board we have seven requests to speak on this item.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:59:34 · ≈ 1:59 PM

All right. And there were a couple of well I think there was a slip passed in by some people that have already been part of the presentation. If you're part of the presentation, that's the time to have your input not at public comment so if it at the end if one of you would like to speak about something that hasn't been approached go ahead and make sure your voice is heard but probably do it from there not from public comments. So we have seven requests to speak

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:00:09 · ≈ 2:00 PM

just had an additional once we have eight requests this week

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:00:11 · ≈ 2:00 PM

Okay. Eight requests to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:00:13 · ≈ 2:00 PM

speak, just kidding. Chair Lovenino and members of the board we're going to begin in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell and then we're going to return to Santa Barbara with Luis Ferro Jr.. Andy?

PresenterAndy CaldwellColabProposedself-stated5:00:25 · ≈ 2:00 PM

Thank you. Members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. This is one of those cases where if it's not broke, don't fix it. That doesn't mean that you don't have to renegotiate to just bring things up-to-date. One of the things that we're concerned about is that there's always a... And we've seen this with other vendors and I haven't talked to AMR about this at all but we've seen this with other vendors When the county has a contractor, they end up squeezing them in one way shape form or another over time.

Asking for more and more but not upping their pay. But this one's extremely convoluted because some people quote unquote have no ability to pay. Some people get a discounted rate and other people pay through the nose literally because they may have insurance. And we would ask you to not just think about the vendor, but think about the end user, the purchaser. Of who is ultimately paying for the frequent flyers and other people that can't afford to pay. And we don't think that AMR should have to do it, nor should we think that the people that have insurance. In other words you guys want this fully integrated into the mental health and social services department. We'd have to ask the county what skin in the game does the county have vis-a-vis the general fund and or The funds from these departments.

In other words, this is one of those hybrid public-private partnerships where the county should have skin in the game so to speak versus just trust that well somebody will pay or AMR will get by or the regular insurance companies will overcompensate because that's the way our medical system is quote unquote working And you know our other concern with County Fire, we realize that they respond to emergencies right now and they supplement AMR. But we're always cognizant of pensions that if it ever went out to contract a county fire that the pension costs would be included in their bid so to speak.

So thank you for hearing our comments.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:03:04 · ≈ 2:03 PM

All righty, Chair Lavinino, members of the board we're going to return to Santa Barbara with Luis Ferra Jr. followed by Fire Chief Eric Nickel from the City of Santa Barbara

5:03 – 5:084 turns

PresenterLouis Ferraall firefighter locals in the county including the firefigProposedself-stated5:03:16 · ≈ 2:03 PM

Good afternoon, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. My name is Louis Ferra and I'm an executive board member for the Lompoc Firefighters Association here speaking on behalf of all firefighter locals in the county including the firefighters of Santa Barbara County, Carpinteria Summerland, Montecito, Santa Barbara City, Lompoc, Santa Maria, Guadalupe, and Vandenberg.

Nobody takes more pride in the leveling an RFP for ambulance transport to happen Like all multi-decade contracts, ambulance contracts too grow stale. Opening up the ambulance transport contract to a competitive bidding process allows the county to develop a strategy that helps address the current issues facing our system and plan for future needs. Further we ask that this process specifically allow the fire service to bid and that there be no language that would intentionally or inadvertently prohibit the fire service from participating in the process.

As an indicator of how valuable we feel the RFP process is to our EMS system, there's been a historic precedent set. Not only have all of our county's fire chiefs aligned on this issue but each of the department's firefighter labor groups have voted to fully support the mission of the fire chiefs as well. I can't think of another time in recent history when the entirety of the Santa Barbara County Fire Service was in lockstep.

Why would allowing the fire service to bid on the contract be beneficial? First, the officers and shareholders of a private corporation will never care as much about our community than the public servants who have sworn to protect it. Second, and contrary to what you may have been told, the EMS system in our county produces a great deal of revenue. It's evident by the mere fact that a private ambulance company would want to do business here for the past 20 plus years.

Currently the revenue leaves our county and goes into the pockets of a large national corporation. If the fire service were to win a bid for transport, this revenue would be reinvested locally specifically by funding projects that help innovate the EMS system, speed up response times by placing more ambulances on the street, provide more services to our most vulnerable populations and certify more of your firefighters as paramedics who can provide advanced life support to more patients.

In closing, it's our duty to constantly look for the best solution at the best cost for our community. Settling for mediocrity when it comes to public safety isn't an option and renegotiating a stale contract is exactly that. Your local firefighters urge you to approve an RFP process and not simply renegotiate with the current contract provider. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:05:45 · ≈ 2:05 PM

And our next speaker is Fire Chief Eric Nickel from the City of Santa Barbara to be followed by Dave Shireman

GuestEric NickelFire ChiefProposedself-stated5:05:52 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Well good afternoon. Eric Nickel, Fire Chief City of Santa Barbara, Chair Lavinino, Board Members. I speak on behalf of the Santa Barbara County Fire Chiefs Association and our EMS Working Group. And as you heard from Louis initially it's before this is the first time that the entire management and labor has joined together with this EMS working group A little background about myself. I've either worked in, managed or led a fire-based EMS, ALS and ambulance transport system for 32 years. Most of my time in Marin County but for the last six years is operating the only fire based ambulance transport system in Santa Clara County, a county of two million population.

The Fire Chiefs we seek a seamless integrated EMS delivery system that includes full boundary drop Closest resource dispatching, transparency and accountability. Clinical excellence and innovative best practices that serve the variety of needs that this county has. We seek a transparent RFP process that will update and improve the MS and ambulance delivery system. We have genuinely appreciated the opportunity to contribute and be a partner in the Fitch analysis and the steps of the process I think it is important to note, we acknowledge that we have a very good system right now and the cardiac arrest save rate is very impressive.

But I also want to add that that is due in large part to our fire-based first responders who oftentimes are the first ones on scene that are delivering either basic life support CPR and AED's defibrillation or advanced life support in advance of the ambulances At the end of the day, the MS work group goal remains unchanged after reviewing the Fitch report and the study and all the details that are out there. We want to modernize and enhance the emergency medical delivery system here within Santa Barbara County by implementing innovative, effective, and efficient healthcare delivery models that are inspired by the goals of the Triple Aim initiative. We believe the most effective way to accomplish this is through a competitive, transparent, accountable RFP process.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:08:13 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Our next speaker is Dave Sherman to be followed by Corey Davis.

5:08 – 5:154 turns

CommentDave ShermanProposed5:08:23 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Chair Levin, you know members of the board I am the director of operations for AMR Santa Barbara County. I have lived and worked as a paramedic in this county for 31 years I have met my wife here, raised my three children here. I have been devoted my entire adult life to ensuring that the residents of Santa Barbara County, the visitors, my family and my friends receive the best pre-hospital clinical care possible.

Likewise by other families, the men and women on my team have made this same commitment They are the ones who put in the long hours away from work or away from their families, their friends with the sole purpose of providing excellent clinical care and implementing the changes and improvements to the EMS plan that made it the world-class system it is today.

While AMR is a corporation, we are a local operation. We are your paramedics. We're not the same as AMR Ventura. We're not the same as AMR Los Angeles. We are specifically designed to meet the unique needs of this community and execute the direction of the Santa Barbara County EMS Agency. Over the years, during many fires that have swept through the county, AMR not only provided medical coverage to the events, provided vulnerable population and care facility evacuations but we also maintained uninterrupted 9-1-1 coverage to the county.

When an active shooter swept through Isla Vista, AMR was the first to join law enforcement on scene to render care and transport again while maintaining uninterrupted coverage to the 9-11 system. When the Ebola virus scare hit Santa Barbara, AMR was the only provider to step forward to field an infectious disease transport team and a specialty transport vehicle.

During the debris flow when every fire agency in this county was drawn down for the incident, AMR provided medical coverage of the incident, provided a remote clinical base in an area cut off from resources, and maintained uninterrupted coverage of the 911 system. Not once in 40 plus years have we been out of compliance with the terms of a contract, some be very few if any providers can claim.

Today you're being asked to make a decision to either give AMR a chance at negotiating new contract or placing the system out to bid. You've seen the presentation by EMSA and overwhelming recommendation against an RFP. You have seen that the RFP process will forever remove local autonomy of the EMS plan You have seen that 94% of the RFPs submitted to the state were not accepted as written, requiring the county to make undesired changes that don't meet the needs of the community.

You have seen that 84% of the RFPs resulted in no change to the provider. And you've seen an RFP process will take an average of 28 months to complete. During that time, innovation, improvements and progress to the EMS system will either be dramatically slowed or brought to a grinding halt as staff resources and funding are consumed by the process. 28 more months where our team members who now, in addition to normal stress at their jobs, are worried about their job security, their mortgages, and payments for college tuition.

I hope that you accept the strong recommendations of your EMS staff to be in contract negotiations with AMR, to allow us the opportunity to meet every need of our community and utilize our extensive knowledge and expertise in Santa Barbara County to ensure it remains a world class as it is today. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:11:49 · ≈ 2:11 PM

Our next speaker is Corey Davis to be followed by Brian Fernandez

PresenterCorey Davislocal IAPProposedself-stated5:12:02 · ≈ 2:12 PM

Mr. Chair, board members, my name is Corey Davis. I am the president of the local IAP, Local R1270. We represent the AMR paramedics and EMTs for your county. There's really little for me to say that hasn't already been said. Dr. Selvidge, she was very clear in the clinical excellence we find here in this county and I am honestly at a loss why anyone would want to change that.

I'm a little disappointed in my fellow union members from other unions for the union bashing that they've incurred here today. Potentially costing us our job, which is a big fear. So we've been here for 48 years and we have never had an issue with compliance with Clinical excellence it's always just become better and better and that is under the AMR guidance It's not because of fire that STEMI numbers are so high in fact They reported none of those STEMI numbers are strictly from AMR so They are a part of the team, no doubt about that. But to discount AMR's role in that is a huge disservice and I'm a little upset about it.

We would just want a contract. We wanna be able to know we have a job here that's paying at least what we're currently getting paid, that has the benefits that we're used to, that we have the working conditions we're used to. Those have been steadily improving as well with our collaborative effort with AMR. It has not been It hasn't been a conflict in the last 12 years that I've been on the board. It's always just been a collaborative effort to try and make this a better place to work, which is a nice thing to see because it's not always evident everywhere else. We fear for the clinical excellence that we have accomplished here. We are unaware what kind of clinical metrics would be placed on us going forward.

We've seen the RFP process fail in so many areas in this state and it has never proven to be beneficial to either the community or to the workers. We take an example right now with Falk up in Alameda County, just last week they were fined $327,000 after taking over the contract from AMR for lack of compliance on their response times They also, when they took over, reduced pay. They reduced the benefits and they also sought decreased working conditions as to what they were used to in the past. So that's all of the things that we worry about on our side as working men and women. We just want a job and we wanna know we're gonna have a job next year, year after that. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:15:03 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Our next speaker is Brian Fernandez to be followed by Doug Petrick.

5:15 – 5:257 turns

PresenterBrian FernandezLocal 2046 and also a fire captain with Santa Barbara County Fire Department forProposedself-stated5:15:16 · ≈ 2:15 PM

CEO Miyasato, Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. My name's Brian Fernandez. I'm the president of Local 2046 and also a fire captain with Santa Barbara County Fire Department for the last 17 years. I am also a paramedic in the county as well. As I was going over what to say today, I realized that I wear a number of hats in relation to this ambulance contract.

It was then that I realized that the decision to open up the contract for bid was more important than any one person, union, perspective or statistic. We in public service are committed to one principle, that is to provide service for whomever needs it. As a first responder we have the unique experience of seeing people at their worst We are put into situations that nightmares are made of.

It is through this experience that we develop and desire to strive to do better the next time. There is not one critical call that any of us have not reflected on, to explore what it was we could've done better for the next time it happens. We embody the spirit and example of public service. When I say we, I mean all of us Ambulance providers, fire departments, ALS, BLS, all of us. We work as a team.

We are a team. Today's decision to open up a contract for bid is simply to make a decision that benefits the community we serve. An open and competitive process will allow for improvements and innovation in our system that is long overdue. As convoluted as some decisions or meetings may become I have simple exercise that helps simplify that Responding to these calls, it's easy to step back and say what is the person calling 911 expecting?

What do they deserve? We see that firsthand. And we are the best to address that. We're here today to ensure that the people we represent and serve receive unquestionable service. An open and transparent bid process ensures the careful consideration and development of an emergency system that the community expects and deserves. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:17:32 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Our next speaker is Doug Petrick to be followed by Kurt Henke who is our final speaker.

CommentDoug PetrickProposed5:17:43 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman members of the board Doug Patrick direct regional director for AMR Santa Barbara County Just a few comments You know we're standing here This room is packed with people that all have the same goal in mind at the end of the day Which is to serve the community? There's comments made about money going out of the building, going to other areas, shareholders and all that.

Costs are gonna be costs and we're gonna have that whether you're a business or not. If your government, you're still gonna have costs that are gonna have to be covered. And really what this comes down to is what is it the end of the day? The end of the day was we need to provide healthcare. We're a health care organization. We talk a lot about emergency response here, but this is health care and it reaches beyond just emergency response.

We also do the non-emergency response here. We provide care to those who are in special events at football games and concerts and stuff. We do a little of everything in the healthcare realm. We work closely with hospitals We work closely with our mental health partners to try to provide the right level of care to everybody out there. And so you can't just sit there and worry about, am I going to get to that heart attack victim right away? Because that's just part of this. And as you heard our EMS agency talk about other portions of the EMS system, it starts from the call and it goes clear to the back end An ambulance piece is just a small portion of that.

And we've been delivering the care, we've been delivering the good care, we've been delivering great transportation, safe transportation for a long time. We believe that we can continue that and continue our partnership with not only the county but also all of the stakeholders that are sitting behind me. We've proven over the years That AMR is willing to work and be flexible, and change with the system to make the system work better in all aspects.

We believe that if we have that opportunity one more time We'll continue that, and we'll continue to show everybody in this community that AMR is the right choice. And we're flexible and able to change and move with the system and maintain good health care here. You know you go to an RFP It becomes a little more restrictive. And the board has to make that decision, and hopefully you'll contemplate that greatly because it's going to include a lot more than just the emergency response. It's got to include health care of your citizens. So you have a tough decision in front of you. I think we all want to get the same thing at this end of the day. So thank you very much for your time.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:21:01 · ≈ 2:21 PM

And our final speaker is Kurt Henke.

CommentKurt HenkeProposedself-stated5:21:05 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Honorable Chair, Board of Directors, my name's Kurt Henke and I'm the founding partner of AP Triton. I've been contracted our firm by the Santa Barbara County Fire Chiefs and I want to cover a few issues for you today. Let me talk a little bit about Contra Costa County. In Contra Costa County people have heard a lot about it Fitch and Associates was hired to do a study on that in 2016, 15-16.

And in that study audited financials were provided by AMR and after that was done it was presented to the Board of Supervisors that this system was basically insolvent. We only had about $500,000 to a million dollars And so that was very concerning, and Contra Costa put out an RFP that required two responses. One a subsidized bid, how much money from the general fund do you need? And one an unsubsidized bid.

Our firm was hired by the fire agency back then to develop that Contra Costa model that you've probably heard about. We estimated the revenue in the system to be somewhere between 13 and 15 million dollars above expenses. So as we moved forward, we were able to successfully select a subcontractor which is AMR and they do a marvelous job for our client, the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. And we won the contract.

What happened with that RFP? I've heard that RFPs aren't always successful. Well in Contra Costa County by consolidating we reduced call processing time by 59 seconds almost a minute We improved response times or 89 to 90% and in fact it was cheaper to pay the fines go below 90. To us running the system, the fire agency we're now in compliance of 95 to 97 percent in the four zones.

We also reduced the outlier calls and the areas that are hard to get to from about 26 a month down to about 2-5 which is unheard of. You heard about slow pay. In our first year, we achieved 7.5 million in revenue above expenses. Our second and third year was 9 to 10 million above expenses. And what did we do with that money? Well, we didn't send it out of the community. We reinvested it. We put $1.5 million back into putting more ambulances on the street and that's what helped drive our performance rate up on response times. We dumped $3 million into the communications center to upgrade the communication center to have improvements.

We hired a full-time medical director and we initiated a helicopter medic program. In the first three and a half years of business, I am proud to say that we have $27 million in a reserve fund should we ever have a problem with a private provider leaving which they have the ability to do not saying they would. We have the capability to take this system over in its entirety And make sure that we have no break in service.

As far as some negatives you've heard about investigations that that system's under investigation, I can tell you that is true to an extent. But the Attorney General concluded their investigation last November and no findings were ever issued. Both AMR and the county have both appealed and said that those outrageous charges that were leveled by the LEMPSA there were not accurate or the EMPSA of the state agency. I'm gonna have to ask you to wrap up. So at that point what I would tell you is, is that we do differ on what the revenue is but we've been right in Contra Costa County. We generated between us and AMR. We paid them about three to four million a year. We cleared about ten. We know there's more revenue here. There was missing co-pays.

We never saw really what the information was on interfacility And we say at the end of the day, the only thing to fear is fear itself. Put it out to bid that will get you innovation and get you the best business for the best cost especially on a several hundred million dollar contract. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:25:09 · ≈ 2:25 PM

Before we hear from the last speaker we're closing public comment after this speaker there'll be no more. Go ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:25:16 · ≈ 2:25 PM

Chair Lavinino members of the board we did receive a late request to speak Dr. Anthony Catalano

5:25 – 5:304 turns

CommentAnthony CatalanoProposedself-stated5:25:29 · ≈ 2:25 PM

Thanks for letting me speak. My name is Anthony Catalano, I'm a board-certified emergency physician here in Santa Barbara. I work at Cottage Hospital. I work at Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital. In fact, I am working later tonight. Please don't come visit me at work! But I'm also a member of this community. I am a father and a husband. I'm the medical director for AMR here in Santa Barbara and I also work with the Sheriff's Department. I am the medical director and associate team member for the Search & Rescue Team.

I serve on various medical communities here in the county where I help draft policy and protocol that our pre-hospital care providers use. And I urge you to renegotiate with some proven providers here today. Let me tell you why. Santa Barbara is a really remarkable place, and we have a great EMS team that works really well together. That's not just my perception, you guys have seen the data. We've been talking about it all day.

Any county in the country would be proud and envious of the numbers that we have for patient care year after year after year. I'm sure you've also reviewed the Fitch Report and spoken with the stakeholders here, both our pre-hospital care providers with physicians like myself and members of the community that utilize our system. As a physician I have the ethical responsibility to do what's best for my patients.

I believe there's more to gain by renegotiating with proven providers than risking poor patient care with new structures and new agencies. We have a system that works because our providers work well together. Take the example of our cardiac arrest management system. We don't teach our providers to use the generic AHA algorithm for cardiac arrest. We have an innovative system that we use, we teach.

that is a modified cardiac arrest management system we've been teaching our providers to use and they've been training diligently for years. That's our EMTs and our paramedics training together in these critical scenarios to help go out there and save lives I believe the current contract can be renegotiated to better serve the county while letting us keep incredible results that are fantastic team members currently generate Unfortunately, an open bid scenario can favor unrealistically low bids. An agency that wins a bid by going too low faces insolvency and as we've seen through multiple agencies in the state in the last few years they've needed to go back to the county ask for millions of dollars of bailout in order to keep funding their services You have to realize that bringing in a new agency isn't just plug and play.

These individuals aren't interchangeable pieces when you call 911, you want more than just another driver for Uber ambulance right? It takes a lot of time it takes investment and takes experience to have providers that perform at the level high caliber level that we have here today. At the end of the day I'm obligated to advocate what's best for the patients here in Santa Barbara County. Objectively the data speaks for itself I believe everyone in this room wants what's best for their families, in terms of their health care.

So I just urge you to follow the data, follow the evidence, follow history. Trust that. Let's renegotiate with our current providers. If you want to trust in promises and trust and hope that there might be a better future, I'm sure that any other agency in the country is going to come in here and tell you how green the grass is on their side. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:28:39 · ≈ 2:28 PM

And that was our final speaker.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:28:41 · ≈ 2:28 PM

Is there anything that you heard in public comment or anything else you would like to provide at this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:28:46 · ≈ 2:28 PM

time? If I could, I would like to read at least a portion of the letter. I have a letter from 11 emergency medical services physicians, three who are emergency department medical directors, Dr. Wilson Malone from Cottage and Goleta and Dr. Weber from Marion. Three from EMS providers, Dr. Shepard, Dr. Prostowski and Dr. Catalano from both FHIR and EMS. A base hospital medical director, Dr Gerhart. Two STEMI program directors, one from Marion, Dr Bott, and the one from Cottage, Dr Aragon, and the trauma program medical director from Cottage.

And the letter reads, pre-hospital medical services are an essential component of healthcare delivery. The EMS system in Santa Barbara County has continuously distinguished itself as one of the highest functioning in the country. Santa Barbara County is one of the highest rates of survival after cardiac arrest and the ST segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction, STEMI Specialty System has received numerous performance awards from the American Heart Association. Our current providers at all levels of the EMS system consistently demonstrated their commitment to residents across the county and have responded valiantly to numerous local disasters. Countless hours have been invested in training education on topics unique to our county The benefits of long-term partnership with our ambulance providers are demonstrated by the outcomes of our patients and performance metrics of our specialty systems.

A protracted RFP will be costly and may stall training cycles, quality improvement activities in system development. An RFP is not necessary to achieve our primary objective, high quality consistent equitable appropriate and timely medical care. As physicians we are ethically bound to advocate for the best interest of our patients and we know that quality pre-hospital care improves their outcomes.

Santa Barbara County is known for being a progressive system. This is our opportunity to utilize that ingenuity to our advantage, our professional opinion is that a concerted attempt at renegotiation is the prudent initial approach. We thank you for your leadership and remain dedicated to the health and welfare of Santa Barbara County.

5:30 – 5:3821 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:30:58 · ≈ 2:30 PM

Thank you okay let's open it up any questions or comments from the board or well let's move right into deliberation.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:31:07 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Supervisor Williams? I did have one question which is just if the system has been set up like this since 1980, has there been a previous case of going out for RFP or competitive bid?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:31:21 · ≈ 2:31 PM

No, the state statute allows us to continue the contract well with modifications with this existing provider as long as it's within the same scope and manner. As long as we continue that, we are grandfathered in and do not need to have it go out to bid. And it has not gone out to bid since 1980 or at all.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:31:46 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Meaning even back in 1980, it was not out for bid. It was a negotiated contract?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:31:52 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Correct. And Doss,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:31:55 · ≈ 2:31 PM

I'm sorry. Let's do questions first which that was but let's go through and see if we got questions and then we'll go. Anybody else have any questions? Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:32:04 · ≈ 2:32 PM

When does the current contract expire?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:32:09 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Current contract expires December 31st of this year.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:32:12 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:32:12 · ≈ 2:32 PM

you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:32:15 · ≈ 2:32 PM

I had a couple of questions. So part of the 23 different initiatives, some of them had to do with mental health patients and at risk and handling them a little bit differently than we do now. Are there legal requirements of what level of service are required to provide? Or I saw that it really didn't flesh it out too much of what the change was going to be It just said, here's some new initiatives that we want to discuss. But I wasn't really sure what that really meant in real life.

You know what I'm talking about? I can go to the presentation. You know what I mean. All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:32:58 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Can I help?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:33:00 · ≈ 2:33 PM

Yeah, you can help.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:33:01 · ≈ 2:33 PM

Well, if we get back to this may versus shall question which we've dealt with in mental health many times and Kind of that whole part of the presentation Concerned me that we might be just having a laundry list of Of things that are gonna make it cost a lot more and and they're nice to have maybe but you know Are those are those things required of us or to provide? Or are they optional

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:33:36 · ≈ 2:33 PM

I guess let's talk about your frequent flyers you were talking about. How do we handle them now and what was, what's the initiative looking how to handle?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:33:45 · ≈ 2:33 PM

So Chair Labadino, to answer your question, the frequent fliers as you described find them are high frequency users of the 911 system or handled as every other patient who calls 911 is handled. They get a full response whether it's through EMD or they had a priority dispatch or through other agencies. They get the response that is listed there. Supervisor Adam, through the chair in response to your question, our understanding is we are meeting the legal requirements of the system as it stands today. These 23 initiatives are opportunities for us to enhance the system but they're not necessarily, I'll defer to Mr. Gazzone and his team required for us to pursue.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:34:22 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Okay so the way I understood it reading the report that was almost like a It's not an increase of service, but almost a re-prioritizing of pickups and those types of things. So it would be almost a lower level of service. And I was just wondering what our requirement are to make sure that we're not getting ourselves in a position where in order to save money or whatever, we put ourselves in more jeopardy liability?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:34:51 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Mr. Chair, if I could respond the I think when you're talking about lower level of service what you're talking about is matching the need to the service and for example many and you talk about homeless in what's just been termed frequent flyer many of these patients choose to sleep outside and today with cell phones somebody calls because Disturbed of someone sleeping outside rightfully so.

The only option our paramedics have now is if that patient is too intoxicated to take them to the emergency department, we would like to develop and this is just one example a better more comprehensive service for them rather than having them sober up in the emergency department and then repeat the cycle. And this is going to involve more than EMS, but from the EMS component it's an alternative destination to a less satisfying experience and less comprehensive experience that they get in the emergency department.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:36:00 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Okay. Supervisor Hart? Maybe- Oh Mr. Ghazzani. Let's get him first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:36:05 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Chair and supervisors, this is an area where probably bifurcating what Potential changes would need to be accomplished through the ambulance agreement And what could be what would be accomplished outside the ambulance agreement would be helpful because when we'd looked at the 23 proposals That we really put it through the filter of is this altering the manner and scope in quotes? Which which are the words of the statute of the current plan, which is implemented through the agreement And on 19 of them. We concluded they were not I mean they could be affected Without touching the agreement that would be affected You know whether it's through the mental health plan or some other areas but not touching the ambulance contract itself And then four of these again would not require an RFP so long as they deal with interfacility transport, which is something that as long as the same provider is doing it then The term grandfather is being used, but it would be the same manner and scope that's being provided.

So on Supervisor Adams' question on the may versus must you'll see that many of these involve essentially 5150 services of one kind or another. And Santa Barbara County takes one approach to 5150 which is at least different than other counties. where more people can write a 5150 detention. And this would be part of that, how we implement the mental health plan in the county but it need not be part of the actual ambulance agreement and I realize that may further complicate this but I think as you look for potential initiatives to back, the price of them might not affect the ambulance agreement but it might affect some other portion of the county, for example, the mental health plan.

Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:37:53 · ≈ 2:37 PM

So given the fact that the current contract is gonna expire at the end of the year, I imagine that you have already sort of begun contract renegotiation efforts and you're down that path and you're gonna make a deadline to renegotiate the contract but it probably is not going to contain the large bulk of the things that are in the Fitch report because there's not a lot of time between now and then to do that. You would have imagined and pause me there if that's not a correct assumption?

5:38 – 5:4411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:38:23 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Chair Hart or Supervisor Hart through the chair, that is correct. In May we were provided direction from the board to pursue a renegotiated agreement for short-term period of time to cover the next phase of our annual decision today so there is we are currently in a process of renegotiating that short term extension there was never the intent to add any initiatives in those as it was deemed as a short term extension

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:38:44 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Okay and that contract then would be for a year or two, or what was your path that you were going down?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:38:50 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Our direction from the board was 18 months. With an expiration of December 31st it would have put us to June 30th of 2021. However given our recent review of other LEMSA's and from county council we may look to make that a little longer to ensure if we were to go to RFP that would encompass that process. Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:39:09 · ≈ 2:39 PM

thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:39:11 · ≈ 2:39 PM

So I had a question from the gentleman that talked about Contra Costa, if you're familiar with that. The question I had was, and I'm sorry if you could state your name again so I can remember. Kurt Henke. Okay, Kurt, thank you. What happened to the existing employees that were originally in Contra

CommentKurt HenkeProposedself-stated5:39:26 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Costa? In almost every RFP in the United States including Contra Costa All the existing, the incumbent was selected as a subcontractor so they all kept their jobs. And in almost every RFP in the country you put language in your RFP that ensures that they get preferential hiring. So if you end up with a new contractor your most valuable resource is your existing workforce. They go to work for the new contractor. That's the industry standard across the United States.

Okay thank you very much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:40:00 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Alright I'll open it up to anybody If there aren't any other questions, we'll open it up to deliberation. Supervisor Adam, if you want to lease your chair? Could

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:40:11 · ≈ 2:40 PM

I discuss the timeline again?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:40:12 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Yeah let's talk about timeline.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:40:13 · ≈ 2:40 PM

So there was a question just about the contract potential contract extension length with AMR and that's addressed in the board agenda letter I would think that if the board is going to pursue requests for proposals, that was probably on the long end of two and a half years to three years for both the process and the implementation on that. And I would just flag that the RFP process previously benefited or was hampered by regulations from the state that might be titled how to do an RFP process.

The actual title on those was the competitive process for creating exclusive operating areas so that was at one point like it or hate it, the rules of the road and then following some administrative litigation The state in April of this year rescinded those regulations and said they would not enforce those regulations though at one point Those were the rules of the road and although not liked by many entities. Those were the rules So part of the process for the RFP, and we've talked about that before We'll be coming up with the procurement integrity approach that the board which sits as both the Board of Supervisors That is That supervises the public health department, which is the local EMS agency and is also the board of directors for the fire department.

You know we could work through that but whatever rules existed before at the state level are not operative right now so they might inform their process but that would be part of what we were doing during that you know two-and-a-half to three year period was working up a process at the front end that you could be confident about at the back end and not enjoy what Contra Costa County did when they got all done with it, which was to have the state essentially decertify their RFP process.

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:42:13 · ≈ 2:42 PM

Well I would hope that you could keep us out of that morass because at least somebody is, you like to say ran through the minefield so you get to follow through the trail. At least as far as they got. But I don't see, for me, I don't see how in the heck you go over 40 years without having a bid. That is really tough for me to explain to my constituents that whatever they're gonna pay is whatever they're gonna pay and the way that it is just good enough and Irresponsible of me as an elected official, I think to not allow a bid.

And I think that as we do that, one of the things that I think has always and I don't know if Chief Hartwig has any heartburn over this but something that I've heard from every other chief that we've had is that we ended up with some of the lower profitability ends of the spectrum to run our own ambulances on such as Mission Hills in Lompoc area and Quiama. And I think that one of the things is it's all or nothing this time.

So Chief Hartwig knows what it costs to run those and AMR should, and I think that if it's an all-or-nothing thing they're gonna have to take the good with the bad and provide adequate service for everybody, reasonable and adequate service for everybody And not just leave the fire district with the lost centers, low profit centers. But I think that one of the things, we gotta look at those, the list of goals and make sure that they're not too ambitious.

And I think that's one of the things that I've also heard is some of these other RFPs have kind of grown into something that's not affordable in any way. And so we really have to control what we're asking for in the RFP And and Make sure that we're not trying to get something. That's just too expensive for anybody

5:44 – 5:534 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:44:57 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Supervisor Williams and supervisor Hartman

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:45:00 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Well, I agree with With supervisor Adam that I just from a perspective of good government perspective, I think it is It's strange that we would have two generations go by without a competitive bid or an RFP. 1980 is a very distant memory for me. I don't know about the rest of you, but it's a very distant memory for me. But I want to highlight and acknowledge that we do have a good system for patient outcomes.

We have a great team of AMR paramedics and EMTs Emergency room physicians are EMS staff the fire service. And I hope that this day does not blot this relationship that we should speak and try to not you know overspeak sometimes our passion can get the best of us. We do not have a mediocre service currently and I want to particularly acknowledge Dr. Salvucci and the ER physicians who in nine years, I've never disagreed with them on a public policy matter but today this is a little heartbreaking for me that I do because I feel like we have a good system for patient outcomes and I want to preserve that but I don't think we have a good system for participation And I mean the participation of all peoples as evidenced by the number of people who don't pay.

And as evidenced by the number of people in the community that would rather do anything else than call an ambulance. The way I grew up, calling an ambulance is tantamount to bankrupting your family and you just wouldn't do it. Just never. I grew up a little rougher than the average teenager and it's not like I didn't need the ER. In fact, I think one of our current ER physicians is the one who saw me but I would have never called an ambulance.

You walk there you drive there you take a bus And I don't think we have a good system for cost or for rational allocation of services. I think some of that rational allocation could be solved through what we're doing in dispatch, but I think inherently you have a strange system where everybody pays twice for the service. They pay once through their taxes You know for a fire EMT for a fire paramedic or EMT to come out and then secondly for the private.

And through their insurance or through through user pay. And so I just refuse to believe that somebody can't come up with a better system and And since we only get a chance to do this every 15 years, I don't want to wait another 15 years for a better system. I think some of the things I would call out as a priority for me but I wouldn't say a requirement because each one of the elements of a system would have cost implications on the others.

But this is not in any particular order, but I just want to throw them out there. I've thrown them out there in every meeting that I've had to try to make sure that this is really transparent. But triage nurse at dispatch calls so some resources don't need to be sent or at least that some people get good advice while they're being sent A lower cost, lower level of incident option.

Particularly I don't know if it's possible to make this generally available but particularly since what a large proportion of our transport calls are facility-to-facility transports after somebody is already stabilized and not does not have their life threatened. I don't know why we need a paramedic and an ambulance for each one of those incidences, and or for our mental health clients.

And you know if some of my things are Things that would reduce cost and you go, well then how do we pay for the system as a whole? I'd just point out what a large proportion of the system we lose money on. That AMR loses money on, right? The large proportion of self-pays that never get paid and the large proportion of MediCal and Medicare clients. So if we can create lower cost options that serve that huge three fourths of the pie, then you can actually have more money in the system and use that excess revenue. And this is something that I really think we need to look to is use that excess revenue to create improvements in the system, increased response time, better health outcomes Just because we're now getting to Ventura County's levels on cardiac arrests, and maybe once or twice exceeded them doesn't mean we can't keep on going.

Right? And take care of some really basic things that we probably should have done a long time ago like have a detox center where we're sending people instead of to jail or to the ER. So I just I know the system is good. And I trust the brainpower of our fire service, of our EMS staff and also of AMR to come up with ideas to make that system better and may the best proposal prevail.

I would be looking out for that would be a red flag in a proposal, which would be something that would be a difference in current staffing. Over time you could reshape staffing but I believe that everybody in both proposals that currently has a job should be offered a job is my belief. And may the best proposal win. Supervisor Hart,

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:52:46 · ≈ 2:52 PM

amen.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:52:48 · ≈ 2:52 PM

I just wanted to go back first. Mr. Gazzone what did you say about not having state guidelines for evaluating RFPs? What I'm getting at is does this affect the period of time over which we want a short-term contract renegotiated?

5:53 – 5:594 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:53:10 · ≈ 2:53 PM

Chair and Supervisors, the state previously had through the Emergency Medical Services Authority guidelines a competitive process for creating exclusive operating areas. And that was in the middle of litigation by other jurisdictions removed by the Emergency Medical Services Authority, the state agency in April of this year so we don't have any regulations on this right now some of the ideas in those guidelines are still useful But they're not really a safe harbor for setting this up. And they also don't have some of the provisions that other agencies, other jurisdictions objected to as being too restricted. So we would be informed by them but they don't form a safe harbor right now.

We did already meet with Other counties who have, as Supervisor Adams said, run through the minefield. We met with their county councils several months ago when this first came up to ask them what would you do the same? What would you do differently? And I think some of the concerns that I have about the procurement integrity will be addressed by doing virtually all of the work on this at noticed public meetings and that's what benefited one county in their litigation of the item. So I think we have some thoughts already. We would just spend some time at the front end, so that two or three years from now you had confidence in the result that you picked.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:54:32 · ≈ 2:54 PM

So you are suggesting, however, that instead of 18 months we might want two years or would we want even longer? I mean what impact do the state regulations have on the validity of what we negotiate.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:54:45 · ≈ 2:54 PM

I think that ultimately one of the things that you go through in the RFP process is the state actually approving your plan, your RFP proposal plan going forward so there's some Short delay on that, you know weeks not years On that. I don't think the absence of the regulations would be a huge game changer on that But with the RFP process we'd first get the state to approve Slant certify the county's approach to this which has been Bumpy in the past not by our County but by other counties who have involved a fire district on it And that was part of why other jurisdictions litigated this item and had those regulations removed by the state EMS agency. But I think that, as I said before, I think of this as a two-and-a-half or three year process from today, if you direct moving forward on the RFP path till a time that if you wanted to preserve the option for a new provider to have startup time and transition ready to hit the ground rolling probably at the heavy end of 30 months more like three years.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:56:00 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Yeah okay then that was the point I wanted to make it's not 18 months it's not two years it's probably three years given this That gives me some assurance. This has been one of the most complex, difficult issues that I have ever been through in my term at the county and I've really tried to study and understand and I understand that we do have an excellent system no question but I believe The American medical system in general is kind of a Cadillac system when we could save money and be much more efficient to a larger set of people if we match the resources better to what the needs were. And that was one of the driving factors for me in the earlier decision about dispatches, how to do that. And I find it hard. I mean, we've got a phase two and three of a stakeholder process that identify 23 goals and somehow all of these can be dealt with pretty much within the existing scope and manner.

Then I'm not sure we have all the kinds of innovations that I would like to see. I would like to see costs reduced, I'd like to see money reinvested into this system and I would like to see more innovations and I think the lift assists, the community paramedics better mental health those are all things that I want to see that kind of thing how we better can Not take everybody to the emergency room at the hospital with both a fire response and an ambulance response. To me, that is just not efficient.

And again as Supervisor Williams suggested it may keep some people who need it away from the service just because it is so costly and so overwhelming. So I, what worries me about the RFP process is that it is a very formal process where you kind of have to anticipate ahead of time everything you want and it's hard to have the interaction in the discussion. So that's the caveat, that's the concern I have because I think ideas come up and I'm delighted with the Fitch report that we have but I suspect there are other ideas out there This is a very fast moving field of medicine and emergency response and how we can best track data, use data, make adjustments as we get that data in.

But again I would like my colleagues favor an RFP process but I'm also concerned about Supervisor Hart.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:59 – 6:0911 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:59:14 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Yeah, I think my colleagues have described this really well. This is very complicated. It's a dynamic profession in the sense of the regulatory changes that are being contemplated at the state and federal government level. Here we are in the middle of all that. We've got a very high quality system. We've got really talented people who've dug very deep into this. We're got fire service professionals who are committed to delivering the best possible service to the community. In fact everybody in this room shares that commitment. I don't think it's even in question So what do we as policy makers do with that? Our staff has done a really good job, I think of grinding through this and is recommending the incremental renegotiation process. And yet I'm torn by the fundamental question that Supervisor Adams asked which is when do you put things out to bid?

At what point in time? When does that market mechanism assert itself in this kind of conversation? And after 40 years, that's pretty powerful compelling point. Supervisor Williams is looking for innovation and really trying to take our great system to another level and work collaboratively with all the elements involved in this. I don't think we have to throw that away to achieve that. And Supervisor Hartman spoke to that too just looking At the complexity, at the national level and debate that's going on about how do we provide healthcare to the most number of people at the least cost. And at same time innovate and move care to a next level. This is our own local version of that dialogue and it's gonna be difficult and it's gonna be fraught and it' s gonna be complex and I really appreciate How do we get to a place where we can do An RFP that works that provides better care and better outcomes, you know at less cost and More care for more people.

That's our challenge There clearly is a board majority here to go down the RFP process And so I think it's all of our challenge collectively to make that work the best possible way for everybody

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:01:40 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Supervisor Adam well, I want to address your question of how you You don't have to think of everything. The RFP process is a request for proposals, and so we're getting all these brains besides our own. We don't have to just come up with it from within the house. There will be other people come in and in theory hopefully you'll have other companies coming in and trying to address The needs that have been identified by our LEMP, what is this called? LEMFA. LEMSA. And so they've identified a bunch of needs and then people can come in and tell us their ideas in the form of a proposal with a price tag attached.

That's how you get to the innovation. That's how you get to the improvement. But we can't think of everything ourselves, we're not professionals, we're not experts in this, you guys are but even you don't have all of the ideas So, you know that's let's get some other people involved in this and that's what I would like to see is some more creativity applied and some more imaginations that we haven't tapped into. And I think that that's what's out there for us in an RFP. And, I think what we have to do is come up with all the concerns that we need addressed Proposal that comes in and and then let people who know how to do that stuff Think about how to provide it and and what it will cost to reasonably provide it. CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:03:45 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Supervisor, through the chair just to remind the board so in the board letter the staff did put out what it would take for the RFP process and to get to your point a typical process that LEMSA would hire a consultant to help us with that RFP process so that would be something we'd come back to the board With a contract for consultant who would help us. I think the foundation that would be some of the needs that were pointed out through this community process that we just went through.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:04:13 · ≈ 3:04 PM

OK. So. I guess for me it's like, first off, I'm grateful that we aren't making this decision because we have a failing system. That would be the worst case scenario. So we're sitting here with a system that by all accounts works and some have said is the envy of other counties but for me it comes back to that basic question you know, at what point do you see what else is available or what other ideas are out there?

And I just want people to understand too that just because I'm voting to go out for an RFP in no way means that, you know, I wanna change providers at this point. So I'm still really trying to wrap my head around if labor is 70% of the current system and our firefighters generally make more than the average worker out there, how that's all going to pencil out. But that's what I want to see in the proposal.

So you know I'm really into the idea of the triple aim of enhancing experience improving health and reducing costs and I think that's the level it needs to be in. I'm not looking for I think somebody came up and said they were worried that we would just look at some low bid and get all excited. That's not what I'm looking for, I'm looking for the best overall system of care that obviously we're looking for something that's outside the box that is gonna improve the health and experience. At the same time keeping cost as a factor but for me that's not the driving bottom line.

Today is a tough day because usually we come in here and we do have a side that we ideologically line up with, whether it's development or environmentalism or something. Usually have a white hat and a black hat kind of thing. And today it's hard because it's people that are out in the community on both sides that are doing great work. I mean, it's hard for Policymakers that aren't experts in this field to make a decision, especially when staff that are the experts in the field are saying that probably go the other way.

So that makes it difficult. I also really wanted to think, I don't remember your name doctor, ER doctor. A lot of times people say we should have these meetings at different times or different things because people are busy. I know you have other things you would like to be doing right now, or should be doing right now and for you to come down, I do appreciate that.

But I think a system that hasn't been out for an RFP since 1980 when you're looking for a complete system redesigned with 23 different initiatives that we're talking about, I think is ripe. I like Comcast, but I switched over to DISH. That doesn't mean Comcast was doing anything bad if you looked at all their deliverables. It's just something different. So I'm interested in seeing where this is going. I know this is gonna be a long drawn out process and I don't want to leave this meeting without thanking AMR for the service that they are providing Because they're doing an outstanding job.

And so I don't want that to go, be lost. I don't think anybody up here is saying that the system is falling short. It's just there's different mindsets since 1980. So with that, I will accept a motion. Oh, COU.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:08:17 · ≈ 3:08 PM

I think our public health director had a comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:08:19 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Dr. Hueso? So it sounds like we're following down the RFP path If that is so. That's the way

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:08:25 · ≈ 3:08 PM

to read the tea leaves

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:08:26 · ≈ 3:08 PM

there, Dr. Ranoso. I'm getting good at it.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:08:28 · ≈ 3:08 PM

I don't know where you got that from but all

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:08:30 · ≈ 3:08 PM

right. If I may suggest for your consideration if we can get permission to extend AMRs contract to 36 months, that will give us room to go through the RFP process and have whoever on the other end enough time for stand up.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:08:54 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Yeah I think that's, I don't know how we go about doing that right here. Let's look at Mr. Gazzone to see what kind of board direction that we need to give to allow enough time to

6:09 – 6:1211 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed6:09:13 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Chair and Supervisor, the board is pretty broadly noticed to discuss beginning a competitive process. And part of that would include ensuring that the current provider is with us throughout that process. And you previously discussed with public health direction to go pursue a contract for a shorter period of time, but that could be included in your motion. We can extend that. To pursue a contract for the 36 months and one of the benefits, of course AMR benefits from that to some extent by also having no question that they retain the exclusive operating area throughout that period so we don't lapse that area where they need to be selected at the back

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:09:49 · ≈ 3:09 PM

end. Okay, Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:09:53 · ≈ 3:09 PM

So make a motion to take staff recommendations A, B and C and extend the current contract with AMR for 36 months.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:10:11 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:10:12 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Do we want to spell out what that is for people who are listening? Yeah, I'm not sure how many people have our agenda with them. So if you want to just flush it out.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:10:23 · ≈ 3:10 PM

A is receive and file the report on EMS system assessment phase two and phase three. And B is direct public health department acting as the LEMSA to begin the competitive process to select a contractor to provide emergency ambulance services for Santa Barbara County and to redefine exclusive operating areas as may be necessary and see, determine it's not a project under CEQA. And extend the contract for 36 months. Mr. Desani?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed6:11:01 · ≈ 3:11 PM

And Chair and Supervisor Adam I understand that the final part would be direct public health to pursue extending the contract for an additional 36 months and return to the board for final action on that. Correct.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:11:15 · ≈ 3:11 PM

I did have a suggestion to add that we would see the language of the RFP and that in preparation of the language of the RFP, that care be taken not to exclude participation from a public agency or from an entity that would have some kind of mix of services like Like a public private entity with subcontracting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed6:11:51 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Chair and Supervisors, I think that within the current motion made by Supervisor Adams, I would understand that we working with CEO's office would come back with some proposals for guidelines on the RFP process so everyone would know the rules of the road going into it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:12:07 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Yeah, I think that you know my intent at least was to make it as broad as possible so that nobody gets excluded Under any circumstances and then the other thing that we would look like some I would like some guidance on is the maze versus shell Questions

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:12:27 · ≈ 3:12 PM

okay, so we have a motion second by supervisor Hartman All those in favor aye Anybody opposed? Passes unanimously. So since we have everybody here and there's going to be some motion about, we'll take 10 minutes before we set up for our last item.

6:14 – 6:231 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed6:14:18 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Music Music you Music you Music playing.

6:26 – 6:3716 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:26:38 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Okay, I'd like to call to order reconvene this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. We're

moving to item D4. Madam Clerk can you please read it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:26:49 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board departmental item number four is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the knee tennis court appeal case number 19 APL 25 and this is in the first district. And Chair Lavagnino, members of the board I'd also like to note we received four documents after noon on Friday September 27th in association with departmental item number 4 on today's agenda that will need to be accepted and voted into the record to be considered and I will list those now. The first one was received on Friday September 27 at 1253 for and this is a letter from from multiple neighbors to the subject property. The second was a PowerPoint submitted by the applicant on Monday, September 30th at 930 AM.

The third document is another PowerPoint submitted by the appellant on Monday, September 30th at 231. And last, our fourth document was submitted this afternoon by the applicant today October 1st at 2.20 and it is a county permitting document.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:27:56 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Okay can I get a motion to receive those documents and make them part of the record?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:27:59 · ≈ 3:27 PM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:28:01 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed okay great we'll move forward but this time I'd like to call is it I want to get the pronunciation right because my last name's difficult to pronounce is it knee or nigh Knee, okay. So it's the knee tennis court appeal. I'd like to call for ex parte communication. Supervisor Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:28:22 · ≈ 3:28 PM

I met with Francis Romero, agent for the knee family on 99 in Santa Maria and received an email from Mr. Wang in the record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:28:33 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Supervisor Hart. And I met with Francis Romero on August 29th and we talked about the changes to the original application and the new proposal, and then on September 24th my chief of staff Chris Henson met with the appellants Mr. and Mrs. Wang and talked about their concerns about that project.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:28:50 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Supervisor Hart.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:28:52 · ≈ 3:28 PM

I also met with Francis Romero on September 4th and my Chief of Staff Jefferson Litton took a call with Mr. Wang last week

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:29:03 · ≈ 3:29 PM

Supervisor Williams.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:29:08 · ≈ 3:29 PM

I met with Francis Romero, agent for Mr. Neate yesterday and on a previous occasion and I met with Poe Wang and several neighbors on Wednesday September 18th.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:29:25 · ≈ 3:29 PM

Okay, I met with Francis Romero agent for Mr. Nee on September 20th and met with, had a phone call with Mr. Poe Wang. I think it was either Friday or Monday but discussed both sides of the issue. All right so the way we're going to handle this, we have a script today. We'll have a staff presentation then we'll have the appellant Poe Wang have a 10 minute presentation followed by 10 minutes from the applicant Did I say that right, appellant? Did I say that right? Okay. And then we'll have public comment. We'll then have a rebuttal where each side will have five minutes. We'll then go staff comments, come back to board deliberation. So let's start it off with the staff presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed6:30:16 · ≈ 3:30 PM

Mr. Chair and members of the board, we have Kiera Rustig and Joe Dargle here today to present the appeal. Please go ahead.

CommentKia RistigProposedself-stated6:30:30 · ≈ 3:30 PM

Good afternoon, Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors. My name is Kia Ristig and I'll be presenting this appeal 19 APL 25 of the Planning Commission's de novo approval of the Knee Tennis Court Project 18 CDP 62. The project in question is located at 1221 Lomita Lane, north of the Highway 101 in the Carpentaria area. Surrounding development consists of single-family dwellings and agriculture.

Here's a more detailed aerial view of the parcel showing the existing single family dwelling and neighboring parcels. This map shows the zoning of the surrounding area including the existing EDRN, surrounding agricultural zone land and in pink is the incorporated city of Carpinteria. Here's the overall site plan for the project. The project has proposed a change in previously approved grading to elevate the tennis court and accessory structures by approximately two-and-a-half feet.

In addition, the associated six-foot retaining wall at the southern end of the tennis court and the ten foot fencing surrounding the tennis court are proposed to remain. There was an addition of a smaller 115 foot long retaining planter wall ranging in height from one to four feet between the tennis court retaining wall and the southern property line. The six foot southern retaining wall was extended 50 feet to the east of the tennis court.

Additional changes to the project include a change of the shallow retention basins from the east of the tennis court to the west of the tennis court near the rear property line. There was an expansion of the paved driveway approved in the previous CDP that was not appealed. The proposed changes now consist of expanding to create a flat graded area outside of the driveway, so that additional grading to increase the flat area is part of this new proposal. So total grading calculations for the project including work done on the previous CDP include 1,050 cubic yards of cut and fill And approximately 500 cubic yards of import.

For some background on the project, the application for 18 CDP 62 to allow unpermitted changes to the previous project, 18 CDP 9 was submitted in October. The director approved 18 CDP 62 on April 22nd 2019 and a timely appeal was filed on May 2nd 2019 The Planning Commission denied the appeal on June 26, 2019. And a timely appeal was filed on July 8th, 2019.

Appeal issue number one. The appellant states that the property owner has shown a continued pattern of unauthorized construction. Most recently, the import of excess fill which was not consistent with the approved permit and that the change in topography raises concerns of soil erosion retention runoff and drainage. Staff's response, the site was inspected by the county grading inspector in October and a stop work order was issued. To rectify this, the owner applied for a permit to allow for as-built work on the site.

Approval of 18 CDP 62 would bring the as-built project into compliance. The plans designed are designed by a licensed engineer to be reviewed by the county grading inspector during the plan check process and inspections in the field. Appeal issue number two. Water and dirt washed off into adjacent properties during winter 2019 as a result of the unapproved changes, and the lack of a soil retention and drainage plan.

Also, the change in location of the retention basins will increase the likelihood of excessive runoff. In October 2018, the County Grading Inspector issued a stop work order. The applicant installed erosion control measures in coordination with the County Grading Inspector Upon completion of all project components, it will retain the runoff created by the new impervious surfaces per the stormwater management and erosion control plan designed by a licensed engineer.

Appeal issue three. The height increase of the tennis court and surrounding fence are not consistent with the neighborhood character, and the grading adjacent to the driveway was not included in the original CDP. Staff's response. The tennis court and associated southern retaining wall have been elevated two-and-a-half feet. The tennis court and retaining wall remain outside the setbacks.

The planting on the southern planter wall will soften the view from the southern property It's a minimal change from the previous project, which was not appealed. And so project analysis. The tennis court accessory structures and the proposed changes to the project are consistent with the residential character of the area and are accessory and customarily incidental to the current use as a single family dwelling.

The project meets all applicable Article 2 coastal zoning ordinance and the comprehensive plan requirements. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA sections 15303, which applies to new construction or conversion of small structures including accessory structures such as a tennis court and retaining walls. And section 15304, which applies to alterations in the condition of land which do not involve the removal of healthy mature scenic trees.

Staff's recommended actions that your board deny the appeal, case number 19-APL25. Make the required findings for approval of the project specified in attachment one of this board letter including California Environmental Quality Act CEQA findings and determine the project is exempt from CEQAs pursuant to CEQAS guidelines sections 15303 and 15304 included as attachment three.

So this concludes my presentation and staff is available to answer any

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:37:04 · ≈ 3:37 PM

questions. Any questions of staff at this point? Okay, we'll go to our appellate Po Wang will have 10 minutes for your presentation.

6:37 – 6:434 turns

CommentLisa MathesonProposed · by introduction6:37:23 · ≈ 3:37 PM

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Thank you for staying late for this. I appreciate it. I had a presentation. Great. Thank you. We'll go to the next slide. As Sarah mentioned we weren't originally interested. Oh great thank you. We were originally interested in appealing the original permit because we still feel like, you know It's really his property. You can do what he wants to do with it even raising a tennis court six feet high I think in Montecito that would never get approved by By their group but for us it was fine right? You can go ahead and And then do it if you would like it's your property He also met with Michelle Caswell who lives above her, right? And she can speak a little bit more about how that conversation went and what detour it took from there.

What got us the neighbors involved is really the blatant disregard for the permitting process or concern for our neighbor's neighborhood characteristic. He felt if caught he could simply apply a retro permit like he did in 2012 Okay, so our appeal is very simple. We're not here to really challenge the original permit or the planner's decision. They're professionals right? They have a very hard job to do and we understand that but what we are here to do is really challenge this systemic retroactive permitting process that he does In addition to challenging major changes from the original permit as illustrated earlier.

For other people, two feet is not a lot but moving from six to eight feet and to 8 1⁄2 feet in certain areas that's quite a bit. Moving this fence from 10 feet to 12 feet is quite a bit okay? And the voice of the neighborhood opposition is really to the excessive change of the character from the rural community that we live in now

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:39:19 · ≈ 3:39 PM

okay?

CommentLisa MathesonProposed · by introduction6:39:21 · ≈ 3:39 PM

And as pointed out, here are some major changes that were discussed with Ms. Sierra and their staff in terms of raising the cat and fill about how much cubic yards as was discussed with the commissioners in our previous hearing, right? Raising the tennis court as well as the chain link fence for additional two and 2 1⁄2 feet, more hardscape along both property lines, okay? And then the basins were moved from the middle To the side of the neighbor Mr. McIntyre, which he also provided a letter right of his concerns and In addition to those as as mentioned earlier about the extra grading slope for the driveway Okay Not not only did they not engage with the neighbors after the planning Commission nurse have Have suggested that he did Commissioner Cooney commissioner Farini and chair Park said that they were quite disappointed that Engagement did not happen or communication When we started this process, an opportunity was given for a mediation.

He declined. We were fully engaged in wanting to do that, but we got a call. He did not want to do that, right? And so I think from that standpoint, we were really committed to trying to find a solution that would be applicable for the seven neighbors who actually have signed letters and contingent for this project moving forward. Okay? And here's the original landscape that was in that property before we all agreed to build a chain link fence. And here's the new landscape right now, that's about eight feet high. My fence is six feet high and then that's really above and we basically do not see Mr McIntyre's house anymore.

Okay. And that's before I, uh, the 10 foot fence goes in, which is now a 12 foot. Okay. Uh, to keep the tennis balls from coming to our property or the other neighborhoods property. So it is a significant change for this rural area as you can tell we sort of kept the avocado trees. We sort of kept the real look of that community. Okay. And as mentioned earlier, here's the first violation taken exactly from the note from Mr. Tony Barnett who used to work for the For the gradient inspection, right? These are all the items that he got cited for in that particular incident. Okay and following that I took our neighbors actually took pictures of this okay exactly both notices and then what were the corrective activities that he suggests that should happen before it proceeded.

Okay and as you can tell here are the neighbors Who actually took additional pictures and who wrote emails, really voicing their concerns that all of a sudden now there's a neighbor who is actually making changes to the neighborhood without really discussing character as well as changes to the neighborhood. Okay? And here's the unpermitted process in terms of how much work that he did. Again, we didn't take these pictures one of our neighbors did and this is again showing how much work that he did with his original permit before a retro permit was issued.

I would like to conclude the supervisor's vote to approve this appeal represents a significant decision and ideal for all neighborhoods in Santa Barbara County. To put an end to retroactive permitting, and provide confidence to your constituents that approved permits are as is, right? That's basically the process. People pay the money, the neighborhoods understand what's coming up, and that's exactly what's gonna get done.

Let's have a Board of Supervisors work more on important issues affecting our neighborhoods, like the EMS that you cited earlier. The homeless issues Mr. Neeb said $13,000. I'd love to see that $13 thousand go to better use than really trying to work through these issues, okay? Of retroactive permitting processes. Okay? So thank you very much for your time.

Okay. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:43:41 · ≈ 3:43 PM

The applicant now has 10 minutes.

6:43 – 6:531 turns

PresenterFrances Romero I'mNee family todayProposedself-stated6:43:54 · ≈ 3:43 PM

Well, good afternoon. Long day for everyone. Chair Lavagnino, Supervisors, staff members of the public, my name is Frances Romero I'm here to speak on behalf of the Nee family today. I want to thank staff for their thorough staff report and I think it's very accurate based on the facts. Wayne and Ellen Nee are here with us today and they wanted you to hear their voice not just me talking about issues having to do with this appeal Jane Montague is also here. She is the licensed Professional that did the grading plan? She's also the principal and owner of Lewis engineering out of Ventura County You've seen the site and these are one acre lots So I just want to put a little context as far as neighborhood and neighbors that are nearby these are large one-acre Lots we did see the history of Where this project has been as presented by staff, but I think something that you need to bear in mind and I can produce all of them we have emails dated August 6th through August 16th between Jane Montague Lewis and Tony Burnett the grading inspector.

Fully disclosing and showing the changes that the applicant the knees wanted to make to their permit a copy of a revised plan was sent to him and During the middle of all of these emails. There was a pre-construction meeting held on August 13th with that plan present so this is not a situation where Someone's trying to hide the ball or do something nefarious in the middle of the night. The county was provided a copy of the plan that the Nees wanted to do. You ask, why would the Nees want to spend thousands of dollars getting a permit and then change it? The original licensed civil engineer did not meet one requirement that they had for this tennis court. They wanted it to be ADA accessible. They purchased their home in 1999. Both levels are ADA accessible.

Because the Nee family has a history of Alzheimer's and Mr. Nee has seen family members end up in wheelchairs, they love tennis don't ask me why I don't get it but that's their thing and they want to be able to age in place so from day one when they purchased the home they made sure it was ADA accessible And the original tennis court plan had an 18% slope from the house to the tennis court.

Public ADA accessibility slope is 8%. They were trying to meet in the middle and they came up with a 13% slope, which is still pretty hefty by adding two inches of soil to this site. This site is a very interesting site, you know and basically we're talking about there's I think we all agree it's a tennis court, a wider driveway and basins that's the project that hasn't changed.

We were talking about doing this as a cut site. This site varies 31 feet from one corner to the other so you've got a site that 31 feet is a lot of fall And I don't know why the original civil decided to make it a cut project and export soil. That makes no sense at all to me, and I'm not an engineer. So basically the change is the retaining wall that the wings will see on the south of their house is one to four feet high. Then you step back five feet and create a planter. That's where the six foot wall comes in. The chain link fence is never higher than 10 feet anywhere on this tennis court. These are basically the changes if you put the two plans side by side, the one on top is the original plan with basins in the center of the site and we all know water flows downhill.

So this is the exact site plan that was included in your packages and submitted to the county I just asked that color be added so people could actually see what's going on with the topo and the site. Right here, the knees are wanting to widen this narrow driveway area where there's just enough room for two cars, there's nowhere to turn around. They want to pull their eight, it's a 10-12 foot widening per the plans and make a level spot at the bottom of their driveway so that they can safely turn around a vehicle.

The tennis court components 120 by 62 feet. These are based on neighbors and north south the north with the Prather's the south with the wings. And really explaining what's happening. The chain link fence is always set inside of the retaining wall, it's not on top of any of the walls. There may be some sun wind screening for Santa Ana winds on the south and west side. It'll be like a nice light green, it's not going to be black shade cloth.

We have talked about permit history here that's I think there's more focus on the 2012 permitting than there actually is the permitting of this particular project This is clearly a situation where there's bad blood between two neighbors. This isn't the first time there have been problems. This cable was put in place because there was a dispute over whose property was whose property when the knees returned from a vacation, the cable had been cut into dozens of pieces and placed in the center of their lot.

Mr. Ney never had possession of this stock work notice because someone removed it from his pilaster, so despite all of the pictures about the 2012 project which by the way was only 25 to 30 feet of grading Where the problem was is that Mr. Nee didn't understand after he went into building to ask about permitting, he didn't understand that you also need a zoning clearance and that is a common mistake that happens even with people that do this for a living. They go to building, building answers a question, they go on their way, they don't understand that planning is also involved When the Planning Commission voted to uphold the approval, Commissioner Blau did vote in favor of the project. That was incorrectly stated in the materials that Mr.

Wings submitted for the public. A variety of quotes were also submitted that were not in context. And the 2012, and then also with this particular claim there's a claim that there were 20 trips a day of trucks coming back and forth. And I think anybody that knows how long it takes to load a dirt truck, unload a dirt truck, spread the dirt if he was taking in 20 truck loads a day I mean we'd have a whole different problem He had basically five to six trucks a day for six or seven days coming to the site.

And so these type of exaggerations, the 2012 complaint stated that there were 600 cubic yards of grading and there were only 20 or 30 and we actually have a receipt for that. I did review Mr. Nee's permit history before I agreed to take this project because of the controversy involved in his record I found nothing in the record. Four foot retaining walls, you go into building and you say do I need a permit for a four foot wall? They say no. Nobody counts the one and a half foot footing in the bottom under the ground that you don't see. It's a common problem and that was what the problem was in that particular case.

There is the receipt for the grading and there is the permit I believe staff did a great job of dealing with the different appellant issues so I don't see any reason to continue to go over ground that we've already covered. We had a lot of rain this past year. We had 127% of normal in an eight-month period. When the stop work was issued, Mr. Bonet worked with Mr. Nee for a two day period to make sure that temporary erosion control was installed around the perimeter of the lot.

This is not a fully finished project. It was stopped at whatever point it was at with the import of soil. And then adjustments were made in January when the weather continued to continue to rain and again in March. This is the silt that ran off of the site at the Southwest corner where the low point in the project is, where the smallest drainage basin is in the corner that went off site.

And this is the erosion control as it sits today. It's two bags high of sand as well as the silt fencing. And like I said, we're talking about a very challenging site. We're also talking about a project that's been approved three times now and this really isn't about retroactive permitting because again the county was fully aware of the changes that the Nees would like to have. They showed the plans they went through a pre-con meeting and I also had a file that I'm...and this is the view that Mr. and Mrs. Nee have from their home where they can't see the ocean anymore There are 20 foot tall trees on Mr. Wang's side, I don't know how he would really see a lot of this tennis court that by virtue of raising it two feet so that we have a way to access it in a wheelchair And we've lowered the walls as a result of bringing in the additional dirt.

I don't quite see why this two feet is the offensive thing that causes this to now not be a rural lot. This is a lot that is zoned in a manner that allows for accessory uses and there is not really There is a pattern of trying to hide the ball here. I have a permit card from Tony Bonet, he was at the site on October 3rd as the work was in progress. He was again on the site on October 30th and at that point later in the day, the complaint came in for the stop work order. I just ask that you would approve this project again and deny the appeal. We're here if you have any questions. Thank you so much.

6:54 – 7:0128 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:54:03 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Do we have any speakers?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:54:04 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Chair Levenino and members of the board, I have no request to speak on this item. I'm sorry. I have no request

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:54:09 · ≈ 3:54 PM

to speak on this item. I coughed right when you said that. OK. Oh, somebody wants to speak. That's OK. Come on up and just give your name and then fill out a slip so we can have it on the record.

PresenterMichelle Caswellmy family that owns the property to the north of DeniseProposedself-stated6:54:22 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Good afternoon, Supervisors, Chair. My name is Michelle Caswell. I am representing my family that owns the property to the north of Denise, and I just want I just want to clarify some things that seem to be falsely stated today. Prior to the initial permit- Michelle,

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:54:40 · ≈ 3:54 PM

can you put your mic close to your

PresenterMichelle Caswellmy family that owns the property to the north of DeniseProposedself-stated6:54:42 · ≈ 3:54 PM

mouth? I'm sorry. Because

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:54:44 · ≈ 3:54 PM

folks in the audience can't hear you and the tape can't pick you up.

PresenterMichelle Caswellmy family that owns the property to the north of DeniseProposedself-stated6:54:47 · ≈ 3:54 PM

Okay. Is that better? Prior to Mr. Nee getting the original permit for this property, Exchanges with him as well as with the planning commission and I actually had the Planning Commission come out, Mike Gonas who was the original engineer on the project and Mr. and Mrs. Nee to meet at the property at the site to in detail go over what they were planning on doing because it really does affect us because their property sits lower to us so by building something that's going to raise up above Grading, you know was a concern of ours as well as the runoff from our property down into theirs.

They explained everything we went over everything and he guaranteed us that is what they were sticking to and I said okay great You know we won't raise a concern or objection to it Then after it was permitted Not in the middle of the night, but a few weeks later truckload after truckload after truckload was brought in. In violation of the permit. So he did violate the permit. He did not ask permission prior to that happening. He went over and above what was permanent.

I tried in good faith to not have to put anyone through this, especially you guys. Us it costs everyone time and money. He refused mediation based on his pattern of behavior we just don't know what to believe. What's going to happen once this is approved? Is he gonna go and just disregard what he was offered as a permit again and again and again Raising this another two and a half feet will obstruct our view, will be a problem.

That's why I met with him initially to find out exactly where it was. He is going way above what he originally planned on doing. And if his initial concern was he wanted this ADA accessible then why did he go ahead and go ahead with the first permit instead of having his engineer change it So that it would reflect exactly what he wanted to do. So again, it's he's asking for the permit.

He's taking that permit on approval and then doing what he wants to do with it and then coming back and asking for forgiveness or permission I should say. And that incurs cost and time for you and us so we're asking again It is going to obstruct our view. It is an issue to go up that two and a half feet higher, and my true concern is what is gonna happen in the next few months if this one's approved? Where it's gonna stop? Thank you for your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:57:49 · ≈ 3:57 PM

time.

PresenterMichelle Caswellmy family that owns the property to the north of DeniseProposedself-stated6:57:49 · ≈ 3:57 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:57:51 · ≈ 3:57 PM

Chair Lavanino and members of the board I did receive another request to speak from Jim Gaskin, and there might be one more.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:57:58 · ≈ 3:57 PM

Okay, and Ms. Caswell, I just want to make sure you filled out a slip so that we have a slip for you. Okay, if anybody that would like to come forward to speak please come forward and... Do we have anybody?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:58:12 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Jim.

CommentJim Gaskin I'mProposedself-stated6:58:14 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Hi my name's Jim Gaskin I'm a neighbor down below at the bottom of the hill and I spoke also at the previous hearing We have no personal angst on these at all. The concern of my wife and I is that it is a large cut into the hillside, and the aesthetics of the neighborhood we're very concerned as to the aesthetics. The bear scar now is quite large. We would like to see that that's mitigated. Sir, you're going

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:58:54 · ≈ 3:58 PM

to want to bring your mic closer

CommentJim Gaskin I'mProposedself-stated6:58:56 · ≈ 3:58 PM

to your mouth.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:58:57 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Is

CommentJim Gaskin I'mProposedself-stated6:58:57 · ≈ 3:58 PM

this better? Yeah.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:58:58 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Should I start over or...? No, it's fine.

CommentJim Gaskin I'mProposedself-stated6:59:01 · ≈ 3:59 PM

Okay.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:59:01 · ≈ 3:59 PM

You've gotten our attention though because we're all leaning forward trying to hear what you...

CommentJim Gaskin I'mProposedself-stated6:59:04 · ≈ 3:59 PM

Dang! That's

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:59:05 · ≈ 3:59 PM

a good move.

CommentJim Gaskin I'mProposedself-stated6:59:07 · ≈ 3:59 PM

You know, we certainly want to see that the Nees have reasonable enjoyment of their property and we certainly don't want to impose upon that but in the end we don't really want that neighborhood to be made less than what it should be and that's really the bulk of our statement

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:59:22 · ≈ 3:59 PM

Okay, thank you. Thank you for being here. So...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:59:28 · ≈ 3:59 PM

I don't have any new members of the board. I have no further requests

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:59:31 · ≈ 3:59 PM

so I'm not sure if... If you're going to speak come on up. Hand in your slip. You both can come up. There you go and then you can just wait and you can speak and then we'll go to the next one.

CommentYat ChanProposedself-stated6:59:48 · ≈ 3:59 PM

Hi my name is Yat Chan and I'm post wife I was in here at the commissioner's hearing because I have other things to do. I have two kids that are in school, so I figured my husband would represent us and... But so after he had gone home and heard about the outcome of the commissioner's hearing, I was a little disappointed because based on a lot of things I brought up and they kept stressing on the relationship and It's more like a vendetta that he's trying to put it on. That sounds like that.

Let me assure you, it has nothing to do... We don't even have a relationship much to speak of as just neighbor. We want to try to be as friendly as possible. That's why we erected the fence to make sure that everybody kind of have their own space and there's a lot of things and I don't wanna get into it but in any case, I just wanna I asked the Board of Supervisors to stick to the issues.

We've been living there for 10 years now, OK? Things can go back to when, you know, 2008-2012 is irrelevant. I think what the case on hand here is what they applied for, what they have built, what they're trying to do after... For us to be the whistleblower who lives in the neighbourhood, to call on them to have someone come up and stop the work, you know, and now they are blaming In the past, if they want to talk about the job order, it was posted on the gate. They didn't see it. I mean those are the things that we don't want to talk about by just based on the case now, right? What they are changing, what's going to go forward, how it's going to impact the neighborhood, their characteristics, how the neighbors start getting together too is something that's important to us because we lived there for a while and that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

7:01 – 7:088 turns

CommentBarbara CarlisleProposedself-stated7:01:35 · ≈ 4:01 PM

Hi Supervisors, my name is Barbara Carlisle and I've known the Wang family for about four years through the Polo Club in Carpinteria. This certainly isn't about tennis as Yao Chen is my tennis partner and like I said we played together for four years so I am here as a character reference basically Mrs. Wang, I don't know a lot about the process but certainly there are rules and regulations in place for a reason to protect the neighborhood and everybody's well-being and happiness. But I did have an opportunity to read a lot of the emails that had been circulated by the neighbors And what I read about the Wang family, or what they were accused of doing or saying is upsetting to me personally and offensive.

Like I said, I've known Ya Cheng for a long time, and she's become my best friend here. And I don't know anybody who is more upstanding than her. So like I said, this is offensive to me to read this. So again, I'm here to support them, and I know that they are trying to do the right thing and would never Anything to retaliate certainly against their neighbors. I had a party recently at my house for about four or five tennis women I don't know that many people in Santa Barbara yet And I gave a little rock to Yachen with an eye on it standing for integrity Because she's kind of them. She's really the moral compass of our group, and she is an outstanding mother and It just really is an inspiration as far as doing the right thing and has tremendous character.

So I hope that none of this stuff that I hear goes any further, and that the facts are really adhered to because they are wonderful people. So thank you for hearing me. All right, thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:03:29 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Okay so that wraps up public comment. We now go back to rebuttal. Supervisor Williams?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:03:36 · ≈ 4:03 PM

Can I just have one thing confirmed or denied? Mediation was that do you guys preside over that or do we Kenyon? Mr. Ghazani Mediation was offered but just not bear with me for one second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed7:03:58 · ≈ 4:03 PM

I'll pull up It's an attachment to our report and I'll go over there. Thank you.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:04:01 · ≈ 4:04 PM

Thank you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:04:08 · ≈ 4:04 PM

Do you want me to continue or do you wanna wait? Okay, so now it's time for rebuttal. So the appellant has five minutes for rebuttal from anything that they heard that they'd like to set the record straight. So Mr. Wang if you'd like to come forward you have five minutes to hammer home

CommentLisa MathesonProposed · by introduction7:04:27 · ≈ 4:04 PM

your story. All right thank you very much Supervisors appreciate the time. As we mentioned facts are facts as Mr. Romero stated Just because he didn't see the stop work order, whoever happened, the wind blow away doesn't mean it didn't happen. At the end of the day you can't change reality and things did happen. My kids are in Boy Scouts, my son's about to go out next year very involved in the community if you've read my letters and who could be our character witnesses they're leaders in Carpentaria, Ventura and Santa Barbara. I'm a Rotarian OK, I understand the four-way test.

How is it beneficial for everybody involved? That's how we live our lives. OK, I don't need to get into these personal issues. The fact is, it's 10 feet high fence. They're going to raise the base two feet. Guess what? The fence automatically goes up two feet. That's basic math, right? Those are nuances that we want to illustrate and not just skate over and make it a non-issue as Ms.

So I don't quite understand where that ocean view aspect is coming from. Because that was the original contention when we went for the permit that he had issues with, right? That is not our intention. And that's only a glimpse of 125 feet of fence. He only took one little picture of that to illustrate that he'd lost his ocean view. Again, we don't have a lot of money in our neighborhood. It's a community initiative that has seven neighbors who support it. No one is supporting him. That should probably tell you volumes. We've lived there less than he has. There are neighbors who've lived there generations that are opposed to this as well. Okay. And so again, I really implore you to really understand this is a neighborhood that's speaking out and asking for your support in the process and due process of not approving a retro process.

Their discussions with the planning commission or the planners we weren't privy to or have any understanding but the 20 trucks Up and down the street, everybody heard it all the way down to Lagunitas. They were asking us what was happening because trucks were going up and down. There's no reason for me to make that up, okay? I'm not gonna sit there and take pictures or video. That's not me, okay? But what I do is stand by my word, okay, and my character, okay, and that's all I can do, okay. And...and all I ask you to do is really understand the reason why we're appealing and there's seven letters here, okay? And why every one of them are emphatic. And why there is a history of letters citing this issue. It's not makeup, okay? It's people that certain of you understand our community leaders who actually are able to do the purchase of the bluffs in Carpentaria as well.

I mean these aren't people who make up stories, okay? And they wouldn't be supporting us if we were exactly what Mr. Nee and Mr. Marrero characterize us as okay, so thank you very much for

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:07:54 · ≈ 4:07 PM

your time Thank you all right, so the applicant also has five minutes at this point

7:08 – 7:2015 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed7:08:06 · ≈ 4:08 PM

And chair, while the preparation is being called up I'll note that the county council memo that's attached to the legistar package describes that in our standard language facilitation was offered by the Office of County Council and the parties declined to participate. We phrase it that way so it's actually no fault and we never report which side would have gone or declined to go but it was a process that was offered and it was declined.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:08:36 · ≈ 4:08 PM

Just as a follow-up, so are you confirming the appellant's version of events?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed7:08:44 · ≈ 4:08 PM

I am stating that I would like to be able to just state as has been our practice that we offer it to both parties and if We don't have an acceptance from both parties, then we just report that the party's declined and that's the end of it. And this comes out of a resolution from the board previously on third-party neighbor appeals. And we think this process works out well so that when we offer the facilitation it's really not perceived as being heavy handed. We announce you can say no and we just report that the party's declined.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:09:10 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Well I would just say given the amount of money that we spend on appeals that to me It's okay to be heavy-handed that we want to strongly encourage the mediation I mean to me That that that's a good thing when Mediation takes place and I kind of scratch my head when it doesn't

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:09:35 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:09:35 · ≈ 4:09 PM

should we go to you wanna? Well, I just want to say that you know, I don't know that anybody can be judged for You know, not subjecting themselves to an appeal that they don't feel like. You know there's an appeal mechanism.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:09:53 · ≈ 4:09 PM

That's not my intention. My intention though is that it should be something that is very strongly encouraged by the institution and taken into account by us as one of many factors. Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:10:05 · ≈ 4:10 PM

we're in the middle of a hearing so let's do... Let's finish up the hearing because every time we have an appeal we get into an argument about the process of the appeal That's one of my favorite arguments but first we have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:10:16 · ≈ 4:10 PM

Chair Levine you know members of the board, my apologies but I just realized that we do not have this particular PowerPoint in the record yet so if we could just get another motion to vote this PowerPoint into the record.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:10:28 · ≈ 4:10 PM

The PowerPoint from October 1st. So moved. Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. We're accepting it into the record, okay so you have five minutes.

PresenterFrances Romero I'mNee family todayProposedself-stated7:10:38 · ≈ 4:10 PM

Yes sir well first I want to say that land use is not a popularity contest but if we're going to be counting up neighbors and letters we had 14 neighbors that either signed on to a letter or individually signed a letter Mr. Michael Prather who is the brother of Michelle Caswell Could not be here this afternoon. He also has an interest in the property to the north of the wings I'm sorry the North of the knees because he actually had to work this afternoon. I want to talk about this whole situation that somehow the knees were not Disclosing to the county that they had a desire to change their plan and I've heard about what the county has spent on this And I've heard that the Appellant had some sort of fee to pay but I would say that what the knees are out-of-pocket just on this appeal and dealing with the redesign of their site also exceeds the cost that the county has spent on the this appeal Both parties it sounded like did not wish to go to mediation Let's see I think we all know how cut and fill works.

The cut was being cut within this site, and the cut was lessened by bringing in additional soil. The property to the north is in no danger of anything. There will be a adequate retaining wall there. And again, we've engaged licensed professionals to do the project. I know that whenever there's a project people don't like everybody becomes an engineer and a planner But we have to remember that we only allow plans to be submitted by licensed people. They're reviewed by other people that have licenses, and there is something called field changes.

Not everybody can read plans. I don't know what was going on with the Nees when they hired the Gones firm to do their plan. I came in after this appeal was filed. And the reality is when they went to do construction docs, they realized what they had wasn't going to work for them so they hired another civil To do another plan and then to continue to interface with the county. To explain that the changes that they wanted asking if those field changes could be done within the confines of the permit there wasn't this is the plan that was attached to the emails sent to the grading inspector, there was nobody hiding the ball on this project and again.

I'm sure that had the knees known that this was going to be about someone's character and not about the permit and not about what the ordinance says, and not on the rules of what we rely on to get permits. Maybe they would have had more people come in talk on their behalf but that's really wasn't what this isn't about. This is about whether or not this is a permitted use on a one acre lot. It's an accessory use They could build an ADU, they could build a house that would certainly be taller than a tennis court. It would be dense you wouldn't see through it. They're proposing a planter wall so that they could plant some screen trees and some vines to cover the wall. So what the wings will see Is not a solid wall, they're going to see landscape.

They tried to mitigate issues with their neighbors before they ever made application. Before the first application was made, they removed lighting from their plan. When they came forward to do this revision, they didn't go for an 8% slope down to the tennis court. They compromised in the middle at 13% slope. I believe they've made a good faith effort to do this. It has cost them a significant amount of money, and to be quite honest we've come to a point in this process where I can't even justify billing them any further for my time because this is a neighborhood project They envisioned having a tennis court in their home 20 years ago, but when they purchased the home because their family played tennis it didn't happen. Now they thought they were going to finally realize their dreams so that their grandkids would have somewhere to play And we're hoping that this can be built before they have grandchildren.

All I can say is that based on my discussions with them, based on my discussions with their civil about them, I don't see there being this ethical problem that keeps being brought up and again, that is a total distraction from what the issue is at hand. This project is approvable, it has been approved on three separate occasions and we're asking that the existing approval be upheld and the appeal be denied. And I can guarantee you that he's going to be following this plan and he probably is never going to do another project on his lot based on this experience.

We really hope that you'll find for this project and deny the appeal and we thank you so much for your time.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:15:28 · ≈ 4:15 PM

Okay, go to staff. Staff is there anything that you heard during either the presentations or the rebuttal that you'd like to comment on?

CommentKia RistigProposedself-stated7:15:40 · ≈ 4:15 PM

Chair Lavinia no we don't have anything to add at this point.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:15:43 · ≈ 4:15 PM

Okay I'll bring it back to the Board of Supervisors for deliberation. Supervisor Williams.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:15:49 · ≈ 4:15 PM

Well I bring up the issue of mediation because I just think that this is kind of a poster child This is an example of why mediation You know, from the beginning as I looked at this case a solution that would have met both the applicant and appellant's issues sort of screams out at me. But it's not the project in front of us but in context of mediation a design that minimizes the height of the court while still allowing ADA access, but in this case you'd have to change the configuration of the path.

To me is those sort of both data-driven and approach but also the kind of thing that we could've seen in a mediation so I think that's unfortunate I think first of all, you know, I don't think that there is any smoking gun that indicates a bad faith or ethical issues on either side. I mean, I see neighborhood fights happen all the time in planning and You can find two sets of people who normally are reasonable, wonderful human beings and something about the conflict with their neighbor or something about how important that project is to them. Like in this case it's a fruition of your dreams right?

Wonderful normal, you know people And gets them at odds in a you know sometimes a much worse fashion than this so I think that, I'm a little bit in a quandary because I think the neighbors do have an issue with the court and the height. Both based on the issue that though as bill permits are common in this and mistakes are made in projects it does undermine the public's confidence in our system should be discouraged in some fashion and does increase the issues with the surrounding community. And I might add, I'm not sure if it serves a function i.e., you know, a 12% slope is considered very, very steep even for wheelchair access And it seems to me that if the knees are really serious about it, they should consider a winded path in any case.

They were correct, I did put out to them the question of what slope would be passable under the existing design if they lower it? There really isn't one because at least If we trust our independent living resource center folks, who I consulted on the question of slopes in this matter. The 18% to Mr. Nee's original point is really way too steep for a wheelchair but even 12% is pushing it.

And so I would have loved to find a middle ground on the height, but I'm sympathetic to the neighbors and the appellant that lowering the height does lower burdens on them and does not create a burden on the applicant beyond the need to redesign the path That connects the house and the tennis court. That being said, I am sympathetic with the applicant on the driveway. I don't think that the county should be in the business of telling people how big their driveways should be or whether they can put pavers in on their driveway which is actually a much better approach from Water quality standpoint, and from a neighborhood standpoint.

So I'm a little bit looking to Mr. Guzzone about how to proceed if we deny the appeal can you approve the driveway or do we deny the appeal but put conditions on the project?

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

7:21 – 7:3337 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed7:21:01 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Chair and Supervisors, it might be helpful to hear from planning who we talked about before this hearing about just with the denial what would actually be allowed to stand.

CommentKia RistigProposedself-stated7:21:16 · ≈ 4:21 PM

So Supervisor Williams to the chair. So if the appeal were upheld and the project was denied, it would go back to the previous approval which would allow an extension of the paved area of the driveway but not the additional grading to create that flat

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:21:33 · ≈ 4:21 PM

pad. And what about if we went these other route that we sometimes did in the city? But I don't assume that you can do the same thing in the city as the county If we denied the appeal but approved the project with the conditions of reducing the grade height of the tennis court.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed7:21:58 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Mr. Chair, Board Member Williams, Supervisor Williams, I think that's an acceptable approach if you deny the appeal and add a condition to the project. That's a process that most decision-making bodies can go through.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:22:18 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Then the last outstanding issue in that case would be that the applicant Have to probably decide whether they want to go with the path in the configuration that it is or make further changes. Is a permit needed for those further changes, or can you do a path without a permit?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed7:22:41 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Williams, it really depends on how much grading there's involved in that. We would have to probably... Maybe we can ask their engineer.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:22:51 · ≈ 4:22 PM

It's less than three feet is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed7:22:53 · ≈ 4:22 PM

the... And 50 cubic yards. 50 cubic yards. Got it. So perhaps I don't know if their engineer is here but they might be able to answer that. Why don't we hear

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:23:02 · ≈ 4:23 PM

from the rest of the board?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed7:23:03 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Sure.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:23:03 · ≈ 4:23 PM

to see where we're going before we talk about a bunch of conditions and things. I was just trying to give us what the directions could be. Right, I totally get that. Mr. Gazzone you had your hand up?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed7:23:16 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Chair, just that typically if there's gonna be a significant change from the staff recommendation our recommendation would be to continue the matter and bring it back and that would allow the discussion as to what was feasible but traditionally the board may approve, deny or modify the project that's in front of them.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:23:33 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Okay. Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Hartman?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:23:36 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Well, I just think that this thing sounds pretty vanilla to me and I think there's some neighborhood issues that are getting in the way and it's unfortunate and frankly Mr. Nee may not be a very nice guy. Maybe you're not. I don't know. But that doesn't mean he doesn't get his tennis court. I mean, that's what he wants. So I just think that we should just deny this appeal because it just seems to me that we're trying to accommodate somebody and they've tried to inject themselves. You can't have property rights reasonably exercised that are subject to the approval of all the neighbors.

So, you know, I'm having some trouble putting conditions on there that kind of micromanage II personally

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:24:42 · ≈ 4:24 PM

supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:24:42 · ≈ 4:24 PM

Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.827:24:45 · ≈ 4:24 PM

These are always the most difficult cases when we get caught between neighbors and neighborhoods. And it's, you know over the long run I think it's really important your home is your castle and people have to figure out how to get along. And I favor what Supervisor Williams is saying about trying to put more pressure on mediation I'm scratching my head because if you go to an engineer and say, I want a tennis court that's ADA accessible. That's my goal. And you don't get that then you sue the engineer. They failed you. You gave us specific purpose and they haven't, they've given you an 18% grade so I'm really puzzled by oh well, I'll just go to another engineer and come up with another project so I'm puzzled by that. So, I would like to find a middle path if that's possible and weigh in after I've heard what my colleagues have to say.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:25:54 · ≈ 4:25 PM

All right, Supervisor Adam. You don't get to just say I want a particular slope. The slope is defined by the land.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.827:26:10 · ≈ 4:26 PM

When you hire a contractor and you say this is the purpose I want served and they don't do it then you find out they didn't do it then you've got illegal action.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:26:19 · ≈ 4:26 PM

I really, well no you can't get it designed that way because that's not the way the earth is shaped. If you have a 31 foot, I mean that's the testimony we have 31 feet of fall from one end of this property to the other if you said I want a 5% slope on this thing they would have to bring the bottom up 20 feet or 25 feet. to achieve the difference between the top and the bottom. So you don't get to just make the world end up the way, no engineer's gonna make it end up the way somebody just wants it because that's the way they want it. If there's a 30 foot fill or a 25 foot fill, the county is not gonna let them do that and then you want the neighbors to complain? You know if you had a 20 foot retention wall on both sides, first of all nobody could afford to build it and the second thing is no neighbor would let them.

So this just appears to me that this is kind of the most reasonable use of the property and see it may not even be possible to put a winding Because it's only an acre and I live on an acre. An acre is not really that big, to tell you the truth. If you want to put a house and a tennis court on an acre, you've used up the property. And so you may not be able to just wind your way down in there at a slope that's really ADA according to Hoyle They probably don't know who Hoyle is But cards I got it Anyway, you know, it's not always possible to build that stuff. You can you can Well that may be true and maybe they did Maybe he said hey you gotta have 18% And the best I can do is 13 and to do that I gotta bring it up two feet So Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed7:28:23 · ≈ 4:28 PM

Yeah, these these are tough and I don't think there's any way to kind of make it work for everybody. Fundamentally we're talking about two feet difference you know over the course of this large lot large you know is everybody's perspective Fortunately, there are tennis players on both sides of this discussion and that's the one good thing is that maybe there's a finish line here at the end where everybody can get along and play tennis and gets your frustrations out with a racket in the ball as opposed to any hearing like this.

You know, I really don't think that the two feet differential in the context of this is the real issue. I think that kind of is what was spoken to. It was really the process and going forward and what is the expectations in the future? And you know, I think we can reassure everybody that all eyes are on this project and it's really up to the applicant to do this and follow the plan as it has been presented. It's unfortunate, you know, it's been a very circuitous path to get here But I know that our planning staff is going to be looking very carefully to make sure that everything is done properly, going forward. And I know the neighbors will appreciate that going forward and maybe this is the best way to get everybody to be okay with this because I don't think there really is any other way to do that.

So I'm hopeful whatever decision is made up here today that you folks can figure out a way Appreciate each other and appreciate the fact that you all love tennis.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:29:56 · ≈ 4:29 PM

Yeah, I think, you know, I wish we didn't see very many of these but we do. And yes, I like if people would get together and try to work things out but there's just some things that aren't ever going to work out and that's why we have this place and that's why you have a courthouse across the street. So, I think there's way more about this then we're probably hearing about, but I just got to look at what the facts are. And it looks like that they started the construction, got hit with a stop order, but it does look like they were at least communicating with the county and trying to explain what was going on.

Just because you get a stop work order doesn't mean that you're never gonna get to finish the project. You know, I appreciate the fact that the neighbors are concerned and unfortunately I know sometimes people in Santa Barbara County feel like with planning development that you have to be the eyes and ears of the county. And the reality is most of the time that you do. That's how we can't be out enforcing on everybody's backyard to find out what's going on. We do hear from the neighbors so...

I don't have any problem with this going forward. Like I think Supervisor Hart said Hopefully at some point maybe you guys could have a grudge match out on that nice tennis court and get it all settled. But I'm ready for a motion if there is one or Supervisor Williams.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:31:34 · ≈ 4:31 PM

Well, looks like I only have two votes so I'll try to snatch victory out of the jaws of defeat by splitting the baby if this is over 2 feet. Then I would propose that we deny the appeal, but condition the project for the grade to be brought down by one foot on the tennis court. You're not used to losing very often. I am not

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:31:58 · ≈ 4:31 PM

used to losing. I never

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed7:31:58 · ≈ 4:31 PM

get

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:31:59 · ≈ 4:31 PM

to go back in. I never get to go back to the other three and say, well here's a better idea for you. OK, well that offer is out there, I take it? And Mr. Gazzone.

Roll-call vote Moved by Das Williams
Show transcript
Chair and supervisors, again I just want to review the since we had the question before. The board is here today hearing this matter de novo you have the authority under the zoning ordinance to affirm reverse or modify the decision of the Planning Commission if if the motion by Supervisor Williams was to move forward I would recommend that before you vote on it that you first hear from planning as to whether they would need to continue the matter to change the findings or verify that things were actually feasible and if the motion does not move forward okay understood

And I don't see any of the three that we're looking at supporting the project, changing the requirement down to a foot and a half or a foot. So yeah. All right so Understood okay motion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:33:04 · ≈ 4:33 PM

dies motion dies. Well, then it just it makes it steeper Yeah, if you'd lower it It makes it steeper because you got to start at the same place no matter what so the only thing that's negotiable is the bottom Okay, so do you have a motion? I will just make a motion to do staff recommendations ABC and D

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:33:26 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Okay second

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:33:26 · ≈ 4:33 PM

supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:33:27 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Hart second roll call

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:33:32 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam? Aye Mr. Williams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:33:35 · ≈ 4:33 PM

No

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:33:36 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Mr. Hart? Aye Chair Lavagnino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:33:38 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:33:39 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Motion passes 4-1

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.887:33:42 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Okay, we are adjourning and our next meeting is October 8th in Santa Maria