BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 September 15, 2020

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.

0:01 – 0:011 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:05 · ≈ 9:01 AM

you Thank you.

0:03 – 0:0815 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:12 · ≈ 9:03 AM

I will call to order the September 15, 2020 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Would the clerk please call the roll?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:20 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:24 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:25 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Mr. Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:26 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:26 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Ms. Hartman? Here! Mr. Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:30 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:30 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Chair Hart?

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈23s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:31 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here At this time please stand and join the board in pledging allegiance to the flag

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:00 · ≈ 9:04 AM

At this time, Dr. Alice Gleghorn is with us to unfortunately share news about the passing of three members of the county family, all Department of Behavioral Wellness employees, longtime employees who recently passed and Dr. Gleghorn is here to talk about their lives and contribution to the county. Dr. Gleghorn?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:31 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Thank you, Chair Hart. During the recent two week period, the psychiatric health facility lost three beloved staff members Mark Lawler, Teresita Bolasay and Ingrid Seifert. Each of them brought a uniqueness to the Puff family and will be greatly missed but always remembered. Mark was a licensed psychiatric technician, a team supervisor and our Puff safety officer He lived and breathed safety wherever he went, and was a strong advocate and example of preparation in all that he did.

He loved to share his knowledge from woodworking to chickens and goats, to safety planning and preparing for disaster. He took the time to acknowledge others always finding the positive and embracing individuals for their humanity. He was a believer in the power of determination Stubborn in his true right but always exuding kindness, integrity, compassion and generosity.

A real family man he was loyal both to his personal family and to the Pop family. Teresita or Terry as she was known was a psychiatric nurse senior that worked our night shift Hello, it's Terry. Always took the time to greet others with the biggest smile. She was kind, gracious, giving and genuine with a balance of a feisty side when standing up for others.

She was known for celebrating others, uniting those around her just by her presence. A kind-hearted spirit always bringing laughter She was positive and supportive even in the midst of adversity, and dedicated to helping others as shown by her willingness to always pick up extra shifts to help out the unit. Terry was a strong advocate for her peers showing never ending support to the team.

Ingrid was our firecracker and was also a psychiatric nurse senior. She was strong and fierce in her conviction for all things Ingrid and then some Supported her team as her family, genuine considerate maternal. At the start of every shift, Ingrid would declare to the team today will be the best day ever and she would do everything she could to make that happen. She was a believer in the power of determination. She was eager to share her healthy food as well as her secret love of Panda Express and Kentucky Fried Chicken.

She showed her strong worth ethic in accomplishing the work of several people all at the same time. Her ability to multitask was legendary, and she was an amazing patient advocate with an extreme attention to detail. Ingrid would never ask someone to do something that she would not do herself. She was a true leader. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:32 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Thank you Dr. Gleghorn. We'll now take a moment of silence to remember Mr. Lawler, Ms. Bolesay and Ms. Seibert and the contributions that they made to the county and recognize and appreciate their lives and give our support to their family, their friends and their co-workers on their untimely passing.

The next item of business is the approval of minutes from the September 1st meeting. Is there any discussion or a motion? So moved.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role8:24 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:24 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Motion's been made and seconded. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role8:29 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Mr. Lavinino?

0:08 – 0:129 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:33 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Minutes. Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role8:34 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:40 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role8:40 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:41 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role8:41 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:44 · ≈ 9:08 AM

CEO Miyasato, is there a CEO report today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed8:47 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Yes there is. Good morning chair Hart and board members I have some quick announcements One is just a short update on the steps in the Independent Redistricting Commission to give people awareness and a quick update. As you know, we're in the process of forming an independent redistricting commission. Nearly 200 residents had applied to serve as commissioners and our elections official Joe Holland selected the 45 most qualified according to the criteria outlined in the ordinance. Those 45 applicants are posted on our website And the webpage that has all the information about the process is countyofsb.org forward slash redistricting.

The commissioners will be five randomly selected commissioners will be drawn in late I'm sorry will be drawn at the October 20th board meeting by the district attorney one from each Supervisorial district and then those five randomly selected commissioners will meet in late October or early November to select finalists for the remaining of the remaining applicants To be appointed which will occur during a public hearing prior to December 31st. So Again, more information is at countyofsb.org forward slash redistricting.

Second announcement is just to make people aware that we are in the final weeks of the census 2020 as you know due to the pandemic the deadline to respond to the census was extended to September 30th which means we are down to the final two weeks An undercount equates to a potential loss of millions of dollars each year for the next 10 years needed to fund critical services to the county.

It is currently estimated that about 25-30% of households in the county remain uncounted, so it's very important for people to please if there is a numerator who is at your home or leaves information Please take it seriously. The census is only nine easy questions and does not ask citizenship or immigration status by law answers are confidential and cannot be shared and to respond go online to my 2020 census dot gov or you can call it in and also just thank you to the board for your leadership in the past 18 months to ensure a complete count. Also want to thank Joni Maiden who is our director of child support services who stepped in as co-chair of the Santa Barbara County Complete Count Committee along with Pedro Paz of the Santa Barbara Foundation.

And they've led hundreds of volunteers from nonprofit, public sector and others in making this effort. Lastly just a reminder about voting there are 49 days until the November 3rd election and voter information is posted on sbcvote.com Due to the pandemic, all registered voters in the state of California will automatically receive a ballot in the mail around the beginning of October. County Elections is placing 35 secure ballot drop boxes across the county that will be available 24 hours per day beginning October 5th until 8 p.m. on Election Day. A list of all the drop box locations in the counties will be included with the voter's ballot and also listed on the website. In addition, County Elections is planning approximately 35 locations for in-person voting for those who would like additional services including language assistance or a placement ballot.

Those locations will be open four days from October 31st through Election Day. Facial coverings will be required and voters should expect a socially distanced waiting line. These locations will also be on the county's website, the County Voter Information Guide For assistance the public can also call 805-568-2200. And that concludes my report, Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed12:39 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Thank you CEO Miyasato for that report. Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

0:12 – 0:1814 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role12:46 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, I just have one quick announcement this morning. And that is to remind members of the public who are participating in today's meeting as you'll see scrolling above your screen at the moment there are alternative methods of public participation if you would like to make a comment on today's agenda please call 568-2240 and state your name your phone number and which item you would like to speak on and the clerk will call you at the appropriate time Again, please make every effort to be available and mute all streaming devices once it is your turn to speak. And that number is area code 805-568-2240. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed13:25 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Thank you. The next item is approval of the administrative agenda. Are there board members' requests to pull any items on the administrative agenda? I think we have Item Number 1 and Item Number 5. And then I know we have public comment on Item 11 and 12. Are there any others that board members would like to take off the administrative agenda? All right, well then let's begin with item A1.

Could you read that into the record, Madam Clerk?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role13:55 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Chair Hart and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 1 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This is an honorary resolution to adopt a Resolution of Accommodation honoring Dean Pellius upon his retirement from the Santa Anaz Valley People Helping People Human Services Organization After 25 years of distinguished and consequential service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And we do have Dean on the line

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed14:20 · ≈ 9:14 AM

as well. Glad Dean is here with us personally. Supervisor Hartman, do you want to introduce him?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7814:25 · ≈ 9:14 AM

I just wanted to explain that we will be giving him a certificate during this time of COVID. We haven't been celebrating and reading all of it but I do have some remarks from Francesca Escobar, the current president of the Board of People Helping People. The Board of Directors of People Helping People is extraordinarily grateful for the quarter century that Dean has dedicated to building a highly regarded and respected organization that has made a profound difference in the lives of so many.

Dean's experience, contribution, entrepreneurial spirit, sense of humor and compassion for and desire to help those less fortunate will be missed by all people helping people and those we work with and serve.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed15:14 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Mr. Pellius, thank you for your amazing service to our community. You've been an incredible community leader and we appreciate all the contributions you've made and I'm personally curious as to what kind of good trouble you plan to get into

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:30 · ≈ 9:15 AM

now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed15:43 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Good morning Chair Hart and Supervisors. I appreciate greatly. Sorry, I'm a little choked up. It's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed15:57 · ≈ 9:15 AM

quite all

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed15:57 · ≈ 9:15 AM

right take your time. Recognition appreciate it very much but I do want to say that sometimes those of us who toil in the Santa Ynez Valley Do so we think at least unrecognized, so I greatly appreciate accepting this not only on behalf of myself but also on behalf of the organization Singing This Valley People Helping People. It's many employees that I've worked with, many directors who have supported the organization so well over the years and volunteers in the community.

I appreciate the honor that you've bestowed on me. I know you're busy today and I'll end my comments there, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed16:43 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Thank you very much Mr. Peleus and again thank you for your long and many passionate contributions to the community not just in the San Ynez Valley but all of Santa Barbara County

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7816:53 · ≈ 9:16 AM

And Chair Hart, may I just add a little bit? Can't let this go by. Absolutely. Dean is bigger than life and he'll do all within his power to serve people in need. He'll sway, he'll plead, he'll sweet talk, he'l remind people And he's been so creative in the San Ynez Valley and finding new ways to raise money from the community to serve those who need assistance. He developed a polo match, an art and wine event, a thrift store, and many, many significant programs for children and families and seniors. He's grown people helping people service organization in the Santa Ynez Valley and now working into Lompoc and Los Alamos as well.

So it's an extremely grateful community that I have the honor of speaking on behalf of today, and just he's got people helping people really staged for the next period of success and so we're all very grateful thank you Dean.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:02 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Thank you again and congratulations

The next item is Item A-5. Madam Clerk, could you please read that item into the record?

0:18 – 0:2313 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role18:10 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Chair Hart, members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 5 is from Behavioral Wellness. It is to consider recommendations regarding a Mental Health Student Services Act Grant Award and there is a four-fifths vote required on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:22 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Thank you. Supervisor Hartman, you wanted to highlight this wonderful success story?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7818:26 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Well I believe Dr. Gleghorn is here and I would just like, I just wanted to pull it out of our administrative agenda so it doesn't get lost this is very significant and important.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:39 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Dr. Gleghorn?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed18:42 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Yes thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role18:53 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Dr. Kleikerman, I'm sorry we just lost your sound. Can you hear me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed19:06 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Yeah let's come back to that item so

the next item is Item A11 and we'll try and re-enact that connection again after Item A12. So first Madam Clerk could you read Item A 11

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role19:20 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, administrative item number 11 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding additional staff positions related to COVID-19 and cannabis. And we have one request to speak on this item from the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed19:39 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Ms. O'Neill?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role19:39 · ≈ 9:19 AM

And we will go to Renee O'Neill.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed20:12 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Good morning. Good morning supervisors. This is Renee O'Neill I wanted to first thank Michael Gozoni for patiently answering my questions and his outstanding service to our county Mike, I know you must be overburdened in dealing with all this legal issues. I can't even imagine. I also want to say, I think it's important to emphasize the concerns that I have brought to the county's attention for years.

And that is that the county in regard to cannabis has created a huge problem but has failed to hire adequate planning and development staff or enforcement teams to oversee monitor and enforce the loose regulations that were developed During the budget hearings over the years and including this last quarterly report, I again requested that our county hire more staff for planning and development and another sheriff's team. None of those positions were filled at that time But yet this morning I'm seeing and not that this isn't needed by the way.

I agree but now we're seeing that their counties hiring to more full time positions for county council and I understand that that's required. But I think it would benefit the county in the long run if they hired staff and enforcement to take care of the problems that we have And not create more problems by ignoring developing regulations for hemp. So that's what I have to say about that. I also forgot to say at the beginning, I also want to thank Supervisor Lavinino, Jacqueline and Angelica for being patient answering questions, at least some of my questions in regard to hemp The closed item session this morning which I'll be speaking to during public comment and the three hundred thousand in tax revenue that was generated from the growers in the EDRN.

Thank you for your time and I will be talking to you again. Bye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed22:53 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Thank you Ms O'Neill. This brings us to Item A 12 Let's read this item into the record. And I believe Ms. O'Neill also wants to speak on that item.

0:23 – 0:255 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role23:06 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, Administrative Item Number 12 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for cannabis retail storefront application review services from Hinder Leader, DeLamas & Associates, HDL. And there is a four-fifths vote required on this item. And we have one request to speak, and that's Renee O'Neill.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed23:40 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Again, Renee O'Neill. I just wanted to comment that I'm hoping that the company that was hired Hinder Leader is a objective company. I don't recall seeing any public input on who is going to be hired to oversee the cannabis retail storefront applications I want to be sure that this company is neutral, that they aren't either pro-cannabis or anti-cannabis. And that is really important to all of us that are concerned with this new process of opening a retail storefront.

I also want to thank the board and planning and development for denying one of the projects in Old Orchid. I appreciate that very much. I'm beginning to see some light at the end of this dark, treacherous tunnel and hoping that we are seeing more responsible cannabis regulations that are being dealt with now. I would like to see the board take a different direction Not put the cart before the horse, but put the horse before the cart where it belongs so that we aren't digging ourselves out of litigious or however you pronounce that word

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role25:16 · ≈ 9:25 AM

litigious.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed25:18 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Lots of lawsuits that follow when we create problems and so again I just want to say I do support cannabis. Responsible cannabis legislation and responsible hemp legislation. Bye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed25:41 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Thank you, Ms. O'Neill. We now have Dr. Gleghorn back on the line for item A-5 to talk about the new grant funds for mental health services for the county.

0:25 – 0:289 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed25:59 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Thank you Chair Hart. Can you hear me this time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed26:01 · ≈ 9:26 AM

We can, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed26:03 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Yes?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed26:03 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed26:04 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Thank you. Yes, we're very excited about this partnership with the County Office of Education. This is a Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission grant to the county to partner with all of the school districts to target vulnerable students. It's a $4 million grant We're going to be placing navigators, mental health navigators into different school districts and schools to help identify early youth who could benefit from extra assistance.

In this time we're working, we will be working virtually. And I think it's also an appropriate time to get this grant while we're all adjusting to a changed school environment this fall. So we're very excited to begin this partnership and this item before you is essentially the Notice of Grant Award and the permission of the board to begin the work so thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed27:15 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Thank you for that additional information. Dr. Greg Horn, Supervisor Williams. Well I just want

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed27:21 · ≈ 9:27 AM

to appreciate Dr. Greg Horn and the department employees that worked on this. I think one of my greatest worries in this time is for our school children and continue to I hope look for opportunities to help them through what is a Uh, difficult time from a mental health perspective. I don't know that our professionals have ever seen something like this. Um, and uh, so all the amount of encouragement for your staff and for medical providers that are working on this issue.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed27:59 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Thank you Supervisor Williams. Any other comments on the administrative agenda? Are there any other public requests to speak on items?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role28:08 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board we have no further requests to speak on our administrative agenda.

0:28 – 0:3621 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed28:13 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Is there a motion to approve the administrative item? Move

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role28:15 · ≈ 9:28 AM

approval.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed28:16 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. And seconded. Any discussion? Madam Clerk could you please call the roll?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role28:26 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed28:29 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role28:30 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8328:33 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role28:35 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Chair Hart? Aye Motion passes unanimously

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed28:39 · ≈ 9:28 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed28:40 · ≈ 9:28 AM

just like to thank Miss O'Neill for her comments. But really, any particular day we have four to six attorneys working on cannabis issues and really most of the praise goes to them. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed28:52 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Thank you for that clarification too. Now's the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda today. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on items not on today's agenda?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role29:04 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, we have two requests to speak on general public comment today. We are going to begin with Renee O'Neill to be followed by Judy Polson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed29:30 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Good morning supervisors. This is Renee O'Neill. My public comment I thought was going to go first, so I wanted to again thank Supervisor Labanino for responding to my email regarding hemp. I also want to thank Jacqueline and Angelica again for answering my questions. I am concerned that there appears to be a lack of transparency regarding hemp. We have requested that the board agendize this for a long time, but thus far have seen nothing.

Even the closed session meeting this morning says nothing about hemp, but it does have a Purdue Pharma nationwide oxycontin case. Is there a reason the board is ignoring hemp? The board needs to make a decision on whether to postpone the process for regulating hemp Or at the very least, based on cannabis regulations and problems adopt regulations that restrict the number of acres that are going to be allowed.

And to create even greater buffers I would say one to three mile buffers for hemp away from problematic areas including sensitive receptors especially schools and existing traditional ag As well as cannabis farms. Cannabis growers aren't going to want hemp farms next to their fields, it's a conflict because of cross-pollination and everything else and I just don't understand if the board fails to do anything we are going to have even greater problems that are going to open the county up to more lawsuits And then you'll have to hire even more legal counsel. So this is just frustrating for people like me, and I don't think a lot of people are aware of what's really going on here.

It's high time that the board put the horse before the cart this time and develop suitable regulations For hemp that will avoid further litigation. Again I would like the board to hire more staff, more enforcement to handle the problems that were created by putting the cart before the horse with cannabis. I can't emphasize this enough why are we even thinking of creating more problems Anyway, are there any questions or comments?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed32:29 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Thank you Ms. O'Neill. Far from ignoring this issue the Board of Supervisors has had multiple presentations from staff about the regulation of hemp. We've had the Agricultural Commissioner here in front of the board talking about the state and federal regulations and how they've changed. County Council has also spoken directly To the board about the regulatory framework that exists and doesn't exist for hemp. Hemp is a right to farm crop by federal law, and the regulatory authority of the county is very limited in this regard. Mr. Guzzone would you like to add any more specificity?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed33:10 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Chair Hart and Supervisors, I think the chair has described the evolving framework for this. The State of California is working on its own state plan that it will be submitting to the United States Department of Agriculture and within the past day or so, the United States Department of Agriculture actually extended its rulemaking comment period for another month On its own interim final rules for hemp addressing 12 categories, which are significant to how the county would be regulating. So this is an area that's evolving at the national level as well as the state level.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed33:46 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Thank you, Mr. Kazani. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed33:50 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Just to add to that our legislative committee of which I am a member has in opposed legislation based on its interference with our ability to properly regulate hemp. This is an issue that we have been tracking, I think it's an issue that we largely agree on the at least 90% of the goals that the speaker has. I and our law enforcement personnel continue worries that hemp can be used as a way to cloak a black market marijuana grow and the you know we I would say that my prediction is that this board will use any tool that has at its disposal to properly regulate. At this point of course We see hemp operations that have made an arrangement with a higher education institution.

Those are, to my knowledge, the only operations that are permitted in the county thus far and they're ones that we have difficulty being able to regulate. It's essentially a loophole as I understand it. In theory, research though it's questionable the scale of the growth that is done for research. But I continue to have worries about hemp in Ventura County obviously they have the similar odor issues that we have but without any of the revenue because they are permitting hemp and not marijuana. But if you go down 101 through the Oxnard Plain It'll smell kind of familiar to you. So it's an issue and I appreciate Renee and her neighbors bringing it up as an issue, we are not ignoring it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed35:57 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Thank you Supervisor Williams. We now have Ms. Paulson on public comment.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role36:03 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, I would like to note for the record unfortunately we have been trying to reach Ms. Paulson all morning and we cannot so we are concluding general public comment with Renee O'Neill.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed36:12 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Okay, thank you very much for that comment then.

The next item is department item number one would the clerk please read that item into the record?

0:36 – 0:478 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role36:19 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board departmental item number one is from the county executive office It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a coronavirus disease 2018 COVID-19 update

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed36:33 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Dr. DeRionne Pollard so welcome

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7836:35 · ≈ 9:36 AM

good morning

CommentRenee O'NeillProposed · by introduction36:51 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Today's briefing topics I will be sharing with your board our local COVID-19 data as well as share with you our tier assignment from the blueprint for a safer economy, as well as updating you on the school waivers. To begin, local numbers. We as of yesterday have 8,718 total cases with 162 active cases. Over the past two weeks we have seen the total number of cases increase by 7%.

Current hospitalized, we have 30 and cumulative death count is 106 which means the death rate is 1.2%. This is a graph that describes the seven day rolling sum of new cases by area. New COVID cases are based on episode date with a seven day lag. The daily number of new cases may be changed on a daily basis as new lab reports are received into our CalReady system.

Episode date is the earliest date of several Of several dates, onset of symptoms or specimen collection date and corresponds to the earliest state that the case can be known to have had the infection. So over the past week we have seen downward trends in seven areas South County unincorporated Montecito cart Santa Barbara South County unincorporated north of Goleta Lompoc Santa Maria North County Unincorporated.

Over the past two weeks, we have seen hospitalizations decrease by 30%. Med surge rates decreased by 12% and ICU rates decreased by 56%. Blueprint for a safer economy. So as you may recall, several weeks ago California moved to a tiered system to categorize counties based on the community disease transmission. So widespread disease transmission is tiered one or the purple tier. Substantial disease transmission is tier two Or the red. Moderate is tier 3, the orange and minimal is tier 4.

And the two measures include new cases per 100,000 population per day and it is a number that is based on a 7-day average with a 7 day lag. The other measure is testing percent positivity. And again, the numbers calculated based on a seven day average seven day lag we are current. We will be assigned The purple tier once again for this week. With our COVID-19 positive cases per day, per 100,000 at 9.1.

The adjusted case rate for tier assignment is again also 9. 1 and our positivity rate is 4.8 and this is data based on August 30th to September 5th. The adjusted case rate is a number that the state uses to move a county upward. If the counties testing numbers don't meet the state median, and in this case ours was almost exactly on point so it's 9.1. This is a new graph the department would like to share with your board. It is a depiction of cumulative case count, this is the unadjusted case rate it gives you a historical perspective of where we've been so the large purple band is again The widespread infection, the red is tier two at substantial.

The orange is moderate and the yellow is minimal And what is noteworthy is that we see after Memorial Day, we began this pandemic really at the yellow or the best tier to be in. And then as we progress through March, April all the way to May, we were in tier, the moderate tier or the brown tier And it is after Memorial Day and the reopening of many sectors that we saw an increase in our cases. And then with the apex being around 7-11, however if you recall earlier in July that was when we had the state health officer order to limit gatherings to we had The closure of certain sectors and really in early part of July was where increased restrictions were put into place. And correspondingly, we also saw a decrease in our cases.

Testing positivity percent again, this is a cumulative historical perspective of where we've been and where we are now. So as the pandemic gained traction, we saw testing positivity almost hitting 16% in the The latter part of March, and then really getting low towards May. And then we're increasing now on a downward trend for the past month. What can be opened in the purple tier?

Grocery stores, pharmacies, wholesale clubs, food banks, hair salons, barbershops. Retail stores at 25%. Campgrounds, RV parks, outdoor recreation, community centers, day camps, drive-in movie theaters. What can only be open outdoors is gyms, fitness centers, restaurant cafes, places of worship protests, museums, galleries, zoos and aquariums, personal care services and youth sports leagues for conditioning and skill building.

And as we

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

move to the next tier, the red tier these outdoor operations can be moved indoors at a certain percentage ranging from 10% to 25%. At school waivers, this is the information as of yesterday. We have 14 schools with approved waivers. These include Howard Knox Laguna Blanca Ward off Coastline Christian Academy, Santa Ana's Valley Family School, Santa Ana's Valley Christian Academy, Pacific Christian School Montessori Valley Christian Academy Crane School Saint Raphael St. Mary of the Assumption and Marymount. We did send three schools to CDPH yesterday for their concurrence, and these are the Cold Spring School District, Montecito's Union School District, and Providence.

We are working with five schools for additional information, and these include Dunn School, Arleta of Mount Carmel School, Bachman Union School District, Notre Dame School and St. Louis de Montfort. Additionally yesterday afternoon we received two additional submissions and that is from Santa Ynez Valley Charter School and La Prisima Conception. And that concludes my report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed46:11 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Thank you very much, Dr. Duranasu. Are there any questions for Dr. Duranasu? I have a question. Yes, Supervisor Lavenino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8346:23 · ≈ 9:46 AM

I'm just curious if where and I know I think it's the state that makes the rules about skilled nursing facilities. And this came to me only because I'm kind of experiencing this myself. So people in skilled nursing facilities aren't allowed to receive any visitors at this point, and I'm just kind of curious what stage is it? The red stage or is there a stage associated when people can start receiving visitors?

We've got a lot of elderly people that are Basically, living their last moments separated from their families without anybody coming in to see them. And I don't really think that's conducive to good health or mental health and I'm just curious if there is any news about skilled nursing facilities?

CommentRenee O'NeillProposed · by introduction47:15 · ≈ 9:47 AM

As supervisor through the chair, I don't have that information but I'm more than happy to look for that information and communicate that to your office.

0:47 – 0:5311 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed47:28 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Any other questions or comments? Just think that the two charts, the new two charts, two new charts that you have created that show the historical trends of the cases and test positivity rate are really helpful. It does give a great graphic representation of the course of the virus in the community over time and the trend that we can see on the unadjusted case rate It shows a dramatic decline since 7-11 and then plateauing in the last couple of weeks tells the story of our challenge right now very well graphically. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7848:11 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Chair Hart, I agree with those charts. Thank you that really does give us a perspective on the results of our efforts. I also have heard from some people in the school districts and just wanted to pass their thanks and appreciation to all your staff for helping to get the waivers in place. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed48:32 · ≈ 9:48 AM

At this time we'll go to Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed48:35 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Just wanted to ask you because I know we are hoping now that there is more capacity at our testing sites, that more people even asymptomatic folks will come and get tested. Can you go over what the testing sites are and just the basic information so that anybody watching this knows next step is to make a phone call or an email and get tested?

CommentRenee O'NeillProposed · by introduction49:02 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Correct. So currently we have three state-sponsored tests, OptumServe test sites in Santa Maria, Buellton and Goleta. In addition to that we have for essential workers three county sponsored sites in Santa Maria, Lompoc and Santa Barbara. In addition to that community members can also seek Testing at their own provider offices. And there's been there's been some commentaries about the messaging and so I just want to pause and say that early on in the pandemic, there was a shortage of testing supplies and processing supplies. So we County Public Health followed CDC and CDPH guidelines in prioritizing tier one Which is the symptomatic hospitalized and essential workers.

I think that message has fluctuated because of again, this supply chain issues now that the state has increased their supply and our county I'm 7 to 10 days, and my team just ran our numbers for August. And we were seeing turnaround times of two to three days and some more within one day. So we are encouraging everyone who is needing to get tested to seek testing at either the OptumServe sites or the county sponsored site. The information is available on our website.

And I think the other piece is that we are encouraging people to get tested primarily because one, the availability and two because of the quick turnaround time on the results. And three you may be asymptomatic and you may have been exposed but not be aware. And so now that the opportunity is available, we are encouraging people to get tested.

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed51:31 · ≈ 9:51 AM

And I would just remark that really if you look across the globe, the places that have been able to keep transmission rates low a lot of, you know, one characteristic they share in common is really robust testing. And so some obviously, you know, A test doesn't prove that you're safe, it's surveillance in some fashion if you are testing and asymptomatic. We'll catch more folks who are asymptomatic if asymptomatic people go and get tested.

My sense also is it's a use it or lose it thing with the state, right? If our state, if we don't utilize the testing sites that the state has provided then the state may shrink the number of sites or end it entirely which is a potential real problem for us so

CommentRenee O'NeillProposed · by introduction52:34 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Yes, the expectation. Please go out

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed52:36 · ≈ 9:52 AM

and get tested

CommentRenee O'NeillProposed · by introduction52:37 · ≈ 9:52 AM

right? The expectation is that we will occupy 85% at the state sponsored OptumServe sites and I know that there are other counties who would gladly like to have a an OptumServe site in their county so we are zealously guarding those three sites and making sure that they are and they will be continued to be available to our communities

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed53:04 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Thank you for that. Please go to publichealthsbc.org to find out about how to get tested and please take advantage of that opportunity. Ms. Anderson?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed53:15 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. We'll be bringing up our slides in just a moment.

0:53 – 1:029 turns

CommentRenee O'NeillProposed · by introduction53:26 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Great, if I may. I have a answer back from my team for Supervisor Levignino. Currently no visitors at skilled nursing facility however we anticipate changing this week to request a new order allowing two outside visitors.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed53:48 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Thank you for getting that extra information

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed54:05 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Good morning again, Mr. Chairman and members of the board would like to give you a brief update on the rise business activity that's occurred since the last time we updated your board on September 1st. So state changes, starting with August 28th we had the new tier framework that was announced on September 8th. It was the first weekly tier assessment that was announced and Santa Barbara remained at Tier 1 purple. On September 10th we had updated guidance for card rooms and racetracks that was specifically addressing outdoor operations.

Public health orders... Public health order changes was on September 14th. The public health officer issued Health Order Officer Order 14.1 that addressed homeless shelters and H-2A housing. So Santa Barbara County is at the Tier 1 purple widespread on the state's category list. Sector changes that took effect on August 31st were hair salons and barber shops open indoors with modifications, all retail and shopping malls were Also allowed to open indoors with modifications at max 25%.

Assessment for tier changes occur every Tuesday. The first, as indicated, was September 8th and we are held at Tier 1 Purple. The other was as of today and the Public Health Director indicated that we are again Tier 1 Purple. As of yesterday that information wasn't available. Just a reminder that you have to be in the new tier for three weeks before industry sector changes occur. So we would have to be, if we were moving to red, red for three weeks before industry sectors could change to those modifications.

The state modification list is available on the state's website. They refreshed their current COVID-19 website, now under the blueprint for a safer economy. You are able to enter a county that you're interested in seeing or an activity within the county that allows you to see where we are currently at and this is what it looks like for Santa Barbara. We are currently purple widespread.

In addition, which is a good outlook for businesses who may be interested. The state also provides this tier structure identification of the modifications by category. So it tells you if you move to red what that means to you, if you move to orange or yellow so it's a good reference source for industry sectors that may be looking for this information for the outgoing weeks All of this information is cross-posted on our RecoverySBC.org website, along with our Rise Guide that is updated accordingly.

So far we've had 4,109 businesses submit submittals to reopen in the County of Santa Barbara. We tend to keep our three top at dine-in restaurants, retail and office workspaces. Just a reminder to the public also that we do have a Small Business and Community Partnership Enhancement Program or SBCPEP through our Public Works and Planning and Development departments in order to expand your business outside. We've had 20 businesses take advantage of the public right-of-ways In the private property parking lot areas, so we encourage anyone in the unincorporated Areas to take advantage of that if it's necessary for your business Just a note too that many of the cities have offered this within their jurisdictions as well Rise Ambassador Program tends to still be a strong benefit to our community and we are assisting cities as well in this process.

We do have new contact information, we want to make sure that was made available. They are our first step in reaching out to the community and to our high traffic areas and giving out education and assisting them in connecting them with resources should they need it out in the business area. And this is run through our emergency operations center. They now have a team about nearly 20, I believe that are focusing on this engagement.

And just a reminder to the public as well, that we do have a place on our recoverySBC.org website that allows you to identify a violation and these get sent to the jurisdiction that regulates either the business or the jurisdiction that the business is in order to have that reviewed and we get several weeks on this. We also wanted to give you an update in regard to the county-sponsored community resource programs that your board allocated funding through the CARES Act, and there were specifically three programs for this. The first is a small business grant. This closed on August 31st. We ran this through the SB Foundation.

And these were for businesses that met certain criteria and also self-certified through the RISE program. We had 35 applicants who took advantage of this. The second is a disaster assistance program, and this was to provide income assistance essentially for those who are testing positive A place to stay and could isolate to encourage that process. This just launched last week, and they have had a few take advantage of it.

And they have about 200 households that they can assist through this program. The Rental Assistance Program is well underway. We've had over 220 applications received and 111 approved as of last week. This is a $2 million allocation, and we anticipate it will help up to about 600 households. The online application is available on the UnitedWaySB.org website, and more information can be found on the Housing & Development Department's webpage as well.

And that concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions and here to leave everyone with is some contact information for the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:00:39 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Thank you, Miss Anderson from the report. Are there any questions from his Anderson? Okay, thank you very much. And I'm reminded that it would be a great opportunity right now for Dr. Doberenosa to talk a little bit about flu planning. We are almost into this flu season and I know the Department of Public Health is working diligently to make flu shots available to the community and this is a great time to be prepared for that.

CommentRenee O'NeillProposed · by introduction1:01:08 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Yes, thank you. The Public Health Department will be conducting drive-up flu clinics in coordination with our community partners between October 6th through the 15th. The sites in Lompoc and Santa Barbara are being confirmed and will be available soon Anyone ages three years and older is welcome to come for a free flu shot. We're very grateful for our community partners, for supporting these clinics with sites staffing and equipment. The drive up model allows for safe vaccination of the public for influenza. And we also expect to use this method for when COVID-19 vaccines are available. So again, for Lompoc it will be 2 to 6 p.m. on October 6th and 7th. Santa Barbara is 2 to 6 on October 8th and 9th. Santa Maria at Allan Hancock College from 10 to 1 p.

m. on October 13th and 15th. And we are working on flyers to distribute as well. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:02:20 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Thank you, Dr. Duranosu. That's important information and particularly this year we want everyone to get vaccinated for the flu. The combination of COVID and the flu magnifies the consequences to the medical community and we want to do everything we can to prevent a pandemic that combines with a raging flu incident so thank you. Any questions for anybody at this point or do we have any public comment?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:02:46 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board yes we have six requests to speak on this item

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:02:50 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:02:51 · ≈ 10:02 AM

And we will begin with Christina Silvers to be followed by Kristen Fontes.

1:03 – 1:087 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:03:18 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Good morning.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:03:21 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Good morning. Thank you for joining us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:03:31 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Hart and members of the board. Farm workers are critical to our nation's food security and at no time has the essential nature of farm work and the inordinate personal risk lack of security health care and housing they face while undertaking this work been more obvious than during this pandemic As evidenced by the high rate of infections among farm workers as compared to other groups of essential workers. As a result of our failure from the beginning to adequately inform and protect farm workers and other vulnerable vulnerable groups from COVID-19 people have died at high rates of infection have kept our businesses closed or operating at reduced capacity and our schools operating remotely despite desperate pleas from families clearly it is in everyone's interest to prevent more death and illness So I thank you the county for your hard work towards improvements on this specifically implementation of the housing for the harvest program here in the county including wellness checks and accommodations for children.

I'm also encouraged to see that public health department's recent order 14 point one regarding screening for symptoms and reporting at homeless shelters and H2A farm worker housing but we know by now that without enforcement little will change so I encourage you please support the health order to the best of your ability By providing a clear pathway for enforcement and by setting up a warm line for reporting possible violations without retaliation. Also, if I may it's not really clear to me if and how COVID-19 testing will be made available and accessible logistically as well as economically for those who present symptoms of these daily screenings.

Testing which would be needed in order to confirm cases for reporting to public health as stipulated in the order I'm also concerned that asymptomatic COVID cases would continue to go undetected if we're only screening for symptoms at these locations. So, I urge you to also address these points as well. Thank you again for your attention to these life-saving measures to help all of us get back to work and to school safely.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:05:30 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Thank you for your comments.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:05:36 · ≈ 10:05 AM

We will now go to Kristen Fontes to be followed by Hazel Davalos.

CommentDr. Kristen FontesProposedself-stated1:05:58 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Good morning. Thank you Chair Hart and members of the board for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Dr. Kristen Fontes and I'm a local emergency department physician. I'm also the co-founder of Santa Barbara Health Care Workers for Racial Justice which is a grassroots organization of over 200 health care workers dedicated to health equity and anti-racism in our workplace and community.

I would like to provide my organization support for the letters submitted to the board Regarding the need for improved protections for vulnerable populations, in particular farm workers and houseless individuals during COVID-19. As frontline workers healthcare professionals such as myself have first hand has seen firsthand the devastating effects this viral infection has on patients and in Santa Barbara County it is exceedingly evident that members of our Latinx community are the hardest hit.

The majority of patients that I personally have placed on ventilators have been primarily Spanish speaking or had limited English proficiency. As you may know, the COVID-19 death rates among black and Latinx people in California exceed their respective representations in our state's population. The pandemic is shining a bright light on the often unseen and ongoing social and health disparities affecting black indigenous and people of color in the United States In our community, we're seeing these disparities manifest heavily through inadequate access to health care and personal protective equipment.

Crowded and sometimes hazardous physical environments and dramatic loss of income. I worry about the additive and potentially exponential effects that exposure to poor air quality during the wildfires may have on someone spending significant amounts of time outdoors and potentially being exposed to COVID-19 especially when they're not provided with a proper face covering.

For undocumented workers Limited English proficiency and fear of deportation also create significant barriers to proper care. The recommended priorities outlined in the letter model the various principles for creating equity, which are centering those who are marginalized and oppressed and uplifting their voices by enforcing health officer orders for screening isolation and public health notification by ensuring COVID-19 testing in an efficient way And by implementing an anonymous reporting system to raise concerns about workplace safety, farm workers and houseless folks are put first.

We wholeheartedly support the efforts of the Public Health Department and the expectations of the organizers closest to these issues. As an emergency physician I'm proud to be part of the Safety Net providing critical health services to everyone but we need to do better for the vulnerable members in our community. They need to know that they are seen, that they are heard and that they matter. Thank you very much for your time and attention.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:08:45 · ≈ 10:08 AM

Thank you.

1:09 – 1:149 turns

CommentHazel DavalosProposedself-stated1:09:10 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Good morning board. My name is Hazel Davalos with CAWS. I'm here to extend my gratitude to the Public Health Department for the health officer order issued this past Friday. This order is an urgently needed step to prevent any further farm worker deaths from COVID-19 in Santa Barbara County. We applaud public health and, in particular, the leadership of Dr. Zorainoso in protecting the health of our essential workers who have been hard hit by the pandemic.

The H-2A program presents unique challenges because of the shared housing and transportation of workers, as well as their vulnerability and isolation from crucial safety information, as they are seasonal workers here in the country for only a short time. Regular screening is a critical step to keep a case among one worker from developing into a full blown outbreak amongst workers in close quarters.

It will ensure H-1A workers who contract COVID-19 are isolated and taken care of. Now that public health has issued this health order, we'd like to help ensure that it is enforced. The best way to do this is to create an accessible channel of communication for farmworkers to report violations directly to the county. We'd like to request that the county create a farmworker hotline housed under Public Health where farmworkers can call to notify the department when COVID safety guidelines are not being followed at their workplace.

Last week on a separate note. I would also like to voice support for the prop 15 resolution that will be discussed later in today's meeting. Prop 15 is critical for turning back the tide on generations of disinvestment in public education since over 40 years ago when we had some of the best funded schools in the nation. Our school systems are often asked to fix the deeply rooted economic and racial inequality in our communities with very little resources to put all students on a path to success. We need well-funded world class schools We have the money in our community for everything our students need. This community and state have incredible wealth, but some of our largest corporate landowners are exploiting massive tax breaks that were intended to keep fixed income seniors in their homes.

We ask that you put our schools and communities first, and please support passing your resolution in support of Prop 15. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:11:25 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Thank you Ms. Davalos.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:11:27 · ≈ 10:11 AM

We will now go to Anna Kokovich to be followed by Lee Heller.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:11:49 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Good morning Supervisors and thank you for this excellent update on where we stand as a county. This is Dr. Anna Kokodovich, where we stand as a county and I'm adding just a few comments to what the person has just explained so beautifully. It's so important that we protect everyone who've done a good job of protecting most of us but farm workers essential workers they're the ones that are growing our food.

I know this well I grew up on a farm in Idaho. I've worked in the fields my whole life that I can remember as a child and teenager and young adult, that they often live in, as you know, crowded multiple families and crowded small houses, apartments, trailers wherever they can live. They're trucked or taken to the fields in crowded, crowded vans. We must protect these workers who are growing our strawberries, our food Throughout the county, the things we need so much. So I just urge that we protect these farm workers in every way possible. Thank you very much and thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:13:00 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Thank you Dr. Kotovich.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:13:03 · ≈ 10:13 AM

We will now go to Lee Heller to be followed by Terry Strickland who is our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:13:27 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Good morning Chair Hart and members of the board. I will keep it brief. First of all I wanted to thank the Public Health Department for the health order that extends protections to people in congregate housing situations. This has been overdue and a little bit slow to be approved but we are the first of its kind in the state, I believe. And so it's good that due diligence was done. Hopefully this will begin to improve the protections for farm workers and people who are unhoused And I do also want to echo what Hazel said about needing a hotline for farm workers to call in with concerns. I think that would be a really good use of county resources and would act in support with the work of the Latinx and Indigenous COVID response task force. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:14:15 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Thank you, Dr. Heller.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:14:18 · ≈ 10:14 AM

And we will now go to Terry Strickland who is our final speaker.

1:14 – 1:218 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:14:46 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Hi this is Terry Strickland. I've spoken the last couple of weeks about this issue pretty much on behalf of businesses and in our community small businesses that are hurting terribly and so it's great news to see that the numbers keep going down you know we have 162 cases out of 450,000 people I'm not sure we know if those are symptomatic or not. That would be important information to know.

I think that, I'm not sure anybody ever talks about or considers that with the numbers going down statewide even, you know, maybe the virus is running its course. Not that people aren't gonna still get sick but maybe Maybe it's just running its course and not because everybody mandated to wear a mask social distance. When I've talked in the last couple of weeks about the hardships on business, I want to emphasize that this is not just about money, but the thousands of dollars lost in revenues to small businesses Some barely were surviving before COVID, hanging on by a thread at this point. But it's also about the mental health of the owners of businesses themselves trying to keep things together but also employers feel a responsibility to their employees not only for their financial well-being but their mental well-being also You know it's a.

It's an issue that nobody ever talked about but it's important because you know I don't want to downplay the virus but 162 people out of 450,000 doesn't anybody else see that you know it seems like we need to be opening up our businesses You know and the question I have today is you know what what is the date.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterRoy ReedSanta Barbara County Taxpayers AssociationProposedself-stated1:17:18 · ≈ 10:17 AM

What

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:17:18 · ≈ 10:17 AM

when will businesses realistically get to open up inside because it's you know they keep changing the metrics and now that you know there's there's this two weeks and there's three weeks and then you know I don't know how how you guys keep track of it because it's pretty hard to understand for the average person Not sure that that is on purpose. And I know the board said that you have to follow the state guidelines, you know, but you're kind of powerless in this whole thing and I just think you need to tell the governor, you know, these metrics are just unattainable.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:18:04 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Eklund.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:18:09 · ≈ 10:18 AM

And that was our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:18:12 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Are there any other comments from staff or board members? Okay, Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:18:23 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Sorry for being late on the draw there I just wanted to reflect I mean both because of the questions of the majority of speakers and from a latter speaker you know In order for us to move tiers we are going to have to address more than ever this issue where we have a higher rates among lower income folks. But you guys have been focused on that for all summer right so it's what more can we Can we do what more?

Either through, you know. Ordinances or spending of funds, you know, or through enforcement and if they and please use the opportunity to let him know. And let the public now again. You guys had a enforcement slide and if that's the right place to go for. An issue with this most recent health order. Please confirm that.

CommentRenee O'NeillProposed · by introduction1:19:36 · ≈ 10:19 AM

We have always been very mindful of health equity issues during this pandemic. As such, we were one of the first in the state to stand up a task force Our Latinx and Indigenous Immigrant COVID-19 Response Task Force to work with community partners in addressing the need for prevention efforts, as well as testing efforts, as well as treatment efforts in a culturally appropriate manner, linguistically appropriate manner. We continue to be active members of the task force and engaging our partners public health. You recently used CARES funding to support the maintenance, the infrastructure of that task force and to also support our community Health Center Central Coast partners to do targeted outreach and health education.

We also supported FSA for language justice efforts. So we are I can count that we are also one of the first few counties to launch our project for harvest housing as well as our H2A health officer order and homeless population, so we have done Quite a bit, but that we're not resting. We continue to Explore with our partners what more? innovation we can do in order to To work together to decrease the rates we are now joining efforts with our partners in South County to address similar issues and

1:21 – 1:2613 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:21:37 · ≈ 10:21 AM

And if you would put up slide number nine, I think that tells the story really well in graphic form. Yeah, Mr. Clinton's question as to what it would take is that black line to get into the red and as we were trending down dramatically from 7 11 until about August 22nd and now have plateaued just above the red line so All the things everybody was doing to get us from the very high peak down where we are right on the edge of the red line. If we can just do a little bit more when you're invited to a gathering, say no, wear your mask all the time outdoors and whenever you're around somebody else and wash your hands regularly. The simple strategies have been saying all along if people just a few more people did that a little more diligently, we would make it into the red.

And businesses more businesses to be able to open indoors. And we would produce the spread of the virus which is really the whole point of everything. All right does there any other comments from board members. All right can we have a motion on this item. Move to receive and file

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:23:26 · ≈ 10:23 AM

second

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:26 · ≈ 10:23 AM

most it's been made in second roll call please.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:23:29 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Mr. Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:33 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Hi,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:23:33 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Mr. Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:34 · ≈ 10:23 AM

I

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:23:35 · ≈ 10:23 AM

miss Hartman. Hi Mr. Adam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:38 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:23:38 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:39 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:23:40 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:23:41 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Let's take a 10 minute break. Hello.

1:32 – 1:372 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:32:38 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Yeah. you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:37:09 · ≈ 10:37 AM

We'll reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting and go to the next item, which is Department Item Number 2. Would the clerk please read that item into the record?

1:37 – 1:4316 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:37:17 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board, departmental item number two is from Public Works, Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding proposed fee ordinances for the Public Works Water Resources Division, Flood Control District, and Project Clean Water.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:37:35 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Mr. Payram, Mr. Williams welcome. Good morning Mr. Chair members of the board pleasure to be back in front of you today we're here to introduce an ordinance amendment for our flood control and project clean water development fees and with a short presentation will be Stephen Williams CFO for our Water Resources Division I'll turn it over to him Welcome

CommentStephen WilliamsProposedself-stated1:37:56 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much Chair Hart, members of the board again my name is Stephen Williams and I am the CFO for the Water Resources Division of Public Works and again today we're here to present to the board a brief overview of our fee update for the Santa Barbara County Flood Control District and for our Project Clean Water program in this presentation will go a little bit into the why, how, who and our implementation timeline so without further ado let's just go ahead and dive into it To begin, reasons for updating our fees. First and foremost to adhere with the county's fee policy of full cost recovery.

Per that policy departments shall ensure appropriate maximum reimbursement of user fees that fully offset user costs. Secondly, the length of time between fee updates. The last fee update for Flood Control District was completed in March 2010 and the last fee update for Project Clean Water was completed in April 2004 Fees should be reviewed and updated periodically to reflect the impact of various factors that affect costs.

Some of these factors include inflation, changes to service structure such as a change in statutory requirements and also delivery of those services i.e., changes in staff requirements and or technology. Next we'll go a little bit into the background of the fee study itself. We contracted with MGT of America, who is a consulting firm with expertise in local government fee analysis. And they've provided these same type of services for other departments throughout the county in the past.

MGT along with water resources fiscal staff comprehensively studied the Public Works Water Resources Division Flood Control District and Project Clean Water service fees. And this study had a few goals in mind. First, of course is to analyze the cost to determine whether they're being appropriately recovered. And a second goal was actually to streamline and reorganize our fee structure so that they align more with those adopted by Planning and Development back in 2017. What this will help with is to create efficiencies between Planning and Development and the Water Resources Division in both the fee assessment side as well as the collection process.

And now we'll go just a little bit into the results of the fee study. So, the results of this study identified that Flood Control District and Project Clean Water are currently not recovering costs by 7% and 45%, respectively. The proposed fees that we're bringing to the Board today bring those figures to 0% and achieve full cost recovery. Increased annual revenues for Flood Control District and Project Clean Water are approximately $8,000 and $19,000 respectively. And that's on a per fiscal year basis.

One thing that is kind of important to note with The figures down below is that you'll see a minor discrepancy between the cost recovery percentages between Flood Control District and Project Clean Water. And a little bit about that is that with the last ordinance for Flood Control District, that was back in 2010 they got approved it included a CPI clause and so we've made periodic updates to those fees and as such it's kept pace better with changes in inflation and such. Project Clean Water's ordinance did not include such a clause and so that's why you see it lagging a little bit more.

In both ordinances that we're bringing to your board, we include that CPI clause and will adjust those on an annual basis so that they keep pace with inflation. And lastly, a little bit about of our adoption timeline. Today is the first reading this will go again to the board next week for a second reading in which it will be considered for approval and adoption and if so approved and adopted these fees will going to affect for the public 30 days after that which would be October 21st.

I want to thank you for your time. And I said I'd keep it short and brief. So if you guys have any questions or comments now's that time

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:13 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Thank you Mister Williams for the presentation. Are there any questions of staff? Are there any public comments on this item?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:42:21 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Chair Hart and members of the Board, we have no request to speak on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:25 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Okay is there any board discussion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:42:27 · ≈ 10:42 AM

or is there a motion? Mr. Farrum was trying to convince me to haze you as part of this presentation but instead I'll just move staff recommendation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:38 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Good decision. Motions made and seconded. And he did such a great job with the presentation, there was nothing to say afterward. All questions were answered. Madam Clerk could you please call the roll?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:42:48 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:51 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:42:51 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:56 · ≈ 10:42 AM

None

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:42:56 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:57 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:42:58 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Motion passes unanimously

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:59 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Thank you again. Brings us to department item number three would the clerk please read that item into the record

1:43 – 1:483 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:43:08 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, departmental item number three is from Supervisor Williams. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a resolution in support of Proposition 15.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:43:21 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:43:29 · ≈ 10:43 AM

As was mentioned by one speaker, we ask a lot of our education systems We asked them to be an economic driver. Our education system and our higher education system have traditionally been one of the reasons why California is a place of innovation in industry. We ask them to give Equality of opportunity to be the great equalizer of our society where someone can come from humble means, a poor family and get a decent education and perform to the level of their dreams.

And we ask them to be places Our society in a sort of de Tocqueville fashion can mix rich, poor middle class and have cohesion and community. We ask this all of our schools and yet we do not give them the resources necessary to perform these tasks Of all the times when schools need help, now is most conspicuous because to even be able to provide basic educational services to all students requires not less resources but more. More technologies, more cleaning supplies, more logistics associated with cohorting in order to be able to educate our kids either in hybrid models or online, in a way that's both safe and the most difficult part efficacious. That would actually work and provide an education for kids.

And so if public education is to be successful we are going to have to do something different fundamentally different from a fiscal perspective And I fundamentally agree with the goal of Prop 13, which was to keep people in their homes. I do not think that the majority of the electorate that voted for Prop 13 meant to provide tax exemptions for commercial properties that are over $3 million.

And so I believe that proposition 15 schools and communities first both upholds the goal of prop 13 by reforming it without getting rid of it. And does something fundamentally different from a fiscal perspective that would allow incrementally commercial properties over $3 million to, um, uh, come into an equalized property tax based. Um, which will have game changing changes, game changing results for our educational system and, uh, you know, would have significant benefits for our ability to provide vital services in crisis times.

And I think not just about how much struggles we have had to provide services, but think about how much the cities under our jurisdiction and other counties that don't have a cannabis tax. How difficult they have had to provide basic services through the COVID disaster? And so I thought it was important To bring this for discussion, I don't like to pick fights that could be partisan fights here. It's not my way of doing business but I just thought this was too important and too relevant to our ability to provide basic services and probably the most important thing.

On the state ballot, I would maybe argue that presidency is most important thing on the national ballot. But on the state ballot this would be a game changer for our school system and Would provide desperate services and monies needed for reacting for the emergency of COVID and the perpetual other emergencies we seem to face every year across the state.

1:48 – 2:0110 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:48:41 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Ms. Elliott?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:48:43 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Thank you Chair Hart and Supervisors. Before you today is consideration of a resolution in support of, as Supervisor Williams indicated, Statewide Ballot Proposition 15 on the November 3rd 2020 General Election ballot. So Proposition 15, which is known as the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020 will amend the California state constitution to require commercial and industrial properties to be taxed based on their fair market value.

Prop 15 exempts residential property, property used for commercial agriculture and commercial and industrial property with a fair market value of $3 million or less. And that $3 million value will be adjusted for inflation every two years. It also exempts all personal property including equipment and fixtures used for business purposes for small businesses that have 50 or fewer employees And up to $500,000 of personal property for other businesses.

Prop 15 also specifies that the legislature must create a task force to make recommendations for the legislature on implementation of the measure. The task force will include a county assessor, a board of equalization member, a proponent of the measure and a member of the legislature. One of the recommendations that the task force will make to the legislature is how the measure will be phased in.

Although, the measure states it won't start until 2022-2023 fiscal year and phasing in must occur over two or more lean dates. The measure also states that commercial centers with 50% or more of the spaces occupied by small businesses, which is again defined as fewer than 50 employees will not begin to be phased in until the 25-26 fiscal year. So our current commercial property tax assessment So Proposition 13 was passed in 1978 and it set property taxes for residential, commercial and industrial properties at 1% of their purchase price with an annual adjustment of either the rate of inflation or 2% per year whichever is lower.

So the Legislative Analyst's Office did a study and they found that the market value of most properties grows faster than 2% per year so the taxable value of most properties is less than the market value Reassessment in California is triggered by change of property ownership, and commercial and industrial properties change ownership much less frequently than properties belonging to homeowners and small businesses.

Frequently they will change the ownership of a company as opposed to actually changing physical property. So California is one of the only states where reassessment is only triggered by change of ownership or when new construction has completed. For example, Alaska and Arizona require reassessment every year. Colorado every two years. Florida at least every five years. Texas at least every three years.

And Washington every... At least every four years. So revenue projections. So again, the California Legislative Analyst's Office estimates a range of $7.5 billion to $12.5 billion in additional revenue would be generated statewide Prop 15 states that revenue must first be distributed to the state to supplement decreases in revenue from the state's personal income tax exemption due to increased property tax deductions, and then to counties to cover the cost of implementing the measure.

The LAO estimates a remaining $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion, and of that 60% would be allocated to cities, counties and special districts, and the remaining 40% would be allocated to schools and community colleges. So what does this mean for Santa Barbara County? When I first made this presentation and created the board packet, I included a study that was done by the authors of the initiative, by Blue Sky Consulting Group.

And they predicted about what their predictions were for Santa Barbara County cities and special districts. Since that study came out, the proponents of Measure 15, Proposition 15 updated their estimates and it's on their website. And I included that our county's page in your board packet. And the initial Blue Sky Consulting Group estimates didn't include estimates for school districts. And the updated estimates do include that, and so they're estimating about $43.5 million going to Santa Barbara County K-12 schools.

An additional over $10 million going to our two community colleges. So that would bring the total of the amount of revenue coming into Santa Barbara County to a little over $100 million. And this slide is based on the Blue Sky Consulting Group estimates, some of them have increased slightly on the Prop 15 website with their new estimates but they estimate about 30, a little over $30 million or somewhere in the range of $30 million coming into the Santa Barbara County General Fund And so recommended actions. So the recommendation is to pass the resolution in support of statewide ballot proposition 15 just for your information other counties that have passed a resolution and support include Alameda Contra Costa Los Angeles, San Francisco Santa Clara and Santa Cruz.

And so that's the end of my presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:54:55 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Thank you Ms. Elliott for the excellent presentation are there questions? Comments? Do we have public comment? Sir, public comment. We can do comments from board members before public comment too. Supervisor Lavender, did you want to make a comment?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.831:55:17 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Sure. First off, I think California propositions should have to go through some sort of truth serum when they come up with the titles. This is just one in a long history of misleading titles. Schools and communities first. First off only 40% of the money goes to schools so you have to realize why when anything Anybody wants to put anything on a ballot in California, they mention schools because it polls the best.

I mean if you go back and you remember the lottery, I think it was Proposition 20 that was going to take care of...the big selling point was it was going to go to the schools. All the money generated from the lottery creates less than 1% of school funding. The other one that I loved that was just recent was Prop 47, which reclassified a bunch of felony crimes as misdemeanors and reduced sentencing and effectively allowed a lot of people out of jail. And you can argue whether that's a good point or a bad point.

But to call it Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, I thought was a little misleading. So I know we're not arguing that point today but that's a side thing for me. I think I've told people before that if you read a California proposition and you agree with it, you should probably vote against it. And if you don't agree with it, you should probably vote for it because the way they were written makes them very confusing.

So if we were really concerned about the schools We would not take the 60% of the money generated from this. We would let all 100% go to the school because I haven't heard a plan yet what we would use the, you know, 60% of this revenue for it would go into the general fund could be spent on anything but i think if you named it You know, the California Pension Backfill Initiative. I don't think it would get much traction so I understand why you throw schools in there.

I just find the whole thing hard to believe that at the time...I think it's a really bad idea first off this whole idea that we're protecting small business is a joke because small businesses don't own their business, they're tenants. So you're going to have the landlord that's going to be hit with this bill. What are they gonna do with it? They're gonna absorb it? No, they pass it down in cost to the renter so a small business is now going to have their rent increase.

What does the small business owner do? He only has two choices he's either going to eat that Or he's going to pass it along to the consumer. And it's these things that we continue to see at the state level, um, that I just don't get it. It's like especially, it's a really bad idea at probably the worst possible time ever. You have a small business that's trying to make it through a pandemic and they're finally coming up and getting their head above water. They're coming up from the third time from drowning instead of giving them a life preserver you throw him a brick or uh, you know, an anchor.

I just pray that people see through this and it's not, to me it's not a conservative or progressive position. I find myself on this issue on the same side as former mayor of L.A., Antonio Villaraigosa who is the Democratic former Speaker of the Assembly. He said Prop 15 is going to get in the way of California's much needed recovery The Berkeley Research Group, which I don't think could be considered a right-wing think tank by any stretch, estimates that there'll be 120,000 private sector jobs lost.

Now those could be offset by what they estimated about 60,000 public sector jobs but that's still a job loss and I think I've seen reports where California is rated as the third worst tax climate for business. So, if this is the plan to either continue to push people out of California job creators, it's a great plan. I'm not saying that the property tax, and I agree with former Mayor Villaraigosa. Property tax does need to be addressed. It just needs to be addressed in a revenue neutral manner.

Not where we look at this as some kind of cash cow That we're looking for business to somehow job creators to somehow, you know. It's so easy to look at the cases like where you say well Disney is not pulling their fair share and this famous company is not doing their fair share. Well fix that loophole. Don't create a system that's going to broadly paint the entire state with the same brush. I think it's a mistake.

Obviously I'm not a big fan. I think it's a big mistake, but I would have liked to... Actually, I don't know why this is the agenda item and not just a resolution, but

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:00:57 · ≈ 11:00 AM

it is what it is. Thank you Supervisor Lavenino. Are there other comments? We have 22 requests to speak. All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:01:13 · ≈ 11:01 AM

right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:01:14 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Just briefly, just to let you know why it's a D item and not an A items because we at least anticipated that you would be angry if that was an A item and so important. So that's the reason why it's a DI

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:01:31 · ≈ 11:01 AM

understood. Thank you very much for the clarification.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:01:36 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Right? Let's go to public comment.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:01:38 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board. Yes we have 22 requests to speak on this item. We're going to begin with Christian Alonzo to be followed by John Douglas

2:02 – 2:078 turns

PresenterChristian AlonsoSanta Barbara Young DemocratsProposedself-stated2:02:09 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Hi, good morning Chair and the Board. Thank you so much for your time and thank you to the last speaker for that thorough and informative presentation. My name is Christian Alonso and I'm the President of the Santa Barbara Young Democrats. On behalf of SBYD, I want to echo the voices of others here today in support of Proposition 15, The Schools and Communities First Initiative.

For too long in the state of California, property tax loopholes for the wealthiest among us and the biggest corporations have robbed our schools of desperately needed resources. When corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, the burden falls on our parents, on our teachers and on all of our Santa Barbara County community members to pick up the slack.

There really isn't any data to support the notion that big corporations and wealthy landlords will pass down savings they get from their special interest tax loopholes to renters and small businesses. So please reject the scare tactics from big money interests. Prop 15 will not affect homeowners or renters, and will in fact lower taxes for small businesses who've been hit hardest by this pandemic economy.

Process 15 finally closes these corporate property tax loopholes and reclaims $12 billion for our schools and our Central Coast communities. We need this money, and we need massive corporations to start paying their fair share just like the rest of us. So I am imploring the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to support the resolution and to support Prop 15, which is by extension support of our schools and our community. Thank you again so much for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:03:53 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Thank You Mr. Alonzo

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:03:58 · ≈ 11:03 AM

We will now go to John Douglas to be followed by Jonathan Abboud

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:04:24 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Hello, Supervisors and can you hear me okay?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:04:28 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Yes we can. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:04:31 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Thank you. I want to thank Supervisor Williams for his leadership in bringing forward this resolution. I live in his district in Santa Barbara and we are very grateful for his leadership for so many years in the city and the Assembly and the County. Prop 15 It's very simple. It just goes after the freeloaders these huge corporations that have been shirking their responsibility have put an enormous burden on our state's resources and it isn't schools and community first or proposition schools get fully 40 percent of the revenue generated by this It's not a tax increase. What it is, it's a leveling because right now so many of these corporations that have owned huge tracts of commercial property in our state have been skating and who are carrying the burden?

It's the newer corporations and it's the small businesses that are carrying the tax burden. So this is a leveling out. And it's just making sure that the freeloaders pay their fair share. That's all that this does and we need the revenue and they need to pay their fair share. We all use the public resources, the infrastructure of our state, and yet not everyone is paying equally. I see this bill or this proposition as helping small businesses in particular Because the exemption for small businesses, mom and pop businesses with less than 50 employees is a boon. Because right now those small businesses are bearing the tax burden that monster corporations like the fossil fuel companies, the railroads, many of which aren't even based in California.

They just own property in this state. That they've been shirking, so I thank you. Thank you for supporting Prop 15 and I urge you to vote yes to adopt this resolution. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:06:59 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Thank you Mr Douglas.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:07:03 · ≈ 11:07 AM

We will now go to Jonathan Abboud to be followed by Geneva Lovett.

2:07 – 2:1215 turns

PresenterJonathan Labrudaboard today it has been something known that our collegeProposedself-stated2:07:25 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Hi, thank you Board of Supervisors for hearing this item today. My name is Jonathan Labruda as you know and I serve on the board for the Santa Barbara City College and while not representing the board today it has been something known that our college is in a deficit of over $5 million and Prop 15 will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars across the state but specifically in our county I think 128 million and 6 million of it directly to Santa Barbara City College, and about the same for Allan Hancock College. So I know there's been many different perspectives being shared today on why to support Proposition 15, but I'd say one big one is that our educational institutions will really be saved by this. They will be enhanced, they will be able to better serve the community, and so I think Our county support of this proposition is important because it signals to the voters that this is something that's going to directly benefit them every day in every kind of local government, from municipal to education.

So thank you for considering and I hope you support this resolution. Have a good day.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:08:41 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Thank you Mr. Abood.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:08:44 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Our next speaker is Geneva Lovett to be followed by Luz Reyes-Martin.

CommentGeneva LeavittProposedself-stated2:09:07 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Hi, I'm Geneva Leavitt. I am a resident of San Barbara County and have been living here for eight years. This is an issue that I really care about. Prop 15 is incredibly important. I'll make it super quick but there's a lot of misinformation going around. It's not going to repeal Prop 13. Homeowners will still feel the benefits of Prop 13 It's really just, hey let's just tax Disneyland. You know, Disneyland has all of this land and is not paying hardly any property taxes and there are a lot of big corporations that are like that. It's also going to exempt small businesses and agriculture so it's really just a common sense measure and I really hope the Board of Supervisors will support it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:09:54 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Thank you Ms. Leavitt.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:10:00 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Mr. Chair?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:10:01 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Yes, Supervisor Lavanino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:10:03 · ≈ 11:10 AM

I've seen Disneyland brought up a number of times so I just checked. They pay $55 million a year in property tax by the way in Orange County.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:10:12 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Which we'll get nothing out of right? Darcelle, since you're staff on this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:10:23 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Yeah it's Disneyland is in Orange County so yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:10:28 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Right, so we'll get nothing out of that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:10:35 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Let's keep going to public comment.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:10:39 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, unfortunately we were unable to get a hold of Luz Martin, Ray's Martin but we have Sherry Higgins on the line to be followed by Michael Lynch.

CommentSherry HigginsProposedself-stated2:11:06 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Hi my name is Sherry Higgins and I want to thank the supervisors for allowing me to make a comment in support of the resolution for Proposition 15, the Schools and Communities First initiative. And I just want to say that I have a fifteen year old in high school here in Santa Barbara and I volunteered in all of the classrooms in elementary and junior high and I've Provided supplies for the teachers in the classroom.

And I have seen how badly the teachers have had to use their own money to buy supplies and books in the classrooms, and so any amount that we could get from passing Proposition 15 to help our schools would, I'm sure, be greatly appreciated. They were already under-resourced and underfunded Before the pandemic and now with the pandemic they're overwhelmed. And I'm well I'm hoping that Proposition 15 will be passed and at the schools we'll be able to recover some funds from the passing of that proposition.

Thank you for allowing me to speak. Goodbye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:12:26 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Thank you Ms. Higgins.

2:12 – 2:177 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:12:30 · ≈ 11:12 AM

We will now go to Michael Lynch to be followed by Pam Flint Tambo.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:12:52 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Hi, this is Michael Lynch. I'm a resident of Santa Barbara County and I wanted to thank you for taking my comments. I can't see you so I can't see any reaction. This is difficult. I wanted to voice my perspective on Prop 15 And and I've also spoken to a lot of people who share my opinion on this. I remember when prop on the original Prop 13 was on the ballot. I remember it very well and I remember what everybody I spoke to at the time was voting on we were not voting for a benefit to reduce taxes on any businesses that was never once discussed. All the campaigns, everything about it said this is to support senior citizens.

We were all voting to keep grandma in her home. Nobody said oh and we want businesses to thrive better in Santa Barbara or California or anything of that sort It was all about the senior citizens. So I very much support Prop 15, the current issue because that is going to basically make the correction to what should have been there to begin with based on what we were voting for. Aside from that, we need the money to support the schools. We all know that and I'm very much supportive. I just wanted to make sure everybody had that reference of why we got here to begin with. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:15:04 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Thank you Ms. Lynch.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:15:09 · ≈ 11:15 AM

And Chair Hart members of the board unfortunately we were unable to reach Pam Flint Tambo so we are going to Chelsea Lancaster to be followed by Andy Caldwell

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:15:39 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Hello everybody, this is Chelsea Lancaster. Thank you Dr. Williams for bringing this forward and Darcelle for all your labor. Just wanted to call and echo the support being expressed here for Prop 15. I know there are a lot of scare tactics coming from large corporate landlords and the business community but when you really look at the facts, Prop 15 simply closes the property tax loopholes that only benefit wealthy corporations right now Disneyland as an example, the amount of tax that they're paying was based on an assessment in 1974 at five cents per square foot. There have been some small reassessments about property value but that's just an example of how much revenue a community like Orange County is losing based on the again corporate tax loopholes that have been created by Prop 13 in the past So I overwhelmingly support Proposition 15, the Santa Barbara General Fund will receive about $30 million.

We desperately need these monies as a recovery from COVID and Santa Barbara City would receive about 5 to 6 million, Goleta City a little over 1 million, Carp City around half a million dollars, Santa Maria between 3 and 4 million This is just common sense reform, and I really echo the support being expressed here. Please support the resolution and everybody listening vote yes on Prop 15. Tell your friends.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:17:14 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Thank you, Ms. Lancaster.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:17:17 · ≈ 11:17 AM

We will now go to Andy Caldwell to be followed by Anna Cepeda.

2:17 – 2:245 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:17:42 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. We really think this is one of the most economically tone deaf items I've seen in my 30 years. First of all we all know that this is already on the ballot and any one of you supervisors could individually endorse it. You do not have to pretend that you're endorsing it on behalf of all of Santa Barbara County because you're not. Let the voters decide All what you're doing is making people exceedingly angry because of how again tone deaf you are. First of all, these guys are all speaking about class warfare. This is about the large corporations that every small business either owns their own building or they rent from a large corporation. This makes no distinction between large businesses and small businesses.

They're all going to be end up paying this tax You know, the bottom line here is right now small businesses have a tough time competing against the Internet. Then they had to face COVID closures and there's still most of them are closed at least to some degree especially restaurants we're even having small doctor practices have 50 percent bankruptcy rate right now And then plus, it exempts agricultural land except if they're growing an orchard which is what is in Doss Williams' district or vineyards which are throughout Joan Hartman's district. Plus irrigation supplies, fences and barns and things like that. Finally let's be honest I really wish you would be honest and this staff report was completely one-sided In the aftermath of Prop 13, local governments and state governments started to pass billions in cumulative dollars.

Billions of dollars in fees. You've not lost anything because overall most properties turn over in time and so the property taxes in California have done nothing but go up, up, But in the meantime you pass these just this morning you passed more fees a fee update. You're taking in tens of millions of dollars in fees every year. Are you going to give those up if in fact Prop 13 gets rescinded for commercial retail industrial and agricultural properties? And then there's no mention that if it wasn't for government pensions you'd have another hundred and fifty million dollars every year But you won't do anything to curb the pension crises. So what we really have here is government for government.

You're pretending this is some class warfare thing against big business, but that's just a lie. It is a lie and we also are chagrined that we didn't get two weeks notice that this was coming up. I'm sure that Doss informed his supporters that he was putting this on But again, there's no net necessity for you to vote on this because you can individually endorse it. If you want to try to have a debate, I'll debate any one of you or all three of you for crying out loud on this thing because this is devastating. This is the absolute worst time in the history of this region probably even worse than 2008 for this measure of a tax hike. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:21:28 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Thank you, Mr. Caldwell.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:21:32 · ≈ 11:21 AM

We are going back to Pam Flint-Tambo to be followed by Anna Zavita.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:21:56 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Good morning. I represent the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara. Our state league has been exploring appropriate ways to address the problem with the old 1978 Proposition 13 for several years because it doesn't meet the needs of our communities and our schools. When it was initially passed, it provided revenue from both large corporations and industries and from homeowners at about a 50-50 ratio But over the years, this ratio has eroded. And now those corporations and industries only provide about 10% of the revenue compared to 90% from residential sources.

The League of Women Voters has been part of a coalition which has worked on several proposals for schools and communities over several years. The proposed Proposition 15 protects and helps small businesses valued at less than $3 million In property value, and there are other protections of personal property as well. Homeowners in rental home properties are protected as our congregate home situations.

Five three points one large corporations and industries benefiting from their old low property assessments effectively discourage new business and industry from coming into our state So we're at a disadvantage in attracting newer industries to California. Second, importantly there is serious concern about our educational excellence and the ability of California schools to turn out well-educated workers for our industries and businesses.

Our children don't have the resources in their schools to cope with the society that they live in. We don't have counselors, nurses or librarians in our schools to help children with the issues around Immigration, COVID-19 and poverty. In 1978 our schools were seventh in the nation in terms of funding and now our state is 37th or even 41st depending on the report you read.

Our classroom sizes are now the largest in the nation it's a sad distinction. Increased property tax revenue for my third point will help cities and counties provide services that are needed in our communities. County supervisors will have discretion as to how the community funds are spent, and accordingly they'll have responsibility to report back to the state as to how those dollars were spent for transparency.

So I strongly urge you to endorse Proposition 15. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:24:46 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Thank you Ms. Flint-Tambo.

2:24 – 2:299 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:24:51 · ≈ 11:24 AM

We will now go to Anna Zabita to be followed by Marisol Mendoza.

CommentAna CepedaProposedself-stated2:25:17 · ≈ 11:25 AM

Hello, thank you for having me. My name is Ana Cepeda and I'm here as a mother and community member. And I was just calling in today to ask for the supervisors to pass a resolution in support of Proposition 15 for the School and Communities First Initiative. So this Prop 15, as y'all know will close property tax loopholes that benefit wealthy corporations Our goal is to protect homeowners, renters, small businesses and our culture. And reclaim billions of dollars that will directly go to our schools and local community service. So as a mother of a child whose school age it's very important for myself for my daughter to have a supervisor the board of supervisors to be able to support this so that she can as much support as possible through our school systems.

So if you can please support this proposition 15, I know myself and the community will be very appreciative of this and that's all I have to say today. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:26:32 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Thank you, Ms. Cepeda.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:26:35 · ≈ 11:26 AM

And unfortunately we are unable to get a hold of Mayor Solis so we are going to Danielle Gonzalez to be followed by Angel Lopez.

CommentDanny GonzalezProposedself-stated2:27:25 · ≈ 11:27 AM

My name is Danny Gonzalez and I'm the lead organizer with Future to Youth of America. I'm calling to support Prop 15, also known as Schools and Communities First. For far too long our communities have been severely underfunded and COVID-19 has exacerbated the situation. There are many more budget cuts coming and Prop 15 were out to alleviate some of these issues.

Can you all hear me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:28:04 · ≈ 11:28 AM

Yeah, I think you have your device on in the background and it's giving you feedback. So if you can turn off whatever you have in the background. I

CommentDanny GonzalezProposedself-stated2:28:14 · ≈ 11:28 AM

feel like there is a lag. It's time for large corporations to pay their fair share. And our education and communities to receive the funding they deserve. The county of Santa Barbara is expected to receive $30.4 million in general funds, which can be used for addressing quality of life and social ills our community is dealing with due to COVID-19. For the past four years, corporations have been using shady schemes and loopholes to avoid paying their fair share which has really impacted our communities and local businesses.

Not only will profit team generate year-round funding for our local schools and communities but it's also going to provide a huge tax incentive for small businesses valued under $3 million. This is a tax break on $500,000 worth of fixtures and equipment small businesses and farmers can receive and take advantage of leading to more business growth And for the betterment of our community. So I urge the Board of Supervisors to endorse Clause 15, Schools and Communities First. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:29:40 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Thank You Mr. DeSalle

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:29:44 · ≈ 11:29 AM

We will now go to Angel Lopez to be followed by Melissa Villafierta

2:30 – 2:358 turns

CommentAncel LopezProposedself-stated2:30:07 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Hello, good morning. Board of Supervisors my name is Ancel Lopez and I'm a community member of Santa Barbara County. I'm calling in support of Prop 15 also known as Schools and Communities First. In recent years schools have seen their budgets be defunded and now more as a result of recent COVID-19 budget cuts inequities have been made more evident and much needed research services are under scrutiny such as education materials or recreational opportunities and mental health resources Through Schools and Communities First, Santa Barbara County is expected to receive over $30 million in general funds. These funds received by PROC ESTEEM can be used to close the equity gap in our schools and provide essential community resources that will have a positive well-being on our residents.

As a young professional myself I have also seen many of my teaching colleagues often have to purchase teaching material from their own pockets to be able to provide to their students Our schools should be able to take the responsibility of making all teachers have everything they need in their classrooms in order to provide top quality educational services to our youth. Santa Barbara County will receive $14 million through Schools and Communities First that will be allocated towards education. With this funding, our teachers can relieve from the responsibility of purchasing materials needed and our students can receive the proper materials to succeed in school. In order to have safe, healthy and prosperous communities the resources provided in our neighborhoods must be properly funded.

Prop 15 will ensure our communities receive the funding necessary to create safe communities and I urge the Board of Supervisors to endorse Prop 15. Thank you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:31:47 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Thank you Mr. Lopez.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:31:52 · ≈ 11:31 AM

We were unable to get a hold of Melissa Villafierta so we are going to Gail Teton-Landis And Chair Hart, members of the board, I would also like to make a quick announcement to the public that the chair is closing public comment period. So we are not going to take any additional speakers. Thank you.

CommentGail T. Tom LandisProposedself-stated2:32:26 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Good morning, Chair Hart and members of the board. I'm a resident of the county. My name's Gail T. Tom Landis, and I'm calling in support of the resolution to support Proposition 15. Large corporations have profited from a property tax loophole for too long while small businesses and working families have had to pay more than their fair share to support public education and local services.

This measure will close the property tax loophole by requiring reassessment of commercial and industrial properties only It will cut small business taxes and it exempts homeowners, renters, small businesses in agricultural land so they continue to be protected by Prop 13. Proposition 15 will reclaim funds badly needed by local schools and services and community colleges.

According to the community first webpage Santa Barbara County General Fund will gain over $30 million dollars in Goleta, Santa Barbara and Santa Maria cities will receive much-needed funds as well. This influx of funds will undoubtedly be needed to stave off pandemic related economic shortfalls and I again hope you will support the resolution,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:33:44 · ≈ 11:33 AM

thank you. Thank You Ms. Teton Landis

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:33:53 · ≈ 11:33 AM

We are going to Robert Perry to be followed by Spencer Brandt

CommentRobert PerryProposedself-stated2:34:12 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Hi my name's Robert Perry. Thank you board for allowing me to speak. I want to voice my full support for Supervisor Williams' statement and the statement of those that preceded me with respect to SB or Proposition 15 which is long overdue I also want to echo the statement made previously that Proposition 13 was not sold as offering tax relief to corporate-owned commercial industrial properties. It was sold as property tax relief to residential owners and specifically, the elderly.

It is proposition 13 that painted the broad brush and that brought in the commercial industrial exemption at the last minute. And we need to support SB 15 to correct this decades long inequity and to bring much needed funding to local critical local programs and services if we want to help Small businesses, we need to legislate specific programs to do that not offer broad exemptions that benefit the corporate owned property owners. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:35:41 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Thank You Mr. Perry

2:35 – 2:438 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:35:45 · ≈ 11:35 AM

We are now going to Spencer Brandt to be followed by Lee Heller

CommentSpencer BrentProposedself-stated2:36:09 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Good morning Chair Hart and Board of Supervisors. I'm Spencer Brent, resident of the county from Isla Vista. The California Budget and Policy Center found recently that California continues to have a widening income and wealth gap. It's no secret that something is not working in our state despite espousing values of equity and progressive principles we have one of the most unequal states in the nation Like I said something's not working here.

Prop 15 gets down to the heart of this problem, which is a tax system that has been designed to let the wealthiest corporations rob our communities blinds. Meanwhile our schools we ask their schools do more and more especially during the time of COVID-19 without resourcing them with adequate per pupil funding. We're either 37th or 41st in the nation as one of our previous speakers said I mean, I think we really have to ask ourselves if we have a state where teachers are routinely resorting to putting up GoFundMe in order to pay for classroom supplies. Is this system working or is it not? Prop 15 is the most important reform in a generation. It'll make our tax system more equitable. It will bring more resources to our schools and it will close loopholes designed by wealthy corporations for wealthy corporations.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:37:36 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Thank you, Mr. Bram.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:37:40 · ≈ 11:37 AM

We will now go to Lee Heller to be followed by Roy Reed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:38:02 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board. I try not to speak to you twice in one day, but it's been known to happen. So I'm also calling in support of the Prop 15 resolution. I sympathize with Supervisor Lavinino's frustration with the name. I think it may be aspirational rather than informational, but it certainly reflects the intention to direct lost resources back to where they are desperately needed. When I went to college here in the 70s California had the top rated educational system in the When I moved here permanently in the 90s, not so much.

So we need to address that and this is the logical way to do it. I also sympathize with the comment about timing and the impact on businesses during COVID-19 but like Monty Python in The Spanish Inquisition, I don't think the petition qualifiers expected a pandemic when they were pulling this together. Remember that this will not go into effect immediately, so by the time it does There will be time for businesses to have recovered, but not necessarily for the small communities like ours that depend on revenue. So we are TOT dependent and if we don't find another source of funding, we're going to be in trouble particularly because the federal government doesn't seem to want to give relief to local government.

So I encourage you to vote in support of this because the need is great and it's time to rectify the imbalance that Prop 13 created. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:39:30 · ≈ 11:39 AM

We will now go to Roy Reed to be followed by Matt Lowe.

PresenterRoy ReedSanta Barbara County Taxpayers AssociationProposedself-stated2:39:52 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Hello Chair Hart and supervisors I'm Roy Reed, I'm board president of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. I'm speaking here this morning to express our opposition to Proposition 15 and your endorsement in the form of this proposed resolution. Proposition 15 is mislabeled and misleading, and represents nothing more than an incremental step in an attempt to eliminate the protections from excessive taxation on real properties Which the people of California enacted in 1978 when they overwhelmingly approved Proposition 13.

While Proposition 15 is promoted as a benevolent method to collect funds from wealthy millionaires for the benefit of schools and children with the promise of making millions of dollars available to county government, the reality is quite different. The funds Proposition 15 would extract from property owners and their tenants will not come from some secret stash of cash. Instead, they will come from funds that would normally be used for necessary operating expenses, investment in the growth of companies, for wages and benefits paid to employees and their families, and for job creation. Proposition 15 will add to the economic stress of many struggling small businesses who will be tasked to absorb the additional costs when making their triple net lease payments.

The cost will ultimately be borne by the families of Santa Barbara County in the form of higher costs, reduced income, lost opportunity and fewer jobs. Proposition 15 is a prime example of the disconnect between the insatiable appetite of government for funds And the needs of the public who must ultimately provide those funds. Proposition 15 is precisely the wrong move at the worst of times, just as local families and businesses are struggling to recover from the COVID-induced economic slump. I hope you've all taken the time to review the many public comment letters sent in response to your proposed resolution.

Many are in opposition, coming predominantly from leaders in your business and agricultural communities who represent the foundational elements of the county's economy. While the letters in support are largely copy-and-paste form letters from those who do not. In conclusion we'd like to ask you to step back wipe the dollar signs from your eyes and take a long hard look But the businesses and the families who will be harmed by passage of Proposition 15, and by your participation should you approve this toxic resolution. We ask you to do the right thing and refuse to approve the proposed resolution. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:43:01 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Thank you Mr. Reed.

2:43 – 2:485 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:43:07 · ≈ 11:43 AM

And unfortunately we were unable to get a hold of Matt Lowe so we are going to Terry Strickland to be followed by Mike Brown.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:43:27 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Chair Herrigan, board members. Terri Strickland representing the Central Coast Taxpayers Association. First it is disheartening to hear that the governor is supporting Proposition 15 for many reasons. It is no secret to anyone the businesses are leaving our beautiful state of California in droves. What exactly does that mean? It means thousands of jobs going to other less taxing states.

Empty commercial buildings causing a blight in many communities Parents who raise their children in our communities only to see them grow up and leave California because they can't afford to live here. Never has there been a worse time to raise taxes on your business community. They have struggled to hold it together these past six months, and still are unsure of when the governor will allow them to operate at normal capacity.

How many more businesses do we have to lose? One argument used by many who support these tax increases is this will only affect the rich That is not true and never has been. It only brings unintended consequences. Businesses will either raise their prices to make up for their increased costs which end up hurting everyone, especially our lowest income population or as we've seen happening at an alarming rate business owners will leave the state for greener pastures taking their jobs and money with them.

Resistance to tax hikes is increasing as we saw in the March election Most Californians are not happy with the tax burdens they are being forced to pay. The Central Coast Taxpayers Association believes the passage of Prop 15 will lead to the dismantling of the taxpayer protection of Prop 13. Our board urges you to do the right thing, do not support this resolution and protect all taxpayers including those main street businesses in our small towns within Santa Barbara County. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:45:23 · ≈ 11:45 AM

We will now go to Mike Brown to be followed by Rene O'Neill who is our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:45:44 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Good morning Mr. Chair and board members this is Mike Brown from the Santa Ynez Valley. And I'm speaking as a private citizen. Opposing this board endorsement of Prop 13 the matter has not been placed on the board. The matter should not be on the board agenda now because it's not vetted by legislative program committee which is part of your normal process. There has been no independent analysis By the elected auditor controller, the elected assessor nor the elected treasurer, nor the professional county executive officer and her staff on this major policy matter. Bringing it down home and reading the plain language of the law that this proposition would create What do you know about, for example in my neighborhood its impact on John's Chevron at Santa Ynez?

Or the El Rancho Market in Santa Ynez which is part of a three store consortium certainly worth more than $3 million and with more than 50 employees. What about the wine stores in Santa Ynez and Los Olivos which are tenants in buildings which are very likely to be worth more than three million dollars, some of them are quite substantial. Or how about the Sansom Country Medical Clinic at Solvang which is in a masonry and steel building clearly worth more than three million. That's part of a larger medical group practice which has facilities of millions and employees in the hundreds. What about the Red Barn Restaurant in San Yanez? But what about Dr. Elder's dental office in Sani Yanez, which is in a fairly substantial multi-unit building? Or for that matter, what about the Alisal Ranch Hotel south of Solvang?

You know there's a lot of rhetoric here today about attacking I suppose Nordstroms or Raytheon or other evil corporations Which have been great, loyal and successful employers generating millions of dollars in taxes and jobs in our county. I hope you reject this and I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:48:19 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Thank you Mr. Brown.

2:48 – 3:028 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:48:23 · ≈ 11:48 AM

We will now go to Renee O'Neill who is our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:48:46 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Good afternoon supervisors. This is Renee O'Neill I think it's the fourth time I've spoken today but I appreciate you listening to me. I'm going to take a little bit of a different perspective on this prop 15 item as a retired teacher with a master's degree in education. I have felt our educational system has been broken and on a sharp decline compared to national and worldwide standards for decades.

Money is not the only thing that will help resolve these problems, we need to re-evaluate and revise our educational system. Canada tops the list in the most educated in the world with 56.27% of adults having earned a higher education this is important People that go on to a higher education. Ironically, despite the United States having the second best educational system in the world we consistently score lower than many other countries in benchmarks like math science etc and according to the Business Insider Report the educational ranking for our country was 38th in math scores and 24th in science.

In addition, our schools are no longer able to afford classes like woodshop metal shop auto band school I shouldn't say band but music classes and other creative alternative or a system that allows students to learn and I can't think of the word I've been trying to think of it but basic Work related training classes at the high school level that can help create a pathway for our students that don't want to take the college path but do want to become welders or automobile repair people. So anyways I want to compliment Supervisor Lavinino on his report I thought that was very valid. I rarely agree with some of the things that are said from Andy Caldwell, but I agree this isn't the time to have Prop 15 on the ballot and I think it requires great scrutiny as to what where's the money is really going as we were burned by the lottery in gosh I can't remember when that started, but it was bogus.

And I'm concerned that Prop 15 may be bogus as well. We want money to go to the schools, all of it, not 40%. Thank you for listening and putting up with me today. Talk to you soon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:51:53 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Thank you Ms. O'Neill and that concludes public comment. The matter is back to the board for deliberations and discussion. Who would like to go first? Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:52:08 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Yeah, you called on me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:52:09 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Yes.

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

I guess I see my face on the video so it must be me. I just think this whole thing is a failure to understand how the world works. There's a pro forma in every business. And at the time of purchase, somebody has to go out there and decide that they can actually make it with the rules and Costs that they can anticipate at that time before they go out and purchase a building or even start a business or anything.

And it's really the same as a home, and that's why Prop 13, there's a good reason for Prop 13. And that is that people were getting forced from their homes because they couldn't pay the taxes based on their cash flow. And so they got forced out and business were being forced out as well. And so businesses are subject to the same cash flow, Limitations as everybody else.

And whether you're a business or a homeowner, you're accepting the conditions at the time and you can make the payments or pay the rent or whatever. If we go and make that so it's always a movable amount, and a movable cost. And probably an increasing cost most of the time, I assume we're not going to go out of our way to decrease. And I know we have state law to that effect now but that's not always how it goes.

And we see that in our tax appeals. You just, you can't make things that change on people. Otherwise they'll end up losing their homes and at the very least especially with respect to rental on buildings those costs are going to get passed From landlords to tenants, and then the tenants are going to have a hard time. Well they're gonna have to raise their prices and then either the consumers will get to pay that difference in the prices and then it'll flow back to the landlords who make it flow through to the state.

Or the business goes bankrupt, and then the landlord's got an open building. And the price of the building gets depressed because he's going to have to rent it to somebody. And either he loses it because he can no longer perform on his pro forma or Or he takes less for it, and then he comes in and wants a price reduction or tax reduction based on the value.

So you're going to lead to a downward spiral of values which is going to then give you a downward spiral of revenues. And so it's going to do exactly the opposite of what you would like it to do. And California is a heavy tax state, I think it might be third in overall tax burden and I think you better be careful what you wish for because you're likely to get it.

And I know this is probably gonna pass 3-2, and I don't think anything's gonna convince this board majority that this type of strategy doesn't work except catastrophic collapse of our economy. And not to mention the timing with a pandemic and everybody trying to do their best to survive this thing. Now we're gonna pile this on as well, it's gonna lead to tragic and long lasting consequences when it happens.

I'm sitting here, I know helpless to actually effect a change and it's depressing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:57:07 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Thank you Supervisor Adams. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:57:10 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Well, I brought this resolution before us because this is You, all you have to do is talk to anybody who has been involved in government since the 1970s or anyone that has been involved in education finance. Because I chaired a education committee for the state legislature, I met with three out of probably the five people in the whole state that fundamentally understand education finance.

It's a I thought it was important that we have a presentation of these issues because there's so much misinformation out there and it's a little disappointing to have some of that seep into the debate here. Because, I just think there's a lot of reasons you can disagree with this but you can't deny that this would be a game changer for our public education system. That is just a, a fiscal fact. And I appreciate that people want to do more and if they want to do more we could if this passes we could do some more safe routes school projects which are firmly within the county's bailiwick and we would have the means perhaps to do that.

The, I think there's also a fun, an important Pro-business argument for this reform. One of the things that has held back the recovery of State Street and other business districts like State Street, has been the fundamentally different interests between property owners who have owned it for a long time and have low property tax base and people who have owned it you know for less than 10 years who have a high property tax base They have very different interests in how to recover State Street. And so it has meant not that there's a conversation between the city and the residents and the business community, but the conversation with two violently different factions of the business community because they have fundamentally different interests.

And I just think that it's just weird to me to hear people who, uh, believe in the free market, are free market conservatives yet are arguing for an entrenchment of preferences. If one person that owns a $5 million property pays vastly more property taxes than another person who owns a $ 5 million commercial property, that is a preference. That is not free market and it leads to an unlevel playing field for business. And so I feel like there is an argument for why to preserve that for homeowners, which is that some of those homeowners have been there for a long time and you want to sort of grandfather or grandmother them in.

But I do not see the argument, the functionality for a society to entrench those preferences for corporations that never pass away and for entities that are just passing this on through trust down generations. It is wrong for us to give preference to someone who has owned property, you know, owned a commercial property just because they're Parents and grandparents owned it, can pay less in property taxes than an entrepreneur that you know made it from nothing recently and bought a similarly priced property. It means those two entities one we are as a society giving them preference and advantage in the marketplace.

Lastly you know I We are in some dark times. I think that some of the level of need out there has been invisible because of the higher unemployment benefits that existed for some time, those have now gone away. And because of the eviction moratoriums, which that has a limited lifespan now. We are seeing increased food insecurity out there. We are seeing a dramatic rise in the demand for the services that the county provides and we have to have resources to meet these natural disasters and emergencies And so, you know I think there are some solid reasons to support Prop 15 and I urge my colleagues to do so.

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:02 – 3:116 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.783:02:51 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Thank you. It's not lost on me the paradox of Prop 15 during the time of the pandemic, but Prop 13 has endured for many ups and downs in our economy and our state of affairs. And so if Prop 15 is enacted it will also endure for many ups and downs. I also think it's very helpful that we've had this come forward as a resolution in the county because it is educational.

And whether you support it or whether you don't, this has been an opportunity for us all to hear many of the different arguments pro and against Kahn. For me, I remember the Prop 13 debate and people on fixed incomes couldn't stay in their homes because property taxes were rising and their incomes weren't. And that really was truth in advertising. That's how it was sold at the time. There have been a lot of unanticipated consequences and public finance has really suffered First, our schools. We were California in the top 10 and now we're in the bottom 20%. Public services have suffered this very volatile kind of funding. We can't really be sure what we're going to get for libraries, parks, decaying infrastructure including roads and buildings.

And it's also led to a terribly distorted development pattern where local governments are racing to get sales tax or TOT, and so they bring in big box chains and auto malls. And this sucks a lot of money out of local communities to international corporations rather than keeping it circulating in the communities and realizing those benefits. So those have been some of the unfortunate consequences of Prop 13.

I am persuaded that leveling the playing field is really, Supervisor Williams got to that before I did but When you've got older commercial interests that are paying a different tax rate than new innovative ones, then the new innovative ones have to continue to be tenants. They really can't buy property and compete at the same level. So it really is a preference for the older and not allowing new innovative interests to come in and develop on the same level playing field.

And so I think we need a more equitable division of our tax burden. And I think this isn't perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. So I will be voting in favor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:05:59 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Yeah, I agree with my colleagues here in Santa Barbara there. I heard three arguments against supporting Proposition 15. One of them was that raising taxes generally reduces revenue And this is an argument that is made every single time there's any kind of conversation about taxes. That argument was made when California increased the income tax on millionaires. The facts are, that did not happen. It is not true that revenues declined as a result of that tax increase. That point was raised when the county considered raising People said visitors will go to other counties with a lower tax rate. That has not proven to be true, TOT tax revenues have increased. Sales tax that argument is made every single jurisdiction where somebody considers raising the sales tax saying that somebody will buy their refrigerator in the other town that has a lower tax rate.

That doesn't happen, that doesn't exist. That's not a fact. The other argument that was made is that raising taxes, property taxes will drive businesses out of the county and out of California. The fact of the matter is that California's property taxes for commercial and industrial properties is in the lowest 20% category in the country So if businesses are gonna move out of California to other states, they will pay higher commercial and industrial property taxes in other states. And then the last argument that I heard was that the money isn't needed.

California public school investment is among the lowest in the country. I don't think it's a credible argument to make that we don't need additional revenue to invest in public education. And then very clearly here in our county, We have not been able to maintain our investment in public infrastructure to meet the need that the citizens require for adequate roads and maintenance of our public buildings, and a $30 million additional revenue stream in the county's general fund would would solve that problem all by itself. So I think there are compelling needs for the money that would be generated from this.

My colleagues raised the equity issues in regards to the disparate taxation level on different businesses in the county and the very low commercial and industrial property tax rate paid in California Provides an opportunity for fairness and equity, and investment in our communities. So I will be supporting Prop 15. Would somebody like to make a motion or are there any other comments?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.833:08:41 · ≈ 12:08 PM

I have one closing comment from me at least.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:08:44 · ≈ 12:08 PM

Supervisor Lavenino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.833:08:46 · ≈ 12:08 PM

Thank you. I hope everybody's really listening because three members mentioned something in their closing statements and it was equity and fairness. And this time, the person that's quote unquote getting the break. The person that's being unfair is the big greedy monster corporation and so we're going to make it fair. The next person on that list I promise you is the individual in your home that is not quote paying your fair share.

The argument's gonna be made that why are you paying higher property tax when your neighbor is not paying his fair share? And so, that just logically follows. So be wary about that. We are living in a world where there is an insatiable appetite as somebody said but what they forgot about was for other people's money in government. California spends $72 billion a year On education, per pupil spending is up 23% over the last five years.

What you have to understand is throwing additional money at a problem as a government does not work. You can't just keep shoveling money at something and expecting it to get better. It doesn't work that way. And I would go back to what, you know everybody has this historical. I wasn't, you know I was 14 years old in 1978 so I wasn't around for the arguments but going back and studying this local schools used to be prior to Prop 13 in 1978 up to 1971 were funded at the local level And it was deemed unconstitutional because property values varied across the state, and some people felt that rich areas were getting better schools. So that's why I went to this formula.

And so that's why when we look back on this golden age of education, we're not going to get there in the current format. So anyway, I just think you know that I hope people do their homework and everybody...I think this was a good exercise because I think everybody needs to get educated and make sure you get out

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:11:04 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Thank you.

3:11 – 3:1412 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:11:19 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Over and over and over again. I've consistently been essentially hammered by both sides of this debate for the entirety of my political life because I think there is an argument preserving Prop 13 protections For homeowners. It's simply the disruption that would create for society to change it and you know, I'm not going to you know, I just feel like it scare tactics to bring that up this is fundamentally a reform and if people wanted to change it for homeowners, I would oppose it and I would oppose it locally Because that is the covenant and the promise that I've made with my constituents. And also, I think it's fundamentally a reflection of where the people of our county are. When I talk to people in the streets they don't understand why the protections that are supposed to be for homeowners also extend to corporate entities in perpetuity.

With that, I'll make a motion to support Prop 15 as written in the resolution.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:12:34 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. Motion is made and seconded. Any additional comments? Madam Clerk would you please call the roll?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:12:43 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Mr. Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.833:12:47 · ≈ 12:12 PM

A surprising no.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:12:48 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Mr. Williams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.833:12:50 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:12:51 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Ms. Hartman? Aye. Chair Hart.

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

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:12:56 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Motion passes three to two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:12:59 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Thank you that we will now recess to close session. County Council could you please read the items for consideration?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed3:13:06 · ≈ 12:13 PM

Chair and Supervisors, today the board is agendized for five matters in closed session. Three are related existing litigation. The first of which is County of Santa Barbara versus Purdue Pharma et al., which is in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. It's a multi-district case. The related case is INRI Purdue Pharma in the U. S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.

In the third related cases in Ray insists insys therapeutics Which is in the u.s.. Bankruptcy court for the District of Delaware? The board has also noticed to consider one matter of decision to initiate litigation as well as conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units Unrepresented employees managers and executives my estimate is about 1 hour and 15 minutes for closed session

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:13:59 · ≈ 12:13 PM

All right we will return from closed session at 1.30.

3:16 – 3:411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:16:45 · ≈ 12:16 PM

. Yeah. Thank you. Hello. you you Thank you.

3:49 – 4:182 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:49:27 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:53:13 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Hello. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Hello. Yeah. Thank you.

4:26 – 4:291 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:26:04 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Thank you. Hello.

4:36 – 4:541 turns

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

Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Yeah. you You.

5:02 – 5:021 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed5:02:41 · ≈ 2:02 PM

Thank you.

5:06 – 5:178 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:06:47 · ≈ 2:06 PM

We are now reconvening the meeting of September 15th, 2020. Will County Council please report on closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:06:55 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Chair and Supervisors, today in closed session the Board considered five matters. Three are existing litigation cases that are related to each other. The County of Santa Barbara versus Purdue Pharma. The second is In Re Purdue Pharma which is a bankruptcy court case. And the third is In Re Insys Therapeutics which is also a bankruptcy court case. Next item was one matter of anticipated litigation decision to initiate litigation. And the final matter was conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives and there are no reportable actions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:07:29 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Thank you Mr. Ghazani. We're now going to department item number four would the clerk please read that item into the record?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:07:36 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Chair Hart, members of the board. Departmental item number four is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider the recommendations of the County Planning Commission commission to one adopt resolutions to amend the county guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA county guidelines and then environmental thresholds and guidelines manual environmental thresholds manual to incorporate minor revisions to the California guidelines for the implementation of CEQAs state sequel guidelines Which took effect in two thousand eighteen and to revise guidelines that address quality of life and noise issues.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:08:11 · ≈ 2:08 PM

This Plowman so you have Mr. Council Mara and Mr. Clinton with you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.565:08:17 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Mr. Chair members of the board. We also had David Lackey who is a supervising planner on this project who's available by Zoom. As indicated by Ms. Alexander, these are amendments to our county thresholds and CEQA guidelines that are mandated some of them through CEQA and other minor cleanup items. And Mr. Councilman will be making the presentation this afternoon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:08:45 · ≈ 2:08 PM

And also with us today is Senior Deputy Johanna Hartley, appearing remotely.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:08:50 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Thank you. Mr. Councilman Marwa? All right. Good afternoon Chair and Supervisors. Today I'll be presenting to you on the proposed amendments to the county guidelines for the implementation of CEQA or what I'll refer to as the CEQA Guidelines and amendments to the County Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual or ETM for short. I'm just starting with a little outline of today's presentation. I'll start with the background, the purpose and summary of the amendments as well followed up with the recommended actions from staff in the Planning Commission.

So in 1988, the board adopted the county guidelines and ETM. And since then, there have been a number of revisions to both the county guidelines and the ETM for a variety of reasons. These revisions typically were made in response to board direction or when changes were made to the state CEQA guidelines that warranted an update to the county guidelines for conformity.

The ETM works in tandem with the county guidelines to set significance thresholds evaluating the environmental effects of discretionary development projects. Now getting more into the amendments that we're doing, bringing forth to the board today. Amendments to the county guidelines include minor procedural and clarifying amendments to conform to revisions to the state CEQA guidelines made by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research.

The amendments will also revise the amendment adoption process and procedure in the county guidelines. The county guidelines direct that the Planning Commission hold two notice public hearings when revising the ETM, one in North County and one in South County. The proposed amendments to the county guidelines reduce the two location, two hearing requirement to a minimum of one hearing.

The need for two hearings no longer seems necessary as members of the public can now participate in hearings virtually, no matter where they're being held. Therefore staff recommends revising the procedures to require only one hearing. The procedures for revising the ETM are included in the county guidelines and repeated in ETM. Over time, these procedures have been updated in the county guidelines but not the ETM. So they're now inconsistent.

The proposed amendments to the ETM eliminate any inconsistencies and instead direct users of the manual to the county guidelines for amendment procedures. Section 14 of the ETM is intended to provide direction on how to address potential impacts to quality of life. However, quality of life changes are social changes rather than physical effects on the environment.

Pursuant to the state secret guidelines, social changes resulting from a project shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment. However, project cause changes to quality of life are social changes that may be used to 1. Identify physical impacts caused by a change in quality of life and 2. When related to a physical change to determine whether the physical change is a significant effect on the environment.

The nexus between the change to quality of life and physical impacts is critical for the analysis. The proposed amendments to the ETM will one, clarify how quality of life should be considered in environmental documents consistent with the criteria set forth in the state CEQA guidelines. And two, relocate the quality of life considerations from standalone guidelines set forth in the current section 14 of our ETM to section three of our ETM.

When relevant, quality of life should be incorporated as a part of other impact analyses to identify and inform the significance of certain environmental impacts. For example, traffic congestion or level of service is based on an expectation of how fast one should be able to travel along a roadway or through an intersection to get to one's destination. A roadway's level of congestion is not is not an adverse impact on the physical environment, but rather an inconvenience for drivers.

This inconvenience can be taken into account as an impact on quality of life. We are also discontinuing the class numbering method of categorizing environmental impacts. Impact categorization in name will simply go from significant and unavoidable which was previously known as Class 1 to beneficial or Class 4. The goal of the Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual is to set forth clear, objective and whenever possible quantitative thresholds for CEQA environmental review.

To further this goal, the amendments include specific changes to certain noise thresholds in the ETM. More specifically, the noise thresholds are primarily based on the maximum acceptable noise levels for indoor and outdoor environments. As you can see here, the max acceptable indoor noise level is 45 decibels and the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level is 65 decibels.

However, as currently written the thresholds are unclear. They state that in some situations an unspecified amount of project generated noise which will not cause noise levels to exceed the maximum acceptable noise levels may be considered substantial and cause a significant noise impact. In order to provide clarity and remove subjectivity from the noise thresholds, the amendments to the ETM will revise the thresholds such that if the existing ambient noise environment is less than the maximum acceptable level then the project generated noise must cause noise levels to exceed the maximum acceptable noise level to be considered a significant impact. However, if the existing ambient noise environment is greater than the maximum acceptable level, then project generated noise must increase the noise level by at least three decibels to be considered a significant impact.

A three decibel change in noise is the minimum change that a human ear can hear. So moving on to the recommended actions. At its hearing on July 29th of this year, the County Planning Commission recommended approving the proposed amendments with one minor change which was to retain reference to the impact classification of impacts beneficial to the environment.

The planning commission also recommended that the board determine that the amendments to the county guidelines and environmental thresholds and guidelines manual conform to state CEQA guidelines and clarify county procedure And thus they're not a project pursuant to CEQA. With that said, Chair and Supervisors, the Planning Commission recommends that your board take the recommended action identified on page one of your board letter.

These actions include determining that the amendments to the County's CEQAs Guidelines and Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual clarify county procedures and are not a project pursuant to CEQA, and determining that the amendments to the Quality of Life Guidelines and Noise Thresholds are categorically exempt from environmental review. The Planning Commission and staff also recommend that the Board adopt two resolutions adopting the amendments to both the County CEQAs Guidelines and Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual which are attachments 2 and 3 to the board letter.

And with that, that concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Councilman. Are there any questions of staff?

5:17 – 5:2023 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:17:03 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Do we have any public speakers on this item?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:17:06 · ≈ 2:17 PM

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:17:09 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:17:11 · ≈ 2:17 PM

I did have a question. So we've only amended this in 88 and 2010 and now or are those the only ones that you noted in the presentation?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:17:26 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Well, I think we just mentioned 88 because that's when we first established the county guidelines. I'm sorry through the chair Supervisor Hartman and then we mentioned the 2010 amendment because that was the latest amendment to the guidelines.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.565:17:41 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Mr Chair, Supervisor Hartman, I'm not Dan do you know the dates of the amendments? He I think he's looking it up right now. Yeah.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:17:50 · ≈ 2:17 PM

The only reason I ask is, is this our last shot at this for another 10 years or does it come up somewhat

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.565:17:56 · ≈ 2:17 PM

regularly? Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, I think it comes up when we see changes in the state CEQA guidelines That If there's something comes up in the state guidelines that affect ours, we can come back and work it into our work program. But I think it's like our zoning ordinance amendments. We try and collect them up and then have one package to bring to the board to be more efficient.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:18:37 · ≈ 2:18 PM

So I've mentioned this before but I'll just, I just want to get it on the record that I think that mitigation for class one impacts now renamed significant and unavoidable to the extent that we can have that be local mitigation. Um, I think that needs to be incorporated into our, uh, into our general plan or into our thresholds or something. And I don't know exactly where that fits, but I just want to get that on the record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:19:04 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:19:06 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Yeah, that's an interest of mine as well. If you're talking about mitigations the more local is usually the most substantive and obviously within the state of California is more substantive than outside of the state of California. There's really a hierarchy of it And I would like eventually that our rules formally to reflect that and don't really know the process for them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:19:44 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Any other comments on this item? Is there a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:19:51 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Move the changes of CEQA thresholds as pictured in that slide.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:19:58 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:19:59 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? All right, Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:20:06 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:20:08 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:20:08 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam?

PresenterChristian AlonsoSanta Barbara Young DemocratsProposedself-stated5:20:14 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Aye

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:20:14 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:20:15 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Aye

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:20:16 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Motion passes unanimously

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:20:18 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Thank you very much Next item is department item number five Would the clerk please read that item to the record

5:20 – 5:328 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:20:24 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Chair Hart and members of the board, departmental item number five is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA Transportation Impact Thresholds update to comply with Senate Bill SB743.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:20:47 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Ms. Plowman welcome back. Yep. Continuing- Mr. Chair, members of the board.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.565:20:51 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Just one change? Yes right. We have Mark Friedlander here with Dan Clemon to make the presentation, and then we have Alan Bell available as a Supervising Planner on Zoom if any questions come up for him. So essentially what we're hearing today is the result of a change through SB 743 that came from the state about how you measure transportation impacts under CEQA And there was a fundamental shift in doing the impact analysis. And the shift moved from level of service as being your defining metric to vehicle miles traveled, which dovetails with the state's objective of trying to encourage infill, meaning you have less vehicle miles traveled for a project and minimize GHG.

So it's been quite a long time actually since SB 743 was adopted and now the state came up with their guidelines, and we are now implementing it. And there was a mandate to have this done I think in July by July 9th so here we are. With Mr. Friedlander we also have Sarah. Is that Sarah's last name? Brandberg from Farron Pierce, who has been our consultant on this project and they've done a really great job. And with that I'll have Mark and Sarah take it away.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:22:22 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Mr. Ghazani?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:22:24 · ≈ 2:22 PM

And also with us today but not visible Deputy County Counsel Jenna Richardson who worked on this also.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:22:30 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Thank you Jenna.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:22:31 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Mr Friedlander please go right ahead. Good afternoon, Chair and Supervisors. Director Plowman took away some of the thunder here as far as the introduction to Senate Bill 743 so I will spare you some of the details but I did want to also mention we also have some folks from Public Works also joining us on the call. We have Gary Smart, Chris Nedden and Will Robertson and I'd like to provide just a little backstory on how we got here today So last year, Long Range Planning brought on the transportation consulting firm Farron Piers to help the county implement the requirements of Senate Bill 743. Farron Piers provided technical support to an advisory group consisting of staff from P&D, Public Works and SB CAG. Sarah is the project manager for Farron Piers and she'll be co-presenting with me today.

And first a quick outline of today's presentation. First, Sarah will provide an overview of SB 743. Then she'll go over what is vehicle miles traveled or VMT and describe some of the key terms. Next I'll describe decisions lead agencies need to make in some of the implications of those decisions and conclude with the recommended actions included in the board letter. With that, I'll turn it over to Sarah Brandenburg

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:24:06 · ≈ 2:24 PM

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. Pleasure to be with you this afternoon. As Mark said I'm going to walk you through a little bit of the history with Senate Bill 743 and some of the background on vehicle miles of travel and then we'll turn it back over to Mark to talk more specifically about the changes in the county. Okay there's the slide So what is Senate Bill 743?

We're really here today to talk about how we are looking at transportation impacts for land use and infrastructure projects in the county going forward, and how those projects will be considered under CEQA guidelines. So before Senate Bill 743, we were really considering the impacts of transportation Based on the impacts to drivers, so we did that using a term called level of service or LOS and LOS really measured the congestion on our roadways and looked at the transportation infrastructure from the perspective simply of those driving on the roads. With the implementation of SB 743, we're really shifting our perspective to consider the impact that driving has on the environment. And we will be doing that using a new metric of vehicle miles of travel or VMT.

So the state made this change to be in compliance with a variety of other statewide goals such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions throughout the state Encouraging infill development and improving public health through increased active transportation. And so when they considered all of these goals and what metric they could use going forward through the environmental review process, they chose the metric of vehicle miles of travel or BMT.

As Director Feilman mentioned, this has been in the works for quite a while now. SB 743 was adopted back in September of 2013 With that, that direction gave guidance to the agencies within the state that are responsible for our CEQA guidelines. They spent several years coming up with guidance for jurisdictions to implement this change, updating the CEQA guidelines. That was all complete at the end of 2018 and they gave agencies a grace period to implement these changes. They asked that beginning in July of 2020 That agencies begin implementing the new vehicle miles of travel or VMT metric as part of their CEQA process.

So considering the change that we're making here under CEQA, going back to this term of level of service that is really considering our roadway operations through a driver's perspective. The two photos on the slide here give you an illustration of how we measured impacts for transportation in the past. So the slide on the left shows a large wide open road in a more suburban maybe light industrial area Very little traffic on that road. And in the past, when it came to our CEQA documents we would have given that roadway a level of service A, kind of the best score you can get.

In comparison to the photo on the right that shows more of a mixed-use environment, this could be a place where somebody parks their car one time and can travel to multiple uses. Given kind of the general activity on the streets probably has lower travel speeds for drivers, this could be a location that in the past we gave a level service F which would be the worst performance.

So you can see in taking a different lens on looking at the metric of level of service versus VMT, the photo on the right that scored very poorly for level of service could score more favorably when it came to the VMT metric and is really more in alignment with the state's goals of promoting infill development and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. So with the change in SB 743, level of service will be eliminated from our CEQA documents We will be replacing level of service with VNT. With that comes new methods and threshold guidance that Mark will be guiding you through in a few moments here.

We're very likely to see changes in where significant transportation impacts occur as we're going through our development review process, the types of mitigation that will be effective in reducing those impacts will be changing And a very important point I'd like to make here is that level of service is not going away. Level of service is still a very important metric when it comes to right sizing the county's roads, the county's comprehensive plan which includes all of its community plans contain level of service goals and guidelines that both the planning department and public works will continue to consider as they're reviewing projects for implementation in the county. The change here is that level of service will not count as a CEQA impact in our environmental documents, but it will still be used for planning purposes and account.

So vehicle miles of travel is simply a calculation that considers the number of vehicles traveling in the area and the distance that those drivers are traveling on the roadways To estimate VMT, we can use a Regional Travel Demand Forecasting Model that's developed from the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. They update this model every several years as they're updating their regional transportation plan and the reason we use this as a tool to estimate VMT is because when we're considering the total VMT In the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County, we want to make sure that we're accounting for both local travel patterns as well as regional travel patterns. And this tool allows us to track all the activity in the county whether it's a vehicle that may be leaving the county border or traveling in the unincorporated area and entering one of the cities, or vice versa.

So this tool allows us to go into different areas of the county and estimate the amount of EMT that's being generated in those areas. The types of BMT metrics that we'll be looking at going forward are really dependent on the type of project that we're considering. So for most of the projects, we're considering BMT as an efficiency metric And so what the state is asking us to do with our typical residential projects for example, or employment generating projects. They're asking us to consider are you putting that land use in a VMT efficient area and we can do that by looking at the VMT generated by that new land use on a per person basis could be on a per resident basis for residential projects for employee basis For our more office or industrial employment related projects, and then we compare the VMT generated by that project in comparison to the overall county.

And that lets us determine again is this a VMT efficient area for the project? For other project types who will be considering the total VMT generated by the project for so for larger land use plans And this slide gives you another illustration of the types of travel that we're considering for our land use projects. So again, thinking of a residential project, the type of VMT we're really tracking with that project is we're looking at all of the vehicles that are traveling to and from that home base over the course of the day. And what is their VMT on a per resident basis in comparison to the overall county?

And similarly on the employment side, the trip that we're tracking is the trip from the employment location to the person's home. So what is that commute trip that getting generated on a daily basis based on those new employment uses? Now I'll turn it back over to Mark.

5:32 – 5:424 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:32:51 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Thanks Sarah. I'm now going to cover how agencies implement the requirements of SB 743. So this flow chart is similar to figure two in your board letter, and I think it's helpful in that it provides a 3,000 foot view of the overall process a project goes through to assess VMT. The key takeaway from this flow chart is that a project full VMT analysis is only required if you have a project that's subject to CEQA that requires an initial study or an EIR And it doesn't meet any of the screening criteria. So not every project will require a full VMT analysis.

The OPR Technical Advisory has recommendations and serves as a great resource for agencies. However, it doesn't absolve agencies like the county from doing the work to implement SB 743. Implementing SB 743 can be boiled down into four key steps or decisions. The first is choosing VMT metrics and methodologies The second is selecting screening criteria. The third is establishing VMT thresholds, and the fourth is identifying mitigation options. I'll now cover each of these in order and conclude with staff's recommendation.

So Sarah already discussed the model and the metrics we use to calculate VMT. The next key decision is choosing a geographic boundary Establishing baseline VMT is an important concept because VMT thresholds are generally expressed in relationship to baseline VMT levels. OPR recommends using a city or regional baseline, but they don't define region and they don't offer any explicit direction to counties.

The advisory group used the SBCAG model to analyze VMT in the area. As shown in the table, we found that VMT in the unincorporated county is on average 22-24% higher than the regional average and the disparity is projected to increase in the future. This was the first sign that the state's recommendations might present some challenges in practice for the county.

OPR recommends VMT thresholds with reductions below a regional average. That can be a high bar to meet when we know VMT is inherently higher in the county due to the more rural land use nature. The advisory group compared VMT metrics using multiple geographic boundaries before recommending the unincorporated county boundary. What that means in practice is a trip that starts and ends in an incorporated city is not included in the baseline, but a trip that either starts or ends in the unincorporated county would be included in that county baseline average.

Screening criteria. Screening criteria's a tool lead agencies may use to streamline VMT review. The state has encouraged screening projects Most of OPR's guidance is related to opportunities to screen projects that would be expected to generate low VMT. As shown in the flow chart on the right, a full VMT impact analysis is only required for projects that don't pass an initial screening test.

The slide on the left lists some of the recommended screening criteria and that's based on project size, a project that generates less than 110 average daily trips or is 50,000 square feet or less and locally serving retail. Um, projects located in a low VMT area. Projects located in a transit priority area and the state defines that as a project within a major transit stop or within high quality transit corridor with high frequency bus service Lead agencies may also consider screening affordable housing projects located in urban areas.

Finally, OPR provided a list of transportation projects such as roadway safety devices and signalization optimization that are assumed to not increase VMT and are screened out of VMT analysis. Staff recommends adopting the same screening criteria proposed by OPR. VMT thresholds. Setting thresholds is a difficult decision because the state is effectively asking lead agencies to make a choice on what level of VMT is acceptable or unacceptable in their community. While that might be easier to determine with level of service as people understand delay that they experience, with VMT what level of reduction is acceptable or unacceptable?

Here are the same four types of projects Sarah covered earlier. OPR recommends a 15% reduction below regional VMT for employment and residential projects, and no net increase in VMT for retail and transportation projects. Staff recommends adopting the same thresholds as recommended by OPR but using a county geography instead of a regional geography for employment and residential projects.

The last step in the SB 743 implementation process is mitigation. Mitigation also looks different under VMT than it does with level of service. Under VMT, you don't change the project or you don't change the network around the project like you would with level of service. You either change the project itself through changes in density or land use mix, or you incorporate transportation demand management strategies.

As Sarah explained earlier in the presentation, VMT is a simple calculation. It's calculated by multiplying the number of trips by the distance of trips. Therefore mitigation measures must reduce one of those two factors. This slide lists some of the examples of TDM including van pools, telecommuting, pedestrian facilities, car sharing. Before I move on, I also want to note there are some challenges associated with TDM strategies in the county For instance, TDM strategies are often tenant-dependent and can be difficult to monitor.

There is also less certainty with mitigation under VMT compared to level of service. VMT mitigation will likely be an ongoing development for agencies moving forward with SB 743 We already touched on the near-term strategies. Some of the longer term approaches being considered throughout the state include VMT impact fee programs or VMT exchange or mitigation bank programs where you pay a credit for VMT reduction.

I should note none of these are in place just yet, they're being developed as we speak. So next steps in the implementation process include completing a VMT calculator, and this will be an easy-to-use spreadsheet based tool that pulls data from that SPCAG model and allows planners and members of the public to quickly assess VMT impacts from their computers. Staff will also hold additional trainings and briefings on the VMT thresholds in the future.

For environmental review, the proposed amendment to the county's Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual is not a project and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15060C3 and 15378B5. Moving on to the recommended actions. At the August 12th County Planning Commission hearing, the CPC recommended approval of the proposed amendments with no changes.

With that said, staff and the planning commission recommend your board take the recommended actions included on page one of the board letter. These actions include to determine that the amendment to the Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual is not a project pursuant to CEQA And adopt a resolution approving the proposed amendment to the Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual.

That concludes staff's presentation and we are available to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Friedlander and Miss

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.565:41:19 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Brandenburg. I did want to just note and I failed to bring it up at the beginning but it's been a very collaborative process with Public Works. They've been involved every step of the way and so I want to extend our appreciation for their involvement and it's made the process better.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:41:39 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Thank you Mr. Smart, Mr. Smeddon and Mr. Robinson. Thanks for being here too. Any questions for staff? Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:41:50 · ≈ 2:41 PM

The first I assume bike lanes are part of the mitigation that if we get banks we could pull that money together. I'm it's a big change and I'm trying to get my mind around it. So could you once again explain, uh, a project, a land use development project is proposed? How has it evaluated the, how is the baseline and how does it, what does it have to be in relation to baseline to be significant or now we're at significant unavoidable?

Class 1, what were you saying?

5:42 – 5:499 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:42:34 · ≈ 2:42 PM

That's a good question. It is a lot. Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I'm going to pull up a slide that I covered previously And to answer your question, it really depends on the type of project that's being analyzed. So if you have a residential project, the VMT threshold that the project will be evaluated on is whether that project Is 15% whether the VMT for that project is 15% or more below the average VMT for the unincorporated parts of the county.

That threshold changes if you're looking at a retail project so for retail projects the threshold is just no net increase in total VMT. And the reason behind that is retail is a little trickier from a VMT perspective where you're adding, with a housing project here, you're adding more users to a road network. With retail, you're more redistributing VMT within it. If you add a grocery store for instance People don't necessarily stop, start eating more. They just maybe shift their travel behavior from traveling 10 miles to a grocery store now they're traveling to their local grocery store that's two miles away from their household so It depends on the, it depends. These are the metrics that are being proposed and what's interesting is these are the only categories that the state has recommended for us are employment projects, residential projects, retail and transportation projects.

There's obviously a lot more than that and so we've also included sort of a catch-all other land use category provides a little more flexibility as to how we analyze that on a project by project basis.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:44:44 · ≈ 2:44 PM

So if I may, you noted that under VMT the mitigations are going to be much harder to verify because it might be tenants and you don't really know. So that may argue for things like the bank or the impact fee or something so that you can build more infrastructure. Does that come, is that determined on a project by project basis or would that be some policy decision that could come back to the board?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:45:20 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. TDM is interesting, and one of the main advantages of a more regional approach such as a mitigation bank is depending on where a project is located, TDM may have different measures of effectiveness. A bike lane in a densely populated area might get more usage than a bike lane somewhere else. So the advantage would be to the applicant, I guess in that sense that they could pay towards a project that has a bigger net decrease in project VMT.

But as far as the process of developing that mitigation fee, that's all sort of uncharted territory statewide right now and that would be something that would certainly come back to your board if given that direction.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:46:25 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Could, and this is my final question. Could you imagine a development project say mid-county that reduces, would radically reduce VMTs? And how would that fit under this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:46:48 · ≈ 2:46 PM

It's a new metric. I'm sure there could be projects that reduce VMT in mid-county, in San Ynez Valley for instance. It really depends. The real goal of SB 743 is to sort of target those big projects vastly sway vehicle miles traveled countywide. It's not to capture small projects or projects that are located in transit, you know close to transit those are sort of no brainers from a VMT perspective it would be something that you would just have to model right? In this case what we think will be bared out in SB CAG's transportation model. And there could certainly be an instance where a project, an office project in San Ynez Valley where people are commuting long distances would have a net VMT reduction overall so certainly.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.565:48:03 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hartman, I think also the thought that comes to my mind is we recently heard a presentation from Vandenberg. And if there were more rich jobs in Vandenberg that could be a VMT reducers because people would not necessarily have to commute for employment. So there's the potential for that, it's basically trying to get jobs and housing together.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:48:34 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Right and I'm trying to understand how the incentive actually works in practice and we're still trying to figure that out. And I had another question but I lost it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:48:46 · ≈ 2:48 PM

We'll have time to get back to you. Other questions for staff? Are there any? It's back.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:48:59 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Sorry, so level of service is kind of coming in the back door in part through quality of life I mean none of us likes, the experience of congestion and sitting. We all know that's one of the worst things and things we hear most about even as supervisors from constituents so could you just remind me again how we're dealing with traffic congestion?

5:49 – 5:547 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed5:49:32 · ≈ 2:49 PM

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I guess I will field that one. I got the nod. What is not changing and what we are not removing are the level of service standards that are set forth in the circulation element and in each of the area plans. So, we will continue to apply those when we're doing for example our analysis of projects consistency with those policies that apply so it's interesting because on the one hand applicants are going to have to show how their Reducing traffic congestion and pursuant to our LOS policies yet on the other hand from a CEQA perspective They've got to show how they're meeting that below 15% to avoid a significant impact under CEQA

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.785:50:12 · ≈ 2:50 PM

And then can you talk about quality of life? How that It's still pretty nebulous. So I just wondered how that you mentioned that that fit here, so I'm trying to understand that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed5:50:22 · ≈ 2:50 PM

yeah, so supervisor Hartman through the chair as Actually, I believe miss Brandenburg indicated in the presentation Level of service is inherently a quality of life consideration. I mean my expectation about how quickly it takes me to get from point A to point B, that's not a physical impact on the environment. That's my expectation and how my life should go day by day. So those considerations still come into play, not only in terms of things like level of service policies but also things like when the board has taken a legislative action you have to make general findings about not compromising the public health safety and welfare. Those are inherently quality-of-life considerations so those things still come into play it's just in the context of CEQA The CEQA guidelines are very specific as to how we can consider those quality of life considerations.

And as Mr. Councilman explained in the previous presentation, you always have to tie this back to adverse impact to the physical environment. So if you can make that link, you're within the CEQA realm. If you can't make that link, you should be evaluating it in terms of the policy consistency analysis.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.565:51:34 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisors just to add on to what Mr. Clement is saying is that the level of service standards are a tool to help public works understand congestion on the roads and identify what should be in the tips right for roadway improvements so it's still an important tool in our process it's just going to be used differently

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:51:57 · ≈ 2:51 PM

any other questions for staff

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:52:01 · ≈ 2:52 PM

I guess the big picture question is, I think kind of the functionality of LOS was when it's analyzing regional big box projects that could substantially also increase VMT. But I think the question now is you know, does an analysis like that actually interfere with your reduction of BMT by say a housing project that's gonna reduce vehicle miles traveled but it's gonna increase an LOS at some intersection. So I guess the only question I have is how strong is this Perpetuation of LOS, because I think the logic behind this isn't just the CEQA logic which you guys have articulated well.

But that something that was intended to decrease traffic impacts is now used to stop projects that could decrease traffic impacts if that makes sense?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:53:24 · ≈ 2:53 PM

Supervisor Williams to the chair, it does make sense. It's interesting with VMT comparing VMT to level of service use you've effectively flipped the impacts to a certain degree in areas where you had level-of-service impacts today are generally areas that are VMT efficient and the opposite is true so the implications big, particularly for counties like Santa Barbara where we have mostly a rural and agricultural land use context. That's why we went with the county geography to try to sort of lessen that burden and additionally in regards to now having level-of-service policies those are things that are on long ranges Long-range planning's work plan to sort of update circulation element needs an update at this point. And one of the things that could certainly happen in that update would be looking at our current level of service standards and our current capacity, and how our road network is working, and sort of better align those policies if possible.

That would be sort of a phase two effort

5:54 – 5:5715 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.565:54:53 · ≈ 2:54 PM

And Mr. Chair and members of the board, the circulation element update is in our work program so it's pending but I think Mr. Friedlander brings up a really good point about we may have to be adjusting those because you could have projects that we want to incentivize like infill projects that could have level of service impacts that could create a policy inconsistency and you can't override a policy inconsistency So because you have a finding that says your project is consistent with our general plan. So he's right, we're gonna have to look at it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:55:35 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Any other questions? Do we have any public comments on this item?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:55:39 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Chair Hart and members of the board, we have no requests to speak on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:55:42 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Okay, matters to the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:55:46 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Move recommendation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:55:48 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Motion has been made, is there a second?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:55:50 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:55:51 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Any discussion of the motion? Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:55:56 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:55:59 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:55:59 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:56:04 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Abstain

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:56:05 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Chair Hart? Aye Motion passes four with one abstention

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:56:10 · ≈ 2:56 PM

And that concludes our regularly scheduled meeting I'd like to close today's meeting in honor of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputies who survived an ambush shooting in Compton on Saturday. Both of these young deputies bravely answered the call to help make their community a better place to live, and today these deputies are recovering from life-threatening injuries.

First responders put their lives on the line every day to serve their communities, a task that is even more difficult as we experience the effects of the coronavirus and the unprecedented statewide fire emergency. The County of Santa Barbara joins with our friends in Los Angeles to support these deputies As they began a difficult journey to recovery and to condemn this horrific act of violence. Thank you, we are adjourned

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed5:57:37 · ≈ 2:57 PM

the board.