BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 September 22, 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.

0:03 – 0:0511 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:05 · ≈ 9:03 AM

you I will call to order the September 22nd, 2020 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Would the clerk please call the roll?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:03 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Mr. Adam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:05 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:06 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Mr. Lavinino

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:10 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:12 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Mr. Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:13 · ≈ 9:04 AM

here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:14 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Ms. Hartman here. Chair Hart

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈21s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:16 · ≈ 9:04 AM

here. At this time please stand and join the board of supervisors in pledging allegiance to the flag

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:43 · ≈ 9:04 AM

At this time, Supervisor Lavinino has a brief announcement.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.764:51 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanted to let folks know that the reason why I am Zooming today is I did have a positive coronavirus test among one of my staff members and even though I tested negative yesterday and I want to give a shout out to Dr. Reynoso for setting that up

The next item of business is approval of the minutes from

not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

0:05 – 0:1421 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:42 · ≈ 9:05 AM

So moved

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.795:43 · ≈ 9:05 AM

second

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:44 · ≈ 9:05 AM

motion's been made and seconded any other comments or questions. But the clerk, please call the roll.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:50 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Mr. Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:52 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Hi,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:53 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Mr. Lavagnino. All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.765:53 · ≈ 9:05 AM

right,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:58 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Mr. Williams.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.766:00 · ≈ 9:06 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:00 · ≈ 9:06 AM

miss Hartman. I chair heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:03 · ≈ 9:06 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:04 · ≈ 9:06 AM

motion passes unanimously

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

CEO me as Otto is their CEO report today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:08 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Yes, there is chair heart Just a couple of items. One is, as a reminder all residents we have only seven days remaining to respond to the U.S. Census before the deadline of September 30th. It's important for everyone to be counted and residents can go online to mycensus.gov, my2020census.gov, my2020census.gov or call in for English call 844-330-2020 in Spanish.

Residents may call 844 The second thing I want to bring attention to today is national voter registration day and we've been talking about what the county is doing to prepare for election day. And we have Joe Holland, our election officials official on zoom who wanted to give the board an update.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:01 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Welcome Mr Holland.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed7:02 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Good morning Chair Hart and members of the board. Pleasure to be here. Just FYI, my internet at the office here just went down a few minutes ago. So hopefully this will work. But yes today is National Voter Registration Day and want to encourage of course everybody that's not registered to vote please register and vote. Also it's important that if you've changed your address Or you changed your name, but you go online and update your registration. It's very easy to do at sbcvote.com.

And so we will be working with Gina DePinto to issue a press release. Well actually I think we issued it yesterday too. So hopefully the media will be picking up on this and encouraging everybody to register to vote or update their voter registration. Also, this election has already begun. We sent out over 2,000 ballots last week to overseas voters and military voters overseas and we've already received back a handful of ballots so This election is already underway.

One of the other things that we're doing, that's very significant to try and make it easy for people to vote is this week we are installing 32 vote by mail drop boxes across the county. And actually if you wanna see one of them at the County Administration Office where you are now on the Anacapa Street entrance have installed a drop box there. These drop boxes are very secure, they weigh over 600 pounds each and then make it very easy to vote so these 32 locations will be listed in your voter information guide and those voter information guides are actually going out next week What's nice about these drop boxes is that if you put your vote by mail ballot in one of these drop boxes, it's like delivering your ballot directly to the County Elections Office.

We are going to be having teams of county elections officials driving by these drop boxes on a daily basis, beginning October 5th. So we're trying to make it as easy as possible for you to deliver your ballot directly to your County Elections Commission. The other thing I want to mention is that next Monday September 28, we are actually getting a delivery. We're going to have a semi truck coming from our ballot vendor or ballot printing vendor delivering 227,000 ballots vote by mail ballots to this county and voters should expect that over the next week after that next week to 10 days they will be getting their ballot in the mail.

And the one thing I want to do is encourage all those to vote your ballot early, you can drop it off in one of these drop boxes. You know, of course study the issues, study the candidates but there's been a lot of criticism that if you wait until election day to Vote your vote by mail ballot and you drop it off on election day, we cannot count those ballots until after election.

But if you get it to us earlier, we are allowed to process those tabulate those ballots and those election results will go up at eight o'clock on election night. So if you're interested in seeing the results of your vote, please vote early, vote safe by mail, But it's important for everybody to vote early. And so that's the update for now, but I'm happy to take any questions that you may have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed12:06 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Thank you Mr. Holland for your diligence in preparing for the election and encouraging folks to vote. That's primary fundamental foundation of our democracy. Are there questions for Mr. Holland? OK thank you again for joining us. CEO Miyasato are there other announcements. No report. Thank you Supervisor Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed12:29 · ≈ 9:12 AM

I just wanted to the CEO give a very easy softball question. I mean the census is so crucial for us to receive what kind of what kinds of funding. I mean I think the thing that comes to mind me is this most recent CARES Act funding which Was determined how it would allocate partially by population. Would we have potentially more money to deal with emergencies and crises if more people answer the census questions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed13:04 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Williams to the chair absolutely That's why it's so critical for everyone to be counted. The federal government will use these numbers to develop the formula for federal funding, which includes emergency assistance and includes our CDBG, our home monies. And I want to remind folks that it's not just the county, it's our cities as well, that we all received money through CDBG, for example, for CARES funding for COVID-19 that had a large impact on the county and our cities. So yes, it has a significant impact Please, there's only a few more days. So if you know anyone who hasn't filled out their census form, a neighbor, a relative, a friend, please urge them to do so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed13:49 · ≈ 9:13 AM

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed13:54 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board I just have a couple quick announcements this morning. I'd like to remind members of the public who are participating in today's meeting of our alternative method of public participation. If you would like to make a comment by phone On any items on today's agenda or general public comment on items not on today's agenda, please call 805-568-2240 and state your name, your phone number and which item you'd like to speak on. And the clerk will call you at the appropriate time as you will see that number is also scrolling at the top of your screen.

Please make every effort to be available and mute all streaming devices once it is your turn to speak. Additionally I have a couple changes to the agenda today We would like to continue administrative item number two. This is sponsored by Supervisor Hart and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Susan Epstein for her 16 years of faithful and distinguished service to the Goleta

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed14:50 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Union School District Board of Trustees, and we are just requesting to continue this through our October 20th 2020 meeting. Additionally, we did receive a request from the department yesterday. We received a memo on it Administrative item A-12, this is from General Services. It is to consider recommendations regarding Buellton Senior Center 25 year lease agreement.

RP file number 999 and this is in the third district and the department is requesting to withdraw this item today. And those are all my announcements.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:23 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Thank you very much

The next item on the agenda is approval of the administrative agenda. Do any board members request to pull items from the administrative agenda? And are there any public requests to pull items?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction15:38 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Yeah, Mr. Chair I need to have a roll call on 25.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:42 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed15:46 · ≈ 9:15 AM

I just don't pull anything but I just wanted to acknowledge on a 13. I dissented from the change, the local preference policy out of fear that it would reduce the number of local vendors that turns out not be I want to acknowledge that this turned out just fine.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed16:18 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Thank you for that. Any other items from the public that would like to comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed16:23 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board we have requests to speak on multiple items this morning administrative item number 7 11, 13, 15, 18, 20, 21 and 23. Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed16:45 · ≈ 9:16 AM

let's begin with the clerk please read item number seven into the record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed16:50 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board administrative item number seven is from community services behavioral wellness and general services it is to consider recommendations regarding a Disposition of county-owned property at 117 North B Street in Lompoc. Assessor's parcel number 085141003 to the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara for a home key development project, and this is in the 4th District. And I have Andy Caldwell on the phone to speak in public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed17:51 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Adam A7. Be called well, I'm representing Colab. I read the staff report. This has to do with converting a building to a home key project for either the homeless or people that are near homeless and my one question, and I'm hoping...I'm not going to speak for three minutes each on any of these. I mostly have questions. On A7, I couldn't see any reference if the City of Lompoc was consulted or whether or not they concurred That this was a good place for a homeless project or housing project in this particular neighborhood. And so I'd like to know whether or not they were consulted, or if they're going to be consulted?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:50 · ≈ 9:18 AM

They were consulted and they concurred. Thank you Mr. Calvo. Next item is A11.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed19:18 · ≈ 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 the Hinder Leader DeLamas & Associates HDL Board Contract Agreement for Cannabis Tax Compliance Services. And we have Renee O'Neill on the line.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed19:51 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Good morning, Supervisors.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed19:53 · ≈ 9:19 AM

This is Renee O'Neill. I wanted to address HBL in

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed20:00 · ≈ 9:20 AM

regard to...I've noticed they are our contractors for a number of things that the county does. I don't know very much about them but I would like to know more. Most importantly, I would like to be sure that they are a neutral and Fair Corporation that represents both sides of the county counties. What am I trying to say here? Well, both sides of the cannabis issues that are coming up so I know they are we're considering them for looking at the cannabis storefront retail Applications and I've noticed them involved in the taxes process in our county so.

How do I learn more about. Hinter hinder leader the lawman and. I forgot the other word. How do I learn more about them. Hinder leader dilemmas and associates I have my notes in front of me now. Sorry, I was doing something else when I got this call so I wasn't prepared. Do you have an answer to that question? I can't see you. Ms.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:30 · ≈ 9:21 AM

O'Neill are you done with your comments?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed21:34 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Oh sorry and I don't...I have you muted. I always forget. I'm not in the rooms with you. Maybe the clerk could send me something or maybe HDL.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:46 · ≈ 9:21 AM

You could also Google their company's name. I'm sure there's lots of information on the internet.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed22:13 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board moving on to administrative item number 13 This is from General Services. It is to consider recommendations regarding a local vendor preference policy and outreach update, and I have one request to speak on this item, and that is Andy Caldwell.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed22:41 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing Colab We were involved with the Local Vendor Outreach Program that Supervisor Schwartz initiated. And ever since the beginning, it was pretty much consistently at 60% for local vendor. So I'm not sure exactly what Doss Williams, Supervisor Williams is looking at. I think that what the staff report indicates is that This past year was an anomaly due to COVID-19 spending, but it looks to me like from the staff report that it dropped below 60% to 55% and 56%, except for the anomaly of COVID- 19 local expenditures.

And so I don't Have any confidence that this program is working on as they said it would. And I also think that the report here, I couldn't tell that they actually did calculate the multiplier effect in this report because typically the multiplier effect is a multiply or Of the of the money spent here locally. So I don't tell you the truth. I don' think this report tells you anything good, let alone on how Supervisor Williams read it. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed24:26 · ≈ 9:24 AM

I just might explain, you know, I had much dimmer expectations. You know the before the policy change 60% of it was with local vendors in fiscal year 18-19 It did drop lower but part of that was under the old policy

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

0:24 – 0:296 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed24:51 · ≈ 9:24 AM

so it may be legacy issues too At 55%. So 1920 was 56%. Of course, more recently 75% has been through local vendors. So we don't know how much of that is due to COVID or due to the fact that the policy works. I'm just saying that it's not really a catastrophic change. It's an incremental one and I think it's probably fair to say that we can't really tell what the results of the policy are yet except that it wasn't as bad as I've

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed25:30 · ≈ 9:25 AM

maybe feared. Thank you for that. Next item is a 15. Would you please read that item into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed25:38 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board, Administrative Item Number 15 is from General Services. It is to consider recommendations regarding an award contract for countywide security services to Triumph Protection Group and we have one request to speak on this item and that's Andy Caldwell.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed26:08 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Supervisor Hart, members of the board. I actually think this item should be a D-item and this has to do with the latest paradigm to address the homeless is that throw a house at them and most of the problems are going to go away. And I agree that people that don't have a bunch of problems in their life, they're just simply a victim of circumstance For instance, somebody that had cancer that lost their job and lost their house. I think Housing First will work for them. However most of the people as you well know have multiple diagnosis besides homelessness mental illness alcohol drug abuse and the like.

And so this item I think is actually an embarrassment to the policy that of housing first policy You have actually a perfect little paradigm here to prove your policy and your theory works. You've got a bunch of people housed in local motels and hotels at taxpayer expense. You know exactly where they're at, and they have a house. So what we're reading here is you're having to spend over $2 million a year at just two locations Not for social services, alcohol, drug and mental health services but for security guards.

Now why is that? Is that because they may be running a prostitution ring there? Is it because of fights? Is it because of lawlessness? Is it because of destruction of the property? Is if because they're doing drugs there or selling drugs there? Are they housing stolen things there? You're going to just throw two million dollars at this problem while you're throwing tens of millions of dollars at the larger problem of homelessness in this county.

Where are the metrics that you can move these people from homelessness through a home at this motel into being back healthy productive citizens in our community? This really should be a pilot project versus an 815 itemized two million plus dollar expenditure because these people are unruly and or present a threat to one another, the community and the property.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:52 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Thank you Mr. Caldwell. Next item is Item A18 Could the clerk please read that item as the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed29:03 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, Administrative Item number 18 is from Human Resources. It is to consider recommendations regarding a 2021 Employee Benefit Insurance Program renewal. And we have one request to speak on this item and that is Renee O'Neill.

0:29 – 0:324 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed29:50 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Good morning Supervisors. It's always hard for me to start my day this early and have my brain firing on all cylinders, but whenever we have an item on the Sheriff's coming up I always like to give them recognition for the job they are doing and to let them know that I will continue to advocate For them to be funded more have. Hire more enforcement teams for cannabis specifically and to just let them know what a great job they're doing so I'm happy to see that there's a grant for $78,000 for them. I know that doesn't begin to fund an entire enforcement team Or even- Ms.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed30:49 · ≈ 9:30 AM

O'Neill, this item doesn't have anything to do with that. I'm sorry. This is a human resources item. Let's just go on to A20. Okay. Her comments have been made and noted for 823 if that's sufficient.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed31:38 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board yes Renee had made those comments on 823 I would just like to take a moment to read that item into the record That is from the Sheriff's Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding a 78,000 grant for selective traffic enforcement program step from the California Office of Traffic Safety OTS National Highway Traffic Safety Association for the period from October 1st 2020 through September 30th 2021 thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed32:06 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Thank you brings us to item A20

0:32 – 0:342 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed32:12 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Yes, Chair Hart, members of the board. Administrative item number 20 is from Public Health. It is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement with Family Service Agency FSA for the Housing for the Harvest and Latinx and Migrant COVID-19 Task Force and Language Justice Project. And there's a four fist vote required on this item and we have five requests to speak.

We will begin with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Dr. Melissa Smith.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed32:59 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board. Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. We understand that the farmers in our region especially through the H2A project have been isolating and taking care of people that tested positive for COVID. And we understand that not all employees are H2a obviously Having said that, we don't have a problem with reaching out to workers that are non-H2A. In fact, we think that is legitimate bona fide expense of the CARES Act and all that. However, the farmers I've talked to nobody knows who was on the Harvest and Latinx and Migrant COVID-19 Task Force And I've talked to several farmers in the region, including some of the largest growers and those that have actually have harvest contracting businesses that employ thousands of non-H2A employees.

So we would like to know who was on Harvard Latinx Migrant COVID-19 Task Force, including whether there's any growers on that And secondly, we don't understand what is the language justice project and what does that have to do with COVID? And again this is something that's come up before it's not been clear to us. I've made inquiries and I just had one of the largest strawberry growers in the region who actually was the president of their statewide association email me back says I'm not heard of it. I don't know what they're doing And the question is, if they're not working with the growers how are they finding the farm workers?

So we'd sure like to have an answer to that question and get a list of who's on it and how it was formed. Thank you.

0:34 – 0:4013 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed34:59 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Thank You Mr. Caldwell

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed35:09 · ≈ 9:35 AM

We will now go to Dr. Melissa Smith to be followed by Lee Heller

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction35:20 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Mister chair when we get done I like to follow up on that please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed35:23 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Yes, Sir.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed35:36 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Thank you very much. Good morning Chair Hart and members of the board thank you so much for your important leadership during the pandemic. I am doctor Melissa Smith Interim Coordinator of the Latinx and Indigenous Migrant COVID-19 Response Task Force. I'm also Director of Health Equity Initiatives at UC Santa Barbara, and have worked as a part time family medicine physician in the health department clinic in Santa Maria. I recently served as the Chair of the Expert Healthcare Panel for the RISE

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed36:10 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Act.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed36:11 · ≈ 9:36 AM

I believe it is critically important that these resources be allocated to support the work of the task force and its related language justice services, as well as for housing for the harvest. These efforts complement those of the Santa Barbara County Department of Public Health, as well as growers who seek to protect the health and wellbeing of farmworkers who are essential workers and who are uniquely vulnerable to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Farmworkers live in densely populated multifamily housing and face many barriers to protecting themselves and their families from COVID-19, including language barriers, barriers to accessing healthcare services, limited access to public health education, materials such as face coverings and hand sanitizer, and food and resources for supported isolation and self quarantine if they or their family members become infected.

The task force includes over 96 participating organizational cross sectoral partners Including community-based organizations, health service providers, elected officials and the county departments of Health and Behavioral Wellness among others. Our efforts are focused on critically needed multilingual and culturally appropriate health education and outreach efforts in marginalized communities in our county as well as with growers.

We are also strengthening coordination among service providers to address gaps and to ensure that community members receive life-saving supplies and other case management resources. We are providing mental health support services and resources in multiple languages for youth and adults throughout the county. These funds are an investment in the health and well being of our entire county, as well as an investment in our economy and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed38:09 · ≈ 9:38 AM

our workforce.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed38:10 · ≈ 9:38 AM

All of our lives In particular, those who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 depend on this critically needed public support. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed38:20 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Thank you Dr Smith perhaps you could call Mr Caldwell will get you that number and you could explain to him how the your work on the Latinx an indigenous migrant tax task force connects with farm workers and growers in San Maria Valley.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed38:41 · ≈ 9:38 AM

We will now go to Lee Heller, to be followed by Hazel Davalos.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed38:55 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Good morning, Chair Hart and members of the Board. I want to thank the Public Health Department and the CEO's office for its early and proactive efforts to address the problem of COVID-19 as it affects agricultural workers. I'm sure we all remember the numbers from not too long ago when farm workers represented a disproportionately high number of COVID-19 cases.

There has been a concerted effort from the beginning of the pandemic to develop strategies and resources to address this population made vulnerable by living conditions, stress and oftentimes comorbidities. Dr. Dovay-Noso recognized early the need for a coordinated and strategic approach and reached out to the people and organizations that now constitute the Latinx and Indigent Migrant COVID-19 Response Task Force. And I couldn't hear Dr. Smith speak, but I'm assuming she answered Andy's question.

Their work has led to this agenda item, an allocation of resources to experienced and highly competent nonprofit service providers, specifically the Family Service Agency and Community Health Centers of the Central Coast, to provide the extra assistance that farmworkers and their families often need. We will all benefit by support of and reduction of cases amongst farm workers. When their numbers go down, the county's numbers go down and when the county numbers go down we can shift to a lower tier and reopen businesses that currently remain shuttered. Again my thanks to Public Health and the CEO and the non-profit agencies that have been collaborating to develop this approach. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed40:25 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Thank You Dr. Heller

0:40 – 0:4513 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:29 · ≈ 9:40 AM

And we will now go to Hazel Davalos, who is our final speaker.

CommentHazel DavalosProposedself-stated40:51 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Hello, good morning board. I'd just like to speak in favor of the Housing for Harvest program My name is Hazel Davalos with CAWS, based in Santa Maria. We were so glad to hear that Public Health was proactively figuring out how to provide more support for our county's farm workers who often live in crowded housing conditions. I just quickly want to share a conversation that I had with a farm worker who was being isolated in a hotel about two months ago prior to the program beginning.

Like many farm workers in Santa Maria he was a single man living here alone Without a family, he was prescribed some medication to deal with coronavirus but didn't have anyone to go get the medication for him. This is one facet of the vulnerability of farm workers aside from being immigrants having linguistic barriers disproportionate rates of diabetes high blood pressure and other core comorbidities sometimes they're just frankly here alone without a strong support system And that is what is so important about the Housing for Harvest program and the fact that it allows the county to contract with Family Services Agency to conduct wellness visits.

This means you have a culturally competent staff and volunteers visiting farm workers in the hotel rooms, building trust so that these folks feel forthcoming about sharing their symptoms and are able to ask questions about how to navigate the medical system and more. I appreciate your support for this program Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed42:24 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Thank you, Miss Davalos

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed42:26 · ≈ 9:42 AM

and Chair Hart members of the board. We did have one additional request on this item and that is Lorinda Marshall.

CommentLorinda Marshall I'mProposedself-stated43:03 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Good morning chair and members of the board. My name is Lorinda Marshall I'm a retired public health nurse and I've made home visits to many immigrants and farm workers in countywide North and South County. I want to thank you for proactively addressing the spread of COVID-19 in concert with the Public Health Department I want to speak in favor of Housing for Harvest program because it addresses farm workers who are vulnerable.

They're vulnerable because they live in crowded conditions, many times several families in one house. They work in close proximity to each other and they need a place to safely quarantine to keep the workforce safe And stop the spread of covid in our county. I hope you will consider all of these factors as you make your decisions, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:10 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Thank you Miss Marshall

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed44:11 · ≈ 9:44 AM

and that was our final speaker

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:13 · ≈ 9:44 AM

which brings us to item number 821. And

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction44:18 · ≈ 9:44 AM

oh

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:19 · ≈ 9:44 AM

excuse me that's right supervisor Adam.

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction44:23 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Thank you. I would like to have a report from public health on exactly what they know about housing for the harvest and the language justice project, please. And I don't need to unless they want to come back with I don't have a D item on this, but offline is okay with me. And the questions are exactly who these two organizations are composed of? Who's on the board? Who are the executive directors? What is their mission and what outreach to growers has been engaged of that public health is aware of?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:13 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Adam. I think we'll be able to accommodate that at our future conversation with you or even at a COVID-19 update in the future. Thanks for giving us that advance request. Next item is...

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction45:25 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Yeah well if if I could have that produced as soon as possible. I don't know that waiting till in two weeks but our next meeting is going to be adequate.

0:45 – 0:497 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed45:39 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Thank you. Next item is A21. Excuse me, Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7945:45 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Thank you. I do know a little bit about this program and I think public health is to be commended for this. It's path-breaking. It tries to deal with the issues that were identified by the community and how best to address this in Santa Maria where the numbers were rising. Being able to be culturally competent and trusted is absolutely critical. The Family Service Agency is, I think exactly the right organization to do this. So I just wanted to, I'm eager to have you come and talk because I think it is a stellar program and I want everybody to know about it but at this moment just my personal thanks for this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:29 · ≈ 9:46 AM

And I agree with Supervisor Hartman. I think this is a wonderful story to tell and look forward Telling it again and again. So

the next item is A-21.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed46:40 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Chair Hart, members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 21 is from Public Health. It is to consider recommendations regarding a First Amendment to the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara Agreement. And we have one request to speak on this item and that is Andy Caldwell.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed47:11 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board, Andy Caldwell. If you'll indulge me I just want to follow up on 820 when I asked the Board of Supervisors for an answer which is similar to Supervisor Peter Adams' questions. I'm not asking for the vendor to call me, I'm asking for the Public Health Department that oversees this contract and this program to fill in the details I don't know what Dr. Smith at UCSB has to do with the Family Service Agency or Hazel Dalvalos for that matter.

With respect to item A21, this is related to item A7. There's a list, a huge list of properties and when these properties are funded they go through some sort of public hearing, public notice process Of who's going to be living there with the occupancy of life, et cetera, et cetera. And I just want to get back and combine item a 15 item a 7 in item 8 21. You hope you are housing the homeless and these motels on a 15 and you're going to have to spend over 2 million dollars on security now we know that.

We know that in Santa Barbara's got a police department. Why doesn't somebody just call the police? My point here is, if you convert the buildings in Wampoag and or others in Santa Maria are you going to hire security guards for those properties? Because why would you hire security guards for A15 but not A7 Nor have any plans to hire security guards for all the properties listed on 821.

And again, we think this deserves a full-blown hearing. I think your staff needs to go shop this to the City Council in each of these communities and tell them what your plans are. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:16 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Thank You Mr. Caldwell which brings us to item A25

0:49 – 0:5424 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed49:22 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, Administrative Item number 25 is from Human Resources. It is to set a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an amendment to the ordinance setting compensation and benefits for members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. And this is a set hearing for our October 6th 2020 meeting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:43 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Supervisor Adam?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction49:46 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Yes, I need a roll call vote.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:48 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Okay. Let's have a roll call vote on a 25 to set the hearing So move

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7950:02 · ≈ 9:50 AM

second

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:05 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Motion has been made in second with the clerk. Please call the roll

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:08 · ≈ 9:50 AM

mr.. Adam No Mr.. Lavagnino

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:14 · ≈ 9:50 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:15 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Mister Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:16 · ≈ 9:50 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:17 · ≈ 9:50 AM

miss Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7950:18 · ≈ 9:50 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:18 · ≈ 9:50 AM

chair heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:19 · ≈ 9:50 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:19 · ≈ 9:50 AM

motion passes 4 to 1

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:21 · ≈ 9:50 AM

and then could we have a motion for the balance of the administrative agenda so

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7950:25 · ≈ 9:50 AM

moved. And I believe a 2 we need to continue that October 20th in a 12 will withdraw for now

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:34 · ≈ 9:50 AM

thank you for those tweaks motions been raised and seconded at that clarification second on a discussion. Now could you please call the roll

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:43 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Mister Adam. Mister Lavagnino. Mr Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:49 · ≈ 9:50 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed50:49 · ≈ 9:50 AM

miss Hartman chair heart motion passes unanimously

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed50:54 · ≈ 9:50 AM

now is the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on today's agenda and are there any requests to speak on items not on today's agenda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed51:02 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board we have 8 requests to speak on general public comment this morning you're going to begin with Renee O'Neill be followed by an Odell Thomas

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed51:28 · ≈ 9:51 AM

First of all, supervisors and clerks. I want to apologize for my confusion over this morning's agenda items and I think we got that straightened out. So in regard to general public comment as a result of the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, highly esteemed litigator and leader of women's rights I felt it was important to speak in honor of her this morning.

Justice Ginsburg was nominated to the nation's highest bench in 1993 by President Bill Clinton. In her Rose Garden nomination ceremony, President Clinton praised Justice Ginsburg for standing with the outsider in society telling them that they have a place in our legal system Giving them a sense that the Constitution and the laws protect all American people, not simply the powerful.

Those words have profound meaning for all American citizens. I believe our system of justice and our justices should reflect a balanced representation of our country's population. I'm not sure how to resolve that. Maybe we need to increase the number of justices from 9 to 11 or 13. Maybe we need to limit their terms for 15 or 20 years instead of a lifetime.

It's a dilemma that bears serious consideration, in my opinion. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was Jewish. She died on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year which is quite significant And although I'm not Jewish, I was part of a Jewish family for 15 years and I have very dear friends who are Jewish. I respect and honor most faiths and have learned a little bit about Judaism.

Rosh Hashanah is one of the two highest holy days of Judaism and it begins a 10-day period of penitence culminating on Yom Kippur Day of Atonement. This is a time to reflect and repent of injustices It also represents a new beginning, a fresh start. Jewish tradition says that the most righteous die on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, that they have been granted the fullest number of days in a year as possible.

People who die on that day are called Tzadiks, a person of great righteousness or people with human frailties that have almost superhuman abilities to make the world a better place. Justice Ginsburg certainly fit that description. There's also a Jewish teaching that says those who die before the Jewish New Year are the ones that God held back until the last moment because they were needed most and were the most righteous.

Rosh Hashanah is not the only point of significance

0:54 – 0:596 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed54:45 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Thank you, Ms. O'Neill for your comments about Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed54:52 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Our next speaker is Anne Odile Thomas to be followed by Katie Mickey.

PresenterAnne Odile Thomas Andsafe technology for Santa Barbara CountyProposedself-stated55:11 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Good morning, Chairman and members of the Board. My name is Anne Odile Thomas And I'm making this comment on behalf of safe technology for Santa Barbara County. I live in Santa Barbara County and I have young children, and I care about air quality and fire safety. I would like to address fire hazards related to small wireless facilities in beautiful Santa Barbara County.

Residential, recreational, and farming areas are very vulnerable to fires. Many of our trees, plants, groundhogs, and floods are extremely flammable. In 2007, it was determined that the Malibu fire was caused by pole overload from wireless equipment. Southern California Edison and PG&E poles that may include cell antennas have caused some of the worst fires in recent history.

The Santa Barbara County Fire Department said in 2019 that they saw a 50% increase in power lines and utility pole-caused fires. Small wireless facilities present a significant fire hazard. We strongly urge you to require involvement of our Fire Department in existing and future wireless regulatory ordinances as follows. One, Oversight Authority. Designate the Fire Prevention Department Fire Chief or Fire Specialist to determine and oversee fire safety protocols and examine approved or disapproved Any small wireless facility applications and permits and their location to continue monitoring the fire chief will continue to monitor the safety of wireless facilities in the county.

Three investigations, the fire chief shall receive and investigate any credible fire safety complaint made by a resident or the county regarding a wireless facility. Permittees and wireless companies Thank you Ms. Odell-Thomas.

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed57:33 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board we are going to come back to Katie Mickey later. We are now going to Michael Gurka to be followed by Kimmy Van Dyke.

CommentMichael GurkaProposedself-stated58:02 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Good morning and thank you all for the opportunity to address the subject of 5G cell towers in Santa Barbara County. My name is Michael Gurka, and I have one simple request to all of us to please completely examine and deliberate on the risks and rewards of this 5G technology specifically on the issue of fire safety. In the 40 years since moving here from New York City my work has been divided between natural healing and organic farming My pastimes have been ocean free diving, beach walking and hiking the local mountains while homesteading in the hills above Santa Barbara and Montecito.

I feel blessed and privileged to share this place with you and our incredible climate of flora and fauna. As a resident of high fire zones this whole time, I have constantly had to evaluate the risks and rewards of living in these environments. In 1990 The painted cave fire quickly destroyed my neighborhood, my farm, my homes and my beloved wife Andrea. And yet I still cherish my relationships with our local mountains and you, my neighbors.

I have recently been informed of the potentially high fire dangers of 5G cell towers and other debates raging throughout California on this subject. I am neither a scientist nor a technology expert so I cannot comment on the potential rewards of 5g technology if there are any, but I feel deeply qualified to speak about the risks and costs of wildfire and urge us all to consider these trade-offs as completely and as seriously as possible. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed59:41 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Thank You Mr. Gurkha

0:59 – 1:075 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed59:45 · ≈ 9:59 AM

We will now go to Kimi Van Dyke to be followed by Miriam Lindbeck

CommentKimi Van DykeProposedself-stated1:00:18 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Good morning, County Board of Supervisors and fellow neighbors. My name is Kimi Van Dyke and I am with Safe Technology for Santa Barbara County. We are here to bring everyone in the county up-to-date as we have been concentrating our efforts on the City of Santa Barbara. We're here to change that and reintroduce ourselves. Due to many misconceptions and confusion around the wireless telecommunications industry marketing term 5G also known as the fifth generation Our 5G-free Santa Barbara group decided to pivot and officially change our name to Safe Technology for Santa Barbara County, Safe Tech SVC for short. Our mission is to protect the health of all beings and the environment in Santa Barbara County through education and collaborative advocacy for safe technology.

We have filed for unincorporated association status and our new branding and website are in the works. We have a dedicated core team that is growing along with our Facebook group with 500 members And 2,234 have signed our Change.org petition. Stay tuned for our upcoming public outreach and fundraising campaign. We would love you to get involved. For the last several months we've been diligently reading, reviewing and selecting various wireless regulatory measures proposed by other cities similar to our own along with writing special considerations specific to our area. Cities such as Davis, Berkeley, Marin, Carmel, Sebastopol, Petaluma, Encinitas, Hercules San Ramon, Palo Alto, Palos Verdes, San Diego, Malibu, Eagle Idaho, South Lake Tahoe and more have all contributed to the collaboration process to help make the new City of Santa Barbara Telecommunications Wireless Coordinates the best and most protective it can be.

We look forward to sharing our collective work products. It is our aim to protect our beautiful county down to the utmost detail and to be a guide to other cities who are in the same process. Together we stand as a voice for the people and our environment, for the protection of our towns and to ensure we have the safest, fastest, and most innovative technology available for us now and for generations to come. We also inform that our wireless regulatory ordinances be living documents that can respond to our times, situations, and new court rulings as we uphold the peace, prosperity, health, happiness, beauty, energy conservation, public safety, privacy, and security of our city and its people In the face of change, we are honored to work with you our city leaders elected officials staff and all interested organizations on such a noble cause.

We bring to you today the hot topic of fire hazards in relation to small cell wireless facilities also known as Wireless Telecommunications Facilities WTF. We will be sharing more very important information on several other topics that are applicable to the ordinance to help everyone get up to speed on these invisible Radio frequency radiates micro and millimeter waves, also known as RFR. We thank you for your spirit of collaboration.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:03:16 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Thank you Ms. Van Dyke.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:03:20 · ≈ 10:03 AM

And we will now go to Miriam Lindbeck to be followed by Katie Mickey

CommentMiriam LindbeckProposedself-stated1:03:51 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Good morning, Supervisor Hart and county supervisors. I am Miriam Lindbeck. I'm one of the co-chairs of the Safe Technology for Santa Barbara County. As you are well aware, I know you are. The new community wildfire protection plan is underway to be completed by March of 2021 and one of the elements of concern in the CWPP are the igniters of fires and we are aware of power line and pole ignitions and now we're seeing more small cell wireless communication facility fires These sites use high wattage and high voltage. They produce a substantial amount of heat, and if any equipment malfunctions or the cooling system malfunctions, an electromagnetic fire can occur. And indeed they can spontaneously combust, and we have some videos of that.

Also given the open policy of the Joint Pole Association, co-locating can often overload a pole which is also a fire hazard. Cellular antennas placed close to trees and vegetation, particularly if they are dehydrated, thin leaves or high in terpene or aromatic oils secretion is a fire hazard. And if the site is close to power lines overhead any overheating malfunction arcing strong winds seismic events slides heavy rains collisions that occur put that site at risk of igniting.

And so we are asking the county To consider oversight authority from our Fire Prevention Department, our fire chief or fire specialist to determine fire safety protocols and to oversee and examine and approve or disapprove any small wildlife facility applications and their permits and their locations through which applicants must comply. We're asking for monitored remote automatic fire notification and extinguishing systems for all wireless facilities approved by the fire chief or fire specialist, and continued monitoring and requiring automatic remote power cutoff switch for every small wireless facility of which city and county oversees and operates. And this is a measure that many cities are now requiring. And we recognize our Fire Department is extensively overworking And we also recognize that any partnership with the city and county and the CWPP can establish to diminish our fire hazards and our risk is a project well worth undertaking.

And so in light of that I would also like to report that we will be in touch with the CWPP, and also I have been searching the site for The wireless ordinance of the county any staff report or resolution and if I don't have the number to those to the ordinance or any of those documents. There's no way to locate them because titles do not exist so I do have a request today they have those ordinance numbers resolution staff reports supplied and I would love to get that information from you and I think

1:07 – 1:139 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:07:44 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Thank you, Ms. Lindbeck.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:07:47 · ≈ 10:07 AM

And we will now go to Katie Mickey to be followed by Leslie Weinstock.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:08:12 · ≈ 10:08 AM

Dear County Board of Supervisors, I am here as a member of Safe Technology of Santa Barbara County to offer precedents well worth considering in the context of our state now ablaze with wildfires and our air quality now containing toxic particulates PM 2.5 and smaller known to cause a host of serious life-threatening diseases including cardiovascular conditions and exasperate the symptomology of COVID-19 infection We applaud Hannibeth Jackson's authorship of SB 182, which calls for greater oversight in all new development applications in extreme fire risk areas and significant grant funding to support this.

In particular we ask that greater oversight be given to small cell facility applications. We ask you to consider the fire risks inherent in small cell wireless facilities and revise our county regulatory ordinance. Cell antennas placed close to trees and vegetation or power lines put that site at risk of igniting. We ask you to review the precedents cities such as Encinitas and Cepasipo have set in their regulatory ordinances since they have adopted 29 safety measures in October 2019, they have had no new small cell facility applications or installations for the past 11 months and they have designated the fire prevention department, the fire chief or fire specialist to determine fire safety protocols and oversee, examine and approve or disapprove any small wireless facility applications and permits.

My email version of these comments include a link to the Encinitas Ordinance we ask you to review. The fire safety comments are in sections 6, 9, 10, 11. We've engaged attorney Mark Pollock to work with Santa Barbara City in their revision of the regulatory ordinance. He is available to advise the county in the revision of the County Ordinance He has a strong track record in this area of law and can save the county considerable money. We request you work with him to protect our county, our wildlife and our residents. Thank you for your time and attention.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:10:20 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Thank you Ms. Weinstock.

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

We will now go to Leslie Weinstock to be followed by Judy Poulsen who is our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:10:30 · ≈ 10:10 AM

That was Miss Mickey that's right.

CommentLeslie OrnstadtProposedself-stated1:10:53 · ≈ 10:10 AM

My name is Leslie Ornstadt. I'm the Chief for Santa Barbara County, formerly 5G Free Santa Barbara. We'd like to start the conversation about amending current telecom ordinances and getting a protective ordinance for Santa Barbara County which includes fire prevention especially in high-fire risk zones. We can save you time and money by sending you more information Including the Encinitas and Sebastopol telecom ordinances that can be applied to the county.

We have technical, health and legal experts available to meet with you. As you know, SoCal Edison and PG&E have not maintained their poles and are responsible for some of the worst California fires and deaths. We are seeing more power line, power pole and small cell wireless communication facility These sites use high wattage and voltage, and produce substantial heat.

If there are any equipment or cooling system malfunctions, an electromagnetic fire can occur by spontaneously combusting, especially when antennas are close to trees and vegetation. Malfunctions can be caused by arcing strong winds, seismic events, slides, heavy rains, and collisions. We ask you to adopt or amend your wireless regulatory ordinances to involve the fire department, to oversee approve or disapprove small cell wireless facility applications and permits.

And to require an automatic remote power cutoff switch for every small wireless facility. The cost of wireless facility fire investigations should be paid for by industry Residents in high fire zones should have fiber optics to the premises to eliminate tower-related fire hazards. Thank you very much for your time and attention.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:13:00 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Thank You, Ms. Weinstock

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:13:03 · ≈ 10:13 AM

And that brings us to our final speaker and that is Judy Polson

1:13 – 1:172 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:13:29 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Good morning. Hemp is a topic and because my quality of life has been destroyed, I'd like to keep it on the forefront of your thoughts. I was encouraged to hear you have decided to challenge the Hancock College research facade and that you are planning on addressing hemp regulation soon but today I'd like to fact check some of your comments from last week to get it on the record.

Fact. The state and federal hemp plans do not and never were intended to address land use. Instead of an excuse not to act The fact that these plans do not address land use creates the imperative to act now. Fact, the 12 categories being reviewed by the USDA have absolutely nothing to do with land use and have zero impact on land use regulations. The USDA review is not an excuse not to act.

Fact your regulatory authority to put land use regulations in place for hemp is not quote very limited. Other California counties clearly understand this Twenty-one counties have regulations, including SLO and Ventura. Another twenty-two have moratoriums in place for the specific purpose of developing hemp land use regulations. Some are currently updating their regulations to make them even more restrictive.

Fact. Yes, the Right to Farm Act pertains to all legal agricultural activities but would someone please read the Act subsection A1? Hemp cultivation is not conducted any manner consistent with proper and accepted customs As established and followed by similar agricultural operations in the same locality. And hemp was a nuisance at the time it began. So although the Act pertains to hemp, it is traditional agricultural operations in the same locality that have protections under this Act. That's us! Vineyards, lemons, avocados. Not the new-to-the-neighborhood hemp cultivators. Other California counties clearly understand this.

You have the power to do something about the hundreds of acres of hemp being sold and sold commercially under the pretense of research. Currently, there are three counties that have banned hemp research completely. Four counties have limited research to one acre and many others have regulations that put researchers out of business. Last fact, to date nothing has been done to alleviate the hemp threat in Santa Barbara County. Nothing! Receiving briefings and talking about the issue is just admiring the problem, not solving it. The 2017 urgency ordinance you put in place to address the hemp threat was not acted on. Hemp was a threat three years ago and it is a greater threat today.

So the question before you is not should we have hemp regulations in place but rather how quickly can we put effective regulations in place that alleviate the threat? Keep in mind that hemp is cannabis Thank you and I will be closely following actions taken to solve the problem, not admire it. Have a great day!

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:17:14 · ≈ 10:17 AM

the board.

1:21 – 1:271 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:21:01 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Hello. Yeah. Thank you.

1:28 – 1:3710 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:28:32 · ≈ 10:28 AM

We'll reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting and

the next item on our agenda is departmental item number one. Would the clerk please read that item into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:28:40 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Chair Hart, 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 2019 COVID-19 update.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:28:55 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Good morning,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:28:56 · ≈ 10:28 AM

good morning doctor Karissa.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:28:59 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Briefing topics for today first I will go over the SBC COVID-19 data then proceed to the blueprint for a safer economy as well as covering school waivers and then Mr Gazzone will do the last point the AB 3088. Santa Barbara County COVID-19 by the numbers. We have, as of yesterday, a total of 8,930 cases with 8,669 total recovered cases. We still have 151 active cases which means that these 150 cases are still infectious.

We have 23 currently in the hospital. We have a total of 110 deaths and our death rate is 1.2%. Over the past week, we are seeing again a decreasing trend in many of our regions. Noteworthy is the decrease in Santa Maria and Lompoc We are seeing a slight uptick in Goleta, Ivy, Santa Ynez and North County Unincorporated. Again, with our hospitalization we are following the state trend with a hospitalization rate decreasing at a rate of 44%. Our med surge rates decreased by 30% and our ICU rates decrease 71% during this time period.

I'm sorry can you hear me clearly or? Okay, I'll just take

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:30:57 · ≈ 10:30 AM

this. You have a mask on.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:31:03 · ≈ 10:31 AM

And now the blueprint for a safer economy. Just a quick reminder of the tier system, the purple tier is the widespread tier and it is the Tier 1. Substantial disease transmission is Tier 2 and that is known as the red. Moderate tier is Tier 3 and minimal tier is Tier 4. So I want to just pause and note that for the red tier, the substantial tier, the ideal is new cases per day. The four to seven new cases per 100,000 population per day with a seven-day average and seven-day lag translates to 18 to 31 new cases per day so that's our goal. Good news?

This week's tier assignment for the week of September 6 to September 12. Our new metrics, we did get 6.5 for the new cases per day. It was adjusted so the final case rate is 6.7 and our positivity rate is in the orange range at 4.3. However, because this is our, we need to be in the purple tier with advanced metrics of two weeks before we can move to the red.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:32:40 · ≈ 10:32 AM

You meant the red tier right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:32:42 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Yes did I? It's okay. The red tier yes. So as you recall our first Tier assignment, our adjusted case rate was 8.3. Last week was 9.1 and we are downward trending to 6.7 this week. Our testing positivity, we started three weeks ago at 5.93 moved to 4.80 and ending with a 4.3 this week. So what does this mean for us? So we have one week's worth of credit for being in the red. The county needs two consecutive prior weeks of less restrictive metrics to move, so if our county meets the red metrics next week, we would move to red tier on 9-29.

And Santa Barbara County needs to be officially assigned to the red tier for 14 days before K through 12 schools can open and that is would be on October 13th. However, during the wait with the waivers process can still happen. I want to do a quick reminder about the current transmission of cases in our county. So as you can see, 39% of our cases acquired the infection through close contact. 25% acquired it through community interactions with 35% unknown, so 99%.

With travel with only 12 cases, zero. And we have about 1% that we are investigating. So what this means is that we want to remind everyone that there are very concrete ways to avoid the spread of COVID-19. What is safe is dinner at home, playing in your yard Family game night, going for a drive, group video chat with family and friends, going for a family hike, walking the dog.

We would strongly advise community members to be cautious by at least keeping six feet between Themselves and others, washing hands frequently with soap and water or using hand sanitizers or wearing a mask when engaging in the following activities. Visiting a grocery store, picking up medications, picking up and delivery of food, using mass transit, dining outdoors at a restaurant.

And we strongly recommend people avoiding group gatherings, visitors in your home, sleepovers, playdates, backyard barbecues with friends. Shopping with friends, visiting with family not from your household, playing in the park with people not from your household and going to work in a non-essential capacity. School waivers, we have 20 schools that have been approved by the local health department and concurred by CDPH. And these include, I'll just read the last three.

Friday, Dunn School, Our Lady of Mount Carmel School and Notre Dame School. So these are the three newest schools to be approved. We currently have one school that we sent to CDPH for concurrence, and that is St. Louis de Montfort. We are providing technical assistance and awaiting additional information from Blockman, Santa Ynez Valley Charter School, La Prisima Concepcion, Manzanita Public Charter School, and Carpentria Unified Elementary School.

And we do have one new submission, and that's from the Los Olivos Elementary School. And now I'd like to invite Mr. Gazzone to present the next slide.

1:37 – 1:476 turns

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction1:37:58 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Good morning. On August 31st, the Governor approved and filed Assembly Bill 3088 that took effect immediately and also states that it is retroactive Assembly Bill 3088 has two broad areas of legislative changes. The first is referred to as the Homeowner Act, which primarily involves procedures that a mortgage servicer must follow if the borrower asserts that financial hardship from COVID-19 prevented them from making timely mortgage payments.

The part that I'll be talking more about today is the COVID- 19 Tenant Relief Act of 2020 or the Tenant Act, which is the second half of 3088. The Tenant Act places significant limits on landlords using the eviction remedy against residential tenants who did not pay their rent because of the COVID-19 emergency Within AB 3088's Tenant Act, there is a preemption against extension of Santa Barbara County's own Prohibition Ordinance Against Evictions.

Santa Barbara County's present ordinance provides protection where the failure to pay rent involves a substantial loss of income or substantial medical expenses from the COVID-19 emergency. The county code provision now will expire on September 30th, 2020 Although Santa Barbara County Code's provision applied to both residential and commercial leases, the state's Tenant Act does not apply to commercial tenants.

The Tentative Act really divides the world into three buckets of time. Non-payment of rent before March 1st, 2020. Non payment of rent between March 1st 2020 and August 31st 2020 and then September 1st 2020 through January 31st 2021. The Tenant Act provides additional eviction protections for nonpayment of rent in the last of these two periods, those after March 1st.

But generally not for nonpayment of rent that became due before March 1st 2020. I'll have an easy to follow guide here in a moment. The Tenant Act does not relieve tenants from their rent obligation, but only provides that unpaid rent because of defined COVID-19 related financial distress cannot be the basis for an eviction. But that protection against eviction is subject to its own rules and deadlines.

Those rules are pretty hard to follow in 3088 itself. But the good news is that the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara County assembled an easy-to-follow webpage about COVID-19 resources, COVID-19 and evictions. And that webpage as I will tour with you Also links to clear frequently asked questions from the state and clear tenant protection guidelines from the state. So we are now looking at Legal Aid Foundation's parent webpage, and a quick shout out for Legal Aid Foundation who was available to us when these questions started arising over the weekend. Their executive director Jennifer Smith was very helpful with this.

And we did not need to invent a new wheel because one exists. So when one looks at the Legal Aid Foundation's webpage, you can see COVID-19 resources across the top. That's what we're in right now. If you scroll down a little ways, you'll see some other easier to see at home maybe than on the screen but there are two other links There are two other links. One of them has the words like the Tenant Relief Act, and if you just click on that and have a computer slightly faster than the counties, you will be led to the state's frequently asked questions about the Tenant Act.

And this is a pretty good discussion in here although the pointer is not working. You can see This breakdown of the two time groups March 1st to August 31st as they take the mouse across their cursor and then September 1st to January 31st So you have several pages of I think pretty clearly worded FAQs if that doesn't do it for you, and you go back to their main page and Then go down to this section that has the words information here next to the state of California and click on that, you then get these pretty clearly worded tenant protection guidelines which talks about noticing and what you need to do to protect your rights if you're going to assert COVID-19 as a defense.

And then as you scroll down through this particular document towards the end right near the bottom there's a fact sheet that's available in both English and Spanish Which will come up any moment now. Here we are, this is the Spanish version of the fact sheet which basically takes some of the same information and puts it more into a narrative form And lists the critical dates and what one must do to assert these protections.

And discusses dates like February 21st, 2021 when a lot of these protections will no longer be available. So I found this website from Legal Aid Foundation to be extremely helpful and whichever reading style you prefer to use there's a way to get into it either for FAQs, Tenant Protection Guidelines or the parent website itself, where we started right here on COVID-19 resources.

In addition to Legal Aid Foundation's webpage, the California Apartment Association also has information available as their name implies. California Apartment Association primarily serves owners and landlords but I thought that their web page was helpful Their web page is available at C-A-A N-E-T dot O-R-G slant bar A-B 3-0 8-8 slant bar. C-a-a net dot org slant bar AB 3088 slant bar.

That includes an 11-minute YouTube video and a PowerPoint So I think these resources should help both tenants and landlords there are some critical dates coming up in September for landlords in terms of noticing and 3088 Lee provides clear language of what has to go into that notice And if you're a landlord the California Apartment Association's web page has some pretty easy to follow guidelines ready for any questions

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:45:19 · ≈ 10:45 AM

Thank you Mr. Guzzoni, this is really helpful and I want to appreciate the fact that you highlighted the work of the Legal Aid Foundation and Jennifer Smith in providing this information to tenants making that easy and accessible. And as you said, I think the Legal Aid Foundation's website is lafsbc.org. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.791:45:41 · ≈ 10:45 AM

Yes, I had a question. If there is a dispute about the inability to pay arising from COVID, what are the procedures to resolve that?

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction1:45:55 · ≈ 10:45 AM

Well, the typical lawyer answer will follow and that is it depends. It depends in part as to which time frame we're talking about in that for the first time frame, actually the middle timeframe, the first protected timeframe March 1st through 2020 through August 31st all that the tenant is required to do is provide a declaration of the COVID-19 emergency being the cause of their inability to pay For the second time frame, September 1st through January 31st, the landlord can ask for more information on that. Ultimately this will end up in front of probably the small claims court for an adjudication as to whether the asserted reason is viable or not. 3088 goes through some of the factors whether it's a high medical expenses loss of job that would work under either of these two date categories.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.791:46:49 · ≈ 10:46 AM

And are small claims courts open?

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction1:46:52 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Small claims courts have had their jurisdiction extended to handle cases even of multi-month rent that might not ordinarily be available. Our local Superior Court is still opening different portions of it starting with the criminal process, but none of these cases were going to be litigated for several months based on the delays that are built into 3088.

1:47 – 1:5320 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:47:14 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Supervisor Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:47:16 · ≈ 10:47 AM

I was on the impression that one of the time periods had a bifurcation between low income and higher income folks and that the higher income folks had to provide documentation. The lower income folks only had to do the declaration which time period is that

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction1:47:31 · ≈ 10:47 AM

That would be the third time period, September 1st through 2020 through January 31st. And that is that this is one of the harder to work through sets of rules but if the landlord believes that the tenant is a defined high income tenant which is linked to the local income they can request additional information on that. There are also some prohibitions on what the landlord cannot ask for on that and again we would expect to see some of this show up when it gets to court.

I think if you're a landlord, I would recommend reading or watching the California Apartment Association's website and paying scrupulous attention to what has to go into the notice that you're required to provide your tenants.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:48:17 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Other questions for Mr. Ghazani or Dr. Don Reynoso? I've got one for Dr. Reynoso. Supervisor, let me know.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.761:48:28 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Thank you. I'm just curious, on our website we've always had great tracking information. As we progress through this pandemic the reporting's got more and more and more in depth but now we're actually tracking some numbers that are really preventing us from moving from one tier to the next are not my knowledge tracked on the website now so we have a lot of information which is all great information But it's not really the key numbers that we need to track. And so I'm just curious if there's a way to, just for the public be able to go on and see on a daily basis kind of where we are or is it because we only track it once a week? I mean, if you just had the weekly number up there, I think would be helpful but I know there's lot of information on there but like I said 99% of that now has kind of moved and really we're only tracking two numbers now.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:49:29 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Supervisor Love, can you go through the chair? Yes. So on our surveillance metrics we are tracking case rates by day as well as testing positivity however it might be a little bit difficult to find given all the other information that we do have on there so the team will work on elevating and moving those two metrics to the forefront And I know that the comps team is also going to be assisting us in launching the rainbow charts as well.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.761:50:04 · ≈ 10:50 AM

Okay, yeah, I was just gonna suggest that the charts you have that you made in the presentation are very helpful and maybe those or some semblance of those on the website would also help.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:50:16 · ≈ 10:50 AM

We will do that, thanks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:50:20 · ≈ 10:50 AM

Supervisor Williams? Mr. Chair? Oh excuse me, Supervisor Adam?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction1:50:25 · ≈ 10:50 AM

Supervisor Williams, go first if you'd like.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:50:32 · ≈ 10:50 AM

You know, if you know this information do it today but on a further basis that would provide a little bit more information because there's a number of COVID related bills that came out of the legislature have been signed to the governor. I would just highlight two that would be really relevant for our business outreach which is AB 685. And I just want to make a couple of points. The first one is the requirement to disclose to employees if there's been an exposure at a work site and Particularly the first one is really important to get out there through our RISE outreach. We have a methodology to promulgate that information.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction1:51:30 · ≈ 10:51 AM

Supervisor Adam? Okay, good deal. Dr. Donorino, so before we're done here today I would like you to produce two lists for me and you guys might want to write this down because it's a little wordy. First, a list of specific public COVID complaints in our district including the source and how it was conveyed or received Can you get that for me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:52:03 · ≈ 10:52 AM

I believe that our EOC is tracking that information. And so, yes. So

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction1:52:10 · ≈ 10:52 AM

you'll be able to get that to me today before we're done?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:52:13 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Yes.

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction1:52:15 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Okay, good deal. Thank you. Also please produce the dates when school waiver applications were submitted to you public health and when you forwarded those applications to the state Public Health and the dates that they were approved and the current status on all of those. Can you give me that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:52:41 · ≈ 10:52 AM

I can give you that, but I'm probably not sure where my team is at. So if I could have till the end of the day, I will email that to you.

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction1:52:53 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Yeah and maybe we could just trail this item and you can come back and make sure I have that information?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:53:00 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Okay, will do.

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction1:53:03 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Thank you.

1:53 – 1:5810 turns

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction1:53:06 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Mr. Chair, and we'll also work with public health to see if any portions of the first question are actually confidential or promise confidentiality during the reporting process I just don't have that off the top of my head and we'd like to work with Public Health on that before making that a publicly available document

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:53:26 · ≈ 10:53 AM

And just, this is Siyomi Asado. That information is being tracked by EOC and our code enforcement group so we will have Ms. Hubbard look to see what information she has in Clearwater County Council.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:53:41 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Well I think this is a really significant day. We have our first red report card from the state of California and that is a very very big deal It's the headline, Sandbar County is now in the red tier. And as a result if

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:53:54 · ≈ 10:53 AM

we can- We're still in the purple tier. We're still

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:53:56 · ≈ 10:53 AM

officially in the purple tier and it'll take two more weeks to get to the red tier but to officially graduate to the red tier But we are for the first time, we have a report card that shows red. So we're making significant progress and if we keep that up and sustain that in two more weeks, houses of worship will be able to open indoors with limited capacity. Movie theaters will be able to open indoors with 25% capacity. Restaurants will also be able Services all can open indoors, museums. There's a lot of things that are more accessible in the red tier than in the purple tier so this is really really important good news and the chart that you show that shows the very steady decline over time is a reflection on our collective efforts To do the simple things like wearing masks and staying away from others and washing your hands, and it's working.

So thank you for sharing that good news. Are there other comments or questions from board members? Yes, I know supervisor Lavanino

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.761:55:05 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Thank you. Good points question is so let's run that out a little bit and we do go to the red and those things happen. So what happened at what point how long If we open up when we start seeing, you know the numbers go back. What? How long I mean how does that process work so just want to be clear to people that if we do open these things up and cases go up like how long do we get to stay in the red before if we had to go back to purple or does it work that way or how does all that work once you hit a tier

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:55:40 · ≈ 10:55 AM

So I'll just give you the whole context. So a county needs to be in a tier for three weeks before moving to a less restrictive tier, so within those three weeks there needs to be two consecutive weeks of metrics showing less restrictive tier before moving into that tier. So we've gotten one week in the red, so we need another week of meeting the red metrics before we're officially given that designation Once we've moved into a less restrictive tier, businesses can open accordingly to the sector guidelines posted online as soon as it is allowed by the local jurisdiction. Some jurisdictions have decided to wait a bit longer and if you have moved into a more restrictive tier After 2 weeks of being bumped back, then the counties will have 3 days to implement the more restrictive sector guidelines in that more restrictive

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.761:56:43 · ≈ 10:56 AM

tier. Okay I guess that's clear as long as you understand it. It is very confusing but it is good news we're trending in the right direction so let's just concentrate on that and deal with the other when we get there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:57:01 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Right, just as we are getting a status update about us trending towards the red tier. If once we are in the red tier and we are not vigilant And our cases increase, our testing positively increase and we then meet the criteria to be moved back to the purple tier. We will be warned so that will be it won't be from a week to a week. We will be forewarned with that metric assignment each Tuesday.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:57:39 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Supervisor Williams. Well, number one I want to agree with the chair that this is momentous and really important but but I guess my my feeling is let's not blow it we need to continue a level of vigilance both we as the county and the public We need to continue a level of vigilance, um, to ensure that this positive trend continues. Uh, we not only need to meet these metrics for two weeks, but we also need to meet the draft equity metric if it ever comes out.

Um, and I would, I would counsel that on reopening on the things that we are allowed to reopening in, uh, the red that we would, that you guys would work on a timeline and stagger the different sectors. For two reasons, number one is if things by staggering we can better ascertain whether there's a negative trend associated with any particular reopening and of course by providing a timeline then you can provide the timetable by which those businesses can take the necessary steps in advance to do it right.

1:59 – 2:0111 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:59:01 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.791:59:03 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Thank you, just want to remind everybody it's time to get flu shots And they have similar symptoms and so we want to rule that out is is the same Reopening and if we go up closing down again That applies to other sectors does that apply to schools as well?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:59:21 · ≈ 10:59 AM

No, it does not apply to schools So once schools are reopened they can be opened

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:59:31 · ≈ 10:59 AM

And I guess I just offer a slightly different view from Supervisor Williams. I think that other counties that have opened the additional businesses that come from moving from the purple tier to the red tier, and even some counties that have moved now to the orange tier, have demonstrated what the effects of that are sufficiently in my mind in that I would hope that we would open up The businesses that would have the capacity to open under the new tiers, you know as soon as that's possible So we'd have a slightly different view about that Home is there any other questions for stuff?

Jim's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:00:10 · ≈ 11:00 AM

I believe Jim's is in the red tier but at so if I may add to chair hearts comments and In the sectors that can be opened in the red tier, if we look at them they are very thoughtfully designed with very slow measured reopening. Some are at 25%, some are at 50% but they're very measured just so that we can have that slow reopening and assessment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:00:47 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Okay, thank you for the reports. Mr. Guzzone, I'm a Dr. Geronoso. That concludes this item or are we going to trail this item? I thought there was something from Supervisor Adam he's gonna, he

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:00:59 · ≈ 11:00 AM

asked- Yeah that would be most excellent if we could do that and make sure that we get those answers today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:01:05 · ≈ 11:01 AM

We will trail this item until later in the day which now brings us to department item number two. Excuse me, we need to see if there's public comment of course yes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:01:14 · ≈ 11:01 AM

And chair Hart members of the board I did just want to note for the record we have no request to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:01:17 · ≈ 11:01 AM

speak. Thank you and then we'll continue this item later in the day and

the next item is departmental item number two with the clerk please read that item into the record.

2:01 – 2:1217 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:01:28 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Chair Hart, members of the board, departmental item number 2 is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the appeal filed by the Gaviota Coast Okay, and we'll begin by communicating our ex parte communications. Who would like to begin?

not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:02:07 · ≈ 11:02 AM

This is just since our last hearing. Supervisor Williams?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:02:10 · ≈ 11:02 AM

I will because it's so easy.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:02:13 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Okay, Supervisor Adams?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:02:15 · ≈ 11:02 AM

I have no ex partes. Okay thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:02:19 · ≈ 11:02 AM

I have a no.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.762:02:22 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Supervisor Lavanino? Thank you Mr. Chair. I had a phone call with Mr. Tim Govans of Caltrans.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:02:30 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Supervisor Williams. I've had no ex-party communications with interested parties since the last hearing. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.792:02:39 · ≈ 11:02 AM

I spoke with Ana Citrin who represents the Gaviota Coast Conservancy

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:02:44 · ≈ 11:02 AM

and on Tuesday September 1st, I called Tim Goebbens the Caltrans District 5 director to ask to explain the board's action and asked him to consider the idea of a longer range wildlife corridor planning study on Friday September 18th I called Scott Eads, the Deputy Director for Caltrans to again request that wildlife crossing study in the Gaviota Coast area. And then yesterday I spoke with Mr. Doug Campbell from the Coastal Ranches Conservancy about the project and possible modifications to the Caltrans design and I also spoke with Mr. Eads again yesterday about things that Caltrans could do to modify the design or participate in a regional wildlife crossing study on the Gaviota Coast.

So that with that we will go to a staff presentation I see we have Mr. Sewards here and also Ms. Ristig

CommentKiara StigProposedself-stated2:03:43 · ≈ 11:03 AM

So good morning Chair Hart and Supervisors. My name is Kiara Stig, and I'll be presenting the appeals of the Planning Commission's approval of the Caltrans culvert replacement project which your board previously heard on September 1st. As a reminder, the project is for the replacement of an existing culvert underneath the Highway 101 along the Gaviota Coast. Just as a brief timeline, the project was last heard before your board on September 1st, 2020. Staff directed...was directed by the board to return with findings for denial. Findings for denial were prepared in a memo dated September 10th, 2020 and findings for approval were also included in that same memo.

So here are the actions for denial, as requested by your board. To uphold the appeals 20 APL 9 and 20 APL 10. Make the required findings for denial of the project. Determine that denial of the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQAs sections guidelines 15270. And deny the project 19 DDP 34, 19 CUP 54 and 19 CDP 133. And just for reference, here are the actions for approval should your board wish to approve the project.

And that concludes my presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:05:07 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Thank you, Ms. Ristick. Any questions for staff? Supervisor Hartman, did you have a question? OK. That's right. Next we'll have the appellants. Mr. Doug Campbell for the Coastal Ranches Conservancy.

PresenterDoug CampbellCoastal Ranches ConservancyProposedself-stated2:05:30 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Yes, good morning Chair Hart and members of the board. I'm Doug Campbell, the Executive Director of Coastal Ranches Conservancy. As we have previously pointed out there are a lot of facts that were omitted from review of this project like the fact that Caltrans is purchasing five acres of Gaviota State Park land at a cost of several millions of dollars. Land which is deed restricted in which they have yet to receive permission to use, like the fact that this project fails to perform the offsite mitigation at the closest location to the project site which is required by the local coastal plan and the Gaviota Coast Plan.

And most important, the fact that there's a very high rate of wildlife vehicle conflict in the project area it was not considered in the projects environmental analysis Based on roadkill statistics that we have presented, this location is said to be within the top 15% of all road kill hotspots within the state. And yet somehow Caltrans failed to investigate sufficiently to discover this fact.

The local coastal plan and Gaviota Coast Plan both require that a project's impact on wildlife corridors be considered. Now I'm not a lawyer But it seems to me that any of these oversights are sufficient to require the project be reconsidered and potentially be redesigned to account for this new information. In making your decision today, we ask that you act to preserve the special character of the Gaviota Coast.

Recent studies tell us that in the past 50 years, we have lost two-thirds of all wildlife on the planet That 40% of our insect species are at risk of extinction. And just in North America, our bird population has declined by 3 billion birds or 29% overall. For the Gaviota Coast I believe the largest number of human caused wildlife deaths occur as a result of highway wounding.

Many of these deaths are preventable with proper design of wildlife crossings associated fencing You keep wildlife off the highway. And we can't eliminate all roadkill of wildlife, it's not practical but we can focus our limited resources and attention on those areas that are a high priority. This is one of those areas. We aren't given many opportunities to do something big for the Gaviota Coast but this is a big opportunity A properly designed culvert here will prevent the deaths of hundreds of animals every year.

And this can be done only with a redesign of the culvert Caltrans has proposed. There are no other nearby culverts that can be easily converted to accommodate large mammal wildlife. It might be another 15 or 20 years before another opportunity like this comes along. Let's not let this one slip through our fingers by an excess of caution The circumstances demand bold action, not business as usual.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:08:54 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Thank you Mr. Campbell. Next we'll go to Doug Kern from the Gaviota Coast Conservancy. Mr. Kern?

PresenterDoug Kernfor the Gaviota Coast ConservancyProposedself-stated2:09:02 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Good morning Chair Hart and Supervisors. I'm Doug Kern, Executive Director for the Gaviota Coast Conservancy. At our September 1st meeting you gave us the opportunity to connect with Caltrans regarding this culvert replacement project. And we thank you, your staff also created the paperwork necessary for you to uphold our appeal and deny the project. And we appreciate that also beginning September 2nd, we made multiple efforts to contact Caltrans and after several attempts, we were asked to stay tuned Last week we made a final attempt at contact and received no response.

We did our part, we support the need for the project and also understand making decision-making in large bureaucracies can get bogged down. We understand also that there are funding issues still this coast is worthy of all of our efforts to protect Including providing for wildlife crossings and public access. I'm disappointed that parts of our government are unresponsive.

We ask that you uphold our appeal. Now, I turn to my colleague Ana Citrin.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:10:27 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Thank you Mr. Kern. Ms. Citrin?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:10:30 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Yes, good morning Chair Hart and Supervisors. Ana Citrin for GCC. It became very clear at your last hearing that Caltrans has not given adequate attention to terrestrial wildlife crossing on the Gaviota Coast. The Gaviota Coast is a global biodiversity hotspot, and Caltrans 101 is a formidable barrier to wildlife passage along the entire eastern Gaviota Coast. When a culvert replacement project is proposed like this one, particularly where vegetation is being planted that will draw wildlife to the area. It is incumbent on Caltrans to accommodate wildlife passage in their project design.

Caltrans failed to do that here and also failed to adequately notify and involve the public and interested organizations like GCC and the Coastal Ranches Conservancy and their environmental review and decision-making process. This process failure contributed to where we are now, but it is the County and ultimately the Coastal Commission that has the responsibility for determining whether the project is consistent with the county's local coastal program including the Gaviota Coast Plan. Here the project is inconsistent including with Gaviota Coast Plan policy NS6 action MS2 and development standard MS1 referenced in your denial findings It is also clear that Caltrans has not prioritized establishing California Coastal Trail segments on its property and right of way, which is critical to effectuating the Gaviota Coast Plan's vision of a continuous coastal trail along the Eastern Gaviota Coast.

Despite a clear policy imperative articulated in the Gaviota Coast Plan that the county initiate an interagency cooperation process for implementing this trail, to our knowledge there has been no action to advance this important effort Other projects, large and small will continue along the stretch of highway. Planning for wildlife and public trails must be part of Caltrans in the county's decision making process. Allowing this culvert replacement project to move forward without conditions to mitigate the projects impact on wildlife and public recreation is inconsistent with the Gaviota Coast plan and seek we look forward to all the findings for denial. Thank you.

2:12 – 2:186 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:12:47 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Are there any questions for the appellants? We'll now go to the Caltrans representative, Mr. Dallas.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:12:59 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Hi, yes thank you Chair Hart. Can you guys hear me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13:02 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Yes we can thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:13:04 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Great thank you good morning Chair Hart and supervisors. Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this project I do have some slides I don't know if they're up or not it doesn't look like they are But I will just move ahead. I have a lot to cover, so please give me the opportunity. The facts are clear that this existing culvert does not facilitate wildlife movement.

The Natural Environment Study studied this location in the regional context and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service, excuse me. In addition to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission have agreed and approved this project No new information has been presented. We followed every element of CEQA.

Our project goes above and beyond the requirements of the local coastal plan, and that's evidenced by the staff report. This project will replace the failing draining system and be in essentially exact same location when completed. Although the project analysis shows, and we contend that wildlife do not use the culvert. The new culvert will not preclude any use of wildlife or have a negative effect on any trails.

This is not the location to build a wildlife crossing. The parameters are defined by well established road ecology science. We have done the research and building a crossing here cost the taxpayer $29.5 million. It requires an 18th diameter pipe that is too steep to retain a natural substrate required by the large species. Wildlife crossing structures in a freeway context are not a build them and come proposition. In this setting, extensive distances of tall fencing will be required on both sides of the highway to direct animals to keep to the crossing and to keep them off the highway.

The fencing can obstruct the view shed It requires earth and jump out escape ramps, and long-term maintenance. The road ecology science is well established and the project was studied in this context. This is not the correct location. This project needs to move forward to provide for the safety of the traveling public and the movement of goods and essential services. It should not be tied to the larger regional scope of a wildlife corridor study that needs to occur.

And to address the larger question of what is being done To look at the highway and wildlife movement in the regional context, which is what this is basically all about. Caltrans and especially District 5 recognize the issue that we are moving forward to address. Caltrans has identified funding to complete such a study in the Gaviota area, which is what everyone really seems to want. We agree.

The funding is not affiliated or related to this project addressing Wildlife corridor issues require support at all levels, including the county, SBCAG, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Caltrans has experience with addressing wildlife corridors. We know how to do this. And like I said it requires support to better ensure success. I believe we have that in this group here.

Again, it isn't appropriate to tie the larger study to this maintenance project. It's a larger effort. Caltrans and District 5 supports working collaboratively with the county and our resource agencies partners. If you could scroll back on the slides to my first slide please. Second slide, excuse me. Keep going. Next one. Here we go. This is exactly what it says in the local coastal plan about wildlife corridors.

I'm going to rattle it off real quick. Action NS2. Wildlife corridors, landforms and natural features between the watersheds of the mountains and ocean habitats that are potential wildlife movement areas for apex species medium and large animals should be identified in consultation with state and federal wildlife agencies and or through specialized scientific studies.

All of that has occurred here And the facts remain the same. This is not the location to do it. Caltrans recognizes the issue, we're moving forward with developing a wildlife corridor study, identified funding. So in conclusion, we request that your board reject the appeal so Caltrans can complete this maintenance project on Route 101 Continue to serve the needs of Santa Barbara County's residents and businesses. Separate from this project and today's actions, we look forward with partnering with the county, SPCAG, and our natural resource agency partners so that we can identify a long-term strategy for the wildlife connectivity in this corridor. Thank you, and I'm available for any questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:18:17 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Thank you Mr. Delos. Are there questions? Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.792:18:22 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Yes, could you elaborate a bit on the Wildlife Corridor Study?

2:18 – 2:2411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:18:29 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Sure, clearly there's an issue here with the Gaviota Pass and the mountain range. The process that Highway 101 crosses the Gaviota Pass area is undeniable. We recognize it. It's been an issue for quite a while and we're well aware of it. We've identified funding to help facilitate the study and look at it basically take a A zoomed out regional look, because you can't just focus on one particular spot in Wildlife Corridor Studies. You have to look at a larger regional context and what's going on here. And we've done that actually.

Like I said, we've gone through the process. We've done wildlife connectivity studies projects in the past and have been successful. Does that answer your question?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.792:19:25 · ≈ 11:19 AM

That's a help. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:19:28 · ≈ 11:19 AM

All right, well thank you. Next we have public comment. Do we have any public commenters on this item?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:19:34 · ≈ 11:19 AM

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:19:37 · ≈ 11:19 AM

OK. Which brings us back to the rebuttal. We'll start with the appellants who will have a combined four minutes. And who would like to begin? Mr. Campbell?

PresenterDoug CampbellCoastal Ranches ConservancyProposedself-stated2:19:51 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Very well. Thank you. While we appreciate the offer to do a study which We had actually raised private funds to do a wildlife corridor study for this whole area, but were unable to get the necessary permits from Caltrans to proceed. So we encourage that. I think it's highly likely that study will come back and say there should be a wildlife crossing in this location.

And so if at that point we've built a new culvert what is the likelihood that there will be actually any construction of a wildlife Crossing. I'm holding up a pile of studies I keep on my desk that are intended to remove barriers to fish and wildlife that Caltrans has created in the Gaudiota Pass region. Most of these are fish, fishery problems with steelhead.

In the eight years that I've been working on this problem there has been no remediation And Caltrans has been aware of the impacts on fisheries, particularly for more than 50 years in Gaviota Creek. And yet we still have those problems and we have a species that's virtually extinct because of the lack of their action. So studies are nice, they're important but it's time for action not more study. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:21:19 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Thank you Mr. Campbell. Mr. Kern?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:21:27 · ≈ 11:21 AM

I'll go ahead for GCC if that's okay. Sure, Ms.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:21:30 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Citron.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:21:32 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Thank you. I would say generally that we concur with Doug Campbell. This study is good and we're pleased that Caltrans has recognized that there is a problem That requires a solution. But our concern is that more study, particularly without any actual condition requiring it could again drag out for a long time without actually seeing any action and what we've What we need is actual action on wildlife crossings, as well as public access. And I don't want that issue to get lost.

We explained in our written materials and at the last hearing that this project will convey land that is currently state parks land into Caltrans jurisdiction and that there are existing and proposed map trails that go directly through this project area. We think it's a large oversight to not seriously engage on the trail issue. And particularly because the Gaviota Coast Plan lays out very specific steps that the county, Caltrans and other key agencies like state parks need to go through to ensure that the trail vision is not merely something that stays In the plan and on the maps, but it's something that's actually effectuated and Caltrans is a key player.

So I would just say we've made our case for explaining the legal nexus. The planting of vegetation in the project area, the studies that Coastal Ranches Conservancy has put forward. We think these all establish the need for conditions to address wildlife crossing and public access in this project. And our concern is that if this is allowed to slip by, that no meaningful action will occur on these two fronts So we would ask that you uphold the appeals and deny the project. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:23:57 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Thank you, Ms. Citron. Now we'll go to Mr. Dallas from Caltrans.

2:24 – 2:3010 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:24:05 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Yes, thank you Chair Hart and members of the Board of Supervisors. We've clearly established and the county staff agrees that no trails will be precluded from this project. There are no trail impacts and in fact this project benefits future trails by repairing the sinkhole that currently exists. We've gone above and beyond what the local coastal plan requires, that's been well established both by ourselves and the county planning staff.

This location in particular is not the place to build a wildlife crossing study. Excuse me, not the place to build a wildlife crossing. The experts agree there's a well-established science involved in how to address these things. There's dedicated professionals that take these matters seriously at Caltrans and our resource agency partners and we've looked at this. We realize there is an issue. A larger context of the regional wildlife crossing corridor area needs to be looked at.

We recognize this and we've identified funding to accomplish it. Tying this to a maintenance project, this larger regional effort that I mentioned before requires support at all levels. It's not appropriate to tie it to this maintenance project. We request that your board reject the appeals and allow the project to move forward. And separate from today's project and today's actions, we look forward to partnering with Natural Resource Agency partners to identify a long-term strategy for facilitating wildlife activity in this corridor.

The local coastal plan has been met and yeah, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:26:03 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Thank you Mr. Dallas. Are there comments from staff?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:26:11 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Good morning, Supervisors. Staff would just like to say that we very much welcome the offer to collaborate on a wildlife study. We just want to make it clear that is not on the table right now as part of this project as a mitigation measure or as a condition.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:26:29 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Yes, that's understood. It's an offer from Caltrans in parallel to fund that study and work with partner agencies and I'm hoping the community as well, the Gaviota Coast Conservancy and the Gaviota Coastal Ranches Conservancies in particular. Any other questions for staff? Supervisor Hartman? Question or comment?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.792:26:54 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Is this deliberations?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:26:55 · ≈ 11:26 AM

This is board deliberations.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.792:26:57 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Well, so I'll go first. It's in my district. Historically, I think Caltrans was not known as an agency that reached out and engaged the public. And my experience over the last few years is that there's a marked difference. And Caltrans has been extremely capable in reaching out to people and working with communities. And I've seen this particularly in Los Alamos, and some things in the Santa Ynez Valley. And I really applaud that and very supportive of that. With regard to this project one of the issues is Appellants did not participate in the environmental review and comment in a timely way. And one could put the blame on them, but I would encourage Caltrans in the future to be proactive It's clear that the Gaviota Coast Conservancy and the Coastal Ranches Conservancy have a long-standing interest.

And so to keep with their ongoing public friendly policies and approaches, I strongly encourage that they get on the notice list and be given notice of things on the Gaviota Coast so that we don't run into something like this late in the process. I am a little disappointed that between the last hearing and this hearing, again there wasn't some direct interaction. However, I am very pleased about the wildlife corridor study and I thank Caltrans very much. What I would like to ask, if that's at all possible, is we have a regular report from Caltrans at our SPCAG meetings and would love to be kept apprised of this at those meetings. So there's a way to have all of us know what's happening.

I also, on the issue of trails would like to note that the county is engaged in a recreation master plan and that involves all the jurisdictions including cities and recreation districts in our county. And we have been working very closely with state parks as well. So I would invite Caltrans to be available and participate because coastal trails and inland trails on the Gaviota Coast are of very paramount interest to our community, and we would love to have you as a partner involved in this. So I hope we can be in closer communication. I'm really encouraged by Caltrans' willingness to be receptive to some of these ideas. I think the Wildlife Corridor study is important. I don't know where the best place is but I think It's an important thing to study and to engage the community, and particularly those two organizations.

So I will be supporting the project and voting not to uphold the appeal.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:30:10 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Are there other comments from board members? Is there a motion? No go ahead Supervisor Lavinino went too fast.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.762:30:23 · ≈ 11:30 AM

I appreciate those comments from Supervisor Hartman and I would like to see that conversation extended as well. Thank you. I just wanted to support her comments on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:30:37 · ≈ 11:30 AM

this. Okay, thank you very much. Would anyone like to make a motion?

2:30 – 2:3419 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.792:30:46 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Can you put the slide up again? So I will make the motion in accord with staff's recommendation on slide four that we're all looking at now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:31:08 · ≈ 11:31 AM

And I'll second the motion and want to express my gratitude to Caltrans for finding the funding to do the regional wildlife corridor crossing studying. Look forward to working collaboratively, I think Supervisor Hartman's idea of a regular report back through the SBCAG board process is a great idea and I think this is a real opportunity for Caltrans to work collaboratively with both the county Coastal Commission, SPCAG and the Gaviota Coast Conservancy and the Coastal Ranches Conservancy. This is a real opportunity to have everybody together to figure out the long term solution to these pressing issues that everybody recognizes are important to address. Mr. Gazzone do you have a comment?

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction2:31:51 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Chair and Supervisors, although we have the slide up for the public and slide number four is titled actions for approval. And just for clarity case where you're not able to link back to the PowerPoint that is to deny the appeals and to make the and to take all other steps for approval of the project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:32:09 · ≈ 11:32 AM

That is the motion any comments to the motion?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:32:15 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Mr. Chair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:32:16 · ≈ 11:32 AM

yes supervisor Adam

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:32:18 · ≈ 11:32 AM

As much as I'd like to make Caltrans experience the same joys in permit acquisition that the private sector enjoys, at the end of the day, I'd like to get my constituents over that stretch of road safely. And to do that we're going to have to allow them to do their maintenance so sounds like the majority today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:32:49 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Adams. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:32:52 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Well I have unease about this. This is as indicated by Mr. Campbell has been an area of a number of wildlife passage issues for a number of years that proceeds. You know it's been proceeding in the right direction but sort of at Frankly believe that no one on our board knows how to work with Caltrans better than our chair and appreciate that direction. And, uh, you know, appreciate the constructiveness of Caltrans to be offering this study and um, uh because I, yeah, I guess the point is if Mr Dallas is correct that this is not the right spot then where is the right spot? Because there really isn't the kind of connectivity That mitigates the impact of freeway in this stretch of highway.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:33:53 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Thank you

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:33:53 · ≈ 11:33 AM

for I would second the motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:33:56 · ≈ 11:33 AM

OK, motions been made and seconded roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:34:01 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Mr Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:34:02 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Hi

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:34:03 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Mr Lavinino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:34:05 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Hi

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:34:06 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Mister Williams. Miss Hartman chair heart motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:34:12 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Thank you everyone for being here and helping with this. Next item is Department Item Number 3. Madam Clerk, could you please call that item into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:34:23 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, departmental item number three is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a proposed amendment to the Planning and Development Fee Ordinance for Commercial Telecommunication Facilities Tier 2A small cell wireless facilities.

2:35 – 2:4127 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:35:04 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Good morning Mister chair members of the board. Today we have an item. The ordinance amendment that is to address

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:35:10 · ≈ 11:35 AM

change in the telecom fees a change in the FCC rules. So, I have Ms. Krista Ryder who is our business manager here today and she's going to make the presentation.

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentKrista RyderProposedself-stated2:35:45 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Thank you Ms. Plowman. Good morning Chair Hart and Supervisors my name is Krista Ryder. I will be walking through the Small Cell Wireless Facilities Fee Ordinance Amendment item before you today. The fee ordinance amendment was drafted in response to the Federal Communications Commission declaratory order issued in September of 2018. The FCC declared that local jurisdictions establish reasonable processing fees for small cell wireless facilities.

Planning and development proposes a fee ordinance amendment that would establish a county wide fee cap for small cell wireless facilities not to exceed $3,000. Staff recommends that your board approve the introduction as a first reading of the ordinance amendment amending fees for the Planning and Development Department services, and read the title and waive further reading of the ordinance. And continue the item to the administrative agenda of October 6th. That concludes staff presentation and we are available to answer any questions you may have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:37:00 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Thank you Ms. Ryder. Are there questions for staff? Are there any public comments?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:37:07 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Chair Hart and members of the board, we have one request to speak on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:37:11 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Okay let's go to public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:37:13 · ≈ 11:37 AM

And we will go to Cassandra Cornish.

CommentCassandra CornishProposedself-stated2:37:31 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Thank you. Hi there thank you. Hi, my name is Cassandra Cornish and I am a homeowner in the El Cerrito Parma Park Mountain Drive area of Santa Barbara which is a high fire zone. And I would like to comment on... Well, I'd like to say that I'd like the county to amend and adopt protective ordinances In particular, in fire prevention from small cell and all-cell wireless telecom towers and structures.

I request that our neighborhood and other areas of Santa Barbara use fiber optics to the premises to eliminate fire hazards from these small cell and all-cell wireless towers and structures. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:38:34 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Thank you, Ms. Gornish. Are there any other public comments?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:38:38 · ≈ 11:38 AM

That was our only request to speak on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:38:40 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Okay the matter is to the board. Are there any comments or a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:38:55 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Supervisor Williams. I suppose this is squarely in the category of something that will make no one happy, but changes we have to make. Is that an adequate summary? Changes that we have to make to comply with the law?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:39:23 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Is that a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.792:39:25 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Well, I mean maybe for the public we should explain that we don't have a lot of discretion and we're not fully recovering costs in accord with our policies but why that's the case.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:39:38 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Yes, Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman. So the FCC passed a rule about how much we can charge for these facilities. We will be losing money on these particular permits. We'll do what we can to try and streamline them but we can't charge more than $3,000 for all of their permits and that includes road encroachment permits everything So yeah, the county doesn't have a lot of discretion on this particular issue. And so we are in a position where we have to reduce our fees and then we'll have to figure out a way either make up fees for some departments or they will be at a loss and then streamline our process to try and reduce the total cost for them.

But Mr. Gazzani may want to-

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction2:40:30 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Chair and Supervisors, I agree with that summary. And also can say that our county is represented on the CSAC's Litigation Overview Committee and CSAC is pushing corrective action on this recent rule so that local jurisdictions, counties, and cities can do more cost recovery on this. That may or may not happen but we are active in that discussion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:40:53 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Thank you for being engaged on that issue. Is there a motion from the board? A reluctant motion. Did I hear Supervisor Adam?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:41:07 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Oh yeah, well, I thought somebody made one but I'll make a motion to approve staff recommendations. Thank you Supervisor. Is there a second?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:41:16 · ≈ 11:41 AM

I'll second the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.762:41:17 · ≈ 11:41 AM

motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:41:18 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Okay, Supervisor Labanino beat me to the punch. Any discussion? Roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:41:25 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Mr. Adam?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:41:28 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Aye

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:41:28 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Mister Lavagnino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:41:30 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:41:30 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Mister Williams. Aye. Miss Hartman? Aye. Chair Hart? Aye Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:41:38 · ≈ 11:41 AM

The next item is scheduled for 45 minutes so I think we will go to closed session and then come back for items four and five after our closed session Mr. Gazzone could you please read the items for consideration

2:41 – 2:484 turns

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction2:41:55 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Chair and Supervisors, yes. On the agenda for today you see a slightly different format for one of the items which is a significant exposure to civil litigation based on an expressed threat of litigation. And that slightly different noticing comes out of a case called Fowler versus City of Lafayette, a court of appeal case that came out in, just became final recently in 2020.

And that requires this more detailed noticing on certain types of litigation threats that are made outside of a noticed hearing at the Board of Supervisors. In this case, we have one matter of significant exposure to civil litigation based on an express threat of litigation involving Kimball Griffith as the client for Mr. Dorwin, a local attorney and the Kachuma Project Master Contract. So that's one of the two items for litigation today. The second is conference with real property negotiators concerning a series of potential conservation easements over properties near the intersection of San Miguelito Road and Sudden Road, about two to five miles southwest of the city of Wampoa, California.

And these easements would involve the Straus Wind Energy Project. My estimate is that closed session will take less than an hour today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:43:09 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Okay, we will then. Supervisor Adam?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction2:43:13 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Mr Chair, yeah I'm going to just announce that although I really don't have a conflict of interest, I'll be recusing myself from the Strauss Wind Energy Project because my brother represents some of the people that are arguing over

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:43:35 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Adams. We'll see you back for item number five then and we will adjourn to closed session and return at 1245? Okay, thank you. you Thank you.

2:52 – 2:591 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:52:34 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Hello. Yeah. Thank you.

3:06 – 3:472 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:06:10 · ≈ 12:06 PM

you the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:10:53 · ≈ 12:10 PM

Hello. Yeah. Thank you. You. the board. Hello. Yeah. you Yeah. you Thank you. Hello.

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

3:52 – 3:597 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:52:39 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting for September 22nd. And Mr. Gazzone, could you please report out from closed session?

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction3:52:47 · ≈ 12:52 PM

Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered two matters. One case of significant exposure to civil litigation and as discussed before breaking into closed session this was noticed more expressly than in prior sessions because of a recent court of appeals case and we have identified this as an express litigation threat from local attorney John Dorwin on behalf of his client Kimball Griffith concerning the Kachuma Project master contract We also had conference with real property negotiators involving potential conservation easements over properties near the interior section of San Miguelito Road and Sudden Road southwest of the city of Lompoc. These involved the Strauss Wind Energy Project, and there are no reportable actions on either item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:53:32 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Thank you Mr. Ghazani. We'll now go to Department Item number four. Would the clerk please read that item into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:53:37 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Chair Hart, members of the board, departmental item number four is from the public defender It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the KPMG Operational and Performance Review for the Public Defender Department.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:53:51 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Ms. Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:53:52 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Thank you, Chair Hart and Board Members. This afternoon we are before you today to hear a presentation by KPMG on their review of the Office of the Public Defender and hear from the public defender about the department's implementation plans and time frame. Deepak could you scroll for me? So we'll hear, as I said, an overview and then talk here from the public defender and her staff about the response and implementation time frame.

So just some context to remind the board. As part of Renew 22, we engaged KPMG to do reviews of our departments. This is still year one where they plan to do nine reviews. This is the fifth review they will have completed They've done the County Executive Office, HR and General Services. They were midway through public health or almost near completion when COVID hit so we've put that on hold for a little bit. They finished the Planning and Development Review that was before your board.

We're discussing the Public Defender's Report and under way right now is the Sheriff's Department Probation and District Attorney. And we hope to have all our departments reviewed within a four year period of time. Thank you, Deepak. Again, the scope for KPMG's reviews is to highlight best practices and look at where improvements could be made. It is not an audit or financial audit, and it's not necessarily a budget-cutting exercise. It is really how can we improve our departments? And with these improvements and recommendations, we should be able to see results in savings and efficiencies and better outcomes in the short and longer term.

KPMG worked with the departments and my office to develop the areas of focus that were under study And again, all these reviews depend on department data availability, interviews with the staff and the departments and the Department of Cooperation. As you know, the Public Defender's Office has 67 FTE in a budget of 13.6, and the structure is on the chart. And with that I'm going to hand it off to Bill Zizek and Kiva Thornton from KPMG.

CommentBill ZizikProposedself-stated3:56:12 · ≈ 12:56 PM

Mr. Zizek? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon, Chair Hart and members of the board again. My name is Bill Zizik, Managing Director, your KPMG Engagement Leader with me today, Keeva Thornton, your KPMG Engagement Director. It's our pleasure to be with you again today to provide an overview of our recommendations for the Public Defender's Office. As I mentioned in previous remarks to your board, our process is designed to be challenging yet constructive to each department that undergoes it. It requires a great deal of engagement from department staff to provide data perspectives insights into the daily operations of their workplace and the issues they may face while serving their customers. Next slide please Depicted on the year again is our year one timeframe.

So the review of the public defender's office began this past January, February concluded in July, August of this year we did face a 60 day strategic pause in our work due to COVID. So that was between April May period and delivered our draft report to department leadership at the end of June. And as CEO Miyasato mentioned, we are finalizing the report with the sheriff's office And are developing our reports now and have shared our initial themes with the District Attorney's Office and the Probation Department.

And in the context of today's challenges, and those still to come we would reiterate that this process is even more important to the county's efforts to become more resilient, flexible, and efficient. Next slide please. So briefly on our methodology, we began by engaging staff in interviews and focus groups. We analyzed available data from the department system primarily the eDefender system utilized benchmarks from other comparable counties and leading practices nationally and within California to identify themes and opportunities.

We always provide a midpoint update to the department head and CEO team unfortunately due to the COVID break We were not able to do that, we actually went straight to the draft report review when the strategic pause had resumed. That said, we have worked on that draft to ensure alignment helping to get the department leadership's comments and acceptance of those recommendations as they think about taking action and implementing them. The department has prepared their implementation plan, which I'm certain they will review shortly and how they're going to take action in the resources that might be required in order to successfully do so.

With that, I'll hand it over to Kiva to talk about accommodations and maturity model.

3:59 – 4:103 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:59:05 · ≈ 12:59 PM

Thank you Bill and good afternoon Chair Hart and members of the board. As always we start Our reviews engaging with the departments and working very closely with the departments over the 12 week period. We always look to improve and enhance what the department is already doing, in this case the Public Defender's Office is working on a number of key initiatives that need to be commended.

The eDefender rebuild which Bill mentioned is their primary case management system has been ongoing for While now when the office is very committed and has realized the importance of that system, and the need to upgrade that system to enhance the functionality and operations of the office. So that work is already underway, and we are making recommendations for how to enhance and improve that process.

In addition to be recognized as a staff dedication, the staff at the Public Defender's Office have a clear dedication to the mission and vision of the office, as well as to the clients they represent And it is observed across all staff levels and functions, and should be highly commended. The office has also taken on a number of innovative initiatives and leading policies and practices from around the nation and incorporated them into their operations over the last number of years. For example they have efforts to expand the use of social workers, case managers, the holistic defense program, to represent proactive efforts to improve the outcomes for their clients.

In addition, one of our recommendations will be around time tracking. However, we want to recognize that the office is already making efforts to improve their existing time-tracking practices and have recognized the need for time-tracking workload studies to enhance their operations. Next slide please. So as with each department, we look at six core focus areas in terms of operating maturity The department has already got strong foundations to build upon with regards to service delivery processes and technology, many of which are ongoing efforts within the office.

The recommendations that we've made within the report outline how to improve maturity of the office with a focus on leveraging these pillars for more effective and efficient operations. For example, the increased use of the case management system eDefender as well as the standardization of processes across both the North and South County Next slide, please.

And one more. Great, thank you. So while many of the recommendations are made at the department level, the ones we're going to speak to today are key recommendations that have been identified as priority items for the board and may require future action by the board. Bill, do you want to provide an overview?

CommentBill ZizikProposedself-stated4:02:05 · ≈ 1:02 PM

Yes, thank you. With respect to the recommendations for the public defender, there are really three main takeaways and Keeva will share some of the detail on these. But three takeaways that we would stress and that we've enumerated in our almost 50 page report. The first is around strategy. Prioritizing sequencing the office's initiatives to better focus resources, demonstrate results from those initiatives, and pivot or expand initiatives and investment associated with them to better fulfill the vision, being able to measure the impact on client outcomes and office efficiency. The second is staffing tracking time to better understand workloads required number and level or type of staff to do the right work at the right levels utilizing data to better track case progress duration of cases and the results of those cases.

And thirdly systems Prioritizing the eDefender upgrades more strategically to better focus available resources and enable the data that's needed to improve operations and client outcomes relative to strategy and staffing. Back to you, Kima.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:03:20 · ≈ 1:03 PM

Great thank you Bill so I'll just touch on if we could go back to the previous slide sorry i'll just go into a little bit more detail um on the five recommendations that have been highlighted in purple The first recommendation that we made is to implement data-driven workload tracking processes to enhance case assignment and staffing decisions. Now while time tracking and workload isn't always common within public sector organizations, it is the data and level of granularity that office leadership needs to support their staffing and their investment decisions. Primarily the focus here is on Time tracking for all employees to allow for a workload study be conducted, to help ensure that the right level of staff are doing the right activities at the right time and servicing the demand compliance appropriately.

And by gathering this data through time tracking and workload, they should help the office determine workload allocation, case assignment, flexibility of staff across offices, and allow the office to properly determine Their future staffing needs, not just in terms of volume of staff but also the types of positions required to service the demand appropriately and in the most efficient way.

The second recommendation is building upon staffing the realignment of responsibilities and tasks to the appropriate staff level to increase efficiency within the office. The review that we conducted through interviews with the staff identified areas in which some of the office staff were carrying responsibilities that were not in line directly with their skillset or specialized training.

So, in order to increase the efficiency of the office and allow staff to work at the top of their license so to speak there are three focus areas within this recommendation. One is to review management responsibilities to delegate lower level tasks to appropriate and free up leadership time for strategic decision-making on high profile issues. For example, the holistic defense referrals or case assignments within the office could be delegated to a lower level staff member and free up office leadership time.

Number two is the delegation of case management and administration responsibilities from attorneys to LOPs or other specialized staff in the case of specialty courts We found during interviews that many attorneys were spending time on administrative responsibilities that could be delegated to allow them to free up time for casework. Building upon that, number three is the potential to realign basic legal tasks from attorneys to LOP3s or creating a more formal paralegal position to alleviate attorney workload and allow them to spend more time on the casework that requires their legal expertise.

The implementation of these changes should increase the efficiency of the office and also increase the quality and level of service provided to the clients. Moving to recommendation 3.2, which is to enhance the implementation planning and outcome measurement to assess the impact of new initiatives. As Bill briefly mentioned and as we mentioned in the commendations, the office has launched a number of new initiatives over the last number of years including the holistic defense unit, the free arraignment unit and the e-defender rebuild.

However due to the limited capacity of the office there have been some challenges to sustainably implement these initiatives and achieve the best outcomes or the desired outcomes so in order to focus the initiative and maximize the potential outcomes It is recommended that the office develop a strategic plan to prioritize and create an implementation plan for each of the initiatives to determine the appropriate investment, staffing, and sequencing of the initiatives to improve the outcomes.

This may mean some initiatives need to be paused for a period of time while resources and investments are focused on piloting one specific initiative, monitoring outcomes of that initiative, and then identifying do any changes need to be made As it met the expected requirements and if it is to be rolled out in the long term, what staffing and investment is required for it to be implemented sustainably.

Moving on to recommendation number five which is increasing the functionality of eDefender system to facilitate data tracking and information sharing. As with most of the department reviews we conducted today, data and technology is a key enabler to efficient operations within any office. eDefender is a case management system used by the public defender and they have identified the upgrades that need to be made to the system better enhance their operations.

However given the critical importance of the system and that they are key to many of the recommendations we've made in our review it's recommended that a more strategic and holistic plan be developed for the eDefender upgrades, ideally by starting with an assessment of what is the desired future state of operations. So engaging with staff and engaging with leadership to understand how would you like our operations to work in the future? How can that be enabled by eDefender?

And then using that plan to identify what are the highest priority and highest impact areas within eDefender and prioritizing those upgrades to have the highest and most effective impact. And outlining this strategic plan for the e-defender rebuild will be able to prioritize the upgrades, but also help the office determine the effort and timeline required and assess what investment may be needed in the short and medium term speed up that process.

The final recommendation that we'll discuss is The enhancement of the holistic defense rearrangement and specialty court units to improve impacts on recidivism. As we've mentioned a number of times, there are a number of key programs currently in operation by the Public Defender's Office. However, in order to further maximize the benefit of these programs it is recommended that Building upon recommendation 3.2 focus on what services currently being provided by those programs and what service is available to be provided based on current staff capacity, monitoring of outcomes of their programs so the office can make an assessment of should those programs continue? and what further level of investment is needed, how many clients are being serviced and how can that be maximized to increase the performance of the programs but also increase the impact and benefits to the clients they serve.

4:10 – 4:167 turns

CommentBill ZizikProposedself-stated4:10:13 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Thank you Keeva so just to recap in summary three key takeaways for the Public Defender's Office first strategy you heard that in a number of those recommendations Prioritizing and sequencing office initiatives and programs, better focus of resources, better ability to demonstrate results. Secondly around staffing and again we do really commend the Public Defender's Office for their willingness and work that they've done regarding time tracking to better understand workloads and the right number level of staff.

that work should be assigned to. And then thirdly, systems critically important to providing that data that's needed to improve operations provide management the grip they need to deliver better client outcomes. So with that we would close with our thanks to the public defender and her staff as well as the CEO and her staff for their engagement in this review I can't underscore enough of this process cannot be successful without their leadership And so now I'll hand it back to CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:11:20 · ≈ 1:11 PM

Thank you, Mr. Zizek and Ms. Thornton.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:11:24 · ≈ 1:11 PM

Board members, unless there's other questions for KPMG we can ask the public defender and her staff to talk about responses and implementation timeframe. Are

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:11:33 · ≈ 1:11 PM

there any questions for the KPMG representatives?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:11:37 · ≈ 1:11 PM

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:11:38 · ≈ 1:11 PM

Public Defender McCougar.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:11:39 · ≈ 1:11 PM

Thank you, thank you good afternoon Chairman Hart members of the board and Madam CEO joining me today is the public defenders executive leadership team each of which are going to present on the specifics of the KPMG report after my brief comments with me today is Chief Trial Deputy Leah Villegas who's in the far right chief trial deputy Essie Ballard and of course Chief Financial Officer Deepak Bidwani to my immediate right Last Friday, during an all-hands on deck meeting to review the KPMG recommendations with our staff, the news that Justice Ginsburg died hit the wire.

Justice Ginsburg was a true champion of equality and justice and influenced generations of lawyers including myself. As I prepared for this presentation it was easy to draw on her wisdom so I'd like to start with her words. Real change, enduring change happens one step at a time. Today with KPMG's recommendations and us with you today we've begun another step in the right direction Building upon the existing vision of the office, a five-year strategic plan in development and the principles of Renew 2022, the recommendations we will discuss today will help our office continue to improve service to the community and continue to lead the way with innovation and out-of-the-box thinking that we're known for.

Many of the recommendations made by KPMG, when implemented will make the Board Public Defender's Office stronger. Such as drafting standard operation procedures across all job classes and defining performance metrics. But when you tease out the report, the other recommendations seven out of the eight address IT infrastructure. To execute on the IT recommendation requires human and financial capital, both of which are in short supply.

But we're committed to success. We're committed to embracing the challenges and recommendations of KPMG. Our strategy is to prioritize those recommendations that we can begin immediately without additional capital, the low-hanging fruit. The interagency problems that continue to plague the public safety group and directly impact our department can only be solved together with enterprise level solutions, and with the direction and support of this board.

The KPMG report, while extensive and for the most part accurate does not include COVID-19 impact analysis. The impact of COVID-19 has had on public safety cannot be overstated and new pressure points on our department need to be discussed at the appropriate time and at length. As an organization we know that data informed decision making is here to stay. Leadership requires data and analytics Understanding work demand drivers can help the Public Defender's Office ensure an optimal alignment of resource supply and resource demands. In short, it will help to ensure that our office is properly funded to fulfill our obligations under the Constitution and our holistic defender model. As recommended by KPMG and in our response a well-designed workload study is necessary to support our workflow and our needs An essential component of a workload study is time tracking.

Our path forward as an organization will integrate data into our daily practice as lawyers and legal professionals. This practice will only strengthen public defense in Santa Barbara County. Although we have the capacity to integrate time tracking in our case management system, as pointed out by KPMG, a workload study requires partnering with an agency to design and analyze the results.

Understanding a public defender workload is not simply accounting exercise, X number of cases and Y number of clients. But rather it's a complex assessment which factors in the type of case, the uniqueness of each individual client and their needs, and our ethical responsibilities as lawyers in representing those clients. It also does not take into account the role of the public defender in addressing systemic injustices such as racial injustice and inequities in our criminal justice system, advocating for reform and responding to legislative changes.

The value we bring to the community and to individual clients cannot be measured like widgets Before I turn the mic over to my incredible team, starting with Chief Trial Deputy Attorney Ballard. I would like to conclude my comments with another Justice Ginsburg quote which in my humble opinion reflects who we are as public defenders and public servants and our commitment to justice in this community.

Fight for things you care about but do it in a way that will lead others to join you. Thank you.

4:16 – 4:232 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:16:57 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Chief Trout, Deputy Ballard. Welcome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed4:17:00 · ≈ 1:17 PM

Good afternoon everyone. Good afternoon Chairman Hart and Supervisors and Madam CEO. Can I just start by saying it's never fun to follow your chief? I want to thank you all for having us here to talk to you today. And I do want to thank KPMG as well for their thoughtful report and for all the work that they did to help us become A better, faster, bigger, stronger organization which is what we're interested in. I'm going to be talking to you just briefly today about recommendations 3.1 and 3.2.

The thing about this report as I read it is I really tried to just get to the essence and I started with 3. 1 and understand so we as a team could understand what they were trying to tell us that we need to improve upon. And it really came down to this. It is pretty hard to know if you're measuring up, if you don't have a measuring stick in your house. And we need to get a measuring stick in our house performance metrics and what this recommendation talked about is that we need those performance metrics at all levels. We need them for our investigators, we need them for our attorneys, for law office professionals, for holistic advocates and as we look at those there's no doubt that uniformity is needed And just like my chief said, this is a service to our community which is certainly hard to quantify.

Because every client that walks through the door is a human being that sits down with their own life experience and issues. So even when we find, and I'm gonna give a very brief example, two cases that feel very similar, to measure the performance is difficult. A simple misdemeanor case with the exact same charges, with two people that come to our office both not having any involvement in the system before. Even a case that on paper looks very similar can be treated very differently.

One could be diverted from the system because it's a misdemeanor and because there's no contacts and the attorney could spend 20-30 hours putting together a plan and bringing them into a diversion program And a very similar case with the same charge and a similar person who comes to us, an attorney could look at that case and say because these facts are different I need to run a suppression motion. I have a Fourth Amendment issue. I need to litigate.

Even though on paper we're looking at two very similar charges, similar people every case has to be handled on a case by case basis which makes performance metrics difficult Now just because it's difficult doesn't mean we're not going to do the work to fix this. That's what we do, we work hard. So what we've done already is in-house we're forming a work group and I've learned over the years that's a fancy term for good people in one room who are willing to work hard and put together good ideas.

And that's what we're doing in house so we're having a workgroup for our attorneys, our investigators, our law office professionals with the idea to collaborate and find performance measures Measures that matter, measures that have meaning to what we do as public defenders. So we're certainly already in it knee deep in terms of trying to meet these recommendations and implementations for KPMG and also the board, of course.

But there's really two steps when you look at 3.1 and what they're recommending here. It's a two-step process. Once we are able to define what those metrics are for our folks The second part is we've got to collect it, right? We have to collect and utilize that data in our processes as managers, in our processes as attorneys. And that second step is going to take some time because it certainly leans heavy on our IT structure. And where our IT is now, it takes capital and it takes people to move it. And as my chief said, seven out of eight of these recommendations talk about IT so we certainly have a crunch on just one part of our organization.

So when you look at our implementation plan, the second part of this after performance measures are brought into being in our organization that collection of data, that production of reports, that utilizing of information. It's probably going to take us some time to get that through our system so we ask for patience but we are willing and able to implement these recommendations Now 3.2, very briefly, actually has some overlap into 3.1 is it talks more about performance metrics for our initiatives for our programs and the thing about this is that when you have a dynamic chief and we do sometimes those initiatives move fast they're good ideas they're bold ideas and we walk straight through that door and this recommendation from KPMG it really challenges us to do You better get out the map before you hit the road, okay?

We need more maps in our organization. Strategic maps for our IT five-year strategic plans for our office and it's challenging us as we put forward new initiatives or complicated processes to make sure that we've got the map identified before we walk out the door. And we're certainly up to the challenge here. Our implementation plan for this recommendation is a much tighter schedule. We already have a five-year IT plan in the works, we have a five year strategic plan in the works and we're hoping to finalize those by the end of November this year that's only one holiday between now and then so we're hoping to get on on the stick and and have those two underway for you with that I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Budwani our next recommendations.

4:23 – 4:302 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:23:07 · ≈ 1:23 PM

Chair Hart, Supervisors, Madam CEO. Thank you for having us here today to provide our implementation plan on the KPMG recommendations. Over the last several years, the office has implemented a number of organizational and operational changes. The public defender fully embraces the message of Renew 22 and works diligently to maintain our duties to our clients but also to be innovative and resourceful as we continue moving forward We need to pause sometimes to see how best to move forward.

KPMG analysis allowed us to do just that. Having a strategic plan in place will help identify objectives both in the short, medium and long term. The leadership team has been developing a five-year strategic plan for the entire office and agrees with the recommendations made by KPMG. As part of the plan, there's also a five-year IT strategic plan that's being developed and will be finalized by the end of November of this year. That is looking to leverage mobility, data driven and looking to increase transparency.

We envision empowering the department through innovative solutions that promote progress through technology and provide transparency in mobility Enabling staff to be effective and efficient stewards in delivering quality services to our clients. With the recommendations that KPMG has made, seven of them do touch the IT infrastructure and as Chief Trial Deputy Ballard mentioned there is gonna be some time and patience to be able to meet the needs and the demands that these recommendations are bringing forth.

Our five year IT strategic plan will help the department and component staff execute our mission and meet the strategic goals by enhancing IT to make it more reliable and resilient, and by leveraging the innovations to help better support the evolving needs of our staff. An example of that is something that our department recently put together, which is a text messaging service to our clients. This text messaging service is taking advantage of information that is within our case management system and it automates messages to clients reminding them of their next court date. This is something that is done behind the scenes. It's something that takes advantage of the information that's in our system and helps leverage and offload, augment some of the work that it's created from that need.

There will also be a roadmap as part of this five-year strategic plan that will look to leverage county IT tools and advocate for which IT tools the department would need to meet our workload demands. Included will be not just the why But what the benefits would be in regards to undertaking these activities. As a rapid rate pace of technology changes exponentially, our challenge is maintaining a skilled IT workforce that meets the demands of tomorrow.

IT is touching every component of our work force from attorneys, support staff, to investigators, to advocates. The goal is to utilize our case management system to build automated processes, customized to fit the department's needs. These needs and the customization will be done in-house by public defender IT staff and will help take our office to the next step in terms of the needs that we do have.

Additionally, we will also be looking at the KPMG recommended to integrate our case management system to be able to support our ticketing system as well. Internally our PDIT staff supports all Tier 1 and Tier 2 needs which are just computer hardware but also any kind of application needs and with Rapid transition to a virtual workforce and to court turning into virtual hearings. The capacity in the need for that has turned from an eight to five need, to a 24-7 seven days a week need.

So these strategic road map will help us as we look to figure out what is the best move to make forward and how best to make that move? The department is looking to increase the value to the employees and to our clients by providing high quality digital services. To meet the needs of our staff and clients, central to that is to implement a state-of-the-art case management system that will look to reduce the average amount of time it takes process a case by case type.

When building the system, the department is looking to define processes, build data validation and conduct quality assurance before implementation. When building the system we will look to identify opportunities to collaborate with other agencies within the criminal justice system to ensure data can be shared across many entities. There's data that currently has a lot of overlap amongst the criminal justice stakeholders and each of us are manually having to enter and process that information And the long-term vision, the long-term plan not just of the county department but also of the criminal justice stakeholders is how can we integrate that information to reduce the redundancy that does get created.

The entire case management system is being rebuilt to allow for a fully paperless process. I'm happy to announce that as of a few months ago every new case that has entered into our case management system is fully paperless. Building the process We'll take advantage of business intelligent workflows and leverage system development lifecycle. As Bill previously mentioned in regards to one of the three main takeaways from the KPMG recommendation, strategic planning is needed before we can look to move forward.

And as we look to develop that strategic plan and implement that strategic plan what resources ends up being needed as part of that? Our system that we are looking to build will also be data-driven. It will look to evidence in our system to be able to help our leaders, our supervisors and our staff better utilize the information to move the case forward. The redesign will be the crown jewel of our five year IT strategic plan.

The main goal of this case management system is how do we increase productivity and streamline operations? This is definitely a multi-year project, something that over the next five years there's many pieces of the puzzle that we're looking to solve. Internally, the main capacity is to look at how can we improve the system to enhance the experience of our staff members on a day in and day out basis? And as we progress with the evolution of the case management system, how can we build interagency cooperation to be able to reduce that redundancy that we talked about earlier?

The public safety process is archaic in a heavy reliance on paper and siloed public safety IT systems that limit the ability of the criminal justice systems to automate data exchange. As we move forward, that is a main initiative of the department is not just to enhance our case management system for internal collaboration but also external collaboration moving forward.

The overnight transition from physical to digital has spotlighted and stretched our bandwidth to maximum capacity. Our mission has not changed, but all of our tools have, and we must adapt and go forward to prevail. Thank you. Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:30:56 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Mr. Bordovani. Ms. Villegas?

4:31 – 4:378 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:31:05 · ≈ 1:31 PM

Thank you so rounding off the IT recommendations KPMG has recognized the need for us to strengthen our data quality and in the way in which we manage our data.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:31:19 · ≈ 1:31 PM

Could you move the mic closer to you? Sure, is that better? All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:31:26 · ≈ 1:31 PM

right so currently we maintain data in a variety of various locations. We've got our eDefender case management system We've got our older calendaring system, LOCO. And then of course we have our physical files and we recognize that this is not ideal. It's not efficient and that eDefender really should be a one-stop shop for both data input and data gathering.

To this end, we've already begun processing or converting our old paper files into electronic files. And opening them up into our eDefender system. And once our case management system is rebuilt, we will be looking to migrate our older system into the newer system. With most of our staff working remotely right now this integration has at the same time become more difficult to achieve and yet more important than ever.

But we're committed to the goal and to seeing the recommendation through. And as Mr. Budwani mentioned, it's been incorporated into our five year IT strategic plan. In the meantime however, we do plan on developing standard operating procedures in order to ensure consistent processes and structure for data entry. This is opening case files, updating case files, closing case files. As we all know data out is only as good as the data that goes in and we agree 100% with KPMG that implementing SOPs in this area will help to ensure both integrity and accuracy of the data that we maintain.

The SOPs are currently being developed and we have a goal to develop all of our standard operating procedures by December 2021 We also agree that additional data sharing should take place among criminal justice stakeholders. We recognize that shared data can help our line staff in their communication and advocacy efforts, and streamline interagency processes such as probation referrals, discovery exchange, and electronic filings.

We have been coordinating with the Criminal Justice Data Committee on integrating into the Master Naming Index Project, and we are building every feature of our eDefender system with an eye towards potential integration. But our desire to automate data exchange is reflected in our five-year IT strategic plan, but would require additional funding and of course ongoing collaboration with criminal justice stakeholders.

The final recommendation from KPMG is also happens to be the only non-IT related recommendation that was made. And interestingly, it has nothing to do with our traditional legal service model but rather the expansion of our holistic defense practice. And while holistic defense is viewed as groundbreaking and innovative in the context of traditional public defense, it really is a very simple concept and it's based on common sense.

Economic, social and health issues make certain people vulnerable to being entrapped and entangled in the criminal legal system. And if we can meet people where they are figuratively and literally and identify what it is that ails them and help them to heal then we can direct them away from the system improve their life outcomes and collaterally improve the outcomes of their families.

Now our department launched the Holistic Defense Program and within it, the Community Defender Division through a series of one-time grants. And in order to keep the momentum of our short term success going staffing is needed and that's what KPMG recognizes. The department has five advocate positions and none of them are supported by the general fund. And to truly make holistic defense an integral part of our practice and part of our long term departmental model We're going to need the commitment of the county.

In the meantime, however, there are things that we can do to continue to perfect the model and we do plan on doing that. We will adopt KPMG's recommendation that we adopt clear processes that lay out how we refer clients to the Community Defender Division. We're going to be tracking our referrals and we're going to be doing what we can to measure their outcomes.

We're also going to continue to monitor how it is that we staff our community defender division, our pre-arraignment unit and our specialty courts. And advocate for expansions with the goal of ensuring that our holistic defense model really can achieve its full potential.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:36:12 · ≈ 1:36 PM

Thank you Ms. Villegas. Public Defender Rekuga?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:36:18 · ≈ 1:36 PM

First of all, thank you. I think you can tell that I have chosen an incredible team to be here and to be part of the future of this office, and I couldn't be prouder as I sit here today. We're ready to take questions and answer any concerns that you have. And so please-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:36:38 · ≈ 1:36 PM

Well thank you for the excellent presentation from everybody. It's clear that you have really embraced the recommendations from KPMG and It's not a surprise that technology is an issue in the county, and that we need to help invest to make the improvements that are there to be had. And that's going to be a challenge over time but your five year IT implementation plan is the right way to go. So with that Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:37:06 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Well, I just want to hope that some other departments are also watching this on TV or do simply because of your can-do attitude to try to be constructive about the criticism and to try to get us deliverables. In months instead of just years. I mean, some of these are tough ones and will take years but some of them you are trying to deliver in months and I think that's just commendable.

And it's obvious that you have really mentored a great leadership team here and that you have some people necessary to implement the changes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:37:49 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Supervisor Harbin?

4:37 – 4:437 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.794:37:52 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Thank you. Well, I think you're one of our most innovative departments and you're kind of setting the bar for others and I think what you said about building internally now so that it can be integrated with public safety going forward, that can have a really driving impact I think getting out there. I'm still puzzling about the performance measures piece of it.

thinking about what those are and how you capture that. And I just have to wonder if this has been done, if there are benchmarks? If there are other public defender's offices that have them? Ultimately as you said we're looking for good life outcomes. We're looking for people not recidivism while they're with us. We're trying to do things like make sure it's timely quality.

Good advice. But how do you bring that down to individual job descriptions and ultimately performance measures on an annual basis? And what assistance can we get from outside so you don't have to reinvent the wheel? That strikes me as a big job, and I hope that we don't have to start from the ground up

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed4:39:21 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Certainly, thank you Supervisor Hartman. I can answer that and this is not going to be something that we have to recreate the wheel on there are certainly many capable public defenders office from coast-to-coast and in California that strive to meet the exact same type of performance and define metrics so we're not gonna have to recreate the wheel and the idea of creating an internal work group that's also going to reach outside of our office but we want to make sure Our frontline attorneys that are in those courtrooms four, five, six hours a day have a clear voice to help us define those metrics. But we're going to call on other resources because we're not in a silo. We're certainly not the first public defense office that needs to define metrics for a variety of reasons, not just for our attorneys or our investigators annual reviews but also as an office so that we can see where our resources need to be pointed and directed And where there needs to be more funding, or perhaps even where there's too many man hours or woman hours being applied to a certain part of our practice.

So it is something that we'll be looking throughout the state and throughout the country if there are those that we can model after. And then of course locally because every jurisdiction is different you want to pull in your own people to get where they are and their idea metrics.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:40:47 · ≈ 1:40 PM

And Supervisors, through the Chair, KPMG in their report does give examples. So they have a whole listing of them that might be helpful to the Public Defender's Office and they're not alone. I think every department that has come before you, KPMG has noted that we all need to do a better job on our performance measures.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:41:09 · ≈ 1:41 PM

I'm sorry, if I may just ask someone who just recently moved into this position out of a trial rotation. I can tell you that there are certain things that we do that simply cannot be measured with numbers. The amount of time that I spend on a phone with a client or a client's mother, just building trust, building rapport. Connecting with them on a very human level in order to build the relationship that is necessary to being an effective advocate, that's not something that can be boiled down to numbers or a percentage. So when we talk about the metrics, you know, we are talking about a baseline and we are bringing our team together so that we can identify what that is but just so much of what we do on the day-to-day basis is never gonna really truly be captured.

This is a job where we use our head and we rely on technology But a lot of what we do comes down to the heart. And that's just the reality of what we do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:42:14 · ≈ 1:42 PM

That's holistic defense. Supervisor Lavanino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.764:42:19 · ≈ 1:42 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I was just wondering maybe because there was so much focus on IT and based on what I heard from Public Defender's Office and the capabilities they see in their office, I almost want to put IT under public defender now. Some headway, but I was just hoping the CEO might be able to remind me and maybe the public of the broader scope of IT throughout the county and some of the changes. Because just about every department that's coming through with KPMG we're seeing that the answer continues to be more investment in the IT infrastructure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:42:59 · ≈ 1:42 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. So a couple of years ago the board had allocated through the budget process we have over $1 million, I think 2 million annually for IT improvements throughout the county. I think one of the challenges that KPMG has shown us is that we are so decentralized in the county that almost every department has some is centralized and some is not. And so a lot of things in the county because they're so decentralized departments have had to fend for themselves and figure out their own systems Work, et cetera. So we're trying to put some more framework around that and consistent policies, consistent funding and trying to figure all of that out but that's an issue we saw with HR and IT. We were so decentralized that when departments need more resources and more assistance it's not central IT, it's usually their own departments and there's a hybrid system in there somewhere that we're trying to figure out what's the right balance?

4:43 – 4:4912 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:43:57 · ≈ 1:43 PM

It occurs to me that community corrections partnership process might be helpful in this regard, in the sense that at least the other criminal justice stakeholders that share similar IT issues are at the table. But I do know that those funds are reduced now with the state sales tax dollars shrinking. But is that an effective forum for these kind of discussions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:44:23 · ≈ 1:44 PM

I would suggest that's not an effective form. What I would suggest is this, is that this is the time right now for public safety to have a strategic plan as a public safety group which we do not. We still remain siloed our systems do not talk some systems haven't even been built yet and right now if we don't implement a vision of how we want to speak and have the spokes connect to be efficient and effective It will be a disaster that we'll be trying to undo years from now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:44:55 · ≈ 1:44 PM

So the choice now is to make the investments that are strategic and integrated rather than having each individual department do its own.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:45:02 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Absolutely, and that's what I referenced in my initial remarks is that that's where we're going to need the board to step up and give direction and to authorize those enterprise level solutions. Otherwise, we will still remain siloed. We will still not communicate effectively, and you'll sit with all of us five years from now and feel the same frustration we all feel right now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:45:25 · ≈ 1:45 PM

And to Ms. Villegas' point that integrating social services into that is equally important because we don't want silos in terms of the services that we're asking. the departments to provide to assist clients.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:45:39 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Correct, and what I would like to add Chair Hart is that probation has led the way and I sing their praises very often and we're very proud to be the first other public safety group they're partnering with to integrate data and Chief Heitman deserves enormous praise and she's leading the way in the sheriff and the district attorney have to join that party so to speak

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:46:03 · ≈ 1:46 PM

Well in your office this is the first of the KPMG reports to be presented to the board, but the other criminal justice partners are right behind you on the schedule. So we'll have that conversation evolve very quickly. Mr. Budwani do you want to add something too?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:46:18 · ≈ 1:46 PM

Yes Chair Hart. To back what Chief McCougar was saying These individual systems, the tools that we're talking about are needed in each of the criminal justice stakeholders. And if we're looking at trying to get those tools on an individual basis, we're not taking advantage of economies of scale. We're not taking advantage of the leveraging that we could do. I think if anything coming out of, you know, we'r e still in this COVID-19 world and criminal justice stakeholders and just criminal justice system has been completely And I think that one of the things as we look to move forward is how can we plan to integrate that solution into it for the long run?

We might not have the tools or the capital to do it today, but building the infrastructure to be able to do it in a year or two or three. I think that is a level of forward-level thinking that as a public safety group

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:47:13 · ≈ 1:47 PM

collectively we need to do. Thank you for that. Well, I think that underscores how important the KPMG Conversation is because it highlights how each of the silos do need to integrate. So Professor Hartman, did you have?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.794:47:26 · ≈ 1:47 PM

Yes I did. I'm hearing two things one that we need a public safety strategic planning group that implies kind of from the bottom up and organic I another approach or I just want to ask the CEO. I mean KPMG is doing it silo by silo But ultimately will it pull back and say maybe there's some things that we should be doing from the top down or a more centralized approach

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:47:54 · ≈ 1:47 PM

Supervisor to the chair, I can let Bill speak but yes So what they're going to be doing when they're complete all the public safety departments They are going to compile all their themes what they've seen that it's common And how they can better work together. So that will be at the end, but they're taking note as they're going along. I would not call them doing it silo by silo the way KPMGs, they have their list and they confer with my office about what they're seeing. But at the end of it when they've done everyone they'll come back and talk about what they're seeing for the public safety group.

When you say top down I just want to correct, but their method is talking to everyone in the departments at different levels depending on the department. So what they'll show us is where there's commonality and how the system works together, how it can better work together. And we can talk at that time about how those joint and common recommendations get implemented.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.794:48:52 · ≈ 1:48 PM

And I think, given that we do have independent elected officials and it's very difficult to understand the sticks that we have but also the carrots. How can we use our budget to incentivize this collaboration? I'd like to know that.

4:49 – 4:5221 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:49:11 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Well said.

CommentBill ZizikProposedself-stated4:49:14 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Mr Chair if I could just comment on the back of the CEO's comments there. Okay, thank you. So I completely agree and I think you know we are in the report that we've delivered there is a section that talks about the interagency themes that were already identifying will include those within each department but then more sort of putting those together to see what bubbles to the top clearly you know when you talk about things like workload and data and systems in some cases to have the right performance measures And outcomes means you have to have data from another department. You may not have all the data within your core system ever, no matter how sort of state-of-the-art it is. And so the interreliance especially within the public safety domain and health and human services domain is very high and we have taken note of that and will continue to sort of build on that.

The other point I would say just to make sure that our recommendations are coming across clearly is that we do not want to reduce anybody's workload to widgets or performance measures, or devalue the nuances and complexity or the human life that each of these cases represent. What we would say is that along with that qualitative aspect that you cannot quantify, you do want to have the ability to see the trends in the data, to drive a discussion, to focus your effort on areas that require understanding the deeper qualitative aspects At the department or enterprise level, you know leadership can often struggle to do that on a case-by-case basis. Clearly the workforce will do that they will understand every case from a qualitative standpoint but this is about being able to use your technology and your data and your performance measures to identify where you need to focus your attention the most but not to replace those very important qualitative

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:51:09 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Thank you, Mr. Zizek. Are there other questions for the KPMG representatives or the Public Defender's team? All right well thank you very much this has been enormously helpful and it's great to see everybody in person and thanks for all your tremendous work. I appreciate

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:51:27 · ≈ 1:51 PM

it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:51:30 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Excuse me, public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:51:31 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Chair Hart and members of the board, thank you I'd just like to note for the record we have no request to speak on this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:51:35 · ≈ 1:51 PM

item. Thank you very much. And do we need a motion to receive and file? Yes, Supervisor Adam.

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction4:51:42 · ≈ 1:51 PM

I will incorporate a motion in this but I wanted to say this is another outstanding work product from kpmg and what a great addition they have been to our efforts. And a model of the department embracing the review and taking the suggestions and incorporating them Thank You supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:52:13 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Adam motions been made is there a second

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction4:52:15 · ≈ 1:52 PM

second

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:52:16 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Motions made and seconded any discussion roll call, please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:52:20 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Mr. Adam

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

Hi,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:52:23 · ≈ 1:52 PM

mr. Lavagnino All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:52:24 · ≈ 1:52 PM

right,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:52:26 · ≈ 1:52 PM

mr. Williams.

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

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:52:27 · ≈ 1:52 PM

miss Hartman I chair hurt

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:52:29 · ≈ 1:52 PM

hi

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:52:30 · ≈ 1:52 PM

motion passes unanimously

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:52:32 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Which brings us to our final item department item number five with the clerk? Please read that item into the record

4:52 – 4:594 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:52:38 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Chair Hart and members of the board, departmental item number five is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding our response to the 2019 through 2020 grand jury report entitled Cannabis.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:53:10 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Mr. McCain, are you going to lead this discussion?

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction4:53:14 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Sure heart I am. Thank you. And I'm joined today by Lisa Plowman planning and development director and Mike is only our county council will be participating in this also. Can we begin Thank you. Chair Harden and members of the board, we're here today to discuss the findings and recommendations made by the grand jury in their report of June 30th 2020 regarding cannabis operations in Santa Barbara County.

I do want to acknowledge before we begin the work of the Planning and Development Department, County Council, the Agricultural Commissioner, Sheriff and the District Attorney. All of whom play a vital role in the items that will be discussed today. On June 30th, the Grand Jury issued a report highly critical of the county's report to legalization. While staff will respond to the individual's findings and recommendations shortly, there are two critical areas that the Grand Jury did not address.

First, that the staff and the Board selected policy decisions drawn from a menu of options, each of which had positive and negative aspects. This was a new area of law and regulation, and to some extent all of us were navigating in the fog, to use an old Coast Guard term. The staff and the board have been diligent in adjusting the ordinance as necessary. This board recently amended Chapter 35 to address community concerns, and later this fall we'll be addressing some similar issues concerning Chapter 50.

Legalization of cannabis which has been unfolding to various degrees across the United States has produced significant social tension at the local level. In California like the nation, the implementation of the legalization of the cannabis industry has produced a patchwork of laws and regulations that have been extremely challenging for local government and the communities they serve.

Adding to the confusion has been the state's decision to place responsibility for implementation on individual counties, and it is sometimes unclear as to where the line between state and county responsibilities can be drawn. The county's stated objective from the beginning of this process has been to develop responsible policies and move entities into regulatory programs that result in a culture of compliance.

The County of Santa Barbara spread responsibility for regulatory oversight among several departments. There are pros and cons to this approach, and it is highly likely over the next three to five years there will be a restructuring of regulatory oversight. I would also point out that in October, Director Plowman and I will be back in front of this board with KPMG's report on cannabis licensing processes which we'll also add to this discussion.

We are going to go through each finding and recommendation as they affect different departments. It will be primarily planning and development, Director Plowman and myself. And I would point out that all of the wording that is used both in terms of findings and in terms of recommendations is drawn directly from section 933.05 of the Penal Code and is required by law. With that, I will turn it over to Director Plowman for finding number one. Thank you Mr. Murlakian and Ms. Plowman

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:57:18 · ≈ 1:57 PM

Mr. Chair, members of the board, thank you. The first finding states that the impact of cannabis production on the health and welfare of Santa Barbara County residents was inadequately weighted and considered by the Santa Barbara County Board. The board disagrees wholly with this finding. The PEIR evaluated a wide range of impacts including health and welfare impacts.

It's fully compliant with the requirements of CEQA, and the board adopted overriding considerations for the class one or what people call significant and unavoidable impacts. And considered both the impacts and benefits of the program as they weighed those overriding considerations. Finally there were over 60 public meetings and extensive testimony on the program And the programmatic EIR at board hearings was received all prior to the certification of the document and adoption of the program. So, the Board heard and deliberated over these issues and weighed them as they moved forward.

The recommendations 1A require that or ask that the board direct the planning and development department to prepare an environmental impact report addressing each region of Santa Barbara County after holding public hearings to evaluate those public concerns. And this recommendation will not be implemented as we do not believe it's warranted. The existing ordinance fully complies with the California Planning and Zoning Law, as well as CEQA.

Recommendation 1B. This directs that the board direct P&D to develop project objectives for the EIRs that reflect a balance between cannabis, traditional agriculture and the residents of Santa Barbara County. Again this recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted and as I mentioned for the previous recommendation all of our regulations comply with the California Planning and Zoning Law and are compliant with CEQA and requirements of that law.

Next slide.

4:59 – 5:095 turns

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction4:59:39 · ≈ 1:59 PM

Finding number 2 stated that the creation of a non-Brown Act ad hoc subcommittee that was not open to the public led to lack of transparency and distrust by Santa Barbara County residents. Board disagrees partially with this finding. The Ad Hoc Committee was created in an open session in February of 2017, in accordance with the Brown Act. The Subcommittee held three public outreach meetings during 2017 and on July 11 And September 19th of 2017, the subcommittee reported out to the full board who made all the final decisions.

Recommendation number two that the Santa Barbara County Board require all future ad hoc subcommittees to be open to the public and subject to the Brown Act. This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not necessary. There is precedent for the use of ad hoc committees both in this county and throughout California Ad hoc committees cannot act on behalf of the county, but can only develop recommendations that must be approved by the full board.

And the use of ad hoc committees allows for more in-depth analysis by elected officials. Finding number three, the board granted nearly unfettered access to cannabis growers and industry lobbyists that was undisclosed to the public during the creation of cannabis ordinances. The board disagrees partially with this finding. The partial disagreement rests on the implication that only growers and lobbyists were permitted access, when in fact all sides of the issues visited both board members and staff.

Additionally, while ex parte communications are not required to be disclosed, board members did disclose some of these during board meetings. Recommendation number three, that the Santa Barbara County Board develop standards that require Santa Barbara County board members to publicly disclose all access granted to lobbying individuals or groups. Especially while a matter involving these individuals or groups is before the board will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

There's this definitive case law times mirror versus superior court hope that holds requiring public disclosure of access would have a chilling effect on the deliberative process. Turn it back over to Director Plowman for the next few findings and recommendations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:02:12 · ≈ 2:02 PM

Finding four, the conflict between cannabis production and traditional agriculture is a major concern for the continued existence of certain segments of traditional agriculture in Santa Barbara County. The board disagrees partially with this finding. There are tensions between traditional agriculture and cannabis around the use of pesticides and adjacent crops given the very stringent testing requirements that the state requires for cannabis.

However, the Ag Commissioner as you know developed a working group that included traditional agricultural representatives, cannabis growers, pesticide applicators Advisors to discuss ways in which they could develop guidelines for the application of pesticides. And by and large, that process resulted in a set of guidelines that really come down to working with your neighbor and being a good neighbor and communicating.

And those are being utilized by the different groups as we speak. To date, there's no evidence that we have found that cannabis threatens the existence of traditional agriculture. So it I'm sorry recommendation for a is that the board amend the land use development code and article to the coastal zoning ordinance to require all pending cannabis applications to be subject to a conditional use permit.

This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not reasonable, as the board knows this issue has been taken up and addressed by the board on two different occasions and the board has amended the code twice in the last year. Some of the more notable changes were to prohibit cannabis grows on land zoned Ag 1 If they were 20 acres or less and then prohibiting cannabis in existing developed rural neighborhoods, which has been a particular hotspot of great concern to the community.

Next slide. 4B, the Santa Barbara County Board amend the uniform rules for ag preserves and farmland security zones to declare that cannabis cultivation and related facilities are compatible uses on contracted land instead of as an agriculture use or the primary agricultural use that can qualify. This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. Cannabis cultivation is considered agriculture pursuant to the county's comprehensive plan.

Uniform rules were amended by the board, which allows cannabis as that primary crop on contracted lands that can qualify them for a Williamson Act and I'd like to note that the Department of Conservation defers to local jurisdictions on how they want to address this issue And this board decided that they chose to make cannabis a qualifying crop on its own. Next slide please.

Finding five, the amount of cannabis production allowed under the current cannabis ordinance is excessive and has led to over concentration in some portions of Santa Barbara County. The board disagrees wholly with this finding. The board set limits in the coastal zone initially and then later in the inland area to limit the total amount of cannabis cultivation allowed in the county. In addition, it amended the program again two times to introduce greater restrictions.

So we believe that those issues and have been addressed, and we're continuing to work with the growers in the community to try and resolve where there are issues of conflict. I think one issue of note is today I received the first letter where an appeal has been resolved with the Santa Barbara Cannabis Coalition so we are moving forward and there is progress on getting these issues resolved before we can get to an appeal process.

Finding I'm sorry recommendation 5 a the board require all applicants with cannabis use and development permit applications and licensing licenses pending who claim legal non-conforming status to prove their claimed status before the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not warranted. The operations with the legal non-confirming status are being phased out through our permit process.

So if you were legal non-conforming, you were required to submit an application in the spring of 2019 and we've been diligently processing those applications. And so the legal non-confirming status will then be terminated once those permits are issued. And the CEO's office has a process for reviewing the cases Where there's compelling evidence that there has been a falsification. But the board did make a decision not to pursue investigation of those affidavits at the time that it adopted the original program Recommendation 5B, that the board direct P&D director in conjunction with the Sheriff's Office to eradicate all cannabis grows on acreage claimed under legal nonconforming status when the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate that the Santa Barbara County Planting Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19th.

I'm here to talk about the recommendation that was adopted in June of 2016 which was the cutoff line for medical cannabis. This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not reasonable.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:08:22 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:08:24 · ≈ 2:08 PM

We'll just remain did perhaps like you could touch on it at some point, but. In at least many of the law enforcement cases, it has been addressed. I'm sure we haven't caught everyone that's done it but we've caught a large proportion of ones that have if you look at the summaries and the notes on those enforcement cases. Now some of those are still pending. So just figure out we don't, we don't know which ones will have what level of accountability but this has been an area of enforcement and I think that's important to indicate too.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction5:09:17 · ≈ 2:09 PM

And Supervisor Williams through the chair, we will have some in recommendation seven, we're going to go through some of the Sheriff's data.

5:09 – 5:229 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:09:38 · ≈ 2:09 PM

So I think we can

move to the next slide please. Oh, I'm sorry 5C that's the next slide. Can you go back? Finding six, the approval of Santa Barbara County Board of Unverified Affidavit System does not require proof of prior cannabis operations to establish eligibility to continue to grow cannabis as a legal non-conforming use. The board agrees with this finding. The program did not require verification of the affidavits however legal non-conforming growers are required to comply with all state county rules and regulations and As I mentioned earlier, the growers were required to submit a permit by spring of 2019 in the coastal zone and in the inland area and to make steady progress on permits.

And as we talked about with the last recommendation, you know P&D is working with the Sheriff's Office and with the CEO's office when we find these egregious situations then we do pursue them. Next slide. Oh, I'm sorry, recommendations. That the board direct all applicants with cannabis use and development permit applications and licenses pending who claim legal nonconforming status to prove their claim status before the Planning Commission.

This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not reasonable. And as I mentioned, we're working with the CEO's office to review the cases where those compelling evidence exists and it appears that the affidavits were falsified.

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction5:11:27 · ≈ 2:11 PM

Finding seven, the affidavit system does not require proof of prior scope of the cannabis acreage. The board agrees with this finding. Recommendation 7A, that the Santa Barbara County Board direct the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Director in conjunction with the Sheriff's Office to eradicate all cannabis grown on acreage claimed under legal non-conforming status when a cannabis operator fails to demonstrate to the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to January 19th 2016.

This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not reasonable As Director Plowman mentioned, as permit applications arrive these issues are acted upon. Staff does take the issue of scope into account when other issues are raised that require a review of the submitted affidavit and since January this year, the CEO's office in the Planning and Development Department have been working together to address the issues of both falsified affidavits and scope expansion.

And I would note that the Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney's Office and the Agricultural Commissioner have been very helpful in this regard. There is a recommendation 7B, there is a slide that should have been handed out to you by the clerk of the board. Recommendation 7B says that the Santa Barbara County Board direct the planning and development director to deny permits for the growth of cannabis on acreage claimed under legal non-conforming status When the cannabis operator fails to demonstrate that to the planning commission that the planting of cannabis occurred prior to the January 19, 2016 cutoff date.

This recommendation will also This is the first time that a license has not been implemented as it is not warranted. As I mentioned earlier, and as Supervisor Williams mentioned, the Sheriff's Office since November of 2018 has conducted 72 separate enforcement actions including 12 for false affidavits. 14 of those 72 had obtained licenses. 58 of those did The sheriff's office since that time has seized 89,483 pounds of dried product and just under 1.4 million plants valued at $339 million. And again the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

Finding eight, the option taken by the Santa Barbara County Board to tax cannabis cultivation using a gross receipts method was less reliable than the square footage method used by the vast majority of California counties. The board disagrees with this finding. The board disagrees that gross receipts are less reliable. There are several options with respect to taxation methodology. The two most widely used being gross receipts and square footage.

The square footage method is more predictable and easier to implement, however it does not account for fluctuations in the marketplace as pertains to the grower. And the gross receipts method is currently less accurate for predicting revenue. However, it does have the potential to generate higher levels of tax receipts. As the state's track and trace system becomes more fully utilized, the validity of the methodology will become more apparent.

And earlier today, the board took action to approve a contract with HDL which will be the beginning of a process for conducting tax revenue reviews and full audits on cannabis operation. And it is worth pointing out that of the 14 primary counties are considered leaders in cannabis cultivation. Seven of them use the gross receipt method and seven of them use the square footage method, so it's essentially a 50-50 split.

Recommendation eight is that the Santa Barbara County Board amend Ordinance 5026 to tax cannabis cultivation using the square footage method. This recommendation will not be implemented as it is not reasonable. The current method was approved by the voters and changing it would require another election, and the current method was approved in June 2018 by 76% of the voters.

The board may choose at its discretion to reevaluate this in the future. Finding 9 that the Santa Barbara County Treasurer tax collector was not included in the creation of tax portions of the cannabis ordinance. The board disagrees partially with this finding Partial agreement stems from acknowledging that the CEO's office did have the lead in developing the tax structure.

However, the board did direct County Treasurer's participation in the process on the December 14th 2017 meeting. The County Treasurer concurred with related board letters on January 23rd and February 6th 2018 Recommendation 9, that the Santa Barbara County Board require all future ordinances that involve taxation require the Santa Barbara County Treasurer Tax Collector to be involved in the creation of the ordinance.

That recommendation will be implemented as future situations arise. Finding 10 is that members of the Santa Barbara County Chief Executive Office and the Santa Barbara County Planning and Development staff unduly, and without apparent board knowledge successfully sought changes to the April 26th 2019 cannabis advisory from the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, an independent agency eliminating a one mile buffer recommendation.

The board disagrees wholly with this finding APCD is an independent district, but has no oversight over land use discussions. The CEO's Office of Planning and Development did express concern about the recommendations that were brought forward after the adoption of the program. The concern centered specifically on the specificity of the one-mile buffer that had not been previously discussed, and staff did make inquiries as to whether there was new research to support this level of specificity and learned that there was not.

And I don't know whether Director Plowman would like to add to that?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:18:16 · ≈ 2:18 PM

Mr. Chair, members of the board, when the advisory came out it was sometime after the programmatic document had been certified and the program had been approved. APCD had not raised this issue during that process. We had been surprised when the advisory showed up on the website and felt that it went beyond their regulatory authority and overstepped into Planning and Development's regulatory authority without additional evidence that this was a necessary recommendation. So we worked cooperatively with the district. I met and spoke with the department head, and talked to her about it. And my staff also spoke with her staff, and they agreed voluntarily to make the adjustments that were made in their advisory and reposted.

Finding 11, there has not been effective odor control at the boundary of cannabis cultivation and related activities resulting in significant public outcry about odor quality of life and health concerns. The board disagrees partially with this finding. I think we all know and have heard a lot of testimony about the fact that the odor is an issue in our community, and it's been one of the more challenging issues for us to address.

Once the legal non-conforming growers received their permits in the ag One, zoned areas in the Carpinteria Valley. They are going to be required to comply with the regulations that are in the Coastal Zoning Ordinance as well as the Business License Regulations which are fairly stringent with respect to odor. We do know that reporting from the cannabis growers in Carpinteria that the growers down there have been implementing odor control systems It appears to be a work in progress, and improvement is needed.

We do have conditions on those permits that we are issuing in Carpinteria that require monitoring for the first year with our department to ensure that the odor control systems are working. They seem to be aware And they are taking steps to change that but under no circumstances will odor be permitted to Continue in the way that it has been once those permits are issued. We'll then have our regulatory hook

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:20:49 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.795:20:51 · ≈ 2:20 PM

I must respectfully disagree with the second bullet. There are, to my knowledge, no odor control requirements for Ag-2 properties.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:21:02 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, in my comments I referred to Ag-1 properties in the coastal zone. That's where the odor control requirements exist. They do exist on some Ag- 2 properties if they're within the San Dines Community Plan or there Or they're adjacent to an

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.795:21:22 · ≈ 2:21 PM

EDRN. But I think that bullet is not correct, and it implies that there are odor control requirements across the board. I think it should be reworded.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:21:37 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Madam Chair, I mean Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman where I'm happy to work with the CEO's office to reward that to clarify where those requirements exist because you are correct they do not for the majority of AG 2 zone properties require it. I think that's it for yeah So recommendation 11, this board suspend all county unpermitted cannabis operations until proof of odor control at the boundary of their operation is accepted by the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. And this recommendation will not be implemented as it's not warranted.

There was a decision at the time when the program was adopted to not require odor control in the agriculturally zoned properties, 40 acres or more are AG-2 zoned properties.

5:22 – 5:294 turns

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction5:22:39 · ≈ 2:22 PM

And Supervisor Hartman to the chair, as the operations move through the business license process there is odor control requirement in the business license process and it's subject to annual review once those licenses are issued. But we will take care of rewording that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed5:23:04 · ≈ 2:23 PM

And we can discuss this at the end of the presentation. But any changes to the actual response, not the PowerPoint because the response is what's being provided to the grand jury, I mean to the presiding judge so we can look at that information but we need clarification today because the letter is due soon.

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction5:23:25 · ≈ 2:23 PM

And Mr. Guzzone will respond to finding 12 in its attendant recommendations.

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction5:23:35 · ≈ 2:23 PM

So Chair and Supervisor, finding 12 involves the concept of a written code of ethics executed at the county level. And with this we have four implementing recommended actions. An independent ethics commission at 12A. A new code of ethics at 12B. Public disclosure of campaign contributions at 12C. And then a requirement that members of the board who receive campaign contributions recuse themselves from matters or return the campaign contributions.

So I think before going to the recommended responses, there are two key starting points concerning the grand jury's finding 12 and the grand juries for implementing recommendations involving finding 12. The first key concept is that Santa Barbara County is in quotations a general law county Heavily summarized, this means that Santa Barbara County and through the Board of Supervisors may make and enforce within its limits ordinances and regulations that are not in conflict with general laws. This comes from the California Constitution so it's a pretty firm rule.

General laws are those that apply statewide and deal with matters of statewide concern. The second key concept is that whether counties and cities are general law counties and cities or charter counties and cities, they're subject to the controlling case law of the federal courts in state courts. Here, California's Political Reform Act has been operative statewide since 1975.

Statewide the Political Reform Act expressly excludes campaign contributions from the financial interests for which a local conflict of interest code could require disqualification. This includes Santa Barbara County's conflict of interest code And I refer to Santa Barbara County's Conflict of Interest Code because it's an existing document. While the recommended, excuse me, while the recommendations deal with an ethics code, the county by law already has a local conflict of interest code.

The California Supreme Court in 1980 summarized that the Political Reform Act deals, in quotes, comprehensively, end quotes, with issues of campaign contributions and conflict of interest. And held that the Political Reform Act does not prevent elected officers from acting upon a matter involving someone who made a campaign contribution. The word comprehensively is significant because that is part of the definition of what is or is not a matter of statewide interest and therefore, is or is not subject to local control.

The California Supreme Court went on in the Woodland Hills case to state that requiring recusal because of campaign contributions, quote, would threaten constitutionally protected political speech and associational freedoms end quote. That is a crisp statement made all the more so by the fact that government restraint on political activity and political speech is analyzed under the high standard called strict scrutiny.

All of this means that general law, cities and counties including Santa Barbara County have very real restrictions on regulating campaign contributions and political activities beyond what the Political Reform Act already does That's a combination of three factors, the strict scrutiny standard review that I discussed. The fact that Santa Barbara County is a general law county and the fact that the California Supreme Court has identified the Political Reform Act as dealing comprehensively with issues of campaign contributions.

And that is the basis for staff's recommendations. And for the 12 series, that would be county council's recommendations to not wade into an area where the Political Reform Act has already covered the ground and the California Supreme Court has told you that you may not require recusal. So on number 12, the finding would be that the board disagrees wholly with this finding. And again these choices of words are pull-down choices from the California Penal Code. It's not prose. These are the words we have to use.

The county already has a conflict of interest code. County officials are already governed by the Political Reform Act and its implementations that are shown below. Recommendation 12A, establishing staffing and empowering an independent ethics commission with oversight over the board. We've recommended that be rejected as not warranted. There are some charter cities that actually have ethics commissions. I didn't go deeper into how they operate since they are charter cities where General Law County, but again all of our elected officials and your staff are governed by the Political Reform Act already.

Recommendation 12B developing a code of ethics. Recommendation that it not be implemented is not warranted. We are already subject to the Political Reform Act and Recommendation 12C, public disclosure. The recommendation here is not implemented as not warranted campaign contributions already subject to disclosure under the Political Reform Act and 12E perhaps the most troublesome recommendation this would be in conflict with the controlling case law from the California Supreme Court where the board would purport through ordinance or resolution To direct a supervisor to recuse themselves from a matter after receiving a campaign contribution when the California Supreme Court has said that you are not allowed to do that.

5:29 – 5:348 turns

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction5:29:47 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Chair and members of the board, before I close and turn it over for questions And public comment, I would refer you to page 9 of the actual letter of recommendations to the presiding judge. In the language with respect to odor on finding 11 is that upon issuance of permits, the cultivators will be required to comply with the odor control requirements of the county's zoning and business licensing regulations that apply to commercial cannabis activities.

And as the last sentence points out, the efficacy of these systems will be assessed as part of the cannabis operator's permit compliance and annual business license review. So for the purposes of our finding and the PowerPoint could have been more specific but the language is used in Finding 11 I think is accurate. And with that, I just close with a comment that as I said in the beginning all of the members of staff and this board I think recognize the challenge that has been involved in the creation of legalization of an industry that was not for a very long time.

And I think all of us are committed to creating an appropriate regulatory framework and moving this industry into a culture of compliance. And we will continue to do that. And with that, I'm open to questions and comments. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:31:15 · ≈ 2:31 PM

you Mr. Mielecki and Ms. Plowman and Mr. Ghazzani. Are there questions of staff? Do we have public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:31:28 · ≈ 2:31 PM

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:31:31 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Okay let's go to public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:31:35 · ≈ 2:31 PM

We will begin with Sharon Merritt to be followed by Jason Rodriguez All righty,

CommentSharon MerrittProposed5:32:35 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Sharon. Go ahead. Hi, this is Sharon Merritt. I want to take this opportunity to thank the grand jury for their exhaustive research and thoughtful recommendations just as embracing the recommendations of the KPMG report will help make the Public Defender Department better. Embracing at least some of the recommendations with a Grand Jury Report would make the board and thus the county better.

Let me insert as an aside, as a side note that I am not anti-cannabis and may apply for a permit for a small completely sealed non-odor emitting probe in the future. Regardless, I view the process of creating the ordinance and the outcome as severely flawed as documented by public comments made to this body, news reports and now the grand jury report. Two more asides. One cannabis grower told me early on that the key to influencing an ordinance was influencing DAIR, which he implied he did.

Second, a greenhouse owner suggested that I file an affidavit in 2016 saying I was growing medical marijuana even though I told them I wasn't because as they said quote no one is checking unquote. After the asides, I urge you to have the courage and integrity To reject the proposed blanket rejection of the grand jury report and instead opt for commitment to more transparency, better environmental review, respect for the law and protections for all the citizenry even if they curtailed the avarice of a few.

You know the county erred with the affidavits, the EIR and the ordinance. Please do not sit back and justify those errors By approving the prepared response, many of the recommendations are warranted. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:34:33 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Thank you, Miss Merritt.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:34:37 · ≈ 2:34 PM

We will now go to Jason Rodriguez to be followed by Judy Polson.

5:34 – 5:407 turns

CommentJason RodriguezProposedself-stated5:34:56 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Thank you, Board of Supervisors for your time today. My name is Jason Rodriguez. I'm the owner of the Food Liaison in Carpinteria. Thanks again for your time. I'll make this brief. First of all, want to say that Santa Barbara County has had countless open hearings on this cannabis policy. We've seen stakeholders from all over the map weigh in on cannabis. It's clear that the county policy balances both sides of the issue.

I could not imagine what the community of Carpinteria would be like Now without these cannabis farms and I'm speaking from a very close to home topic or on a close to home topic having own being owner of a restaurant catering business. Our catering businesses shuttered to zero and that was about 80 to 90 percent of our business with companies like Procore LinkedIn, a lot of these other larger businesses in the Carpinteria Valley Being forced to work from home, that was the bread and butter. Companies like those were the bread and butter of our business.

The cannabis farms and their very strong workforce of employees have been the thing that has kept us alive and floating here in the Carpinteria Valley. I can honestly say that if it weren't for them since March, and this also includes many other restaurants I could probably speak for and businesses alike outside of the restaurant industry. If it wasn't for these cannabis farms we probably wouldn't be in business any longer.

That's the impact that they've made on our economy here in the Carpinteria area. Continuing on, cannabis farming has saved local agriculture and local economy during COVID times The grand jury report seems to be written from a perspective of not believing cannabis should be legal. Cannabis is legal, that's kind of the important part here and I appreciate all the rules that the county has enacted. It's been a hard road ahead but you've been following the law and that's what makes this deciding factor here a decision. We need to get rid of the black market Get all the farms regulated. I totally agree with that and I think you guys are doing an amazing job, and I think the good actors, the good operators in the cannabis industry are helping you to do that and are opening their doors to you to make sure that's possible and are contributing to lots and lots of financial backing in the form of taxes to help you do that as well.

Lastly, the county ordinance provides a framework Framework for regulating a new crop and I think you guys are doing a fantastic job, please Understand and continue to realize that the cannabis industry in Carpinteria is not It's not a bad one. Thank you. Those are my comments.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:37:56 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Thank You mr. Rodriguez

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:38:00 · ≈ 2:38 PM

We will now go to Judy Polson to be followed by Deborah Eagle and And I would just like to note for the record, Chair Hart and members of the board. The chair has closed public comment for all those that are participating in today's hearing. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:38:31 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Good afternoon. Let me start by urging you to reconsider your response to the grand jury report. The report contains clear and convincing evidence that the Board of Supervisors failed in fulfilling its mission to protect the health, safety and welfare of citizens. And I believe all supervisors are culpable regardless of whether you were aggressively pushing or meekly following.

Bottom line is you've made the cannabis industry very happy today validating the grand jury findings You know, despite the lack of cooperation the grand jury received they were able to amass compelling evidence and outline factual findings and recommendations

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:39:10 · ≈ 2:39 PM

which appear

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:39:11 · ≈ 2:39 PM

to have virtually been dismissed by you. I disagree with nearly all of your responses. I think the odor issue is especially egregious in how you have responded to that. You did not address the court issue of the grand jury report. You've repeatedly stated that you are within the law and are not in violation of regulations, but just because you can doesn't mean you should. For me, the underlying issue is your statement of overriding consideration which drove your decision. It's wrong. The overarching purpose should have been to first do no harm, protect residences, current businesses and traditional agriculture. And this is not what you did, which is in direct contradiction to your mission.

What you've done and not done with cannabis and hemp is wrong on so many levels. And for me, the cannabis and hemp debacles are connected. Your response is disappointing and I would urge you to reconsider and address the issues honestly. Now I'd like to close with a key concept. You were elected to aid in the conduct of the people's business and I do not yield my authority to you and I insist on remaining informed. And I don't think I'm unique in that matter. Transparency, visibility and full disclosure are required And somehow this is lost.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:40:27 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Thank you, Miss Paulson.

5:40 – 5:459 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:40:31 · ≈ 2:40 PM

We will now excuse me we will now go to Deborah Engel to be followed by merely peoples.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:40:54 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Hi, this is Deborah Eagle. I'm heartened by Barney Melechian's commitment to improving the regulatory climate of the cannabis industry here in Santa Barbara County. However, Alma Rosa Winery is frustrated by the Board of Supervisors' decision to disregard the majority of recommendations made by the grand jury. The Board of Supervisors and planning staff at Santa Barbara County have fostered a wild west environment given the cannabis industry a blank check Allowing stacked licenses, unverified affidavits and enormous leeway on growth size, odor emissions, setbacks to businesses, EDRNs and schools. It's an insult to the citizens and business owners of Santa Barbara County that the thorough and thoughtful recommendations of the grand jury are being ignored.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:41:50 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Thank you Ms. Peebles

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:41:53 · ≈ 2:41 PM

For

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:41:53 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Ms. Eagle?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:41:54 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Eagle, correct. We will now go to Mayor Lee Peoples to be followed by Tristan Strauss

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed5:42:27 · ≈ 2:42 PM

Okay. Good afternoon, Supervisors. I have been here many times before on the issue of the poorly regulated campus growth throughout the county and in particular the Carpinteria Valley. I appreciate having a place to express myself. On nearly each occasion I've come away from these meetings disappointed with their response. Today my disappointment in your conduct is like none before. On this question of cannabis, you have forsaken your responsibility to protect us, to listen to us and now the us is not just me and the individual members of our community. You have rejected a time-honored government based group of citizens empowered to quietly observe and investigate You basically dismissed the findings of our grand jury. According to their mission statement, the Grand Jury is a division of the Superior Court that keeps watch over numerous government agencies, cities and districts throughout Santa Barbara County.

The Grand Jury is the people's investigators looking at all areas of local government to keep watch. The Grand Jury represents the citizens Who cannot appear here, the elderly and so young and so many others. The grand jury has much more power than we do. And our grand jury did their work in the report described shameful conduct. You acted in secret to allow money to control our community. We suspected this for years and you have dismissed us for years.

Now our citizen investigation by the grand jury said quote The Board of Supervisors granted nearly unfettered access to cannabis growers and industry lobbyists that was undisclosed to the public during the creation of the cannabis ordinances, end quote. You let the lobbyist or growers decide what would happen to us and our environment based upon money. I have never felt so disappointed with failed all of us who come back Not reasonable, not necessary, not warranted. Comes off as arrogant.

There were no real corrections acknowledged. This is not democratic. Cannabis is legal but the county must compromise and reconsider the findings of the grand jury. Invite and encourage responsibility and make a change otherwise you have no credibility on this issue. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:45:18 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Thank you miss peoples.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:45:22 · ≈ 2:45 PM

We will now go to Tristan Strauss, to be followed by Anna Carrillo.

5:45 – 5:522 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:45:46 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Supervisors and staff. This is Tristan Strauss, the president of the Carb Carriers Association. Thank you for your time and attention at this matter. I'd like to start off by saying that we feel the grand jury report is not reflective of our experience participating in the county's public process. Our members attended dozens of stakeholder meetings throughout the years leading up to the ordinance adoption and the hearing rooms were packed with diverse sets of stakeholders Including residents who both oppose and support cannabis.

When our membership met with your board, we always encountered individuals from the TVA and other opposition groups in the Board of Supervisors reception lobby all waiting for meetings with various supervisors. The category is to process as secretive or one-sided is just not factually accurate. We feel there will be many cannabis applicants who will miss out on permits because of the stringent acreage caps, as well who won't be able to make it through the extraordinarily costly and lengthy permitting process which requires not only an appealable land use permit but an annual business license as well.

Many of our members believe that the county standards are too stringent as they are today and frankly unprecedented considering We are simply changing crops and pre-existing greenhouses. However, we are still committed to following the rules and regulations. We're still committed to creating best in class operations and leading the industry and the county towards a profitable future.

We also continue to open dialogue and collaboration with all stakeholders both positive and negative. In conclusion our highest priority is enhancing our odor mitigation measures We will now go to Anna Carrillo to be followed by Liz Rogan.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentDoug KernProposed · by introduction5:48:41 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Thank you very much for my this opportunity to speak to you. I'm on a career I'm a 47 year resident of the Carpinteria Valley and I find your quite disturbing your responses to the grand jury findings that you haven't taken much responsibility for what you've created most of the findings from the grand jury report are exactly the ones made by many of the 20,000 residents here in Carpinteria that we've been complaining about for the last two and a half years The document presented to you agrees only with findings 6 and 7 regarding the lack of vetting on the affidavits and the size of the initial parcel, and concludes that it is not reasonable or warranted to pursue this. Why? Are these growers so inept that they don't have the records necessary to prove what they had prior to January 19th 2016?

All of the current 23 growers claiming this in Carpentria need to verify that they were growing medical marijuana prior to January 19th 2016 And what the parcel size was. When these coastal development permits are issued, they become permanent. Why should they become permanent based on cheating the system and sloppy bookkeeping? Also of the 289 provisional state cultivation licenses issued for Carpinteria there are almost 100 that are now for cultivation of adult cannabis under the non-conforming status granted there was to be no expansion of medical cultivation.

In the finding number 11 regarding No effective odor control at the boundary. The recommendation for this is not adequate as residents in the Carpentaria Valley are still having issues with odor and the fix, the odor phase system being utilized. There are many pockets where the odor phase system is not working. I was standing next door to a site that had the vapor phase pipes but could still smell the skunky odor. Also many still report Health issues for both the cannabis terpenes and the ingredients in the vapor phase system. This is still a problem at the high school with our inverse air flow into Carpentry Valley, this system is not workable when residents teachers and students are in such close proximity to these old greenhouses that need to vent.

At the last planning commission meeting a grower presented a system of sensors that is being developed to use sensors that would be able to measure what's in the air from the cultivation, the processing and the vapor phase systems. This monitoring needs to be done 24-7 rather than having to rely on neighborhood complaints and report it to the grower in the county immediately. Eventually, there will probably be approximately an additional 300 tons of EcoSoar pumped into our air. No one knows the long term consequence of this. Please require these sensors.

How can you disagree with finding number five regarding the overconcentration of cannabis production, especially in the Carpentaria Valley on our two four-mile stretches of roadways? We are already dealing with too much. Currently 23 addresses and there are many more applications, about 10 more in the pipeline. Unless the greenhouses are sealed, there needs to be a reduction. According to the 9-1-2020 report, there are currently 67 acres of active licensed cultivation in Carpentaria. No one knows for certain how many more acres those currently growing will be asking for their permits. There are many growers who have unpermitted greenhouses and through the permitting process are being allowed to get permits for many of these.

5:52 – 6:0511 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:52:14 · ≈ 2:52 PM

Thank you, Ms. Carrillo.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:52:25 · ≈ 2:52 PM

We will now go to Liz Rogan to be followed by Renee O'Neill who is our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:52:40 · ≈ 2:52 PM

Very much good afternoon board thank you so much for your time today and I also wanted to thank you all for your leadership during this pandemic and unprecedented times. I just want to extend that to Bernie Malekian. I'm commenting today first to thank you for choosing facts over emotion. We have all been sitting at these meetings starting in 2016, there has been so many opportunities Thank you, sorry about the technical difficulties.

I just wanted to thank you again. There is now scientific data reports that have come out showing that there are no adverse effects to the community. In fact inside the cannabis work area is actually cleaner than so much of the air outside. So any adverse effect people are having could be from other things such as pesticides Wanted to note that the Wine and Spirits Wholesalers do donate all of the time to political campaigns. They donated over $2,500 to Lois Capp's campaign so making donations in a political way is in no way illegal as long as it is disclosed. The Ad Hoc Committee brought the findings to the Board of Supervisors and so when things are voted on that's voted on by everyone.

Thank you for upholding the voters will And during this pandemic, cannabis has been deemed essential agriculture. This is bringing in needed revenue from taxes which also employment and community support in many economic and health ways. If we were to remove cannabis what would cover these costs? Already cannabis revenue helps cover a budget deficit We will have more deficits coming as we see the economic impacts of this pandemic for probably years to come.

I want to thank you again and our community for helping keep us safe and making decisions based on factual data.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:55:31 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Thank you, Ms. Rogan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:55:34 · ≈ 2:55 PM

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:55:59 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Good afternoon Supervisors, this is Renee O'Neill. I too want to thank the Grand Jury for their research and thoughtful recommendations. I also want to commend Barney Melechian Planning & Development and our sheriffs that are working to remedy some of these problems. I am dismayed at the Board's disrespect for the Grand Jury and their complete disregard The fact that you hindered the jury by denying requests for subpoenas of witnesses and withheld critical documents speaks volumes to your lack of transparency and integrity.

I wanted to thank the grand jury, Barney Melechian, Planning and Development and our sheriffs that are working to remedy the problem. I'm dismayed at the board's disrespect for the grand jury and complete disregard of detailed recommendations It saddens me profoundly that responses appear to be dishonest and show an unwillingness to admit mistakes or acknowledge years of public outcry. I will speak to just a few items you must make protecting public health safety welfare in our environment your number one priority objective the board's response to the ad hoc finding three is an outright untruth The ad hoc supervisors only allowed access to people that subscribed to their blatant support of a robust cannabis industry.

I should know, I was asked to serve on this committee and then denied access because I was told I didn't serve in an official capacity. The seven page letter I submitted details my reactions to the board's responses. It is apparent to all of us that the supervisors made many mistakes Fail to acknowledge those mistakes and are unwilling to remedy them. Lastly, the board must formally apologize to the grand jury, their constituents and do whatever it takes to regain the trust of we, the people.

Are there any questions or comments?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed5:59:06 · ≈ 2:59 PM

The grand jury, their

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:59:09 · ≈ 2:59 PM

constituents... Thank you, Ms. O'Neill.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:59:17 · ≈ 2:59 PM

And that was our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:59:19 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Matters to the board. I'll go ahead. Supervisor Lavanina?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.765:59:31 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Yes. You know first one of the things that I noticed in the report that we use the term lobbyist quite a bit saw on a number of areas. I saw it in the grand jury also As far as I know, we have zero registered lobbyists in Santa Barbara County. There are no lobbyists. So I think what people referring to is somebody that cares about an issue that's coming and speak to one of us.

And I don't know about the rest of you but that's my entire day is dealing with people that want to push their agenda whether it could be a personal one. Somebody wants a new bike lane. You know, a road repaired in front of their house. To me they're all you know everybody's got access anybody can come in and see me anybody can come and talk to me that's the way it goes now there are people might say well some people are paid to You know, move that agenda forward. But that's on both sides. You know there's lawyers there are consultants or things that happen on both sides and so our job police the way I see it.

And this was something I had to me that was very confusing with the grand jury that I just felt like they either. They didn't understand. The job which to me is my doors open you come in both sides. I talked to both sides and at some point I have I have to make a tough call. And there've been many times in my time on the Board of Supervisors that I have sat, listened to testimony from everybody and went a certain way and I lost and the board majority voted me down.

And I never thought oh, the board majority is those other three people are corrupt. I felt okay they've got a difference of opinion on a policy matter They don't like oil and gas projects because they care more about the environment than they do this or whatever the situation is. Didn't agree with me, so it just it's hard that I guess it's human nature that if somebody disagrees with you think they must have some ulterior motive involved. I can promise you that the ulterior motive that I have is.

That constantly There is basically an insatiable appetite for additional funding to do the job this county needs to do. And that's to provide the neediest among us, to repair our roads, for the vast array of services that we provide and we have shrinking revenue sources. So when I see this one, yes, I'm going to support it and I have supported it now I think as we've moved through the process, people have pointed out some good things that needed to be changed.

And I believe we made those changes in the ordinance. But you know and I know I have this list that I like to go to but these are the things that for one side feels that the other side got everything they wanted. Nobody got everything they wanted if you heard from a couple of the growers there but just the fact we have the acreage cap. We banned cultivation on Ag 1-5 and Ag 110 We banned hoop houses in the coastal zone. We banned outdoor drying. We banned the use of generators, even though they're used everywhere else in agriculture.

We've just recently banned cannabis activities and EDRNs. We require a CUP if it's adjacent to an EDRN. We require a CUP if it is next to an urban rural boundary line. Required odor control and carpenteria. Required background checks for all of our employees. And limited retail to one per community and banned from mixed-use zones. This isn't gonna be perfect. When you're rolling out an ordinance for a brand new industry that has been illegal for century or so, I get it that it's not gonna be easy but the idea that... And I'll just tell you when I people first off this idea that somehow things were suppressed that the grand jury didn't get all the information they wanted. I gave every single email Every single whatever they needed, I gave him and scheduling.

Whatever can have it all? It doesn't matter. It's an open book so for them somehow you know I've heard that didn't get everything they wanted. That doesn't make any sense to me either. But I just have to say that the tone of the grand jury when I went in wasn't a battle about what the policy was or wasn't. There was very much more accusatory Ann. So, you know I know I had my run-ins with the grand jury after this report.

I will say thank you. I apologize for those prior remarks they were made in a heated moment but I thank them for their work but you know i think we have a work in progress and we're making progress And I just hope that as we continue to refine this ordinance, more and more and more people can start to see the benefits of what we're trying to do.

6:05 – 6:133 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:05:07 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Labanito. Mr. Ghazani?

CommentDr. Melissa SmithProposed · by introduction6:05:11 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Chair and Supervisors, just in response to both something that Supervisor Levinino just said and a comment by Ms. O'Neill before she was broken up there, there was some discussion in the grand jury's written report that the investigation of the jury was hindered by the denial of its request for subpoenas for non-government witnesses. Just for clarification, the county does not issue subpoenas. It is the presiding judge who issues subpoenas.

So on that comment, although the paragraph read without knowledge of how the process works sounds like the board or the county missed the boat. It's the presiding judge who decides whether the request for a subpoena is warranted given the scope of the investigation. We don't control that and we don't influence that. The second comment about some documents were not provided, I can tell you clearly that no documents containing my legal advice were provided because they're attorney-client and that actually is part of the privilege that is respected by the grand jury.

So without more on that paragraph it'd be hard to react to it but I don't believe that any document other than those where privilege was asserted And that's a tenet of grand jury proceedings is that you are allowed to receive attorney-client legal advice on this process, which you did. And you don't have to then produce that to the grand jury.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:06:41 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Thank you, Mr. Gazzone. Supervisor Williams? Well I just want to appreciate staff's work on writing this recommendation. I agree with the totality of it. You know it's a rational response when I think much of this debate is cloaked in emotions almost all the time and you know I would indicate first of all that Some of the language in these are as Mr. Gazzone said is prescribed I you know if I could use different language Sometimes I would wordsmith this stuff and sometimes I'd say agree partially instead of disagree partially but But we don't have that option. We have a formalized way to respond And I particularly want to highlight, you know the my agreement with The staff recommendation on 11, which is about odor does not for one moment take away from my feeling that the status quo is still not acceptable.

There is more that we could do to reduce odor impacts I still think that we should be using our litigation powers selectively. I still believe that technology ultimately will improve this situation because we built in a definition, and I believe the quote is best available technology as determined by the director. So as technology improves, can send out a letter to every grower and say, you gotta improve this odor control technology or this and that.

That is within her power. And that is a conscious act that this board did because we know this was challenging. We know that there are improvements that needed to be made over time I will say that the farther this process has gone, the better the odor has gone. The sort of revisionism in this and I think if you look at it as a totality where the grand jury's comments missed the mark is this idea that things would be better if we went slower.

Well for residents of the Carpinteria Valley That odor has been existing now for years. Nothing gets better if things go slower, things only get better if we go through and we are able to implement the ordinance and permit places or turn them down for permits on a case by case basis. I spend a decent amount of my time trying to understand the needs of our cannabis enforcement team, because I do believe that you can only have good rules by rigorously enforcing on operations that don't abide by rules.

I mean, you know the numbers that Mr. Malekian just mentioned indicate that we've closed down a lot more marijuana operations than we permitted thus far. And when I and that is somehow all lost like we've been gone light on these guys. In fact, I think that's a good thing that we have permitted some and that we have shut down others. And the thing that I consistently hear from our law enforcement personnel is hey, the more that are permitted, the easier this is going to be to enforce. It's the clarity of who has the right and it's the strength of the rules that they have to adhere to.

Right now, as has been indicated in some of the criticism, there's a lot of limbo as operations are in this non-conforming world. Well, the only way to deal with that limbo is not to go back and re-litigate whether a place should be non-conforming. It's to go forward and take properties into conformance. That is Historically really the only way to solve a non-conforming problem.

I have been public about the fact that I feel like some of this was created by this sort of non-conforming right. And there have been those of us that have proposed various solutions for that, but none of those solutions has been perfect. But we will continue to try to make things better for the residents of the Carpinteria Valley. And let us not forget the difference this has made, the revenue is made in the vigorousness of enforcement. Which at least from law enforcement perspective has never been more vigorous because we actually have the officers to do the work.

And from the perspective of saving essential public services throughout the county. That has benefited the communities in which marijuana is being grown, and in fact it has benefitted communities county-wide. So I think there's good reasons to have this rational response but I wanted to add just a little bit of stuff from the higher level. Redoing an EIR just perpetuates people's suffering, in my view. Redoing any of this just perpetuates the status quo which to me is not acceptable. Moving forward and turning giving folks either a thumbs up or a thumbs down on their permit and then requiring them to adhere to our odor control regulations improves things in the long run

6:13 – 6:185 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:13:18 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Any other comments from board members? Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.796:13:25 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Supervisor Adam, is he still here with us? Just curious if he was going to comment.

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction6:13:32 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Yeah, I'm here and I don't feel like I have anything to explain. I kind of did like Supervisor Lavanino talked about earlier where I voted against most of this stuff and so I'm not going to make any comments besides

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.796:13:53 · ≈ 3:13 PM

that. Then I will. I guess the first thing I want to say is that, I believe every member who serves on this Board of Supervisors takes ethics very seriously. And I don't think that there was anything that was shady that was done in the ad hoc committee or in dealing with the cannabis industry. It was new, people didn't fully understand how it might impact them and that is certainly the case with the conflict with other agriculture.

And we know that because we have letters from the Farm Bureau and from growers and chippers saying we've changed our position, we didn't fully understand that. And we have adapted and made some key changes. Supervisor Lavinino described some of them, for me the key were caps especially the county wide out-of-carp cap. The bans 20 acres and less in Ag 1 and EDRNs and development standards.

There were other things that we did debate and openly. And unfortunately for me, I was on the short end of this debate. For example, odor in Ag 2 protecting urban areas with a buffer. The oversaturation that I see in the San Ynez Valley and particularly the Santa Rita Hills area. But this was debated. And it was open and there were decisions made. And like Supervisor Lavinino said, sometimes you're not on the winning side and you have to accept that.

So where I think we still have some outstanding issues that are ahead of us are the business license. And most particularly how we're going to deal with the expansion of legal non-conforming uses. In other areas in planning and development when somebody does something that was unauthorized by permit, you don't simply bless it with a permit. You say there's some kind of consequence and I think that is something we still need to work through. We haven't had that discussion transparently openly and dealt with it and had a board policy and decision The other one is hemp, and that has all the same nuisance qualities and some additional ones as I don't know even marijuana cannabis. They don't like that word but you know what I mean, the THC and CBD.

So those are issues that we still have in front of us and ones that I'm planning to be advocating strenuously for. really, really delved into this and worked hard. I think we have a community that is split on this. I think we have a board that on some of these issues is split and you have to make some hard calls. You learn as you go. You try to correct it the best you can.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:17:36 · ≈ 3:17 PM

Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Yeah, I'd just like to add that I agree with the staff's responses to the grand jury's findings and while I wasn't here on the board when the ordinance was originally developed, I've been here for the subsequent modifications and the changes that we've made in response to community concerns. And I must say I was disappointed in the Grand Jury Report not telling that part of the story. It ended its narrative at a point in time Long in the past and didn't describe the significant amendments that the board has made to the cannabis regulations. To reflect concerns from members of the community, and to recalibrate the balance point that Supervisor Hartman talked about. Others have talked about that we are trying to hit between providing an opportunity for a legal industry.

And protecting neighborhoods at the same time. And that is never an easy balance point and we'll continue to do adjustments as time goes on, as new evidence is presented to us. So with that, is there a motion?

6:18 – 6:2115 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.766:18:47 · ≈ 3:18 PM

I make a motion to accept the staff responses for our response to the grand jury. Staff recommendation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:18:54 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Thank you Supervisor Lavenina. The motion's on the floor. Is there a second?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:18:59 · ≈ 3:18 PM

I'll second it. You know, I think both Supervisor Hartman and and I have made some of our comments about recommendation 11. And I don't I can agree with the totality of instilled just insert my own opinion for the record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:19:16 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Motion has been made in seconded. Is there any discussion? Madam Clerk, could you call the roll please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:19:22 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Mr Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:19:22 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Hi

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:19:24 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Mr Lavinino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:19:25 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Hi,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:19:27 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Mr Williams. Ms. Hartman?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:19:29 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:19:30 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:19:30 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:19:31 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:19:33 · ≈ 3:19 PM

We also trailed Item D1 earlier in the day, but excuse me we need a short break before Item D1. Okay so we're going to take a five minute break and be back. Thanks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:21:00 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Good morning.

6:27 – 6:322 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:27:34 · ≈ 3:27 PM

you the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:32:17 · ≈ 3:32 PM

Good morning.

6:33 – 6:331 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.766:33:31 · ≈ 3:33 PM

Where did everybody go?

6:36 – 6:4120 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:36:13 · ≈ 3:36 PM

We'll reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting for September 22nd and we are on departmental item number one. Madam Clerk, would you please reread that into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:36:25 · ≈ 3:36 PM

Yes Chair Hart and members of the board as stated this was previously read into the record this morning but I would just like to remind the public we trail departmental item number one to this afternoon. This is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19 update.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:36:44 · ≈ 3:36 PM

And I believe board members have received the information from the Department of Public Health. Supervisor Adam, did you have anything?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction6:36:55 · ≈ 3:36 PM

Did you- Yeah, I haven't got it yet. There

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:37:03 · ≈ 3:37 PM

we go. Magically it appears, there you

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction6:37:05 · ≈ 3:37 PM

go. How about that? It's kind of cool when that happens. Well, I haven't had a chance to look at it yet so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:37:18 · ≈ 3:37 PM

maybe

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction6:37:19 · ≈ 3:37 PM

if we could have a couple more minutes I might be able to process

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:37:24 · ≈ 3:37 PM

it. Chair Hart why don't we just walk through this really quickly because we have Ms. Hubbard on there Basically there's two pieces of information. The first was the RISE contacts and complaints from August 21st to September 22nd, 2020. And these are reports on complaints or educational outreach in zip codes associated with District 4 so it might not be a specific exact match but these were what we could do in the short time given today.

It's organized by jurisdiction with responsibility for follow-up. It talks about the data received via the recovery complaint form which is on the web Data on complaints received prior to August 21st require additional research, so this is what they could provide today. This does not reflect complaints received directly to cities or other government agencies and it talks about the different responsible agencies, the number of complaints and the types of businesses from which the complaints were received.

On the back it talks about outreach to registered businesses with the county from the RISE Ambassador Outreach. So that's the first document provided. And the second document is from Dr. De Reynoso and it talks about, as requested by Supervisor Adam, the different schools who requested waivers. It has different dates on that document. The waiver received, the review date by the department if they needed supplemental information To complete the review or to complete their application sufficiently, those dates are on there. Then it has the final review when the department submitted it to CDPH and when CDPH approved it.

In green are those that are sent to CDPH and in yellow are those waiting on supplemental information.

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction6:39:09 · ≈ 3:39 PM

Okay, I'll follow up on the outside but on that second document. But on the first one can we verify any kind of a Classification for complainants because I'm wondering how many of these are self-generated. You know, how many of these actually came from public health people and how many people actually complained that were not associated with the government in any way or public health?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:39:48 · ≈ 3:39 PM

So this is Kelly Hubbard, Director of Office of Emergency Management So although I have not reviewed who actually filed the complaints, this does not reflect complaints or violations identified by government or regulatory agencies as they were out in the field doing their daily job duties or duties associated with COVID. So if Environmental Health Services was out for instance reviewing or looking at restaurants and whether they were meeting the compliance regulations related to the health officer order Those are not necessarily reflected in this compliance spreadsheet. This is they have a separate tracking mechanism and that is not in these numbers, and so this is reflective of those that have been submitted to the Outlook site.

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction6:40:37 · ≈ 3:40 PM

OK. Alright well that's great thank you very much I don't think I have any further questions at this time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:40:46 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Thank you Supervisor Adam. Can we have a motion on D1 to receive and file the COVID-19 report?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction6:40:55 · ≈ 3:40 PM

So moved.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:40:56 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Motion's been made, is there a second?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:40:58 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:40:59 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:41:02 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Mr. Adam?

CommentMr GazzoneProposed · by introduction6:41:03 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:41:05 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Mr. Lavinino? I see him. Thank you. Mister Levin, you know?

6:41 – 6:415 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.766:41:20 · ≈ 3:41 PM

It doesn't seem you I'm saying I don't know comes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:41:24 · ≈ 3:41 PM

up got it. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.766:41:26 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Awesome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:41:27 · ≈ 3:41 PM

And Mister Williams is gone for the day. Miss Hartman and chair heart motion passes 4 with one absent.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:41:34 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Thank