Board of Supervisors — 2021-03-16

I will call to order the March 16th 2021 meeting in the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Supervisor Hart

here.

at the record reflect that Supervisor Williams is running a bit late and he'll be joining us momentarily.

The next item of business is approval of minutes from the March 9th 2021 meeting. Is there any discussion? I'll entertain a motion.

Move approval.

Is there any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll.

Supervisor Hart?

Aye.

Motion passes.

Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

Chair Nelson and members of the board. Yes, thank you I would like to remind the public that the Board of Supervisors meetings are now being interpreted in Spanish as the board is aware We have been broadcasting in Spanish through Cox cables since November of 2020 but as of today both Comcast subscribers in North County and Cox subscribers in South County can now listen to our meetings in Spanish by turning on their secondary audio programming also known as SAP under their language settings I would also like to remind the public who are participating in our meeting today of the board's alternative methods of public participation.

For alternative methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda, please see page two of our agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment you may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. After registration you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the Zoom meeting.

Once the chair has announced the item you want to comment on, please join the meeting with the information provided and the registration confirmation email. The clerk will call you by name or the last 4 digits of your phone number were removed from mute. You will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted. If you are using a touch-tone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourselves. Again that is star six to mute yourself if you're using a touch-tone phone. Each person may address the board for up to three minutes and this is at the discretion of the chair. If you have any questions regarding this process please call the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805 568 2240 Lastly, we received a continuation request from the Public Works Department to continue departmental item number one to the April 6th 2021 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Departmental item number one comes from the Public Works and is adhering to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of our proposed fee ordinance for the Surveyor Division in the Public Works Department. Chair Nelson and members of the board, that concludes my announcements today. And if the board would like to take up departmental item number one's continuation requests now would be the appropriate time.

Okay I'll take a motion to continue A1 or sorry departmental item number 1?

To April 6th so

moved. Is there any comments from my colleagues? I actually just want to make us a small comment about this one This is for the proposed increase in surveyor fees. I've reached out to Public Works and one of the concerns I was hearing from the survey community is that these fees were not yet published, so my hope was in the future when we set these for hearing that we actually have the numbers out there for the public so they can review them in anticipation of the hearing.

We have a few weeks between now and the April 6 hearing, so Public Works has agreed to post those online. I believe today from the surveyor on the surveyors website and then work with the clerk of the board to add this to the record as well so that the public can review the proposed surveyor increase fees in advance. So with that Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?

Yes, thank you chair Nelson members of the board and before I call the roll. I would just like to note for the record We had no requests to speak on the continuation on this item

Thank You

supervisor Hart.

Aye

motion passes

Thank You madam clerk

No report this morning chair

All right, thank you.

Chair Nelson and members of the board I have requests from the board on a 8 a 16. A 24. And a 29 in addition to the board, I have requested speak from the public on a 8 and a 24.

All right. Can I get actually a motion right now to approve the administrative agenda with the exception of 8 1624 29. So moved second all right. Madam clerk, you please call the roll.

Motion passes.

I think that we when the sponsors of some a couple of these items is not yet in attendance, the meeting and to accommodate so we have a full board. I would like to move these four administrative items to after general public comment. So at this time do having general public comment

chair Nelson and members of the board? Yes. We have for requests to speak on General Public comment today.

All right.

And we are going to begin with Brian Patton, to be followed by Katie Mickey.

Mr Patton when you're ready.

Hello how's everybody doing in Santa Barbara County this morning?

Great welcome!

I just had a suggestion for a crosswalk that i have over here located at And so we have a crosswalk that's located on, it's on Stork and Sierra Madre Court. Stork Road and Sierra Madre Court. So when you're making a left-hand turn going eastbound on Sierra Madre Court to make a left-to-the-head northbound on Stork there basically should be some sort of safety precaution there to avoid hitting People walking in the north, in the crosswalk that's at the north end of the intersection. So I sent in a letter to your email to request that a red yellow and green left-hand turning light be installed there or some other type of modification whichever makes it safer.

Thank you Mr. Patton

We will now go to Katie Mickey to be followed by Thomas Woodrow.

Miss Mickey when you're ready.

Dear County Board of Supervisors, Title I and Title II provisions within the Telecommunications Act stipulates Santa Barbara County has no responsibility to provide broadband data. Instead, its responsibility is to provide five bars on a cell phone or minus 85 decibels for emergency purpose. The equipment being installed within feet of our residences is designed to provide broadband services, which is in conflict with Santa Barbara's general plan to reduce our energy consumption and greenhouse emissions. And every Board of Supervisors oath of office to protect the welfare of the public.

The P6480 antenna installed 700 feet from my house in the city, and is also listed in several new application addresses that are for review by the Architectural Board of Review on Friday has been analyzed by a software engineer and consultant to safe technology for Santa Barbara County. Our analysis indicates that the modulating frequencies this antenna is designed to pulse into the airwaves far exceed FCC limits.

Without a way of monitoring the output, there is no way of knowing or restricting their output. The compliance report on this antenna from Waterford indicates that the average output is below the FCC limits. However, basing compliance on an average output is akin to saying that if I were to smack you full force on the face in the context of a one-hour massage and then average the transfer of force over the full hour my contact was not an assault on your body after all.

It's also akin to installing Maseratis a few feet from a resident and giving them free license to sit up and down our neighborhood streets with no cops to police their speed. These antennas are a potential hazard to residents, trees, bees, and the quiet enjoyment of our streets. As the director of the Santa Barbara Body Therapy Institute who trains the majority of massage therapists in our county I ask you that we place the same requirements on the telecoms that we do for our massage therapists.

No assault on our residents, workers or tourists allowed. Please modify our county code to require a cap on power and appropriate level of maximum effective radiated power in residential zones ranging from .1 watt to two watts or minus 85 decibels per WTF and no higher. Thank you, Katie McKee director of the Santa Barbara Body Therapy

Institute.

We will now go to Thomas Woodrow to be followed by Andy Caldwell.

Mr. Woodrow when you're ready.

Okay can you hear me? Okay, great chair Nelson members of the Board of Supervisors Tom Woodrow I'm executive director of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. And regarding a eight and I know this is public comment I meant to actually comment on a eight but i'll just say as a general rule you know i'd like to request that from now on and if you don't already have this as a policy When you have a controversial item, like supporting a frackie initiative as an assembly bill up in Sacramento that I think it's good form. And I think we all can agree that you don't put that on the administrative agenda and maybe that's just was oversight. You know, maybe somebody in putting the agenda together there was a reason to throw it on the admin agenda but honestly it's bad form to do that right because this is a big issue If you remember, we had something called Measure P here in Santa Barbara County.

And Measure P I think the vote was 62% voted one way and 40 some odd the other way. So clearly Santa Barbarans here in this county weigh in heavily on the issue of oil production and the revenues that go to county government to pay for pensions etc. And it would be nice if you just had that discussion in public, you know, not just in public but as part of your, your main agenda rather than putting as a consent item on the admin agenda and moving forward I think taxpayers association. You know we're in favor of having these discussions honestly and openly were nonpartisan organization.

You know, into the county that come from oil and gas comes from cannabis comes from our hospitality industry comes from agriculture. And we just we want to be supportive so if you could pull it off that would be great and have an actual discussion about that letter. Thank

you Mr. Woodrow.

We will now go to our final speaker Andy Caldwell.

Mr. Caldwell when you're ready

Chair Nelson, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. I sent an email to Supervisor Hart the other day that I mentioned in it actually should be addressed to your entire board along with the members of the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments and has to do with the San Marcos Preserve that we could substitute a lot of other things like Elwood Shores in that and the point would still be the same You know, I can tell you that I grew up in this county and I moved back to the region because I did not want to live in a major city. So CoLab has never been that much pro-growth as much as we're pro private property rights.

And the point here is Supervisor Hart maybe to stave off the lawsuit decided to support fundraising to buy the rest of San Marcos Preserve But you know, we were here and commenting on that when I went through. This was a place that I think at one time could have had upwards of 1,000 homes the same thing with Elwood Shores. And it got whittled down, whittled down, whittled down to the point that the guy gave away 90% of his property and then he only built some affordable units and some million dollar homes.

Well, you know, There's a higher ideology in the South County where this is routine. How do we whittle the projects down from what was zoned for that piece of property? I remember one of the most egregious ones was when Supervisor Hartman told that ranch in the San Dines Valley that cutting it down to 100 acre and 300 acre parcels was urbanization, That was one of the most absurd decisions I've ever seen on behalf of this board. Why am I bringing this up? Well, your colleagues in Sacramento have mandated an obscene number of RHNA units of housing.

If you don't change your ways, if you don't start trying to find out how to max out properties, you are gonna create the urban jungle that Santa Barbara always swore off Or you're gonna have tremendous sprawl. You have to come up with 10,000 units or more than 10,000 units to satisfy that mandate. Where are they gonna go? It's time to stand up to the organizations you financially and morally support and people like Mark Shatillo and these other organizations that are trying to raise $20 million to make our housing issue worse.

Think about it in that terms, we want to raise $20 million so our housing crisis is exacerbated. You know you like our mitigation from developers how about mitigation from preservationists?

Thank you Mr. Caldwell that is your time

And that concludes general public comment.

All right, thank you Madam Clerk. We're going to go ahead and circle back to the administrative agenda. I believe we have Supervisor Williams now in attendance. Yes. Madam Clerk will you read item A8 into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board administrative item number eight is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding a letter of support for SB 467 end fracking and dangerous drilling, and we do have five requests to speak on this item from the public.

All right I'd like to let the public speak first and then come back to the board for some discussion and a motion on this item.

Chair Nelson and members of the board. If you are a member of the public participating in today's meeting and have requested to speak on administrative item number 816 24 or 29, please log in now to provide your comments again if you're a member of the public please login to provide your comments we will begin with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Melissa Smith.

Mr. Caldwell welcome back

Thank you Chair Nelson, members of the board. Tom Wintrow captured a lot of what I wanted to say and it gets to the heart of representative government. You are representative government. You're there to represent the will of the people and this particular bill that Senator Lamone and Weiner are putting forth is virtually identical to Measure P And Measure P was soundly defeated in almost every single precinct, including in the South County.

And even though it's the headline is to ban fracking and we don't frack here. The fact of the matter is that many of the routine maintenance activities such as acidation and other things that happen in oil wells is also banned, as is cyclical steaming We've been cyclical steaming in this region for 60 plus years. It's not a new technology, it's not an unsafe technology all what it is making the oil easier to pump up that's all it is and the bulk of what we're bringing up is water anyway so for somebody to say adding water in the form of steam is dangerous when 90% of what they bring up out of the ground is water, is ridiculous on its face.

And the other issue here is even Jerry Brown rebuked the environmental communities for wanting to shut down production when they've done virtually nothing to evade consumption. You can claim you're going all green, but it's just not true. And the fact is as you can look at charts from the United States Energy Agency that shows that as California and Alaskan production has decreased over time, California did not reduce consumption. It just increased imports from the Middle East And so what this bill is really doing is saying let's shut down California production and increase imports from the Middle East. The other thing, and I've asked this question a dozen times over the years, I would like to have an answer to one simple question. If you shut down oil industry here where are you gonna get your asphalt to maintain your roads?

Where? Are you going to truck it from Nevada or Arizona, or some other state. Where will you get your asphalt if you shut down the local oil industry? What is the environmental impact of that?

Thank

you Mr. Caldwell.

We will now go to Sabrina Lockhart to be followed by Roy Reed.

Ms. Lockhart when you're ready.

Good morning, thank you for the opportunity to offer a comment on behalf of the California Independent Petroleum Association. We represent about 350 oil and natural gas producers service and supply companies and royalty owners statewide and many of our operators produce here in Santa Barbara County. We believe that SB 467 is legally questionable and we shut down 97% of production in the state as already mentioned voters struck down a similar ban just a few years ago And the problem is if we go away tomorrow, the demand for our product will not.

And the easiest way to replace that locally produced oil is by tanker ship from overseas. Unlike STIPA members those foreign interests don't follow California's strictest on-the-planet regulations and they certainly don't care about human rights like you do. California oil and natural gas companies also pay millions of dollars in fees each year that are reinvested in advancing the state's aggressive climate goals As a result, reducing in-state production hurts California's environmental leadership. In fact, one study found that pollution from idled foreign tanker ships on our coast created the same emissions as 68,000 cars on the road each day.

It's also logistically impossible to have enough foreign tanker ships in our ports to meet the state's demand of 1.8 million barrels of oils every day. So without locally produced oil and these limits on foreign supply, California would be forced I would like to start by thanking the Board of Supervisors for their hard work and dedication. We are in a difficult time right now, but we will get through this together. Thank you. ≫ Thank you.

To protect the local economy and California's environmental leadership, SIPA urges you to oppose SB 467. Thank you.

We will now go to Roy Reed to be followed by Ben Oakley.

Mr. Reed when you're ready

Chair Nelson, members of the board. Unfortunately it appears we lost Roy Reed so we will now go to Ben Oakley to be followed by Tara Messing.

Mr. Oakley when you're ready.

Good morning can you hear me? You can

Ben thank you. Go ahead.

Nice this is Ben Oakley I'm with the Western States Petroleum Association And, you know, there couldn't be a better example of the disconnect that exists between the policymakers in Sacramento and the everyday Californians who do the real work to move our state forward than SB 467. Our state's in the midst of a jobs and economic disaster due to COVID. We can't get businesses open and people back to work or even figure out how to pay unemployment benefits to millions. Yet lawmakers are focused on eliminating our ability to provide safe, affordable and reliable energy for families and businesses under environmental standards that are already the toughest in the world.

The bill is so broad and ambiguous that the results of its passage would lead to a total production ban in California. That means hundreds of thousands of more Californians without jobs including the 2600 workers right here in Santa Barbara County And our people being completely reliant on petroleum produced in other parts of the world. Furthermore, policies that will permanently ban the lifelong careers that people in our industry have earned and replace them with temporary jobs is not a just transition.

That's the callous disregard of the livelihoods and well-being of tens of thousands of California families. When we look past political rhetoric into the facts it's clear that the last thing we can afford to do is shut down oil and gas production It's detrimental to the well-being of our people, our economic recovery and attaining the truly sustainable energy future that all of us want.

We urge you not to support SB 467. Thank you. Thank You Mr.

Oakley.

And we will now go to Tara Messing who is our final speaker on this item.

Ms. Messing when you're ready

Good morning, Chair Nelson and supervisors. My name is Tara Messing and I am a staff attorney with the Environmental Defense Center. EDC is proud to join frontline communities across the state in strong support of SB 467. We strongly urge the board to likewise support this important piece of legislation to protect public health safety and the environment. What this bill aims to do is simple protect people's drinking water and air from risky oil extraction SB 467 focuses on the most extreme forms of oil production, like cyclic steam injection and steam flooding.

In Santa Barbara County, the threats from these techniques are very real. Since 2017, EDC on behalf of our clients and along with our partner organizations have strongly opposed the massive expansion of cyclic steam injection and steam flooding in the Cat Canyon oil field. Steam injection is one of the most inefficient ways to produce energy and generates a huge amount of greenhouse gas emissions. Just one of the Cat Canyon projects estimated that around 300,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent would be released each year, equivalent to 65,000 cars on the road.

Moreover, injecting steam underground can adversely affect water quality. The Cat Canyon projects would have drilled through a critical groundwater basin that supplies drinking water to over 150,000 residents. Parts of Cat Canyon are already ranked among the top 1% for groundwater threats in California. And it is not a question of if, but when a spill will happen.

One of the Cat Canyon projects estimated spills of around 70 barrels of oil produced water and other toxic materials each year. Spills present an unacceptable risk to water quality and wildlife. The environmental impacts from these extraction methods are more often felt by communities of color and are compounding the health impacts of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

In response, SB 467 also requires a much needed health protection zone of 2,500 feet around schools, homes and healthcare facilities and directs CalGEM to make a plan for the transition of workers already vulnerable to employment fluctuations based on changes in the global market. With an escalating public health and climate crisis, and the inevitable decline of fossil fuel production.

SB 467 provides a plan for phasing out the most dangerous forms of oil production first while protecting communities and workers. For these reasons EDC respectfully requests that the county submits this letter of support for SB 467. Thank you.

Thank you Miss Messing. Madam Clerk were we able to get back Mr. Reed or?

Chair Nelson and members of the board know, unfortunately it appears Roy Reed is no longer with us. If you would like to still provide comments please log in now.

I think we've given enough time go ahead and get back to the board. I think a number of my colleagues and myself actually pulled this item so I'm be willing to hear from them first or Supervisor Hartman.

Sure, I'll go first. I serve on the Ledge Committee with Supervisor Williams and at our last meeting we had Senator Limon as well as Assemblymember Bennett speak to us and speak to us also about this bill. This bill is very consistent with a lot of policies that have been coming from the state. SB 32, reduction of statewide greenhouse gas emissions 40% from 1990 levels by 2030. SB 100 passed in 2018, electricity grid should be 100% carbon free by 2045 Executive Order B5518 Brown, Carbon Neutral State Economy by 2045. An executive order N7920 by Newsom that sets goals for all new passenger cars and trucks to be zero emission by 2035. All medium and heavy duty vehicles zero emission by 2045 and calls for an end to cracking permits by 2024 Global warming is real and we're seeing it in our county in numerous different ways.

It was really exciting for me to attend virtually a Diablo Canyon event last week, a virtual event where the Central Coast was described as a potential feature as renewable energy Mecca. Offshore wind, onshore wind, solar battery storage, hydrogen trucks. We can do this! It was exciting last week to go to the Office Board of Supervisors in Veteravia and see all the solar energy that's going up there.

But the only way we can do it is if we make a concerted effort and focus on the transition. And so this bill brings that to the fore, and I'm very supportive of our state delegation, and I hope that we will send this letter of support from the county board.

Any comments to Santa Maria?

Sure, I'll go point counterpoint, I appreciate the Ledge Committee bringing this, but it should have not even basically got out of committee. Because what we do is we bring controversial items to the board so that we can weigh in on these things and usually the board has to make a decision because on something like this you might not know where the public is on this.

What I don't understand is how we could Really, how can we sign a letter that says we support something that went to the people six years ago on a ballot measure and it wasn't even close? 63% of the people responded and said they don't want a complete shutdown in the oil industry locally. And I thought it really sad that in the EDC's comments, it was talking about that people of color are mostly affected by the oil industry.

I would agree that people of color are going to be disproportionately affected but it's not by the existing oil operations. It is by lawmakers that would shut down and take away their jobs from them. That's where they're going to be affected. I thought Ben Oakley hit it on the head. It's like right in the middle of a pandemic, you're going to eliminate more jobs, more revenue makes no sense to me.

And these ideas that in 2035 or 2045 we're not going to have cars anymore running on gas powered engines. If we can get to a transition that's great but right now I don't see any development for us moving forward on offshore wind. And I guarantee you that if we talked about going out into the ocean and building large turbines, the first people who'd be here would be the environmentalist telling us that we can't go out there and disturb anything.

So it sounds great. It's one of those things again that people talk about virtue signaling where it's like hey, I don't want to use any oil. Well, I'm close to the point. Where it's like, okay, it's put up or shut up time. Right? It's like okay let's put something on the ballot that says in the county of Santa Barbara we're going to do what's right. We're going to walk the walk not just talk the talk. We're going to walk it and we're not going to use oil anymore because if we're not willing to do that, if we are not willing to tell ourselves we're going to get rehabbed from this addiction to oil and we're just going ban it.

Then the rest of it's just empty talk and empty rhetoric. I think what would happen though if we did something like that, people would find out right away that we use a lot more oil in our everyday life than we think we do. I think the reality right now is on the makeup of this board, we're not going to be approving new projects anyway. I really don't see that moving forward.

So I just think this is a misguided direction. I won't be putting my name on this letter, hopefully the governor would reject us if it did happen to move forward but I just don't know how we can say that we support this when the people have spoken already on this issue.

Thank you Supervisor Lavinio. Supervisor Williams and then Supervisor Hart.

Well, thank you for the opportunity to say something. Obviously serve on the legislative committee and voted to bring this to the board. I think it's going to be one of the more important bills discussed statewide this year, and I think that we should be engaging in this debate. And that's fundamentally why I agree with the idea of the county putting forth this letter in support.

I am a veteran of the yes on measure P effort to ban fracking and enhanced oil techniques. So, I would just first say, I think people's attitudes have changed a lot in the county in the last six or seven years. And I think that people increasingly realize And I think that to me is the Disconnect between our policies at Dogger for oil extraction and our climate goals as the state.

And, uh, the expansion of techniques that use a whole lot more energy To extract the oil makes the cost benefit of oil extraction in some parts of the state look a whole lot worse, both for the environment and for our future. And I appreciate the arguments about demand reduction from oil, from Mr. Caldwell and Mr. Labagnino and I absolutely agree that any environmentalist that supports this including myself should be redouble their efforts and not just try but to accomplish Using less oil in their personal life. Otherwise, I you know frankly, I don't want anybody to support this bill who isn't willing to reduce oil consumption in their personal life. So to support the right direction for the state.

Right direction for our community to address what is a worsening situation with the carbon impact of oil extraction from enhanced techniques. And to support our Senator Lamone, I support sending this letter on our behalf.

Thank you Supervisor Williams. Supervisor Hart? Yes, like Supervisor Williams I supported and Supervisor Hartman I supported Measure P and I do believe the public sentiment on this issue has changed but maybe more importantly the economics of the oil industry has drastically changed in the past six years and the market is sending strong signals that we need to be ahead of this transition because Ultimately, the taxpayers and the residents of oil producing regions may be on the financial hook for an oil industry that dramatically shifts in its economic viability. Now I don't think that was something that has ever been contemplated on the scale that maybe around the horizon. The state has always assumed that oil operations would be strong financially and that they would be able to take care of the financial obligations that they are going to incur or are going to be present As these operations begin to transition and ultimately cease because of market forces, there is less demand for oil in the world.

And that is a fact. Prices are low. Things that were economically viable and sustainable no longer are. The decision by the oil companies to abandon their Applications in Cat Canyon are largely a product of market forces, and those are just simply facts. So there are a lot of abandoned and idle wells in Santa Barbara County and throughout the state of California that are a ticking time bomb of financial liability. And it's time that the state of California and the county of Santa Barbara looked under the hood of that and really understood the scope and scale and the potential financial risks Involved in assuming the ultimate liability if these companies go into bankruptcy and and do not have the financial resources to maintain And and safely conclude operations.

You know, I don't think it's something that people have contemplated fully and reasonably and It is something that we need to get ahead of as a county so this can that issue connects to this Because we don't want to just be keep running down the same path, blindly ignoring the massive signals that the marketplace is sending about this industry and the transition on a global scale to renewable energy. You know it's one thing for us to be planning and creating a path for renewables in the county and we're doing that. And there are very large wind turbine projects that are being proposed off our coast. There's a proposal right now that's being shown to the Planning Department off the coast of Vandenberg And there obviously will be issues with those kind of developments.

There were issues with the wind farm in Lompoc and, you know, through the planning process and with the right environmental regulations, we can mitigate many of those issues. But ultimately, we are either going to be ahead of the game or are we going to behind the game and holding the bag? And I think it's smarter to be ahead than stuck with the financial obligation at the end.

Thank you Supervisor Hart. Since we've been speaking, we have two additional public commenters. I'm going to go ahead and go to public comment. I am now closing this item for public comments so we'll hear from Mr. Becker and Mr. Reed and then we'll be back to the board for final discussions and a motion.

Chair Nelson and members of the Board thank you and we did just lose one of our requests to speak so we just have one final request to speak and that is Tom Becker

Mr. Becker, when you're ready.

Thank you. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Good thank you. Very complex issue there's a lot of technical scientific data and issues involved in this but i want to give an example of how maybe things aren't really thought out very well Governor Newsom signed an executive order saying that there will be no new gasoline powered or petroleum powered vehicles sold in the state of California in 2035.

And, of course, we all know about the California emission waiver battle and the CAFE standards at NHTSA. I'm a mechanic, and what I do, I fix old trucks and old tractors, old farm equipment And keep those things running for my customers so they don't have to go out and buy a new vehicle or a new tractor. It's economic to do that. And I pointed out to people that if you guys go ahead, or if the state goes ahead and bans gasoline powered cars, I'll be the first of many mechanics who will just keep those old gasoline powered cars running for my customers.

They're not gonna give them up. You're going to have to develop a battery-powered vehicle or a vehicle that runs on 50 miles to a gallon, that it's appealable to the consumers. And if the consumers figure out that the vehicles are unsafe, that they don't have power, they don't have performance, too expensive, they don't have range, things like that They won't buy those new vehicles. They will go to a guy like me and say keep my old truck running, keep my old car running and I'm ready for this.

If you guys make that or not you guys but in general if you ban gasoline powered cars from being new cars from being sold in this county or in the state and you cause the new vehicles to be unsafe and poor on performance My customers and the people out there will simply come to a guy like me and keep their old vehicles running. And then the automotive in truck industry will collapse because they will have option going into a person like me to keep your vehicles running rather than buying a new vehicle right now They have a reason to buy new vehicle because it's economic to do that. But if you make the vehicles, new vehicles with poor performance low range and too expensive they will repair their old vehicles and keep those running and not buy new vehicles imagine what that will do in the industry just an example of how you haven't thought this thing out thank you.