BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 September 21, 2021

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:00 – 0:036 turns

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction0:01

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:04

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I just have a couple quick announcements this morning. I would like to remind the public that our Board of Supervisors meetings are being interpreted and broadcast live in Spanish. We are broadcasting our meetings in Spanish both for Cox Cable subscribers in South County as well as Comcast cable subscribers in North County.

Members of the public can now view our meetings in Spanish by turning on the secondary audio programming also known as SAP or SAP under their language settings. Lastly, I would just like to remind the public who are participating in our meeting today of the board's updated methods of public participation. For the Board of Supervisors' methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page 2 of our agenda.

Members of the public can now attend meetings in person in both the Santa Maria Board Hearing Room Chambers as well as the Santa Barbara Board Hearing Room Chambers. Please note, on September 5th 2021 a new County Health Officer order went into effect requiring indoor mask usage for anyone over two years of age regardless of vaccination status. If you attend the board meeting in person, you will be required to wear a face covering or mask at all times regardless of vaccination status.

Information regarding how to properly wear a mask has been posted throughout both locations. As a friendly reminder, masks should cover your nose and mouth. Wear the mask from the bridge of your nose to all the way under your chin. Tighten any loops or ties so the mask is snug. If you do not have a mask that fits properly we will provide you with one. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment virtually may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two.

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing important information about joining the virtual meeting. Once the chair has announced the item you want to comment on please join the meeting with the information provided in the registration confirmation email. You will be placed on mute until it is your turn to speak The clerk will call you by name. When removed from mute, you will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted. If you're using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself.

Again if you are using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. 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 please contact the clerk of the boards office at area code 805-568-2240 Again, that's 805-568-2240. And that concludes my announcements for today.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:42

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

The next item of business is the County Executive Officer's Report. CEO Miyasato do you have anything to report today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:49

Turn Nelson just quickly, I think some of our residents were notified of a possible PSPS event by PG&E was very limited in our county only affecting 19 customers. And this morning we did receive an email from them saying due to improved weather conditions PG&E had delayed the decision for the PSPS to customers in Santa Barbara County and they will be revisiting that. We're looking at the weather conditions this morning so just wanted people to know that

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction3:15

right thank you.

0:03 – 0:0611 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.803:17

Thank you Mr. Chair, I just wanted to take a second to congratulate a couple of our county employees. They were honored by the Santa Maria Elks Lodge this last week during their Law Enforcement Appreciation Night and they were Santa Barbara County Sheriff Detective Jonathan Fleming and then from Santa Barbara County Probation Department we had the Deputy Probation Officer of the Year was Lucia Esparza And then from the Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office, District Attorney Paul Zellis.

So just wanted to highlight those individuals and also to thank the Elks Lodge of which I'm a proud member for honoring our county employees in our local law enforcement.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction3:58

Thank you Supervisor Avenino.

The next item is approval of the administrative agenda. Do any board members have any items to pull? Seeing

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.804:10

none, I've

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:11

got 823. Madam Clerk? Do we have any items from the public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:17

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no requests to speak on the administrative agenda from the public.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:23

All right Supervisor Leoneau can we encompass 823 into the entire motion? Okay can I get a motion to approve the administrative agenda? So moved. Second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. And quickly please read item A23 into the record for comment from Supervisor Lavinino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:43

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 23 is brought to us by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to consider recommendations regarding the approval of a contract with Santa Maria Fair Park for the 2021 Veterans Stand Down.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.804:58

Mr. Chair, I just wanted to take this opportunity to highlight October 16th is our ninth annual veteran stand down event. There's some county employees that play a very significant role. Especially want to thank Frank Mejia and Heather Gardner as well as Amy Lopez. They've been there since day one and I want to actually just thank all of our partners who are actually adding some new items this year. One of them, of course would be COVID testing and also you can get your COVID vaccination shot there so once again this event is open to all veterans it's there are specific Things there that are geared towards our homeless veterans and those most in need, but every veteran is welcome to show up October 16th the gates open at nine o'clock. Everything from haircuts and showers and taking care of your pets and your kids to medical dental.

Mental health, employment opportunities, housing. If there's a need there that you have that isn't being filled at Stand Down let us know and we'll make sure we take care of that. So anybody that's interested sbcountystanddown.com There's a link there to also to Walmart that if you would like to donate some items we can take care of that. You don't have to do anything but give us your credit card number and we'll take care of the rest.

But just wanted to thank all of our employees that donate their time and energy. Thank you.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction6:24

Thank you, Supervisor Leopold and all the work that you're doing in that effort.

The next item is item number 27. Madam Clerk will you please read administrative item number 27 into the record?

0:06 – 0:1412 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:35

Chair Nelson and members of the board. Administrative item number 27 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of September 2021 as National Recovery Month in Santa Barbara County, and joining us today in person we have Amy Lopez, Veronica Uribe, Katrina Zamora, and Maria Gonzalez. And if you could please make your way to the podium And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record.

Whereas, the Santa Barbara County Behavioral Wellness Department provides in partnership with community-based organizations a continuum of care which includes the prevention intervention treatment and recovery from mental health and substance use challenges promoting the message that behavioral health is essential to wellness And whereas mental health and substance use disorders affect Santa Barbara County and all communities nationwide. And with commitment and support, those impacted can embark on a journey of improved physical health, emotional health, and overall wellness. And whereas this year is Recovery Month theme, recovery is for everyone—every person, every family, every community. Celebrates all people that make the journey of recovery possible and spreads the message that people can and do recover every day.

Through Recovery Month, people become aware and able to recognize the signs of mental health and substance use disorders and encourage people in need of recovery service to seek help. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara Behavioral Wellness Department collaborates with partner agencies and community-based organizations in all areas of the county to ensure everyone has an opportunity to achieve and sustain long term recovery by improving their health and wellness, living a self directed life and striving to reach their full potential.

And whereas we encourage continued collaboration and integration of services to ensure success for individuals and groups who are in long term recovery And whereas a recovery month observance will continue the work to improve the lives of those affected by mental health and substance use disorders are raising awareness and educating communities about the effective services that are available, and in celebrating all recovery achievements.

And now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaim September 2021 as National Recovery Month in Santa Barbara County. And encourages all residents to support men, women, youth and their families who are in drug and alcohol addiction treatment and mental health recovery programs throughout our community passed and adopted today.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.889:19

Thank you. Welcome Miss Lopez.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed10:12

And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed10:13

we have.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction10:34

Thank you, Ms. Lopez. Thank you all for being here. We appreciate your work. Thank you. All right, well now brings us to the time

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction10:45

for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on general

public comment today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:52

Chair Nelson and Members of the Board yes we have four requests to speak on general public comment today.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction10:57

Okay I'll go ahead and close public comment and invite the first speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed11:00

And if members of the public who have registered to speak on general public comment today could please log into zoom now and provide their comments that would be greatly appreciated. We are going to begin in Santa Barbara with Katie Mickey, and then we will go to zoom for Maria Kessner, Katie.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8811:18

Welcome.

CommentKatie MickeyProposed11:28

Supervisor Williams, we thank you for writing to Governor Newsom requesting he veto two terrible wireless broadband bills SB 556 and AB 537. Remaining County Board of Supervisors, we request that you do the same. I quote Larry Ortega, President of Community Union. Top officials formerly with the California Public Utilities Commission have told me that the fees assessed on rate payers and paid by the state's utility have not been audited in at least 10 years. No one within the CPUC, the California Public Utilities Commission can confirm to this very day if fees collected from ratepayers are fees paid by the state's utility The wild, wild west of the information age has led to the digital divide crisis of today. Giving the wireless industry more deregulatory authority while the entire checks and balances within the CPUC remains out of whack and that is irresponsible.

Dismantling our regulatory agencies credibility even further is their inability to confirm if the fees collected from landline customers for upgrades are upgrades that were actually made. The CPUC's network exam published in 2019 found the smoking gun that says fees collected from ratepayers were not used to make upgrades to families living in the digital divide. Not fulfilling upgrades is the root cause why millions and millions of children could not connect to the internet during last year's pandemic crisis.

Said differently, AT&T and Verizon pre-frontier have had the luxury of being in a deregulated regime over the last decade with the expectation they would build out a world class telecommunication infrastructure. Make upgrades to the network. The upgrades never came so what happened to all the money? Almost 1.5 billion in alleged overcharges has been estimated just in the last two years in California. Until the governor can address the root causes of the digital divide, no further deference to the telecommunication industry should be gifted. SB 556 and AB 537 represent a gift undeserving to an industry who has and will continue to fail millions of our children when no accountability is present.

And in my written public comment, I share with you these pictures. I'm giving them here visually for you to see but this is part of where the money went was in special checks to Senator Ben Husso, Chairman of the Standing Committee on Energy Utilities and Communications And ANTT presented a check of $45,000 grant to his district. And then the second picture is the principal co-author of AB 537 Assemblymember Quirk getting a half a million dollar check for a project in this area from AT&T.

So there is a solution to closing the digital divide and that is fiber to the premises. Please join Supervisor Williams and Mary Murillo and write to our government, Newsom as soon as possible to veto SB 556 and AB 537. Thank

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8814:45

you.

0:14 – 0:2012 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:49

We will now go to Zoom with Maria Kessler to be followed by Jeffrey Schwartz who is our final speaker

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8814:58

Miss Kessner, when you're ready.

CommentMaria KesslerProposed15:01

Can you hear me? We

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction15:03

can.

CommentMaria KesslerProposed15:03

Okay good morning Board of Supervisors I just wanted to point out that once again we are running into my daughter and I were denied entry to the board meeting last week she is disabled she is basically exempt from wearing a mask 10.4 effective date September 5 2021 at 5pm clearly states that she is exempt on page for 4.4 number I persons with a medical condition, mental condition or disability that prevents wearing a face covering. We were actually denied entry and we were directed to the courtyard where the county has a setup for people that cannot wear a mask. And this goes directly against your own order. And I just wanted to point out again, just like you deny us our first amendment right to clap in approval of a comment You are again violating the rule of law on your own, your own county order.

And I think this needs to be pointed out because I think the public needs to realize that individuals that work, that our government employees or representatives they ignore oftentimes that are ignorant of the rule of law and are operating under the reputed authority of the government are basically the biggest violators of the rule of law on a regular basis That was basically my public comments. Thank you very

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8816:43

much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed16:48

We will now go to Jeffrey Schwartz on Zoom, who is our final speaker.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8816:54

Mr. Schwartz when you're ready.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed16:56

Can you hear me?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8816:58

We can.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role16:59

Okay again I'd like to give credit to Chairperson Bob Nelson for at least mentioning And talking in positive language about human rights, constitutional rights, natural rights and bodily autonomy. The right of individual people to decide for themselves what goes into their body and not the government deciding what goes on into their bodies. So Chairperson Nelson is the one person on this panel is talking about these things, and that's really good. But the rest of you don't seem to be talking about this at all.

We hear some of the people on this board saying well we govern through science but that's not what you're supposed to be doing. You were forced to swear to say an oath to defend the Constitution And not to defend science and especially science from your government paid or industry people. And one of your people on the board admitted she will not even listen to any dissenting opinions because she thinks there's a consensus, and if anybody is outside the consensus, she doesn't even want to listen to it. So that's her restricted science but you're not supposed to be governing by science. You'll both be governed according to the Constitution And the Constitution clearly lays out our individual rights.

Do you really want to set up a two-class society? Because that's what you're doing, and the Germans did this in the 1930s under their awful leader as you remember him but they had a term for this it was called the Untermensch And this was a Nazi term for the non-Aryan inferior people. It means in German, it means the under man or like the subhuman man. And so are you considering anyone who doesn't take these injections sub human? Cause you're treating us like that. You're saying we can't travel. We can't go on to transportation. We can't come to your meetings if we don't cover our faces, which for some people is either against their religion or against medical advice. So you are creating a two class society and I'm wondering how far is this going to go?

Are you going to insist that we go into locked quarantine facilities, very similar to what happened in World War II where the Japanese people, Japanese Americans were interned in America in large numbers. They're already building these locked facilities all over Australia. So is this going to happen here? And I think you need to start talking about our human rights, just like Bob Nelson is. I want to hear everyone say how far is this gonna go? How far are you gonna go discriminating and persecuting the people who refuse to take these injections?

CommentMaria KessnerProposed20:16

Thank you Mr. Schwartz that is your time

0:20 – 0:226 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed20:20

And that was our final speaker.

CommentHills Cannabis Cultivation AppealProposed · by introduction20:21

All right, Mr Chair, I should have said under a 26 but I did want to not let that And I'm glad that the board passed that along with the consent calendar, but it is National Drive Electric Week. The first week in October and it's no accident that it's the same time as Clean Air Day. It's right after Clean Air Day. And it's for people that are thinking about saving a whole lot of money now that gas is approaching $5 a gallon. It's a great opportunity to get out there, a lot more selection of cars and because northern Santa Barbara County is already I'm getting their energy from 3 C E. That means that people who live in the northern half of the county can already get better vehicle incentives. Check out the website for three C E or email myself or Joan Hartman, who are your two representatives on three C E board.

And shortly, beginning next month, South County residents will also be getting their energy from 3CE and can get those same incentives for electric cars or for electric charging through our energy provider community, Central Coast Community Energy, 3CE.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction22:00

Thank you Supervisor Williams. Back to Madam Clerk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:04

Yes, thank you Chair Nelson and members of the board. And just for clarification in regards to Supervisor Williams comments that was for administrative item number 26 sponsored by Supervisor Williams to adopt a resolution proclaiming September 25th 2021 through October 3rd 2022 as National Drive Electric Week.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction22:22

Thank you for keeping us on track with that. That's the conclusion of the administrative agenda and public comment.

The next item is departmental item number one. Madam Clerk will you please read that item into the record?

0:22 – 0:274 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:34

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on the coronavirus disease 2019 COVID-19.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction22:47

Welcome Dr. DeRionne Pollard.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed22:49

Good morning chair Nelson and members of the board. Madam clerk may I have my slides? Next This morning's briefing will go over the COVID-19 dashboard, give your board an update on the booster conversation, update on our testing capacity as well as giving your board an update on our flu season. Next from our dashboard As of September 20th, we have 76 new cases.

And this is a decrease from the two week average of 105. We have 473 active cases, and this is also a decrease from a two-week average of 554. That brings our total cases to 41,402. Our testing, our case rate per 100,000 As of September 16th is at 16 with a testing positivity at 4.2. Unfortunately, we reported three new deaths. These are two individuals 50 to 69 years of age and one individual in the 70 plus year of age range. The individuals resided in Orchid and Santa Maria.

We currently have 45 individuals hospitalized with 12 in the ICU. Our total death is at 497. Next, this is our case rate over the spans of the pandemic. We are currently reporting our case rate at 16. So that is a decrease of roughly 35% over the last two weeks. Next This is comparing case rate by vaccination rate as of September 9th. The top line, the red line describes the trend for unvaccinated individuals and the case rate is at 30. Our countywide rate is the middle line, the gray line so it is at 17.2. The lowest line, vaccinated individuals at six point two. So so as of nine, nine cases were four point eight times more likely to be unvaccinated than vaccinated. Next.

I'd like to share with your board this is a sometimes it's always good to compare our case rate with at the state level and at the national level. So, the blue line describes... And this is case rate per 100,000 per day with a seven-day average with no lag. And so, the top line, the blue line is the national rate at a case rate of 42.79. And California is described by the orange line With the case rate at 14.56, our county Santa Barbara is described by the green line and again our case rate is at 16.68.

So this is really a good depiction of what's happening around us. And just if you are interested, slow case rate is at 27 and Ventura is at 15. Next. This slide describes our hospital capacity as of September 19th. We have 63.2% of our hospital beds in use and we have 70.1% of our staffed ICU beds in use, so our hospital capacity has slightly improved this week but we are still very close to the red zone

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed27:32

Next.

0:27 – 0:3610 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed27:38

Our vaccination rate as of September 19th, we have 67.4% of eligible Santa Barbara County residents as fully vaccinated and again it's still roughly one in three eligible persons in Santa Barbara County is still unvaccinated.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed28:01

Next.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed28:06

We continue to see modest increases at the zip code level and vaccination level by zip code is available on a daily basis on our publichealthsbc.org under the vaccination tab, and you can hover over a particular zip code and see and track the changes in those particular zip codes next. So from the previous slide, this is the highlight we are distilling key takeaways.

The greatest percent increase from previous week were observed in the following zip codes. In the Los Alamos, the Santa Maria, Cosmolia, Antonio, the Guadalupe, Santa Maria Sisquauk and Gary. And lastly, the Lompoc Vandenberg Village, Mission Hills, Concepcion and Acorn. We are seeing more than what we were anticipating. And so this really again is a A combination of continued effort and outreach with our partners in these particular zip codes, as well as the availability of the mobile vaccination clinic. As well as community members being ready to be vaccinated next.

Current outbreaks, we are reporting 58 active outbreaks with nine among businesses, 28 among schools and 21 among congregate living facilities. Next. With regards to the Pfizer booster shot, last Friday The FDA advisory panel voted to recommend the Pfizer booster shot for 65 years and older or those at high risk of severe COVID-19. The panel also supported authorization, so this is not a vote they supported Authorization for healthcare workers and others at high risk of occupational coronavirus exposure. So, booster programs cannot begin at the local level or at the state level until the FDA has made their formal approval and CDC issued the clinical guidance.

Next. I'm just wanting to share with your board that we continue to prioritize preserving our testing capacity in our county. And so what this means is that we continue to work with employers, so that they can have a direct contract with the state for free employer-based testing. We continue to support our Goleta Valley Community Center, our built in community center testing, Santa Maria Fair Park testing as well as supporting our two testing sites based out of our healthcare center in Santa Barbara and in Lompoc.

Next? We are happy to announce finally that we are adding to our testing capacity. So it is confirmed that the mini bus will be coming next Monday on September 27th, it will be parked at Direct Relief in Goleta. The capacity is 168 tests per day It will be open from 9 to 5, Monday through Friday. Appointments can be booked at our website publichealthsbc.org forward slash testing or walk-ins are accepted as long as there is space available next well it is Once upon us again, the flu season. The Santa Barbara County Public Health Department wants to remind your board and our community that the flu season has arrived. Flu vaccination will be very important especially because we are still in a pandemic to reduce flu and to reduce the overall impact of respiratory illnesses on our community.

Getting the flu vaccine is an essential part of protecting our health and our family's health. Flu vaccination reduces the risk of flu illness, hospitalization and death in addition to other important benefits. The CDC continues to emphasize the importance of flu vaccination beginning September and for the entire flu season. Flu activity can peak in the coming months, in particular in December Thank you very much.

A places where individuals can get vaccinated, it is so convenient. The vaccine is the flu vaccine is available from your regular health care provider as well as retail pharmacies and in addition many employers like our county schools colleges universities also offer them. And if individuals don't have a doctor that they regularly see, flu vaccines will also be made available through our local health department and our vaccine clinics. And there are pictures from previous years where your board participated in our flu season kickoff by getting vaccinated.

Next. I'd like to end my briefing by sharing with your board an example of our outreach. This particular effort focuses on the facts about COVID-19 vaccines. This graphic is available in both English and Spanish, and will be shared widely through our platforms and our partners And it really just addresses some of the facts that we want to make sure that everyone is aware. That researchers took no safety shortcuts, large studies show that the vaccine is safe.

Another fact that the vaccine helps your body produce antibodies but cannot change your DNA. Another fact, the vaccine cannot give you COVID-19 because it does not contain a live virus strain Fact, it does not have egg proteins and can be given to people with egg allergies. Fact the vaccine can cause mild side effects that resolved in a few days. And lastly fact there is no evidence that the vaccine causes infertility.

So with that my briefing ends.

not transcribed≈25s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction35:56

Thank you Dr. Dovonoso questions from the board?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed35:59

Yes,

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction36:00

Mr. Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed36:01

Supervisor Hart? Yeah I just had a question for Dr. DiIorino about the flu vaccine. Are you planning to come back to the board to give us our shots at a future board meeting?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed36:11

Yes, our team is ready and available to join me at our next board update in October. So we will be there with flu vaccines for any board members or those in attendance who wish to get a flu vaccine.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed36:32

Thank you very much for that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed36:33

And I'm going to remind everyone to wear short sleeve shirts.

0:36 – 0:547 turns

CommentMaria KessnerProposed36:39

Thank you Professor Hart Any other questions from the board? I

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction36:44

had a quick question about, there was a lot of talk last year about the flu season and having very low presence of flu in the community. And looking on the dashboard it seems that that is also true. What is the expectation understanding this last year and what we're looking at moving forward?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed37:06

Right. Great question, Chair Nelson. So what we experienced last year was very unique in that we were still there wasn't a lot of mobility in the community. We were still under quite a few restrictions. Everyone was masking social distancing and really limiting their outings and their gatherings so that on top of the flu vaccine Really precipitated us in a good space where we did not see a lot of flu infections and flu deaths in our community, and in other communities as well. This year is a little bit different. We for the most part have resumed normalcy there is no restriction on gathering social distancing. And people have resumed for the most part, their normal typical activities. So we wanna make sure that everyone will continue those precautions as well as take the flu vaccine so that we can keep flu circulating at a very minimal level.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction38:14

Thank you. Have we had any positive flu cases in the county?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed38:17

Not that I am aware of.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction38:19

Okay, thank you. All right. I also had some questions for HR on the testing and vaccine policy. I understand that I've got a lot of questions from various employees in the county over the last couple weeks on the progress, and I think HR has a slide that they can provide for the public and for our employees.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed38:50

Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. This is Maria Elena, the county's HR director, and I actually have for you a presentation More of an update in terms of where we are with the policy, the county employee vaccination verification and testing policy. As well as specifically the question that you had for us which is on the exemptions. So that's what I'll cover today with me for today's update is Joe Cresano. Our division chief for employee relations, Carlos Silva's Employee Relations Manager and Victoria Tuttle from County Council.

And so the next slide please. So here we have this is specifically the question that you had for us on the exemptions So it can get a little complicated and can be confusing. At the end of the summer in July, we had this state health order start. We received the beginning of three state health orders at the end of July and into August there were total of three state health orders. And basically those state health orders work for a very specific group of our county employees And it was pretty much a vaccination mandate that for our public health, our PUF clinics and B-Well specific employees in their correctional detention and Santa Maria Juvenile Hall and Los Vietos Boys Camp.

And it's a vaccination mandate that said that you had to have your vaccination. And if not, you could have exemptions and there were only two exemptions based on medical or religious reasons. And in order to get those exemptions we identified the declination form and Through that declination form, you'd still need to go through weekly testing. So it was a very specific group of our employees.

It was not the whole county with just these specific groups and it was a mandate for vaccines and the exemptions for those are just these two medical and religious and the form for Is through this declination form, and then it was weekly testing. So that was a very specific group and there are the deadline for those are coming up September 30th for most of the clinical groups and then for the correctional and detention they have until October 14th To ensure that we meet those mandates.

So then at the end of the summer in August, a couple weeks ago, right? August 27th, our county board approved the counties employee vaccination verification or testing policy. Vaccine mandate, but employees had to verify to us that they have their vaccines. Or if they didn't want to show us any kind of documentation, they could choose to go through a weekly testing process and so exemptions are really not necessary since we're not mandating the vaccine and Again, there's no necessary exemptions for testing except for we are creating a form that if our employees are not comfortable with the PCR testing that we will consider an alternative for that PCR testing. But it is not an alternative for the testing itself. Our employees still have to have some kind of testing on a weekly basis, because that is the policy.

You show documentation or you go to weekly testing so the PCR can't if you don't want to do the PCR testing we can look at an alternative type of testing and we are still developing that form And we hope to have that before the deadline of September 30th or soon thereafter. So those are the two different policies, the mandate from the state health order and then the county's policy for the rest of the workforce that did not fall under the state health order.

Then we had our own local health officer order that has been in place for the overall county around face masks that went into effect and will be expiring on October 5th, around face masks. That all of our employees need to be wearing face masks while indoors performing their work in county buildings The exemptions are if you, our employees are working alone in an enclosed office with a door without any other employees in that office or when they are actively eating or drinking.

And if there are issues for our employees with the face mask requirement, our employees can file through or request through Title VII The ADA accommodations process. And there are protocols for that, that our employees can follow to request those accommodations. So since August 27th we have been fielding numerous questions from both our union leadership and our department managers and department directors.

And we are answering those questions And we are posting those on our HR intranet, as well as the forms. The declination form is there and that's our link there. And when we finalize the request for alternate COVID-19 testing, that form will also be there. We will continue to meet with our department representatives as well as our union representatives. And so if our employees have any questions, really the best approach is for the employees to meet with their supervisors and managers, the HR rep at the department level, union leadership because our ER teams have continued to meet with them And then, of course, county HR.

The HR internet site is going to be a good place for them to get information and answers to their questions. So that's our in terms of the policy distinction because it can get a little confusing. I thought it'd be helpful for us to take a look at our numbers in terms of who does this policy impact? So the next slide please. So here's where we stand as of yesterday. The numbers have adjusted a little bit from the last time I presented the numbers and that's only because our elections workers are no longer with us, several of our seasonal workers are no longer with us so the total county workforce has decreased And that overall helps the testing numbers. So now we are at 72% vaxxed and verified as compared to, we were at the end of August, we were at 49.3% vaccine verified and now we're at 72%.

And so currently we're at 28%, if we were to look at our testing population, Those that are vaxxed and verified or the rest will be considered our testing population. However, the deadline for our work, our departments was last Friday to get us these numbers but we're still processing a few more departments. We have three or four that are still trying to collect those numbers So we think that these numbers will shift included in the 28% are also employees have the first shot, but they don't yet have the second shot. And as you know, the definition of fully vaccinated is when they have completed the two shots and are beyond them to the second shot so Those individuals are still not considered fully vaxxed. And so they're kind of still in that 28%.

So the numbers will adjust a little bit as we head into the 930 deadline date, but we're looking much better than we were in August and so these numbers will continue to adjust So as we look at right now, the 28%, let's take a look at the next slide that will tell us what our testing process is going to be for this 28%. Next slide please. So here's our testing implementation update for you.

So based on what our departments were saying to us in terms of operational needs, we've identified locations where we will have the testing done. We're looking at the Santa Barbara Administrative Building location since that's a great number of employees, a pod of employees. We're looking at Santa Maria, Calle Real and then we have department specific based on operations and total numbers The fire sheriff, public health, public works and social services are departments that will most likely run their own testing locally as that will help them operationally.

And we've have asterisks on all of this because locations and times need to be determined based on the actual numbers of employees that need to be tested. And we are still processing that. We are happy to report that we have contracted with Color Platform and the Valencia Laboratory as our vendors for the dashboards. That's where we will manage the results of the testing.

Valencia Laboratory will provide us the drop boxes in the Santa Maria area, in the Santa Barbara area and they will test our specimens. We have made the decision to hire medical assistants for our county locations, and this will help in ensuring that we have. Observers and record keepers for this process, they will deliver to the drop boxes. They will be trained and have the appropriate protective equipment that they will need so that Managers and supervisors aren't the ones that are actually doing the observing. If you recall, the test is a self-test but someone still needs to observe and record and make sure that the test kits are handed out appropriately and the employees are instructed correctly and that the record keeping and all of that is done adequately.

And so Here's the implementation where we need to order the kits and you've heard on the news that there's a bit of a backlog with the kids because all employers are having to go through this. The county is not the only employer And so Color Platform is not allowing us to just throw a number out there for the total number of kits that we can order. They really want us to be very diligent and specific in terms of the total kits we can order, and so having that number nailed down is really important.

Once we have that, we can order and then employees can register onto the Color Platform site. Employees will get their emails so that they'll know when to go. Weekly appointments will begin. Then the dashboards can start getting managed and then should there be a positive We already have the protocols through the Cal OSHA standards as to what management is informed, as to what we need to do and follow should there be a positive result.

So that's our process right now. But you know, the ground is always moving and we've got a good team in place with partnerships with county council and my employee relations team That we've been pretty agile in adjusting and adapting as we need to always in communication with the unions. They've been good partners as well, and our job is to make sure that we keep the lines of communication open.

And we need to adjust as we need to when we get more information but so far that's I'm available for the next slide and to answer your questions if you have any questions for me.

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

0:54 – 1:0229 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8054:12

So even though we're at 72%, that still leaves a little over 1,200 employees. It looks like that we're talking about testing so curious out of that 72 I mean up and above the 72%. Do we have any idea how many have already taken one shot? So they're on the path to getting out of our testing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed54:32

Yes, the number is somewhat small. It's not going to make a big dent right now from what we've looked at. Again we still have four departments and one of them is a pretty big one so I'll get more later.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8054:51

Yeah and then I don't know if this is for Dr. Reynoso or not but is it Is it proper to be getting tested while you're in the protocol of getting your shot? So what I'm saying is like the people that are getting their shots, they're still from what I'm understanding we're still going to require them to be tested until they're two weeks past their second shot.

So does it make sense to test people as as they're in that protocol?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed55:20

That's a great question, and I don't have an answer to that. But I will check with my team for a response right now.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8855:32

Thank you any other questions from the board?

CommentMaria KessnerProposed55:35

I've got a couple of questions for mistake will borrow.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction55:38

If you go back to slide.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8855:42

I think it's like 2. So that first column there, the state health officer

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction55:50

order requirement. Do we have any idea of how many employees fit into that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed55:58

Let's see... I don't have that right off hand. Carlos or do you happen to have that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed56:11

No, no we don't actually have that number.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction56:13

Okay. Because I guess it was kind of concerned because I think there's been some confusion out there on which column somewhere in place fall into. I've heard from people outside of those departments at being asked to fill out the medical and religious exemption piece, which don't seem to fall under that state help officer order so I think maybe some clarification might be helpful for our employees so they know where they're at with My other question is with the medical and religious exemption. What is our certification process on that? Are we accepting self-certification of a medical or religious exemption?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed56:49

For the medical exemptions, we are requiring a physician's note or verification of such and we go through that accommodation process for that. And for religious exemptions under the state health officer order it's simply a completion of the declination form claiming a religious exemption.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction57:06

Okay so no further verification beyond that? Not at this time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed57:10

Okay thank you.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction57:13

All right that answers my questions Supervisor Lavinio.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8057:17

Well, I think that brought up another question kind of putting those two together for me and I guess we don't have the information but something I'd like to see is out of that 1200 employees that we have, how many of them actually fall into the first bucket that are required by the state. So that way that kind of limits us knowing how many we're going to have to test so just like that information later. Thank

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction57:36

you. All right. Okay. Thank you. I think at this time will go to members of public that are available for public comment here or yes, Dr. Doran also please

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed57:47

Yes, Supervisor Lavendino through the chair. I did receive a quick response from my team and yes while the staff is getting their vaccine they will still need to test you are not exempt from testing until you are fully vaccinated and that is two weeks after your second shot.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed58:12

All right thank you

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction58:12

Dr. Bernoso All right, so Madam Clerk can we go to the public comment on this item? How many speakers do we have?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed58:19

Chair Nelson and members of the board. We have four requests to speak on this item.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction58:23

Okay I'll go ahead and close public comment and ask the first speaker to join us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed58:27

Chair Nelson members of the board as noted we have four requests to speak on this item and if you are a member of the public and have registered to provide comments on departmental item number one our COVID-19 update please log into zoom now. We will begin with Maria Kessner to be followed by Jeffrey Schwartz

CommentMaria KessnerProposed58:48

Miss Kessner when you're ready.

CommentMaria KesslerProposed58:50

Good morning, can you hear me? We

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction58:51

can.

CommentMaria KesslerProposed58:53

Okay so I sent you my public comment last week and I'm going to read what I wrote you the entire argument rests on the fact that this is the test, the PCR test on EUA status that this pandemic rests on which is now null and void. The PCR test that is currently under EUA status And will be retracted at the end of this year, not some new approved PCR tests they are now going to use from here on.

And basically I also included to you the Cormen Drosten report review which identified 10 flaws involving the RT-PCR test that has been used for identifying COVID-19 all this time and it was basically identified by 22 top scientists in the world. Okay, so there's a total lack of fact deduction and enormous censorship on scientific fact finding here is a huge red flag. There is no consensus in the medical and scientific world on COVID-19. There is solely a consensus in the bureaucratic world on COVID- 19 which makes it highly suspect of this being a political agenda with an army Between quotation marks, useful idiots that was a term used during the communist revolution. Excuse my French stepping in line to implement this tyrannical agenda. Klaus Schwab founder of the World Economic Forum surely published his book COVID-19 The Great Reset on this entire premise that COVID- 19 is to be used as a pretext To weigh in some ideological agenda coming from global elitists who use the political class to materialize this, bypassing the consent of the governed.

I'm an immigrant from The Netherlands. In The Netherlands they now instituted a QR code for individuals so they can have their ID, they have a digital ID and their entire medical history can be tracked by governments. Okay? And we're not consenting to this agenda and we're not going away. And I would like to say, we expect that you do your homework on the science and answer our questions. What is the foundation? You base your blanket policies on which have gone unanswered through our California public records request and are met with slide shows that could be picked apart by anyone who pays attention And I would like to also remind you that the slideshows you put up, where are your sources? Where do you get these numbers from?

Your sources are not identified on your websites and we're going to address this. We're gonna follow-up on our public records request because this is outrageous. This is pseudoscience. Anybody that questions anything that comes from government bureaucrats is silenced And there are thousands, literally hundreds of thousands of reports of medical professionals that are questioning. And as you can see the FDA is retracting- Thank you Ms.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:02:02

Kessler, that is your time. Thank you.

1:02 – 1:0912 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:02:07

And unfortunately Jeffrey Shorts has not rejoined us so we're going to Amy Smith to be followed by Jennifer Smith.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:02:16

Welcome Ms. Smith.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:02:18

Can you hear me?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:02:19

We can.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:02:20

Can I just ask you since I joined late, is this the health report or public comment generally?

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:02:26

This is in regards to the COVID-19 update.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:02:29

Update right.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:02:31

Please keep your comments to the COVID-19 County response.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:02:36

Okay. Um, I, you know, I am very concerned that it has not been demonstrated that this is a more serious situation than a normal flu And all of these protocols are being put into place. Coercion is being put on employees through the testing regimen to get this gene therapy that's being claimed as a vaccine, but you know the definition of vaccine had to be changed in order to consider it a vaccine and just as the definition of pandemic had to be changed in the last decade To make this a pandemic that we would respond to in a different way than we would to, you know, typical bad flu year. So this is very concerning pattern and I don't see evidence being brought forth. That this is a unique situation that warrants all of these major changes to the way the county is functioning and the way employees are being treated.

And coming from even the President of the United States, telling companies what to do as far as their employees' health, turning employers into doctors, you guys into doctors. That's not what your experience set is. That's not some decisions that you should be making. I understand that people in the health Department are doctors, but they are apparently not looking at all the evidence. For example, the fact that the breakthrough so called cases which is another trick of language to call it a breakthrough case when a vaccinated person gets the sickness instead of a sickness a case.

is to try to give the impression that the vaccine is protective in a way that hasn't been demonstrated to be, especially with the Delta variant. So now that we know that it's not protective, why are we coercing people to get it? Why are we not testing the vaccinated just as we're testing the unvaccinated since both are capable of spreading it as even the health officer has said in the past on these meetings. So this bias shows to me or makes it appear to me that this is about promoting A product about product placement for the pharmaceutical industry and not about public health. And then it's also about surveillance and whetting the appetite for data that the big tech industry that's grown up around us, and is monitoring more and more aspects of our life would like to know about people's health information religious beliefs All kinds of private things that you have no business asking for if we have a right to privacy in the United States, which the Bill of Rights claims.

We have so I continue to be very disturbed. I continue to wonder why there isn't more being done to prevent illness. We've had 18 months. We could be helping people get off with diabetes We will now go to Jennifer Smith to be followed by Jeffrey Schwartz, who is our final speaker. Welcome.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterJennifer Smith I'mimmune compromised patienProposedself-stated1:05:45

Good morning, my name is Jennifer Smith I'm a resident of the third district and I'm speaking today in my individual capacity as a county resident. And i'm speaking on behalf of immune compromised patients who have taken the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. And as you already are aware, immune compromised patients who have taken either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines have already been authorized to take a supplemental vaccine shot in order. And the purpose of that is is to get them the equivalent protection that the general population has with the two dose regimen.

But unfortunately. No action or guidance has been issued for the immune-compromised patients who have taken the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Unfortunately, with the way things are right now, only 7% of the nationwide population that is fully vaccinated has taken the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and nationwide approximately 3% of the adult population is immune compromised so we know that this is a small minority but it is a very vulnerable group. And the severe or moderately immune compromised, sometimes it's more obvious right? It's people under Current cancer treatment, people with severe HIV and other conditions, transplant recipients. But others who are moderately compromised are our friends and neighbors in the essential workforce. These are people who may have autoimmune conditions and take medication that suppresses their immune response.

My understanding is that various hospital systems and communities across the nation have authorized immune compromised patients who took the Johnson & Johnson vaccine to take a supplemental dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine. I'm also hearing that the CDC is starting to crack down on things and I understand that providers and municipalities are worried about liability.

But I think it also needs to be considered that there's risk from inaction as well. And it's a difficult tension between getting ahead of this thing, but also waiting for the appropriate data. So I would simply ask that the county consider facilitating this group in terms of getting access to a supplemental dose If that is not possible, I would urge county leadership to use its voice and power to either communicate with the State Department of Public

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:08:57

Health. Thank you Ms. Smith. That is your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:09:01

And we will now go to Jeffrey Schwartz who is our final speaker on this item.

1:09 – 1:1616 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:09:07

Welcome back Mr. Schwartz.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:09:09

Thank you can you hear me?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:09:11

We can.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:09:13

Any, if not most of you are all well intentioned. You're thinking oh well we're involved in a very noble effort for the common good, for the greater good. We're helping mankind but you may not realize but you're just pawns and if you're naive to what's going on this is really a ship of fools, of naive people who think they're doing good but they're really not And from the very beginning this whole thing has been an assault on our First Amendment rights, on our Bill of Rights saying oh well you know put on the mask voluntarily two weeks to flatten the curve. Well that's false pretenses because this has been going on for 18 months and there is like no end in sight to this agenda And Bill Gates is already saying we're gonna be preparing for the next pandemic.

They already said in event 201, two months prior to coronavirus ever being discovered that they said it was gonna be a new normal that we're gonna have these global pandemics all of a sudden. But anyways you guys are pawns and there's a greater agenda here but in any case most Americans are starting to realize that the political mandates to wear masks practice social distancing Take these tests. These are all gross violations of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and our Bill of Rights. For example face masks and social distancing grossly impede our rights to free speech and peaceable assembly. In addition many Americans simply cannot wear face masks because of pre-existing health conditions. Other believe that face masks pose a serious risk to their health and do not believe the government has any authority to force such harm upon them.

Some raise religious objections But the mask really is the precursor. It's the inching towards the vaccines, which you call vaccines. I'm calling them clot shots or Russian roulette shots, whatever you want to call them. But anyways, people are understanding more and more understand this is tyranny. This is against the Constitution. This is against the Bill of Rights and people are going to start passive peaceful noncompliance For example, people are shopping mask-free.

They're wearing mask exemption badges. I can help people get all the information they need about how to assert themselves. Just email me, it's Jeff, J-E-F-F 489 at protonmail.com. So just email me jeff489 at protonmail.com and I will help you figure out how to assert your constitutional rights. More and more people are simply not complying With these tyrannical and nonsensical mandates. So, you know, and kudos to Bob Nelson for

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:12:16

speaking up. Thank you Ms. Schwartz that is your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:12:22

That was our final speaker.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:12:23

Back to the Board of Supervisor Lavinino then Supervisor Hartmann.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.801:12:29

Well, I wanted to ask about the outbreak that we've had in the jail and just if there's any policy changes. I was thinking we might discuss that today. I was just kind of curious if we're going to get an update on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:12:45

Supervisors, we have Under Sheriff Saul Lindberg online so I know he's been a part of the meeting this morning. So Mr. Lindberg?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:12:57

Yes, good morning Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. We have implemented testing on every shift so everybody that comes into work is getting tested. We currently have 60 inmates who are positive we've had actually three different outbreaks if you will over the past month 23 have recovered since the initial outbreak six people were cleared yesterday We will be testing inmates tomorrow from last week's outbreak at their day seven exposure. And again, we'll be testing them a date 10 of exposure.

Of the current positives 24 are vaccinated and one is partially vaccinated that inmate has received their first Pfizer shot out of the current 60 positives 7 are symptomatic 3 were taken to the hospital and given the antibody treatment And we will be doing, we are waiting to hear back on testing from another area of the MSF. We had 90 PCR tests that were done and we did antigen testing on them and they all came back negative.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.801:14:13

Good so when somebody gets booked I guess just what's the protocol? How do we handle the inmates?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:14:22

When somebody is brought in they're immediately tested And then they are put into the inmate reception center. They stay there for 14 days separate from general population, they are observed for those 14 days and before they go into general population, they are tested.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.801:14:38

Okay. And then from what I'm understanding, the custody deputies all then fall under the auspices of that they're in the bucket of the state mandated vaccine or

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:14:52

testing? Yes and no. We are testing them twice a week, the inmates. We're waiting to get discussions with CSSA attorneys as well as our attorney because the way that the mandate reads is a facility that offers medical treatment which is a little bit more than ours. The way it's written, We are doing it or the way the treatment again, the way it's written. So we're waiting to hear from the attorneys but right now we have approximately 62% of our custody deputies that have been vaccinated and we are testing everybody every two weeks. I'm sorry twice a week, twice a week.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:15:43

Thank you Mr. Lemur questions from supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.741:15:48

Yes, to Dr. Del Reno so I just wanted to follow up on Miss Jennifer Smith's question about immunocompromised people who had the J&J vaccine and whether they can get a booster and what the future looks like for that? What more we can do?

1:16 – 1:2116 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:16:08

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Unfortunately, we do not have authorization right now from the FDA The Johnson and Johnson second dose. I do know that Johnson & Johnson and Moderna, but Johnson & Johnson have published their clinical trial data and are in the process of submitting that to the FDA for evaluation so it is anticipated that within the next several weeks The FDA will be reviewing the data and offering an approval, and that's in the works.

It's a difficult position to be in knowing that some of our immunocompromised community members are looking to the Johnson & Johnson second dose. However, the healthcare community is quite uncomfortable doing an off-label use of the Johnson & Johnson and so Ms. Smith is correct, when we do off-label use we have to report it and so it puts us in a very uncomfortable position of doing something that is not under the guidance of CDC

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.741:17:42

Thank you, but we expect that there will be approval soon. So would that happen within a month you say? They're doing the tests or reviewing the tests over the next two weeks?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:17:56

It's hard to say and I had read a review or an interview that Dr. Fauci provided over the weekend and his anticipation is within two weeks

CommentMaria KessnerProposed1:18:12

All right, thank you. Any other questions from the board?

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:18:15

I have a couple quick questions for Mr. Lindbergh. Are you still available? I am still here. All right, thank you. So based on the protocols that we have for inmates entering the jail can you elaborate on how we suspect the outbreak occurred?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:18:32

We are still doing tracing on that there is the feasibility that it was an employee who brought it in And we did test all of the employees that had contact with that module. We went back eight days, I believe and we did have two employees three employees that tested positive.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:18:57

Did you have the vaccination status of those three in place?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:19:03

One of them had been vaccinated.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:19:06

Great thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:19:08

And I do need to make, I apologize, I was just notified that the inmates that come in after they're tested there in the IRC Inmate Reception Center for 10 days and then retested. And if everything proves okay, they may end up in general population not 14 days.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:19:26

All right so are we needing to do more than just vaccination to assure spread doesn't occur into the jail? Yes. We're testing everybody now right whether-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:19:39

Yes, we are testing all of our deputies that come to work per shift. The other thing we're looking at and we're working with the CEO's office regarding the feasibility of giving some type of incentive to the inmates to see if we can get more inmates to volunteer to get vaccinated. Right? Thank you Mr. Linder

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:20:01

All right. Any other questions, comments from the board? Quickly I'd like to just take the opportunity to highlight with this item that this weekend in the Santa Maria Valley we had the Farm Day. Over 4200 visits to over 13 locations and organizations such as the California Farm Workers Foundation Passed out free PPE, complimentary masks and hand sanitizers were made available at every location.

Public Health was also able to do a vaccination clinic which happened at Ryder Berries Farms and they successfully administered 55 COVID vaccines so I thought that was something to be celebrated and commended and I just wanted to thank Mary Merrillville and the Farm Day Committee for that outreach and that opportunity that they gave to the public so thank you.

With that, can I get a motion to approve item D1?

CommentMaria KessnerProposed1:21:01

So moved.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.741:21:03

Second.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:21:04

Any further discussion? Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. All right. For the purposes of agenda management, we're going to go to item number two. We'll take a small 10 minute break after that and try to wrap up item number three before breaking for lunch and closed session. And then we'll be coming back after closed session which will be approximately an hour and 15 minutes for item D4.

With that, Madam Clerk, please read item D2 into the record

1:21 – 1:428 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:21:35

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding county-wide broadband strategic plan participation American Rescue Plan Act ARPA discussion.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:21:53

All right welcome Ms. McGuitty. Awesome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:22:05

Thank you, good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board. Today we are asking you to receive and file a presentation from the Broadband Consortium of the Pacific Coast as well as the Northern Santa Barbara County Econ Alliance as well as REACH and provide comments and directions on participation in the development Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board.

I'm going to give you a little bit of introduction and background. On June 1st, your board directed staff to bring back additional information on a few focused areas when we were discussing the initial topic of the ARPA funding. So one of those areas was broadband. So over the past few months, we've been in conversation with REACH as well as the BCPC Econ Alliance and various other stakeholders on participation in the broadband strategic plan countywide. So while we're not asking your board for any I'm going to turn it over to BCPC to give you a presentation on what the development of a broadband strategy countywide would look like for Santa Barbara. So Bill, all you.

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈23s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:23:54

Welcome Mr. Simmons.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed1:23:57

You're on mute Mr. Simmons.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:24:01

Thank you very much and for a little bit of background I might just introduce Melissa James from REACH our partner who we've been working with in the preparation and planning of this presentation Melissa do you want to provide some opening comments?

CommentMadam ClerkProposed · by introduction1:24:15

Sure, I can be super brief. Thank you Bill and thank you members of the board it's great to be here with you this morning. I just was going to share a quick kind of contextual update to the project that you're gonna hear this morning and I know it was probably back in the June time frame when your board was considering You know all of the ARPA funding that is coming in and ways to deploy it, those resources to invest in economic recovery. And one of the things that was really strong and what we heard from you all was really making sure that Santa Barbara County is positioned to be competitive not just for the one-time funds that are coming into The county but for the many funds that are out there at the state and federal level to invest in economic recovery.

And so as you consider the project before you today, this has really been developed with that spirit in mind. How to position Santa Barbara County and the broader Central Coast region to be competitive for infrastructure investment related to broadband, being able to capture as much of the investment at the state and federal level. To invest in kind of middle and last mile broadband deployment to support the economic I'm going to start by saying thank you to all of you for joining us today.

A region, the broadband consortium of the Pacific Coast our umbrella organization looking at broadband. Strategic planning and deployment for the tri counties region is proposing this project before you but what we're really excited about is the partnership that has been cultivated over the last several weeks between BCPC, the Econ Alliance, REACH and then our partners in Ventura County from the EDC as we think about ways to enhance the broadband deployment for Santa Barbara County but also thinking about how to move forward in a larger regional context. So I think that is all I have to share this morning. I know that Bill's going to talk through The proposal and happy to join in the conversation as we move forward. So with that, I'll kick it back over to Bill Simmons.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:26:38

Thank you Melissa. I'm also joined by Maria Kelly from reach and she's a subject matter expert doing an awful lot of deep diving into funding funding sources what legislation is happening where it's happening and what's happening? And so she is going to probably help me do cleanup at the back end of the next 12 minutes from now all the things that I might have forgotten Let's move on with the slides.

First slide. If you don't mind going back, Melissa introduced the organizations here. My comment to that slide is that you can't find a business license for the BCPC. You can't find a 501c3 designation for a consortium. I mean the consortia It is a virtual group. It's a collaboration, it's a group of organizations working together. The stakeholders are wide, broad and large in terms of who are in consortia. We have municipalities, we have telecommunications companies, we have economic development groups, we have all kinds of folks. I mean, we literally have a database now with several hundred people that have been to our events, been part of it across the tri-county area We are very thankful for the County of Santa Barbara, for the letters of support.

We've been around since 2014 and we're funded by the California Public Utilities Commission. And we'll talk about this in the next couple slides. Our job is to help the California Public Utilities Commission bring into alignment the various counties throughout the state of California and their consortium across the state of California And with that in mind, we as a consortia reach out to all the organizations. Our metrics is how much money is coming to the local area to take care of broadband projects. So getting ahead of myself and this presentation will pause a couple of times for questions and answers. I'm going to provide you a little bit of background about the consortium. We'll talk about the tri-county area. We'll talk about the strategic planning process and the proposal before you.

Well, really very happy to be joined by the Chumash tribe as a real leader in terms of broadband in the Northern Santa Barbara County area. And we'll talk about what they've been doing and then we'll do a wrap up and summary. So next slide please. A little bit of history about who we are. Next slide. I mentioned to you that there's a number of consortia across the state. We've gone through two different funding cycles now. There's other consortia that have gone through three funding cycles Our Tri-County area of Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Party. We came online a little bit late in 2014. There had been a funding cycle ahead of us but we've been playing catch up and doing a good job at it. And as I repeated indicated that the Public Utilities Commission relies on us to help do to find projects opportunities develop regional strategies for funding originally CPUC was focusing us on the rural areas.

Quiama is a reoccurring topic of interest for Santa Barbara County, we've worked very hard in matching providers and seeking grants for the Quiama area. The rural areas if you will, we'll be talking about a middle-mountain network in the North County that we've been very much part of but COVID changed everything and as much as digital inclusion was important it has become imperative at this point and all the lessons learned And the new funds that have been available in the last 18 or 24 months, there is a whole lot of getting ready that's going to be required for counties all three counties to work it together.

And so this is the map of the state related to consortium and we've got the tri-county area here on the central coast. Next slide please. Our planning model is convening focus on infrastructure, the middle mile in particular And then really look at the last how middle mile can be a catalyst for the last mile. And so we'll be talking about this, I'll come through it probably two or three different times in the next six or eight minutes. But if you bring the stakeholders together those people that are talking public and private and not for private as well as the social equity partners and have a convening You notice on the lower right, there's an AITR. That means all in the room. It's kind of a cultural meme that we're trying to embed into everything we do.

We have to get everybody in the room and it has to be stakeholder driven. Everything has to be local as well. It is local within the county. It is local within each community. Our end goal, the mandate is internet for all. That's the whole purpose of broadband We have to have all in the room to be able to get to that kind of solution. And so this is the model, we'll keep coming back to it as we go and talk about it further and talk about the strategy as well as what's been happening with the Chumash. Next slide please.

Okay, so let's talk about the state of broadband in the Tri-County area next slide but before I do that I have to tell you, broadband to a lot of people is a very complex issue and you have to almost swim in this for awhile to be able to understand all the terms. Cable fiber DSL satellite fixed wireless mobile broadband three other terms I would say long haul middle mile.

Last mile, these are all part of the broadband lexicon. And if you think about all of these pieces and parts, the answer is yes. They're all components of broadband and it's the complexity of understanding this ecosystem for lack of a better word of how these pieces connect together in terms of broadband solutions for communities that we're trying to help provide education and knowledge and those kinds of things.

I want to also mention based on one of the public comments that you had earlier today We're as a consortium, you know as a movement for broadband we're technology agnostic. You know it's what everything in terms of the conversation what we all agree upon is the need for fiber. It really is about creating a fiber grid about providing a fiber backbone. No matter what technology you're using you're going to need to have the fiber connections for backhaul and so Backhaul is your long haul fiber. It's what goes from San Francisco to Los Angeles down the railroad tracks coming through the county, then you have your middle mile it's what is available to interconnect the communities and how do you get up to Cuyama? I mean you need a connection from down here in the region up the mountain and then you have the last mile.

How do you connect every home in the neighborhood And so providing for those connections, having a conversation by which people understand the complexity of this and work for local solutions. This is where we're going what we're trying to do and what happens next. Next slide please. Frankly the state of California has been a little bit late to the party if you look at communities like Chattanooga, St. Louis, Missouri they're already Google communities they have gigabit service to every home within a radius of 800 miles if you will I mean it's a lot of other states are really have made significant investments in fiber we're getting there we got the memo and COVID has been a real catalyst for that conversation. There is this our first analysis or report card was in 2016 this is a 2020 update Not much has changed pre-COVID, but now everything has changed as we start talking about the funds that are available.

The funds that the governor has signed and working its way through Sacramento and the rulemaking that's underway. What happens is this is a good indication of business case. When you get into the highly dense areas, the LA Basin and San Francisco Bay Area, you get better grades. If you get out into the more rural areas, the service goes down and it's driven by density. It's just the way it is.

And the report card itself is structured on two facets. Number one is capacity. That speed and that is the connectivity that's available at the speed which is available But it's also governed by competition. If you have incumbents exclusively, and there may be only one telephone company and one cable provider, and there is no competition, that's a C. That's an average grade. And so if you get into some of the green areas, you'll have three, four, five competing telecoms looking for service.

The best practices have shown that when multiple players come, when there's competition in the area Then you have quality of service increases as well as lower costs. And that is really the model that we're striving for, and that's hence the imperative as well for public participation, especially in those hard to reach areas. Don't want to spend a lot of time talking about The Wall Street Journal article about San Ynez Valley. It's just when this stuff hits the news or it's not good news about broadband, it's just something to be aware of. Next slide please.

This data is about three months old, it's more accurate as well. And this is very interesting and we're focusing here on digital inclusion. Digital inclusion is not driven just by infrastructure and availability. It's also driven by people. You'll see the dark red areas which are unserved, you'll see the pink areas which may be underserved. But there's certain, you get into certain populations and certain communities in certain areas in certain towns. And there's reasons why people don't subscribe.

And we're gonna have to have strategies using social equity partners if you will that are going to help target these areas and work to make sure that we can get off for internet for all but it's gonna take some very innovative strategies very innovative collaboration and some great partnerships with all in the room to be able to do this, and I think it rivals perhaps the Census 20 effort. Trusted agents, bridge builders, those kinds of civic entrepreneurs are going to be necessary to be able to reach into these communities and enclose these gaps of the last mile if you will.

Next slide. So we're gonna switch gears and talk about a strategic planning process. Next slide. Purpose stakeholders Regional context, timeline. Recall that the slide we had where we were going to invite and talk about infrastructure into inclusion? Well this is where we really start examining through the invitations people priorities plans and participation.

And so what's important about this as well as the timing if you look at where the legislation is with SB4, AB14, the trailer bill SB156 and the funds that are coming through Sacramento. It's gonna be very important in my belief that by the end of the state fiscal year June 30th, we know what we're gonna do. We're shovel ready in terms of our willingness and desire to do it and ability to move forward. That's the timing and urgency that we feel behind this.

And so I also need to acknowledge REACH and its relationship with GO-Biz. I think that they're trying to steer this through and get the results and the imperative communicated down while we're trying to reach up, how we come into alignment in what we do and communicate back and forth between the folks with the funding to bring to the area as well as the confidence we can give them in terms of what the requirements are and the solutions required and the resources required That's really what's driving us in terms of the need for the strategy. Let me give you a further example as we go forward, next slide.

Resources I'll tell you 2014 when he started doing broadband up until COVID it was there might have been two or three of these names on the list but it is just in the last 18 months the resources available including the pending infrastructure bill from Washington DC continue As I indicated, we're funded through the California Advanced Services Fund number two on the list. They have two kinds of money digital inclusion is being one of them and in dealing with the people in the communities and opportunities for partners to receive grant funding. And the other one is the infrastructure. We have worked very hard with Quiama Frontier as a telecom has Frontier Communications has put forth a request for funding For Fiverr all the way from Santa Maria up the hill into Quiama and that request is pending, but it's taking time and energy.

And as a consortia, it's our job to make sure those proposals go in and that funding is brought home. So that's just a little bit more example of what we do and what we're trying to do countywide next subject. Next slide please. I mentioned Catalyst let me tell you about the North County next slide. Chris Jurgwin has been a volunteer of ours, visionary if you will. He has a business in the Bulton area and he came up with this vision on the right of North County Fiber Ring. And then once again that with all credit to Chris and the map, fiber rings middle mild networks are nothing new. This is something that isn't best practice from a lot of other regions we've just tailored it to the unique needs of the north county.

About 18 months, 24 months ago the Chumash had the opportunity to go for a broadband strategy grant. They did that. That grant was completed. The strategy was completed and from that this last week the Chumash received an award from CSF for technical assistance on work that they're doing in the wireless area with 2.5 gigahertz band of communications they're going to be providing the tribe as well work pre-work to accelerate the picture on the right, to be part of that North County Fiber Ring. They've also worked for with through their SEDS process for an EDA grant that grant was submitted about a couple about a month ago meant that six weeks maybe and in a similar way yesterday we found out that Paso Robles had been recipient of an EDA grant and so they've got a sizable portion of funding that are going to be going through the Paso Robles area We're looking for every community, every region that possible to that has access to the EDA funds to get those EDA funds for fiber development build out and design and engineering is really the key aspect of the EDA can fund.

And then more recently beginning at this month, the true mass submitted a request to NTIA sizable requests for fiber coming down into the Southern Santa Barbara County area connecting the reservation up in the north And so having the redundant fiber from the north and the south is really imperative. And they're moving out in terms of putting critical arms, if you will, or tributaries of this ring in place.

What is really required is to take this kind of thinking, this kind of dialogue and regionalize it not make this a pocket but really make this a countywide initiative, a county wide conversation and a countywide undertaking. And that's what, that's our proposal to you is to just take this entrepreneurial spirit, this convening of stakeholders in the partners and municipalities that are all part of that and move it forward and come up with a county posture or posture for the entire county.

Next slide please.

1:42 – 1:507 turns

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:42:53

Mr Simmons? Yes, sir. Back to that slide for just one moment. Yes. I just had a question about the Quiama Valley and the leg if you will from 166 is there any would that terminate there or is the vision that that would continue on to Kern County in Maricopa and Taft and areas that are a little bit close proximity?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:43:15

I can send it to you. I believe it went on into Maricopa I guess

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:43:20

the question was, it may be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:43:21

more. I don't have the proposal in front of me so I can't beat. I know it comes down into Santa Maria but I do recall that it makes a left turning goes towards current county as well. So there is a way in on both sides.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:43:34

I see the value of having redundancy that goes north, south and east. I was just curious on... If it's about redundancy, yeah, that makes sense but if it's about closer fiber, it might be best to serve Cuyama Valley earlier with a partnership with some of the neighboring counties that might have urban I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Chairman.

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:44:25

What we're talking about, and this is conceptually because there's conversation. This is for you to discuss and for us to continue discussing and to move forward with that discussion is coming up with a county investment with the county not being alone, with municipalities as well as with business as well. And just from the Chumash activity alone, the $50,000 in the initial reservation strategy has resulted in that fiber ring discussion With the NTIA proposal, the CSF proposal to Quyama which is Frontier's request of the state is $12.5 million. The CASF proposal that the Chumash just received this week and then the EDA grant you're looking at about $19 million that has been generated from that original start up in the north and so we're looking to keep growing this snowball.

The snowball is moving and really looking to pick up some momentum in the conversations to follow Next slide, please. So what we're asking more than anything is just to continue doing what we're doing. We had a presentation to the broadband group at SBK yesterday and we felt like that was well received and we were looking to be picking up momentum from that conversation.

The consortium as I indicated, We're not looking for a job here. You know, we want to provide SBCAG the resources they need eventually to be able to look at virtual highways the same way they look at physical highways. Provide governance and public sector oversight to these resources and to really look at the processes required to do that. Our funding eventually goes away from CPUC, you know as we move on as broadband becomes a fourth utility or we morph into something else. But that's not a governance group it's not a local group it's just that we're a resource group of collaborators and what we've got to do is embed this as organic within the region that it serves. Every municipality should be talking about a community network that links anchor institutions The county should be talking about middle mile networks that interlink the communities.

And when it comes to public safety, wildfires, disasters and events, the redundancy required, the capacity required those are conversations that are part and parcel to the broadband as a topic. So we're basically saying where we wanna continue to be a resource in the catalyst At the same time, we're well aware that this has got to be part and parcel to the organizations that are our partners that make up the consortium.

Santa Barbara County at the county level, we're looking at leadership in developing the middle mile when it comes to the jurisdictions. It's the conversations for the last mile in those neighborhoods that are underserved. The anchor institutions, they all want to interconnect. They all want to be able to do distance learning or public safety or whatever the technologies or the needs might be, the broadband infrastructure for libraries and hospitals is imperative. So that's what's next is to continue doing what we've already started and then just widen the circle if you will. Next slide please.

Our big wrap up before we go into questions and answers. Next. So we have measurable outcomes We want a picture, if you look at the middle on network for Ventura County. It took 219,000 I looked at the contract today just to do the middle mile piece of creating a community network inter connecting cities. We now know what it looks like, where we need to do fiber bills. All of these funds are coming. We need to know what to be applying for, what is going to make it shovel ready?

If you look at that map imagining our region and the cities, you see certain lines that are red, blue, green and yellow. Some exist today, some need to be built, some are underground, some are over the ground as aerial fiber And when you look at how these pieces come together and how they interconnect, they represent projects. And those projects need to be moved and discussed and agreed upon and applied for and funds come in and that's what the middle mouth piece is. There's a whole nother part of the conversation that deals with the inclusion issues and opportunities and challenges that need to be working on.

We know what the outcomes look like, we know what a strategy is. We know that there's this ticking clock in terms of the funds are available and we want to be ready for this. Why the consortium? Well because we've been doing it didn't see COVID coming. It sure has been an accelerant with like lighter fluid on the barbecue. It's changed the conversation dramatically. A mountain has literally been moved and we're talking about something it's what we've been talking about but with a whole different set of knowledge behind us in terms of the need So with that, I'm going to pause and say we're open for questions and answers. We look forward to your conversation and discussion. But before I do, Maria, there may be something that you wish I would have said.

I value your input. Would invite you to say any add anything else that I might have missed that you think is important?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:49:57

Thanks, Bill. You did a fantastic job at it. I approve of it all now. Just appreciate your time. And I look forward to answering any questions that the board may have

1:50 – 1:555 turns

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction1:50:09

All right, and just for the board's knowledge we have Director Kern from SBCAG as well as Ms. Bianchi Clement as well that has been involved in this discussion. Supervisor Williams? Well I

CommentHills Cannabis Cultivation AppealProposed · by introduction1:50:21

want to thank Supervisor Hartman for stepping up on this. I know the chair also has done so. You know there are definitely parts of my district that are not well served, Cuyama just being one of them And so I'm very excited about this. This is a hot topic statewide, you know they're really it's revealing that addressing this though it costs a big amount of money, it's a lot less than people really ever believed it would be and so that does indicate an opportunity I just wanted to understand those slides, the mapping on those slides seem to indicate places where there just was insufficient infrastructure i.e., lack of service entirely but I wanted to understand if the analysis is also inclusive of places where I suppose you could tell by price or if you understood the infrastructure Where where there.

Under served not not that they're not served or but that they're underserved I E. You know there's not enough common carrier fiber to provide enough competition to have prices that are aligned with the rest of the state is there is that is your analysis inclusive of that because I do think that's I think that is part of the problem. We don't just get a D rating because there are some rural areas that are not served at all.

My understanding is there's other issues.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:52:33

They have a physical connection to a last mile residence and it's served. The map that was there of NTIA with the red areas, if you will, that is... That was... And I don't know... I'd have to do a deep dive into where the aggregation came from in terms of data sources. But NTIa, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration They have said that that is the people factor.

They may be served, but for one reason or another they're not signing up and there's reasons for that. They're concerned about the cost. They may not be able to afford it. They may not trust who the provider is. I mean, there's a multitude of reasons and in the whole digital literacy issue is a complex issue I don't pretend to have those answers. I'm aware of those people and we're aware of those populations and we know that they exist in every community, and we're going to have to find the right partners to work with. And that's where I draw the analogy of the Census 2020.

Those hard-to-reach communities, we're going to have to find the right partners that are going to be able to help us with that same kind of fervency to be able to connect them and put in place bridge builders and trusted agents to go and connect with them. So I don't know if I've answered your question, sir. But the data is we didn't have it two years ago. We're collecting it now. It's getting better.

But I think that it's not going to be done by the Sacramento or Washington DC. There's a part of what we're going to have to do locally that we can collect that data neighborhood-by-neighborhood in our communities by getting our communities engaged

CommentMaria KessnerProposed1:54:27

Thank you, Mr Simmons. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.741:54:31

Yes your slide number nine says 25% or more of American households don't have internet access so that's a lot of people who aren't able to participate in school or businesses or communicate In other aspects, so that's a big number. I wanted to ask Director Kern if she would talk about yesterday's meeting and kind of the direction that SBCAG might be going in and then I have some additional comments.

1:55 – 2:024 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:55:09

Hello this is Margie Kern from Santa Barbara County Association of Governments And yes, we've had two meetings of our ad hoc committee from the Santa Barbara County Associations Governing Board. The second meeting we did have Bill give the presentation just as he did to you today so that was well received by our group. So the direction that I received from the group was to bring an item to the full board at their next meeting in October To discuss taking on a strategic plan for broadband and to outreach to each of the jurisdictions, member jurisdictions of SBCAG to help support that and participate in that effort.

And with the help of BCPC, And move that, move this along. So I think we are really excited about this. I think like Bill said COVID has brought this to everyone's attention of how much of a dire need it is in our region and how necessary it is for our residents to participate in our everyday life. So this is a quality-of-life issue, a transportation issue, an air quality issue It makes sense moving forward for SBCAC to be involved and engaged and make this happen. So I think, I'm hopeful when it comes to the full board that we'll have that support and then we'll take it from there.

Thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.741:56:49

And I just wanted to add that in other areas like San Diego and LA, the SB CAG equivalents are taking this on so it's would be very appropriate when we did have the ad hoc meeting yesterday. It seems like to get to a strategic plan we need an organizational structure We need to gather data, we need to develop project priorities from that data where we have gaps how we get a big picture for that.

And then we can put together a strategic plan that will bring us funding so in the funding is available now and people are looking for you know shovel ready projects and Thank you. Thank you, Mr Mayor and members of the public. I just want to start by saying that we need to get something together as soon as possible and then begin to develop it and refine it.

It seems that the county's role is largely middle mile and then although maybe it's in the unincorporated communities at some last mile. Um And So I'm going to turn it over to Margie to step up and do our share. As Margie, as Director Kern mentioned, the collaborative will be going and explaining this to other city jurisdictions and asking for their contributions so that we can move more quickly. And then this will come to the SBCAG board very soon.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.801:58:51

Great presentation by the way. And for somebody that knows nothing about broadband, so this is very helpful question I have is so understand the consortium as it was. It's kind of identified as a virtual consortium. There's no real hard fast 501 C3 or whatever and I'm curious obviously that hasn't hindered you in the past from going after funding but I'm kind of curious how that works for us Would it be better for there to be, I don't know. It just seems different for us working with kind of a group that's not super identified. I mean, I like the approach and I think it makes us more nimble but how are we, how does that normally? Usually with funding where we're set up with people that maybe there's an identified structure It might not be the best way to do it, but that's what we've done in the past.

And I'm just kind of curious how that I just want to make sure this doesn't hinder us from being able to move forward and fund and all those types of things.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:00:01

From a consortia standpoint, we are operating under the EDC, but with the funding from the California Public Utilities Commission It comes to the EDC and the partners get funded from the consortia. So, the EDC is I'd say it's an administrative partner but what drives a consortia are the conversations at the partnership level and at the municipality level by the stakeholders.

This is what collaboration is and what we're really looking at in terms of our relationship with SB CAG is for you to get that real, we're not wanting to create a new mechanism. We want you to use the mechanisms that already exist for collaboration especially on the public side. You know, you already have a relationship with SBCAG. You rely on SBCAG to do certain things. We're willing to work with them to diversify and expand the things that they do.

If we will, in terms of how we worked and get funded by the CPUC, we'll continue to do what we do and rely in partner with SBCAGS to do that I will tell you in the 3 times now that we've gotten funding from the California Public Utilities Commission. Yes, even the EDC in Ventura County is no one puts a proposal together and coordinate all of the technical content with the partners.

And then I collect layers and layers he literally an inch full of letters of recommendation because use us supervisors municipalities mayors industry And industry partners as well as wineries and businesses and ag firms. I mean, you name it, I can show you the letters in the quotes. That's what the CPUC values us for is the broad cross sector interest of all of the local folks in the region and those organizations. And that's how we get CPUC funding is we have demonstrated where a group across sector interests on behalf of the region It's not us versus they or we. It's together, we are you. I mean that's what we offer, what we provide.

2:02 – 2:1021 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:02:14

Supervisor Lavinia and through the chair, it's a good question. I just asked Nancy Anderson that should the board decide to give ARPA funds when we meet in October? And I think their request is 200,000 of the 300,000 for the study. I just asked her are there any complications technically of the ARPA dollars giving it to the consortium versus SBCAG versus us doing some part of it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:02:39

Good morning, members of the board. So this project for specifically the strategic plan is what we're understanding is really the first step of what we need to get access to other funding to have those conversations start from these other groups. Similar to like Chumash and where you're moving it through a multi-faceted project. So the project just for the strategic plan has been reviewed by the auditor controller, so it's a verified eligible project to get started for using ARPA funds for potentially a broader project. It's great to hear that SBCAG who is you know that they're The intent of this meeting is to have a conversation about infrastructure related and ultimately we would see that if the board is interested in having these other opportunities for funding because you could go to a full blown project.

That's what the board wanted to do with ARPA funding, but the intent is as Bill has eloquently indicated as part If we get state and local agencies that can pull these resources and then have SB CAG is great to hear. That they're kind of taking a lead thought process in this, in order to help figure out what that end result in construction and those types of things will be. But for the strategic plan, we need that in order to find the gaps that are countywide for our county As a starting point in order to identify those areas.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:04:20

So, Miss Anderson there's no technical reason that's what I'm trying to get at for the ARPA dollars and how their requirements or the county to give it to either the consortium or another governmental agency?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:04:33

It essentially that what we would be paying for is the services to provide a strategic plan, which was what we need in our hands. So you're paying for a service and that is legitimate.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:04:43

Perfect. Okay. That's what I want to do. Thank you, Miss Anderson. Thank you, Supervisor Levin. You know, Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hart?

CommentHills Cannabis Cultivation AppealProposed · by introduction2:04:53

I know that our decisions about these funds are going to be very difficult. There's a lot of requests, a lot of needs out there. This is gonna be kind of brutal but in this case The immediate need in this year's round of funding would just be the study. Is that true? And then any further need for capital funds, we potentially could use the next round and therefore it doesn't have to be part of the Hunger Games competition for this round of funding. Am I getting that right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:05:35

Supervisor Williams through the chair, I'll respond to that. You are correct. The intent of this, the actual strategic plan that they would be developing is not only access to ARPA funds it could be that ARPA funds aren't even the infrastructure component. There are so many other funds as he indicated that are available but you need the strategic plan to make it happen

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:05:59

I understand the relationship of the strategic plan to future grant competitiveness. Just so I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:06:03

understand where we are now The slide 15 that describes the North County initiatives that are awarded and proposed, which ones are awarded and which ones are proposed. It appears like there's about $6.5 million aimed at the Chumash plan, which they get tremendous credit for leading the way on doing that advanced work And then another $12.5 million to serve Quiama is that are some of those granted by geography for the Chumash, for example and the other one hoped for with Quiama?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:06:51

We have two of those have been awarded the first IEED, the 50k, the CSF, the 90K The EDA one, how EDA works that those conversations have been gone and in the tailored customized approach that EDA is counseled to is well underway. We don't see any hiccups. We're not getting any negative feedback from EDA. We think we're pretty confident that those will be coming. The NTIA one, the deadline for submittal of that was the early part of September And that's the $6 million.

And then the CASF1 with QIAMA, that's the California Advanced Services Fund from the California Public Utilities Commission. It's still in the hunt. We had an email out that had it listed this last week in terms of what they were still trying to process What is happening up there right now is a bit of rulemaking. The CPUC is looking at the new legislation, they're looking at what they have in the pipeline, they're trying to figure out the new rulemaking processes that will occur. It seems to be slowing things down which probably is to be expected but those are all still active and I'm believing that with a high level of confidence, there's a good chance in getting the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:08:16

trifecta. I appreciate your level of confidence. That's exciting and great. With this $6 million Chumash grant and the $12.5 million Quiama grant, is that for actually laying fiber or is that for more planning?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:08:32

Design and engineering handling. It is a fiber delivery in those cases. And I want to stress the point of collaboration. As much as the Chumash are applying for this, they're doing it under the auspices of this North County Fiber Ring and the vision of the ring is this is municipal owned. This is in the communities, the communities themselves will own fiber. In terms of the interconnects in the middle mile, whoever's applying for the funds will own the fiber But it's going to be open access where multiple providers can get to the same point using the same fiber. What the region needs is this, perhaps eventually through the SBK joint powers where you really do have open access fiber availability to all of these communities.

So different partners are going to be asking for different monies but it'll result in this patchwork quilt map of shared fiber resources, public and private.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:09:35

And maybe just to take this one more step so I understand the pieces better. If I'm looking at the map on slide 14, the $6 million request and the $12 million request actually lay do engineering and lay fiber. What length of those lines on the map would that fund?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:09:59

The one funds from the NTIA funds from the reservation down the backside to into Goleta. So it's, it's a middle link if you will. The north, the one from Quiama is funding the upper link of that map.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:10:16

From

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:10:17

Santa Maria out

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:10:18

to Quiam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:10:18

Yes. Okay

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:10:19

thank you All right, and I believe we actually have for public comment. We have Sam Cohen from Chumash Tribe. Madam Clerk can we go to public comment at this time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:10:31

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have two requests to speak on this item. We are going to begin on Zoom with Sam Cohen and then we will be going to Santa Barbara for Katie Mickey.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:10:41

Okay, then I'll go ahead and close public comment on this item and go to Mr. Cohen.

2:10 – 2:1617 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:10:49

Good morning. Turn Nelson a member of the boards can you hear me we

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:10:53

can

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:10:54

excellent it is a rare but joyous occasion when the to match tribe can lead. The county down the road for broadband development. We ended up doing a feasibility study for the lack of broadband service well actually in all of this and as Valley and especially for the reservation Which grew into an EDA grant that we partnered with the econ alliance working on for about two years, which was recently filed for a study. For the north part of the county and then along the way the NTIA had a special tribal only grant fund that had a September 1 deadline so we We're rushing like crazy people to do enough planning to get at least $6 million to explore two routes, one up Highway 101 through Buelton and eastward to the reservation. And the other one up Highway 154 to the reservation which would be your southernmost link of the broadband ring.

And then along the way, the CPUC gave their tribe a little extra money We were fortunate enough to get awarded by the FCC, the 2.5 gigahertz bandwidth over the reservation and connecting all the way to Camp 4 which is the educational bandwidth and we need to actually get 80% coverage over tribal lands and even the community of San Dines in the next five years so the CPUC money will go a long way towards that. We're happy to be a test case We've developed a lot of survey instruments that we're going to contribute to this project, and we look forward to partnering with the Broadband Consortium and REACH and the County of Santa Barbara. Thank you.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:12:51

Thank you Mr. Cohen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:12:54

We will now go to Santa Barbara for our final speaker, Katie Mickey.

CommentKatie MickeyProposed2:13:03

Thank you for your presentation Mr. Sims I am representative of safe technology for Santa Barbara County and what you described the rollout of fiber for the long haul, middle haul and last mile all sound wonderful And I would seek clarification. Can you clarify if this project involves fiber for all three halls or does it include some small cell wireless antennas for the last hall? With our state ablaze with wildfires, I just want to express the concern that having a Increase in small cell wireless antennas in our rural areas, if that is part of the whole broadband project.

Increases the potential for wildfires because the small cells are combustible and they increase the terpenes in our forests, our trees and make the trees more combustible And it also has a great increase in energy consumption, which will contribute to greenhouse gases. So I want to add a note of caution with all the wonderful description of getting Internet out to people in all areas.

I'm certainly an advocate that it is fiber optics all the way to the premises rather than small cell wireless antennas at the last leg. So, I'd appreciate your clarification on your proposal. Thank you.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:14:38

Thank you Ms. McBee.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:14:40

And that was our final speaker.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:14:41

Okay

CommentMaria KessnerProposed2:14:43

back to the board and staff. Any additional comments from staff this time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:14:51

No further comments, Chair Nelson. Just happy to answer any further questions that as indicated the ARPA discussion will happen in October 19th and the board will be hearing other ARPA workshop presentations on October 5th so more to come on that.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:15:13

And just to confirm the $200,000 asked from the county will be out of the categorical funds and not necessarily the discretionary funds that are available.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:15:22

They're eligible for ARPA funds so we were called as we call it restricted.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed2:15:25

Thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.742:15:31

I just had a technical question. Are the larger cities in our county already well served? Or would they want to participate in this

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:15:46

That question to me. Yes, please. Yes. You

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed2:15:48

know the most about it? Just checking. Um yes and yes I think it is the answers to your two questions they are already served and yet I think that even with the partners that we have in the conversations we have you know there's recognition that there's portions of those cities that may be underserved or unserved And so we've started off with maps in conversations over the years with them where we do look for gaps and where there is no physical infrastructure. A big part of this is also then going to be looking at areas that are served but for one reason or another, the inclusion aspect they're not being used and so there's a digital divide that it's more of a people problem than an infrastructure problem.

We really do our goal is internet for all. It's going to be 100% solution, it will be the fourth utility in terms of the vision that we seek and it'll be as integral to every dwelling, every family, every business as water gas electricity. So that's where we're wanting, that's our vision, that our mandate.

2:17 – 2:307 turns

CommentMaria KessnerProposed2:17:03

Right,

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:17:03

thank you Mr. Simmons. Thank you Supervisor Hartman and I just want to take an opportunity just to thank all the people in the community that have been working towards this many of them saw this coming years in advance obviously Mr. Simmons but Econ Alliance and Vicki Conners thank you for all the work you've been doing in this space and of course the Chumash Tribe And then a new partner to the county is the team at REACH, Melissa and company. And it's just gonna have a great tie in eventually with Vandenberg Air Force, sorry Space Force Base as that continues to progress and having fiber available for them and their vendors and their contractors is gonna be an essential part of developing that future industry. So I'm really excited about this and look forward So with that, can I get a motion from someone on the board to receive and file?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.802:17:53

I'll make that motion.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.742:17:55

Second. All

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:17:56

right. And just to clarify, that's recommended actions A through C. All right. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. All right, we're going to take a 10 minute break and then we'll be back to hear item number three. And then we'll be breaking for closed session and coming back after closed session to hear item number

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:18:23

four. Thank you. All right, welcome back.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:30:00

Okay at this time we'll hear item departmental and number three. Madam Clerk will you please read into the record?

2:30 – 2:4519 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:30:06

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from behavioral wellness. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County Department of Behavioral Wellness Capital Housing and Care Continuum.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:30:23

Sorry I believe we have

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:30:26

Miss Fisher with us.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:30:27

Yes good morning

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:30:29

Welcome, welcome.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:30:32

So good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board. So I'm here today with my division manager Laura Zeitz, and she is a subject matter expert in housing as well as our inpatient facility. She's a division manager with our department. And we're here today to present an update on our department's capital housing continuum, as well as our priorities for future projects to serve those receiving specialty mental health services and substance use disorder recovery services.

For today's presentation, we'll be discussing the types of facilities that are within our Behavioral Wellness Continuum of Care that are used by the clients we serve. And for ease of this presentation, we have organized our services along a continuum from the most restrictive and costly to their least restrictive and costly. Go ahead and advance the slide.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:31:27

Go ahead and advance the slide.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:31:30

So as you can see, the first setting along this continuum and the most restrictive is our acute setting. And these are for individuals with the highest level of acuity. And these are facilities that need medical and nursing support for patients. And they include our psychiatric hospitals such as our inpatient PUF, our psychiatric hospital facility, as well as other Contracted hospitals.

Go ahead and advance the next. The next level of acuity is our crisis facilities, and these are facilities that also need some medical and nursing attention with our clients. But they provide a shorter length of stay typically include our crisis stabilization units which are typical 23 hour stay or our crisis residential treatment facilities that on average have a 20.

Excuse me, have a 30 day average stay the next level is our residential settings and this encompasses a broad range of facilities that offer different service level intensities. An example of these are facilities that range. From out of county placements that aren't currently available within our counties such as Synergy's unlocked mental health rehab centers to our local in-county residential treatment programs, such as Phoenix or Mountain House. To some smaller facilities that we have in county that provide an onsite support such as Alameda house and then finally in the continuum. We have permanent supportive housing, which are housing with lower service intensity levels that provide support services to help people live independently and typically provides some case management services.

Next slide. So this slide shows the average cost per client, per night of each type of facility along our continuum. And as you can see, the most costly is inpatient services at a cost of a little over 2,500 per night and the least costly is our supportive housing which costs an average of about $15 per night and everything in between. Okay, it's really stay on the slide but it's really important to note that any gaps or insufficiencies along our continuum of care from a facility or program perspective can result in an overuse of a higher level of care. or crisis situation due to the lack of the proper resource that matches the appropriate need for the client. So either scenario really results in a poor outcome and a higher cost to our system, but also fails to meet the recovery model standard that we've adopted through systems change which is to serve each client in the least restrictive setting that's appropriate for the client.

Okay next slide. Next slide So this slide depicts the goals from the capital facilities that were developed from a community stakeholder process as well as our HART team, which is a housing action team back in 2016 and the facility types along our continuum. The goals that they had set back in 2016, and I'll discuss each of them in more detail as we go along the presentation. This is just a snapshot of all of it to go ahead and next slide.

So, as you can see, in 2016, our acute capacity was 16 beds and our detox capacity within county was 0. Next time. And today, although we still have 16 beds at our acute level. We've seen that over the past five years that we need to contract on average an additional seven beds per day. We've been able to recently mitigate some of these additional beds by adding two pilot misdemeanor incompetent to stand trial beds at our Crestwood facility which is a lot MHRC mental health rehab center. So, whereas in the past where individuals would have been previously sent to the puff to either awake a conservatorship or restoration within a locked facility because there was no other choice.

We can now send them to an end county locked which is Crestwood, which helps ease the burden and the need of additional puff beds. I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. Crisis stabilization unit and research shows there that 70 plus percent of people going to a crisis stabilization unit don't actually need an inpatient bed. So we will monitor that and see what the outcome of that is.

And then finally, you can see that in 2021 We do have 17 detox beds averaging per day in the county, although we do have contract ability up to 34 beds per day. Go ahead and advance this slide. In 2016 you can see that our identified need for in-county crisis stabilization beds was eight. Crisis residential beds was 12. We identified a need of 50 shelter beds Advance.

And then today, with the addition of the two beds I just spoke of at Marion, we will be at 10 crisis stabilization beds in county. We have 32 crisis residential beds in county and today we have 49 emergency shelter beds. Go ahead. In 2016, our residential capacity for mental health rehabilitation beds was zero. Our adult residential board and care beds in 2016 we started at 52 beds and our alcohol and drug residential beds although it says zero but we really did have a few very few specialized perinatal beds but no other residential beds And then advance the slide.

And then today, our mental health rehabilitation beds in county are 34 adult residential board and care beds we have 74 and our we are averaging per day 38 beds in residential alcohol and drug although again we have capacity to contract up to 90 if we need them go ahead and advance In 2016, we identified that we had 54 units in county and these were MHSA funded housing units.

And today we have 122 units with another 33 that are in development. This slide depicts a summary of the growth from 2016 as well as our department's remaining need and a brief description on how we were able to fund the development of our facilities to date. So, as you can see under the acute setting, we believe that we've attained or have the ability to attain our goals by shoring up our lower level crisis continuum contracting with other hospitals for out-of-county inpatient needs And we have met our detox needs.

Under the crisis realm, we exceeded our goals in most areas and this was achieved by grants from the California Health Facility Finance Authority which provided us funding to build and renovate facilities

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:39:49

for this purpose. Next. Under the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:39:54

residential facility Although we've been able to successfully add numerous beds, we still have a way to go in this area. Identifying the need of 16 additional mental health rehab center beds and 26 additional adult residential center and board and care beds. Our ability to add beds in county today has been really due to the ability to move individuals from out-of-county placements back to in-county placements and bring the funding that was with them out-of county back in county.

We also use the generous startup funding that the board gave us within the last five years and we've used Medi-Cal for expansion. And finally under supportive housing, although we added 122 beds with another 33 in development primarily through Home Key, No Place Like Home and MHSA, we still identify a need of 85 beds throughout

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:40:49

the county. Next. So, this is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:40:56

a map of our service locations. Throughout throughout the county and the next slide. And this is the same map with the overlay of the facility types I've just described within each location. So each dot represents a facility type, so the red is the acute and you can see in each region where there's an acute facility. The orange represents a crisis facility, the yellow or residential facility, and the green supported living facility. Next slide. Can we go back to

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:41:31

that slide for just a second?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:41:32

Yep, go ahead.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:41:34

So there are no facilities in Guadalupe or solving is that what I'm seeing here? There are not. Okay all right but those areas are served through those assets that we have in those other cities.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:41:50

Yes, that's correct.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:41:51

All right thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:41:54

So going forward these are our department priorities So under the residential realm are we've recently secured two additional beds at champions which I spoke of earlier, and these are for clients that have misdemeanor offenses and we hope to see them take some The heat off the puff and be able to open up some of our puff beds. And the goal is to secure an additional 16 mental health rehab center beds with at least six that are designated for conservatorship folks that are stepping down from the state hospital.

Next slide. We also want to identify opportunities with community partners for developing additional board and care and residential treatment beds. And we do want to focus on some medical fragile folks in the aging population because we know we're all getting there, and we have a higher number of them in our county. We want to explore MHSA and grant funding to support development of an unlocked MHRC.

There's greater funding for unlocked MHRCs, and facilities are less than 16 beds so we want to look at that. And we want to be able to support clients transitioning from locked facilities into an unlocked facility as just one more part of the continuum to help them Next slide, please. These are some photos of what we have developed throughout the past five years. This is a photo of the inside of our crisis stabilization unit in South County and these are, it has just an open room And these are chairs, but they do fold into beds. So somebody can go in there and then they can put the bed out and just lay down. And then there's also two rooms that the doors close and they can have quiet space in that facility.

Next slide. This is a photo of our Crisis Residential Center up in Santa Maria and it did win a design award, and again you can see the outside area as well as some inside area of this facility. Next slide. This is a photo of the Mental Health Rehab Center in Lompoc that we call Champion Center. This is And this is a photo of Depot Street and this provides supported housing, independent

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:44:58

living for individuals. And this is a photo

2:45 – 2:5114 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:45:07

of our Depot Street. This is not Depot Street. This is Lompoc. Yeah that is Lompoc. That's the famous Home Key project. But it's not called Depot. What's it called? We call it the studios. Studios, okay. It's I recognize it's Lompoc because it's where our offices used to be so this is where our clinic used to be in Lompoc and it was sold and then remodeled via Homekey and it was for homeless individuals and at-risk homeless individuals for rapid housing for them.

And that concludes our presentation and we are available for any questions you might have

CommentMaria KessnerProposed2:45:50

All right, thank you Miss Fisher. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.742:45:55

Well I think this is just an extraordinary presentation both the progress that we've made and just how Clearly, concisely it's laid out where we've been, where we are and where we need to go. I was struck in the board letter that in our jail 150 to 250 people are there because or with mental health problems sometimes very complex. And so the conclusion I draw from that is that This is where we really want to invest if we want to keep the jail population lower and treat people in a more appropriate setting for their needs.

And so I guess my question is, do these projects qualify for ARPA funding? And that may be a CEO question rather than a behavior wellness director. I mean is that what we're debating

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:47:04

or

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.742:47:04

considering

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:47:05

here today? Supervisors, so a couple of things. I think there are many that probably would but a lot of these are ongoing costs and I think that has been the challenge for the department for the county Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the public. What's the Medi-Cal match, all those things as we go forward. So the plan that we're going to bring to you I think on October 5th which is a health and human services plan it includes other types of needs that have been identified to serve mental for just serve the community regarding mental health I don't believe we have these types of housing units and support except for the supportive housing for homeless. We can talk about that when we come to the board or if you have requests that we include more, we can.

But you, the request as you know are twice as much as the funding and we're trying to for that plan they don't want to talk too much about it because We're really here talking about the capital facilities for mental health. For that plan, we are trying to look at interventions that would make the most significant impact over the next three years tied with ARPA funding.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.742:48:34

Thank you again I think it's an extraordinary accomplishment.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:48:38

All right thank you. Supervisor Hart, Williams then Labanino

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:48:41

Like Supervisor Hartman, I just want to say thank you for a great presentation. And it's very inspiring and encouraging to see the progress that has been made in a relatively short period of time. With a focused plan, persistence and creativity really extraordinary things can be accomplished. The first thing that pops into my mind is what is the next increment of planning going forward? What would you be looking to achieve in the next five years or whatever that increment is?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:49:12

I'm going to ask Laura to answer that because she facilitates our heart meeting and they are the ones who kind of set the agenda for housing going forward. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:49:24

Laura. Chair Nelson, Supervisor Hart yes we are looking at several different innovative programs Pam mentioned one of them it's an unlocked mental health rehab center provides a step down from the Champion Center level of care. We do need to develop and do some more evaluating as far as our forensic population there's a lot of changes that are happening at the state level regarding state hospitals restoration for felonies And as a good community partner, we want to look at that long term to see where we can have a positive impact. We're also tracking funds that are coming through the state for that perhaps could help us shore up the board and care and adult residential level of care. That's something that we have a meeting every week in the north and south county and the queue for those beds is quite long.

And if we had more of those type of facilities, With Medi-Cal billing to sustain them long term. I'm certain we could fill more of those beds, so we'll be looking at that as well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:50:29

Well, thank you, Laura. Like I said having a plan and having benchmarks for each of these categories going forward in time is a really great way to measure progress, have it be data driven. And I think it gets the board's attention too that investing in projects that happen encourages more investment. So I just want to applaud the department for putting this together and sharing this with us and the public.

And it's really good news story so thank you.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:50:55

All right, thank you Supervisor Hart. Supervisor Williams and Labanino?

CommentHills Cannabis Cultivation AppealProposed · by introduction2:50:58

Well, I'm glad that Laura mentioned that because I do think that there are state streams of funding that we also have to think about this at the same time. And I know that's difficult because in some of those streams of funding for instance for permanent supportive housing there's a couple sources that's coming from the state that are possible sources as well You know, we've got to figure out if we can use those. Hopefully by the time we have a decision point of whether or not to use ARPA for it because to maximize the impact that we could make in addressing homelessness and in addressing our mental health I would like to make a motion to approve the resolution.

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

2:52 – 3:0214 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.802:52:02

We probably can't have this discussion today or we shouldn't without recognizing Dr. Gleghorn, you know when Alice first got here she was like probably a little frustrated and shocked of the lack of facilities in the lack of range of what was available for treatment out there when she got here and one of the things that I think everybody should look at whether it's you know even for the most I don't want to say conservative because that's the wrong term, but for those that.

I think you can look at this a number of different ways and one of them is if you're just looking at it from a hawkish budget perspective that. This actually saves us money having more facilities, more capabilities because when you don't have those, you end up treating people at the highest level of care which is as we saw from this report can be extremely expensive.

The other thing is here in Santa Maria, bringing both Depot and the Agnes facilities brought much needed services to Santa Maria. And I also want to thank the citizens of the city of Santa Maria, especially those ones that live around these facilities is that these are historically difficult to cite and as a testament to them and I think how they Viewed these facilities more as much needed community improvements than intrusion into their neighborhoods.

I did not get phone calls of people just up in arms over the fact that the county was jamming these facilities into their neighborhoods, so really appreciate that and all the hard work and and I have to say also those from NAMI that continue to hold our collective feet to the fire in the departments and As Mona has said this really comes down The need is always going to be there. It's how do we afford this and how do we best position ourselves as Supervisor Williams said with different streams of money and making sure that we're being the most efficient as we possibly can.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:54:12

Thank you for those comments, Supervisor Levenhue. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.742:54:15

A question that I often get from people is about youth placement. And you said that we're looking at various grant opportunities, but I wonder if you could talk a little bit more elaborate and how could we make that a higher priority?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:54:36

Thank you, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So when we go if you want to go back to that slide talking about STRTPs if when we and I don't know what side it was but when we were excuse me When we were looking at STRTPs back in 2016, there was no such thing as an STRTP. What we had in county were group homes and in our county we had group homes that were from a level I think 8 or 10 to 12.

And then the county through the continuum of care reform changed everything and we no longer had group homes here, and we had to go to short-term residential treatment programs. And what they did in doing so was they offered a higher level of mental health treatment in the group homes. So while the stay in these group homes, these short term residential treatment programs have to be shorter. No longer is the child going into a short-term residential treatment program for two years, which they used to stay in group homes for a long time like that. Now they are in these short-term residential treatment programs for about six months but there's an intensive amount of mental health treatment provided within the group home so these group homes or short term residentials have their own mental health providers.

They have their own psychiatry, case managers, therapists etc. So we have two right now in county and our department has helped support them as they get up and running and we actually go out and provide the psychiatry and the therapy as they're getting licensed because there's a lot of hoops you have to jump through to get licensed now since they've changed I think there's one more right now on the horizon that we're supporting getting developed. But there is funding through Medi-Cal for these programs and we contract with them for their services, so we are supporting him in that manner.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:56:43

Thank you Miss Fisher and thank you Supervisor Hartman. Before I go to Supervisor Williams, I understand Miss Zeitz has her hand raised?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:56:51

I just as chair Nelson supervisors, I just wanted to say that although this is a huge accomplishment we have a long way to go but none of this would be have been done without Pam's leadership the leadership of Dr. Glick horn our partnerships with our community based organizations including even county departments like HCD The housing authority and really the stakeholder input from the community in the heart team. Some of the stalwart people that have been there five years pushing us hard in the right direction, and so I just wanted to acknowledge and our internal team contracts Lindsey Walter Natalia Rossi at all of us thankfully because of Doctor Gleghorn has had a dedicated team to make this happen and without those things in place you wouldn't see these achievements.

So I just want

CommentMaria KessnerProposed2:57:41

Thank you for that acknowledgement. Supervisor Williams?

CommentHills Cannabis Cultivation AppealProposed · by introduction2:57:45

I think it's clear that there are parts of our continuum of care that need to be expanded and this was a really helpful presentation in seeing where the areas of greatest need in that continuum are, and of course I've seen time and time again People who don't end up in permanent supportive housing, or in, you know, some of these other facilities eventually finding their way to the puff so I think the logic of the departments.

Priorities for expanding the continuum of care are, make a whole lot of sense. But of course we'll never know until we actually build it all so that there... We've got to take advantage of the time and the moment and despite the many requests find a way to use this moment to expand that continuum of care.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:58:48

Thank you for that. Let's go ahead and move to public comment. I believe there are a couple of speakers, Madam Clerk.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:58:54

Chair Nelson and members of the board yes we have two requests to speak on this item. And we will go to Zoom for Suzanne Gordon to be followed by Lynn Gibbs.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:59:06

Okay let's go to Suzanne and then at this time we'll also close public comment on this item

PresenterSuzanne ReardonFamilies Act and Families Act is a local grassroots organization that was formedProposedself-stated2:59:12

Good morning Supervisors and Chair can you hear me?

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction2:59:15

We can

PresenterSuzanne ReardonFamilies Act and Families Act is a local grassroots organization that was formedProposedself-stated2:59:16

Wonderful. So I'm Suzanne Reardon, and I'm speaking on behalf of Families Act and Families Act is a local grassroots organization that was formed 15 years ago in Santa Barbara and our members have been advocating tirelessly ever since, in particular for mental health treatment beds. In fact, one of our mottos is beds not cells. So we're very, very concerned and we always have been about people with mental health conditions who end up in the jail when they belong in a treatment center. And kudos for the considerable progress that has been made since 2016 in our capital needs for mental health facilities.

We are incredibly proud of the county And of the be well department and particular of Laura Zeitz. But we will also take a fair amount of the credit for the blood, sweat and tears and innumerable meetings that went into convincing this county and our mental health department about the needs for beds. Despite all of our efforts however, the need remains pretty substantial.

There've been many tragic deaths even over the last four years in our county for lack of adequate Inpatient beds, for example. And unfortunately even though our philosophy the county's philosophy now is that we should put A lot of effort into the lower levels of care to prevent the need for the higher levels of care. The reality remains that the highest level of care is still required, and that we will lose people if we don't provide them, even though that level is expensive were particularly concerned for the need for beds inpatient acute beds.

And recent data from Cottage Hospital's Emergency Department revealed that in August, 11 patients who were in an acute mental health crisis and placed on a 5150 walked out before they were ever placed in the bed. In other words, they stayed the length of time they were required to stay but no inpatient bed was found for them. The presentation that we just saw is a bit misleading in terms of how many acute inpatient beds We've added to our continuum since 2016 because it fails to indicate how many such beds were contracted for in 2016. The beds we contracted with facilities such as Vista Del Mar and Ventura County are not represented, so we haven't really increased the number of beds since 2016 in that category as far as we see it.

It's generally agreed that a community needs 40 acute inpatient beds per hundred thousand residents, but even if you use the much much lower percentage. Let's say 10 beds for 100,000 residents. This is 10 acute inpatient beds. That that would be about 40 inpatient beds and our county currently only has, let's say 23 with 26 with the contracted beds. So there's room for improvement. The other area we're very concerned about is congregate living unlocked residential treatment beds something along the lines of We need more state of the art beds in that category. Thank you for your comments.

And thank you very much. All right, our next speaker is Lynn Gibbs. Yes, Chair Nelson and members

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:03 – 3:068 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:03:01

All right, jump the gun. Welcome Ms. Gibbs.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:03:04

Thank you. I chair the NAMI Santa Barbara County Public Policy Committee and we've been tracking the 5150 inpatient bed crisis with our community hospitals where people are initially placed on a 5150 waiting for a bed placement There continue to be a large number of cases where people are unable to get the treatment bed that they need. It's truly remarkable, we think what's been accomplished over the past five years in addressing the continuum of care And that construct that was laid out by behavioral wellness of the continuum of care is something that's now being looked at by other counties. I know Ventura County is looking at it. It's a very good way to say, OK, here's what's needed in various levels and we've made good progress.

We, and this is why in NAMI we emphasize the need for fully utilization of crisis stabilization units that can divert a number of people from needing an inpatient bed. And for Laura's Law so that people when they're leaving the hospital and still unstabilized can get community-based treatment that we know reduces a recurrence of the need for inpatient beds Nevertheless, we could draw an analogy to someone having a heart attack and going to the ER.

At that point, we don't send them home with a heart healthy diet and prescription for a statin. It doesn't work at that point and we see the same problem with people in the emergency rooms. And so we really urge a focus on this shortage of beds that people need in the most acute crisis with the most severe illness Working with our community partners and the hospital to address the need that we have for more beds. Thank you.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction3:05:23

Thank you, Ms. Gibbs. Now back to the

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:05:25

board. Any further comments from staff? I don't see any questions from the board or comments.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed3:05:39

All right at this time I'll take a motion I believe it's to receive and file. I think those are items A

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction3:05:49

through C. And A through B. Can I get a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:05:54

So moved.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction3:05:57

Second. All right, any further discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. OK at this time we're going to break for closed session Madam County Council, will you please read the items for consideration today?

3:06 – 4:423 turns

CommentBoard Hearing Room ChambersProposed · by introduction3:06:17

Thank you Mr. Chair we have three items on for closed session today. The first is existing litigation under government code section 54956.9 and that's Casablanca Beach Estates Owners Association versus the county. Second is anticipated litigation significant exposure civil litigation one case under government code section 54956.9 And finally, conference with real property negotiators with assessor's parcel numbers 105-020-063 and 105-020-064 between South Point Estates and Clark Avenue Old Town Orchid.

Agency negotiator Jeanette Pell and negotiating party Michelle Southwick And also Assessor Percival's numbers 105-020060 between South Texas State and Clark Avenue, Agency Negotiator Jeanette Pell and negotiating parties Leonard Knight and Matthew Knight. And the time estimate is an hour and 15 minutes.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction3:07:23

Okay let's plan on being back from closed session at 1 30 for to hear our fourth and final item departmental

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:07:29

item number four thank you Welcome back.

4:42 – 4:5528 turns

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:42:05

We're now reconvening the meeting of September 21st, 2021. Will County Council please report out from closed session?

CommentBoard Hearing Room ChambersProposed · by introduction4:42:11

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The board met in closed session on three items. The first existing litigation cost the Banca Beach Estate Owners Association versus County of Santa Barbara. The second item was anticipated litigation significant exposure to civil litigation one case and the third was real property negotiations for three different parcels all of which were in Old Town Orchid Clark Avenue and South Point Estates area. The board took no reportable action in closed session

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:42:42

Okay, thank you. Next item up is department item number four. Madam Clerk will you please read that item into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:42:49

Chair Nelson and members of the board departmental item number four is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the JCC Randall LLC appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the Santa Rita Holdings Inc Cannabis Cultivation Project case number 12 APL 31 and this is in the fourth district.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:43:10

All right, before we go to staff, ex parte communications from the board. Supervisor Williams?

CommentHills Cannabis Cultivation AppealProposed · by introduction4:43:18

I had a phone call

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:43:20

with the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.804:43:21

applicant's planner.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:43:23

All right,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.804:43:23

thank you. Supervisor Lavinino? Don't believe I've had any contact. Supervisor Hartmann?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.744:43:29

And I also had a phone conversation yesterday with Kathleen and I can't remember her last name but the planner agent for the cannabis grower

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:43:38

All

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:43:38

right, thanks

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:43:39

Supervisor Hart. I do not have an ex parte communication.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:43:43

All right and I do not have any ex parte communication nor emails or calls about this project at all so with that let's go ahead and go to staff Mr. Stewart. Oh sorry Director Plowman

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed4:43:58

Mr. Chair, members of the board thank you. I do have Deputy Director Travis Seward's Supervising Planner Joe Dargol and the planner on the case Gwen Beiler that are on Zoom today but I was just going to introduce the item this is an appeal of a conditional use permit that was approved by the Planning Commission Back in June, and it is an application for 2.54 acres of cannabis cultivation. It's currently a non-conforming use and the decision was appealed to the board with that I will turn it over to I think Ms Beiler who's here to present.

CommentLinProposed · by introduction4:44:41

Good afternoon Mr Chair members of the board I will wait for the presentation to be up. It looks like it is.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:44:48

Ms. Beiler, unfortunately we cannot hear you. Are you near your microphone or is it muted? I see you're unmuted on Zoom.

CommentLinProposed · by introduction4:44:57

Okay yeah um you can't hear me at all no nothing

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:45:02

hmm alright what's going on here Okay, still can't hear me. We can hear you now. Okay great thank you. Please proceed.

CommentLinProposed · by introduction4:45:27

Okay can you still hear me?

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:45:30

We can

CommentLinProposed · by introduction4:45:30

okay thanks I wanted to make sure the tests work properly um all right well thank you for bearing with me and good afternoon Mr. Chair and members of the board my name is Gwen Baylor And I will be presenting the JC Crandall LLC appeal of the Santa Rita Holdings Cannabis Project. On June 9th, the County Planning Commission granted approval of the project and on June 18th JC Crandall LLC filed an appeal

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:45:58

next slide please. One moment. Pause staff's time. For the public watching, we have a few technical difficulties that we're working on resolving. Please bear with us. Okay, back to Ms. Baylor.

CommentLinProposed · by introduction4:47:04

Thank you. The 120 acre subject property shown in orange on the graphic before you is located seven miles West of Buellton, six miles east of Lompoc and one mile north of Highway 246. The property is surrounded by parcels zoned AG-2100 and surrounding uses include grazing, irrigated crops and vineyards. The project site is a three acre area shown in dark green.

Access to the site is provided by Santa Rita Road which passes through the Campbell Road EDRN and turns into a private road half a mile west at the subject parcel. Next slide, please. The proposed project is for 2.54 acres of cultivation including 1.88 acres of mature cultivation under 14-foot tall hoops, 0.55 acres of mature cultivation without hoops and 0.11 acres of nursery cultivation.

The project will have up to three regular employees who will live on site in a legal nonconforming dwelling There would be up to 12 additional employees during harvests, which would take place three times per year and last three days each time. The project would utilize an as-built shed for storage of pesticides, equipment, and materials. Weighing and tagging of harvested cannabis would take place under an as built tractor shade structure prior to being loaded onto refrigerated trucks for transport offsite.

The project includes additional fencing, motion sensor security lighting, and aromatic landscaping. The project proposes to use one acre foot per year of water and water will continue to be provided by the Vista Hills Mutual Water Company, which draws from the Lompoc-Upland subbasin of the Santa Ynez River groundwater basin. The project does not include on site processing new structures or grading. Next slide please.

This slide shows an overview of the project area showing the mature cultivation under hoops outlined in dark green The mature cultivation without hoops would be in three separate areas shown in dark green, and the nursery area is shown in light green. The open-sided structure for weighing and tagging is shown in orange, and the storage shed is located underneath the tractor shed.

The dwelling and a shed that is not part of the project are shown in black. Water tanks are shown in blue. Next slide please. An odor abatement plan is required for the proposed project because it is for a conditional use permit. The OAP is certified by a certified industrial hygienist and specifies that the primary odor-emitting activity will be harvesting mature plants three times annually.

No processing will occur on site. Cannabis will be frozen in refrigerated trucks prior to being trucked offsite The project includes 2780 square feet of sweet lavender along the West property line. Wind in this area usually blows from west to east toward the hills, which are largely undeveloped and used for grazing. In the event that wind blows toward the West in the direction of the nearest vineyard, which is over 1300 feet from the project area, the ends of the hoops will be closed off with plastic sheeting. Next slide.

If an odor complaint is made, an assessment would be undertaken and would evaluate wind conditions and meteorological data. As outlined in the OAP, the nearest residential zone is 2.8 miles to the west and the nearest residential zone to the east is over nine miles away. Next slide please. I will now present an overview of the appeal issues and staff's responses which are addressed in full on the board agenda letter.

The appellant cited five issues as the basis of the appeal. For Appeal Issue 1, the appellant states that the proposed project is not consistent with the LUDC. In response staff finds that the project is consistent with all applicable sections of the LUDC. The project meets the intent of the Act 2 Zone and the zone requirements for setbacks height and uses.

Consistent with the cannabis regulations, the project is required to comply With fencing, lighting, water efficiency, transportation demand, odor abatement and biological resources requirements. No lighting will be associated with the hoop structures and they will not have any permanent elements. Next slide. For Appeal Issue 2, the appellant states that the project is not consistent with state law and that the project is in violation of the California Business and Professional Code which states that an applicant for a state cannabis license shall provide evidence of the legal right to use the proposed location.

The appellant contends that the access easement over the private portion of Santa Rita Road crossing over the appellants property does not authorize the transportation of cannabis. In response, staff finds that the project shall comply with state law as required by the LUDC in order to conduct a commercial cannabis business in the county businesses must obtain state licenses An applicant for a state cannabis license must show proof that the property owner has consented to commercial cannabis activities.

The property owner has consented to permit the project. The subject property was granted an access easement, demonstrating adequate access consistent with the comprehensive plan. Any disagreement regarding the scope of the easement or its burdening of the underlying property is a civil matter and it's outside the scope of the county's permit review. Next slide please.

For appeal issue 3, the appellant states that the Planning Commission's approval is not supported by evidence in the record. Findings for approval cannot be made and the project has no legal access. In response staff finds that the Planning Commission's approval is supported by evidence in the record and all findings can be made as described in detail in attachment 1 to the board agenda letter.

In summary, the 120 acre parcel is adequate to accommodate the 2.54 acre cannabis project Impacts will be mitigated to the maximum extent feasible, demonstrated by the CEQA checklist. Regular employees will live on site and the project is not visible to public areas. The operation conforms to the comprehensive plan. Next slide please. For Appeal Issue 4, the appellant states that the county cannot make the required CEQA findings and that the Planning Commission overlooked significant issues that are not addressed in the cannabis PEIR.

The appellant contends that staff failed to address deficiencies in the CEQA checklist and states that the applicant did not submit documentation from the State Water Resources Control Board or a phase one cultural study. In response, staff finds that the county can make all required CEQAs findings and that the Planning Commission did not overlook environmental issues.

Staff prepared a CEQa checklist that addresses all potential impacts and mitigation measures set forth in the PEIR. The CEQA checklist acknowledges that the required documentation from the State Water Board and the Confidential Phase I Cultural Resources Study were submitted for the project. Next slide, please. For PLSU-5, the appellant states that the Planning Commission approved the project in a truncated and rushed manner depriving the appellant of a fair and impartial hearing.

In response, staff finds that the Planning Commission approved the project with a vote of 5 to 0 at the June 9th hearing. Required notice of the hearing was provided, and the hearing followed all procedural standards outlined in the Planning Commission Procedures Manual. The appellant provided written and oral comments after hearing the staff presentation, applicant presentation, public testimony, and considering the evidence in the record.

The Planning Commission approved the project. Next slide please. In conclusion, staff recommends the board deny the appeal, make the required findings for approval Determine the PEIR is adequate and subsequent environmental review is not required, and grant de novo approval of the project subject to the conditions set forth in attachment two of the board agenda letter.

This concludes staff's presentation. We're available for any questions. Thank you.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed4:55:24

Thank you Ms. Baylor.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:55:25

Are there any questions from the board? Ms. Baylor? Okay seeing none

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:55:31

at this time for presentation by the appellants I think we have Mr. Guadiana.

4:55 – 5:034 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:55:53

And Ernest, if you could please unmute yourself and begin your comments.

PresenterErnest GuadianaJC Crandall LLC and its appeal of Santa Rita Holdings Conditional Use PermitProposedself-stated4:55:58

I believe we had a PowerPoint sent in so just let me know when that is up. All right perfect.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction4:56:06

Mr. Guadiana you'll have 10 minutes to present

PresenterErnest GuadianaJC Crandall LLC and its appeal of Santa Rita Holdings Conditional Use PermitProposedself-stated4:56:09

Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Ernest Guadiana and I represent JC Crandall LLC and its appeal of Santa Rita Holdings Conditional Use Permit. Now although we appealed the permit on multiple grounds our main argument applies to this easement and the county's decision to allow a commercial cannabis activity over my clients property without my clients consent. Now during the Planning Commission meeting One of the commissioners kind of, when this argument was raised, dismissed it on the basis that this was a issue that likely had been litigated numerous times and therefore the county's position must have been correct.

I want to emphasize that this is a novel issue. It's our understanding that this is the first time this issue has ever been raised and for that reason we believe that the Planning Commission erroneously approved the permit. Additionally, County Council reiterated that this was purely a state licensing requirement issue and had no bearing on the land use approval. And again we believe that when the county is allowing a federally prohibited action over my client's property without my clients consent, that that is something that should be addressed at the land use permitting process.

Now to give you a better understanding of the properties at issue I'd like to show you an overview can you please go to the next slide? So this is an aerial of the properties. As you'll see in gray, there's Santa Rita Road which is the public access way. It ends at the Jackson Family Wines property which is outlined in white and then traverses through the Jackson Family Wines property onto my client's property which is outlined in red and then on to the property that is being utilized by Santa Rita Holdings and owned by Kim Hughes which is outlined in yellow. Next slide please.

Now this is an overview showing the portion of the road that traverses my client's property. It is outlined in blue, my client's property and then the road is also outlined in blue. The portion of the easement road that crosses Jackson Family Wines property is outlined in pink. Now here the county relies on an easement from 1988 to determine that the applicant has the right to transport cannabis over the property Although the easement does not expressly prohibit cannabis transportation, we note that the easement was entered into before cannabis was allowed at the state level.

Now generally, we would agree that an access easement is sufficient to show access required for a use permit such as here. However, the main issue involves the quasi-legal nature of cannabis which complicates this general rule. Specifically, cannabis remains legal at the federal level It is listed as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act. And due to this federal prohibition on cannabis, my client's property or any property including my client's property used to facilitate commercial cannabis activities can subject that property to federal asset forfeiture laws and create a risk that the federal government would seize such a property of my clients.

Moreover, property owners can be charged with aiding and abetting any violations of the Controlled Substances Act. So again my client would be subject to potential aiding and abetting violations under the Controlled Substances Act by allowing commercial cannabis activity over her property. Now, California when understanding these kind of these issues with the quasi legal nature of cannabis. The legislature specifically required each property owners authorization as a prerequisite before allowing cannabis activities to occur over one's property.

Now specifically, the rule cited in the staff report provides that an applicant for any type of license must provide a statement from a landowner of real property or that landowner's agent where the commercial cannabis activity will occur as proof to demonstrate the landowner has acknowledged and consented to permitted commercial cannabis activities over the property.

Now such a requirement ensures that any property owner sufficiently acknowledges and consents to a cannabis activity. Now, I want to make a distinction here and that is this is a private road and not a public road. Santa Rita Road for example is a public road which the cannabis rules specifically authorize transportation over. It prevents any municipal agency from trying to stand in the way of cannabis transportation however there's no similar rule for private easement roads such as this and as a result the general rule that consent of a property owner must be obtained still applies Now again, we believe that the county is subjecting my clients to federally illegal activities without their consent.

Such a decision is not only disallowed under state law but even potentially constitutes an illegal taking by authorizing an illegal activity over my client's property. For this reason alone, we believe that the appeal should be granted and the conditional use permit denied. Can you go to the next slide? Now, even if my clients were to consent we also believe that the condition of the roads are not sufficient to support the proposed cannabis transportation.

On this slide is a picture of the roadway which shows just how narrow this roadway is and kind of shows how these cannabis transportation trucks are utilizing the entirety of the road. Next slide. This again shows how narrow these roads are and they're dirt roads. They're not heavily improved, and we believe that these are not sufficient for the types of vehicles which will be using this road to transport cannabis. Next slide please.

Specifically we've seen big rigs This is an example of a road being utilized for cannabis transportation. And again, we just do not believe that this road is up to standards. As a result, we would anticipate that the board should at a very minimum condition any approval of the application on the applicant improving and widening this easement road to ensure Preliminarily approved at the June 7th hearing is not adhering to any of the conditions of approval or, or at least a number of them.

Specifically, the applicant is currently growing within the 50 foot setback area. Next slide please. This slide shows the overlap of the cannabis activities that are not only outside of the state license area but are also within the setback area. They're circled in green. Next slide please.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:03 – 5:089 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:03:13

Next slide please.

PresenterErnest GuadianaJC Crandall LLC and its appeal of Santa Rita Holdings Conditional Use PermitProposedself-stated5:03:17

Sorry, I think there was one right before this. Perfect. And this is also a new row that is occurring in a leach field on per the site plan at least and this is 100% within the setback area. We believe that the applicant will continue to fail to conform to the proposed CUP conditions and we believe that such violations only will be exacerbated should Next slide, please.

This is also showing activities occurring outside of the permitted hours which I believe are up until 430 p.m.. Next slide please. This shows this is a cannabis transportation truck that was utilizing the road at 1141 p. m. Again we just have issues with the potential violations that we believe will be occurring on this property. Next slide please. Now, although the staff report noted that there was sufficient water for this property we actually believe that is contrary to the statements of the water company.

Next slide please. So this is the letter that was relied upon by staff when determining that water was sufficient. Next slide please. So I'm highlighting some language in this letter. I realize it's quite fuzzy on this, but let me read it for you. So it specifically states, let me add that water delivery to your property is a variable quantity and allotment determined annually enlisted on your water bill. A decade of drought and other constraints compel us to maintain flexibility in the allotment we assign to each share of ownership. Beyond that, you share a common infrastructure with two dozen homes.

And in the face of unforeseen problems our focus must always remain on household domestic use and agricultural interests. Next slide please. The letter goes on to say we might hope that your allotment at 15 shares is sufficient to the project you described but we cannot in good faith attest to that. We simply do not have the agricultural experience or savvy to make that call. Perhaps a more detailed survey would be useful to us all.

Now, even though the water companies expressly requested additional analysis of this issue, none was done and it is our belief that shows that significant impacts have not been addressed on this. Next slide please. We also want to point out this is a printout from the State Water Board's water system details. Next slide please, and it notes that there is only one agricultural user which is the applicant along with 20 residential users. It is our belief that as a result of this that in the current droughts that we are facing There will not be sufficient water for this project or that the use of water by this project will impact residential users.

Next slide please.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:06:28

Mr. Guardiola, your time's up you can wrap it up here quickly?

PresenterErnest GuadianaJC Crandall LLC and its appeal of Santa Rita Holdings Conditional Use PermitProposedself-stated5:06:32

Yes sorry So the only other things that we wanted to say is that we believe that this also violates CEQA. The applicant noted that he had five additional acres that was going to be utilized and that was not considered in this project. Next slide, please. And for the reasons stated on this slide, we believe that CEQAs also violated here. Thank you very much.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:07:02

All right, thank you Mr. Gordiano. All right,

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:07:07

any

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:07:07

questions for the appellant from the board? Supervisor Lavagnino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.805:07:19

Well I guess a question for County Council. Is there any legal basis on their fear of using an easement to move cannabis across that particular easement across their property? May it sound. So they're concerned that the easement is not for it wasn't specifically called out for cannabis. I'm just curious if there's any legal.

CommentBoard Hearing Room ChambersProposed · by introduction5:07:52

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Levenino, the easement is for access and it will be used for access. Easements typically don't contemplate what you're transporting. So I believe it is adequate access for this project.

5:08 – 5:1616 turns

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:08:14

Mr. Guniana,

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:08:17

your slide on the road damage, you know, it's difficult, I think for the board to understand how narrow it is especially when we only see half the road in the picture. There was one picture of the full entire road. Do you have the road width?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed5:08:33

I believe it is at 10 feet.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:08:35

Okay, all right thank you. Any other questions from the board?

PresenterErnest GuadianaJC Crandall LLC and its appeal of Santa Rita Holdings Conditional Use PermitProposedself-stated5:08:47

It's expressly noted in the easement deed how wide the road is allowed to be and then what it can be widened to at a later date if required by the county.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:08:57

Right do you have those numbers for

PresenterErnest GuadianaJC Crandall LLC and its appeal of Santa Rita Holdings Conditional Use PermitProposedself-stated5:08:58

me? Give me one second and I will pull it

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:09:00

up How about you

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:09:30

find that and I'll ask you after the rebuttal? Thank you. All right, thank you. Okay see no additional questions from the board let's go ahead and go to the applicant. We have Mr. Pellebrant from Santa Rita Holdings Incorporated. Ms. Pellebrant because the appellate went over you will have 10 minutes and 45 seconds so that we have equity there. Great thank you. We just want

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:09:52

one second while we punch that in Sorry, we've got our clerk working overtime for us here. All right. Thank you. Please

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:10:10

proceed. And I may have my lawyer chime in on some of the things that he said. As regard to some of these slides that were shown there was a large truck which is a propane truck that feeds the house. Our house runs on propane There was a large box truck that is not a cannabis transportation truck. That was a friend moving some materials off of our property at that late hour, so a lot of these accusations are a bit unfounded and misinformed.

I have a water service determination here from Vista Hills Mutual Water Company saying that this water service determination confirms that the district currently has sufficient water supply available to serve the proposed project. The project parcel has adequate water credit for the forecasted demand. I've also provided county staff with our water bills and the amount of water that we're allotted.

And if Josh, you would like to comment on some of the first things that Ernest was saying? If possible. Josh is our lawyer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:11:17

Yeah and I'm right here on Zoom. I apologize for being unable to be present. The Honorable Board of Supervisors may speak briefly.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:11:24

Yes Mr. Lin please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:11:26

Thank you very much so I don't want to go over each of the issues, I think it's unnecessary. The staffs well reasoned report and responses took care of most but I'd like to point out a couple things that have to do just with us in the project. These young men have done an honorable job of really trying to get with what is a fairly complicated program. And only at the last minute were hit with neighbors they didn't know they had in this manner, the staff can speak to the tone tenor and accuracy of each of the communications I can only speak to mine.

Communications I have, and I have no problem with anybody opposing it. It's their right. I absolutely understand it. Opposing counsel has been nothing but genuine and nice in our conversations. What hasn't happened is each of the things that I'm seeing in the presentation today are new to me. I've invited meetings, conversations, phone calls, conference calls, a mediation itself, whatever it took.

And we went through the mediative setting the county provided And I don't mean this in a pejorative way, but educate counsel on the fact that he's just totally incorrect on the law. And the law as the initial basis with respect to the easement seems to be the real hitch in their otherwise cooperative giddy up and so the one thing I would like to point out is This notion that they could be prosecuted as accomplices or aiding and abetting is not just fundamentally wrong on black letter criminal law, federal state or otherwise. But it's really the kind of red herring we've seen from the communication a lot. It's been terribly frustrating because even if we disagree I'm always able to engage folks on the other side and say hey look my role is minimal here.

But this issue that the CUP and the LUP are subject, or LUP in anywhere in the county is subject to federal action. Silly! I think everybody knows it's not budgeted for federal action they're not interested they're not doing it there literally is no possibility of that occurring and so that has led to some other assumptions that have been made And in terms of the genuine frustration that we've experienced in trying to engage these folks in a meaningful conversation about how can we make it, it's gonna happen. We believe we're legal but how can we make it more palatable for you? What can we do to help and I've gotten literally zero response. I have just dozens of emails that go this way and conversations So what I'd like to point out about the truck is, and then I'll be quiet, is the absolute duplicity in the argument itself.

If you just look at the truck they showed first of all it has nothing to do with cannabis so that's just funny. The other part is they say the road doesn't work there are big trucks on it well one or the other are true they can't both be true Either the truck fits the road or the truck doesn't fit the road, if the road supports a truck where it doesn't. These commercial vehicles aren't cannabis vehicles they have nothing to do with the analysis but they have everything to do with the manner in which it's been presented And why I asked for all these materials ahead of time and I didn't receive them. And I won't speculate as to why, but I can only react in real time. So this notion that cannabis is quasi legal is not true. In California it is legal.

It's legal on a specific basis like alcohol or fireworks, but it's legal. Everything the county has done in this circumstance has made sense to me with respect to the analysis. I don't have anything to add to the staff's analysis and I appreciate you letting me take the time to speak with you.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:14:57

Thank you, Mr. Lynn. Any additional comments from Mr. Hillbrand? Ms. Ward?

CommentKathleen WaldProposedself-stated5:15:06

Good afternoon. Yes as you said my name is Kathleen Wald. I'm the applicant's representative. I just let them speak first because I tend to be kind of long-winded and I didn't want to use the time. Just like to say that we agree with everything that staff has said in their staff report I would like to say that the applicant has been very receptive to anything that the planning department has asked us to do in refining this project down to where it's really tight and operates very tight. Whether it be from reducing the acreage, you know, the fencing, the security fencing between the house and the project we have always responded with a water issue The allocation for the water for the Santa Rita Holdings project is not above the threshold for environmental purposes.

Just let's be clear on that, which has been an issue with other cannabis projects. This is amount to saying hey if there isn't water out there we're going to give you know human I just want to reiterate that we did participate in the facilitation and we thought that we might be able to work out some type of compromise with the easement road. Whether it just be some type of maintenance agreement or something of that nature, but we never heard from the appellant's lawyer. So my client has been very willing to be a good neighbor and do beyond what the conditions of approval have been at this point.

And so with that I'm open to any questions you may have.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:16 – 5:2217 turns

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:16:55

Questions from the board? Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.745:16:57

The one issue you haven't addressed yet is encroachment into the setback

CommentKathleen WaldProposedself-stated5:17:02

But we're not, that's the first I've heard of it. We're not encroaching into the setback. The project right now since Ms. Crandall has assumed this property he has been besieged with private security cops out there night and day drones flying over they've had their properties surveyed by her I don't know where all these maps come from and all of this information about setbacks in this and that the project that as what's been submitted on our plans and reviewed by the planning department is outside the setbacks, the ash setback.

You talk about the leach field, they don't have that same cannabis setback. The leach field is for the house. So again I'm going to reiterate what the attorney said there's a lot of information coming in at the very last minute but i think that the county has done a really diligent review of our project and we have been able to show that we're outside every setback Now he is growing nonconforming, so he isn't conforming possibly right at this moment to the conditions.

You know I mean that might be true.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:18:20

We've also had several surveys done Originally when we moved into the property, we thought where our property line was about 20 yards past where it was. Once we got a survey done and learned where it was, we stepped back and built the fence well past where the property line was. The appellant also got a survey done and claims that the surveys are somehow different. When you put them back to back, they're exactly the same.

And so we've gone back and forth with where is the actual property line? Taking that tape measures and going from where their survey is out to where our field starts and doing the 50 yard setback from the property line on none. So there has been some confusion, but we are. Doing our best as far as I know by abiding by that setback. But there's been multiple surveys done because of all this confusion. All

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:19:21

right, thank you Mr. Hall-Brandt. Any other questions from the board?

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:19:29

I guess I have actually Ms. Wold, so I understand that the maintenance agreement has to take place because you don't have a willing participant next to you. What was what would have been the offer from the applicant for this agreement?

CommentKathleen WaldProposedself-stated5:19:43

We were looking for them to make the proposal because it's their issue correct So we weren't trying to dictate to them, we were willing to accept what they had. In fact after hearing a month had passed by and we hadn't heard anything, we actually reached back out to them and that was where we were going with them is we can't compromise over whether or not you're an opponent or you oppose cannabis but if you look beyond that issue, we can go to the next one and we were willing to do that. We just never had a proposal from them.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:20:17

All right thank you very much.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:20:22

Okay, at this time I believe that it's time for public comment on this item. Madam Clerk has any public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:20:29

Chair Nelson and members of the board we have two requests to speak on this item unfortunately both our request to speak have not logged into zoom so if you are a member of the public and you would like to provide public comment on this item departmental item number four for um the Santa Rita Hills Cannabis Cultivation Appeal please do so now

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:20:53

And we don't have any public commenters in the room in Santa Barbara or here at this time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:20:57

Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. We only have two requests to speak on Zoom.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:21:03

All right. OK,

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:21:13

I'm not seeing anybody pop online. Can you confirm that to be true?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:21:17

Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. I did resend the confirmation emails as well and I am not seeing them on Zoom.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:21:25

All right thank you all right that concludes public comment on this item unfortunately the pre-scheduled public commenters were unable to participate through our zoom system today at this time it's now time for a rebuttal we'll first start with the appellant and you have five minutes

PresenterErnest GuadianaJC Crandall LLC and its appeal of Santa Rita Holdings Conditional Use PermitProposedself-stated5:21:45

Thank you. So going back to what the applicant stated just now, our main issue here really is that my client does not want to permit cannabis going over her property without her consent. We believe that that is the main issue here and although counsel for applicant has stated that there is no chance of this occurring You know, there are still laws that address this specific issue and the federal government can still enforce those laws. That is our position and while with in regards to the water we have never seen the letter from Vista saying that they do have sufficient capacity assuming that that is true we understand that would likely fix this issue however this is something that we've never seen before In regarding your question about the roadway, under the easement deed it was stated that it is a 12 foot private road.

It's our understanding that it's been narrowed by about a foot.

5:22 – 5:3320 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:22:53

Okay

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:22:55

thank you Mr. Guadiana any further questions for the appellant from the board?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:23:01

All right applicant

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:23:03

for rebuttal

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:23:08

Sure, I'm not sure if Josh you'd like to say anything to that. Otherwise I can.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:23:12

I don't have anything to say thank you very much to the board for offering me the opportunity again. I appreciate it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:23:18

OK. Uhm, I guess I just like to say and to wrap it up, you know we're a small project where 2 1⁄2 acres. Off the beaten path out of public site. You know we? I feel like. There's a lot of large grows in our immediate neighborhood. There's 50 acres on the 246 year 40 acres there were two and a half tucked away, kind of up in the middle of nowhere. And I feel like the community is wants to see that type of project.

Small, two and a half acres. We're a boutique project. There's not a lot of traffic. We don't have trucks in and out all day and all night like they're trying to show. And I think we can be a model for what a Santa Cruz growth should be. I mean, it's at Santa Barbara growth should be. Um, I've spent the past six months working with a lot of winemakers in the area and other state cannabis stakeholders who try to figure out some of these issues that Keep coming between us and we're making a lot of progress there. I've got a good relationship with Kendall Jackson who's our nearest vineyard so as far as all that kind of stuff is concerned, I think that we're making a lot of headway and that We've got great relationship with our neighbors in five years.

We haven't had a single complaint odor traffic nothing from the people who actually live there The Crandalls live in San Francisco and they own a piece of property between us and the road. I get their complaints, but for everyone who actually lives in our neighborhood we all get along and we've never had a single complaint. So with that, I'd just like to say thank you for your time and appreciate it.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:24:59

Thank you Mr. Hellenbrand. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.745:25:02

Does someone live on your property?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:25:04

Yes three of us live on our property which actually cuts down the amount of traffic in and out.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:25:11

Thank you, Mr. Hillenbrandt. Any additional questions from the board? All right, back to staff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:25:19

Mr. Chair, members of the board I believe Ms. Baylor has a response to some of the comments that were made by the appellant.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:25:26

Yeah it'd be very helpful. Ms. Baylor please.

CommentLinProposed · by introduction5:25:31

Mr chair and members of the board thank you for the opportunity to respond so um i just have a few issues that i want to relay based on the comments that were made Regarding the road, so the project was reviewed by County Fire and County Roads. And neither department required any improvements to the existing 12-foot wide road. The employees live on site and so there will not be daily commuting traffic except for during harvests. There'll be three harvests per year and each harvest will last only three days.

Now regarding water I want to clarify that the Vista Hills Mutual Water Company provides adequate water for the site They allot the parcel 15 shares, which is equal to over 17 acre feet per year. Now the threshold for this basin according to the county's Environmental Thresholds and Guidelines Manual is 12 acre feet per year and the project proposes to use one acre feet per year so the fact that it's such a small grow and they're going to be using the required water efficient Methods for the irrigation mean that they're going to be well below the threshold and also well below the allotment provided by the Vista Hills Mutual Water Company.

Regarding the setbacks, I want to acknowledge that the agricultural zone so this is in the Act Two Zone. The Act Two Zone doesn't have any side or rear setbacks. So there are no setback violations. The project is compliant with all cannabis setbacks And lastly, I want to touch on the biological resources. So the robust biological resources assessment for the project affirms that the project is not located in any setback areas for the ephemeral drainage onsite. The hoops and the cultivation comply with all required setbacks for watersheds and drainages.

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has worked really closely with the applicant throughout their permit process and there are no violations The county or CDFW for any kind of biological resources. So hope that helps clarify some of the points that were brought up and I'm available to answer any additional questions you may have.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:27:45

Thank you, Miss Baylor.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:27:46

Any questions from Miss Baylor from the board? All right seeing no questions from the board at this time we'll begin board deliberations on this. Well, it's my district so I'll jump in. Such a rare thing for me.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:28:09

You know when this item came to our office just last week we got our board presentation. It took us a little while to figure out where it was at. We also went through all our emails to see if we had any correspondence with anybody in the community about this project. And it was, it was empty. We didn't see anything there so then that we didn't have any history for the public. There's a lot of projects out there that have a lot of attention.

A lot of people in favor, a lot of people opposed and this project has lacked that level of controversy Also as this project moves forward, this is one of the first or maybe it's the second CUP that's come to the board since I've been on it here over this last year. Most of time we have an LUP that comes to the board and with an LUP, the required findings this board have to make are pretty low.

We just have to make sure all the boxes were checked and staffed in error. If that's the case our board is legally required to make those findings and approve the project This being a CUP gives us a lot more liberty as we proceed in looking at, does this project really work? Is it in the right location? Does it have the right setbacks? Does it have the same kind of impacts and you know looking at this project You know, I had a difficult time finding those issues. The appellant came today with a laundry list of things for them to pose it on.

I didn't think many of them held much water. The idea that this project only has one acre foot of water being used is a very small impact especially as we just have heard from Ms. Baylor. That's 1 17th of the allocation that they have for this property Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not concerned about the water on the road is tenuous, but I think that that's you know at your own risk type of situation. It is an easement. And it seems like it's been traveled across with as we've seen the propane trucks and I'm sure this cattle.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We'll not work with somebody up until the very end because they don't want to hold out any hope. You know, they want to make sure that they're not seen to be agreeing so it's kind of all or nothing. I think that's a bad strategy for negotiating. You know, half of nothing is I guess still nothing. And I hope that if this project is approved that you guys as neighbors continue to work together.

It's also remarkable that you're not seeing, as we saw there's 20 residents in this water company and none of them are here today to speak on this item. I don't have a think I've seen any items in the record of their opposition. So, you know, as we look at this project And also where it's located is not in the direction of giving me a small grow of some of the wineries and the vineyards like other projects that have been proposed and had been before this board.

So with all that, I can't even though we have a lot of discretion to CP, I can't find anything that I would do differently on your project and I'm inclined to support it. Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Hartman.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.745:31:55

I'm inclined to agree with you. You live and work on the site, it's a very small grow off the beaten path there haven't been any complaints and although we can hear this de novo starting from scratch the Planning Commission voted 5-0 and they spend a lot of time on these cases so That speaks loudly to me. I share concern about a road maintenance agreement, would think that would already be in place but you know you have to figure out how to use that road and keep it up but to me it seems like exactly what you said the kind of project we would like to see in the county

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:32:44

Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:32:46

very much. I think the applicant said it really well, just a very small row off the beaten path with no neighbors that live nearby that have expressed any concerns despite operating for a number of years.

5:33 – 5:366 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.805:33:06

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this also puts to bed the fallacy that we tell people, hey go out in middle of nowhere and grow a small thing and you won't have any problems because everywhere has somebody that has an issue. Some issues are better than others. You know what jumped out at me today? First off public policy is messy. The reason why we go through these hearings is because we have to err on the side of public participation and transparency but I think to anybody watching today, this really just seemed unnecessary.

And the unfortunate side of this is everybody if you own a piece of property, you have the ability and you have the right to have your day at a hearing. But what's wrong with this is for $701 somebody can file an appeal And this cost us, I think it was 75 hours of staff time and $19,000 to have this hearing. So you know i've heard many well reasoned Appellant complaints in the past, whether it was odor concentration traffic. Those all make a lot of sense to me.

But this was the first time I heard that you might be able to be charged with aiding and abetting for allowing somebody to drive cannabis over your easement. So the project to me is a no-brainer. This should have just sailed through, this is exactly what we're looking for and the fact that it had to come all the way here and go through the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors and get appealed all the way up is kind of sad because there are other projects that are not as Attractive that have gone through without coming all this way before and gotten appealed all the way. So I do support project.

CommentMaria KessnerProposed5:35:04

Thank you so much for having you supervisor Williams.

CommentHills Cannabis Cultivation AppealProposed · by introduction5:35:07

I also support the project, I mean it is. I like to see smaller operations be able to go forward and have some of the prosperity of this crop be shared. You know, I agree that it always means you need more eyes on things because some people won't act according to the rules but This is obviously a good location for minimizing nuisance. And I think it should be supported. It's modest and frankly, I wish we had more smaller grows and less big ones.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:35:53

Right? Thank you, Supervisor Williams. So as I mean, just ask my vice chair. So is chairman allowed to make the motion here? Even though it's in my district. All right. I'm going to make the motion that we deny the appeal and approve the project like we've had staff recommendations.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.745:36:11

And I would second.

CommentBaylorProposed · by introduction5:36:12

Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Right. Congratulations. Right. Well, that concludes today's meeting. We are now adjourned to Tuesday, October 5th, 2021 in Santa Barbara

5:36 – 5:361 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.885:36:33

have a good night.