BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 May 10, 2022

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:03 – 0:056 turns

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:07 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Good morning and welcome to the May 10 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Maria. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Roll call, called by Unidentified speaker 1 · 3 under review
Show transcript
Supervisor Williams here, Supervisor Hart supervisor Nelson here, Supervisor lab and you know your chair Hartman.
Pledge of Allegiance, led by Bob Nelsonceremonial · click to expand
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:27 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Please stand, join me in the pledge. Ready? Begin. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:32 · ≈ 9:03 AM

pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Next is approval of the minutes from May 3rd 2022 meeting may have a motion in a second please

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction3:56 · ≈ 9:03 AM

so moved

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:59 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Any further discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed passes unanimously. Do we have a CEO's report?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:08 · ≈ 9:04 AM

CEO Miyasato? We do Chair Hartman just a quick announcement that our Santa Barbara County Public Works Department was recognized recently With an achievement award from the National Association of counties, and since 1970 the word is honored innovative effective county government programs that strengthen services for its residences. The county public works was recognized by NACo for its resource center which as we know as optimizes Optimizes new technologies, technologies and other innovations to advance the county's energy goals and environmental stewardship. The Resource Center is the first operation in California to house a materials recovery facility and anaerobic digester compost management unit and landfill all at one location. And so congratulations again to our public works department for that recognition.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.804:56 · ≈ 9:04 AM

And I heard the Union of concerned scientists had a tour there and we're very impressed as well. So, congratulations to public works.

0:05 – 0:091 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:08 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board I do have a couple of quick announcements this morning. We posted an addendum to today's agenda on Friday May 6 adding a closed session item, and administrative item number 26 to our agenda. The additional closed session item is conference with legal counsel existing litigation paragraph one of subdivision D of government code section five for 956.9 Christopher Anderson at all versus county of Santa Barbara at all Santa Barbara County Superior Court case number to CV 01299.

Additionally, we added administrative item number 26 administrative item number 26 is from the first five Santa Barbara County Children and Families Commission. It is to consider recommendations regarding an amendment chapter 41 of the county code. This is the second reading of the ordinance that was inadvertently left off of the agenda prior to publishing on Wednesday evening.

We also received a memorandum from the Behavioral Wellness Department yesterday, Monday May 9th requesting to withdraw administrative item number two from today's agenda. Administrative Item Number Two is from the Behavioral Wellness Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the First Amendment to the Agreement for Services of Independent Contractor with Telecare Corporation fiscal years 2019-2022.

Next, I would like to remind the public that the Board of Supervisor 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 under their language settings.

That information is currently being provided through the TV scroll. Lastly, I would like to remind the public who are participating in our meeting today at the board's updated methods of public participation for the Board of Supervisors methods public participation and to provide public comment general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see see page two of the agenda.

Members of the public can attend meetings in person, both in the Santa Barbara Board hearing room chambers as well as the Santa Maria board hearing room chambers. Please note the board is following all local and state guidelines and are no longer requiring face coverings indoors. If you attend the board meeting in person, you will no longer be required to wear a face covering. But please be advised that the Public Health Department is still strongly encouraging all county staff and members of the public to mask and socially distance themselves in crowded areas.

I would also like to remind the public if you require any special accommodations, please contact the clerk or the board to make that request preferably on the Friday prior to the board meeting. 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 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 you, you will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted. 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 at the discretion of the chair. If you have any questions, please contact the clerk of the board's office at 805-568-2240. We've also received public interest in departmental item number four regarding an ambulance service contract policy resolution and update. And our estimated start time for that item will be at approximately 10 40am this morning.

That concludes my announcements for today.

0:09 – 0:1219 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.809:03 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Turning to our administrative agenda are there any items that any board members would like to pull for discussion. Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed9:14 · ≈ 9:09 AM

I'd like to pull a

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.809:16 · ≈ 9:09 AM

eight. Eight. Okay and Madam Clerk, are there any members of the public who pulled an item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed9:23 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Sure Hartman and members of the board we have no requests from the public.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.809:26 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Would

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed9:26 · ≈ 9:09 AM

you read a 8 into the record please. Chair Hartman and members of the board administrative item number eight is from the human resources department, is to it is to consider recommendations regarding modifications to coven 19 workforce provisions.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.809:46 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed9:49 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Well as much as all of us would like to Leave coded behind. We have not eradicated the disease, and the I respectfully disagree with the idea that we should rescind our vaccination or testing policy. County workers are emergency workers, and we will get another wave. Hopefully it will be smaller. There will be people who get sick from that wave there will likely be people who die from that wave.

And if our policy with our workforce can help diminish the numbers, then we should do so. I would consider it appropriate to go to a bi-weekly or bi-monthly testing instead of weekly or something like that to reduce its cost or reduce the burden on the employees that do not choose to get vaccinated. But we're supposed to be there for the public. We're supposed to be there for them in a way where we can respond to emergencies and respond to their needs without getting them sick. And so I just think removing this would be premature, and not respectful of that mission that we all as county employees have.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8011:35 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Are there any

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.9711:36 · ≈ 9:11 AM

further comments related to this. Supervisor

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8011:44 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Lavinia

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8611:45 · ≈ 9:11 AM

was just going to say if you want a special vote on this I'll move the item. Thank you. Yeah,

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8011:54 · ≈ 9:11 AM

and all second. Madam Clerk would you call the roll.

Roll-call vote 1–0 move the item. Thank you. Yeah, and all second. Madam Clerk would you call the roll. · 5 under review
Show transcript
Supervisor Williams. Supervisor heart. I supervisor Nelson,

I

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

supervise your lab and you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8012:07 · ≈ 9:12 AM

know,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed12:08 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Chair Hartman

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8012:09 · ≈ 9:12 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed12:09 · ≈ 9:12 AM

motion passes for one.

0:12 – 0:156 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8012:12 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Okay, I would now entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda including the withdrawal of item, a two, and the late edition of a 26 may have emotion.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role12:26 · ≈ 9:12 AM

So moved, move the balance of the agenda withdrawal of item to a two and the addition

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8012:40 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Second. Oh, that was a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed passes unanimously. Madam Clerk, would you read into the record administrative item number 23.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed13:00 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item number 23 is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Leroy Scolari for his extraordinary contributions to agriculture in the Santa Barbara County community and I will now read the resolution into the record. Whereas Leroy Scolari was born in Lompoc and was a member of the Lompok 4-H and an original member of the Junior Livestock Sales Association with the Santa Barbara County Fair, and from a young age proudly served his community.

And whereas after graduating with a Bachelor of Science from UC Berkeley, Leroy served in the Army during the Korean War as an engineering instructor and later established the agriculture program And whereas Leroy helped write the county general plan, agriculture element in the 1980s and served on a number of committees, including the Ag Element Committee as chair from 1980 to 1992.

The Agricultural Grading Ordinance and Trails Committee, the Santa Barbara County Fair Director from 1992 to 2002. The Santa Barbara County Agricultural Advisory Committee as a founding member, the President of the Santa Barbara County Farm Bureau, the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Committee Rural Crime Advisory Committee and the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts Board And whereas, Leroy was honored as the Santa Barbara Cattleman of the Year in 1987 and the Director's Choice Award from the Santa Barbara County Fair Board of Directors in 2003.

And served for 20 years on the board of directors for the Kachuma Resource Conservation District and continued to serve as the Acting Treasurer Secretary until the time of his death. And whereas, Leroy Scolari was known for his can-do attitude Staunch advocacy for continued stewardship of the land, dedication to agriculture and education of youth. All of which have created a lasting legacy in the County of Santa Barbara. And now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved this Board of Supervisors commends Leroy Scolari for his extraordinary contributions to the community passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed15:24 · ≈ 9:15 AM

On behalf of my dad I just like to thank everybody. Also, he was a real member of the community, he did a lot. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8015:37 · ≈ 9:15 AM

And what an extraordinary legacy indeed. Madam Clerk, turning to item number 24. Would you read

0:15 – 0:216 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:47 · ≈ 9:15 AM

that into the record please? Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item Number 24 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino's office. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming May 6th 2022 as National Nurses Day and the week of May 6 2020 through 2022 through May 12th 2022 as National Nurses Week in Santa Barbara County And if I can have anyone receiving the resolution for this item come to the podium, and I will now read the resolution into the record.

Whereas the American Nurses Association and Santa Barbara County Public Health Department celebrate Nurse Week with the theme, You Make a Difference and acknowledge the value and difference nurses make every day toward improving the health status of our community. And whereas for over two years public health department nurses have been on the front line in the battle against the COVID-19 pandemic and continue to save lives by ensuring access to COVID- 19 testing vaccination and education.

And whereas public health department nurses as disaster workers have displayed resilience, courage and dedication in serving patients, families and our community as they responded to devastations from the COVID-19 pandemic. And whereas public health department nurses are the vital link and make a difference by positively impacting health disparities among our most valuable populations.

And whereas public health department nurses are essential to the healthcare team and make a difference by influencing and shaping health policy decisions that ensure our community has access to high quality and equitable care. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors does proclaim the May 6 2022 As National Nurses Day, and the week of May 6 through 12 as National Nurses Week in recognition of the contributions of all nurses working in the county of Santa Barbara passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed18:03 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the board. Thank you for this opportunity to recognize a very critical part of our team. So public health has 77 LVNs, RNs and other nurses throughout our department. And this is a wonderful opportunity to recognize them But I would be remiss in not also calling your attention that to other departments that also have nurses. So we are also taking this opportunity to recognize nurses in B-Well, in Department of Social Services, in probation, in the Sheriff's department and in the fire department. So we have a lot of nurses in our county and they...

We can't do our work without them And for today, though, I would like to call out a few special noteworthy accomplishments of our public health nurses. And joining me on Zoom is Paige Batson, our Deputy Director of Community Health and Yvette Calhoun, our Nursing Director.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed19:18 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the board. Thank you again for recognizing nurses every year during Nurse Week. These past two years of Nurse Week recognition have been special, given the amazing contribution that each and every nurse in the Public Health Department has given in our fight against COVID-19. From the beginning and still today, public health department nurses have been on the forefront of this pandemic. Whether partaking in screening, testing, vaccination, contact tracing, isolation and quarantine.

Hence I want to congratulate our dedicated nurses for their resilience, commitment and care for our community members. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed20:07 · ≈ 9:20 AM

And then we also have Yvette.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed20:10 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the board. I'm actually at a event with our some of our nurses right now training for Nurse Skills Day very so excited and honored to work with these skilled nurses who are willing truly willing to commit it to our community. I think the nurses who come to the county and stay at the county All have one thing in common and that is their commitment to the community, the community and the work. So we're working here to keep their skills up so that they can help support the community again thank you so much for the resolution and I wanted to have them give some applause.

That's them all right thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8020:55 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Thank you. My mother was a nurse, and it's become a very wonderful profession and we need more nurses. But you can travel and get pretty good pay and pretty good hours. I think we even have a board member whose daughter aspires to be a nurse and will soon be entering college to study it so it's a great profession.

0:21 – 0:3019 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role21:23 · ≈ 9:21 AM

I'll just take that opportunity to brag on my daughter, Avery Nelson who will be attending Boise State officially now in the fall majoring in the pre-nursing program. So

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.9721:32 · ≈ 9:21 AM

good for her.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8021:39 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Madam Clerk would you read item number 25 into the record please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:44 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item number 25 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavenino. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of May 1st, 2022 through May 7th, 2022 as Compost Awareness Week in Santa Barbara County. And I would now like to invite Mr. Bob Angle up to the podium.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8622:05 · ≈ 9:22 AM

I just contacted his office and he was incommunicado So they thought he was here. So why don't we just move on with something else and then hopefully if he shows, we can come back to the resolution.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8022:18 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:19 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed22:22 · ≈ 9:22 AM

that okay?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:23 · ≈ 9:22 AM

We're going to trail this item. If that's okay.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8022:30 · ≈ 9:22 AM

So that takes us to general public comment, and is there any member of the public would like to speak on matters not on today's agenda but within our jurisdiction. Chair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:43 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Hartman and members of the board we have two requests to speak here in Santa Maria. I will call our first speaker Erica Coley, to be followed by Yolanda Navarro.

CommentErica KellyProposedself-stated23:02 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Good morning, Honorable Chairman and fellow board members my name is Erica Kelly. And I am a resident of Santa Maria. I will be brief in my comments today as I know you and I both have a busy day. I am not here as a resident or constitute. But also, but as someone who provides for those family. and chooses to live here in Santa Barbara County. It's truly a pleasure to stand here in front of you.

Maybe you may recognize me or remember me, but most likely you don't. I was here back in March echoing the importance for all counties in California to invest in the care economy and to prepare for what's heading our way This brings me to why I am here today. It is truly a privilege and an honor to stand in front of you, more importantly, to have the reassurance that when workers speaks up this current Board of Supervisors listens and acts. I mentioned this because it's evident that you heard us back in March and we know that this Board of Supervisor has chosen to prioritize The future of our elderly and disabled home care workers.

Sorry, home care workers through the in-home supportive service program have a tough job and many cannot handle this line of work. Providers work hard day in and day out and the toll of this job is not physical but also mentally draining however we do this work with compassion and because we care. The least we want to do is to get home and worry about bills wages and what will my family do if something was to happen to me. That is why today on behalf of the thousands of IHH workers in our union, the Domestic Workers of America we would like to extend our utmost gratitude and appreciation To the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors for their leadership and their decisions to invest in this workplace, in this workforce. For providers like myself, this truly gives us a sense of security about our financial future.

It's also clear that... Sorry. It's also clear that this county supports essential services and invest in workers like me. Essential programs like this one truly can change someone's lives. Recipients receiving service live independently, workers are employed and ultimately both the county and the state saves money. Again we thank you and look forward to continuing this relationship And to attend future board of supervisors meeting. This concludes my public comments on behalf of the home care workers at Santa Barbara, thank

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8026:15 · ≈ 9:26 AM

you so much for coming.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed26:20 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Okay, buenos dias. Buenos dias y miembros de la junta. Mi nombre es Norma Alonso y soy residente de la ciudad aquí de Santa María. Seré breve en mis comentarios y hoy estoy aquí como residente construyendo trabajo y su puesto proveedor y manteniendo a mi familia elegir vivir Aquí en el condado de Santa Bárbara. Es un placer estar aquí frente a ustedes y como, y un poco nerviosa pero agradecida que ustedes decidieron apoyar a los trabajadores domésticos.

Más importante que ustedes la mesa directiva del Condado Santa Barbara apoyó sinceramente a personas con discapacidad Mental personas de la tercera edad son periodidad. Nuestra comunidad sale adelante mejorando cuando nos aseguramos de que los demás vulnerables tengan buena salud en su hogar, familia sólidas y experiencias positivas. Es por eso es importante Todos los condados de California inviertan en la economía de la ciudad y se preparen para que se avecinen. Los trabajadores de atención domiciliaria a través del programa de servicio apoyo en el hogar, IHC tiene un trabajo difícil y muchos no pueden manejar esta línea de trabajo. Los proveedores trabajan duro día a día Y el costo de los trabajos no solo es físico, sino también mental.

Muchos de nosotros encontramos nuestra pasión haciendo el labor y realmente es un trabajo pero para otros no hay otra opción y tienen la responsabilidad deben de cuidar a su familia Sabemos que la necesidad del cuidado en nuestra comunidad sigue creciendo. Ustedes apoyando un nuevo contrato va a ayudar a más personas entre hacer lo que hacemos nosotros. Es por eso que hoy, en nombre de los miles de trabajadores de IHSS y nuestro sindicato UDW en America nos gustaría extender nuestro mayor agradecimiento, aprecio a la Junta de Supervisores de Santa Barbara por el liderazgo y su decisión de invertir en esta mano de obra. Para proveedores como yo estoy realmente nos da una sensación de seguridad sobre nuestros futuros financieros. Muchas gracias.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed29:37 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed29:40 · ≈ 9:29 AM

That was our final

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed29:40 · ≈ 9:29 AM

speaker.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8029:42 · ≈ 9:29 AM

All right, then turning to departmental item number one. Would you read that into the record please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed29:49 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number one is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors Laguna County Sanitation District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a Laguna County Sanitation District ordinance relative to service charges connection charges and trunk sewer fees and resolution relative to collection of service charges on the tax roll, and this is in the fourth and fifth districts.

0:30 – 0:358 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8030:18 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Thank you,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed30:18 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Miss Wells.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed30:20 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Good morning supervisors at this item is staffs recommendation for fiscal year 2223 wastewater service charges connection charges and trunk sewer fees for the Laguna County Sanitation District which services the orchid community and Marty Wilder the district's manager will making be making the presentation today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed30:48 · ≈ 9:30 AM

Good morning chair Hartman and directors of the board. This is the annual consideration for rates and fees for losing the sanitation district. So what is Laguna County Sanitation District it's a dependent district of the board created in 1958, provides wastewater services to or cut any unincorporated area instead of Santa Maria, and as regulated by basically lots of permits for collection systems that treatment plant Brian waste laboratory air pollution control etc.

Current activities. As you may know, we're well underway with our phase one plant upgrade, which is to replace the existing older infrastructure mostly built in 1960 recycled water distribution project to Waller Park is nearly complete and we've completed several phases and are beginning another phase of a sewer system or basically our trunk line lining projects.

So this annual rates and fee ordinance is being considered today, it was noticed pursuant to prop 218 requirements. The mailer went to nearly 13,000 customers on 10,900 parcels. The hearing dates were published as required, including government code newspaper required newspaper notices in the Santa Maria Times, and we did have a small number of written protests and comments approximately 65 total Sewer charges, so sewer charges pay for annual operation maintenance and replacement as well as reserves. Those revenues are collected on the tax roll and this year a 1.5% rate increase is proposed per our five year rate study we're in your three.

For comparison, the consumer price index based on the annual average was 3.8%. The actual charge per residential unit equivalent as a measure of standard measurement comparison to other agencies is an annual amount of $1,104.98 last year's rate was $1088 and 65 cents which is a $16 3033 cent increase for the year or equivalent one point dollar and 36 cents per month. Commonly you compare their agencies by months so the monthly rate would be $92 and eight Multiple family residential units such as mobile homes condominiums and apartments are a reduced rate of $897.60 per year, schools are billed at $57.32 per capita per year and commercial is fluctuates due to type of facility restaurant retail etc and it's based on the amount of waste flow and load How we're going to compare this county wide is shown, because if we do treat to tertiary levels in addition to advanced treatment for using reverse osmosis to remove and reduce salts.

The rate at 9208 is a little more than average, which is $73 and 70 cents per month. I do like to include a total was water comparison which is portable water plus sewer together. And I had mentioned we do advanced treatment and some agencies do that but through the Water Department so for more appropriate comparison, water and sewer together is $144 and $45 and 44 cents with a county wide average of $164 and 70 cents.

This action also addresses developer charges and fees, which are paid for by development for system equity buy in basically for their fair share of capacity trunkline fees fund collection system improvements and the connection charges fun treatment plant and discharge improvements. The developer charges and fees are adjusted by indexes, either addressed in ordinances or in one case development agreement with the for reimbursement to the developer.

The connection charge per residential unit equivalent based on the construction cost index at 7.6% is will be $9,070. Whereas the two trunk line fees one Laguna trunk line fee, also adjusted by the consumer construction cost index 7.6% is $1,158 per residential unit. The Bradley trunk line fee is the reimbursement agreement with a developer and the agreement address to tie that to the prime rate which was three and a quarter percent, it would therefore be $2,999 per residential unit equivalent A couple more pictures of the plant upgrade process era, you know how we're coming along.

And basically today we recommend adoption of the rates and fees for next year

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8035:39 · ≈ 9:35 AM

to

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.9735:40 · ≈ 9:35 AM

board

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8035:41 · ≈ 9:35 AM

members have any questions

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.9735:42 · ≈ 9:35 AM

for Mr Wilder.

0:35 – 0:4417 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8035:47 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Seeing none. How many protests were filed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed35:51 · ≈ 9:35 AM

We had 65 comments but of those four were valid protests.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8035:55 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Okay. Is there any public comment, Madam Clerk

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed36:00 · ≈ 9:36 AM

chair Hartman and members of the board we have one request to speak here in Santa Maria. We will now go to Chuck Williams, Mr Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed36:14 · ≈ 9:36 AM

I live in Old Town Orchard, my school bill is $1600 a year. Thank you Bob Nelson and Peter Adam. Before you increase this sewer tax again, please give me a good explanation of why the increase. Peter Adam implemented at 1.9 automatic increase so that the plant manager Mr Wilder here would not have to keep coming back to the trough and asking the board for more money.

Now you're back within three years. Asking for an additional 1.5%, bringing my sewer bill total to an additional 3.4% per year, that's ridiculous. This is outrageous when approved I will be paying 5.4 on my property taxes. You are taking complete advantage of homeowners with your authority if you pass this bill. Current homeowners should not have to pay for future development or pet projects.

This tax has to have a legitimate termination date. My sewer bill will soon cost more than my home is worth. Supervisor Nelson, I went into your office over two years ago to talk with you and Peter Adam in private regarding the Oasis Community Center. Peter left early that day I asked you at that time about my sewer rate increase of 1.9% annually, it's outrageous.

You said quote Chuck, I promise I will take the increase off as soon as I can unquote. Why should I believe you again? I know what I heard then and I know what I heard prior and you know what you said in both cases My age has nothing to do with what I heard you say, which you denied saying. Then started apologizing profusely to me for misunderstanding what I thought you said."

You said it Bob, you said it. You and I started off pretty good about 10 years ago. Unfortunately the last couple of years have turned to not... I have turned to learn to not trust your word. You know exactly why I feel the way I do. I do not trust you or this entire quid pro quo board like Peter Adams said before the last 1.9% rate increase, quote, it's a done deal and there's nothing you can do to stop it.

Sewer fees is the only, unquote, sewer fees is the only way I can get things done, unquote. This is perfect examples of government quid pro quo corruption. Thank you.

GuestAlicia WelchFire ChiefProposedself-stated39:10 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:13 · ≈ 9:39 AM

That was our final speaker,

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8039:14 · ≈ 9:39 AM

thank you and so we bring it back to staff are there any further comments?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed39:25 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Chair Hartman and directors of board know for the comment, his rate Mr Williams right apparently is based on either multiple units on the property or commercial I have to look at it specifically if that was requested.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8039:37 · ≈ 9:39 AM

And just one quick question. I mean we typically do this every year it's not a, and it reflects cost of living adjustments Is that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed39:47 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Chair Hartman directions aboard that is correct. In fact, the most recent series of adjustments were based on a five year study to address inflationary costs, the prior increases were fairly significant but they were to pay for the plant upgrade primarily. So once we got to that point to address reserve debt service and reserve requirements etc. Then we set up this five year plan, we're now in year three to make an attempt to maintain costs as applicable based on inflationary electricity labor etc.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8040:20 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Nelson.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role40:23 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Yes thank you Chairman. The rates have gone up in the orchid area probably over the last 10 to 14 years right and the reason behind that can you kind of go into that because it was a plant that was built again in 1958 but then there needed some be some major upgrades to to

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8040:40 · ≈ 9:40 AM

serve on public comment is now closed

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role40:44 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Due to the need to comply with certain state standards on on treatment and whatnot. Can you speak about this a little bit,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed40:51 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Artie? Chair Hartman, Directors of the Board and Director Nelson specifically, the treatment plant was built in 1960 capacity increased 1974 another one in 1986 however the one in 2001 was a regulatory compliant Required plant upgrade to address based on plan objectives for salt basically, Sam Ryan Guadalupe had addressed those through other means by buying state water Laguna was not able to do that so we did a fairly significant upgrade at that time.

The current upgrade is a total replacement of the 1960 plants typical useful life is 40 years were at 60 years It's a total redo the existing plant other agencies such as long poke San Luis Obispo and others have undergone very significant increases up in the $140 million range, and I've had to just adjusted rates as well. Other agencies are less so can't speak specifically for Santa Maria but they do have three times the customer base and low technology treatment processes it's my understanding that it's matter of time before something equivalent will occur there too.

So yes, today is right just to keep up with inflationary indices and to keep the rate set at a point where we can like I said pay our debt service on the current construction project.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role42:08 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Thank you, Mr Wilder. And I just want to make that point because, you know, this is good starting of our public assets is what I firmly believe here and that's why it support this increase the other portion of it is I think that Marty and his team have been excellent. Goody Sherry's you know wall inflation has gone up by 3.8%. Over the last year they're still only asking for 1.5%. And just to put that into scale what that means to the rate payers is if they were to ask for consumer price increase which is common on a lot of other districts and I think we saw in the presentation, that mean another $273,000 of these paid by orchid residents so having that 1. 5% increase.

is fair and addressing the added costs that are necessary to maintain it shows that you and Miss Hagan and Miss Wallace have done a really good job in a plan together for the future of the plant. And, of course, you know I would love to see this to go away but at this point we got in trouble because we did not increase fee sure fees for many years in the orchid area and so I think that this board is doing.

It's fiduciary responsibility on making sure that we are keeping up with the cost of maintenance. If we don't maintain things they fall apart and then we need to rebuild them ends up costing the taxpayers a whole lot more. So, with that that's one reason why I will be voting to approve this item and I'll move that here in a moment. The other thing I do want to address is I did get a there was quite a few comment letters as Mr. Wilder said only four of them were valid because part of them came from mobile home parks and the way it works is mobile home parks, it's the property owner the park owner that has to vote. And so I want to make sure that the residents in the mobile home parks know that my heard their concerns One of the things that they need to look at as well though is that as Mr Wilder pointed out, is that mobile home users and certain users only pay a percentage of this.

So we're really talking about $1 a month per mobile home increase this year so I know that there's people on tight budgets and fixed incomes and I empathize, but I do think that this is a fiduciary responsible activity, so no other comments I'll move this item.

0:44 – 0:4616 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8044:29 · ≈ 9:44 AM

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed motion passes unanimously. Madam Clerk, would you read item number two into the record please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:41 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number two is from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding accounting service area 12 Mission Canyon sewer district resolution relative to collection of sewer service charges and sewer connection charges on the tax roll. And this isn't the first district

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8045:01 · ≈ 9:45 AM

as well

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed45:03 · ≈ 9:45 AM

So chair Hartman members of the board, this item is to set the charge for wastewater services and CSA 12 which is the Mission Canyon community staff is proposing no change to the existing rates but it's required to bring this item to your board. To adopt a resolution to set the charge each each year we do have a presentation for your board, but we can skip the presentation if you'd like to save time, it's up to

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8045:34 · ≈ 9:45 AM

And this is in the first district.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.9745:37 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Correct.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8045:44 · ≈ 9:45 AM

I think we can skip it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed45:47 · ≈ 9:45 AM

All right, great. So we have the recommendation to you today for approval of the resolution to set the charge for the CSA 12 wastewater service chart

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8046:04 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Okay, may I have a motion. Oh, any public comment on this side chair Hartman and members of the board we have no

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:10 · ≈ 9:46 AM

request

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8046:10 · ≈ 9:46 AM

to speak on this item. So we have a motion for staff recommendation A through C in our board letter today. Some of

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8646:19 · ≈ 9:46 AM

second

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8046:19 · ≈ 9:46 AM

all in favor say aye.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction46:21 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Aye.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8046:22 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Any opposed and supervisor Williams wasn't here for the vote. Madam Clerk would you read item number three

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:32 · ≈ 9:46 AM

into the record please. Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number three is from the public works department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding establishing benefit assessments for county service areas, 331 in the Santa Barbara North County lighting district for fiscal year 2022 to 2023.

0:46 – 1:0219 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed46:57 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board. So this item is before you to approve resolutions to establish benefit assessments for fiscal year 22-23 against CSA 331 in the North County Lighting District for street lighting services. Again staff is proposing no changes to the existing rates we do have a presentation to share with you but we can waive the presentation if you prefer

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8047:25 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Let's see, this is in all districts but since there's no change and I don't see any board member asking for the presentation we could waive it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed47:36 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Great so we ask your board to approve the resolutions to set the benefit assessments for the street lighting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed47:42 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Madam Clerk any public comment? Chair Hartman and members of the Board we have no request to speak on this item. So may I have a motion

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8047:50 · ≈ 9:47 AM

to approve the recommended actions A and B in the staff report

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction47:55 · ≈ 9:47 AM

So moved.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8047:57 · ≈ 9:47 AM

You have a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed48:08 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Madam Chair members of the board I'm sorry did you say, A and B or A through E. I just was trying to

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8048:15 · ≈ 9:48 AM

be and then it's one through

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed48:17 · ≈ 9:48 AM

five in my one two five in the order. I just want to make sure there's all the items yeah

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8048:22 · ≈ 9:48 AM

includes one through five Thank

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.9748:31 · ≈ 9:48 AM

And

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8048:32 · ≈ 9:48 AM

so that brings us to item number four

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed48:39 · ≈ 9:48 AM

chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number four is from the public health department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ambulance service contract policy resolution, and ambulance service update

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8048:57 · ≈ 9:48 AM

We, we have x. Oh yes,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed48:59 · ≈ 9:48 AM

and Madam Chair before we start we just take a five minute break to reset our staffing for sure okay

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.8049:05 · ≈ 9:49 AM

five minute break we're running a little early

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.9749:07 · ≈ 9:49 AM

today but Yeah. We're

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:01:52 · ≈ 10:01 AM

reconvening the May 10th Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting here in Santa Maria. We're at departmental item number four, Madam Clerk would you read that into the record please?

1:02 – 1:088 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:02:05 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number four is from the Public Health Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ambulance service contract policy resolution and Ambulance Service Update

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:02:20 · ≈ 10:02 AM

I'm turning first then to ex parte communications, who would like to go first. Supervisor Lavinia.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:02:31 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Thank you Madam Chair on March 16 I met with representatives of Mr. They express concerns with the length of a requested extension. Fire Chiefs on March, 24 and also April. I'm sorry May 4 where they express concerns that I think are pretty well summed up in the main ninth letter from chief partwick

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:03:05 · ≈ 10:03 AM

supervisor

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:03:05 · ≈ 10:03 AM

heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:03:06 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Well, I have a lot of ex parte communications because this is a complex issue over a very long period of time so I met with Dr. Doran also in the clay on August 19 2019 and on May 2 2022 had also had a meeting with. Dr. Doronoso about the same subject and then I met with County Fire Chief Hartwig as recently as May 9th, 22. And then also my chief staff met with Chief Taylor and Supervisor Hartman on May 9 2022. And I met with Brian Fernandez from the County Firefighters Association on May 9 And on May 2 I met with the Fire Chiefs Association and March 18, I also met with the Fire Chiefs Association. And then in September 3 of 2019, I met with the Fire Chief's Association and local fire unions.

And then I met on June 24 of 2019 with representatives may Mr. and consultants Jeremy Schumacher David Sherman, Mike Saunders and Molly Culver, and on February 16 2021 I also met with Mr representatives, and then August 23 event in 2021 with Mr representatives, and then April 20 of this year. And then I met with the MR union representatives on September 6, 2019 and April 7 to 22.

And also met with the fault ambulance folks Julian Drew Barry and Troy Hagan on May 14 of 2021. That's everybody

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:04:43 · ≈ 10:04 AM

supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:04:47 · ≈ 10:04 AM

So, some of the dates I may cite is expiry it may have had no communications about this subject just. I'll say in particular about ones that I'm certain were and I'm not disclosing ex parte communications with our own public health department, because they're not a party, a party to the RFP. On Wednesday, January 6 met with Molly Culver and Mr on zoom. On Wednesday, July 21.

I that this of last year. These were both last year, I asked in as part of my fire board duties I asked Chief Hartwig if amr had cook what the possibilities of Mr co bidding with the chief's fire proposal was. On Monday, August 23 I met with Molly Culver and Mr in person. On Thursday October 28 2121. I asked Chief Hartwig again as part of my fireboard duties if how Kiyama would be treated in the RFP process and proposals.

Wednesday, March 16. I had a. These are essentially the bimonthly meetings, I do not think we discussed it but I'm just going to put that out there anyway. Friday March 25 2022. I met with a fire chiefs association about the ground ground ambulance process in person. Tuesday, March 29th 2022. I met with Molly Culver and AMR in person. About the contract extension and their reluctance to grant grant a contract extension.

And Friday, April 8 2022. I met with the Union for the paramedics and EMTs local 70. about advantages and disadvantages about current situation. Wednesday, April 20th, 2022 I had a meeting with Chief Hardwick. I do not think I discussed any of this at that but I am citing it anyway. Monday, April 18th meeting with Chief Taylor in person. I definitely discussed the upcoming ambulance contract With him, Thursday May 5 2022 meeting with the Fire Chiefs Association.

That was last week and yesterday met with Brian Fernandez ahead of the firefighters union about this discussion today. I'll just say that most of them except for the meetings with most, most of these are regular meetings that we set up on multiple issues with our chiefs

1:08 – 1:1712 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:08:24 · ≈ 10:08 AM

supervisor Nelson.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:08:25 · ≈ 10:08 AM

Yes, I don't have all the dates here but I do meet with the fire chief monthly CEO weekly that two meetings with the county chiefs to means with fire. With the fire association Brian Fernandez met with Mr on a couple of occasions as well as Terry must message met with the Mr labor Association twice about this. Some additional experience from my time as a staffer learning about this issue and, and looking to possible solutions.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:09:03 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Supervisor loving you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:09:04 · ≈ 10:09 AM

yes I have two ads I met with Brian Fernandez on April 13 to discuss the issues, and also met twice, I don't have the dates with the local EMT union.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:09:16 · ≈ 10:09 AM

And my ex parte are just for this year that, that I have March 16 regular check in with Chief Hartwig march 21 with the county fire chiefs march 29 lump of fire chief Welch march 30 president and the Santa Barbara County Fire Union. Regular meeting with Chief Hartwig April 25, with the local 70 paramedics may fourth with Mr. May 4 with the fire chiefs may ninth with Chief Taylor and may ninth with the president of the Santa Barbara County Fire Union and.

Basically, I think the issues summarized in the May 9 letter covered the issues that we discussed with county fire and again amr was the extension and the kind of service and flexibility that they offer. So with that, County Council did you have anything you wanted to add

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

no manager not at this time.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:10:22 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Okay, we're ready for staff presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:10:26 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Great. Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the board presenting with me today is Mr. Nick clay emergency medical services agency director and Dr. Danny Shepard emergency medical services agency Medical Director. Joining us via Zoom is Mr. Thomas Moore, our consultant from Fitch and Associates. Your board approved a contract with Fitch Associates to assist us in crafting the ambulance services RFP.

Mr. Moore is the Director of Emergency Medical Services for University Medical Center Health System in Lubbock, Texas and he serves as a Senior Associate for EMS Public Safety and Healthcare Consulting firm Fitch & Associates. His professional healthcare experience includes designing Implementing and managing ground ambulance services, managing hospital emergency care system and trauma centers and providing consulting leadership for strategic planning consolidations mergers acquisitions and RFP processes for healthcare and government procurement for transportation services.

Our presentation today will provide information for your board's consideration of three critical areas in EMS. What we present to you today is a culmination of efforts over the past five years, beginning with a countywide collaborative process To review and redesign the EMS system on October 1 2019, your board directed us to design a competitive RFP for ambulance services based on the outcomes of the EMS systems review. To fulfill your boards direction through a collaborative process the RFP advisory committee With technical assistance from local, state and national experts design an RFP that prioritizes achieving the best clinical outcomes that provides a comprehensive approach to countywide delivery of services that seeks innovation to address complex inter-facility transport issues.

And an RFP that complies with the state EMS direction Our hope is that your board will find that the RFP and the process presented today will deliver these key goals. Before I transition to Mr. Clay, I want to thank County Council in particular Rachel Van Molen and Brian Pettit for their guidance throughout this process. Also in the room and on Zoom are members of the RFP Advisory Committee.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:13:16 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Mr. Clay? So thing for you, we have three recommended actions. First to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:13:24 · ≈ 10:13 AM

approve the resolution that's been made adopting a policy setting forth issues to be considered for inclusion in contracts with provision of emergency services entered into or renewed on or after January 1st 2022. Approve and authorize issuance of a request proposals RFP for an exclusive services provider So, quick overview of AB 389. AB 39 went into effect January 1 2022, it created two new state statutes 1797 230 and 231.

In addition to solidifying the Alliance model the public private partnership for ambulance service, and also requires a county board of supervisors to establish your written policy setting forth issues to be considered for ambulance agreements entered into or renewed on or after January 1 2022. Lastly, to clarify, maybe three nine does not alter modify a bridge diminish or enlarge requirements for creating an exclusive operating area as outlined in 1797 224 issues to be considered in the resolution.

AB 399 presents a limited number of examples. The EMS agency has added additional elements, all of which were presented to the RFP Advisory Committee for approval and inclusion within the RFP. In the resolution presented to your board for approval we have included the following issues for consideration for ambulance agreements. Employment retention requirements, disaster response preparedness.

Minimum qualifications for the bidders, diversity and equity efforts, financial requirements, cost recovery mechanism for the county, community engagement outreach and education requirements, emergency takeover replacement provisions in the event of a major breach in the agreement, ongoing workforce development, and staffing levels and compensation requirements.

These issues were considered and have been included in the ambulance RFP and are also present in the existing ambulance agreement. Despite being able to complete the procurement and selection process prior to the end of the current agreement with AMR, there is still a timing issue as a new provider would need sufficient time to ramp up in advance of service delivery should a new provider be selected by the RFP review panel.

While long ramp-up period is of benefit to the incoming provider it creates a challenge to the outgoing providers they must maintain contractual deliverables while their staff transition to a new provider. In developing the ambulance RFP, a review of the recent ambulance RFPs was conducted to determine an appropriate ramp-up period supply chains and COVID notwithstanding.

After reviewing the average and consultation with Fitch & Associates it was determined that a six month ramp up period would be appropriate again excluding the impacts of both COVID and supply chain. Supply chain challenges. Ambulances are made to order in the global supply chain is limited, quite a number of elements required for development of ambulances and review of discussion with able to manufacturers. The current situation is about a 12 to 16 monthly time. Our potential bidders have indicated they could be ready in as little as one to eight months.

Alums has extended their input period till 11 months, which does not include And intend to award or contract to the two month, excuse me, does not include a two months between the intent to award and a contract presentation to the board. I'd just like to pause and briefly turn it over to Thomas with Fish & Associates to add anything

not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:17:03 · ≈ 10:17 AM

with regards to supply chain issues. Good morning thank you Nick

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:17:11 · ≈ 10:17 AM

yes so the health care industry represents roughly 20% of the U.S. economy at present and what we've observed as a firm nationwide is that healthcare's experiencing the same supply chain and logistical challenges that other industry sectors are experiencing, which are lack of materials, lack of individuals to load and then transport those materials and unload them at their destination along with several Coraline materials that are used to make capital assets, used in pre-hospital emergency medicine such as ventilators, cardiac monitors, AEDs, suction devices and a range of other things.

1:18 – 1:2410 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:18:01 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Thank you. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:18:03 · ≈ 10:18 AM

next just a brief overview of kind of where we've been. When we met in October of 2019 three years seemed like a lot of time to complete an ambulance RFP That said, we find ourselves in a position today where three years was just almost enough time. So how did we get here? The COVID pandemic began to impact the EMS agency staff in February of 2022. However despite these impacts, we proceeded with developing the RFP Advisory Committee which will go into more detail shortly.

In August CityGate was selected by the RFP Advisory Committee however shortly thereafter out of an abundance of caution, the RFP Advisory Committee recommended the contract be terminated We quickly began working with Fitch, who was a second runner up in the consultant RFP. And by January 2021 we were beginning work on the RFP. By November 2021, we had a draft emails RFP which was released for potential bidder comment and then a question about the boundaries of the UCSB campus prompted the EMS agency to clarify the status of the exclusivity of the UCSB campus with the state EMS authority.

The authority stated that the area known as UCSB campus was non-exclusive and it could be made exclusive by including it in the RFP. The RFP advisory committee provided guidance to include it in a single, exclusive operating area. Then in February 2024 or February 24th 2022, the EMS agency sent the final drafts to the state EMS agency for approval and on May 3rd they provided their approval.

And on May 10th we're here today to present this for your final approval. I look at what the timeline looks like should the RFP be approved for release today, it would be released by tomorrow. The responses will be due by July 11th of 2022. They'd be evaluated by an independent non-interested group of EMS experts and community leaders. The intent to award would be made on August 24th.

EMS agency will present the contract for your board's approval on November 1st of 2022 which would then allow for 11 to 13 month ramp up period a new service delivery starting

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:20:04 · ≈ 10:20 AM

on October 1st 2023 As mentioned, the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:20:11 · ≈ 10:20 AM

current agreement with AMR extends or expires at the end of this year, December 31st of 2022. In order to make the October 1st 2023 service date work you would need a short-term extension with AMR. In order to finalize the ambulance RFP initial conversations have been had with AMR and while we have not finalized our agreement we have every reason to believe we'll be able to present an agreement to your board by June.

Should the RFP timeline be delayed, it may negatively impact the negotiation timeline with AMR. To be clear, the Public Health Department is not formally engaged in negotiations

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:20:46 · ≈ 10:20 AM

discussions until authorized by your board. What if there's a gap in service?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:20:54 · ≈ 10:20 AM

While we don't anticipate being at a predicament of having a gap in service, it is important to acknowledge this scenario could occur. There are several reasons in which this scenario could incur. Legal challenges could halt the RFP process. Supply chain issues could cause a greater delay in the ramp-up period. The county and AMR could not reach an agreement to cover the gap.

There are no responsive bids to the ambulance RFP, negotiations with the winning bidder are protracted, and the state is unable to review the resulting contract in timely fashion. Each of these scenarios contain their own variations so it's difficult to predict a solution to each one of these variations. That said, the MS agency staff are confident that with the support of our EMS system participants we can manage every one of these potential scenarios.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:21:45 · ≈ 10:21 AM

So some key goals of the ambulance RFP.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:21:49 · ≈ 10:21 AM

As presented in October, as part of the EMS system review in 2018. The triple aim was a significant element of our ambulance RFP which focuses on patient experience, population health and system costs. The EMS agency itself values community access to education provider safety and support as well as clinical excellence. And lastly, the 2018 EMS System Review which included input from over 60 providers from all disciplines of the EMS system Included 23 system initiatives which were presented

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:22:21 · ≈ 10:22 AM

and included in the MMS RFP.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:22:32 · ≈ 10:22 AM

The RFP Advisory Committee. We started this process, I recall our first meeting it was after your board directed us to initiate the RFP process on October 2019 we established an advisory committee to define the scope of work and to select the RFP consultant to provide policy level direction on ambulance RFP And I recall the first meeting, I actually was in the EOC because we had been activated to respond to COVID-19.

The RFP throughout we met and it consisted of the Assistant CEO myself as a Public Health Director, the Public Health Department Deputy Director Paige Batson and the Behavioral Wellness Director. The committee staff that supported us with their expertise included staff from the EMS adjacency agency Fitch County Council, county procurement and county risk management.

We provided policy level guidance on the RFP. Some of the examples of the work that or the discussions and the guidance included ambulance RFP procedural timelines, ambulance RFP amendments as requested by California EMSA Approving the financial requirements of the proposers defining the boundaries of a single EOA validation of response time requirements support for innovation in the medical health.

The medical health patient and inter-facility transport systems, ensuring diversity equity and inclusion was included for the providers and patients. Staffing requirements in the ambulance RFP and confirmation of clinical standards set forth in the ambulance RFP.

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

1:24 – 1:3917 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:24:45 · ≈ 10:24 AM

So some key elements of the ambulance RFP and how they crosswalk with the current 2005 agreement? As we discussed going to the RFP in 2019, we talked about how well the system currently works. And while the ambulance RFP incorporates new ideas and innovation it also strengthens and enhances a number of existing elements of the current ambulance agreement. Response times were made standard throughout the county.

Currently there's a two minute extension for areas with ALS subcontracts meaning that if an ALS fire department arrives in advance of the ambulance within seven minutes and 59 seconds The ambulance has an additional two minutes to respond for a total of nine minutes and 59 seconds. This is in addition to several other agreements in which the ALS fire department has a seven minute response time standard with the EMS agency.

To shift, the 959 is moving towards an industry standard with other counties as we'll look at it in the next slide. Subcontracts are allowed however the exception is that there's no delays in the ambulance response time. We also shifted from three operating zones to one contiguous zone for the county And there is no change in the inter-facility

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:25:50 · ≈ 10:25 AM

transport boundaries. Just a brief review of AMEL's response times across

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:25:59 · ≈ 10:25 AM

the state and recent RFPs and contracts, as you can see that even the 959, this is a response time standard for urban areas for Code 3 responses. And as you can see, the 959 response time for lights and sirens response in urban areas in Santa Barbara County is still among the faster of other counties. It's important to note that there are two counties, Contra Costa County and Sonoma County that have different requirements for different areas. In this graph we've shown their fastest or their lowest

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:26:27 · ≈ 10:26 AM

response time requirement. Community access in education is an important

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:26:34 · ≈ 10:26 AM

component of the EMS system. The EMS RFP calls for bidders to present innovation in the areas of IFTs and mental health transports. That said, the EMS agency is also aimed to increase the level of accountability on response times for both mental health and our facility transports. Increased requirements for diversity, equity and inclusion training and specifically address or addressed. Additionally, the EMS agency staff work with public health department's Health Equity Coordinator to ensure we captured ambulance service, this element in the ambulance service through a health equity lens.

Focus on the patient experience by enhancing the requirements for patient surveys. We also focus on enhancing population health and community education, asking for a community event innovation and requiring one major community event per year. We require 24 seven access to translation service while providers do have various means to access this service currently it was important to make it a requirement.

Also a quick note on community education, that numerous studies have shown community involvement in early bystander care improves patient outcomes for the most serious of cases such as cardiac arrest and stroke. On provider safety and support we've increased the shift maximum to accommodate more remote areas from 48 hours to 60 hours however we have lowered the threshold for which ambulances are classified as busy essentially their unit hour utilization We've also added a rest requirement for the busier units.

We standardize the training platform, aligning with the fire department's current training platform. And we focus on enhancing employee wellness and safety requirements. Next I'll turn it over to Dr. Shepard to

CommentDanny ShepardProposedself-stated1:28:18 · ≈ 10:28 AM

discuss the clinical excellence requirements in the RFP. Good morning, I'm Danny Shepard. I'm the EMS medical director. I am also a physician staffed at Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Goleta Valley Cottage Hospital, board certified in emergency medicine but also board certified in EMS as a subspecialist. When we moved towards designing RFP our goal was to how could we improve the patient experience and the end user, the patients That was the quality of the care they receive. When your board directed us to go to RFP, we discussed that we had a very highly functioning EMS system. So especially our specialty care systems benchmarked against the West region in the United States. We have a very high-functioning stroke heart attack trauma systems that consistently perform at or above national averages and we really wanted to maintain that system How could we and the goal is how could we move the needle, how can we create a system that would create even more value for our patients.

And so discussing internally felt like we really had to focus on clinical excellence in the care of the patients receive at the time they call 9-1-1, they trust us implicitly. So at a time of an emergency they don't get to consider a lot of times. They have to call 911 and they're looking for help. And so we want those who arrive to provide the best care possible. A lot of our system is based on initial interventions but also getting the patient to the appropriate facility for definitive care. Our goal was to design An evaluation system that looked at the care our providers are providing on scene with the patients and what really is going to improve their, their care on scene but also you know once they go to the hospital hopefully improve their

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:30:07 · ≈ 10:30 AM

outcomes. So as I stated,

CommentDanny ShepardProposedself-stated1:30:14 · ≈ 10:30 AM

the emphasis is really on patient outcomes and what the patient experiences when they call 911. In general, if you look at all calls faster response times aren't generally associated with better clinical outcomes or care and it may sound counterintuitive but if you think about You know, if you're at a restaurant and the server is there quickly but then completely bumbles your order. You might be satisfied that you were served quickly but then you're quickly frustrated.

No one would argue that EMS is equitable to an experience at a restaurant If we want our providers to provide definitive care or sort of initial interventions, but also their clinical acumen and the way they apply their scope of practice can have huge impacts in the care that patient received. So if you are displaying stroke symptoms or if you potentially have a stroke and they arrive quickly but don't recognize the signs of stroke, you're taken to the hospital, you might be taken to a hospital doesn't provide stroke care or they don't realize. So if you come to a stroke center, that if the ambulance identifies that you're potentially having a stroke they will notify them on the when they call in and say have a potential stroke alert so that emergency department's ready that the neurology team may be there we take you directly to the CT scanner everything is done in preparation to administer treatment If the stroke or other condition is not recognized, then you may go through the triage process, maybe placed in a room.

So there are downstream delays that can compound that initial misdiagnosis that could result in 10, 20, 30 even more prolonged delays. So it's really important that initial interventions are applied appropriately but also that emergency conditions are recognized and patients are treated appropriately to their clinical impression. And that's sort of the goal of RFP is to hold, to hold the contractor accountable for the care that their employees provide and that the patients are getting the care that is intended through the medical control and sort of policy development process.

And in order to do this, we're going to use a clinical compliance tool similar to what we used with response time compliance monitoring but now evaluate clinical compliance. We write all of these policies and procedures for our pre-hospital providers to perform in the field. Now we will look at how they apply those policies and procedures to patients. And so we've developed a tool, a clinical compliance tool that we will be able to deploy it and evaluate In real time, the care that the patients are receiving so we can optimize their outcomes.

You know, just

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:33:02 · ≈ 10:33 AM

add that we talk about innovation as a part of the RFP. I think this is a great example of how even in advance of the RFP we've been able to develop an innovative solution. First Watch is an industry leader when it comes to data aggregation and data management. And they've been very quick to apply a current existing platform of response time compliance and then apply that to patient care and clinical compliance. So it's been an exciting quick maneuver on the innovation front.

CommentDanny ShepardProposedself-stated1:33:27 · ≈ 10:33 AM

When the providers themselves will be able to, to look at their performance and how they're how their providers are performing in the field and allow us to to incentivize them to provide good care so your providers are following the policies and procedures of providing good care. So we can we can incentivize you and reward you for that. And they would discount fines that they may receive for late arrivals. But similarly, poor performance would be, you know, they'd be accountable for that poor performance.

I think it really just creates a culture where we're encouraging our providers to provide good clinical care and If a patient has a concern about their care, saying that oh well it looks like they arrived quickly. Everything was okay. I think that would really dissatisfy a patient. They don't feel justified by that response so being able to look at their care that they received and have accountability and say this is what we're looking at in real time can really improve the patient experience but also the care that's being

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.971:34:32 · ≈ 10:34 AM

provided. That

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:34:42 · ≈ 10:34 AM

ends our presentation, and we are available for your questions.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:34:47 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Thank you. Supervisor heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:34:50 · ≈ 10:34 AM

I had a question about the status of negotiations with amr about a contract extension for a short period of time I understand that that was in the works just as recently as last week, and just wanted to know the update on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:35:08 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Supervisor Hart, Madam Chair. We are in initial discussions as mentioned earlier we haven't received authorization to officially renegotiate a short-term extension with them although all conversations so far have led to a successful conclusion of that I think given the definitive start date of a new contract is really sort of that key component and understand how long the extension needs to be which is why these are brought together so we have a definitive start date for the RFP or the new service state and then a definitive end date For that short term extension,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:35:41 · ≈ 10:35 AM

my from my perspective. This is a key piece of what we're doing and you know the presentation shows how complex this issue is and how many moving parts there are and you know everybody's working together to get us the best possible service for the patients that need this emergency care. And I really appreciate the great working relationship that we have with Mr over decades, and you know their exclusive operating agreement with the county and the fact that that had been grandfathered and renewed. You know for many many years, I think led the board to unanimously decide, you know, we wanted to do an RFP to understand You know, what else is out there as options and it really to do our fiduciary responsibility of checking in to find out through a competitive process.

What other services could potentially provide or what AMR could do more aggressively to help our local residents? And because of COVID we've had a little bit of a hiccup in the process so that you know, it's not just this thing that's the world And, you know, I think we just have to recognize that reality. And a couple of things that Mr Clay said that you know made me pause a little bit was you know talking about making the timeline, you know assuming the supply chains are solid and and work, and that you know we almost have enough time. And yet this has taken three years. So I personally think I'd like to know that you know AMR is willing to work with us and do the short term contract extension that makes sense for everything that we're all trying to accomplish together to get a fair equitable competitive RFP process that works with the timeline.

For AMR to continue operating the ambulance services or for us to make a transition. And I'd like to know that now, I'd like to know that soon before we really weigh into this whole RFP process because I think it sort of speaks to the partnerships that we have and the viability of those. So from my perspective where we're ahead of the game here having a substantive conversation about the RFP until we have that contract extension in place, so we know what the timetable is going to be. We know how this orderly process is going to work out. So I'd like to see our board just hit the pause button and say let's come back at two weeks after we've had a successful conclusion of those negotiations with AMR and know what we're doing here over the next year.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:38:27 · ≈ 10:38 AM

And I would just like to jump in that, that I agree it seems to me that we have the cart before the horse. And at least when I spoke with am our representatives they said they, it was four or five years five years is what they were insisting on and so I think 12 months is what we're looking for and so that seems to me quite a quite a distance apart, and that that really frames.

Many of the questions and how, how we would really look at the RFP. I'm somewhat disappointed that this went to the state and now it's back to us and I understand that COVID in the short timeline and the pressures that everyone was under but that again seems to me like limits our discretion in ways that I resist. And so, I don't want to make that same mistake again.

So, I agree with Supervisor Hart that I would like to postpone a full discussion of this until we know that we really have a contract in a short-term contract with AMR. Supervisor Nelson and then Supervisor Williams?

1:39 – 1:4917 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:39:49 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Yes, thank you chairman and I share those frustrations as well but i think we still need to have a bit of discussion here because. That timeline, the 10 month extension we're looking at right now only exists if we put this out to into bid tomorrow. Right that's the timeline. That means taking this RFP and moving it forward. I'm not satisfied with this RFP, so I know that's gonna be additional delays. So you know how do we negotiate with AMR on a contract when we don't know which RP they're going to get what is going up the street?

We need to build into that time timeframe, because if we are going to

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:40:28 · ≈ 10:40 AM

state that again I'm not

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:40:30 · ≈ 10:40 AM

so the RP that we have right now. The 10 month timeframe includes this RP hitting the street tomorrow. Well, I'm not okay with this RFP. So that's going to take us negotiating what that looks like among the five of us, because it's our out of Monday where the decision makers we own this RP we want it to look like our fingerprints on it. So we're going to negotiate that among the five of us, it's going to go back to the state At that point, then come back to us and then go to the street. So we're talking a couple of two or three four months I don't know what that looks like and so I do think we have to have some type of RP discussion so that we know what negotiations look like with amr because that extends the time frame, the ramp up period.

Is what I'm, I'm imagining I might be wrong but that's kind of why I think it's important for us. And we can have the discussion two weeks that's fine to maybe Mr is willing to have an open ended contract with us so that we can get through this time process. That's something I guess I'd be open to. But I think we do have to have this discussion because I'm not okay with this RFP, I mean I have some questions for Dr Shepard because I am concerned about the cardiac strokes side of this thing.

I understand his points about making sure we have better clinical care, but I know response times are hugely important and I'm really uncomfortable where we're going with this RFP so looking forward to having more discussion with all of you about that.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:41:53 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Supervisor Williams and then Supervisor Lovenino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:41:59 · ≈ 10:41 AM

You know, I understand your question. But I will disclose that I've had the same thought that Supervisor Hart and Hartman have had even though I'm not Brown acted with them separately. And so I just now learned that they've had this thought independently. And the reason why I have had this thought is simply because I do not appreciate sort of the level of leveraging and brinksmanship on AMR's part.

You know, I feel like at this point we have this sort of very strange situation where they came to me a number of months ago and said basically take us for four or five years or we're going to drop you. I want to know if that's the case or not. And, you know, I give them plenty of reasons why they shouldn't and why they should agree to another extension but i, you know, and then by, by not giving us an answer before this hearing That is just simply another attempt to leverage us harder. Right? If we, oh, we might have some real problems in this RFP but we can't fix those because otherwise we won't get the extension right and I don't think we should be governed by a contractor attempting to leverage us and so Yeah, I guess that's that is why I would like to understand to whether the 10 month extension will be agreed to or not.

That to me is the most important clarification.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:44:13 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is weird because we don't get to talk to each other about these issues so we're all kind of having the same come into this independently. My goal is just get this done right and it doesn't feel like we started off on the right foot. And as far as the timeline goes let's think about something I mean this was a 30 year contract that we basically had. We took three years to get to put together an RFP for a number of reasons which I understand I don't think we have to rush into this.

As far as AMR, you know whether or not it's brinksmanship look they're going to do what every company does and that is what they're charged with doing which is they have to defend their turf and they've got to do what's in their best interest as well so I don''t begrudge them that It puts us behind an eight ball right now. And so, you know the way I see this is we have to establish a deadline to get that extension if we don't and we walk out of this meeting say well go get the extension before we have the hearing there's no incentive for at that point Mr to come to the table so I, you know, I kind of heard the same things that when I met with Mr. They wanted and they brought up a number of very good reasons legitimate concerns why they wanted a longer extension than the 10 or 12 months that was being offered but then I heard through the grapevine like two weeks later agreed to an extension, and so now it sounds like they haven't.

So it's all very confusing. I don't want to go through this entire RFP and talk about all the problems that I have with it, the questions that I have with it until we know where we stand in this negotiation. And right now we're walking blind. And so I would support setting a deadline of you know, it needs to come back to us at a certain time with this extension If the extension, at that point we have to make a decision as a board. If it comes back and AMR decides that they can't do that, it's not in their best interest and they wanna walk away then we have to make some really hard decisions and move quickly.

My guess and my hope is that they would agree to that extension and then it puts us in a much better position at that point to figure out exactly what this RFP is gonna look like. And I also agree with Supervisor Hartman Having to go to the state and I don't know what, you know, I'm not familiar with what it had to do by law. I would have much rather seen it come to us first and have this meeting first and then go to the state because now it feels like it's going to come to us anything we change I'm assuming has to go back to Cal AMSA so that just takes longer but I do have some other serious concerns with the RP but I'd rather we deal with those in a later, later date.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:47:19 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Supervisor heart

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:47:19 · ≈ 10:47 AM

yeah i just think that supervisor Lebanon has exactly right you know i've got confidence that we're going to be able to work through these issues in a short period of time where it sounded like we were really close and and there's nothing like a deadline to focus folks attention and I think you know this is an opportunity demonstrate That we're going to continue to collaborate through this process and get to the right result, and it you know there's a great saying about you know do you want to do it now. Or do you want to do it right. And I think we need to do right in two weeks is not much of a delay in all the schedules involved I think we can actually, you know stick pretty close to the schedule that we originally had by just having a two week delay to get this contract extension to make everybody comfortable

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:48:03 · ≈ 10:48 AM

supervisor Nelson What are you thinking yeah so

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:48:07 · ≈ 10:48 AM

We still need to have a contract that does built in us changing the RFP as a board. So, I'm not willing to move forward if that if the extension doesn't include that so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:48:19 · ≈ 10:48 AM

and is that we're going to come back in two weeks and start where we are

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:48:22 · ≈ 10:48 AM

today in two weeks. So if we have a 10 month extension, which is what has been negotiating now. And then we decide in two weeks that we're going to change the RFP. Then we're gonna need another extension.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:48:33 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Not really, I don't think so because the dates were talking about are the you know 2023, the end of 2023. So we have a lot of time but we don't have a lot of time if the contract ends at the end of 2022

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:48:49 · ≈ 10:48 AM

And we were thinking initially of a 10 month extension, we could put in 12 months not to exceed 12 months or 12 months to accommodate an opportunity for the board to fully vet the RFP.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:49:04 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Okay so I'm getting more comfortable because I want to make sure because if we have this tight schedule which I think is what we were shown there wasn't room to go back to the state

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:49:13 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Right and I think we're all agreed, we want to put our fingerprints on the RFP and we want to carve out time to be able to do that.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:49:21 · ≈ 10:49 AM

So I think it also helped hear from staff if they could with the year extension allow for both those things to happen.

1:49 – 1:527 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:49:29 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Hart through the chair, anything's possible. I think the challenge is just gonna be that the requests that come in or the changes that come in and how the state interprets them and what their turnaround time is it's sort of an unknown to us so if the state has concerns or issues with any of the proposed changes that could just extend and lengthen that time. So while you know from 10 months to a year may be reasonable depending on the changes it may not allow enough time for the state to review or for us to engage in conversation and address those changes you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:49:58 · ≈ 10:49 AM

request.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:49:59 · ≈ 10:49 AM

And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:50:00 · ≈ 10:50 AM

I appreciate that. I think that's a smart thing for staff member to say we don't know, and it could take longer but you know it hasn't so far, and we can go forward and deal with it if we have to change it but today we have a tight time frame. We're proposing to have less of a tight timeframe. That's a good thing.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:50:21 · ≈ 10:50 AM

So then, I think what I'm hearing is that the board would like to have a contract nailed down with Mr. A short term contract before we actually deliberate on the substance of the RFP County Council did you have something

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:50:42 · ≈ 10:50 AM

Madam Chair members of the board I do think it might be helpful to, to take a break and just consult with staff on the timing. Just so that we can have a few minutes to outline the process to see. I think if giving direction on extending the contract. It might be good for the direction to include a little leeway as we just a couple months, just as we figure out that process.

And then also I wanted to mention so one of the actions before your board is the policy for under 389 AB 389, any renewal needs to be consistent with the policy. So you could either. But the policy can be more general than the RFP right so any of the specifics are concerned about you can when we bring the RP back you could address it then. But on the policy. If you had concerns about that or wanted maybe to delete anything from the policy, you could either give that direction today, or when it comes back, but then the board, the staff would be negotiating just consistent with those general terms of the policy so I just want

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.801:51:49 · ≈ 10:51 AM

For myself, I would like to do a really careful crosswalk between the policies and where in the RFP and how those policies are reflected. And then look at other things in the RFP that aren't reflected And I haven't really done that crosswalk yet. So, I would like to wait on a discussion of the policies till we have an opportunity to do that. We could limit it to speaking, really on the continuance but another option that I would favor is to listen and to listen carefully to what people have to say. And then go forward so could I see nods about that. Okay, so we will take a short break.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:11 – 2:1615 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.972:11:23 · ≈ 11:11 AM

After

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:11:24 · ≈ 11:11 AM

a short break, we're reconvening the May 10 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Maria. And we wanted to hear from staff about this schedule. So Dr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:11:39 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Yes, Chair Hartman we will come back in two weeks and we will work to negotiate a short term extension with Mr. It probably will be more realistic to look at a 12 to four months extension rather than attend. And we anticipate that we, depending upon changes from your board to the RFP. Those changes may add an additional six months

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

was you know it's hard to anticipate what's going to happen but you come back in two weeks and at that time, hopefully we have the extension. You make comments on the adopt the policy, but make comments on the RFP, the staff incorporates the changes it goes off to the state, that's an unknown period of time. Then our question was okay what if the state makes changes and it comes back.

You may want to see it again. Right? And so building in that time, not knowing exactly how long the state would take and then not knowing what comments they'll come back with if they're very minor maybe it'd be fine to move forward but if it's something really significant we thought your board might wanna see it again. So that was part of the six months is we have some unknowns there and we wanted to staff heard from the board that you wanted to not just move forward without hearing from you. So they're trying to accommodate all of that time

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:13:03 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Right, there are a lot of unknowns here. What if we hold this go to public comment and come back. So, Madam Clerk, how many

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

kind of counsel and manager just one more thought so I'm hearing from the clerk that the 524 meeting is very full. So depending on the time frame for this item might be it's already at nine hours, so, so just something to think about whether it's two weeks or Or maybe there's another item on that agenda that can be moved I'm not sure.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:13:36 · ≈ 11:13 AM

And, yes, and could we ask our CEO to look into that and during public comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:13:42 · ≈ 11:13 AM

and assistant CEO Terry muscles just on zoom so she could maybe address that when we come back.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:13:48 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Okay, so let's go to public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13:54 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, we currently have 11 requests to speak. And we will first go to Mr Todd Larson on zoom, to be followed by Greg, Mr Greg fish here in

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.972:14:08 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Santa Maria. I can hear me. Yes,

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:14:20 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Mr Larson Go ahead.

CommentMr Larson GoProposed2:14:22 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Hi, I'm Dr. Larson. I am the Medical Director of Santa Barbara County Fire and Carpentria Summerland Fire District. Also the Medical Director of Ventura College Paramedic Program in Oxnard Fire and the Chairman of Emergency Medicine and Assistant Medical Director at St. John's Regional Medical Center and St. John's Hospital Camarillo And board certified emergency medicine.

So I just wanted to be here and let the board know that both the department and I have very high standards, I'm very proud of the paramedic programs that are in our county. We have a very progressive EMS department in the fire services. There is a large focus on quality. We have an excellent team set up to deal with pre-hospital care in our fire departments, and that we are excited to be looking at increases in quality assurance in the field I also did want to note, I noticed some of the supervisors were mentioning that they were concerned about the lack of response times in the contract.

I would say that while response times are certainly not a harbinger of outcome in and of themselves obviously a five minute response time versus a 30 minute response time makes a very big difference in patient outcomes in the field something I certainly see as an ER physician And I just wanted to assure everyone that the county fire is a very excellent paramedic provider and that we are excited about possibly increasing our responsibilities and have a focus on CQI.

And I'm available to speak with anyone at any time if you would like.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:16:40 · ≈ 11:16 AM

Thank you, Dr.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:16:41 · ≈ 11:16 AM

Larson.

2:16 – 2:237 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:16:44 · ≈ 11:16 AM

We will now go to Mr. Greg Fish here in Santa Maria to be followed by Santa Barbara City Fire Chief Chris Males.

GuestGreg FishFire ChiefProposedself-stated2:16:53 · ≈ 11:16 AM

Madam Chair, distinguished board members. I am Greg Fish. I currently serve as the president of the Santa Barbara County Chiefs Association and I'm also the fire chief of the Carpenteria Summerland Fire Protection District. So thank you for your time to hear from us today over the past 15 years and more specifically over the recent five years The fire services approach public safety from a collaborative standpoint. Gone are the days when each department operated independently in silos, the fire chiefs in Santa Barbara County operate from a priority system that ultimately puts the communities we serve first.

We understand the value of unity and are aware there are significant advantages by working together as one unified fire service. Some examples of these unified collaborations include One that's gonna be coming up in early 2024, a common dispatch center will be stood up that will send resources immediately to the required location regardless of borders and boundaries.

That's something we're very proud of. Also you can just go back in time within the last four or five years and look at the mutual aid responses to large incidents and disasters within the county that to name a few the Thomas fire, the debris flow of one nine 2018 and of course The COVID disaster management and response that the fire services managed. One of the many benefits of embracing innovation in the fire service is more creativity and better decision making, which results in varied perspectives one example of such innovation is what is happening in community based paramedicine.

In my previous post as the Glendale Fire Chief, the City of Glendale delivered a variety of creative solutions in the emergency medical realm such as alternate destination for lower acuity patients. Reducing hospital readmissions by assigning them a specially trained paramedic to monitor patients at home and homeless outreach teams where police and fire personnel work together to assist those who were unhoused.

There are a variety of other community paramedic options that would serve this county well, like mental health assessments, sobriety and suicide prevention response, disaster response like COVID testing and vaccination. And mobile integrated health that involves a stakeholder partnership amongst area hospital staff, fire department law enforcement public health and social services personnel.

The reputation of outstanding service delivery to the communities we represent is a hallmark for what we stand for. To be sure, the fire service in Santa Barbara County is willing and able to deliver superior and appropriate emergency medical services long into the future. If given the opportunity, we will use all of our collective resources, energy, and talent to stand up the best EMS system possible. I'd like to thank you for your time.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:19:44 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Thank you Chief Fish.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:19:48 · ≈ 11:19 AM

We will now go to Santa Barbara City Fire Chief Chris males, to be followed by Montecito fire chief Kevin Taylor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:19:57 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Good morning Madam Chair distinguished members of the board. My name is Chris males on the fire chief for the city of Santa Barbara Fire Department. I've been an EMS provider in this county for 37 years today I finally stand before you with the opportunity to engage in transformational change of our system This morning I'd like to focus on transparency and how important that is to our EMS system.

However, first I'd like to articulate two instances where we had a lack of transparency. First, our fire department is conducting a comprehensive deployment analysis termed standards of cover study We're analyzing our response data over multiple years to gain an in-depth understanding of when, where and how our resources are deployed to emergencies. As part of that study we requested three years of data from the LEMSA. What we received were response times with no correlated incident address No ability to even drill into a neighborhood for analysis.

The lenses defense was that providing this was a violation of HIPAA. However, there was no attempt to assist assist us with a reasonable alternative To evaluate response times in even a zone or an area in the city. The data provided is unfortunately unusable to us, and we cannot not analyze any ambulance response in the city of Santa Barbara. Another glaring example the lack of transparency as a number of ambulances provided or not provided.

In our system, private ambulance providers strive to have the minimum number of ambulances on duty to maintain contract compliance. The deployment of private ambulances is considered a trade secret and or proprietary business practice. Not one fire chief in this county knows the deployment of ambulances in our respective communities. Now for the good news. A fire-based ambulance transport system would immediately utilize a fully accountable staffing model.

There will be free flow of information and data regarding the deployment in all areas of the county. Each community will be a stakeholder in the provision of services. A nimble and reflexive deployment team will be able to make near immediate changes to ensure continual high levels of ambulance coverage, resulting in exemplary response time Rapid response as an integrated fire service based model will be the pride of our county.

We will continually meet our mission to provide the right resource, to the right patient at the right time. We will strive for 100% compliance with established response time standards. There will be no trade secrets and no proprietary business practices. Again we will be a model of transparency This preeminent state of the art service will be overseen by your trusted public servants, the women and men of the county fire departments. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:23:12 · ≈ 11:23 AM

And I have a quick question for you so that would be transparency on ambulance deployments real time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:23:20 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Yes absolutely we'll do our best but the public would know exactly what the deployment at all times is in any given community.

2:23 – 2:318 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:23:30 · ≈ 11:23 AM

We will now go to Montecito Fire Chief Kevin Taylor, to be followed by Ms. Shawna Jorgensen.

GuestKevin TaylorFire ChiefProposedself-stated2:23:38 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Good morning Madam Chair and distinguished board members. I'm Kevin Taylor, fire chief for the Montecito Fire Department. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important topic this morning. The Santa Barbara County Fire Chiefs believe that direct assignment of ground ambulance service to county fire aligns well with the county's values. Accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation, trust and ethics.

I want to talk a bit about trust in ethics, the cornerstone of government. We will achieve trust and validate ethical behavior through the creation of our community advisory group facilitated by County Fire. The Community Advisory Group will consist of program stakeholders that includes First response providers, labor representatives, educational institutions, hospitals and receiving facilities, mental health providers and substance abuse providers.

The purpose of the community advisory group is to inform our program's objectives, identify gaps in service or the continuum of care for their customers and our customers and to develop actionable methods to address each of these issues. The community advisory group will have a voice with our program of services, continually informing our system of modifications that they need sometimes urgently as we learned during the pandemic to affect meaningful improvement in service delivery and outcomes.

If you choose to provide this service yourself through your county fire department You will achieve the agility to make these sometimes simple and straightforward course corrections that have an impact on the challenges that our communities face today. Challenges like mental health, substance abuse, and our unhoused community members. No one falls through the cracks.

Make no mistake in this system, the LEMSA plays a critical role Released from the confines of what the LEMSA is allowed to do under the bid contract requirements articulated in the Health and Safety Code, the LEMSA achieves greater ability to make changes to the EMS system that promote clinical excellence and innovation. It is our steadfast commitment in this program to work closely with the LEMSA to achieve just that, clinical excellence and innovation for all of our communities.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:26:28 · ≈ 11:26 AM

We will now go to Miss Shauna Jorgensen, to be followed by Lompoc Fire Chief Alicia Welch

CommentShauna JorgensenProposedself-stated2:26:36 · ≈ 11:26 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair distinguished members of the board. My name is Shauna Jorgensen I am the CFO and Deputy Director for the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. In addition to operational transparency and availability we look forward to the financial transparency that the fire department is uniquely poised to offer to our community. As a part of county government, the budget development process is held in a public forum before both the public and elected officials who represent our entire community.

As a part of the county the fire department is subject to an annual audit. Those audited financials are posted on the county website for public viewing and input. Lastly, as a government entity we are uniquely poised as we are not subject to investor driven revenue benchmarks that compete with our service delivery. As a nonprofit in the system. We can invest that revenue back into our community capital and other system investments will be driven based on board policy.

County Fire, our fellow fire chiefs and partners and all of our community stakeholders do realize that there is a great opportunity to expand the county's service delivery methods today. I am here before you because I believe that this is the right decision for our community and the fire department is ready to do this now thank you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:28:10 · ≈ 11:28 AM

We will now go to Lompoc Fire Chief Alicia Welch, to be followed by Santa Maria Fire Chief Todd Tuggle.

GuestAlicia WelchFire ChiefProposedself-stated2:28:20 · ≈ 11:28 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair Hartman Honorable Supervisors Council. I believe strongly in the board stated core values specifically diversity and equity inclusion. I'm Alicia Welch fire chief of the Lompoc Fire Department. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. The board's We Are values drive our desire to provide exceptional EMS service to our communities. Directly assigning ground ambulance contract to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department will allow our dedicated professional personnel to ensure laser focus is directed on customer needs through commitment, dedication and dependability.

Staff recruitment and retention are top priorities for each of us. I'm here to clearly articulate our desire and commitment to provide premier EMS service with a lens of equity, inclusion diversity workforce retention and recruitment. Directly assigning fire based EMS delivery to us now will allow each of our departments to capitalize on diverse talent that exists right here in the county.

We enjoy long, productive partnerships with community stakeholders like Allan Hancock College, Vandenberg Space Force Base, area hospitals, clinics, churches. They all feed our pool of exceptional talent. Equity reflects the ways in which we ensure equal opportunities through effective programming. Our primary role as fire chiefs is to ensure our external and internal customers feel welcome, respected, trusted, experience fair treatment and feel valued.

Creating equitable inclusive EMS delivery requires acceptance practice and participation on all levels from the Board of Supervisors City Council members Executive boards, management, labor and the members that you see here today. In the case of EMS delivery a community approach to adapting to the needs of our customers is critical. Your fire chiefs are extremely prepared to manage EMS programming and delivery in this county.

Diversity addresses the many ways in which we differ Workforce diversity normally associates traits and characteristics like race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs which help us all to better serve our customers. Other traits and characteristic that these fire chiefs are interested in specific to EMS delivery or languages spoken, communication preferences, socioeconomic status, cultural norms and family responsibilities Our EMTs, paramedics, firefighters, officers, civilian personnel have a healthy proven respect for our diverse client base.

Santa Barbara County Fire Department's highest response incident type is by far EMS averaging 70% of our entire call volume Therefore, it makes complete sense to allow ground ambulance service to be delivered by your ethical trusted county fire departments. I urge you to directly assign the ground ambulance request for proposal to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.

Thank you for your consideration.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:31:49 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Thank you Chief

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:31:49 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Welch. We will now go to Santa Maria Fire Chief Todd Tuggle to be followed by Andrew Skouten.

2:32 – 2:408 turns

CommentMadam ClerkProposed · by introduction2:32:03 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Well good morning. Thank you for, for having us this morning. Madam Chair distinguished members of the board. My name is Todd tug on the fire chief in the city of Santa Maria right here. And I'm here to talk to you about paramedic transport services and youth in the city of Santa Maria and the county as a whole. Today we have a unique opportunity to bolster our community's young people by offering innovative, cutting-edge programs and healthy supportive cultures within our departments that will enable us to recruit and retain the most diverse and prepared candidates.

When County Fire assumes responsibilities for the transport services in our county, our young people will win. Starting elementary school, our local fire departments are out in the schools showing the youth safety programs but they're also exposed to a career in the fire services. Our young people see at an early age what it means to have the opportunity and a positive career path.

By high school, our schools vocational programs include or can include further education towards a career in the fire service and emergency services through first aid CPR training fast training and other programs. And we're actively seeking out opportunities to educate and equip our youth with the skills job skills to work within a wide variety of industries in the medical services.

In Santa Maria specifically, we have a significant efforts underway such as the Mayor's Youth Task Force and Santa Maria Rec and Parks which seek to provide our young people with viable job skills and career paths. This is yet another opportunity for them. Upon graduation from high school, County Transport Entity will provide the opportunity for employment and vibrant career paths. Through partnerships with our local education systems there is a pathway to EMT basic certification followed by job opportunities within county fire as an ambulance operator.

For those seeking additional advancement, careers exist in the transport agency, hospital setting and other fire service careers. And again through our local educational institutions such as Allan Hancock Community College, AT Still Physicians Assistant Program, Westmont College Nursing, Santa Barbara City College Nursing and UCSB our youth can continue their educational pursuits.

To continue in the fire service, Allan Hancock Public Safety Training Center provides fire training to support further careers in our local fire agencies. Board action today will empower our fire agencies to provide additional critical education and career path opportunities to youth in our community. We have a multi-pronged approach to retaining our workforce By providing various career checks for candidates to flourish in like single role EMTs and paramedics, and career safety fire and rescue positions highlighting administrative and operational tracks for staff to advance as they choose.

You have an opportunity before you to create an inclusive outreach for a diverse workforce which provides the basis upon which our youth have an opportunity at true financial equity. Thank you for your time today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:35:14 · ≈ 11:35 AM

We will now go to Andrew Scouten, to be followed by Santa Maria County Fire Chief Mark Hartwig.

PresenterAndrew ScoutenCalifornia Fire Chiefs Association as well as the Fire Chiefs Association of SanProposedself-stated2:35:23 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Chair Hartman, distinguished supervisors good morning my name is Andrew Scouten today I'm speaking on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association as well as the Fire Chiefs Association of Santa Barbara County. I'm a partner in the firm of Wright Lestrange and Gaslow. My practice focuses on antitrust, unfair competition and ambulance and EMS laws. I previously submitted written remarks but will focus today on an issue related to attempts to leverage the county's options.

And the question is, may the county directly contract for emergency ambulance services with County Fire on an exclusive basis without relying on health and safety code section 1797.224 exclusive operating areas or competitive bidding? And without violating the federal antitrust laws. The answer is yes. The legal issues are incredibly complicated. Don't get me wrong, but the solution is actually pretty simple.

It's a four step process. The board amends its ambulance ordinance. In the ordinance it says that it may grant sole franchises for emergency and non-emergency ambulance services, but the county may issue licenses and permits for these services on a need or necessity basis, and whatever other policy items the board decides to include pursuant to AB389. In the second step, the county, the LEMSA and County Fire negotiate that exclusive agreement.

It comes back to the board for approval and then following that, the county does not grant any additional licenses or permits because the services are already provided. That's it. That is the solution and the way forward. Importantly there's no RFP and no LEMSA approval is necessary And the authority for this solution is found in three statutes outside of the MS Act. The courts have found that, well either the statutes themselves or the courts have found that this is authorized.

Finally I want to talk, well and importantly this statutory authorization is crucial. Without that statutory authorization there is no immunity from the federal antitrust laws but because it's authorized by statute there would be immunity Finally, I just want to quickly note that there is a misconception of the only way to achieve exclusive services is through Section 224 and these EOAs.

Section 224 is a permissive optional statute. No court has ever held that it is mandatory or the only way to achieve exclusivity. In fact in the AmeriCare case from 2018 The Ninth Circuit rejected these arguments when they were made by the plaintiff ambulance provider, and state I'm sorry. My clients are of course ready and able to assist the county work through these things. And I thank you very much for the opportunity.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:38:35 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Would you be willing to answer a question. You said that the authority for direct assignment lies in three statutes outside of the public health and safety code if I understood. Could you elaborate on those.

PresenterAndrew ScoutenCalifornia Fire Chiefs Association as well as the Fire Chiefs Association of SanProposedself-stated2:38:49 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Yes, absolutely. That authority is found in the Vehicle Code Section 2512 subdivision C. The Welfare and Institutions Code section 14136 subdivisions E and F. You know it's important to understand that the EMS Act regulates EMS but ambulances are more than EMS they're a public transportation system In that respect, they're similar to taxi cabs and have similar operational requirements.

It's appropriate for the county government to regulate the terms in which they interact with passengers the same way. These statutes expressly allow the county to regulate ambulance services on the business side not the medical side And they expressly allow or have been construed by the courts to allow exclusive contracts, exclusive operating permits, or even non-exclusive permits that become de facto exclusive because no other permits are issued. Kind of similar to how as I understand it the county's waste collection system operates right now.

So yes these statutes are out there And they provide this authority. There's no need to go through all of the incredibly cumbersome procedures in the EMS Act, and these procedures would not in any way impinge on the authority of the LEMSA to maintain medical control, improve clinical performance or any of those other functions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:40:33 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:40:35 · ≈ 11:40 AM

We will now go to Santa Barbara County Fire Chief Mark Hartwig to be followed by Brian

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.972:40:40 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Fernandez.

2:40 – 2:484 turns

GuestMark HartwigFire ChiefProposedself-stated2:40:48 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Madam Chair and distinguished members of the board, my name is Mark Hartwig and I'm your Fire Chief. I started at EMS in 1983 working for a private ambulance company and then have worked for a public EMS transport provider since 1991. I'm formally educated in EMS and I've had the privilege to represent the fire service at the highest level of state government and our trade association.

I've been in this for almost 40 years And I believe we can do better. Today, we are a collection of good but very separate services working well together but not at all integrated especially between EMS first response and transport. The fire chiefs as you know have committed themselves to integrate with each other through the recently approved regional fire EMS communication centers.

As you know this will be operational in the first quarter of 2024 thank you and thanks to your support Enhanced service, much needed new and existing programs and available revenue have been at the heart of the conversations throughout this long process here in Santa Barbara County. I'd like to expound a little on these cornerstones. First of all, this county and other counties throughout California have assigned ambulance services to their county fire department We've done it here in Kuyama and Mission Hills in the Lompoc area, and in my previous county seven separate communities were directly assigned ambulance transport to the board governed County Fire Department by the Board of Supervisors without a bid.

I have provided a letter in your packet on our opposition to the proposed removal of UC or the Santa Barbara County Fire Department paramedic ambulance from UCSB and the resulting reduction in service for the roughly 25,000 students at our world-class university. I won't expound on those concerns now but the question is why the county fire department and why now? We are committed to a countywide partnership with our operational area partners There's daily interaction between jurisdictions on calls, large and small throughout the county every day.

We are fire chiefs with real world knowledge of community service needs for EMS and transport within our respective communities. We have a desire to better meet the needs of our hospital and behavioral health partners and colleagues in spite of not making financial sense. We as chiefs currently working in this county have a track record of building mobile and integrated health programs with our community health partners accomplished with your support and approval.

Even though not required in the RFP before you today, County Fire will enter into stop the clock agreements with our first response colleagues. The absence of stop the clock agreements as a requirement will remove $525,000 annually from the County Fire Department alone. It is important to make clear that revenue, that is revenue after expenses is crucial in order to enhance levels of service with additional ambulance hours on the street of Santa Barbara County. Revenue is also required for community paramedic and co-response partnerships that we so desperately need at this time in our county's history.

Revenue will be needed to add a dedicated mental health and interfacility transport fleets. We will also have the revenue for needed for an emergency reserve fund, an important part of a resilient and robust EMS system in closing please the county fire department together with our operational partners are the backbone of the county's emergency medical response system today.

Providing advanced and basic life support, first response and ambulance services across the entire county. We are poised to be more integrated with transport services and improve service and operational transparency, financial accountability and innovation. Thank you Madam Chair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:44:54 · ≈ 11:44 AM

We will now go to Brian Fernandez, to be followed by Louis

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.972:44:58 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Ferra Jr. Madam Chair, members

PresenterBrian FernandezSanta Barbara County Firefighters Union Local 2046Proposedself-stated2:45:09 · ≈ 11:45 AM

of the board, my name is Brian Fernandez and I'm the president of the Santa Barbara County Firefighters Union Local 2046. As you look into the crowd, you will see firefighters and chiefs representing every department throughout our county. Now, usually the only time we come together like this is when there's a major disaster or fire ripping up a hillside that's threatening lives or homes.

Today is no different. We stand before you united as we have been over the last five years asking for your support and helping us improve the service we deliver to our communities. As a fire service, we witnessed firsthand the shortcomings in our emergency response system These shortcomings include, but are not limited to a 90% compliance rate as it relates to on scene times.

And being part of a 911 system that is contracted out to provide profits for people who are not part of this community. As we have gone to the community seeking their input for an improved ambulance system there has been one common sentiment shared amongst every person we have spoken with and that is why wouldn't we reinvest revenue back into our community?

I would like to add none of this is meant in any way to disrespect any of our brothers and sisters who work on private ambulances. They are our teammates, and in some cases literally part of the fire family. Together we have experienced quite possibly some of the worst experiences of our lives together. We see them as members of our team and we want an improved system for them as well.

Now we appreciate that this is a challenge for the county and And we also understand the perceived risks. As firefighters, there is no greater risk than endangering your life for the benefit or well-being of somebody else. As firefighters, we take calculated risks every day for the benefit of our community. And as some of our brothers and sisters here know a saying that we have, we risk a lot to save a lot.

We risk a little to save a little. The bottom line for us is when considering risks, is there a benefit for somebody who we serve? Today your respected board I think would really benefit from considering one question. Actually two questions. The first would be how long are we willing to wait Before we take action to reinvest into our system for the purposes of 100% compliance, co-response support for mental health programs and homelessness.

How long? For 12 months, six months added on to that how long before we really start trying to make a change to benefit the programs and the people that matter the most here? The second question would be, and this is kind of a firefighter question. Is the risk a benefit to the community we serve? We understand risk, we live by them, we encourage them. And for the benefit of our community, the risk is well considered.

So thank you for your time and your consideration of this.

2:48 – 2:5416 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:48:36 · ≈ 11:48 AM

We will now go to Louis Farah Jr. and return to Zoom with Carlos Escobedo.

PresenterLouie FarahLompoc Firefighters AssociationProposedself-stated2:48:45 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Good morning, Madam Chair, distinguished board members. My name is Louie Farah and I'm the president of the Lompoc Firefighters Association. Nobody takes more pride in the level of emergency care offered to the residents and visitors of Santa Barbara County than your local firefighters. From wildland fires and debris flows to cardiac arrest, vehicle accidents and even lift assists. We aim to provide the absolute best care possible.

It's important to understand this because our collective voice would never encourage the board to make a decision that would place lives in danger. Rather we're constantly looking for innovative and progressive ways to provide even better care. You see when a private ambulance responds to your home for medical emergency you'll most likely receive a bill for at least $3,000 in this county.

You or your insurance will pay that bill to the private provider who then uses that money how they see fit. In contrast, when a fire-based ambulance bills for service all of that money stays here locally in Santa Barbara County. That money is then used to add more ambulances to the street by upgraded equipment champion pilot programs like some of the ones we heard today community paramedicine and alternative services for our most vulnerable populations There are no corporate shareholders to appease or corporate boards based out of state calling the shots.

Why does long poke care? Well, us like our other cities and fire departments here in the county become owners of the system. This means that we sit at the table and get a direct say in what would be the best deployment model in our city. If we determine another ambulance is needed, the system can add one. If our department wanted to upgrade our EMT level of care to a paramedic level of care, the system could help fund that opportunity.

In October 2019, I stood before the board and urged many of you to vote in favor of an RFP after decades of zero ambulance competition in this county. I specifically asked that the RFP contain no language that would intentionally or inadvertently prohibit the fire service from participating in that process. Supervisor Williams echoed this sentiment during the motion he asked to review the final language so that it didn't exclude any public entities It's now been over two years since that motion passed. And after in the presentation today, I fear that the RFP development process has strayed from those original sentiments. In fact what I heard was a presentation that kind of pigeonholes us into the current provider.

The board has several different options available to them and awarding or assigning an ambulance transport contract. It's not just limited to an RFP. Your local firefighters are here urging you to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the residents of our county receive the best and most appropriate service possible. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:33 · ≈ 11:51 AM

We will now return to Zoom with Mr. Carlos

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.972:51:37 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Escobedo, who is our final speaker. Hello.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:50 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Mr.

PresenterCarlos Escobedocity council member in the City of Santa MariaProposedself-stated2:51:50 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Escobedo, please

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:51 · ≈ 11:51 AM

proceed with your comments. Yes,

PresenterCarlos Escobedocity council member in the City of Santa MariaProposedself-stated2:51:53 · ≈ 11:51 AM

I can

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:53 · ≈ 11:51 AM

hear you.

PresenterCarlos Escobedocity council member in the City of Santa MariaProposedself-stated2:51:53 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Carlos Escobedo and I serve as city council member in the City of Santa Maria. Efficiency is necessary for a government to better serve our communities and our ambulance system is not the exception. We have highly skilled and capable fire departments in our county Example of this is that in 2021 the Santa Maria Fire Department received over 10,000 phone calls for service and most of those were not related to fire.

And therefore I would like to express my support for fire departments to be considered to provide the ground ambulance services. Thank you have a great day

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:52:43 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Thank you, Councilmember Escobedo. And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:52:46 · ≈ 11:52 AM

that was our final speaker.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:52:48 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Okay, so with that we close public comment and we have two issues now before the board. The date of the continuance and then the duration of the AOMR extension. So this will test whether we're consistent with our values what we've stated. We need a special meeting. And so we have Friday May 27 at 1, Tuesday May 31 Wednesday June 8, Thursday June 9 or Friday June 10.

Yes, thank you

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:53:27 · ≈ 11:53 AM

and chair Hartman members of the board just with an update Friday May 27 is no longer a good day for some of the board members as well as Wednesday June eight it sounds like there is some SP tags up regional so some of the board will be Unavailable throughout the day. So the best day that we are looking at is Tuesday May 31, we don't have a board meeting that day since it's the day after Memorial Day, but it does look like the best day for most of the board at this time I haven't heard back from all board staff and then as Chair Hartman noted Thursday June 9 and Friday June 10 or additional options

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:54:07 · ≈ 11:54 AM

supervisor lemonade. Yes, could we do because some of us will be traveling and so if we could do it say at one o'clock or noon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:54:25 · ≈ 11:54 AM

And where do we want to

2:54 – 2:5919 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:54:30 · ≈ 11:54 AM

do is good. Okay. So Tuesday May 31 at noon is Santa Barbara. All right. I think that's easiest for staff.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:54:41 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Yes in chair Hartman just as a friendly reminder we can always have the remote option here and we can always have the remote option here in Santa Maria, as well for any board members.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:54:53 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Okay, so I'm supervising Nelson Did you have anything to add?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:54:58 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Yeah, this is just concerned because that makes it three weeks, not two weeks I mean we need to get this timeframe pretty tight here to move this thing forward so that's my only concern otherwise I'll do whatever

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:55:10 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Okay, well at least we haven't pushed it out to June and supervisor heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:55:15 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Yes that works for me.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:55:17 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Okay, so Tuesday, May 31 at noon in Santa Barbara. And then to Supervisor Nelson's issue the duration of the Mr extension. And supervisor heart Did you want to speak to that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:55:37 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Yeah, I think that staff my understanding was staff was trying to negotiate a 10 month extension and that they were very close last week, and that there was some flexibility about that couple of months with the discretion of the director. I mean that i think that lines up with what we talked about earlier. I think it's subject to negotiation. And the point being, it just would be better for everybody involved to have a little more certainty over the course of the next year as we go through this process.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:56:22 · ≈ 11:56 AM

So I see some nods here so is that 10 month or 12 months, could you make the motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:56:29 · ≈ 11:56 AM

I guess I'll just make the motion to have direct staff to work with Mr to draft a contract extension actually conclude And sign a contract extension of 10 months with discretion for the executive director to extend that are couple months at her, at her discretion.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:56:55 · ≈ 11:56 AM

And they'll get a second.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction2:57:01 · ≈ 11:57 AM

I'll second that

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:57:02 · ≈ 11:57 AM

and now discussion. Yes.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:57:07 · ≈ 11:57 AM

I'm just concerned we're missing today an opportunity to have put some issues on the table. Whatever we come up with in three weeks from today, you know, we're gonna have staff have to go back and look at some things and try to bring it, adjust the RFP to meet the needs of this board. And so, you know, to me by us not putting some of our issues on the table today that's a three weeks longer. I mean, this is one of the few opportunities we get the chance to talk to each other about this RFP and I don't wanna miss that. I mean, I think we're moving in the right direction as a team But I also want to make sure that we're not losing opportunity to discuss some things that we think are challenges so staff can hear that, and maybe start to look at the RFP and go okay well maybe we need to be looking at response time.

Maybe we need to look at employee retention or all these other issues have been brought up from various parties, so that's my only thought. I won't go there unless everybody else wants to go there, but that's one of my concerns about us just just kicking this three weeks later without further discussion

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:58:03 · ≈ 11:58 AM

supervisor heart and then Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:58:06 · ≈ 11:58 AM

I just think that the sequences important sequencing of this is important, and I think that my view is let's finish this part of it. And then

we'll move on to the next part of it.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.802:58:21 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Supervisor Williams.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:58:24 · ≈ 11:58 AM

I agree, I mean, I do want to though also not Not forget the other point that you brought up about that I frankly was also worried about is this idea that we would take six months to redo the RFP with whatever changes that we asked for. In three weeks, I think that that's far too long. I'm sure we will want to have some changes but I think we need to be ready for a faster process than that and staff prepared for the work that it will take to turn that around fairly rapidly. I mean I think what's at stake is We don't know whether we would get an initial extension or not, and we don't know whether how long the state will take to look at it.

And so we cannot afford to elongate our process tomorrow.

2:59 – 3:016 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:59:40 · ≈ 11:59 AM

I'm Supervisor Williams to the chair absolutely six months. I'd like to get this wrapped up sooner than later, but our staff will respond to your board's direction and we will be working fast and furious to send something up to the state, the that's the big unknown right Nick I believe that it took two and a half months for them to review our draft. And I think they we got we used our hurry up, hurry up, hurry up. We need it fast card. And so I just don't know that whether it's going to take another three months or four months, but I'm just anticipating it to be the back and forth as our county council explain will take up to six months

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:00:31 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Supervisor Williams, did you have anything else you wanted to add supervisor heart would you like to make the motion. Oh, sorry. And who and Supervisor Williams seconded that okay and that was County Council

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:00:45 · ≈ 12:00 PM

and Madam Chair members of the board so what I'm understanding is today that you're authorizing the staff to negotiate the extension. And then my recommendation is that we just also add that you'll continue the other two items the consideration of the policy and the RFP to that special meeting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:01:05 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Yeah, I guess I'll just add the special meeting to the motion because the other parts were there. Right?

Roll-call vote 1–0 motion because the other parts were there. Right? Yeah, discussion of the RFP and the policies at that meeting so yes, and that's okay with · 4 under review
Show transcript
Yeah, discussion of the RFP and the policies at that meeting so yes, and that's okay with your second supervisor Williams. Okay, roll call vote. Supervisor Williams. Hi, Supervisor Hart. Hi. Supervisor Nelson. Hi Supervisor Lavagnino. Hi Chair Hartman. Aye.
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:01:34 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Motion passes unanimously. Okay.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:01:41 · ≈ 12:01 PM

That brings us then to departmental item number five

3:01 – 3:079 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:01:47 · ≈ 12:01 PM

chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number five is from social services department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Child Welfare Services Family First Prevention Services Act overview.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:02:04 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Welcome Miss Kruger. I

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:02:21 · ≈ 12:02 PM

think Mr. Nielsen previewed this during budget discussion, so we've been looking forward to your presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:02:27 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Yes, thank you so much. Good afternoon Chair Hartman and board members. I am going to be providing an overview of the Family First Prevention Services Act today as long as some other associated prevention and child welfare services data.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:02:46 · ≈ 12:02 PM

So.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:02:49 · ≈ 12:02 PM

So starting off with the vision for prevention services in California today, back in 2018 County Child Welfare agencies created the Child and Family Enrichment Cabinet in partnership with the California Department of Social Services with a goal to increase the visibility and urgency of a continuum of prevention services and supports throughout California counties The cabinet is comprised of leadership from the Office of Child Abuse Prevention, as well as 10 county child welfare directors and I am privileged to be one of those.

Through this collaborative effort, the cabinet has been committed to steadily and equitably shifting the focus of the protection of children and youth who have been harmed through abuse neglect to the strengthening strengthening of families with a reimagined Child and family well being continuum. And this has been established in order to support the prevention of child maltreatment, and to create a vision of an integrated statewide system that supports families to provide safe stable nurturing relationships and environments for their children and youth Further, this vision is supported by a system of care and a framework for prevention that includes both primary secondary and tertiary strategies grounded in the principles of fairness and equity.

In order to achieve this vision we're going to be focusing on uplifting the voices of children youth and families in all aspects of practice and implementation.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:04:25 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:04:29 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Excuse me, promoting racial equity by specifically seeking to reduce disproportionality in the foster care system and supporting development of culturally responsive services and programs. Establishing an inclusive and participatory process for consultation and collaboration with tribes. Supporting families with services practices and policies that are both strength based and trauma informed.

Empowering our community leadership to assist families and to support community efforts in developing needed services, striving for workforce excellence with staff composition that reflects the cultural aspects of the community and incorporates individuals with lived experience. Collaborating across systems to maximize and leverage funding share information and data, and provide families with services and supports to meet their specific needs. And then finally focusing on program monitoring integrity and continuous quality improvement.

The initiatives on the slide represent our departments. current efforts in cross system work, and we hope to build upon all of these efforts in order to implement FFPSA as it will complement our existing capacity to further safety and permanency of children and youth who are brought to the attention of child welfare. The prevention of child maltreatment and its recurrence however cannot only be the responsibility of Child Welfare Services and We're hoping to create a system of care for children, youth and families that will be addressed by many public and private systems including child welfare, behavioral health probation, public health first five education childcare and all of our community based organizations.

Cross-system collaboration and coordination is critical in order for us to successfully launch FFPSA. So turning to the statute itself The federal statute was enacted in 2018 and part one specifically speaks to prevention services. The intent is to increase availability and early access to quality prevention services for children, parents and caregivers and help children remain at home while simultaneously reducing the use of congregate care.

Family First is not an infusion of new federal funding, however. Its goal is to redirect the savings by the reduction of congregate care placements back into funding for prevention

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:07:07 · ≈ 12:07 PM

services.

3:07 – 3:121 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:07:13 · ≈ 12:07 PM

FFPSA allows states the option to access Title IV-E federal financial participation for the provision of specified evidence based mental health, substance abuse and in home parent skill based services to children who are at imminent risk of entry of foster care as well as their caregivers. It also provides services for pregnant and parenting youth in foster care and kin caregivers of children who are not currently placed in foster care and who qualify for services.

The deadline for states to opt in to FFPSA is October of 2021. And in July of 2021, California's program was established as an opt-in for counties and tribes pending completion of the state's five year prevention plan. Implementation of FFPSA will further California's efforts to transform from a child protection and foster care system to a child wellbeing system.

The program is a shift in the current paradigm and changing focus from reaction to prevention and early intervention with the goal of reducing incidences of abuse and neglect, decreasing entries to foster care, reducing disproportionality, addressing systemic and historical trauma as well as promoting social determinants of health in order to improve the lives of children and families.

So now I'd like to take a look at some of our local data that we hope to impact through FFPSA. And, um, I would like to thank our operations manager Marianne Reagan and her team for coming up with this data. And I'm going to quote her as she often says before we look at data that It's important to remember that all of these data points reflect a child who's experienced abuse and neglect. And so we always say that, so that we can remember to keep them at the center of our efforts and remind ourselves why we're going to be entering into this important work.

So on this slide here, we are looking at our Child Abuse and Neglect referrals received at our hotline over the last several years. As you can see in 2021 We saw the sharp decline in referrals as a result of the pandemic. However, as children have returned to school and begin to have more contact with the mandated reporters we are beginning to see referrals increase again.

So for the first quarter of 2022 or averaging approximately 540 referrals per month and we are now on pace To exceed 6400 referrals, if we continue at that rate this this year and so we are going to be looks like returning to pre pandemic if not higher levels of referrals for abuse neglect. Currently, many of the calls that we receive at our hotline can be addressed through programs and services designed to strengthen and support families.

And ultimately through prevention efforts, we're hoping to partner with community members and mandated reporters so that we're not just looking at ourselves as mandated reporters but also as mandated supporters with shared responsibility for helping families connect to services and support as opposed to entering into the child welfare system in order to receive those services.

On this slide, we're looking at entries into out-of-home care. And despite fewer calls to our hotline in 2020, we did see more children entering care again due to the effects of the pandemic. This included a higher incidence of families struggling with substance abuse, mental health challenges and family violence. Since 2021, we have began to see a slight decrease in those numbers and so we're hoping that that will continue.

In terms of FFPSA impacts Children are defined as candidates for prevention if they can. If they are determined to be an imminent risk, but they're determined to be able to safely remain at home as long as prevention services are provided. And it's important to note while categories of children and families for prevention services can be identified. Imminent risk of foster care can only be determined on a case by case basis and thoughtful consideration for each child and family's unique circumstances. As long as an unbiased process and tool utilized to assist the risk And I also want to really emphasize here at this point that although we do hope to see fewer entries into foster care through the provision of prevention services, safety is still our bottom line.

It's absolutely paramount and it is non-negotiable so sometimes there's a concern about you know the pendulum swinging one way or another and so we're very mindful of making sure that we're utilizing these services whenever it's safe but we're also making sure that children Safety is first and foremost. And this slide reflects the average number of children in care on a monthly basis, again as you can see that number began to go up in 2020 due to the increase in children entering here.

And also we had an extension for young adults reaching the age of 21. To stay in foster care during the pandemic so we had more entries and we had fewer young adults leaving the system which resulted in that increased number, and that temporary exception for those youth ended in December of 2021. So we've had more exiting and slightly fewer entries now and now we are currently as of March back down to 422 youth currently in care.

Again, we're hoping to see the overall number decrease as we begin to have more prevention services delivered and hopefully fewer entries.

3:12 – 3:256 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:12:56 · ≈ 12:12 PM

On this slide, we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:12:57 · ≈ 12:12 PM

see the ethnicities of children in care as of July 1-21. As you can see, the majority of children in care are Latino or Latinx at 74% followed by white children at 21%. We have consistently small populations of African American, Native American or Indigenous and Asian American Pacific Islander children in care. And if we drill down a little bit further to look at the path through the child welfare system and different points by ethnicity.

We have this data that's provided by California Child Welfare Indicators Project at UC Berkeley, and what we see consistently is that black Latinx and Native American children youth are disproportionately more likely to receive allegations of abuse and neglect, to be child welfare system involved and to be entering into foster care. And we have other factors including poverty, economic inequities, structural racism which all contribute to these disproportionalities and disparities at different points through the system.

This trend is a little less pronounced in Santa Barbara County than it is overall in the state. Again we have the small populations, in many cases that we saw on the previous slide. And again we're hoping to impact some of these disproportionalities and disparities by utilizing FSPSA And this part, the development of community based culturally responsive services and programs and incorporating outcome measures to make sure that these services are delivered in an equitable way.

So now that we have seen the vision and some of our local data will look at next steps for implementation at the state and local level. California has submitted its draft to the Association of Children and Families, and it's currently in a back-and-forth review process. The plan is California's commitment to opt into the prevention program established by FFPSA, and describes how over the next five years we've planned to leverage the Act's benefits to accelerate the vision of comprehensive prevention services, and describes how California will meet the federal statutory requirements required through the 4E

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:15:32 · ≈ 12:15 PM

Program. When we look at

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:15:37 · ≈ 12:15 PM

eligibility for the services in the program, the services are a valuable opportunity to look at a new way to serve children and youth parents and caregivers as well as pregnant parenting foster youth. And by promoting access to services and programs and again preventing entry to foster care for the first time where we will be able to draw down 4E funding to provide prevention services to our children and families that are currently in open Family maintenance cases either on a voluntary basis or on a court ordered basis.

Other potential categories of children that may be eligible for these services include probation youth, homeless or runaway youth, children whose guardianship or adoption is at risk of disruption, Indian children identified by the tribes to be an imminent risk, children with substantiated or inconclusive investigation outcomes as well as substance exposed newborns or children whose parents are experiencing substance abuse disorders.

Children and youth assessed for candidacy again will be reviewed in terms of the risk factors, as well as the current family circumstances and all that information will be utilized to determine what their needs are and what the best programming is to meet those needs. And we have a focus on equity inclusion and preventing disproportionality interventions and strategies will be inclusive culturally appropriate and responsive, and tailored to meet the needs of local children families that are disproportionately represented in the child welfare system.

The plan has been created to reflect an ongoing commitment to increasing equitable approaches to child and family well-being, and to address disparities that impact BIPOC families. An equity inclusion lens will be utilized at every phase of planning design and implementation as part of our broader prevention efforts. In order to provide trauma-informed and culturally responsive services and support, we will utilize the core practice model to ensure authentic engagement with family tribal and community networks. And the use of culturally based practice adaptations.

A community pathway is critical in order for families to access services prior to a call ever being made to our child abuse hotline. The equity centered approach keeps them from having to become child welfare system involved in order to access the services and supports that they need. So we will now have two pathways to prevention services through FFPSA. We will have the traditional child welfare pathway for Title IV-E Prevention Services, which will allow our local child welfare agency to interface with children and families and assess identify and support them as we do now and provide prevention services directly again through our voluntary and court ordered family maintenance programs And now we will have a new secondary community based pathway, which will allow struggling families residing in local neighborhoods who often voluntarily seek support from public and private agencies.

And we will be able to engage in strengthened connections between those organizations and work with our local service providers that understand the needs of particular communities to provide direct services, such as our CBOs and our family resource centers. And we know that this partnership is really the key to the ultimate vision for upstream prevention efforts by working with our community partners.

Our agency still will retain oversight and will be responsible for making the initial candidacy determination. Evidence-based programming and services are required under FFPSA. Multiple criteria were utilized to select the evidence based programs or EBPs to include in the state's prevention plan. This includes those that are already implemented successfully in California, the qualifications of the practitioners who would be required to deliver these services as well as the target populations and their effectiveness at serving BIPOC children and families.

After reviewing all of this information the state did select 10 evidence based practices, and at the local level counties have flexibility to determine from that the 10 on that list which ones are the most appropriate to serve the needs of the particular children and youth and families in our communities. Unfortunately of those 10 we have Four or five that currently exist in our county currently already being delivered. And so we were pleased that we'll be able to build on the success of those and work with our local providers to ensure that they are in line, in alignment with the standards and meet all aspects of the evidence based program requirements but we have a very solid foundation on which to build from there.

And, and the last pieces which are yet to be developed will include development of coordinated approach to continuous quality improvement protocols for regular assessment of outcomes effectiveness of services and looking at lessons learned to continue to refine our practices. It'll also include development of a government structure to oversee and guide implementation of high quality evidence-based programs.

And in terms of training, we have in California our regional training academies that provide training and professional education for child welfare throughout the state. And prevention services and coordination will become part of the statewide curriculum. And the current structures in place will be utilized to develop and deliver a curriculum to implement FFPSA for all counties.

So, finally local implementation and our next steps. So in accordance with the statute counties have been provided the option to participate in the program to supplement the state's efforts to build an evidence based prevention programming through a B one California has also provided counties an additional hundred 99 million through a state funded block grant program to support implementation efforts to develop a full continuum of prevention services and state block grants can be used for planning capacity building implementation.

And also building out the primary, secondary and tertiary levels of a prevention services system. Our county did receive an allocation of approximately $2 million one time funding that's available for our use through 2324 in order to prepare for development and submission of our local comprehensive prevention plan. And we did submit a letter of intent last month in order to be able to start accessing those funds.

Locally, we're leveraging several existing groups for input and feedback on our FFPSA plan. Our primary responsibility for the development lies with our cross-sector prevention team. This team is led by DSS and includes members of Child Welfare, Probation, Behavioral Wellness, Public Health, First 5, Child Abuse Prevention Council, Network of Family Resource Centers, County Education as well as other community based organizations.

We've been focusing primarily on Prevention as well as themes of adverse childhood experiences, resilience, equity inclusion and trauma informed care to date. Our next step is for our prevention team to attend the virtual statewide convening that's coming up in June and we're going to be focusing on readiness and capacity assessments as well as continued receiving technical assistance and continued implementation planning in preparation for the development of our local comprehensive Prevention Plan, which will be due in January of 2023.

So in closing, I just want to acknowledge that this is going to be a very heavy lift for state and counties. It's it's a huge effort but we're really excited for the first time to be able to begin to look at this paradigm shift from the child protection to the Child and Family Well-Being System and for shared responsibility with all of our partners to really look at how we support children and families across the spectrum and for the benefit of all of though all of our community so With that, that concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any questions you have

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:24:23 · ≈ 12:24 PM

supervisor heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:24:24 · ≈ 12:24 PM

I just want to thank Miss Krueger for what is a sobering but also ultimately optimistic presentation about what we're trying You know your point about the effects of the pandemic and drug and alcohol abuse going up mental health challenges and trauma that comes from that, and unfortunately you know family violence that affects children is it's this is a really good reminder about how important the work you do And what I'm really optimistic and hopeful about is you know the focus on evidence based work, and the fact that you are going to do continuous improvement and evaluation and really including the staff through workforce development The system work as it's is the best way it possibly can and I really appreciate the focus on addressing the inequities facing BIPOC youth that's really important in this moment, and the evidence that we have is that there are disparities that need to be addressed.

So, I think the department's doing a great job. Thank you.

3:25 – 3:3120 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:25:28 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Can you reshow the slide? I just want to make sure that it, I remember and it sinks in who are eligible for the prevention services. I think that's really important because we all communicate with a lot of people not all of them disclose that they might be in a place of life where these kinds of services are necessary but I think it's something that we should I talk about as, as we are both ambassadors representative representatives of the community but also ambassadors to the community.

And we never know who we might be able to help by increasing public knowledge about it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:26:16 · ≈ 12:26 PM

I don't know somebody can help bring that back up, because my slide itself but i can

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:26:22 · ≈ 12:26 PM

get maybe the chair could move on to somebody else while while we get that slide backup. That's fine.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:26:27 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Sure. Um, I don't see other lights but okay, I have a question is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:26:34 · ≈ 12:26 PM

18. Okay, bring it up.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:26:44 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Is that the chart supervisor Williams,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:26:46 · ≈ 12:26 PM

this is what you're referring to here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:26:52 · ≈ 12:26 PM

That in any, you know so,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:26:54 · ≈ 12:26 PM

so the cat and these,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:26:56 · ≈ 12:26 PM

these would be all be eligible for preventative services.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:27:00 · ≈ 12:27 PM

Yes, so any candidates for foster care. So children who are at imminent risk of entering foster care and their caregivers are eligible to prevention services as long as they're determined to be able to remain safely in the home with the provision of these services. And so the primary category is going to be children who basically involved in the child welfare system and either in voluntary or court ordered family maintenance cases.

But there are other targeted populations who have been identified as likely eligible, and that includes probation homeless runaway youth children whose guardianship or adoptions are at risk of disrupting Indian children who have been identified by tribes to be intimate risk children who have had investigations that are substantiated or inconclusive And substance expose newborns as well as children whose parents have been identified as experiencing substance abuse orders and children exposed to domestic violence. So a pretty wide variety, it's not all inclusive but that's those are some of the major categories that have been identified.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:28:07 · ≈ 12:28 PM

So even if there is not another known risk factor any child who's guardianship or Parentage is in transition, may

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:28:23 · ≈ 12:28 PM

be eligible. Absolutely yes and that's where it'll come down to having to do the individual assessments of the child and family circumstances. And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:28:31 · ≈ 12:28 PM

obviously all of these are because a large proportion of folks in that category otherwise needing the services on the back end which is harder.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:28:43 · ≈ 12:28 PM

I had a question about the program she said that the state has basically certified 10 programs as being evidence based, and in our county we have four or five that align with that. Could you describe the programs in more detail or just give me a better sense of them? And then my question is, are those programs that CBOs offer and would we be assisting those CBOs to get them the kinds of qualifications that would be needed so those that's the arena of my questions you can respond.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:29:19 · ≈ 12:29 PM

Thank you, Chair Hartman. Yes, there are 10 evidence based programs that have been identified through the federal clearing house is eligible and there are other clearing houses that have California has its own clearing house to have many more programs but these are the specific 10 They've identified at the federal level as being eligible for family first. And so, um, for example we have in our county parent child interaction therapy that are that is offered through CBOs and I believe probably through our behavioral wellness department as well. And we have...

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:29:58 · ≈ 12:29 PM

So does someone take a course and then get that? Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:30:01 · ≈ 12:30 PM

Yes, and that's kind of where the heavy lift comes in. Many of these evidence based practices require certification that involves sometimes there are sole providers in other states, you know that that provide the training and certification for these programs. And that is the challenge with implementing evidence based programming because it's expensive. It's the fidelity to the model is important they're very rigorous thing require constant you know monitoring.

And again, sometimes certification and observation by the provider in order to continue to be certified to provide those services. We do have some programming that is a loosely based model getting based on the practice but maybe not certified because of the cost and as we all know with staff retention now it's It's a big investment to get somebody certified in this programs and then when people go to have to continue to recertify people, it can be a real challenge for our local CBOs. And so yes that some of those the block grant funds are specifically intended to help us get our local providers up to speed and certified with the EBPs to help offset some of those challenges for them.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:31:14 · ≈ 12:31 PM

Thank you. Any other questions, Supervisor Nelson,

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction3:31:18 · ≈ 12:31 PM

yes thank you chairman Can I get to that slide where had the different statistics of allegations per demographic

3:31 – 3:3612 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:31:27 · ≈ 12:31 PM

bring

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:31:28 · ≈ 12:31 PM

it up for

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:31:30 · ≈ 12:31 PM

your.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction3:31:42 · ≈ 12:31 PM

So I

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:31:42 · ≈ 12:31 PM

understand that we're looking at this is inequitable. Right, and so what are we not doing? What are the strategies to fill that because I mean is a goal for the population to equal allegations by percentage or you know what does that look like because that's something I always kind of struggle about instinctively think the allegations are generated by the need.

And so not based on some type of racial profiling or whatnot, and so I'm just trying to get my brain wrapped around that. So can you help me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:32:14 · ≈ 12:32 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Nelson. You know it's a very complex issue with a lot of inputs and this is something that has long existed in child welfare and there have been a lot of attempts, you know, a lot of initiatives to try and get at different things. It's fairly consistent again across the state and most counties to see over representation of black Latinx Native American children in care, it's pretty consistent to see an underrepresentation of white and Asian-American Pacific Islander children in care.

Again we have some very small numbers in some of these groups in our county you know when we're talking about five children, Native American children and so sometimes that might be one or two families right? And so there it gets really difficult with these very small numbers to try and tease out what we can do to change that Sometimes that's it. Sometimes it's absolutely appropriate, like you said based on the need.

But what we try and do is to look at these situations and see is there something here that we could be doing differently to change this? I think you probably recall the effort a few years ago through the racial and ethnic disparities group that probation led where we looked as systems through probation and mental health and education and child welfare where we did try and really look at some of these numbers And there's a lot of factors again when we go back to inequity and poverty and systemic racism, and we see you know all of those things impact what drives these numbers in terms of who's making allegations.

what's happening with substantiation and ultimately who ends up entering foster care. So there's at each point of the way, you know, there's these decisions being made and all of those factors combining. And it's an ongoing process to be looking at what can we be doing differently to change this? Which is really what the goal of this is, is to try and start unpacking some that and seeing what we can do to move the needle.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:34:19 · ≈ 12:34 PM

No, I would think it'd be interesting to look at some of these numbers. I think socioeconomics is probably one of the biggest correlators right and that can

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:34:29 · ≈ 12:34 PM

reach beyond you know

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:34:34 · ≈ 12:34 PM

racial numbers. So I mean, I think that's something we should be looking at and obviously that is a part. Are there still things that we're doing in our organization that we could be working on the systemic racism side? Is there something that we need to implement? Are there policies that we're failing to engage in that make this problem worse?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:34:58 · ≈ 12:34 PM

I believe there's always something more we can be doing to be looking at that and we, we have a number of things that we're working on. We're working through our core practice model to look at more training for staff in terms of looking at all of these issues becoming you know implicit bias, looking at the historical issues in the child welfare system. And we are.

Doing our county self assessment currently and looking at some of these issues to see getting feedback from focus groups community partners on what else we can be doing in order to have more equity in our system, and looking at strategies like parent partners. To be in cultural brokers to help with some of these issues and also in alignment with implementing some of these evidence based programs that are have been shown to be specifically effective, with different populations. And then just working again all with all of our partners again I'm in our systems and our kids network systems.

To be looking at the issues of equity and, you know as a community and as a network of providers. What can we all be doing together to keep raising in elevating these issues and doing better?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:36:15 · ≈ 12:36 PM

One last question. I know we've looked at the courts and seen outcomes that are different north and south in the county, right? With some of the sentencing of some of our youth for example. Are we seeing anything different in some of these numbers based on North County or South County? Is there anything that's measurable that you guys are noticing

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:36:36 · ≈ 12:36 PM

that any inequities there?

3:36 – 3:3814 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:36:43 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Currently, we actually have all of our cases being heard by the same judge. Since the pandemic, we've shifted from the north-south just to the one North County since it's virtual primarily now and that's not something that we've necessarily looked at before is to do an analysis by court but that's an interesting question.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:37:07 · ≈ 12:37 PM

Just

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:37:07 · ≈ 12:37 PM

curious, thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:37:13 · ≈ 12:37 PM

Okay, well I don't see any more lights on is there any public comment on this item that unclear chair Hartman and members of the board we have no request to speak on this item.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:37:44 · ≈ 12:37 PM

I'll make

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:37:45 · ≈ 12:37 PM

a motion that we vote to approve A and B, the receiving file.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:37:51 · ≈ 12:37 PM

And Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:37:53 · ≈ 12:37 PM

Second.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:37:54 · ≈ 12:37 PM

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? And thank you for a great presentation. It's really exciting to as you say go upstream and really think systematically about where we can make interventions to change the system so thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:38:10 · ≈ 12:38 PM

Absolutely thank you for the opportunity.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:38:15 · ≈ 12:38 PM

County Council, what are we going to hear in closed session today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:38:19 · ≈ 12:38 PM

Thank you Madam Chair members of the board you have two items for close session. The first is public employee performance evaluation under government code section 54957. The public performance evaluation as a county council and the second is a conference with existing on existing litigation government code section 5495 6.9 Christopher Anderson versus county of Santa Barbara superior court case number Z to CV 01299, and the time estimate is about an hour and 15 minutes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.803:38:52 · ≈ 12:38 PM

So we'll be back in about two

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.973:38:53 · ≈ 12:38 PM

o'clock.

5:02 – 5:1421 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:02:12 · ≈ 2:02 PM

Good afternoon we're reconvening the May 10 2022 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting, and we just came in from closed session county council would you report out please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed5:02:24 · ≈ 2:02 PM

Thank you Madam Chair members of the board, the board met in closed session on two items public employee performance evaluation for county council and conferences existing litigation on Christopher Anderson versus County of Santa Barbara case number to CV 01299. This is a case that raises secret challenges to the county's plan to remove encroachments and restore the right away on portions of East Mountain Drive in closed session, the board authorized County Council to seek appellate review of the courts issuance of a preliminary injunction against the county.

The board author also authorized County Council to file a cross complaint and the pending litigation, the details of which will be disclosed once the action is formal commenced to a person upon any person upon inquiry. The vote on the board of the board was unanimous with all supervisors being present.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:03:16 · ≈ 2:03 PM

Thank you miss Ben Mullen and Madam Clerk, would you read item six into the record please.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:03:25 · ≈ 2:03 PM

Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number six is from the planning and development department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding SB Clark, LLC residential subdivision key site three general plan amendment 13 GPA five rezone 13 RZN one best seen tentative track map 13 TRM one development plan 13 DVP 10 road naming 17 RDN five

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:03:52 · ≈ 2:03 PM

Thank you, and have any board members had any ex parte communications they would like to share. Supervisor Nelson.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction5:04:05 · ≈ 2:04 PM

Yes, thank you chairman

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:04:08 · ≈ 2:04 PM

had a meeting with Mr Manzi on. I think some of these might be repeated from last time, but March 30 2021 where I had a site visit phone conversation on nine 921. And then another conversation on April 13 2022. I've also discussed this with planning staff and my monthly meetings, and I had a specific meeting with planning staff on 10 1121.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:04:37 · ≈ 2:04 PM

Supervisor loving enough.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:04:39 · ≈ 2:04 PM

Thank you Madam Chair I met with Mr Mansi Matt Nancy September 13 of 2021 for a site visit, I had phone conferences on April 7 and April 18.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:04:55 · ≈ 2:04 PM

And supervisor heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:04:57 · ≈ 2:04 PM

Yes, I had a meeting in person with Mr Manzi last week cannot precisely get my hands on the day, but we talked about his efforts to secure secondary access to the project and we'll talk about it, I think that was the main thrust of our conversation

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:05:18 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Thank you and, and I reported my earlier ex parte at the previous meeting so I don't have those this time but I did speak with Mr Manzi on April 25 by soon. Supervisor Williams,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:05:34 · ≈ 2:05 PM

I met with Mr Manzi by zoom on the fifth. And we discussed their efforts to secure the secondary. The other, the other entrance to the project. And we discussed the relationship to the previous project previous proof project and density of both projects.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:06:02 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Okay, with that director Plowman

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:06:03 · ≈ 2:06 PM

and I'm sure just for the record sorry I'm meeting with Mr Benzie was on April 28.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:06:10 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Now Director Palin.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:06:12 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Thank you so as indicated the board heard this item previously in October 2021 and had asked the applicant to work to attempt to obtain access via another route, so that the The general plan amendment would not have to be moved forward. And they've done that, made an attempt at least and so today we've come back based on the request from the applicant to return to the board and have a discussion about what it is that entailed over the last several months and then seek a decision from the board. So with that I've got Shannon Reese who's been the planner on this project here today and then Travis Sewards, the deputy director of the division is available via Zoom I'll turn that over to Shannon, Shannon for the presentation.

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction5:07:07 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Thank you Miss Palmer. Hello chair Hartman members of the board, I'm here today to give a quick refresher on the project go over the Planning Commission's recommendations on that project for denial and to talk briefly about what has occurred since the October 12 hearing. So just to reorient everyone, the project site's designated as Keysight 3 in the Orchid Community Plan.

And it's located on the west side of Highway 101 approximately a quarter mile south of Clark Avenue. The site is bounded by the 101 to the east, Sunny Hills Mobile Home Park to the north, residential lots larger than an acre to the west and the undeveloped Solomon Hills to the south. And back in October we spent quite a bit of time going over the history on the site, including what the orchid community plan and associated er had anticipated here.

The MRO zoning for 20 units per acre that was applied to the center of the mesa which is shown an orange here. Back in 2009, and the project that was denied on this site back in 2012 for 125 larger lot single family dwellings. We also covered the the ministerial by right path for housing in the MRO zone onsite so I won't go too Much into those items today unless there are specific questions.

Instead, I'll be giving an overview of what's proposed by the applicant now. So the proposed 119 single family dwellings would be confined to the Mesa area to ensure the preservation of open space on the site and the reduced project footprint also results in reduced environmental impacts as compared to the projects that were analyzed in the OCPEIR and the project that was denied in 2012.

And that reduced project footprint is accomplished by clustering the homes, the lot sizes on the site for homes range from approximately 3000 to 13,000 gross square feet with an average lot size of 4,140 square feet. The larger lots and single story homes are adjacent to the existing residential development while the two-story homes are stepped into the interior of the site.

This project also includes dedication of 91 acres of public open space to the county, and the applicant also would retain 22 and a half acres of private open space on site. There were a number of questions in the prior hearing, particularly from Supervisor Williams about the density of the development, which it's a little tricky to address because the primary intent of this zoning designation is to encourage the clustering of structures and preserve open space to the maximum extent feasible but Because of that, there's no minimum lot size or maximum density is established for the zone.

So if you look at the land that's retained by the developer counting the roads and the private open space and such which is how you would look at it if it were design residential zoning but also emphasizes the preservation of open space. The density would be about three and a half units per acre whereas if you were just counting the single family dwelling lots It's about 10 and a half units per acre. And that's comparable to the density that's established for small lot plan development, which has a minimum lot size of 4,000 square feet. And there is zoning like that on Tuscan Way about 700 feet from the western edge of Keyside 3.

There are also comparably sized lots, both in Jensen's Crossing and portions of the Rice Ranch neighborhood nearby. The proposed project also includes a rezone from RR10 to PRD119, planned residential development 119 single-family dwellings and a general plan amendment. Those are described in detail in the staff report but essentially the changes to the general plan reflect updating the land use and zoning designations that result from the rezone, the proposed secondary access update and minor trail realignment And the commission, the Planning Commission heard the project back in November 2020 April 2021 and last on May 2021. In that last hearing they recommended that the board deny the project based on inability to make findings pertaining to community welfare appropriateness of the population density in the proposed PRD zoned area of the site and the compatibility of the project with surrounding items The board considered those items on October 12 last year and continue the item as Miss Palman indicated, the applicant was.

Able to reach out to 13, all 13 property owners whose land together composes Oakbrook Lane. They were able to speak directly to seven of them, none of which were supportive of granting an access easement and two additional property owners that they reached out to signed a petition in opposition of granting that easement which was attached to the board letter.

There were four property owners that have not responded or signed the petition So for that reason, the project is returning to the board at the request of the applicant to obtain a decision on the project as is. And secondary access remains over the existing 80 foot wide non-exclusive easement over Chancellor Street for ingress egress and public road purposes.

So to follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission, your board should make the required findings for denial of the project. Determine that the denial of the project is exempt from CEQA and take action to deny the project." And that completes my presentation. Staff is available for questions from the applicant team. We have Mr. Matt Mancy as well as Mr. Patrick Kaufman with a civil engineer attending via Zoom Mr. Dennis lammers the traffic engineer, attending via zoom and the applicants representation, Mr Mark Mannion, and Mr Cameron Goodman.

I believe we also have Jeff Lindgren or Mr Jeff Lindgren and Mr George a moon from county parks, and Mr Will Robertson from public works transportation division available for questions.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:14:02 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Lavanino. Okay, I'm supervisor Nelson.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction5:14:10 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Yes thank you chairman just a quick question about the project

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:14:12 · ≈ 2:14 PM

itself.

5:14 – 5:2128 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:14:31 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Madam

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:14:32 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Chair, Supervisor Nelson. Miss Reese needs to look that up so no I can take that a

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:14:36 · ≈ 2:14 PM

little later. Yeah, that's fine.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:14:45 · ≈ 2:14 PM

And, and I had a question for Mr Lindgren can if this were to be approved, can county parks handle the 91 acres

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:14:54 · ≈ 2:14 PM

of the new open space.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:15:04 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Georgia moving county parks, stepping in for Jeff Lindgren. And yes it could because they'll be left in open space. It won't really need maintenance, there'll be trails along there. So it's not like a park that will need maintaining like mowing things like that is just to be left in natural open space so wouldn't take really that much maintenance.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:15:27 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Thank

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:15:28 · ≈ 2:15 PM

you and the trails trail

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:15:30 · ≈ 2:15 PM

network.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:15:33 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Did that require any maintenance or construction.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:15:36 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Yes, a little bit some construction will be done by the applicants and they're on the hook for two years after that, and then that point forward to be maintained by county parks but again there'll be mostly dirt trails throughout the open space. And so just periodically they'll be need some maintenance but not much at all.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:15:54 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Thank you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:15:56 · ≈ 2:15 PM

see no more questions from the

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:15:57 · ≈ 2:15 PM

board of staff. You've been through this before

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:16:07 · ≈ 2:16 PM

10 minutes however you want to spend it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:16:10 · ≈ 2:16 PM

Thank you, good afternoon. Good to be here in person thanks for seeing us again very happy to be back here when we last met I was given direction by the, by the board to talk to the neighbors and I'm kind of rehashing what Mr resort he said and I'll try She covered a lot of what I was going to cover but we were also sent to explore, a sound wall as well along sunny hills.

And we're definitely willing to do that

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:16:38 · ≈ 2:16 PM

is my presentation up. Great. So I'm just going to skip ahead a little bit, not to be repetitive.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:17:08 · ≈ 2:17 PM

This is the context of our project which you have already seen this is the site planning with the upper Mesa and mustard yellow. And that's kind of where we're proposing

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:17:17 · ≈ 2:17 PM

to put all those cluster homes. This is the open space dedication

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:17:27 · ≈ 2:17 PM

It's a breakdown basically of what we're proposing to, to build on which is 20% of the total 138 acres. 15% of that will be private open space with the rest which is 65%,

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:17:43 · ≈ 2:17 PM

being dedicated to parks and trails. Here's a site plan of the trails and how they connect to the Solomon Hills trail to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:17:57 · ≈ 2:17 PM

Miss Reese mentioned that staff had recommended approval prior to our planning commission hearing. The Planning Commission decided to deny the project, citing some reasons and some of them were based on the fit they didn't believe the fit of the project was consistent with a neighborhood nearby. So we're proposing to provide an opportunity to benefit the county in many ways, to name a few tax revenue Road realignment through Keysight to home ownership for renters and residents, and helping to alleviate jobs and housing imbalance in the county.

In lieu of fees for affordable housing, and the open

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:18:36 · ≈ 2:18 PM

space that I previously mentioned. So we were asked to approach the homeowners at Oak Brook. I think we're

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:18:45 · ≈ 2:18 PM

off by one slide on the presentation, so sorry if we could pause for a second I think it was off to advancing himself. Okay, yeah sorry if you go back and I don't do that i think you were bouncing one too far there you go. Sorry about that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:19:03 · ≈ 2:19 PM

So yeah, we were asked by the board to approach the Oak Brook neighbors. I was able to approach or send letters to all of them only only basically reaching seven of them. The unanimous sentiment was that they did not want secondary access going through their street. It should be noted that for the homeowners do not return my calls letters or emails. Miss Reese mentioned the petition came to my attention that that petition have been circulated against that idea. Shortly after the hearing on 1012 over the course of the discussions, the neighbors of Oak Brook generally liked the project but don't understand why the secondary access should go through their street.

As far as that sound wall that I mentioned, that's something we're willing to do and work with the Sunny Hills Mobile Home Park

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:19:59 · ≈ 2:19 PM

if the board would like us to do We know about the California

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:20:09 · ≈ 2:20 PM

housing crisis, and there's an opportunity here for us to do something about that. People that work in Santa Maria and orchid even people that work for the county here can't find homes to buy. There's not enough inventory. The few houses that are available at Rice Ranch are selling between 800 to $1,000,000 and the 119 homes were proposing would sell for in the six to $700,000 range.

And that's a mix of one and two story units good homes for starters, and seniors as well. We don't believe the project is sprawl it's pretty tightly concentrated on that 28 acres of 138. We mentioned density. So I'm not going to touch on that just for time, the easements. We do have a viable easement through Chancellor and Cameron our council is going to speak to that in a second. But Chancellor is 10 feet wider than Oak Brook it's in better condition And it would directly affect only five houses versus 14 on Oak Brook and directly effect basically, I'm talking about cars that are going to be passing those homes from our

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:21:22 · ≈ 2:21 PM

project. So this slide This represents the 14 homes.

5:21 – 5:2717 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:21:36 · ≈ 2:21 PM

As you can see, actually sorry that's the wrong slide. There we go. So these are the 14 homes on Oak Brook that would be directly affected by the secondary traffic going through there.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:21:50 · ≈ 2:21 PM

And then these are the five homes that will be directly affected. And in this view shows the distance between Oak Brook and Chancellor it's about 700 feet it's not too. They're not too far from each other. So to summarize all this again

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:22:13 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Chancellor is 10 feet wider and in better condition, having our secondary access through Chancellor only directly affects those five homes versus 14 on Oak Brook. The two roads are parallel to each other separated by only 700 feet. So because of this, we feel that if given the choice Chancellor is the best and least impactful road to have our secondary access go through.

Also when the Board of Supervisors approved the MRO back in 2009 they agreed with that assessment and approved it to go through Chancellor. So I'm gonna ask Cameron to come up and speak to the easement

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:22:46 · ≈ 2:22 PM

that we have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed5:22:53 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Good afternoon Chair Hartman members of the board Thank you for your consideration of this project. I just want to address a couple legal issues and I'm available to answer additional legal questions from board or staff. First, there's been a fair amount of discussion from the board about whether our clients have legal access rights via the easement on Chancellor Street.

At the moment, there's no lawsuit or threats from the neighbors on Chancellor Street to block our clients' access to the project site. And even if it dispute with the neighbors on Chancellor resurfaces that shouldn't really concern the board when considering the project for approval. So long as you agree with us that Chancellor is in fact the, the appropriate and preferable access secondary access to the project site. That's all you need to understand for approval of the project, we will deal with any private dispute with the neighbors. If that arises, and then the courts if necessary.

It's really incumbent on our clients, not the county to deal with any dispute over the scope of the easement. So we think that that issue should be settled at this point. And secondarily as we addressed at the last hearing and in our comment letter, the Housing Accountability Act really compels the county to approve this project. And it prohibits denying the project or even conditioning it on reduction of density.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development is actually monitoring the progress of this project, and HCD has enforcement authority with respect to the housing accountability act. And even if HCD doesn't take action against the county if the project is denied or conditioned on reduced density that legal issue will eventually be resolved in the courts. If the project is denied The project is clearly consistent with all applicable standards and criteria as set forth in staff's original recommendations for approval to the planning commission, which were only turned on their head with contrived findings after the Planning Commission directed staff to come back with findings for denial in response to the complaints from a few neighbors.

That's really what the Housing Accountability Act was designed to prohibit And we believe the courts would agree with us in that regard. So, you know, thank you again for your consideration and I'm happy to answer any questions. I believe Matt has some closing comments.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:25:24 · ≈ 2:25 PM

Yeah, I'll be,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:25:25 · ≈ 2:25 PM

I'll be really brief. So just to summarize county staff had recommended approval. And they did this because we comply in every way with the planning, planning requirements as well as the OCP. We're only building on 28 acres of the 138. And this was a result of past Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor hearings, as well as just wanting to limit the impact of our development on the environment.

The rest is being dedicated open space and trails regarding water we will serve letter from Golden State Water for 200 acre feet and county staff as well as fire both agree that Chancellor is an acceptable secondary access road So thank you so much for hearing me, we appreciate being here and I'm here for any more questions.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:26:17 · ≈ 2:26 PM

Board members have questions. Do we have any public comment.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction5:26:24 · ≈ 2:26 PM

Sure, actually had a question, please. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. I did

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:26:33 · ≈ 2:26 PM

get the list of the, the outreach you guys did. Do you guys look at doing some engineering to see the cost comparison between Chancellor and Oakbrook?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:26:43 · ≈ 2:26 PM

We didn't do any engineering as far as what the cost would be to improve the road. So yeah, the answer is no we did not.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:26:51 · ≈ 2:26 PM

Okay, did you guys do an appraisal for that easement?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:26:55 · ≈ 2:26 PM

An appraisal for...

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:26:58 · ≈ 2:26 PM

To acquire the easement from the neighbors on Oakbrooke.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:27:03 · ≈ 2:27 PM

I don't quite understand what the appraisal would accomplish.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:27:06 · ≈ 2:27 PM

Well, when you would go to get access from the neighbors you probably have to give consideration. Did you guys figure out what that consideration would be?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:27:15 · ≈ 2:27 PM

We didn't offer any consideration. When I approached the neighbors, it was merely if they'd be willing to grant that. That's something that we could consider if there is anybody that would be interested in granting us those easements then we would consider compensation but we didn't leave with

5:27 – 5:3413 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:27:33 · ≈ 2:27 PM

Okay, so you guys don't have any idea what that conversation would look like for me because you're asking for an easement which is an acquisition of real property right and so I mean we come into a negotiation with somebody who aren't offering offering something I mean do you guys have any idea what that would look like.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:27:51 · ≈ 2:27 PM

No, the answer is no I don't know what it would cost to acquire those easements. When I approached the neighbors, the ones that did talk to me were adamant they didn't want to give us one under any condition. And so that kind of squashes any negotiation when you hear that

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:28:07 · ≈ 2:28 PM

is that in part because those neighbors were promised that this road would not go through their property in exchange for offering the sewer easement.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:28:15 · ≈ 2:28 PM

Yeah, it's possible that they were asked. They were told that yes we use agents to acquire the sewer easements and a lot of them are under the impression that we will be going through Chancellor because that's the easement that we had. Thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:28:36 · ≈ 2:28 PM

Yes, we have four requests to speak on this item up here in Santa Maria. We're going to begin with David Hassett, to be followed by Gary Crabtree, David.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:28:55 · ≈ 2:28 PM

Hi,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:28:56 · ≈ 2:28 PM

I'm David from Sunny Hills been up here multiple times probably heard all the negative things are constantly over and over did one of Don't know the answer to is basically the easement of the road. I believe was granted because the zoning was for 10 acre ranch ads, so if you take 138 acres and. Say 14 homes, you're talking traffic zoning would have been way lower when the easements were granted for them for their property begin with. And we're talking the one next to the freeway and we're also talking Chancellor Road. So that's why they're getting so much feedback is because this is way overdensed way too much.

When they're talking about these homes are not bringing up all the traffic from the MRO and then when they talk about the Mro they're not talking about the traffic for the, for the home so it's a complete Two separate projects but it's actually all in one. So it's way too big of a project, way too much too many too much traffic and just how everything is going through right now it's supposed to go through key site two is supposed to put in the shopping center gas station fast food. Well, all those cars, including us at Sunny Hills is going to be going through that shopping center to go to the light because we can't make a left turn.

from our existing access easement that we have. So, that means if that project gets built all that traffic is going to be going through that shopping center also. We are a senior community so we are worried about you know safety and amulets getting to our seniors and in easy access. And so with that being said I hope you guys deny the project. And maybe do some research on the setback because maybe they were told they had full access for this project for the MRO and this.

But I can't see just what the easements that they have was designed it was originally for the 10 acre ranch at so I could see the traffic for a small housing development originally, but I think you're going to get a lot of feedback from everybody. Because the easement situation the traffic problems. So thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:31:14 · ≈ 2:31 PM

We will remain in Santa Maria for Gary Crabtree to be followed by Catherine Sheehy. Gary.

CommentGary CrabtreeProposedself-stated5:31:29 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Hello, my name is Gary Crabtree and I'm here to speak in favor of the This proposal, I'm here in favor of supporting the local planning and building have seems to me are also an agreement to this proposal. I've lived in Orchard for over 60 years. I raised my family, and I have lots of friends and relatives that all have children and grandchildren, they would love to own a home in specifically in that area.

And being a real estate broker in the market for over 45 years and development and sales. There's such an extreme shortage worse than I've ever seen in the 45 years that I've been in the business, and a project like this, and I don't get involved with the transportation, how all that that's supposedly done by people who know what they're talking about and it's not me.

I'm just talking about, I'm representing 118 future families that need a home. And they come to me and my peers and ask us to try to find them a place to live. And I pulled up available housing between 550 and 750 before I came in here today in all of the orchid areas and there are five homes for sale. Every single home that comes on the market, there are multiple offers.

And only one family gets a home, all the rest of them are out there trying to find a place to go. And so it seems to me like that there has to be some kind of a balance between the haves and have nots. And in the project that I lived in prior to me getting there at the subdivision that was 15 years prior to that came in and did the same thing. We all think that everyone should have a home but we want their home to be somewhere else. We don't want it to be where we are Because of the noise because of the traffic, and that's the way it is in every single subdivision ever goes in.

Because there's always going to be a subdivision that was there prior to them, and that's the way they all feel. And so it's a human condition I understand that. But being in the marketplace and in selling a lot of homes to first time homebuyers. There's nothing that I can do for them or help them and so it seems to me like anytime we can get a project Developers willing to come in and today's marketplace and put up the kind of money that they have to do, and take the chances with the kind of market that we have my hats are off to them. And so I think that this project is great because it is much smaller in the size of the home and a lot.

In our area of office double builder all approaching $1 million, and these homes would be significantly $400,000 less. So all the people that I work with especially in the younger set, they can afford a home in this price range, they can't afford one of those. And so I think that there needs to be something that is looked at when it comes to The affordability and making the decision on what's going to be in the best interest right now, there's a few head of cattle that occupy the 138 acres.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:34:42 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Thank you and that is your time. Okay,

CommentGary CrabtreeProposedself-stated5:34:45 · ≈ 2:34 PM

thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:34:46 · ≈ 2:34 PM

I do want to thank him first passion I wish we had a few more people in the south county with that kind of passion for housing.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:34:54 · ≈ 2:34 PM

And we will now go to Catherine she he did be followed by Bill Brown who was our final speaker, Catherine.

5:35 – 5:407 turns

CommentCatherine SheehyProposedself-stated5:35:02 · ≈ 2:35 PM

Good afternoon, my name is Catherine Sheehy and I live with my husband Patrick Sheehy at 1705 Chancellor Street. Our property is adjacent to the lower southwest portion of the proposed development. I'm here today to respectfully ask you to deny the proposed project for close to 25 years. My husband and I together with our neighbors have vigorously opposed development above and beyond the current Our 10 zoning for gateway scenic issues, density decrease to quality of life in our small rural neighborhood loss for Perry and habitat. Laura and Fauna, including the disturbance of Orchard Creek to build a bridge. And most of all for the traffic that would impact Chancellor neighbors and not only that but would affect Mesa Verde, Cobblestone, Jensen's Crossing, Cimarron, and further put pressure on those streets feeding into Stilwell Road and up onto Clark Avenue.

As time has gone by in projects Such as like commercial build out, such as caught at Verizon cottage urgent care and home developments like Jensen's crossing few citizens in the area to my knowledge have ever opposed those. The key site three has been different. There's been no clear support in the community for the proposed project. Developers, planners and commissioners alike have found the project problematic.

Trap close especially has never been properly mitigated nor has an acceptable plan been presented. Could the developer and county staff rethink the east side of the key site which runs from the top of the Mesa, connects to a frontage road to Clark and runs down the MESA parallel to the freeway where the developer has proposed open space. Thus staying out of Chancellor Street neighborhood, saving the creek, saving Oakbrook taking the pressure off those lower still area.

The plan is proposed today is too simplistic It does not consider the eventual crushing increase in traffic and safety issues at total build out which does include that MRO. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:37:39 · ≈ 2:37 PM

We will now go to our final speaker Bill Brown, Bill.

CommentChuck WilliamsProposed · by introduction5:37:45 · ≈ 2:37 PM

I am bill brown I live off of Chancellor on Hamilton Lane i'm one of the houses that This project is proposing to run right by one of the slides that Mr Nancy was using was a little outdated and it just shows the fact that he never even comes into the community to actually see what he's actually affecting if you would go by, he'd see that the crab trees have actually sold off two more parcels down lower on. Chancellor, which would have there's one already almost done construction. There's already another one that's actually getting built right now. I'm not sure if it's Mr crab tree or his son that lives on Oprah but I find it very interesting that out of all these meetings he's the only person who has supported this project Not a single person has supported it, just him today.

And they can't even get the easement access through Oak Brook through their property? I just find it very interesting. Your planning commission denied this project for reasons For very valid reasons, I think a lot of them actually came out and saw the properties and how it will affect our neighborhoods. And that's all I have to say.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:39:23 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:39:35 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the only thing that I would say is there are people that do support the project they just can't be here. A lot of them have jobs that would prevent them from being here there's there's a gentleman named Miguel Guerrero that lives on Chancellor that supports the project. So, that would be my only rebuttal. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:39:57 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Did you have a question for Mr Nancy

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:39:59 · ≈ 2:39 PM

might be for staff. What's the status of the MRO.

5:40 – 5:4529 turns

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction5:40:07 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Chair Hartman Supervisor loving you know, there is a zoning clearance application in for the 160 units in the MRO portion on site. At this point, it's essentially on hold pending the outcome of this particular patient or series of applications

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:40:28 · ≈ 2:40 PM

said owned by the same family. Okay, yes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:40:34 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Any other questions for staff, Supervisor Nelson.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:40:37 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Yeah I had a question for Mr Manzi because you know one of the things that's been advertised here is that these houses will be sold for six or seven hundred thousand dollars. How are you able to say that right? Because it can take a while for these to be built. Are there some kind of deed restriction that you're planning on putting on there to make sure it limits that? Or are you going to be selling them at whatever the market conditions are at the time that they're

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:40:57 · ≈ 2:40 PM

Yeah, Supervisor Nelson. Yeah, we don't know today if they were built today, we estimate they'd be sold in the six to 700 range in two years, who can say I don't know. Okay, that's just curious yeah they would be definitely under what's being sold today though, in the area. Thank you. So,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:41:16 · ≈ 2:41 PM

I'm sure Can I ask Mr Manzi about the MRO, just what are your plans or. I'm just curious.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:41:25 · ≈ 2:41 PM

So as Mr he said we are waiting to see what the decision would be on the project before you. If that project if this project is denied today, we would meet and talk with Miss Reese to figure out how to move forward with the MRO. It's my understanding that some of the things that are being approved today on this project affect the MMO. And so there need to be some things reworked I think in regards to roads and infrastructure before we were able to move forward.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:41:54 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Okay, well then I guess that's a question for staff makes I know I'm supposed to be taking this as it as its own project. But the MRO project is already approved correct.

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction5:42:08 · ≈ 2:42 PM

Chair Hartman supervisor loving you know, that's the focused rezone is approved so zoning is proved on the site. And what the LDC states is that the permitting path for residential development on that site would be by right so ministerial and our code specifically says that no discretionary approval or additional environmental review or public hearing can be required for projects in the MRO.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:42:37 · ≈ 2:42 PM

And just refresh my memory, how many units are we

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction5:42:39 · ≈ 2:42 PM

talking 160 units over eight acres.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:42:44 · ≈ 2:42 PM

Okay

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction5:42:44 · ≈ 2:42 PM

20 units per acre

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:42:48 · ≈ 2:42 PM

and what's the access point on the MRO.

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction5:42:52 · ≈ 2:42 PM

Chair Hartman, Supervisor Lavagnino in the EIR for the focused rezone. They are the project description included access over Oak Brook lane. Though, as the applicant stated, Chancellor Road is mentioned in the traffic study that was a part of that EIR. The traffic study was specifically for secondary access over Chancellor while the project description and the EIR doesn't reflect that.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:43:25 · ≈ 2:43 PM

So why would somebody have an easement over Oak Brook for one project but doesn't have it for the other?

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction5:43:32 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Chair Hartman, Supervisor Levinino. They do not have an access easement so essentially they would yeah they don't possess that easement

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:43:43 · ≈ 2:43 PM

But, okay so but if they're be able to build it by right what am I missing. I'm like somebody helped me out with this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:43:49 · ≈ 2:43 PM

yeah Madam Chair supervisor loving you know so they have a right to develop that property, but they have only an access easement over Chancellor so that does complicate it right. And they

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:44:02 · ≈ 2:44 PM

have to have secondary

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:44:03 · ≈ 2:44 PM

and they have to have secondary access.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:44:06 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Okay, so we're in the same spot we are with this project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:44:09 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Except we have less discretion and so with that particular project.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:44:15 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Okay, so is it in your opinion that is either this project or that project? Or do you think?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:44:25 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Well I guess what I would say is that that project has more. That project is more guaranteed because of a ministerial permitting process that was approved as part of the housing element in the last round. This project, you have more discretion over, I would say, and you do because it's a development plan map and whatnot.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:44:55 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Okay,

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction5:44:56 · ≈ 2:44 PM

thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:44:58 · ≈ 2:44 PM

Supervisor Nelson.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction5:45:01 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Yes, I think it's one to kind of clarify make sure I understand it right.

5:45 – 5:5122 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:45:07 · ≈ 2:45 PM

called out access to this property, and it was also recognized during the rezone that access would if secondary access was

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction5:45:15 · ≈ 2:45 PM

needed. It happened over Oak Brook is that can sit that's consistent with your community plan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:45:22 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Nelson, that is consistent with what the Orca Community Plan said,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:45:28 · ≈ 2:45 PM

and that was part of where their commute plan said okay we will go ahead and allow more density here On this Mesa, but in exchange for that density we're going to direct traffic in a way, and that would be coming down Oak Brook.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:45:42 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Yeah. And Supervisor Nielsen the Orca community plan at the time it was developed did not anticipate the MRO either. That came later as part

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:45:50 · ≈ 2:45 PM

of the housing and when you ever went in as part of the housing update 13 years ago. It didn't change the Orchid community plan to move it to Chancellor. They kept it on Oak Brook, correct? That

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction5:46:01 · ≈ 2:46 PM

is

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:46:02 · ≈ 2:46 PM

correct.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction5:46:03 · ≈ 2:46 PM

And if I actually have another question while we're there...

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:46:08 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Mr. Manzi's attorney asserted that we don't have discretion here so I would really like to hear maybe from County Council if we do have discretion because if we don' then it's a foregone conclusion and we need to move on but

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:46:19 · ≈ 2:46 PM

I don't know if he was correct with that or not.

CommentGary CrabtreeProposed · by introduction5:46:31 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Nelson, so we believe the board has discretion over the discretionary permits here. We don't believe the Housing Accountability Act applies in this circumstance because of the need to amend the orchid community plan to change from orchid, I'm sorry, from Oak Brook to Chancellor, and because it requires that change. We don't believe the Housing Accountability Act applies her

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:46:57 · ≈ 2:46 PM

supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:46:59 · ≈ 2:46 PM

So how does that work with the previous project don't you need access and typically. I know this because i've found this this out in previous situations, if you deny access someone can see you for taking plant takings claim at very least what would happen to us if the approved project has no access.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:47:28 · ≈ 2:47 PM

Madam Chair Supervisor Williams, I think I would like county council to participate in this response but it certainly puts them in a position that is problematic in that we have an MRO and we have a ministerial permit process. And they have an easement over a road that is not what is defined in the general plan So if that creates a barrier, I can see there'd be probably legal recourse on their end. And in addition, I have questions about what would apply with regard to the Housing Accountability Act because now we have a ministerial project that all of a sudden can't move forward because of this barrier that's been created and I don't have all the answers today but it is certainly something that needs to be sorted out

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:48:21 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Chair, I've dug into this, so I wouldn't mind.

CommentGary CrabtreeProposed · by introduction5:48:32 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Madam Chair and supervisors. So even though the MRO is set up to be a ministerial approval, they still have to meet certain standards one of which fire requires secondary access. It's not really a discretionary standard like compatibility with the neighborhood or something like that. So currently applicant doesn't have secondary access that's consistent with the orchid community plan.

So, if the orchid community plan allowed access via Chancellor, the MRO could be approved right now, assuming that it meets the other standards. But that's not what the Orchard Community Plan currently reads. So they still to be able to move forward with the ministerial MRO development need amendment to the orchid community plan, and the county currently is not holding up access this is a private dispute among various neighbors.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:49:30 · ≈ 2:49 PM

So how does that resolve when you have to go to court an action between the two or how does the community plan piece of it weigh in.

CommentGary CrabtreeProposed · by introduction5:49:42 · ≈ 2:49 PM

Madam Chair and supervisors so that your board has discretion over amending the community plan, pretty broad discretion. If that discretion was exercised in a way that someone wanted to challenge that something they could do. But in terms of access and easements That would be a private dispute.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:50:05 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Yes, thank you chair Hartman. That was a concern I had to as well. I mean I've been digging into this for quite some time. The state law has changed for barcode and actually there's additional discretion the fire marshal has up 299 units for a single access point. It doesn't have any of the other high fire even though this is on the edge of the community isn't that fire danger necessary in a single access point could be approved by fire. So it could just come out through Clark Avenue and not need a secondary acts out access. If it is built the MRO directly, so I don't mind checking with fire on that but that's that's the conversation I've had with the fire chief and the fire marshal because it did seem like it was forked on conclusion if we had to go gain that access if this proved project was not approved.

So it's not if this project isn't good proved. It's no longer a ministerial action, it's still minister election they could still move forward, just like they could have over the last 13 years, you know, to build that, but it hasn't been built.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:51:05 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Thank you, Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:51:12 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Madam Chair there is one other step that needs to occur for them to be able to do that as the lot has to be created. to be able to build on the MRO the zoning is there but a lot, there is no lot that follows the boundaries of that zoning. So that was going to be that's part of the approval of this project creates that blocked

5:51 – 5:5913 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:51:37 · ≈ 2:51 PM

supervisor

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:51:38 · ≈ 2:51 PM

hurt

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:51:38 · ≈ 2:51 PM

well that's makes it also clear now. Honestly, I'm baffled. I don't understand how the community plan created this conflict between these things and seems like that's what the community plan should have figured out is how to get access to these parcels to have this development. I'm sympathetic to this applicant just in terms of the process of coming to the county with a much less dense project or many acres years ago as the way it was explained to me.

And the planning and the county in the Planning Commission saying now that's. Cluster it and have this open space and now there's this open space and you know they can't get approval because of access and, you know, it just feels like there's no path. And I don't understand how we got here with this, these two things that are connected but they're not connected and they have different easements on different streets and, you know, asking neighbors to say would you have, do you like traffic to come by your neighborhood is a great try but you know I think that was kind They're going to say no, just like the Chancellor people are saying no. And so the fire department needs to have access to one of the lots but not the other lot and we need to figure this out I guess

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:52:58 · ≈ 2:52 PM

Madam Chair, I just wanted to make one clarification regarding the lot. The lot is necessary for financing purposes for the project. It's not something that we would mandate but it is a necessary element for them to be able to construct that Mr.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:53:12 · ≈ 2:53 PM

I see so that's not an another discretionary decision. Well, I, I agree with Supervisor Hart that usually if there's a disagreement about a private easement. The county does its thing in the private parties have to deal with that. But here the community plan it has says they should come over Oakbrook rather than Chancellor right And so that's what I'm stuck on,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:53:49 · ≈ 2:53 PM

Madam Chair. The community plan does include that it is a little unusual for community plan to be specific in that nature about an access because most community plans are more general, that that's where their general plans right. So, I wasn't involved in the development of that community plan, but they did included in there,

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:54:12 · ≈ 2:54 PM

and it's a specific policy

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:54:13 · ≈ 2:54 PM

it is

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.975:54:21 · ≈ 2:54 PM

I saw your light. Are we still in questions are we

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.805:54:31 · ≈ 2:54 PM

well supervisor hard.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:54:33 · ≈ 2:54 PM

I don't have a quest well actually do you have a question, I'm curious what Supervisor Nelson wouldn't think is the solution to this because it's feeling very Solomon like today.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:54:45 · ≈ 2:54 PM

It is a tough one. I'm not against development, you know, so I am against development that seems not to really work. You know, in Orchard we're building like crazy if you guys have driven through it. We've put in apartments, we've put in single family homes. You know, we've got either completed or in process or soon to be built over 700 homes on the Rice Ranch area, Keyside 30. We already put one of these MRO properties in there. My chief of staff lived in there when he first moved to our community and is doing exactly what it's supposed to do And I'm certain that orchids going to see more housing through the housing element update as well.

I believe that the reason why this got so messed up was because passports stuck this out there on a desert island and probably never intended for it to get done, you know. And so it's kind of created this problem that Mr Manzi has been faced with. And so, you know, it's hard to be, you want to be sympathetic to the applicant but at the same time my job is to protect my community. You know we've got We're getting a lot of housing we just don't have a lot of resources and community spaces and there's so many things. And, you know, So there is a challenge here. And so as much as I'm sympathetic to it you know those apartments never were built in the 13 years and some of these challenges that we talked about as part of that. You know, I would like to see it.

It needs still more work. I think Oakbrook is a better spot because it actually takes traffic away from Clark Avenue and then takes it out on the Stilwell, so then it can actually be delivered into the community towards schools, towards other places. And that's why our community plan envisioned Oakbrooke as the access here. That was on purpose. That wasn't an accident. Oakbrooke was seen as a private road. Oakbrooke as well but at dead ends...I drove yesterday just to make sure my head was straight...dead ends right into this project Oak Brook has to build a bridge has to go around some are sorry Chancellor he has to build a bridge has to go through some open space just to connect up there. It's it said, it will be an unpreferred route for residents there.

I think the people live on Oak Brook, you know. Most of them bought their houses since 1997 when they were community plan went in place that they read some of those documents and I know nobody does but it was there. It was going to come at some point, whether that was done through a developer going and knocking on the door and offering them money which I'm you know i question Mr man's he's true intention to get that how much work that he'd committed to it if he doesn't even know how much he was gonna offer Also that fact that Mr. Manzi and his agents promised the neighborhood that we weren't going to do it in exchange for an easement they needed to complete their project so it'd be lower cost options, so they've kind of put us in a really tough position.

And if I'm putting that tough position where you know I can't comply with my community plan I think I have to deny the project ultimately something else I wanted to add on there was, you know this project has been admired because look at all this open space that we're going to give for the community have become the trail access. Mr Manzy reached out to one of our biggest trail advocates kind of a founding father of the Santa Maria Valley Open Space and said hey I'd love for you to come to this meeting and get your support for this project.

You know, he said for the record I've commented on this project several years for several years. Nothing has I have suggested cared about asked for has been incorporated in this project i think it's a mistake to prove it as is, as it would be another example of poor planning your community. This is another example of the frustration that the trail community hasn't worked at not being listened to mapping asked for input not be taken seriously or taking care So even though it has, so you actually literally have our trail advocates saying we don't even want these trails because it's still a bad project. I think what Miss Reese is gonna come back with it's going to be a trailhead with six or six or eight spots.

Not very many. Is that right?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:58:52 · ≈ 2:58 PM

No. Madam Chair, Supervisor Nelson. There are some designated spots and then there's a public road that has multiple spots it has an estimate of 120 spaces available.

5:59 – 6:049 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role5:59:07 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Yeah, I think our board knows about parking along the right of way and what kind of conflicts that creates. But again this is something that you know i think that the community has spoken loudly to my office if you know as a representative it. You know and there's gonna be a lot of people up there on this mesa you know when the board asked for this to happen they were talked about clustering before the MRO.

I think these would be something that people need taking consideration That was when they were talking about 125 clustered units on top of that Mesa. This is 287 clustered units, the amount of population on there, although dense and I can handle density is about the same size as Los Alamos. Okay, population wise. And that's a lot right there. I do want to say there's an instance away from town, you know there's only one area that's going to take all that population, not against NC I'm just got the intensity in the wrong spots and this is the wrong spot for this level of density. If it was if it was just one parcel over or sorry when he said over on key site one right on Clark and one on one where people can drive in and out, they can have access to commercial I think it's a different project.

If it was along 154 and Clark or 154 and Union Valley Parkway, different project. In Orchard we have those spots. This has been a bad spot for a long time. I think all we do is make it worse by approving this project. I think if they want to go ahead and move forward with the 160 units they have that buy right to do it. And it's not within our discretion here today but to make it 287 units I think is not the right project So

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.976:00:45 · ≈ 3:00 PM

that's where I'm at supervisor heart, since you asked. Supervisor hard well that is helpful and let's see what I say about this.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:01:01 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Well, it doesn't change the challenge that we have because we've got a project here this in front of us. And I don't know that anybody has any. Well, I shouldn't say that the density to me is not inappropriate given the clustering and the open space that's being dedicated I guess that is how I'm looking at this independently from the other project because we don't have the other projects and So it comes down to this access issue.

And I appreciate the direction that you gave last time to go explore that and I supported that and, you know, I think you're exactly right I did a site visit on this project and that street is more connected to their urban grid and makes more sense. doesn't have an easement and the property owners don't want it, and I don't think there's any amount of money that would really frankly change that equation. That's not been my experience. And there is an easement on the other road, and the other road you know has is going to benefit significantly from the open space that's being dedicated immediately behind them so you're sort of you live on the end of a cul-de-sac and you got somebody else's private property immediately behind you that you enjoy for 30 years as open space but is zoned for development somebody comes along You know, develop it.

And here we are with the tough call and I think when I look at all those things, that feels like a path that works. It would be better if the trails folks were supportive of this and it would be better if there had been more work with those folks to figure that out but we never said anything about that in last hearing we talked about this project. We talked about secondary access and the applicant went to the neighborhood and asked them he could have come with an offer of money But again, I don't know that that honestly would have changed the equation of this. So where does that leave us? How do we fix the Orchid community plan and create an access point over private property that people don't want accessed? So I don' know that I have a conclusion from all those remarks but...

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:03:04 · ≈ 3:03 PM

I have an additional question. And that is how much traffic does a secondary access get

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction6:03:17 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Chair Hartman members are members of the board, I think it's best if we defer that question to will Robert

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:03:23 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Okay, I see he's

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.976:03:24 · ≈ 3:03 PM

on. Madam Chair, members of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:03:30 · ≈ 3:03 PM

the board. Unfortunately I do not have the traffic study up in front of me right at the moment so I can get back to you if you're looking for an exact number but from my previous reviews on this project the majority of the traffic will be going out the main entrance so there's probably about a quarter of the project would be using the Stillwell connection but like I said if you want me to come back to you with an exact number I can't do that just it'll be a moment

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:03:59 · ≈ 3:03 PM

And is there any way to encourage use of the main access, or any ways to limit the traffic over the secondary access.

6:04 – 6:1111 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:04:13 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Madam Chair members of the board. Because of the way fire is mandating the access, they require this to be a full time access 24 seven. I'm really not sure if there is a way to focus the traffic towards the The main entrance, I think just as a matter of principle that's the way that people are going to go. It's direct access to the freeway, it's the quicker route they're shopping, the new shopping center that's being built, as well as key site for that's already built.

It's just probably the better option for most people. But if you were going into the existing Orchid Shopping Center or to Old Town Orchid, it would just make sense that you would go out Oak Brook if that was the available option and up Stilwell. Chancellor I do agree with what was said earlier. If chancellor is the one that's built, it isn't circuitous route. It's not going to be the same feeling it's gonna be slower, it's gonna be longer.

That access would actually prohibit the traffic more than the Oakbrook connection.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:05:22 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Thank you, Dr Plum and did you have anything more to add or saw a little conference going on there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:05:31 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Madam Chair, we were just examining the numbers and discussing what the breakdown might be. But I didn't, I don't have anything more to add

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:05:40 · ≈ 3:05 PM

in Supervisor Nelson was your light on from before. Yeah. I haven't changed my position too much from what it was before. I don't really see this as, as a desert or an island or, or, I mean it. It's surrounded by housing of different kinds the mobile home park smaller lot single family homes ranchettes and then the one on one freeway, and it's close to shopping centers and a lot of urban development so I'm a little stuck on the community plan issue, but it seems to me that this is well suited and that the applicant has really in good faith done what the earlier board asked and done what we asked. And now it seems to deny this would be

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.976:06:41 · ≈ 3:06 PM

And

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:06:41 · ≈ 3:06 PM

at least for

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.976:06:41 · ≈ 3:06 PM

me an act of bad faith supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:06:53 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Well, I mean it's seems like a real tough situation because we have discretion over this project. It continues to seem to me that most of the neighbors that don't want this project what they really don't want is the project that's already been approved. And we are not allowed to deny access to a project that's already approved. So what could we do in the long run if we denied this project?

If we don't provide some access to the project that's already been approved, we will get successfully held accountable either by HCD or by the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:07:33 · ≈ 3:07 PM

applicant

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:07:33 · ≈ 3:07 PM

because you can't do that. You can't approve a project and then not But not allow access so I don't know how, you know, the way out of this either. You know more trail parking spots more other things, it's unfortunate because I do agree that secondary access would be better through the other location from a perspective of reduced. You know, reduced vehicle miles traveled as as supervisor Nelson has pointed out in the past.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:08:15 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Thank you, Madam Chair well that that I think that's the issue that that Supervisor Nelson is talking about is, you know for if that's what our goal is when we talk about housing. It's reduced vehicle miles travel there's no jobs for those folks right there to go to. Right, so they're all going to get on the freeway and head down to the south coast or to Vandenberg or wherever.

So Old Town Orchid can only employ so many people so. I look at it the other way for me, I don't really see it as surrounded by housing. It's, it might be surrounded by housing but a completely different type of housing. So, you know while you do have the mobile home park there. The other folks around they're pretty much ranchettes. It's really interesting it's, it's. This is kind of a case study if this was in the south coast we would be saying hey you guys should be building it and put it in there. And you guys would be like, that's going to destroy the neighborhood and if it's up here we're like hey, I don't think you guys should be building this doesn't fit you guys are like well you know we do have split housing somewhere so yeah I think I think the board made a mistake.

Quite frankly, years ago. And we've got that hanging over our heads. That project should have never been approved there the MRO and what I'm worried about. I mean, I don't want to see both of them built and I don't feel like I have any control. I think it's just too much into one space but that many units on that piece of property there. If this was somewhere else, we'd be talking about that it's a gateway to scenic view coming in. That's the first thing you're going to see right now it's open space and now it's going to be housing.

But I mean putting 280 units or 300 units there is too much. And if I can't control this second one that's coming, the only way for me to really deal with that one unfortunately is to take a harder look at this. I don't really care what you offer me. Yeah, I'm not doing it. That's why I live there. I'm conflicted because I do agree with you that it is, it feels kind of like pulling the rug out but you're either pulling the rug out from the developer or pulling the rug out from the people that live next to it. That we're told this wasn't going to get developed in that manner so it's a tough one. This is one where for me honestly I could come down either way but this is one of those instances where for Bob has to answer to those folks in that district, and I will.

I mean I have my reasons why I supporting you on this but to me that's also a consideration

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:11 – 6:1825 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:11:43 · ≈ 3:11 PM

supervisor Williams your light is still on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:11:45 · ≈ 3:11 PM

yeah i mean this is sort of just Not completely. This is a side issue I very much hear both of you on the big picture thing that more housing in the north far from jobs, is not the answer. Okay. I, you know and maybe it's weird that I would be more likely to turn down a housing project in Orchid than I would be in my own community, but that's because I know Not having enough housing close to jobs is killing the environment, it's killing our diversity it's killing our, our next generation. So I mean I just want to tell you, I, I hear you and I agree with you about that, that this is a sign of something that was maybe You know, through one lens and it's impossible to tell because I'd have to go back and interview our previous colleagues figure out what they what the what was in their thought process but maybe like just you know a convenient place to approve housing.

And maybe it wasn't the right place to prove housing that cut the density though in the, in the original project is something that I would be proud of in my own community. So I, I don't know where to go but I just wanted to let you know i'm there with you on the

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.976:13:13 · ≈ 3:13 PM

larger issue and integrate I'm

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction6:13:22 · ≈ 3:13 PM

not

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:13:23 · ≈ 3:13 PM

sure if I have the votes but I am going to make a motion. The findings to deny the project, do we have those up there.

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.976:14:02 · ≈ 3:14 PM

So I'm going to make the motion to

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:14:06 · ≈ 3:14 PM

make these three, the recommended actions here to from our planning commission and today's project.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:14:20 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Is there any more discussion, Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:14:23 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Well I just, I, it's not a secret I brown act with Mr Nelson on this and i and i i obviously in every hearing I try to hear out the stuff In the hearing in case it provides us further evidence but I know i, I could condition this project to have more things that are important to the community. I, I could we, I could agree to some other solution on on access but I just, I just can't agree to deny that project.

You know, given given what we know about this project and the previous project.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:15:06 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Supervisor Williams, Supervisor heart.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:15:10 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Now,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:15:11 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Supervisor Nelson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:15:12 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Hi,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:15:14 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Supervisor Lavinia and chair Hartman motion fails

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.976:15:19 · ≈ 3:15 PM

three to two.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:15:25 · ≈ 3:15 PM

So we need another motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:15:27 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Yeah, I guess I'll make a motion to approve the project and I do think it would benefit from additional focus on the trail network and how to better connect that to the community. And you know we have a challenge here in accomplishing that I don't know if we want to have the applicant propose something and take a break.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:15:57 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Let me just ask Director Plowman do you have findings, either way is that correct so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:16:04 · ≈ 3:16 PM

I think a break would be useful for us to hear from the applicants talk to them about what those findings would look like, and then see if they're willing to do additional work with the trails foundation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:16:19 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Can

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:16:19 · ≈ 3:16 PM

I make a suggestion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:16:20 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Sure,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:16:21 · ≈ 3:16 PM

you know, if you're going to make a motion to approve the project that we condition it on some kind of increase in the part of the parking for the trailhead that maybe the applicant could respond to after the break and, and some sort of just flat offer to the neighborhood for the easement that that supervisor Nelson was was asking for i mean you know like Just at least make the, the applicant should make the offer. It's a better it's a better access from a vehicle miles traveled perspective and that is kind of a big deal in our policies. So, that would be my

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:17:05 · ≈ 3:17 PM

supervisor Nelson.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:17:06 · ≈ 3:17 PM

Yes. I'm not going to end up supporting emotion but i can't help make this project better or at least so. I think it might work. If it does, when you guys do change my organ community plan to say Oakbrook or Chancellor keeping that Oakbrook option still on the table as well as conditioning project if it does go down Oakbrooke to improve Oakbrooke as a condition of the project so I would like to keep that on the table is because I will still be working as the supervisor for that area, to see if that can get accomplished somehow. So maybe conditioning it with an or might still keep that option on the table again I can't vote for it I think it's got to be a hard to down Oak Brook or, or nothing. And then I do think Just maybe some back of the napkin math with staff can improve the trailhead.

I also know that the trail group asked for a couple other things that are in the record there, I actually included an email from john Blanchard where there's a few things there that are really easy asks like not having the fencing around The basin, because it's going to be it's a visual area instead of having the stark basin with a fencing on it. You know, maybe she looked nice and natural and so there's things like that that are in the record if those were added those would be at least some making the project better again I can't support it but let me suggest those things.

6:18 – 6:2814 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:18:36 · ≈ 3:18 PM

I think it's all great stuff for the conversation with Stephanie.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:18:41 · ≈ 3:18 PM

So, 10 minutes 15. How long do you need to

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:18:47 · ≈ 3:18 PM

after we trail it to the end?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:18:50 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Oh, oh okay yeah good idea good idea so we said yeah we do that. So we need the motion, we haven't voted on the positive motion yet.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:19:03 · ≈ 3:19 PM

I don't know that we

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction6:19:04 · ≈ 3:19 PM

conceptual

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:19:05 · ≈ 3:19 PM

yeah conceptual conceptual Yeah so conceptual motion to approve the project, create the new findings for approval and have the applicant work with staff on the revisions that we talked about.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:19:18 · ≈ 3:19 PM

And I'll second and what you call them once again, I think it's important to have a record

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:19:24 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed6:19:25 · ≈ 3:19 PM

I

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:19:26 · ≈ 3:19 PM

supervise your heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed6:19:27 · ≈ 3:19 PM

I

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:19:28 · ≈ 3:19 PM

supervisor Nelson, no supervisor Lavinia know now chair Hartman I motion passes three to two.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:19:35 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Okay so we will have a break and then we'll come back and hear the final item and then we'll trail this and finish it up. Yeah, five minutes only. Good afternoon. After a short break, we're reconvening the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting of May 10th 2022. Madam Clerk, would you read item seven into the record please?

6:28 – 6:366 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:28:22 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Chair Harmon and members of the board departmental item number seven is from the sheriff coroner's office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the introduction of an ordinance adopting the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office military equipment use policy.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:28:36 · ≈ 3:28 PM

And Sheriff Brown you're on zoom Did you want to introduce this item

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:28:45 · ≈ 3:28 PM

and share from my apologies. Great, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed6:28:50 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Sorry about that. Yes Good afternoon Chair Hartman and members of the board. Sorry I can't be with you in person today I had several meetings all across the county and it just didn't work out so but in any event I'm here today to introduce this item to you. We're here to talk about Assembly Bill 481. 481 requires a public hearing on the adoption of a military equipment use policy.

The legislation requires a law enforcement agency to obtain approval from its applicable governing body by the adoption of a military use equipment policy That by ordinance will be adopted at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws. And this is required prior to taking action related to the funding acquisition or the use of the equipment, or the continued use of equipment that has been obtained previous to January 1st of this year.

It identifies certain specialized military equipment As I'm sorry, it identifies certain specialized law enforcement equipment as quote military equipment. End quote and it requires oversight from the board for the purchase and use of what that this bill has deemed to be quote military equipment. The law requires the sheriff's office to create a use policy which we have lexical 707 that has been that we're putting forward today to be adopted by the Board of Supervisors After holding a public meeting to seek public input.

The purpose is to increase transparency, accountability and oversight regarding the acquisition and the use of this type of equipment. AB 41 also requires an annual report that summarizes the use of the equipment internal audits and any community feedback. Legislation has dubbed these items as military equipment, but the reality is that the equipment we have has been in use for years and historically has not been obtained from the military or as military surplus.

The only actual military equipment per se that meets the definition of AV-481 that we've acquired for public safety use from the military have been our helicopters and our MRAP rescue vehicle. To dive deeper into the purpose and the use of this equipment, I'm now going to turn the meeting over to Commander Eric Rainey who is the law enforcement operations commander for our North County. He'll be followed by Lieutenant Joe Schmidt who is our training lieutenant and then I'll be back at the end to summarize and wrap up the meeting.

So take it away. Thank you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:31:44 · ≈ 3:31 PM

Commander Rainey.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed6:31:48 · ≈ 3:31 PM

Thank you, Chair Hartman and Board of Supervisors. Happy to be here with you today as the Sheriff indicated on the North County Operations Division Commander part of my duties is as our agency's policy coordinator so that's why I'm with you today Lieutenant Schmidt to my left and I developed this policy with our policy partners at Lexapol. So I just wanted to take a minute to go over the policy itself The purpose of the policy is to provide guidelines for the approval acquisition and reporting requirements for military equipment per the applicable government code 770 71 and 72.

The policy itself defines military equipment as per Government Code 770. Items such as unmanned aerial systems or drones, command and control vehicles, battering rams, kinetic energy weapons, specialized firearms they're all denoted in the policy itself. The attachment to the policy itself, excuse me is our military equipment inventory itself. So it's a very comprehensive list of all of the military equipment that's defined by those government codes that the sheriff's office is either currently seeking or currently has in its stocks.

The policy itself and that inventory governs the use of the equipment. It has a description of the equipment, the purpose and authorized uses of the equipment as well as the cost, the training and the procedural rules for its use. The policy in the inventory list outlines all of these equipments in very clear detail. The policy itself outlines the duties of the military equipment coordinator, it directs the sheriff's office to designate a military equipment coordinator.

We've designated that position to be our training bureau lieutenant which Lieutenant Schmidt occupies at this time. The coordinator will be responsible for tracking the inventory, coordinating an annual community engagement meeting, preparing an annual report for this body and establishing a procedure for the public to register complaints or register inquiries about our military equipment use.

The policy also clearly defines the timeframes in which the Sheriff's Office will present the annual report, have these community engagement meetings and other mandates in accordance with the new law. So I think one question that may come up is what is the impact on public safety for the implementation of this new ordinance and our policy. And I would suggest that it will not have any new impact on public safety because this is equipment that the Sheriff's Office already has in its equipment stocks, and it's already things that we've been using for years.

So really the adoption of this ordinance and the policy will just allow the sheriff's office to continue with the great work that we do protecting the public on a day-to-day basis, as well as when we respond to critical incidents. The specialized equipment that's already in use by law enforcement agencies ourselves, as well as other agencies throughout the county and the contracts of cities that the Sheriff's Office currently provides law enforcement services too The equipment itself is needed to prevent the escalation of violent situations from becoming a threat to the safety of the community, law enforcement personnel and the suspects that we're engaged with.

This equipment helps limit and reduce high risk encounters with violent suspects. And it provides life saving tools and options during natural disasters or other non criminal responses. And as I mentioned, the inventory list that defines the purpose of each of these pieces Is pretty comprehensive and under the purpose section in that inventory list, you'll see things such as.

Purpose being preservation of human life search rescue operations natural disaster response rapid response to catastrophic incidents reducing the likelihood of injury to the public and so on, so these are really tools that we use to try to reduce harm to the public and protect our deputies and civilians alike. So I'd like Lieutenant Schmidt to share with you a couple of incidences that we've experienced at the Sheriff's Office where we've utilized some of this equipment that's in question today. And so, I'm going to turn it over to Lieutenant Schmidt.

6:36 – 6:446 turns

GuestJoe SchmidtSheriffProposedself-stated6:36:28 · ≈ 3:36 PM

Good afternoon Chair of the Board and Board of Supervisors. My name is Joe Schmidt and as Commander Rainey mentioned, I am the Lieutenant of the Sheriff Training Bureau and Special Enforcement Team which is our SWAT team I'll briefly touch on two critical incidents where this equipment was used to protect lives and safeguard the public. One of the most significant uses of this equipment was the deployment of the MRAP in Bearcat rescue vehicles following the 1-9 debris flow in Montecito.

The MRAP and Bearcats were immediately deployed to the disaster zone to conduct rescues. No other vehicles in the Sheriff's fleet were able to access these homes due to mud, rocks and other debris in the roadway. All sheriff's armored vehicles rescued approximately 30 trapped community members and their pets bringing them to safety. And as you can see in this picture, our Bearcat vehicles were involved in numerous rescues of trapped victims such as this elderly couple who were evacuated from the second floor of their home due to the front door and the first floor being inundated with mud.

It was the only way to access them. In 2019 we utilize Bearcats and distraction devices to rescue a hostage being held captive in an RV. And this occurred in Buelton. On November 26, 2019 the special enforcement team responded to a suspect holding his elderly mother-in-law hostage. The suspect had kidnapped his wife and mother-in law and led CHP on a lengthy vehicle pursuit.

The pursuit ended in Buellton where the suspect's wife was able to escape the vehicle leaving her elderly mother inside. The suspect armed with knives and a bludgeon weapon held his mother-in law hostage inside the RV. Both Bearcats were used, they were deployed and used to block the suspect's vehicle to prevent a second pursuit from occurring. Negotiators with the sheriff's crisis negotiations team then spent over one hour attempting to communicate with the suspect to deescalate him and to let the suspect correction, the hostage free but the suspect refused.

Concerned for the safety of the hostage, the special enforcement team deployed three distraction devices near the driver's side of the vehicle in order to distract the suspect as a rescue team entered the RV. As a result there were no injuries to the hostage law enforcement or the suspect. And here's an image of the narrow doorway used by the special enforcement team to enter the RV and rescue the hostage while three distraction devices distracted the suspect.

And I will now turn it back over to Sheriff Brown to conclude this presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed6:39:32 · ≈ 3:39 PM

Thank you Lieutenant Schmidt, um, to wrap up the justification for the use of this equipment, this equipment is equipment that is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of both officer and civilian safety and the proposed law enforcement equipment use policy has been written in such a way that it will safeguard the public's welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties. The equipment is also found to be reasonably cost-effective compared to available alternatives that could achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety.

So with that, that concludes our presentation to you. We're happy to answer any questions that you might have about the policy.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:40:21 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Do any board members have questions? Supervisor heart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:40:26 · ≈ 3:40 PM

I don't have questions more of a comment i think this is actually kind of an interesting opportunity to talk about, you know, this is the exceptional moments that you captured when you need to use this equipment and it's important that you have these technical tactical tools. When the circumstances present themselves to protect the public and officers involved in dangerous situations, but this isn't the norm. This is what you you know the normal interactions you have with the public are not As, as challenging as these examples. And I just thought this is a great opportunity for you to talk about that about the you know how you lead with de escalation and force rather than this extreme example of the most sophisticated use of technology when forces required and I think that balance in is important and this is a great opportunity, even though we're talking about tactical weapons and military capabilities for you to talk about you know what you do on a daily basis really about de escalating force and engaging the community.

And even I thought about, you know these instances when you do have to use these. This equipment, obviously not the debris flow is not a good example but when there is a tactical situation. You know, is there, is there a mechanism to communicate to the public about what happened you know because these are extraordinary things that get covered by the media. You know folks don't necessarily know in their own neighborhood how things were resolved but is there is our process that the sheriff's department goes out and explains you know this is what happened we had to bring this this tool in to your neighborhood and we resolve the situation, you know, this way. And just to close the loop with that neighborhood about what happened so that folks if they have questions that are lingering in their mind there's even potential trauma amongst the civilians that are involved something like that and is there a way to de-escalate that?

A bunch of questions packed in there sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed6:42:21 · ≈ 3:42 PM

No problem Sheriff I'll go ahead and take a stab at the answers here I think you bring up a lot of great points, Supervisor. We'll see if I can answer all the questions first. We do have a use-of-force policy that very explicitly directs deescalation as the first step in any encounter that might need use-of force. So all of our training in the Sheriff's Office, any use-of force type training, as well as our critical Incident training is focused on de-escalation as a first tool.

And like you pointed out, all of this equipment is really there for the extreme cases. This inventory list really if you look through it not a lot of it is used in our day to day operations most of it is used for those critical incidents where Our de-escalation efforts are unsuccessful or when the situation itself brings itself to us in a level that requires us to act.

Um, in that fashion. So you bring up an excellent point and I appreciate you pointing that out as far as the follow-up with the communities when we do have an opportunity to come out and resolve a situation that's unusual in nature. We use our public information officer to put out a press release and engage with the community on our social media sites so that the public is aware. I think what's unique about this new legislation It will have an opportunity for us to come to this body on an annual basis and report out on the use of any of the equipment that's defined by this new law as military equipment. So, the public will have an opportunity to see what we've used throughout the year and in what situations but I actually will take back to my shop the note about being able to get that information out To the community in a more timely manner so thanks for putting

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:44:25 · ≈ 3:44 PM

well thank you for the great answers to questions and, you know, I do think this is a great opportunity to help educate the public about context of these things. And so next time when you come back, you take advantage of the opportunity with the PowerPoint to, you know, have some more descriptive information there that can help folks understand this context. Thank you.

6:44 – 6:4916 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:44:48 · ≈ 3:44 PM

Is this second hand equipment or, or is it produced by for military use and police and sheriff's departments get new equipment produce specifically for them to use in this way.

GuestJoe SchmidtSheriffProposedself-stated6:45:04 · ≈ 3:45 PM

Thank you, Chair Harmon. Regarding the equipment most of it is new equipment purchased from various vendors. The only has Sheriff Brown mentioned the only equipment we've received that falls under military equipment from the military was the MRAP rescue vehicle and that was if it was used at all as briefly use before it was donated to us.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:45:26 · ≈ 3:45 PM

And does it have to be retrofitted in any way for civilian use?

GuestJoe SchmidtSheriffProposedself-stated6:45:31 · ≈ 3:45 PM

No, the equipment in the case of the MRAP is just an armored rescue vehicle. It's a similar application to the Bearcat Rescue Vehicles or ARVs Armored Rescue Vehicle and used for the same purpose it's armored to protect from ballistic from small arms fire rifle fire and it's also as we use in the mudslides extremely off-road capable with a high clearance and can traverse all kinds of terrain

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:45:58 · ≈ 3:45 PM

I had an opportunity to see the firehawk, which is a retrofitted for sheriff and fire. And Sheriff Brown was at the expo where it was presented this past weekend. So that's an example of a really valuable piece of military equipment that has been retrofitted and it was actually put to use on the Patera Fire over the weekend, I gather. Were there any other questions that board members had? Comments?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:46:27 · ≈ 3:46 PM

I've got a couple of comments. Initially when you're hearing about military equipment, there's a concern about the militarization of our local community law enforcement group. And when you have, I think Supervisor Hart really put it out there that we want to move more and more towards community policing and then there's just another side and this is the worst side out there. So for me, I paused when I was reading this to think about if you're asking for our endorsement essentially with this policy And it is a world that exists right now where there are a lot of challenges and a lot of bad people don't wanna do bad things to our residents.

And so at the end of the day, I trust them in women of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department to use force and uses equipment judiciously. And so that's why I'm really comfortable with supporting these policies. So I just wanted to make sure that I said that inform my constituents because I do think that sometimes it can seem very unsettling to see this type of equipment in your neighborhood. But at the end of the day, I think it's the relationships that you have with the public that really transcends that and really make sure that people change their mindset and realize that you're there to help. And so I think it's really important.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:47:42 · ≈ 3:47 PM

And I think the policies obviously frame when and how these things would be used. And that's really detailed. How long have you been working on that?

GuestJoe SchmidtSheriffProposedself-stated6:47:55 · ≈ 3:47 PM

Chair Harmon it's been about four to five month process of putting together. It's a very, it was some new situation for law enforcement all over California so we're learning as we go but it took a while the to get an accurate inventory everything because there's there's quite a bit of various equipment

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:48:14 · ≈ 3:48 PM

And was that the hard part or figuring out when it should be used I mean the policies around it, that seems is that.

GuestJoe SchmidtSheriffProposedself-stated6:48:29 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Chair Hartman, yes we have. I've been in communication with other agencies throughout California because again it's new uncharted territory for us so we're sharing information as far as the equipment like Commander Rainey mentioned it's equipment we've used for so many years so we know when to use it and when it's appropriate and when it's not appropriate it was a matter of putting together the policy and making it very detailed and available for the public to view

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:48:55 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Well, it's really a good document. So I think we are ready to see if there's any public comment, Madam Clerk?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:49:04 · ≈ 3:49 PM

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

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:49:08 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Okay then we could use a motion approving staffs recommendation which is A through D on our agenda.

ElectedDas WilliamsSupervisorProposed · by introduction6:49:22 · ≈ 3:49 PM

So moved.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.806:49:23 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Second. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously and so we have the trailed item. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed6:49:36 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Thank you Supervisor.

6:49 – 6:501 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:49:59 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Chair Herman and members of the board if we can get an additional 15 minute break, and then return for departmental item number six. Okay.

7:23 – 7:3012 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.807:23:26 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Good afternoon after a short break we're back at the May 10 2022 Board of Supervisors meeting, and we trailed one item number six in our agenda Madam Clerk would you read that into the record.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:23:41 · ≈ 4:23 PM

Yes, thank you chair Hartman and members of the board. We are returning to departmental item number six this is from planning and development, it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding SP Clark LLC residential subdivision key site three general plan amendment 13 GPA five rezone 13 RCM one best seen tentative track map 13 TRM one development plan 13 DBP 10 road naming 17 RDN five

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.807:24:08 · ≈ 4:24 PM

director

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed7:24:10 · ≈ 4:24 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. We do have a some slides to share with you on some of the corrections that we have made based on the direction of the board. Miss Reese worked furiously during the break to get these slides prepared so with that I'm going to turn it over to her and let her present them more happy to answer your questions.

PresenterLieutenant SchmidtProposed · by introduction7:24:31 · ≈ 4:24 PM

Thank you, Miss Palman. Members of the board, we have a number of project description changes that were made during the break. The first of which is to clarify that the primary access easement that comes from Clark Avenue. There's an existing easement in a location that's less preferable to the owners of key site two and the mobile home park. Occupants, so there is a renegotiated access easement that hasn't been signed. So this change to the project description is just clarifying that there is existing access and it'll remain over the existing easement if it's not recorded however if it is recorded the map can can proceed or you know reflect that change and the findings are updated also to reflect that distinction The other project description changes relate directly to the deliberation prior to the break.

So namely, we spoke with the applicants engineer and the applicant, and they have agreed to provide an additional 15 to 20 trailhead parking spaces in the existing landscape buffer area between where the existing trail parking spaces are proposed. And highway one on one. But that's dependent on the engineering constraints and consistency with development standards to require, or to provide that landscape buffer requires certain dry violets, etc.

The other project description changes they have agreed to install six foot tall sound wall between the primary access road. And the one on one. So where the one on one parallels the primary access road and the sunny hills mobile home park. Additionally, the applicant will incorporate decorative fencing fencing and additional native landscape screening around So the basin is 14 feet deep currently and that's why it's required to have a fence around it.

It's required to have fencing around it unless it's less than 18 inches steep for safety, so they're going to explore a more aesthetically pleasing approach given the constraints. Lastly, the applicant will make a good faith effort with an offer of monetary compensation to gain secondary access over Oak Brook Lane. And if acquired applicant will improve that road to applicable standards.

That takes us to the changes to the general plan amendment so they have been revised, based on the direction from the board to reflect secondary access road from Oak Brook Lane or Chancellor Street rather than in lieu of in both locations where Oak Brook lane is mentioned. And lastly, we have the revised recommended actions based on the memo that was docketed and posted online to incorporate all the changes that have just been presented.

Oh, and lastly I just wanted to make some clarifications on a few slides. So here the first sentence says the applicant endeavors to obtain a remediated access easement it should say renegotiated access easement. And the second change is. On the last bullet point here, there was a sort of run on sentence that was inserted in the flurry of making these changes that no longer stands. So that has been removed from this particular slide but that's how it differs from what was docketed online. So we'll clarify that in the action letter as well.

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.807:28:36 · ≈ 4:28 PM

Thank you. So are there any questions about these changes? All right. Supervisor Nelson, I

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:28:46 · ≈ 4:28 PM

just wanted to comment that I appreciate staff and the applicant and my colleagues to try to do their best to move this along.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed7:28:56 · ≈ 4:28 PM

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.807:28:57 · ≈ 4:28 PM

Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed7:28:58 · ≈ 4:28 PM

Well, I will make a motion to approve the project with the project description change is described by staff with the new general plan amendment and the recommended actions. And do we need I guess we need the original construct of the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed7:29:16 · ≈ 4:29 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Why don't we help you by thank you since the motion has changed things it needs quite a few steps now for approval, couple of items, since we did produce new out items with including changes to the project I just want to make sure there's no public comment. Okay, and then I do want to confirm that this new memo with the findings is up online.

Before we conclude with public comment so if we want to maybe just check on the motion, Madam Clerk, see if there's any public comment.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:29:48 · ≈ 4:29 PM

Chair Hartman and members of the board I'm not seeing any public comment. I'm not sure if we wanted to hear from the applicant themselves, I know they did work with the department on this item. And in addition, we did post the revised slides but we just received a memo in our currently posting that so that should be up momentarily, and I can let the board know when that is posted.

Thank you.

7:31 – 7:343 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.977:31:47 · ≈ 4:31 PM

The extra slides are up.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:32:37 · ≈ 4:32 PM

It is tough. We're all getting a little antsy here. If you get rid of me, you're getting this. Lesson referendum on you.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈48s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:34:02 · ≈ 4:34 PM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, perhaps we should take a brief break while we're waiting for it to post. Okay. Just as a friendly reminder that we can pick up everything in the room so we can hear the chatter.

7:37 – 7:3912 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.807:37:25 · ≈ 4:37 PM

So after a brief pause, we're ready for emotion on item number six on today's agenda.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:37:31 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Yes and chair Hartman members of the board before we proceed with that motion I did just want to note for the record we have posted two additional attachments they are listed as attachment 11 and 12 online. The extra slides with their revised findings and recommended actions as well as a departmental memo that is associated with those findings dated May 10 2022.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.807:37:55 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Supervisor hard.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed7:37:56 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Yes, I do think I need help with the motion. I have lots of paper here. So maybe if Council could describe what it is you want in the way of emotion, I can say yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed7:38:16 · ≈ 4:38 PM

Madam Chair members of the board. So the recommended action is now displayed on the screen and it'll be showed on the televisions as well. And so that incorporates all of the pieces that you would need for an approval, including all of the changes that we went over

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed7:38:31 · ≈ 4:38 PM

today. I will make a motion to approve A through G as recommended actions on the slide this in front of us, and want to thank staff for working hard to try and find A place that accommodates some of the interest of the mobile home park owners and the trails community I know this is not a perfect project and I know there are serious concerns from many people in the community, including our colleagues on the board and respect that.

And

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.977:39:03 · ≈ 4:39 PM

we'll make this motion.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:39:13 · ≈ 4:39 PM

Supervisor Williams, I supervise your heart. I supervisor Nelson know supervisor 11 you know

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.807:39:20 · ≈ 4:39 PM

no

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:39:20 · ≈ 4:39 PM

venture Herman motion passes three to two.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.807:39:23 · ≈ 4:39 PM

Okay we are adjourned to Tuesday May 17 in

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisor, District 4Proposedvoiceprint 0.977:39:26 · ≈ 4:39 PM

Santa Barbara.