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.0:03 – 0:067 turns
Welcome and good morning. This is our November 29th, 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room. Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
Our
next item of business is the minutes of November 1st, 2022 meeting. May I have a motion?
So moved.
Okay we have a motion and a second? Second. And any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Pass unanimously. CEO Miyasato do you have a report today for us? No report this morning Chair. Okay and Madam Clerk announcements?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, I do have a couple announcements this morning. Salary announcement today the board is scheduled to consider it a first amendment to the COP agreement with Andrea Dillard RN in accordance with government code section 54 95 3 subdivision C3 salary information should be summarized verbally. Ms. Dillard's total contract compensation for the period of July 1st 2022 to June 30th, 2023 is an amount not to exceed $49,500.
Lastly I would like to remind the public who are participating in our meeting today of the board's method of public participation. For the Board of Supervisors' method of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page two of the agenda. Members of the public can attend meetings in person both in Santa Barbara and in Santa Maria Board hearing room chambers, the board is following all local and state guidelines and are no longer requiring face covering doors. Please be advised that the public health department is still encouraging all county staff members of the public to mask and socially distance themselves in crowded areas.
Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment virtually may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing important information about joining the virtual meeting. Once the chair has announced the item you'll want to comment on, please join the meeting with the information provided in the registration confirmation email. You will be placed on mute until it is your turn to speak. The clerk will call you by name. When removed from mute, you will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted. If you're using a touch-tone 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 Office at 805-568-2240. That concludes my announcements for today.
Thank you, Madam Clerk.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
Turning to our administrative agenda board members who'd like to pull items I have from Supervisor Nelson A11, 32 and 58 are there any others from the Board? And Madam Clerk any from the public?
Yes we have A27, A38 and 857 from the public.
Okay let's start would you read A11 into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 11 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the circumstances of the existing state of emergency.
Thank you Supervisor Nelson.
Thank You Chair Hartman. I was looking for a roll call vote.
Okay may I have a motion?
I'll move 8-11.
Thank you second.
Second.
All in favor, say aye. Aye. And opposed?
No.
So let the record show Supervisor Nelson voted no. Would you read A27 in the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 27 is from the Public Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the acceptance of in-kind donations to Santa Barbara County Animal Services from the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation K-9 placement and assistance lead incorporation in shadow fund. This item requires a four fifth vote.
All right, it's Dr. Heller. And your canine companion.
Ms. Aguilar is doing exactly what we've been wanting a director to do for two decades, work proactively with partners to improve programs across the board benefiting both people and animals. Here's an example that really blew me away. A few weeks ago, Ms. Aguilar posted on the animal services team Facebook page about a German shepherd named Mushu who was not doing well. He was unpredictable, unhappy, stressed out This is the first time I've seen a director paying attention to animals in the shelter and taking proactive steps on their behalf. She was really honest about the dog's situation, she talked about euthanasia as a necessity if we didn't come up with a better alternative.
Her frank assessment was met with a call-to-action. People created Team Mooshu and 10 days later that dog was adopted because people rallied to the cause, made sure his quality of life was better in the shelter, and then found him a placement. There's been a lot of staff turnover at Animal Services since Fall 2020, so we still have challenges filling positions and moving forward. But I'm really excited by the new direction. Volunteer hours are up 1,000 over this time last year. Foster placements are up by 259%.
So while communities like Bakersfield and Kern County... Am I out of time?
We neglected to put the timer on
but you have about another 45 seconds. Thank you, okay I'm looking going. While Bakersfield and Kern County are having to euthanize for lack of space we are still managing. We have actually 23 empty kennels still because of aggressive outreach by animal services staff, the revived volunteer program and partner organizations all working together So I hope the community, if they're listening in will hear about this. And if they're interested, we'll join the new team that is coming together because this is how we're best going to help the animals and people of Santa Barbara County.
Thank
you.
Thank you, Dr. Keller for all that you do for animals in our county supervisor Nelson. You're OK? Great. OK.
We have Jill Anderson via Zoom.
Hi, I'm Jill Anderson Co-founder of Shadows Fund, a nonprofit animal sanctuary that has been partnering with animal services for more than a decade. Today the Board of Supervisors acknowledge the in kind contribution of Shadows Fund, Canine Pals and the Santa Barbara Animal Care Foundation to help enrich the lives of dogs in our North County shelter. If you've not spent time at the Santa Maria Shelter, you may not understand the true impact of this project. Santa Maria typically houses an average of 50 to 70 dogs at any one time And kennels that are completely indoors. Prior to the day yards, getting all of the dogs out of their kennels every day was tough to achieve.
Thanks to this collaborative partnership we added 18 outdoor day yards where dogs can spend a significant amount of time out of their kennel in the fresh air and sunlight. This helps to reduce kennel stress makes cleaning more efficient for staff and creates a quieter less stressful shelter environment for the animals and the people who work there but the dayyards are not the only improvement Santa Barbara County Animal Services, under the interim leadership of Deputy Community Health Director Paige Batson and now under the leadership of Sarah Aguilar has for the first time in a long time invested in a thriving volunteer program. Over the last five months, the number of active volunteers has quadrupled and our North County shelter in particular is seeing a volunteer presence it has not seen in years.
I would like to share a quote from a staff member who posted on social media recently I quote, we had a great turnout for fee waived adoptions in Santa Maria today. We had volunteers helping clean cats wash dishes and laundry walk dogs do play groups direct foster care the works you name it we had the support. This allowed kennel staff to accept every walk in meet and greet help all of our strays and current critters in a timely manner. The ACOs went above and beyond today as well. I could go on and on. I really felt that unity today go team kennel staff ACOs and volunteers It takes a village End quote.
Impactful projects, collaborative partnerships and thriving programs have always been possible in this county but they have not always been as enthusiastically embraced and nourished as they are under our new leadership team. So my comments today are really to express my deep gratitude. Gratitude for Paige Batson who shepherded Santa Barbara County Animal Services through a tough transition adeptly and without compromising on a vision for what we could achieve And for Sarah Aguilar, who stepped in to be the leader this community has needed and wanted for decades.
This is a tough time for animal shelters across the country but I know that under our new leadership Santa Barbara County Animal Services will not only weather these difficult times we will grow and thrive. Thank you.
Thank you for taking the time to report on that for us. Madam Clerk A32
Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item number 32 is from the Public Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the First Amendment to the agreement with Fish & Associates for the ambulance request for proposal consulting services.
And Supervisor Nelson you pulled this how would you like to proceed?
Yeah, I don't know if I have a question so much is that you know. So this is a expansion of the contract with Fitch for the limsa ambulance RP and I guess maybe it's good to clarify What Fitch is supposed to be doing with the extra $50,000 that they would potentially be receiving in this? I know the original contract didn't consider my understanding is a appeal.
Currently it's under protest if I get the language right here and so this would pay to have them staff that. Do I understand that correctly?
Supervisor Nielsen through the Chair. So our original scope of work with Fitch included their support and activities through the scoring of the RFPs, and then it skipped to support for contract negotiations, providing assistance presenting the contract if requested And reviewing and commenting on a transition plan. The protest and appeal process was left out of the original scope of work. And the RFP committee feels that it's very important to continue to have their expertise, their experience and their input as we proceed forward through these stages of the protest and potential appeal or still in the protest stage. So
can you give me a time frame on the protest and appeal stage?
I'm pausing a little bit here because there's recently development information. I'm just processing in my head, and I'm sure I'm okay to say this. So the protest period was planned to end tomorrow on the 30th with response from purchasing back to the protester. There
0:16 – 0:2218 turns
was a submission recently of an additional document that we decided to accept And that now is going to require the other party, or not require but allow the other party five days to respond to that. So that pushes the protest period into next week. According to the timeline there is no set specific date at that point for the purchasing agent to respond to the protest.
But we would anticipate that that would be shortly thereafter, which would put if there is an appeal would put that somewhere around Christmas time.
Okay so we're talking about In this process about six weeks to eight weeks extended that was not originally complicated in the contract.
Right and
most of that work there potentially is by the procurement agent and then by a protest resolution committee?
Yes, and so the procurement agents work will be wrapped up Next week or shortly thereafter, and then it moves if there is an appeal to that committee. And to the work of hearing that protest appeal and any subsequent work that they feel like they need to do in looking at the matters that were presented to them.
So I guess we're a couple frustration pieces of frustration. I have with this one. being under protest is in partly protesting some of the process that Fitch has been leading the RFP through. And so to have them a part of that protest, it seems to already be somewhat of conflict of interest. You know if we really want to have truly independent you know Fitch guiding the procurement agent and advising them or eventually a protest resolution committee seems like an inappropriate relationship in the first place let alone paying them to be a part So from what I can tell about this contract, I'm not interested in continuing to have Vitch be our representative during this period of time during this appeal. So I'm not comfortable with moving forward with the contract extension if we get through the resolution committee and we need to continue you know basically what I say is we're hitting pause We'll get through this process and then Fitch can pick up their services with the county from that point on.
I think we have a capable County Council staff that can keep us, you know, on a smooth and legal pathway if we go through this process as well as public health staff that can, you know, help the county. I just don't see why there's a need to have Fitch involved in this process let alone pay them $50,000 to do it.
And the only thing I would want to say in that response to that would be that The RFP committee would be utilizing them as we felt. We had the need for and their Input perspective as well as any role that they might play in setting up different activities like they did previously
And a CEO must message, would you like to add anything? Oh
Madam Chair, members of the board I would just concur with Director Nielsen. We would use them as needed to advise on specialty areas related to operational items any questions that might occur throughout the protest process that the committee needs advice on. As noted it is up to 50,000 just to ensure we were covered. It's certainly not our intention to utilize the full amount and only utilize if it just needed to address any questions the committee may have And of course we coordinate other items of a legal nature with council and are utilizing their advice in that regard
Thank you. So Supervisor Hart?
Yeah, I just want to add my support for Supervisor Nelson's critique of this item. I don't support it. I do think it would be helpful to have fresh eyes looking at this process going forward. I wasn't pleased with the outcome and just feel as though we need to have fresh eyes helping us look at every step of the way going forward.
Supervisor Williams?
Well, I definitely feel like that the nature of this has and the state law associated with it has caused us to outsource a bit of our brain. And I guess I don't want to outsource any more than is legally required. And so I don't know if I reject their participation entirely, but I do believe that it would be worth waiting on this to see if there are other options. This feels like continuing to outsource a part of our brain and I'm not sure I'm interested in that anymore.
If that makes sense.
So it looks like we have at least a majority of the board that has reservations about this item. Supervisor Nielsen?
Yeah, I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to... I guess we don't need to make a motion in that case right there wouldn't be a motion for this item.
I think we would want a motion not to move forward. I'll go ahead
and make the motion to not move forward with the first amendment to the contract with Fitch. Second.
And further discussion, I would like staff either now or later to tell us or County Council does this put us in any jeopardy? What are the potential negative effects if we don't move forward with this.
0:22 – 0:2921 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. The Board has discretion on whether to expand the scope of work for this
contract.
It's not so much of a legal issue as much as a practical issue I think it's just an issue of who would be assisting the committee through the process and As Mr. Nielsen already stated, the contract, the scope does include some later work already and so there's a pause on this period and then it would pick back up. So it's possible that if the contracts through timing or financially we may need to come back and extend it for that later period that's already in the scope but I'm not sure on that. I'm not sure on the funding at this point.
And Mr. Nielsen did you have anything else you wanted to add?
I guess I would just say that because we did decide to receive that late submission to the protest yesterday and that pushing out the protest period into next week, it places us in a position of the time frame becoming more of what we can achieve moving forward rather than set specific dates, which is good because we would have to now shift to having discussions with internal You know, staff to have them craft the details of the path forward and to find answers to any questions that the RFP committee has or any questions that the RFP, that the protest appeal panel will have which is different members than the RFP committee.
So there'll be the need for Running down some information. Time for figuring things out, right? Along the way that wouldn't maybe be as much time had we had Fitch there providing some of that.
All right and Supervisor Lavenino.
Thank you Madam Chair well I think during an RFP process at least the way I'm dealing with this is I'm trying to divorce myself from the process as much as possible I made the decision, I voted to go out for an RFP. And I want to see the process play itself out. I really think at this point it seems like we're putting our thumb on the scale and I just think we should...and I'm not telling anybody else how to do what we're doing. We all have a vote. For me, I'm personally trying to let the process play out. Let staff...this is a staff-directed RFP The process isn't complete yet.
I'd like to see the process complete itself without our intervention and then come back, and then we can figure out from there. But I think getting in the middle of this at this point by either stating that we don't agree with how the process is going, I just rather see it play out and then come back, and then we can make decisions at that point. We'll have plenty of time to do that. So I would've rather gone staff recommendation At this point, so I won't be able to support supervisor Nelson's motion.
Okay and do we have any public comment on this matter Madam Clerk?
We have no request to speak.
Thank you very much. So I appreciate Supervisor Lavinino's position, but I also saw this and it raised questions in my mind so if we can pause that and do as much of the work internally as possible I think that would be a good A good outcome from my perspective, so I will be supporting supervisor Nelson's motion Supervisor Lavinia
Mr.. Nielsen. What was the original Fitch contract? How much do we remember yes? I scope of work.
I have it right here. I just closed my binder sorry
130 or somewhere on
80 I Believe was about 180
Right. So it's one 30, I think and then adding the 50. Oh, yeah. So wrong for me. It seems strange that we were okay with 130 and now because we don't like the way the process is going. We don't want to support the additional 50. It seems like is that that's kind of what I'm getting
I'm going to say that $50,000 to just man the staffing of an appeal seems like a lot of money to begin with. That's my first point. Second point is the way I understand For a resolution to take place, they're looking at the whole RP process and whether it was done correctly. Well Fitch has a vested interest in saying hey we did it right because of the vendor so they seem to be a party that is not appropriate to be part of the appeal even if I'm not putting my finger on the scale I'm just saying that they're not the person that should be staffing that conversation. I feel more comfortable with our staff staffing that conversation as an independent arbitrator Representation and so that's why I'm saying. I don't think that they're the right piece first of all I think it's way too much money, and they're not the right people doing that
All right, so I guess my question then would be Maybe there should be a different third party then because I think bringing it into our staff then seems strange to me too that What what's the overall contract that we're talking about the RFP itself? I mean, dollar-wise.
The value of the
contract
itself.
So talking about $50,000 to oversee what's going to be like a massive contract doesn't seem all that much so I don't know if it's really... I understand the piece about a different third party but it seems like the board is content with having our staff review it. I would just like to hear from County Council as if this is something you're comfortable with
0:29 – 0:3311 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm going to just go back to what I said before the board has discretion on this it wasn't originally part of the contract and I think this is you know staff saying we could use some assistance but I think it's more of a practical issue of who's going to assist rather than a legal issue or not required to have an outside consultant assist with this process.
Supervisor Hart
Yeah, to Supervisor Lavinia's point I think there should be an independent look at this. I think it's at the stage now where there's an opportunity for fresh eyes to look and say how was this constructed and executed? And was it done right? We're not making a judgment about that we're just getting independent assistance and I think having a new consultant involved in that brings fresh eyes and I think protects us better legally going forward.
See I agree with that I would rather have another outside consultant instead of bringing it into staff because I think that's going to be looked upon by one of the bidders as, oh you guys are taking it back inside. Who knows what's gonna happen? If we found a different third party, I'd be way more comfortable and I think both sides would that somebody else is reviewing it. I think that makes a lot of sense so I don't know if anybody else is...if there's anybody else out there but or if we've looked at that or not or if that's even a possibility
I mean. It's going through a process that reviews what happened. And the third party was simply to provide information about and clarify questions, so I think my sense is bringing in another third party is kind of perhaps usurping the role of the appeals process itself, the procurement officer and then the committee that will look at this. That is my sense.
So does anybody from staff have more they would like to ask about this or tell us about this? Do we want to give staff direction to come back with more options, or are we ready to vote on this motion from Supervisor Nelson. I think we're ready to vote. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll?
Roll-call vote 2–1 motion from Supervisor Nelson. I think we're ready to vote. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll? · 2 under review
Show transcript
Motion passes 4-1.
Madam Chair, can you please clarify the direction to staff at this point in time? It's just we're not we're not moving ahead with this particular extension,
right? I think by not going ahead We create the opportunity for staff to look to see if there is another Consultant that could be used that they would feel comfortable bringing into this
process. If we find we need a consultant CEO. Yes
Chairman and supervisors as you know, there's a just for the public's information There's a firewall to protect the county's interests in this process to make sure it's objective as possible and ACO Nisig and County Council Van Molen have been involved in the process with public health, and I have not. But on this issue just from what I'm hearing I think a couple of things. A question that wasn't asked of staff is they're seeking expert assistance and if you look on there are the contractor was for two things To assist with the protest and appeal evaluation, to confirm documents are conformance with the protest and appeal requirements. And the other was to assist with the protest and appeal evaluation of responses and confirm documents are conformance.
So by not approving this contract extension you're relying on a couple things one for staff and if staff needs that expertise you're saying seek It's okay to seek other outside consultants for that expertise because of the time frame and because it was $50,000. It was only brought to your board because it exceeded the whole contract amount The staff could do a purchase order I believe For if they find a consultant that's appropriate for them To help provide that expertise but I think what you're saying is you would not like to have that expertise provided by the incumbent consultant and I would I think the direction to staff is for them to continue the process, seek expertise if they need it. And if they need it, they can do a purchase order and would not have to come back to the board.
Is that what
you're hearing? I think that is the direction, yes. Thank you. All right, thank you Director Nielsen. Madam Clerk, 837 please.
0:33 – 0:4011 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Administrative item 37 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the conversion of purchase contract CN-23588 to a board agreement with RRM Design Group Santa Claus Lane Street Gate Improvement Project. County project number 720783 And we have one request to speak, Dennis Bosnich here in Santa Barbara.
Go Mr. Bosnich.
Chair Hartman, members of the board thank you for the opportunity to speak on this item. At the end of this we're going to recommend the approval of this contract but we wanted to take this opportunity to mention some of our concerns about the process about how the streetscape project has been developed thus far. I'm representing the owners of 3823 Santa Claus Lane Pat and Mary Radice So far, the design consultation process has been flawed and I think a bit biased as conducted currently by Public Works.
And I think one of the outcomes of that has been kind of a misallocation of a number of especially the ADA accessible spaces away from the core of the development nearer to the west end of the commercial zone They've moved a number of the additional spaces that are required as a result of the additional parking That's going to be there they've moved those away from the beach access point and away from the core of the commercial development To the very far east end of Santa Claus Lane. We think there ought to be a stronger correlation between the intensivity of the development Closer on the west end of the commercial development As we've tried to make those suggestions with Public Works staff, unfortunately, they haven't had any opportunity to resolve that and so we'd ask in particular that your board consider receiving a briefing on the Santa Claus Lane project as a way to better understand that provide alternative options for public input into that design.
That concludes my remarks
thank you Supervisor Williams do you have any insights on this?
There has been an extensive public process on this and I would invite Mr. Schneider to articulate that. And you know, honestly a couple days ago is the first I've heard of this objection That is not to say that we shouldn't be open to suggestions and look at what the suggestions that are there however And maybe mr. Spend wants to say something
Good morning board members. Chris Nen, Public Works Transportation. This project has been in the works for I would say at least 10 years with I don't even count the number of meetings that we've had on this project with multiple stakeholders it's a challenging project and it's a huge transformational project for the area It will result in a net gain of 85 parking spaces in the area, 45 of those in the commercial zone, 20 in the beach area parking.
And this is all public parking spaces so we follow the PRO WAG guidelines, Public Right-Of-Way Accessibility Guidelines for creating ADA parking. And that's what we use to dictate how many spaces to put in, and then it's a matter of fitting them in. ADA parking spaces take about one-and-a-half space for each parking space for the ramp accessibility. So we try and tuck them into maximize the amount of parking, minimize impacts, and maximize accessibility for where the ADA parking is for people to get where they need to go.
Okay, Supervisor Nielsen. Yes,
thank you Chairman. I just got a quick question. It's a discretionary process that you have within the purview of Public Works when you guys take a look at these things. I know this is a streetscape plan, we have the old Orchid parking plan as well but we constantly kind of reevaluate these and see they're kind of a living document. We can study things and engineer things but then we actually see how it practically works out or what other opportunities that might exist to maximize parking so this is going to probably evolve and we're going to see changes to move spots or to maybe take advantage of opportunities to, um.
To move ADA parking where it might be more appropriate if you see the need somewhere else along that corridor develop and there's underutilized spots because they're too far away from the core. Is that something that Public Works has a discretion to change? Or is that something that we have to go through a whole big public process to do something like
Supervisor Nielsen to the chair. Yes, Public Works it's within their purview to monitor and assess situations and make adjustments as necessary.
Okay thank you. And just as a, as a suggestion what would be I think good is to maybe walk the owners through the process with my office and public works. And if they have suggestions we can look at those suggestions but I do want to say that Public Works has an extensive meetings with the merchants, with other stakeholders and there has been an extensive public process that has been going since I was elected. This you know one of the things that I on the January where I was elected six years ago or sworn in one of the things they're like hey there's this new thing that's gonna happen the Santa Claus Lane streetscape project So, I mean this is not new stuff but we should act with humility and say hey you know this isn't new stuff but we shouldn't be calcified if somebody has a good idea.
Okay, so we won't have a special vote on this but your office and Public Works and Mr. Bosanich's client will go out and walk the area and think about it. All right Madam Clerk would you read 838 into the record please?
0:40 – 0:4411 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board administrative item 38 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendation regarding Second Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding for US 101 Corridor Coastal Access Projects First District. And we have one request to speak here in Santa Barbara, and that is Joe Armendariz.
Good morning everybody. Good morning. Chairwoman, members of the board, congratulations. Greg must have a masochistic streak to go on to go to Sacramento. I'm not here to pick on public works this morning but which I'm a big fan of in general But I do want to raise an issue that I've raised with this board before. And indeed, Supervisor Williams referred to the streetscape plan and something that you were made aware of when you first got elected. I was made aware of it when I got elected in 2004 in Carpinteria so that is a project that's been on the drawing board for quite awhile but it's interesting. You know, I've spent more time on Santa Claus Lane in the last year than I did for 21 years when I lived in Carpinteria And one of the things that I've confronted myself in no uncertain terms is the disruption, the economic and the financial disruption as a result of the construction.
I mentioned it before. I think I might have been chairperson or vice-chair of SPCAG when we passed Measure A. I know I worked very closely with Supervisor Hart on that And I don't recall now why we didn't contemplate the potential disruption of Santa Claus Lane, as it related to the HIV project and indeed the streetscape improvement plan. But apparently we didn't.
And I don't know if there are reasons, technical reasons that go beyond my comprehension as to why we didn't. All I know is that we didn't and I know that as of today there are business owners, property owners on Santa Claus Lane that are sustaining catastrophic negative impacts indeed to the extent that some of them are months and months behind on their obligations And looking at months, several months of continuing disruption that make it very difficult if not impossible for them to achieve equilibrium in their budgets in terms of spending and revenue.
I thought this would be a useful item to call attention to that again in hopes that we can begin to have people talking to each other. I don't know who those people are, frankly. I'll leave it to Greg who knows all these things and Bob and Steve and Doss and the Chairwoman to maybe hopefully figure that out but I think you know one of the things that motivated me in getting involved in public service was to solve problems and so what I've seen Very unequivocally clearly is a serious problem. And I encourage this board in cooperation with perhaps SP CAG to figure out what to do about it.
Thank you,
thank you.
OK, we'll take that under consideration. Madam Clerk A57 please would you read that into the record? A56 I'm sorry Chair Hartman
and members
of the
board.
Sorry, I a 57 is on the honorary resolution will save that a 58 please
Chair Hartmann and members of the board administrative item 56 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams it is to adopt a resolution proclaiming 58 the community workforce
agreement is Yeah, I made that a little confusing for you. I'm sorry.
0:44 – 0:4920 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 58 is from the County Executive Office in the Public Works Department. It has set a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the development of countywide community workforce agreement resolution and project template.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you chairwoman. You know we're just talking about the Santa Claus streetscaping a legacy project this is some community workforce agreement and the county's been going on For at least nine years that I can remember and it's pretty significant agreement, something that. I feel like I've gone out of my comfort zone to be willing to support. I am frustrated that we're going to be trying to do this in a special meeting on a Friday right after Thanksgiving. I still don't even know what's in there yet and so I don't think it.
It sounds like it's going to happen this Friday, whether I oppose this or not. But I just don't want to support the set hearing on this. I think that this should be done in a full hearing with plenty of notice. I think this is a long time coming. I understand why Supervisor Hart would want to be part of this because it has been a legacy that he has been working on for a long time. So I do respect that.
From my perspective, I would like this to be a larger conversation. I'm going to just make my protest no vote on this here but I will be there on Friday if this moves forward and we active participant and hopefully be willing to vote on something that makes sense for the entire county but I do think this should be done in a different type of setting.
Supervisor Williams?
Well I strongly disagree and for you know three basic reasons one is They got it done, right? I mean we could have perhaps put a placeholder language in the board letter and tried to jam it in today. That would have been rightly criticized more, right? So this is giving more notice and more transparency than that. So I think first of all it was better than the alternative Second of all, you know respect and deference to a colleague that's leaving. I think is that's actually an okay thing to have as part of public discourse particularly the amount of time that he's worked on it over the years.
And then you know thirdly there's a practicality If you don't do it then, when do you have five that are qualified to vote on it? So I think there's a combination of all those going on and I applaud. Staff and for concluding this process. It was not an easy process Joan, and I were on the committee so we got to watch the sausage being made one piece of meat and gristle at a time so So it was I think really Laudable that Our public works director managed to find enough time with all the other duties under their bailiwick to conclude this process.
Supervisor Hart?
I think it's just as simple as deadlines make deals and here we are.
Supervisor Nielsen?
I don't have the same benefit as watching that process, so I don't even know what we have in front of us at this point. So that's why it's really difficult for me to make a decision that I want to be ready this Friday. You know, I don't know what kind of outreach I need to do. We've got a lot of things on all our schedules throughout these weeks and to jump forward with this item on Friday is a burden and things will have to be moved around to accommodate that. That is the job and so I'm willing to accept it but I would prefer that we do this at a full hearing
Would you like a separate vote on this?
Okay,
so may I have a motion for staff recommendation for the set here so
moved
Second
second
and Supervisor Lavinino. I'm voting. Okay, madam clerk
Supervisor Levin, you know,
hi
supervisor Williams. Hi supervisor Hart. Hi supervisor Nelson No chair Hartman. Aye Motion passes four to one
okay So now I would like a motion on the balance of the agenda
0:49 – 0:5612 turns
So moved. Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The administrative agenda is approved Madam Clerk would you read item number 56 into the record please
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 56 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of November 2022 as National Family Caregivers Month in Santa Barbara County. Joining us in person we have Yesenia. If you will please make your way to the podium I will read the resolution into the record.
Might I suggest, Madam Chair to trail the item and see if someone from UDW is about.
Okay.
We are here in the office in Santa Maria from UDW. I don't know if you can see us all in our green shirts?
We can now yes thank you we can hear you and we can see you please go ahead Madam Clerk
Whereas each day in homes throughout our nation, Americans with chronic or terminal illness, functional impairment or disabilities receive compassionate care and support from family members and loved ones. And whereas during National Family Caregivers Month we recognize more than 90 million Americans today are family caregivers for their loved ones. And whereas caregivers play an essential role in ensuring the health and well-being of those most in need Managing medications, doctor's appointments and balancing work and home. And whereas family caregivers provide a vital lifeline of connection and hope to loved ones during challenging and uncertain days devoting unmeasurable time energy resources. And whereas throughout this month let us remember these individuals who spend their days caring for others While balancing the responsibilities of their own lives, including employment and raising children.
And whereas caregiving is overwhelming and with the responsibility of family caregivers in our country growing every year it is important to encourage family caregivers and to provide unending support as they carry on this work, important work. And whereas women people of color and immigrants shoulder a disproportionate share of the obligation Sometimes forced to leave good jobs to instead provide care. And their work is a profound service for their families and to our nation, but they will still too often unseen undervalued and unpaid. Whereas the 2022 theme is caregiving happens to acknowledge the reality that the family care giving is not always convenient or expected. Now therefore be it at end is hereby ordered in resolve that this board of supervisors here by complaint Proclaim November 2022 as National Family Caregivers Month in Santa Barbara County and encourages residents to bring awareness of caregiving issues, educate communities and increase support for caregivers.
Passing adopted today.
Supervisor Williams.
Well, first of all I just want to speak with the heart that I enormously respect the work that these folks do they do it with frankly not enough compensation from the perspective of how important this job is for society. But then I'll nerd out with my brain a little bit here. Demographers tell us that in between 15 and 20 years from now, the age strata in California will look like what Japan looks like today.
a large number of older individuals and a much smaller number of younger individuals. And it's going to cause a lot of things to have to change, and one of those is we are going to have to give much more support to these types of professions to ensure the sustainability of being able to find enough workers in these sectors to take care of us all. So really appreciate their participation, I didn't want to go over to the podium to present a resolution by myself but I appreciate that there are green shirts in Santa Maria and it was just the technical breakdown of our system in Santa Maria that caused us to be in two different places at once. So you'll have to take my handing over in spirit this time, but I'd be pleased to hand you the resolution in person.
And Yesenia?
Yesenia could not be with us today My name is Robert Gibson and I am one of our local union representatives at UDW, which is the United Domestic Workers of America. We are the Union of In-Home Supportive Services caregivers and approximately 75% of the folks who do the work through in home supportive services programs are taking care of loved ones or family members Our group here today is a clear representative of that. Currently, of the four of us that are here that are caregivers only one of us is doing it in the community for people who are outside of our family and as Chair Board Member Williams mentioned this need is only going to continue to grow and we hope That our organization and other IHSS workers are going to be a part of a robust solution and infrastructure for providing that care in the future.
We brought something as well to share with the board, and it is a copy of an app that was passed in 2018 which is the RAISE Family Caregiving Advisory Council App. And what RAISE stands for is Recognize, Assist, Include, Support and Engage Family Caregivers. And one of the first products of that act is a report called The National Strategy to Support Family Caregivers. It has over 350 recommendations after a three-year study involving over 60 government agencies and other stakeholders in the caregiving community Of those 350 recommendations, those are at a federal level but another 150 recommendations are at a local level. So we brought you each copies of this along with a little thank-you card on behalf of the IHSS workers here in our county and we actually feel like you have been good partners with UDW and you are actually embodying Thank you so much.
0:57 – 1:013 turns
And now we're turning to item A57, and I have the privilege of reading that into the record. It's a resolution honoring Greg Hart for his four years of public service as 2nd District County Supervisor. Whereas Supervisor Greg Hart has served the people of the 2nd District and the residents of Santa Barbara County with distinction since 2019 January And whereas in four years, Supervisor Hart has moved the county forward in a number of areas including by responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, reducing homelessness, improving public safety, supporting small businesses, protecting our environment and advancing equity.
And whereas, as the 2020 Chair of the Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Hart played an integral role in leading the county's response to the COVID-19 pandemic by serving as one of the county's main spokespeople and supporting our public health professionals. And whereas, Supervisor Hart's tenure has been defined by his calm, steady, and collaborative leadership style along with his commitment to inspiring public confidence in local government And whereas Supervisor Hart has been known around the county administration building for his good taste in music, love for the Lakers and Dodgers, beaming smile and support for the county family. And whereas Supervisor Hart will continue to represent the residents of Santa Barbara County as the state assembly member for this 37th district bringing his career full circle as a former legislative staff member.
And, whereas the Board of Supervisors thanks Supervisor Hart for his dedicated service and wishes him well as he represents our community in Sacramento. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors and commends Greg Hart for his four years of distinguished and dedicated service to Santa Barbara County and its citizens and wishes him much success in his new role as California State Assembly Member for the 37th Assembly District. Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County, State of California this 29th day of November 2022 by a unanimous vote of all members present.
Absolutely, we want to be as good on five.
And Madam Clerk, we have a public speaker.
1:02 – 1:1010 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board we have two requests to speak. We will start with Zoom with Dr. Van Dale-Brunelso.
Good morning chair Hartman and members of the board. Supervisor Hart I wanted to take a few minutes to appreciate you for your service and dedication to our county. I'm so thankful that i had the opportunity to work with you closely When I was the Public Health Director, especially during the first year of COVID-19 response efforts. You were an awesome partner during our press conferences.
I've learned so much from you during the past four years. You are the embodiment of diplomacy and kindness. Your decision making skills have inspired me because you are intentionally inclusive And you take the time and consider all the different perspectives. Your support and encouragement to the public health team, and me during the good times as well as the challenging times were greatly appreciated by all. It's been a wonderful pleasure working with you and for you. Now, on behalf of Senkau Health Plan, Supervisor Hart, I wish you well in your next endeavor and look forward to connecting with you as our health equity advocate in the Assembly. Thank you.
We will now return to Santa Barbara for our last speaker, Dr. Lee Heller.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, I won't take up much time because I think the resolution and Dr. Do Reynoso's comments said it all but I want to express my personal appreciation to Supervisor Hart and as a community member who lived through the same pandemic we all did and watched Greg just lead us with calm and clarity and a kind of thoughtful presence that really grounded this county.
And I'm deeply grateful for that and I'm going to miss you as my supervisor I'm glad to get you as my assembly member instead and congratulations on catching the car.
That concludes public comment. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Are any board members? You'll have to wait Supervisor Hart. Supervisor Lavinino your light's on.
Sure. You know the crazy thing is everybody says the same thing about Greg. It's this calm, measured style of leadership and it's really true. I mean even when we get behind the scenes because a lot of times that I've got along with people up here and then we get behind the scenes and you know we kind of hash it out a little bit. Greg has always been the measured voice for us and you know certain people find themselves in history in certain times and we were just lucky that not to say that none of us should have been the chair. We were lucky, we were lucky that Greg was the chair during COVID and his style just was perfect for the time so I was gonna say you know some of Greg's harshest critics and I started thinking about it.
Greg doesn't have any harsh critics you know that's gotta be something good. I wish I knew what that was like but I don't Yeah, come back on Friday exactly. But even in that like a situation like that is very controversial You know, you took it through the entire process. Kept having more input, more staff input, more input trying to get to a place where everybody can agree on something and whether or not we get there, you're always have that open mindset very inclusive.
I just hope that you're able to go to Sacramento and have your style rub off on Sacramento as much as its rubbed off on us. We appreciate it.
Supervisor Nelson. Yes, thank you Chairman. You know a lot of people ask me how is it to serve on the board and to work with the four of you? And what I tell people is that we all come from different backgrounds. We all grew up in different places. We represent different districts but when we get up here on the dais we're teammates And Greg, you really have been a captain of the team here for the last few years. Especially in my service, you've been an inspiration to me even though we don't see eye-to-eye on every issue.
The way that you've always brought me in and made sure my opinion mattered in the discussion and the final decision that we made. Even though at the very end we couldn't vote sometimes the same way, sometimes my vote has been brought over to this board because of your kindness and your approach to me. And I really respect you. Incredibly and I'm so I'm really honored that you will be not only my assemblyman but because since he's going to representing basically Santa Barbara County, you know San Francisco has a mayor of the county. Well, it's now Santa Barbara County has a mayor of our county and that's gonna be Greg Hart And so I know Greg already is thinking about Not only expanding his His representation to just you know South Santa Barbara.
You know he's already been reached out and saying who do I need to work with in North County with the agricultural communities, communities that may not feel represented by reputation? And he's already doing those things behind the scenes so a lot of people don't know that about Greg. He is a really serious statesman and representative and I'm gonna be proud to have you up there in Sacramento being my member thank you.
Supervisor Williams
Well, the thing I want to talk about that has most impressed me about you Greg is political courage. You know a lot of people define statesmanship or statespersonship as the ability to be looking in a longer view and when you're When you're voting and advocating for what people need in the long run, it's not always what the majority of most vocal people are asking for.
And I've seen you time and time again have the political courage to be looking at what people need in the long run in your district, in the county. And not being sort of changing with the wind on where the majority of people that show up on a given day are. And I think that's really important for governance, really important for taking care of the tough decisions that it takes to keep this community on track.
So thank you for that.
And I just want to add that you've bestowed dignity and a touch of class on our board proceedings, and you and your terrific staff have been really wonderful to work with. I feel that you've not only been a fine colleague on the Board but a much valued friend. We take shared pleasure in the out-of-doors, regular walking, now horses and Iceland. And it was a demanding campaign but you took the high road and we're really proud. You've done us proud on the Board of Supervisors and you're going to do us even prouder in the state legislature.
Return often and my husband says don't forget your tennis racket.
1:10 – 1:132 turns
Well, thank you all for those so generous comments. I'm truly humbled and almost at a loss for words but I'll figure out a way. I've been working in public service for a long time, for 40 years. And I've learned a lot in that time but I can honestly say that the past four years I have learned the most important lessons of my life and they will stick with me whatever I do in the future.
The experience being a colleague here with you and with Mona and the team and all of the county employees in this time has been extraordinary And I'm just so grateful for all the kindness and the generosity and the courage that everybody here brings to work every day. We've accomplished a lot, there's so much more to do. The challenges are enormous but I have nothing but confidence that working together everything that we want to achieve for the people of our community is possible because Things extraordinary things have happened in our lives and in this place. And we're just doing our part, showing up for work every day and being inspired by each other.
And it's really been an honor and a privilege to have this opportunity. I'm so grateful for the team of people that I work with every day. Chris Henson my chief of staff Ethan Bertrand, Ashley Kruzel and now Daniela Geary. Just wonderful people to work with. Made it fun to come to work under the most stressful times. I can tell you that as calm as I may appear here, I am not so calm in that office and they always help me get the calm place that I think is the right place to be as elected official. And funny story, the first day after the election, I was asked to come up to Sacramento for a vote on a big speakership fight, a lot of drama in the room and it was very revealing. I think I've learned more in six hours about my colleagues than I probably will learn in six months but being calm Is the right way to proceed when the bullets are flying around if you can just hang in there?
You might survive so Again, thank you all for everything. You've done for me and it's been four years been too short I thought it was gonna be longer but circumstances have changed and the opportunity presented itself and as Lee so I Well said wherever she is. I did catch the car Which means I'm a dog chasing after a car and what happens when the dog catches a car? well, you got to figure that out so I'm gonna figure that out now and And just look forward to working with you in a different capacity. I'm not going away I'm just moving into a different job and being a supportive Teammate with the county family. So thank you all
we consider you part of the team always Okay, Madam Clerk. Do we have any public members who would like to speak on matters not on today's agenda?
1:13 – 1:2211 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board We have no requests to speak for general public comment
all right then would you read departmental item number one into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the Board Department item number one is from the Public Health Department It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a notice of funding availability for farm worker Resource Center grant
Director Nielsen.
Good morning, Chair Hartman and Supervisors. Could I get the? Oh there thank you. On September 22nd 2021 Governor Newsom signed AB 941 into law creating the Farm Worker Resource Center grant program. A state work group comprised of nine members met to develop the goals and evaluation criteria for grant applications and grantees. On November 15, 2022 two weeks ago today the Department of Community Services and Development released a notice of funding availability that stated While each program can offer an array of services based upon the needs identified in their initial assessment, the ideal applicant must demonstrate the ability to provide information about and access to those six items listed on your screen including labor and employment rights, education access, employment assistance, and health and human services.
The details of each of those categories are spelled out on pages 9 through 11 of your NOFA, which you have in your packet. The NOFA states that two awards of $833,000 each will be made to counties in two regions with a third award going to the next highest scorer in either region. Santa Barbara County is in Region 2 with nine other counties. Of those counties, Ventura has an existing farmworker resource center program.
Monterey County has been preparing to apply for this grant since at least February of this year when they went to their board to get permission to apply and commitment related to the matching funds that are required. And Imperial County has an existing farm worker services coalition. The notice of intent to apply for this grant is due on December 14th and the application is due on December 21st.
If awarded, the contract term is February 15th 2023 through May 15th 2024. The Farm Worker Resource Center grant requires the engagement of trusted community partners and in-person as well as referral services must be made available in English, Spanish and an indigenous language. Now I'd like to take a pause and point out these slides were created by my staff in public health after they had had the NOFA in their hand for about four hours And since that time About ten days ago. They've learned more and so the correction I would like to make is that The understanding of us of staff has evolved since that time regarding the oversight of operations and So it's now staffs understanding that the department can maintain control of the operations and be the primary provider of services should we choose to do so and The fiscal considerations that are important for you to be aware of are that the grant requires a 25% local match.
The 15% maximum allowed for administrative and indirect costs has been determined by the public health fiscal staff to likely not be enough to fully cover indirect costs, so some amount of additional local funds would likely be needed to cover those administrative costs. The grant is expenditure driven, so local funds would be required for all expenditures until reimbursement from the grant can be obtained.
And the state has made no obligation to extend this funding, so operation of the program beyond May of 2024 would likely require local funds or appropriate federal funds. If your board supports... Excuse me. The grant application requires proof of your board's support of the application and Your commitment to the local matching funds, so if your board supports the department's application for this grant We ask your approval of recommended actions a through D. Of the board letter And I'm happy to take questions
All right do any board members have questions supervisor Lavanino
Thank You madam chair So mr.. Neal said are we? Looking at brick and mortar. I noticed in the know if it was talking about you had the ability to do brick and mortar, or you could do mobile.
Supervisor Levin, you know through the chair. My concept would be mobile I sent three staff from Public Health Department down to Ventura County yesterday To have a site visit related to their operations they started their farm worker program in 2017 as a pilot it's evolved over time And and how they have it structured and how they operate has evolved over that period of time but Their program involves sending staff out to various sites that they've made arrangements ahead of time with growers, with other community partners to where farm workers would be able to be present at a predetermined time for predetermined array of services or engagement and referrals and things like that. The Monterey County Program, though very little I've been able to read about them through their board letters from earlier in the year They're looking at creating a brick and mortar at one site, but I don't think that would be appropriate for our county in terms of being able to serve our farm workers throughout the county.
Okay good. I like the idea of mobile. So did I hear you correctly at the beginning saying that you thought this would be something we would be doing internally? Is that what you said at the
beginning? Supervisor Lavinino, as we've evolved in our understanding of the grant requirements. What's required and what's possible and looking at what's available to other counties are doing it does appear that it would be best for this initial 14 months period of time to have the department play the leader role. We would have community collaboration and partnerships, not necessarily with finances involved right but partnerships for referrals back and forth in both directions.
But that would be my vision at this point, but I'm certainly interested in hearing the board's perspective we I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. To come up with a formal grant application, which has to describe all the partnerships and the specifics of the program. So we certainly have time and that's part of why I wanted to get your board today rather than next week was to have the opportunity if you had any strong perspectives about what it should look like that we could take those into account.
So I guess this almost direct this to Assemblyman Hart over there is So just from what I'm reading, it sounds like the state has had a complete turnaround of their financial outlook. Reading a $25 billion deficit at this point. So they would be providing us a grant for the first year or first 14 months, whatever. And then at that point on, it's the county's football?
That's correct. OK. All right so, OK. I'd wait to hear it from perspective of everybody else. You know, I think this is a great idea. I think it's something we should have done a long time ago but I've got a different idea that I would like to see instead of partnering with the state because I think if we partner with the state well go ahead and just give it to you.
I think if we partner with the state... Well let's just go with questions first and then I'll come back
1:22 – 1:3216 turns
Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes, thank you Chair Hartman. Mr. Nielsen just real quick about the board letter there was a paragraph in there that talked about an anticipation that working group of staff from PhD other departments such as Department of Social Services and Behavioral Wellness and community partners such as CAUSE would be working on this so there were some Discussions that this was going to be a grant that we're gonna get and hand over the cause to go run up a farm workers Resource Center. That's not necessarily how that would work, right?
No supervisor Nelson through the chair That was stated as an example And again this board letter of the NOFA was received on Tuesday. This board letter was finalized and submitted on Friday So we did our very best to try to encapsulate the total totality of options certainly Community-based organizations that have existing relationships with farm workers would be expected to be in the array of connections that we would be showing that we had for referrals and collaborative efforts.
But especially after the staff's visit to Ventura yesterday, I'm Pretty convinced in my desire would be to move this forward as the department Being the responsible entity and then establishing these collaborative relationships With with many partners in the community that currently serve on deal with farm workers. I
I just wanted to alleviate some of the fears or concerns that might be out there in the community, that this was all about taking money and then funneling off to another community-based organization. That this is going to be much more collaborative and engaged with the entire county so I wanted to make sure we got that kind of off the table especially as we probably have some public comment that may be speaking to that today.
The next question I had was do you think as we build this application because we're gonna build a program here in 21 days And that's pretty challenging. Ventura, they did this over multiple years. Monterey County has started in February. They're already nine months into knowing what their program looks like. To me it makes sense that we start with understanding what's already in place. Do you feel like as you guys work through this application that you have a good handle on what resources already exist countywide to serve our farm workers?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair. So I assigned two managers on a full-time basis, two very competent managers in the Public Health Department on a full time basis on the 15th of November to or the 17th of November to work on this until the grant's ready to submit. They have connections in the community. They have the competency to be able to quickly assess what's out there and who to engage with I'm very confident that they have the capacity to submit a competent and robust application.
One additional comment I would make is that what we submit, if it's awarded, is what we live with for that 14 months. And certainly during that 14 months any experiences we have could go into molding how the program would evolve after that 14 month period of time was over but we're not going to have the ability during that 14 months to change And I think that goes to where my concern is. Making sure we understand what we have in place and what our greatest needs are before we come up with the program.
I support the concept. I don't know if I support this application, and I'm looking forward to hearing from my colleagues as well as public comment on it as we move forward. You know our farm workers are some of the most essential workers in this county. Santa Barbara County is a very robust agricultural community. I know my district and Steve's district heavily rely on it, not just now but for generations and that making sure that we protect and are providing resources to our most invaluable asset on the farm which is the employees every farm tour we ever take and I know my colleagues have taken them.
The farm owner always says you know my most important thing I have here is not the weather It's not the crops, it's not the water. It's the people who work here and so I'm making sure that we're respecting them and providing them the resources they need to be able to enjoy the community as much as anybody else is really important. And so I really want to see this move forward in concept and like I said, well, as we game this out, I wanna be an active participant.
Supervisor Lavenita? Thank you Madam
Chair. So I'm trying to get my head around, so the state would be giving us like 800 grand and then we would be putting in a couple hundred thousand. Do we have any idea looking forward? Because that $800,000 is going to go away. So going forward do we have any idea what that will cost us? It's hard to put a price tag on it because we don't know what the program is yet right?
That's correct, Supervisor Levenino through the chair. And I would also say we don't know what that 14 months would lead to in terms of the visioning of a better program, you know, what was more appropriate for the county based upon our experience during that 14 months. So staff's perspective is that moving forward, a total of slightly over $1 million would be needed to keep things moving but that's just based upon a lot of unknowns.
I hate to put you on the spot, but it's a question. I have to ask is would you feel That we'd better be prepared It seems this is very hasty trying to put this together and you're saying we could do it But we're outside of the budget cycle right now also Would you be? More comfortable with us taking the next 6 months instead of the next 6 days trying to figure out what this is, but taking the next 6 months and building a program that either mirrors Monterey or Ventura. We're going to all of our stakeholders getting input and then coming up with a program that Then we could look at during the budget time and say, this is how we should right size it. This is how it fits into all the other things that we want to do.
Would you feel like we'd have a better program that way? Or I guess that's direction that we're gonna give, but-
Supervisor Levin, I appreciate you not putting me on the spot. But my answer to that question is it's always good to get money to help you do what you wanna do anyway and so this grant is an opportunity to try to get money keeping in mind that only a full of three counties out of 22 are gonna be awarded. It's an opportunity to just try to get money Go for the effort. The downside is that we're going to have the best program that we can pull together in the next three weeks, that we then have to run for 14 months as opposed to the option that you suggest of taking time to pull together all of the stakeholders.
And develop a program like Ventura County did. They went through a process of stakeholder input over time, developed something and then the board funded a pilot and then it grew from there. So we would certainly have a more Santa Barbara County responsive and in touch, in tune sort of program going that route versus what we're gonna be able to craft in three weeks. Okay thank you.
Yeah, I've got a lot of comments but I'll wait and put those.
Right okay, I think we have over 20 speakers but I just wanted to say in response to your question We do have a lot of experience in the county reaching out to farm workers. I mean we learned, I mean the 2-1-1 is one that was not enough. I remember attending a forum in Santa Maria led by then Supervisor Carbajal and Wolf I think we need something more like we do for veterans that can offer tailored advice about the range of things that any particular farm worker or family would need. We learned a lot in COVID and our outreach to farm workers through Promotoras and others working with the growers themselves, so it's not like we don't have experience. I think we have a great deal of experience and we have other counties to look at as well.
I really like the idea of a mobile unit, and I think this grant could fund that. And then our responsibility might be to staff it over the long run. So I am eager to see us move forward on this but I think we need to get started with public comment. Madam Clerk? And let me just say I'll close public comment now no more and two minutes each, and if people are saying the same things we really appreciate if you could just echo that second it and move on. Thank you We will start with Vanessa
Turan
on
zoom followed by a Zulema Allman
1:32 – 1:388 turns
Good morning, County Supervisors. Thank you for the opportunity. Vanessa Teran, Policy Director representing the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project. I'm here specifically to ask for your consideration and approval of the authorization of Santa Barbara County Health Department to apply for state grant funding to create a local farmworker resource center to help California farmworkers gain access to services and resources.
MI-CAP has over 20 years serving the indigenous migrant community in Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. It was key in the creation of the Ventura County Farmworker Resource Center which has been set as a model for future centers across the state and the nation. The farmworker resource center program has been instrumental in improving the lives and labor conditions for campesinos As they face language barriers, high degrees of discrimination in the fields retaliation for speaking up unsecured health and safety work environments. And with this research center we have seen greater justice and dignity come to our community who brings food to our tables. We think that Santa Barbara County is poised and would be the next most suitable and viable place to implement the second ever farmworker research program in the history of California.
I respectfully ask for your support and approval of the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department application to Department of Community Services and Development, as they have been one of the most competent agencies and allies we have seen since a pandemic started. I hope we can count on your support. Thank you so much.
Next we have Zulema Almond followed by Ana Huynh. Thank
you, Chair and members of the Board for the opportunity to speak. My name is Zulema Aleman and I'm the Associate Organizing Director with CAUST based here in Santa Maria. I am calling today to urge the Board to authorize the Public Health Department to apply for the Farmworker Resource Center Grant as it will radically transform the lives and well-beings of hundreds of farmworking families.
I joined CAUSE in 2019 as a community organizer and one of the skills I had to develop immediately was how to navigate labor resources for farm workers. Even though I am not a case worker, almost every day I get calls from farm workers who run into issues at work and need support. And throughout those years, I took as many as I could. The past three years, I'm an expert for the community. My business card from 2019 is still passed between farm workers today because I helped them back then.
But I can only help so many people and that number is really small because it is not my primary role. Though the state of California leads with the strong labor laws, Santa Maria is isolated from these agencies. The nearest Cal OSHA office is two and a half hours away only open from nine to five Monday to Friday. A farm worker would have to miss work to get in person support. Most of the correspondence with state agencies are only available or they have all the resources only on their website both which are inaccessible to farm workers and I know this again because I've helped farmers personally CASA has been in conversations with the California Labor and Workforce Development Agencies on how to improve these services.
And through the approval of this grant application, we see an opportunity for the county to step up and do the same by providing a resource with a local address and a local phone number. I have full confidence that the Public Health Department is ready to lead the county in this work. They have put effort into learning from growers and farm workers on what's needed to ensure the safety and health of agricultural workforce Through their experience they've gained throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, they have become the base agency to host this resource center.
Let's remember that when our agricultural workforce is healthy and safe our whole community thrives and benefits. It's in the best interest of the county to move forward with this project thank you.
Thank you next we have Ana Huynh followed by Dr. Von De Reynoso
Good morning, Supervisors. My name is Anna Nguyen. I am the program director for Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Projects. Thank you for providing this opportunity to speak on the exciting prospect of a farmworker resource center in Santa Barbara County at MICOP. We have been working very closely with the indigenous farmworker community in Santa Maria and know firsthand what a great benefit this resource will be since the onset of the pandemic. We have been collaborating with the public health department to reach the community and have provided life saving information Testing and vaccines. In our partnership with the County Public Health Department, we've successfully lowered positive cases for Latinx and Indigenous migrant communities in the county during the COVID pandemic and have created trust throughout the community.
With this experience, we can continue to build on the trust we have built so far. As such it makes perfect sense to house this resource center within the public health department since the farm working community primarily resides in the city of Santa Maria, we also recommend having the main center here in our city. We respectfully ask that you authorize the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to apply for state grant funding to create a local farmworker resource center. Thank you. Thank you.
Next, we have Dr. Van de Reynoso followed by Pam Gates.
Good morning. I'll make my comments brief, I second what the previous speakers have articulated as well as what Chair Hartman stated we have learned a lot in the past few years with regards to building community partnerships to make this happen so I am in support of our county's efforts to build a Farm Workers Resource Center, whether through this grant or as Supervisor Lavagnino suggested taking some time to thoughtfully engage the community and other stakeholders in building a robust program for our county. Thank you. Thank you.
Next we have Pam Gates followed by Monse Garcia.
1:38 – 1:4919 turns
Go ahead Pam. Good morning, yes good morning I'm here this morning to ask the board to approve and authorize the Public Health Department to apply for this grant. Farm workers are essential workers out in the fields and all kinds of weather to put fresh food on our tables as with any organization we know that when our workforce is healthy and safe our whole community thrives and benefits Currently, the staff at our local nonprofits provide many services that are outside the scope of their positions. But these are services that are required by our agricultural farm workers.
Our county's public health department is the best agency to oversee this resource center due to its experience as others have stated The staff offered education about COVID in multiple languages and went into the fields to do vaccinations. The Public Health Department was also the first to see the health inequities that existed during the pandemic, and Brian made this known to the Board of Supervisors.
The Public Health Department has also formed many coalitions with local nonprofits that serve these communities and have built valuable trusting relationships. As a retired grant writer, I recognize time is short for this application and more time would be better but the opportunity is here and now we need to support our growers in agricultural workforce. I ask that the board's support include a commitment letter for the required matching funds for this very needed program in our county Thank you for taking my comments.
Thank you, Dr. Del Reynoso are you still on the line? I am. I just wanted a question. You're now at CENCAL and I just wonder, you don't have to answer now but whether CENCAL would be interested in partnering with us on this.
I think that's a wonderful idea and worth exploring. So, I will regroup with my team to see what resources are available to partner with the county on this effort.
Great! And perhaps through the CalAIM program, I know that I serve on that board as well as Director Nielsen so maybe we can have some conversations about this going forward. Thank you. Definitely. Madam Clerk?
Next we have Monse Garcia followed by Daniel Segura
Hello, my name is Monta Garcia and I am an organizer at CAUSE. I would like to thank the County Board of Supervisors for shining light on this much needed resource. I have personally helped dozens and dozens of farm workers navigate the complexities of accessing websites, filing for SDI, work injury claims, hazard reports, and the list goes on and on. Sometimes I'm a translator helping farm workers understand what the documents they are handed say Other days I'm tech support.
I'm aiding farm workers navigate the web trying to find information to the resources they need. But I'm just one person doing my best to point folks in the right direction. A county farm worker Resource Center would really provide the farm working community with the qualified individuals that they need. There is no doubt in my mind public health will excel at the job given they are already familiar with the farm worker community and have built that much needed trust and relationship with farm workers through their COVID resource and farmworker hotline. Thank you for recognizing the need for physical location in Santa Barbara County and the positive impact that it will have in our community. Thank you, thank you
next we have Daniel Segura followed by Atticus Reyes
Good morning supervisors my name is Daniel I live in Santa Maria and I'd like to speak to this morning as a community member To thank and encourage you on supporting item number one, as a son of immigrant farm workers myself this item really strikes a chord. As my mother is one of many workers that was not told her rights and forced to work in the fields well into our third trimester carrying my brother and myself. Growing up, I'd hear from family members and community members the difficulty of securing assistance with quite frankly any work-related issues. The most concerning being anything medical related. A common experience for many in our community whose parents are farm workers is that as soon as we're able to speak English the responsibility of translating legal documents and conversations becomes commonplace for us.
These are only a few examples of the reality many of our families face every day Like Supervisor Nelson mentioned earlier, our farm workers are the most essential part of our agricultural workforce and thus deserve to be supported as such. That is why I believe the creation of a Farm Worker Resource Center in Santa Barbara County, specifically Santa Maria, is essential in that it is unacceptable that the nearest Cal OSHA offices are in the Central Valley and Los Angeles and not accessible to our families. You're all correcting a long time wrong by supporting this resource center.
I also strongly believe that the center should be based out of public health as I've seen, as I hope you all have seen. That the efforts that they made to connect with their communities are genuine and that includes the farm worker community in our county. Through volunteering and my own familial experience, I've witnessed firsthand the trust that our farm workers have in public health. And I'm confident that housing this resource center with them is the best step possible for our community. I know that it's a lot of work to develop this project in such a short amount of time, especially at the end of the year. But I thank you so much for your continued support to our farmworkers and our families and I urge you to move forward with this Farmworker Resource Center.
Thank you so much everyone have a great day.
Thank you Daniel.
Now we have Atticus Reyes followed by Alex Maldonado
Good morning Chair Hartman and members of the board. My name is Atticus Reyes, I'm a field representative for Assembly Member Steve Bennett who represents the 37th Assembly District. Assembly Member Bennett unfortunately couldn't be here today but he requested me to read the following statement on his behalf. I will begin the statement now. I'm writing in strong support of this agenda item to authorize the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to apply for state grant funding, to create a local farm worker Resource Center. In 2017 grassroots farm worker organizations in the agricultural industry created the first of its kind Ventura County Farm Worker Resource Center and as a Ventura County supervisor at the time, I was honored to work with them in establishing it.
The center was desperately needed due to the lack of governmental offices near farm workers, and to help provide support to farm workers as they interact with state and local departments and agencies. Since opening its doors in the summer of 2019, the Ventura County Farm Worker Resource Center As assisted over 1400 farm workers with various types of issues, including employment labor laws housing immigration financial and food assistance and many other inquiries related to support services. In 2021 as assembly member for the 30 for the 37th Assembly District. I authored AB 941, which now provides an opportunity for other counties in California to create similar farm worker resource centers to assist their essential farm worker workforce. I strongly urge the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to support this item as it is imperative that we support our farm workers who are an essential part of California's $50 billion agricultural industry and have kept working during this pandemic to ensure that we all can put food on our tables.
Thank you.
Thank you, Atticus and thank the Assemblymember.
Next we have Alex Maldonado followed by Anahai Santos.
Good morning to everyone and thank you for this time and space today I would really like to speak in support of funding for a much-needed research center for the farm workers of Santa Barbara As a UCSB PhD student of health and migration, as an employee at the UCSB Health Equity Initiatives, and as a first-generation Latina immigrant. The past two years I have been working alongside the public health department and community organizations such as COST to try to help my community throughout the pandemic especially those most impacted by the challenges that the pandemic has brought.
As part of this work, I have witnessed firsthand the great challenges faced by an extremely important workforce and pillar of our community which are farm workers. Throughout the pandemic we have called our farm workers essential workers yet we have not done enough to reach the gaps that these workers experience when trying to access the essential services they need to be well and healthy.
Given sociocultural, technological language and communication and bureaucratic barriers farm workers experience many obstacles in navigating our systems of health care worker and migrant rights which means they too often cannot access the critical health and legal assistance that they need. So for these reasons today, I urge you to please help provide these workers with access to public resources in the formal centralized and continuous way that they deserve. And that could be potentially lifesaving for the essential workers who sacrifice so much to sustain our way of life.
A research center would go a long way in avoiding unnecessary long term health care costs for the county as well as helping us create a more equitable County of Santa Barbara. Thank you very much for your attention. Thank you
Next we have Anahi Santos followed by Jennifer Camacho.
Hello, my name is Anahi Santos a Santa Maria community member and daughter of immigrant farm workers. I mean as we heard it today I think it was Daniel that mentioned right growing up it always felt as the children's responsibility to help our parents fill out paperwork Being, you know, the first English speakers in our family a lot of the time even the first Spanish speakers in our family. I think we also need to talk about language access for those indigenous families that reside here in the central coast and are, you know majority immigrant and farm working as well.
When it comes to, you know, creating these spaces for them. It's also including their language, right? Whether that be Mixteco, whether that be the Purépecha language or Nahuatl también. And so I'm really excited to see that the county is working with community leaders to provide resource centers and I think Santa Maria is a perfect You know, city to have that place here to have that center located as we know that. We also have neighboring counties that are really close by like the San Luis Obispo County right and there's also a large majority of farm working families in Paso Robles and nearby areas so thank you so much for your time.
Thank you
next we have Jennifer Camacho followed by Leo Ortega
Good morning, Santa Barbara County Supervisors. My name is Jennifer Camacho, Lead Outreach Coordinator with the California Farm Workers Foundation and we respectfully ask you to support the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to apply for this state grant funding to create a local farm worker resource center. This center will provide access to programs and resources to our local farm workers and their families at CFM. We have built trust among thousands of farm workers in Santa Maria and surrounding areas And we know that there's a need for them to have a place to access local resources. However, we respectfully ask you to consider other farmworker community-based organizations for the project besides the ones stated. Thank you.
Thank you.
Next we have Leo Ortega followed by Francisca Camarillo.
1:49 – 1:557 turns
Good morning, Board of Supervisors. My name is Leo Ortega, TECU Youth Organizer with Mixteco Indigenous Community Organizing Project and on behalf of the indigenous migrant community in Santa Barbara County I'm here in favor of the Farmworker Resource Center for Santa Barbara County. Unfortunately there is a lack of support for migrant indigenous farmworkers when it comes to navigating state agencies and labor rights. Many indigenous families including my own are low income and are often exploited for their labor. There are laws and policies that protect farmworkers, but the information isn't spread out due to language barriers. Having a Farmworker Resource Center will strongly support our farmworkers through basic needs such as filling out paperwork, searching for local resources, and knowing their rights.
We know that Santa Barbara County will be a perfect location for the establishment of a Farmworker Resource Center a resource that is critically needed. We are, we have thousands of Mixteco speaking families in the city of Santa Maria alone and we would be excited to work with the county to get the word out and bring farm workers to this resource. We ask for your approval of the request from public health and authorize the proposal to bring this invaluable resource thank you.
Thank you next we have Francisca Camarillo to follow by Aurelia Sanchez
Good morning Board of Supervisors. My name is Francisca Camarillo, TECYO Youth Organizer with Proyecto Mixteco Indígena Mixteco on behalf of farmworker families as a daughter Hello, everyone. My name is Barbara. More specifically in Santa Barbara County. As a youth organizer, I get to work with indigenous youth in Santa Maria and surrounding areas. All of our youth have parents who are farm workers working the strawberry, raspberry and grape industries. Having the Farmworker Resource Center will possibly impact our youth and their families. This center is very much needed in our community And because of the farmworker demographics in Santa Maria, we recommend and know that Santa Maria would be the perfect place to permanently have this resource center.
As you know, farmworkers have supported us throughout the pandemic by putting their lives at risk to put food on our tables. We owe it to them to create a local farmworker Resource Center in our region. Please authorize the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department to apply for this historical state grant funding. Thank you for your time.
Next we have Aurelia Sanchez to follow by Catherine Henry.
Good morning, Board of Supervisors. My name is Aurelia Sanchez, daughter of a family of indigenous farm workers in Santa Maria, California. I also serve the community as a labor advocate with the Mixtec Indigenous Community Organizing Project in Santa Barbara County. Farm worker Halon Bean faces many challenges when it comes to accessing research related to working condition wages, significant health issues I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing here in Santa Maria County.
So as a farmworker resource center in our own Santa Barbara County is sorely needed. Farmworkers need a place where they can go to seek help and receive it, please consider applying for the fund in Santa Barbara County within our work with a Mistecho Indigenous Community Organizing Project we have been able to identify a strategic partnership to ensure that our community has access to adequate Next we have Catherine Henry to follow by LaWanda Lyons-Pruitt.
Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the board. My name is Catherine Henry and I am a community organizer here on behalf of Planned Parenthood Central Coast Action Fund. At Planned Parenthood we know that community health is much more than just seeing your provider when you're sick. The health and safety of our community members while at work is a vital part of public health.
Many of our patients are farm workers, and we know that the health and safety of our agricultural workforce helps the entire community thrive. A resource center for the farm workers in our county would help ensure that they get the support they need in order to provide for their families and be safe and healthy at work. One of the biggest criteria for the partner in this project is the agency having experience doing outreach to farm workers, which our county's Public Health Department has done.
The department has put effort into learning from growers and farm workers on the best ways to ensure their health and safety. During the pandemic public health made an effort to build intentional relationships with CBOs and learn how to best support the community. As other speakers have mentioned, they partnered with the community on several projects such as the Latinx and Indigenous Migrant COVID-19 Response Task Force and the Farmworker Working Group and many other projects. Through the expertise public health has gained, they have become the best place to host this resource center.
Thank you for your time and we urge you to authorize the Public Health Department to apply for a grant award for a county farm worker resource center. Thank you!
Next we have Lawanda Lyons Pruitt followed by Monica Navarro
1:55 – 2:0112 turns
Good morning, here Hartman members of the board. Congratulations. Supervisor heart on your new assignment representing us. We are represent Santa Maria Lompoc branch of the NAACP. I think that everyone has articulated their support so eloquently, so I will not expound on this for a long period of time. I do. I heard something that you said Chair Hartman which i think is very important and I'm just surprised that we haven't had That we don't have a Farm Workers Resource Center given such a large farm workers population in Santa Barbara County. And what you said is that we need something similar to what we have with our Veteran Resource Center, which I totally agree with. So the NAACP were here to say that we totally support a Farm Workers Resource Center in Santa Barbara County We do not want the short turnaround time to discourage and or be a hindrance to moving forward with this application.
We think you should move forward, regroup periodically and see where we are in six months, 10 months, 12 months. Thank you so much.
Thank you LaWanda. Next we have Monica Navarro followed by Kaylee Ellis
Monica?
Monica, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can unmute yourself please.
Good morning. Thank you for the time My name is Monica and I'm a fellow community member. And listening to what everybody has said, and everybody has questioned, I believe we should take the six month approach and also ask local growers to get involved.
Thank you. Thank you.
We will now go to Santa Maria for Kaylee Ellis to be followed by our final speaker Dr. Lee Heller
Good morning, my name is Kaylee Ellis and I'm speaking on behalf of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. We understand that application is still at the conceptual direction stage and there are many details yet to be determined including whether to move forward. If the board does proceed or excuse me if the board does provide directions to proceed the trust and inclusion of the agricultural community in the process is essential to its success In order to be successful, agricultural employers and organizations must be treated as valued and respected partners.
Furthermore, we urge the county to partner with community organizations that seek win-win solutions rather than division and conflict. If the board does provide direction to proceed, we ask that these central pillars of agricultural inclusion in finding the right community based partners are included in the board direction to staff. Thank you for your consideration of
these comments. Now we will come back to Santa Barbara for our final speaker, Dr. Lee Heller.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, sorry I try not to be Andy Caldwell and speak repeatedly in front of you but today was just a special day. Normally I wouldn't speak on an item like this because I would lack the expertise but I had the eye-opening experience of working on farm worker issues during the pandemic with public health which was a wonderful experience and with the critical needs fund vaccine equity project And it was a shocker to realize how few organized resources there are for farmworkers, that the state doesn't have anything centralized. Every county had to invent a pandemic response to support these communities. So we don't want to be in that position again.
This is an opportunity to grab a fair bit of money and put it to good use. I know it feels like short term but having written my share of grant proposals There's already so much information in the hands of public health and these related organizations that it shouldn't be hard to pull something together. There's usually a little flexibility going down the line if you have to tweak what you're doing.
And although I wore my Care for Paws t-shirt for animal purposes, Care for Paws is also a good model for this going forward. They are mobile in their focus. It's more affordable and it lets them get into the communities and meet people where they live, where they can walk over and get what they need or where they're working and they can get what they need. And you don't have to pay for brick and mortar if you have a mobile unit. So I hope you will support this. I think its time has really long since passed. Thank you.
Thank you.
And that concludes
public comment. Okay, back to the board. Any more discussion? Deliberations?
2:01 – 2:1516 turns
Just a procedural issue just to remind the board so this is a majority vote to pursue the application and as part of that You'd be directed me to write a commitment letter that we would commit to our share of the funds Because this isn't a reimbursement basis I believe that we would have to expend our own fund Funds for this and then get reimbursed by the state if we get the grant. I asked Director Nielsen when with the program need to start If the board wanted to pursue this, could the funds be in our budget?
Because the program has to be operational by July 15th. But he informed me that work has to be done even before that because there's an assessment that it has to be done by April I think.
I lost the date but it was I think April either 1st or 15th...
I bring that to your Board's attention because you will need to make an appropriation of funding out of the budget cycle. Which means four
votes. Supervisor Hart
Yeah, obviously it's challenging to do something fast like this and Supervisor Lavinino is right. The state's fiscal situation is very different this year than it was last year but everybody agrees that these folks need help and the question then is how best to do that? And I think it always helps to have extra resources to try to start something up and we'll learn as we go. And we'll have to right-size the program, you know, to fit the fiscal realities of the situation but the approach that the department wants to take, keeping control of it, bringing in partners that are potential funding sources You know, maximizing the outreach and trying to have as many diverse entities that are currently providing help and services to farm workers. And expanding to include others that haven't traditionally done that is obviously the right model to do.
To be most collaborative and most cost effective in the most provide the greatest assistance to people who desperately need it. It's a tough complicated issue language access issues are giant and the best time to do something hard is you know today
Supervisor Lavinia,
so when I saw this on the agenda. I was like ah we got to do something like this on Greg's last day That's that's not what I wanted to do but it's here because Don't blame anybody because we're on a short time frame and this is sometimes how we have to get our work done deadlines make deals Right I heard that today, so I like that saying First off. I just want to say that First off, I do want to thank all the speakers. I think they made great points. We're going to need everybody's help in creating something like this.
That's everybody, everybody's help and just not the folks that spoke today but everybody that's involved with the process, all the stakeholders. So here's what I'm really worried about is you know I know everybody's like well hey it's free $800,000 but we've all been here long enough to know that there's no free money and what happens is we're gonna create a program that's a million dollar program And when the state funding runs out in a year, we are then committed to $1 million a year plus on this program.
Now folks will say well we're not committed to it because we could always cut it. That rarely happens. I'm not really sure I've seen that happen too often and who wants to cut a program right after you just started it? So I really think this is a great idea. I just don't want to partner with the state on this, I think kind of maybe a footnote of deadlines make deals is this did kick me into the gear of why don't we have this? We should've had this long time ago. This should be part of our mix so it did get me motivated that, yeah we need to do something like this. This is a shame on me for not getting this done before so we need to do this. We all agree farm workers integral piece of the fabric of our community they do incredibly hard work and we should be doing everything we can to show the appreciation and get them the services that they need but what I want to see is if we're going to spend a million dollars a year We really should figure out how this fits into our overall need plan and how does it fit into, we've kind of gotten a little bit complacent because the last four or five years we've had no service level reductions.
Right? We've all kind of just added things. Oh, we can do this, we can do that but a wise person once told me we can do anything but we can't do everything okay so There are going to be hard decisions made in June about things that we're doing right now, that we're not going to be able to do in the next fiscal year. Commitments that we have made to people right now and so I'm not saying I don't want to move forward with a farm worker resource center, I do. I don''t know what size I want that to be.
What scope it's gonna do? I love the idea of a mobile unit. I think that's awesome because we can go to Lompoc and go into the valley Go out to the vineyards, we can go out to the fields in Santa Maria and Guadalupe. But I think being independent of this state allows us much more flexibility. All we're giving up at that point is getting away from the state is $800,000.
But the commitment we're making going forward is gonna dwarf it. So why don't we take the next time between now and our budget time, which is six or seven months from now. Bring everybody to the table, includes growers and rest of the ag community and advocacy groups and farm workers and find out is a mobile unit the best thing to do? I believe it sounds like it is. What else needs to be in that mobile unit?
How's that going to work? Does it go under public health or maybe does it go into social services? Get all those questions answered and then bring us something in June so that we can look at things that we like to do, like co-response. You know with all these things that we've added are we going to have the money to be able to do all these things and I think it would put it into a better perspective. I also want to talk about You know, one of the other things that the other partners I'm not sure anybody talked about was Communify though.
They handled 211 for us. They answered 30,000 phone calls and text messages in the last year for the county at whole so I'd like to bring them in. The problem is we're rushing to do something that we all agree we want to have at the end of the day But we're all rushing to get this $800,000 and I just. If we were if we were going to build a building like we did with the jail yeah, I want to get in partnership with the state where they buy 80% of the building and I pay for 20%. But as far as the program, this really feels to me that we are spending ongoing funds.
With one time money and we actually have budget principles against that so unfortunately. I mean, I want to move forward with I just want to do it independent of the state, and so I'm not going to be able to vote for the application process.
Supervisor Williams?
Well, I appreciate Supervisor Labadino's You know I think constructive objections, but I'm even more convinced than I was before after hearing you know it's rare. It's not rare that we have 20 speakers, but it's rare that when more than half of them are people who have direct family experience. That to me said something, I paid attention to those that articulated their family backgrounds and think it may underscores the need, a need that we knew was there, we suspected was there before COVID and then during COVID two things really hit us and were really obvious There was a need for a stronger engagement with farm workers.
And number one, and number two that not all the issues had to do with labor conflicts right? Right you know I mean that in fact more of the issues have to do with public health issues and inequities. And so I think it really underscores the need to go Forward on this application You know 800,000 is is a significant help in starting up a program I Did have a question does it all have to be spent in the first year or what? What's the fine print on
that? Supervisor Williams through the chair so the money is intended to be spent over the total of the 14 months
okay That's a little bit better. And you know, I think that we obviously it would speak to the fact that we would have to have strong discussions around budget about what is possible and what is not but I do want to remind folks that there are as The county, though it will be affected by the state's budget downturn. We all have collectively tried to make very wise decisions about the fiscal health of this county and I'm not sure that there are many times where it has been as healthy from the perspective Multiple strategies being utilized to ensure that this county is on good footing. So I think it's not out of the question to be thinking about some new things in this next year's budget We have to be careful as Supervisor Lavagnino articulated, but I'm prepared to move forward with us today
I would like, oh go ahead Supervisor Nelson. Okay
well
thank you Chairman. You know some of Steve's comments made me think about the Reagan quote closest thing to eternity on this earth is a government program and you know this is a very worthwhile need at Farmer Resource Center but doesn't mean that we aren't offering resources to farm workers what we're looking to do is centralize it and to centralize that we first need to know what we really have out there And then we need to decide where the gaps are, and we need to fill in the gaps. We also need to find out what really the needs are—not only what we're offering but what are the needs? I'm hearing some different surveys out there that bilingual classes is one of the top-ranking needs out there that farm workers are expressing to their caseworkers.
Where does that fit? Not all this necessarily fits in public health. I actually think social services Is potentially the better fit for this moving forward because they have the ability to really touch a lot of different health and human services in a way that public health may not. I know that there are a lot of people excited about how public health did during the pandemic, there also a lot of gaps. And there were a lot of missed opportunities and relationships that could have been built that weren't, and that are still legacy feelings in the community. So again pushing forward to this without fully betting it I think is a bad idea.
I know this discussion we've had on senior meals on wheels like who's against that right? But we haven't been able to go all-in on that yet because you don't really know what we're doing yet with that And that's taken months, maybe over a year now to kind of look at that and try to get our arms around it and try to find a solution. This is a much bigger issue that we have here that really getting our arms around it. I think we have some great partners out there that are doing a lot. They just need to be tied together.
I think our cost might end up being way less than $1 million once we start to figure this out. We may just need a coordinator And social services or some type of accounting department to really work through these relationships through this. And then leveraging all those assets to make sure that we're serving them. 2-1-1 is a great asset, there's also other help lines that are out there in the state that I've heard about. They're doing hundreds of calls a week that we can plug into. The conversation that Chairwoman Hartman mentioned Congressman Carbajal and former Supervisor Wolf had was six years ago now. Okay, that was quite some time ago. It's a different two-in-one than we had six years ago, right? We've had some huge improvements, access to language support services.
We've added the internet. So what we're getting there, we're making progress. This isn't a segment that has been ignored for the last six years but I think, I'm with Steve here, I think we needed to slowly, not slowly, More methodically go about this process. I am on board for the solution here, but the devil's in the details. You know there are some things that might come out of this I couldn't support so I'm not ready just to write that blank check of my support and moving forward with this program. I want to see it fully vetted out.
I know you have very competent managers that you can send after and get after this up three weeks, but it's not going to be our best product. Even with the great staff that you have, Daniel. And so that's why I wanted to tell you to have them work on other pressing needs in your department. I want us all to take a step back and then bring the whole entire community together. Have workshops in different segments of the county, do outreach Our different partners and making sure what we really know that we have before we move forward with this. So I'm not ready to move forward the application today, but definitely am going to be a partner moving forward beyond.
I just have a do we need three votes or four votes?
Supervisors, for today's action you just need three but in reality you will need four before June. So my request is that if your board is going to do this that you have four votes because I have to sign a letter of commitment that we are going to do this.
2:15 – 2:2523 turns
I would just like to add on to the CEOs comment. The requirement for the grant application is permission from the board to apply and commitment of the matching funds, and so in my mind. We can't submit that on the 21st without being decided to provide those matching funds.
Supervisor Nielsen?
Yeah, just functionally where would those funds come from? Are those general fund dollars? Where do we have the budget for the contingency? What are we looking at?
I love when departments just smile at me meaning they don't have the funds so there is you just had your fourth quarter or the second quarter budget review and there is year-end funds so we appropriate one time year-end funds for this.
It
would be general fund or we are still looking for federal dollars. If there's any other federal dollars available, or if send Cal comes forward with a match.
Supervisor love
me. Thank you Madam Chair so. Before anybody else makes any other comments and it doesn't seem like we have the votes to go forward but what I would offer then is. Is there a way in today's meeting develop a plan for a farm worker resource center with the mobile outlook. I mean, I want to move forward with this. If you look at the notice of funding all the things that we would need to do those are things I still want to do.
We bring it back in a few months, and we can figure out how it all fits in.
CEO Miyasato? So Supervisors you get to response to Supervisor Lavinia's question You can always direct staff to bring back options for other programs Etc. We can do that prior to budget I do want to make a recommendation That it's following the the staff and I appreciate Supervisor Lavinia and Supervisor Nelson saying we don't want to just chase off after any state money but This is one-time money from the state And we could be saying that we would go forward with this application. It's a very competitive application to begin with, but the board's commitment really what I would be saying to the board is your commitment really is $250,000 of local funding And at this point, this is all that we would recommend on an ongoing basis. Whether that's an outreach worker or a coordinator or something in the future.
So your board can obviously have discretion what you want to do but my suggestion is to go forward with it. With the expectation that we learn from this Maybe this helps buy the mobile van. I mean that would help us And that right now our commitment really on our local funds is just that The quarter of the program and that is all that I think we could commit to an ongoing basis at this time
And if I might jump in, I very much agree with that. I don't think this is that complicated. I believe that it is competitive. If we don't get the grant then we've done a lot of good work getting ready for a next cycle or for what we can do internally or in partnership with CENCAL. If we do get it, again I think the mobile van that would be a huge lift and I don't see this as a million dollar annual program. I see if we had the van then I believe we could staff it and I also think that we will learn as we go But we have an incredible amount of knowledge already that just needs to be put together. And I think that could be done in the context of the grant process, so I'm very supportive of moving forward if there's any way that our colleagues might consider that.
Supervisor Labadino?
Thank you Madam Chair. I'm just reading the board letter under the fiscal analysis and it says per the NOFA there is no obligation for CSD to extend the grant beyond initial grant period So if not extended, subsequent periods will require a minimum of $1,041,250 annually to support and maintain the Farm Worker Resource Center program once initiated. I understand we're hearing something different today but...
So that's a great point Supervisor Labanino. So maybe Mr. Nelson, if after we get the grant would we have to continue the program as it's been proposed in this at-a-million-dollar program or could we change the program?
So Chair Hartman and Board and CEO, we can change. I mean once the 14 months is over we can do whatever we want. We're no longer bound by the performance measures that are going to be associated with the grant. The point that I was trying to make earlier was that if we have a successful program at the end of 14 months based upon $1 million worth of investments in people Resources and things that it's likely that to continue. That's going to cost something in that ballpark, but my more important point is during that 14 months as we engage with the community and get a greater sense Of what would be better for the community than what we came up with.
For the grant application, right? Because we're not going to change mid course that at the end of that 14 months, we might have a plan to change a lot of things right and who knows the costs could be less. The cost could be more. It's really hard to say what that experience that 14 months would lead to in terms of what the program should look like moving forward from there.
And personally, I think we'd learn a lot more in that process than just convening meetings. Supervisor Hart and then Williams.
Yeah, I think the grant provides the focus of the organization to do the work to figure out how to build a sustainable program. I mean, I think that's a legitimate thing that every county is going to be thinking about when they apply for these grant funds. The state isn't looking for Thank you, Mr. Chairman. how we direct staff to move forward with this 14-month period. What are we asking them to do? We're asking them to create a program that's financially sustainable after this 14-month period and maybe front load a lot of the one time costs that would otherwise be hard for us to bear with that state funding, you know what's the needs assessment, what's the review of the existing programs that exist today, how do we create partnerships with folks who haven't been engaged in the past and leverage Private dollars for that matter to help in this cause.
I think there's just a great opportunity here And it'd be a shame, you know to miss that
Supervisor Williams
well, I think it really would be ashamed especially considering That the fact that we we start off with more than the possibility of getting the grant Assemblymember Bennett had this county in mind when he wrote the legislation or when he participated in the in And he also, obviously from the state written statement would support that. So we start off with significant support and you know I think that will help us and help our odds of actually getting it So my suggestion would be that we vote to proceed and obviously because we need to show a proof of life, we examine what kind of other matches might be out there in the community.
And then come back with a fiscal item early in the year to see if we can back it up or whether we'd have to withdraw our application mid-process.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes,
thank you Chairman. You know I don't like the optics of this you know if you have Supervisor Lavinia and myself voting against a farm worker resource center okay because we're not against the Farm Work Resource Center what my challenge here is the devil's in the details there are landmines in this process That we don't know yet if we were touching one of them or not, right? We have relationships that are strained in the agriculture community.
pushing this grant without, you know, going out there and exploring those things. You know then I'm gonna step on them and I think we're gonna be in a worse place than we were a year from now. We're gonna have a program and we're gonna have that is dysfunctional from the beginning and I think foundationally we should build a program that we're proud of it and that has full buy-in because I think we can get there. I'm committed to it And you know I don't know what we, I'm wrestling here trying to think what could I do and what kind of add to the motion to try to prevent that. I guess my only thing that may give me some security is that at least in this first year that those funds would be expended within a county department because I think a lot of the mistrust that's out there is that money might be diverted CBOs that may be adversarial in certain relationships on both sides and so I want to get away from that.
Would it help to get a quick read on support for that?
I'm talking out loud, but yeah I guess what's the thoughts there because again I'm trying to find a way to get to a yes here but if it's something
I would certainly support that. In fact, I think that having the county be the lead here is the best option. My colleagues to the right?
2:25 – 2:3324 turns
Articulate this fully Supervisor?
Yes, so Supervisor Williams there's a concern out there because they're you know we talked about the relationships that were built during the pandemic okay It's not as rosy out there as was expressed during public comment today. There was a lot of missed opportunities, a lot of issues with trust and I'll be honest with public health is one of those pieces there.
And so you know social services are there okay? You know there's a huge amount of trust out there for social services. I know that Public Health did a great job within certain segments But in other places they really dropped the ball and so I know there's a lack of trust And then we just gave the money to an organization. And you know, just because in the board letter like cause that would be a big headache for a lot of people up in my district that sees sometimes cause as an adversarial relationship. I know they do some good work and they do some great case management. There's also some things that they do that get onto more of a political bent. I think it's just as appropriate to have cause do this is it is to have Colab run our economic development from the county.
OK, there an advocate. They have a place and they have advocacy, but I think we need to have something that really brings everybody at the table
So if I'm hearing you, if it were located in Department of Social Services and the county was in the driver's seat that would be acceptable. Could they partner with public health?
Yeah absolutely but I definitely think social services is a trusted partner that would be important to... Of course it's a county-wide organization but I think social services, that's where I believe it is in Ventura County. Is that my understanding?
That's correct, Supervisor Nelson through the chair. If I could make a comment related to this conversation it would be extremely difficult today for a grant application that's due three weeks from now to switch gears and reassign staff from the public health managers to some social service to identify and to switch gears and to have them get up to speed And to repeat the site visit to Ventura to get ideas from there to have the grant application. So if this is the route you go, then what I would be doing is assigning somebody from social services to work with the public health managers that are already assigned in the crafting and creating of this, right?
And they could craft it and create it however your board wants it in terms
of
where it lives. But I would need to continue with the public health resources.
I think I can get there with that. And again, the funds need to be expended within the county organization, okay? Giving grants out and using other CBOs on this, that may be our future in this but I think early on, I think we need to keep control of it at the board level and so having it in-house is something I'm willing to support today. The details in the future I think we can have a further discussion.
Supervisor Hart and then Williams.
Well, I think that's you know whatever it takes to get this going and then to bring people together And heal the the issues that are out there. I think that's a sustainable program That's exactly what this money is intended to do and I think that's a completely reasonable
Supervisor Williams
I can agree with it. I do think that when you start something new, not everything is going to be perfect. I really praise public health for going into new ground and You know understand that not everybody that maybe should have been included gets included when you go into new ground And and you know just for the record. I mean, I think you know having having This process of starting a former Resource Center without cause or me cop is a little bit like having a discussion about wine without You know without wineries, right? You know, I mean it's I just think it is There is an argument for greater inclusion But I don't think there is a solid argument for Exclusion of the folks who have already been mentioned
supervisor Nelson. Would you like to make the motion? Oh
Yeah, so and I'm not saying exclude. I'm saying expenditure of funds is what I'm talking about. So I think that's where the concern is that taxpayer dollars that we're going to spend those dollars. And so that's more my concern than participation. Of course, I'm not trying to exclude anybody on everybody at the table this but it's really where are we going to spend taxpayer dollars? To move this forward and there's a lot of questions out there in the community about what that looks like if At least over this first year, if we receive the grant then I think that there's a lot more trust especially in social services. If they're one of the partners that are part of that, that could bring people to the table and you know, I think it's a long shot that we still get this grant so I feel that You know, maybe it's not taking too big of a risk here but those would be things I would need to do to get past today is to have it open social services and to be expended within the county with County resources
So it would be staff recommendation with those two provisos?
Yes.
Is that clear, Director Nielsen? Chair
Hartman just one comment and I believe Supervisor Nelson stated it accurately this grant application does require the identification of community partners that have relationships with the farm workers and partnerships with them we're going to be scored on that in terms of what sort of plan we have to engage those partners In services to the farm workers, so we can certainly submit a plan where the county department Maintains the money and maintains oversight and has these collaborative partnerships But there will be a quite a long list of community partners That would be listed in letters from them of support and describing what they would be doing
Okay, so that was emotion right yes a second
Second
man Supervisor love just one
last thing. I just want to be really clear so this doesn't get misconstrued I support a farm worker Resource Center a mobile unit, I don't want to partner with the state because of financial reasons I wanted to be a Santa Barbara County based but We'll see what happens
and I would clarify that I suspect that we're You know, we're going to put this application together and then we're going to have to go back to the drawing board. And that's the other part that I hope we do is if we do not receive this grant, that we do stop and take some time and really work this through as a county before we come back to the
Board. Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 3–1
Show transcript
2:33 – 2:502 turns
Motion passes 4-1
Okay, before we break for 10 minutes I just wanted to acknowledge that we have some dignitaries in our hearing room today. A former supervisor staff member and mother of our current supervisor Nelson and his grandmother are our guests today and so I'm eager to see them. I'm also proud to claim Bob's mother as my constituent. So we're reconvening the November 29th, 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Barbara Hearing Room. Turning to departmental item number two, Madam Clerk would you read that into the record please?
2:50 – 3:003 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Department Item Number Two is from the Fire Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amending Chapter 15 of the Santa Barbara County Code with the adoption of the 2022 California Fire Code.
Chief Hazzard.
here to answer any more technical questions that may come up. And with that, I shall begin. So a little background the 2019 California Fire Code will be superseded by the 2022 version of the California Fire Code and become state law on January 1st regardless of any action that we take here in And it's on a three-year cycle that the California Fire Code is amended by the state. And typically, the reasons for these changes are due to changes in industry practice, changes in fire engineering, changes in climatic or public safety conditions that arise, or new types of technology or industry that present themselves. A really good example of that we're currently seeing New additions to the California Fire Code that deal with lithium battery storage systems because as we transition to alternative energy across the state, we're seeing more of these facilities start to show up.
And so the California Fire Code had to catch up to that. The California Fire Code is based on the International Fire Code, a model fire code that's available to government to adopt and then provide their own changes to based on their specific conditions So the fire department adopts the 2022 California Fire Code with local amendments, and this is under Chapter 15 of our Santa Barbara County code.
And once adopted, this becomes the Santa Barbara County Fire Code. Some of the modifications to the 2022 California Fire Code include relocating code language for Increased efficiency and relevance. This is pretty common, every three years a lot of people will go in and nitpick the document and say hey this would be better moved to here or this section is redundant let's move it to here. The document is close to 800 pages so there's a lot of room for editing to make it a more efficient document so that it doesn't require a science degree to read it and apply it And then, additionally there's updates from the International and California Code Committees. And again this goes back to what I described previously as industry changes, as some of our fire engineering science changes over the years.
And as we get changes in some of our public safety risk modeling, and I'll give you an example of that. In California, we're obviously facing increased wildfire risk as we see some of the impacts of climate change. And so this version of the fire code does incorporate some of the latest science on wildfire risk. There's also consideration of current industry practices.
So, you know there's oftentimes there can be a potentially lag time involved with codes in regards to upcoming industry standards practices building materials building construction methodology and sometimes the code has to catch up to that to what the latest. What these latest practices are, and again that's the purpose of these code committees is to take a look at those building materials building construction standards and concerns with public safety.
And determine where the code goes from there. And then there's consistency with revised state and federal laws. This is a big one for California, so not only does the fire code regulate how things are developed and built within Santa Barbara County and additionally how we use our occupancies in other words our buildings within Santa Barbara County The code takes a look at, well we have other types of regulatory processes that in some cases may even override the fire code. And I'll give you an example of that is Title 14 Fire Safe Regulations which determine things like road access standards, water standards, addressing standards in the state responsibility areas and even now increasingly they're pushing out to high-fire hazard areas in local responsibility lands.
This is a big deal for Santa Barbara County because of the huge amount of SRA lands that we contain, and many of your districts have large proportions of SRA lands. So many of our development standards in the fire department are really dictated by the Fire Safety Regulations that sit on top of the fire code. One thing to note, we are not proposing a fee increase with this code adoption.
I'll expand a little bit on that. We did conduct a fee study in 2019. We haven't raised our permit fees or inspection fees for quite a long time. So we engaged a consultant. We looked at our fees. The consultant made some recommendations. We developed a draft fee schedule And then we went into the pandemic and with the economic stress that was put on the county and onto our citizens in the county, onto business to residents homeowners.
We felt that that was not the time to come in with fee increases so we put that on hold The document now, given the length of time that we were in some of our pandemic impacts. The document needs to be looked at again to make sure it's consistent with salary surveys and we have had some increased efficiency with certain technological software platforms are using for inspections now that has given us a little more efficiency and potentially lowers the cost of some of our fees.
So actions to date, County Council provided quite a bit of input. They do this every code cycle. Our biggest partner I would say in developing our new code is County Council and I have to give a huge amount of thanks to County Council for all the help that they gave us. I don't think we could do it without them None of us that are sitting here or within my fire prevention staff are experts at the way things should be phrased in a legal way. And so they really, they help us out quite a bit on the document and chapter 15 amendments were made available for review at the county clerk's office on our website and they were sent to over 80 stakeholders on around November 17th 2022 We received a little bit of feedback. This is the second code cycle where we've had very, very minor feedback compared to years past probably because our amendments are relatively consistent with what we had three years ago.
So not a lot of significant controversial changes. FHIR has met with business and government leaders to discuss specific changes and to address concerns Some of the, a few concerns that popped up were with amendments that were made by the state. And so we did provide more explanation to some of the industry out there on why these changes were made by the state. They're gonna happen anyways regardless of action taken by this board but that's part of the process is explaining why the state makes changes to the code and then how we respond to that. In some cases we have to adopt those changes in other cases the state leaves it to our discretion And we look at our specific needs within the county when we look at those changes.
And as of now, we haven't received any opposition from any of the stakeholder groups. And so recommended actions would be to consider the introduction of an ordinance amending Chapter 15 of the Santa Barbara County Code to adopt the 2022 California Fire Code with our local amendments as the enforcement code in all areas within Santa Barbara County Fire Protection District And all other unincorporated areas of the county where the Santa Barbara County Fire Department is the authority having jurisdiction, unless otherwise specified by this ordinance.
On December 6th, 2022 consider the adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 15 of the Santa Barbara County Court as set forth above. Consider and approve adoption of a resolution of legislative findings supporting amendments to the California fire code And determine that the adoption of this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act in compliance with section 15061B3, no possibility of impact on the environment.
And with that I'll be happy to take any questions that the board has.
3:00 – 3:0919 turns
I don't see any lights, but I do have a couple of questions. Do you use this update to the code to resolve internal inconsistencies? So I've had two experiences in the Santa Ynez Valley. One is with Cuesta Road and whether that is considered a major thoroughfare or whether it could then accommodate speed humps. The other is whether there's notice required for fireworks to the surrounding neighbors. So are those the kinds of things that could be or should be or might be included in this?
Chair Hartman, members of the board we did look at our amendment in its entirety. We looked all through Chapter 15 for places where we could do exactly what you described. In some cases There are other regulatory avenues, the public noticing for fireworks is a good example of that. What adoption of these amendments gives us the opportunity to do is to circle back on those issues that come up in that three-year cycle and determine well if it's not gonna be adopted through the ordinance where do we go with this defined resolution? So in the case of the fireworks noticing we believe We'll be required to work with planning and development through land use code to work in the noise ordinance. That would be the place that we would potentially be able to address public noticing for fireworks.
And then 10 years in the future, what people in the fire department know to coordinate with people in P&D? Is there any cross-reference?
Yeah so we have a huge amount of Workflow back and forth between the two departments more so than ever as an example right now planning a development is working on updates to the safety element and fire is a Active partner in that project and then previous projects. They've been involved in the climate vulnerability assessment We're very active partners in that And there also is precedent for other areas of the Santa Barbara County Code where authorities delegated to fire another example of that is Chapter 35 regulates addressing of buildings, but it's delegated to fire to make that determination because we're familiar with the numbering schema for our various neighborhoods. Which site is odd? Which site is even and what number blocks were looking at to make sure that it's consistent for a fire response.
So at least on the fireworks piece of it, you're saying there's a better way to address it. Maybe in the next code updates that we're gonna hear the next item. And is the internal inconsistency having to do with how you define a thoroughfare for speed humps? Is that...
Speed humps, there are numerous examples of speed hump requests coming to my office We have a mechanism for approving speed humps and it's a bit cumbersome. Essentially, it requires a variance from the fire marshal. I've granted several variances just in the last year. We're receptive to speed humps and staff has been working with some of the issues in the valley on the roads that you described. The challenge that we see often comes from traffic calming devices are put in privately I am receptive to traffic calming devices across the county.
We're always trying to strike a balance between slower traffic for public safety, not compromising the ability of ambulances and fire to get on scene in a timely fashion.
So the code isn't black-and-white? You have discretion and you feel that there's no changes
that are required? The fire code gives discretion to the agency having jurisdiction specifically the Fire Marshal. There are many avenues To grant variances, the code and the committees that design the code recognize that jurisdictions have their unique characteristics and challenges. A lot of our communities have older areas that were developed and now we're seeing infill development.
where we're dealing with access issues. The code requires certain access issues and it's challenging because you have neighbors that don't want to see more traffic in their small neighborhood, but then you have a new development with code requirements And again, the state recognizes that local jurisdictions have to have the ability to grant variances. We're always required to create what we call same practical effects so we don't want to compromise public safety but if we create an alternative in many cases this can take the place of for example where we have roads that don't meet minimum standards of width We can create turnarounds, we can create turnouts. We can ask for more water storage capacity in rural areas to create an improved safety condition that will compensate for relaxing some of the standards in other areas and sometimes these variances are unavoidable.
Topography you can't get around so you may want to have a 20-foot minimum road to access all your communities Which is the state minimum standard for roads, but the topography of Santa Barbara County does not always allow this and additionally legal lots and issues with easements sometimes do not allow it either without a land taking so it's a It's a razor's edge that we're constantly treading
sets of factors. Well, thank you. That's very helpful I appreciate that I don't see any other lights madam clerk Do we have any public comment on this item?
Chair Hartman, members of the board we have no request to speak for this item.
Okay Supervisor Nelson?
Yeah thank you Chair Hartmann. If I understand correctly we pretty much have to adopt these right there's there's no real choice that the board has is that correct legally?
Correct so on January 1st the state will put into force the California Fire Code If we did not adopt our amendments, then our de facto code on January 1st would be the generic California Fire Code. So we wouldn't have our local amendments involved There's a potential where if you delay adoption of a code You'll have a gray area where projects that come in for conditioning would actually fall under the generic California Fire Code and Would have relaxed conditions for a period of time
Well thank you. As probably maybe the only supervisor that actually has read the entire fire code, which by the way the words curb and gutter are not in there. Discussion I had with a past Fire Chief or Fire Marshal about the fire code. It's complex it's and it's really difficult.
All 800 pages?
Yes when I was a staffer Do you need a life? I was when I was hourly. So anyway, you know it's complex and as I was talking to building official during a break about was that you know this complexity of these different codes. You know I know that the goal is to protect safety. There's another public policy goal, which is that we don't want to be curbing development that might bring important housing or economic opportunity to our communities. So I really will obviously move this along but just as a supervisor taking the chance here on the dais The variances and looking at things through common sense is often a really important tool that I think the fire and the building department have to really bridge that gap. You know, life doesn't happen You know, in the code.
It happens out in 3D and life and there's a lot to look at and we need to find a way to say yes to things and not be using it as a weapon. I mean obviously regulators we regulate right? I mean you guys are in that business and that's the reason why you guys are regulators is because have entrusted us to make regulations to govern themselves. You know, to protect the community as a whole that we've given up certain rights that we might have to protect public safety and public welfare and so to that extent you know this is more of a soapbox thing for me but that I'm asking you to continue what you are already doing, and be thoughtful in the processes that take place for development in our community. It's really important. Thank you.
So may I have a motion for staff recommendation A through C?
So moved. Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Madam Clerk, could you read item number three into the record please?
3:09 – 3:149 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the Board. Department Item Number Three is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of the 2022 California Building Standard Codes and local amendments to Chapter 10 of the Santa Barbara County Code building regulations.
Hello Mr. Wilson.
Good morning Madam Chair and members of the board I'd like to take a moment introduce our building official Mr. Craig Johnson who's with us today That sounded weird, I apologize. Mr Johnson is here in attendance. I'll stop with that. Anyway he came on board a couple years ago during COVID and so I want to introduce him to the boards as many of you have not met him yet. He's with me to provide the technical aspect of it that I don't have.
And so to get started, Madam Chair, members of the board. Today is the introduction and first reading of the adoption of the 2022 building codes as well as with local amendments. I will not retread what we've heard already with the fire department. I do also want to acknowledge the assistant of county council's office in the preparation of these local amendments today.
And I just want to highlight that all those local amendments that apply specifically to the County of Santa Barbara, we're carrying those forward. Those in regards to the topographical climate conditions, seismic and fire hazards, those are all moving forward as they pertain to the County of Santa Barbara with the adoption of the 2022 building codes. I do want to turn some time over to Mr. Johnson in regards to some new local amendments that we are proposing with the adoption of this, that will take place on December 6th for the second reading. So I'll turn it over to Mr. Johnson to highlight those changes.
Good afternoon Chair Hartman, Board of Supervisors members. I could just repeat pretty much everything that the fire folks said this is a routine adoption of the building code same as the fire code every three years there's a new code The state adopts it that goes into effect the first of next year and we're mostly carrying forward all of the past Amendments that we have in the county here. There's no change from previous years with with one minor exception I think it's relatively minor It's letter I on page 15 of attachment B, the underlying strikethrough version of the actual ordinance.
This is a section that I've adopted in a previous jurisdiction that helps to protect the county right-of-way and adjacent properties during construction and gives us a better mechanism to prevent damage to properties and prevent damage to the right-of way And get people back on track when they get a little out of control. Thank you very much and I'm here to try to answer any questions.
Okay, do we have any questions from the board? I'm not seeing any lights. Supervisor Williams.
I just want to make sure that when we do this You know, understand within the discretion and I understand that there's a limited discretion in adoption of the state building codes. That we take all opportunities to make our process a little bit less cumbersome. I don't think we're alone in infamous agencies for a process that takes a long time. Sometimes there's a couple things that you scratch your head at, but just hope that we're using the opportunity when it comes up.
Okay, Madam Clerk, any public comment?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have no request to speak for this item.
Okay, may I have a motion moving staffs recommendation A through C? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Madam Clerk, would you read item number four into the record please?
3:14 – 3:223 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, department item number four is from the Planning Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the County Planning Commission and Montecito Planning Commission's recommended ordinance amendments to the County Land Use and Development Code, Montecito Land Use Development Code in Costo Zoning Ordinance Article 2 as applicable. Okay, Mr. Wilson. Thank you Madam Chair I'd like to introduce
Mr. Clemon, for those that don't know him and he's with us today I would like to this item today is an ordinance package one of the main components of it is the child care facilities aspect of it as well as some general ordinance cleanup items as well. The staff person that is presenting it is Ms. Venegas and she is going to be doing so via Zoom and I'd also like to acknowledge that Director Plowman is also participating via Zoom as well. I'll turn the time over to Mr. Clement now and Ms. Venegas
Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the board. Again for the record my name is Karina Venegas and I will be presenting the proposed child care facilities and minor ordinance amendments today. Next slide please. In September of last year, the board requested planning and development staff to prioritize and prepare zoning ordinance amendments that would include provisions and incentives for the development of childcare facilities.
Next slide. Accordingly, staff prepared amendments to the County Land Use Development Code and Montecito Land Use Development Code to change the family daycare home regulations to be consistent with state law that has changed since the time at which the board adopted the current child care zoning regulations. Introduce a low-level permit option for smaller daycare centers of 50 children or less with a land use permit Relax existing development standards for daycare centers in or at public or quasi-public facilities used for assembly uses, such as schools, churches, offices and or community centers.
And specified parking standards that would apply to daycare center serving adults and children. Next slide. Staff also prepared similar amendments to Article 2, with the exception of requiring a coastal development permit for the coastal zone instead of a land use permit. Next slide. Senate Bill 234 that was signed into law in 2019 amended Health and Safety Code Section 1596.78 To require a large family daycare home to be treated as a residential use of property for purposes of all local ordinances.
To comply with state law, staff revised the permit requirements for large family daycare homes serving children to allow them by right in all dwellings and revise the existing family daycare home glossary definitions to clarify between homes serving adults and children next slide. In addition, staff revised the existing daycare center regulations and development standards to help incentivize child care and reduce barriers for operators.
These revised regulations would allow daycare centers serving up to and including 50 children on commercially zoned properties and residentially zoned properties operating accessory to assembly uses with an LUP in the inland areas and a coastal development permit in the coastal zone. Next slide. Currently a minor CUP is required to allow a daycare center as a principal use in non-residential zones and the LUDC and Article 2, and a CUP for the MLUDC.
However with the proposed changes smaller daycare centers serving up to and including 50 children may be allowed within LUP or a CUP. Next slide. And lastly, daycare centers would be subject to specified parking standards with the potential to request a reduction in parking spaces with the submittal of a parking study and is subject to a minor CUP. As explained further in the proposed ordinance, the parking study would need to set forth substantial evidence to support a reduction in the required parking. So for example, the daycare center involves clients that do not have access to automobiles. Next slide.
The proposed amendments also include minor amendments to the LUDC, MLUDC and Article 2 that were the subject of the County Planning Commission's recommendation to the board. The following table identifies all of the minor amendments to the zoning ordinances for your board to consider. Next slide. As shown in the table on the last slide, the LUDC ordinance amendments include the following.
To allow electrical vehicle charging stations and hydrogen fueling stations as defined in, and that comply with government code section 65850.07 without a zoning permit To clarify an error in Table 13 of Section 35.24.030.a to allow home occupations within dwellings in the community mixed-use Los Alamos zone, to delete Section 35.42.180 historical parks and its entirety, and to revise the definition of automobile service station.
Next slide please. The following minor ordinance amendments to Article Two were considered and recommended for adoption by the County Planning Commission. As you can see from this slide, in addition to the EV charging stations and hydrogen filling stations that were already mentioned, the Article Two amendments include a number of minor changes to correct typos and make clarifications to existing regulations.
Next slide. The following minor MLEDC amendments were considered and recommended for adoption by the Montecito Planning Commission on October 19 of this year. They are to allow EV charging stations and hydrogen fueling stations, and to correct an error regarding set rear setback requirements for certain accessory structures that is to delete a self-reference in the subsection.
Next slide. The proposed ordinance amendments to the LUDC, MLUDC and Article 2 are recommended to be determined exempt from environmental review as they would not result in any new significant impacts or increase the severity of previously considered impacts. As a result no new environmental document is required pursuant to CEQA guidelines sections 15061B3, 15265 and 15301P. Next slide.
The recommendations for today's ordinance amendments can be found on page one of the November 29 board letter. Next slide. To summarize, they are to make the required findings for approval and CEQA findings found in attachment one, determine that the proposed ordinance amendments are exempt from the provisions of CEQA and to adopt a resolution amending the LUDC, MLUDC and article two found in attachments three, five and seven. Next slide.
This concludes staff's presentation and staff is available for any questions. Thank you.
3:22 – 3:2913 turns
Supervisor Hart?
I just want to say thank you to Mr. Clemmon, Mr. Wilson and all the team in the Long Range Planning Division for doing this work on the child care revisions and getting us into a place where we can help encourage folks who are trying to get in that business and provide that really critically needed care to young children that allows folks to go to work and provides quality childcare for children. This is really one of the big issues that we became more aware of during the pandemic As a limiter to ability to get jobs going back again. And this is a really important day that you've achieved this, and I really appreciate the extra work that it took to get here.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yeah, I actually wanted to reiterate or reinforce what Supervisor Hart was saying. This is actually really important. Board hearing I mean Greg is our member of our Child Care Planning Council and this has been a high priority for his during his service on the board so I'm really pleased to be joining with my colleagues to move these forward today.
Supervisor Williams
Well, I just want to say this is a great and rapid work by the team. I really appreciate it We you know we definitely want also You know there's obviously a big move in here on child care And then there's a number of smaller moves some of which might prove key and visionary in the future such as with electric charging and hope that You know that this isn't the last time we'll see some of these efforts to figure out what we can do less of.
We want the department focused on The big things that we know we need some big changes on. And I think part of being focused on the big things is to figure out how to not do as much time bogged down in the little things. So, I think this is a step forward on that and hope to see more steps forward on that in the future.
And I wanted to talk about childcare, but first I want to talk about noise. We heard from FIRE that the issue of noticing people about the noise from firecrackers belongs in our planning code and I gather it's not come to you in this one, but I wonder how I get something included next go around? What happened in the Santa Ynez Valley was that the high school applied for a fireworks permit. They were given that, people said please we need notice and they said well it's not required in the code so you don't have to do it. The upshot was that a horse was badly injured and a dog frantic escaped and was hit by a car So notice seems to be an important part and so I just want to know how we can get that included in cleanup for ordinances.
Madam Chair, members of the board. At this time we don't have a specific answer to that question. We're willing to sit down with fire and County Council's office and look at that aspect of noticing for permits related fireworks. At this time we don' issue planning doesn't issue permits for fireworks so it doesn't trigger our noticing requirements but there is Options that we can look at with the fire department as far as their process and look at The plannings regulations to see if there is an option opportunities.
Okay, that's great. And I would like to be involved my office just to make sure this really happens because We don't want that to happen again All right, thank you. You know the zoning changes that we're making today for child care I think we first got the idea from the City of Goleta that did this and this was Councilmember James Carriaco who really carried the flag forward on it It seems like something kind of in the weeds, but it really is important.
Childcare is a business that really operates at the margins and that's because of many factors. And we only have half as many accredited childcare spaces in our county as we need for kids under five. So this is an effort to really understand, recognize that this is an economic issue for our workforce. And I know all the parents of young children surely appreciate that. So by easing some of the economic requirements for a more extensive permit process it makes it easier for daycare operators And that is really significant, especially because many of them are women and many of them are Latinas who oftentimes don't have they're not at the highest end of the economic ladder. So this goes hand in hand with the $2 million that we allocated from ARPA funds for child care and I think it's really important.
I did have one question, and that is child care facility in the regulations it's children 18 and under. Is that a definition that comes from elsewhere? Or I think of childcare as being sort of elementary school once you don't need babysitters. So could you just explain that to me?
Thank you Madam Chair. I'll turn that over to Ms. Venegas and she'll provide a response to that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioners the definition actually is derived from the state of California and they classify or define child as 18 and under our definition is not being proposed for we're not making any changes were just pulling existing language in making just minor clarifications for the terms are the terminology that we're using but essentially It is remaining the same and the state is using child as defined as 18 and under.
Okay, so we just wanna be consistent and I guess that's fine. So do we have any public comment?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we do have one request to speak. We will go to Zoom for Elaine Monaghan.
3:29 – 3:316 turns
Good afternoon, Chair Hartman and members of the board. As a member of the Santa Barbara County Child Care Planning Council's Facilities Committee and a child care consultant who helps start up facilities across the state I want to commend and thank the Board for carving out time in the planning department's heavy workload to draft some critical changes to the childcare land use and permitting processes at the county.
I'd especially like to thank Karina Venegas for her work to make this happen she was terrific The changes presented will help open opportunities for new centers and smooth the way for family child care providers. This is a significant start towards building an environment that truly encourages and does not deter childcare facilities development in the unincorporated areas, and creating model policies that will inspire the cities to follow suit.
As an example, the committee is about to submit a letter and policy recommendations for inclusion of childcare in the updated housing elements to the community and the cities. I and the Planning Council's Facilities Committee are proud of our County Supervisor's commitment to child care, and stand ready to support future efforts. We're available for any questions or information needed.
And finally, I'd like to take a second to give a special thanks to Supervisor Hart for his years of advocating for childcare in our community, and for helping to make this initial work happen. We look forward to seeing how that advocacy will be applied at the state level With the potential to impact hundreds of thousands of families and children needing high quality care. Thank you so much.
Thank you for commenting
today.
That concludes public comment.
Okay, we're back to the board and could use a motion to approve A through C of staff recommendation.
So moved.
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. So now we'll go into closed session. County Council, what's in store for us?
3:31 – 4:274 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board and closed session today you have one item of anticipated litigation under government code section 54956.9 it's deciding whether to initiate civil litigation one case
All right, and you estimate about an hour?
That's correct. It may be shorter.
Okay so we'll be back 115 to 130. We'll give it a window there. Alrighty thank you. We're reconvening the November 29, 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room. We're turning to our final item, departmental item number five. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record? Oh sorry report out from closed session was a short closed session today.
4:27 – 4:359 turns
Thank you madam chair members of the board. The board met in closed session on one item of anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation when case and the board took no reportable action
Thank you. And now Madam Clerk.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, department item number five is from the Planning Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Hustle Rezone Intentive Track Map Rezone 15RZN-00000-00004, and Tentative Track Map 15TRM-000000-00011.
Thank you. You kept all those zeros straight. So ex parte communications, any contacts and substance members want to report? Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes, thank you Chair Hartman. I worked with Joe Hossel from Hossle Builders. Just on the kind of constituent side to deal with some of the water issues on this property and make sure that we were able to get through with So we can move forward to the rezone process That was earlier this fall, but most recently I met on November 9th 13th 14th and 16th with a neighbor Aaron Anaya to discuss neighboring easement and how that was impacted by this property and also spoke with Joe Hassel on the 16th This month as well about that easement and That will impact or be part of my deliberations today
Okay, any others? So let the record show that it was only supervisor Nelson that had ex parte communications And so now on to staff presentation Mr.. Wilson would you like to introduce your team I
Thank you, Madam Chair. Today we're here to present for the Board's deliberation the Hossle Tentative Track Map and Associated Rezone Application and today with me I have Senior Planner Shannon Reese who will do the presentation as well as Deputy Director Travis Sewards and I do want to note that Director Plowman is available online as well.
Okay
All righty so for your consideration we have the whole soul track map and rezone project. The project site is on a portion of Key Site B in the southeast part of the Orchid Community Plan area, and the property is located approximately a half mile south of East Clark Avenue and a quarter mile east of Stilwell Avenue. The surrounding parcels are all zoned residentially with larger lot residential zoning to the north and denser residential tracks to the south and west including Rice Ranch, Mesa Verde, and Vintage Ranch And the proposed project includes a rezone from 2E1 for two-acre minimum lot size to 1E1 for one acre minimum lot size. And that would match the underlying land use designation on the site.
There's also a proposed tentative tract map to subdivide the five and a half acres into five lots. The developer will be responsible for track grading and initial improvements after map recordation. As you can see on this graphic, there's a shared drainage basin proposed on the north end of the site and access is provided via a cul-de-sac extending from Claret Lane The Planning Commission recommended approval on this project back in 2017, but there were some required easements needed for access and utility service. And there's now an appropriate agreement in place as of April of this year for those easements. So the project will take access through and run utilities through the vintage ranch track to the south, and that's currently under construction.
So to provide some background on the history of the site, the OCP directs the county to consider rezoning this parcel 21 with a minimum one acre parcel size if that access to all the new development on the parcels provided from the south through vintage ranch which is what's proposed here. The OCP also mapped some coastal scrub habitat on the site, but there's since been extensive disking and grazing over the past 25 years.
And that habitat no longer exists on-site. That said, the project is conditioned to protect existing native oaks and specimen trees and to require a number of preconstruction surveys for nesting birds and rare plants. And since the Planning Commission recommendation back in 2017, there have been some changes that have occurred. For one, the Vintage Ranch project that was approved by the Planning Commission back then is well underway and the off-site access and sewer lines that will also serve this project are mostly complete I should also note here that the grading that's mentioned in the project description for this project included the full length of road from Black Oak Drive, which is already in place. So the updated grading quantities are a lot lower there.
601 cubic yards of cut, 929 cubic yards of fill and 620 cubic yards of over excavation and recompaction. There have also been, there's also been some additional clarification from the applicant team that the developer will be completing the initial tract improvements and grading. And we know a lot more about how the sewer system needs to be constructed because of this. And to address more clearly a few of the OCP policies and requirements, a number of the project descriptions or project conditions rather have been updated in attachment to the board letter.
The proposed project was reviewed for consistency with those applicable policies from the comp plan, as well as the Orchid Community Plan. And as conditioned, the project is consistent with both. It's also consistent with the requirements of the Land Use and Development Code and Chapter 21 of the County Code which is the subdivision regulations. As for environmental review on this project, some of the key sites received a high level of environmental review. But Key Site B is not one of those so a mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project and no significant impacts were identified.
During that environmental review process, there were mitigation measures required to reduce some potentially significant impacts. To a number of categories to less than significant level with mitigation and those mitigation measures were accepted by the applicant and are included in the recommended conditions of approval. There was also one comment letter from California Department of Fish and Wildlife back in 2017 on the MND, but it was addressed with further information from the project biologist.
So that final document is included as attachment three to the board letter. So based upon the project's consistency with all the applicable regulations, policies and development standards and the ability to make the required findings including CEQA findings. Staff recommends that the board follow the procedures outlined in this slide and approve the project.
That completes my presentation. Planning and Development staff is available for questions. We also have representatives from the Water Resource Division here And the applicant team, Mr. Hausel is available remotely and Mr. Hayward is here available in person.
4:35 – 4:4016 turns
Did either Mr. Hausel or Mr. Hayward want to address the board and add anything more about the project? All right.
Supervisor Hartman this is Joe Hausel I'm one of the eight landowners And yeah, our intent was really just to get the five parcel split and get our track map in place. We've been waiting for about 10 years for the easement and market conditions and all that kind of stuff to line up so that's really why we're here.
10 years okay back to the board any questions for staff or the applicant? Supervisor Nelson
Yes, I just have a question. You know as I mentioned my Ex parte, there was a discussion that and I just want to add this for context for everybody. There was discussion with the neighboring property to the north which that property currently gets access out of My understanding is that easement will now essentially get in it to the drainage the new drainage basin and so won't really be an Ability for egress and ingress off that so that would no longer be necessary With the new access coming from the south is that correct?
At least not necessary for this project.
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, the existing access to the north is not necessary for this project.
And in fact it would run right directly into the basin and not actually access the property? That's correct. Okay all right. That was my only question I wanted to make sure I asked that and then I can...
Okay is there any public comment on this matter Madam Clerk?
Chair Hartman and members of the board we have no request to speak for this item.
Okay, we're back for deliberation. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you since this is in my district I'd like to kick it off with that you know this rezone and this map is something that was contemplated in our community plan 25 plus years ago. You know obviously Mr. Hossel is very patient, him and his partners which is also his wife and brother and sister-in-law to get through this process and they've worked really hard on it over the years. It was at a planning commission in 2017. It's finally to us five years later.
This is a project that I think is important because as we build out a different basket of housing options, executive housing is also very important as well. I am constantly frustrated to have friends in my community who do well. They're doctors or attorneys or farmers that have done really well and they move into Pomo. Because that's where you can get an acre of property. There's not a lot of this available in the Santa Maria Valley, so five is at least a good start. It would be a nice piece of our housing option. The other problem I also have is our hospital when they get new doctors they drive them up to Shell Beach or to Arroyo Grande to have a different lifestyle. I want to make sure we can retain that talent.
And that revenue in the Santa Maria Valley and in Santa Barbara County. So this is a big piece of that, not a big, it's a small piece of that puzzle is to move forward with this rezone. As I looked at the findings here and making sure we're following good planning and looking The neighborhood potential issues, there's an easement that is really unnecessary.
And so I've talked to Mr. Hayward about it and actually I'm going to ask you a question here. If you would be willing to add or it sounds like you guys will be willing to extinguish that easement as part of the project description here? Is that correct? Yes we're willing to do that.
Yes we would definitely be willing to do that. We're planning on abandoning that easement before recordation.
Okay and so to memorialize that, it sounds like you'd be okay with adding the language to the access portion of the project description because it is not required for access or utilities for the site? Prior to approval of the zoning clearance for the first structure, the applicant proposes to abandon or release an existing 30-foot wide ingress and egress easement held over the property to the north of the project site APN 103-200-064 that terminates into the proposed Storm Drain Basin.
Yes, that verbiage is acceptable.
Okay. So after deliberations I would like to make a motion with that language included.
Okay, are there any other comments? Supervisor
Williams. The days are few when I wish I had your problems instead of my district's problems but this is one of those because we've got too much executives housed in the first district but happy to help if this alleviates some of that jobs housing balance questions.
4:40 – 4:415 turns
Okay seeing no more lights I think we're ready for a motion Supervisor Nelson.
Okay, I'll go ahead and make the motion to recommended actions A through D with the additional language that are read into the record on as part of the project description under the access section there that I read into the record.
Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? After 10 years you've got it.
Thank you.
I think we're ready to adjourn the meeting. We will have a special meeting Friday, December 2nd here in Santa Barbara convening at 9 and then Tuesday December 6th again in Santa Barbara because we're not sure about whether the Santa Maria hearing room will be updated and we wanted to give certainty about where the meeting will be and the chair made a discretionary decision on this even though Supervisor Nelson may not like that All right, we're adjourned.