BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 August 22, 2023

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:00 – 0:0611 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:25

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.730:26

August 22nd meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order. Madam Clerk please call the roll.

Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
Supervisor Kaps. Here. Supervisor Nelson. Here. Supervisor Lavinino. Here supervisor Hartman here and Chair Williams here
Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈20s recited, not transcribed
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.730:42

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

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:07

The next item of business is the approval of

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:09

the minutes from the July 18th. Regular meeting and the July 19th special meeting. So moved. There a second?

CommentJulie HenzeProposedself-stated1:18

Second.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:19

All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Minutes are approved, CEO's report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:28

Good morning Chair Williams and board members I have a couple of one announcement or and we want following that update on our emergency response for this past weekend but first of all I just want to congratulate and thank you our thanks our Public Health Department we have our director her mommy in the audience this morning they held very successful back-to-school health fair events hosted in Santa Maria Lompoc and Santa Barbara earlier this month In partnership with more than 100 community organizations, more than 1600 people were able to receive free health education and screenings. 500 children were provided free backpacks containing school supplies and more than 90 attendees received a healthcare service varying from sports physicals to skin cancer screenings and vaccinations so congratulations and thank you to our Public Health Department and Director Hamami, appreciate it.

The next is an update on our emergency response. As you know, there was a fire and earthquake in a flood over the last three days. And so this morning we will receive an update on emergency response activities for the past several days from the plant fire also And also Sunday's tropical storm. So with us is Kelly Hubbard, our director of the Office of Emergency Management. Walter Rubalcava, Deputy Director of Water Resources for Public Works. Garrett Huff, our County Fire Division Chief and online we have Undersheriff Craig Bonner if there are any questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:54

Good morning. We can add a tornado start if you saw Scott Fires PIO Twitter last night, no touchdown. So we'll start with the plant fire and I'm going to turn it over to Garrett but really quickly if you are a resident who was impacted by the plant fire we know that there was the Buckhorn took in residents and assisted residents and so there was no shelter operations but I did want to make sure residents knew that the American Red Cross was available for support if they need support And I wanted to give that phone number. So if any residents from the plant fire need support, 833-583-3111. Did I get that? 3 1 1 1. Okay so those are for the residents. I'm going to turn it over to Garrett for an update on the fire.

CommentGarret HuffProposedself-stated3:42

Morning Chair Williams, members of the board my name is Garret Huff. I am a division chief with County Fire and I have been the deputy operations chief on the incident So as you know, the plant fire started on Saturday about 1.30 in the afternoon and it grew very quickly to 5,464 acres in a matter of a few hours so that just goes to show how strong the winds were out there that day.

We had a very quickly went into unified response with our Unified Command with the Forest Service we had agencies other agencies help us like Cal Fire Forest Service Orange County LA County Ventura County quickly came At its height, we had about 678 firefighters and today we have about 300 this morning. Fire sitting at about 75% contained. We're just trying to close the loop on two areas in the forest that still have some open line.

Obviously, we were helped by the rain and the weather over the last couple days. It did downpour at moments but it was interesting how it would downpour in one area and not right next door. So then, with the rain that actually presents other issues with mud and other mitigations that we have to take place. But our PIO Scott Safechuck he held a few public meetings that were very well attended and the community was very happy. We talked about home hardening defensible space and the importance of evacuations Also, I want to thank the people of Koyama for opening the high school for us. The rec center and the library because of the rain we had to get our crews under roofs to get them out of the weather and the community, the outpouring from the community was great.

All evacuations and road closures have been lifted. There's just the area where they're doing the investigation of the cause that still kind of flagged off It's still the cause is still undetermined But we have we have quite a few people out there trying to figure that out That's the end of my report unless you have any other questions I

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.735:51

just want to on behalf of the people of Kiyama thank you for your work and also thank the Buckhorn for providing accommodations free of charge. It's a good place to get a cappuccino too but I really appreciate the team effort out there to protect the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:10

community from safety. Thank you. Definitely was a team effort, thank you.

0:06 – 0:133 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:18

Good morning chair Williams members of the board I'm Walter with public works and I'll start off with an update on the plant fire as well since we just spoke about that for public works it was relatively minor squalor street is being used for staging for the fire that was really the only road that was impacted. I do want to mention that one of our maintenance workers, Steve Lumberg who works out in Quiama.

He proactively went out and helped residents with livestock and cattle trying to get them out of the way practically did that and he just embodies community service and I just wanted to mention that. The hurricane again is relatively less than expected which was good but some of the rain amounts In the western watershed, it was a very little to none generally point two five to ninety on the south or point nine inches on the South Coast.

And the St. Ed's watershed was about half an inch, again pretty small and then Quiama Fire Station was about .82 which helped with the fire situation. And then maxes were about one inch on the eastern edge of the county. And then peak intensities were fairly light about 0.15 inch per hour was the max. And then on the earthquake again pretty minor for public works we did have Rincon Hill Road Bridge and in Carpinteria we have seismic gates on that bridge very similar to what you'd see at a railroad crossing. And those are activated when there's a seismic event.

Those were lowered so when that happens we go out and thoroughly inspect it and that happened yesterday it's been reopened the roads reopened and the bridges be open as of yesterday afternoon. And then just for the El Nino prep kind of looking forward. And I know Kelly is going to give more report on Guadalupe but Public Works will continue to support OEM and Supervisor Lavanino on our efforts out there to try to get equipment into that river and try to get something cleared out there Transportation of the 170 damaged sites, 50 have been reopened and we continue to chip away at those.

Flood control 15 basins have been cleared including three in the North County and five completed dredging operations. Again every year Public Works continues to plan as if El Nino is coming so that's we will continue to do what we normally do I just want to mention there is an executive order that you guys are all familiar with and 1023. We're trying to it really helps us on the environmental permitting side, so we're looking for every opportunity to take advantage of that executive order and get work done.

And then just lastly, we continue to encourage residents to visit our water resources flood control website. It has good information there guides for private property owners on how to protect against rains and also how to help with the creeks especially for those areas that are privately owned so thank you

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed9:26

Okay, a little bit more clear up on the rains here. We know that the tropical storm did not hit our county as hard as it may have. It could've and so one thing I just want to emphasize with our community is that we were lucky in this storm if you look at what's occurring down in San Bernardino Riverside I think we really were lucky in the sense that the storm stayed south of us. And east of us, and so I want to reemphasize the community to prepare. We have El Nino this coming year. The county's taking preparations will be doing a report to the board later On before we get as we get closer to the storm seasons. We'll give you an update more on Guadalupe at that time on Santa Maria River, but I want to encourage our residents. I know we kind of lucked out doesn't mean next time when we give these warnings not prepare and make sure you're taking those proactive precautions also if any residents were impacted by the February March storms so we know January we had a FEMA declaration for individual assistance for our residents For the February-March we just recently were added for what is called a SBA, Small Business Administration Rural Agency Disaster Declaration.

And so even though it says rural our entire county qualifies so all of our residents qualify this is for if you had damages or business interruptions or losses from February-March storms okay and so residents who may have had those includes low interest loans to assist with repairs replacement and other economic impacts It does also include business assistance. So if you had loss of revenue, loss of business concepts there's potential low interest loans there as well that information there's a lot of details in there is to what the dates that qualify are what the deadlines are there's different deadlines based on which loans you're applying to all of that information is up on ReadySBC so I just want to encourage residents that if you were impacted by the February-March that that's an opportunity for some fiscal assistance And then I'll close out with the earthquake so we did have the 5.0 and are close to oh, hi.

A couple nights ago and many people in our community got the emergency alerts on their phones if you were me, and you had 2 phones next to me, I was slightly napping in the afternoon. I'll admit after all that chaos and it woke me up startled me. But I just want to let everyone know that those, those did not come from the county. That was not from OEM emergency office emergency management or dispatch. Those are from a couple different places if you could you can have an app called my shake on your phone. If you have an Android it is built into your phone.

And then USGS now has a system within California, where you automatically get notified if a certain level of an earthquake is predicted. So these are supposed to be early warning notifications. The idea is that it's telling you prior to the earthquake getting to you and so, you know, you might go oh wait I didn't feel an earthquake because it's still coming And so I want to encourage residents to be aware of that application. That's now on most phones, all phones really as you have a really old phone it might not be activated and it's just kind of similar to a wireless emergency alert pops up on your screen. And then I know people say, oh, it disappeared if you. Swiped it there's some instructions that office of emergency management we're working to get that on our website so that people have questions they can see that information.

But just everyone's aware that's what that is. 4.5 or greater is the My Shake app or the Android, I'm not sure why but USGS is 5.0 or greater and it's not clear how they determine how far it goes. It's supposed to be if you have the potential to feel it so there's a little bit of science there that I don't understand but that I don't have all the background on but just so you know if you receive those that's what those are and As Walter indicated, we just had the one concern with the bridge and now that's wide open again. So if there's any questions that's all I had.

I know

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed13:30

it was a lot. Any questions from the board? Thank you so much Kelly. Thank you. Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

0:13 – 0:152 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role13:45

Chair Williams and members of the board, I do have a few announcements this morning. Administrative item number 16 is from the County Executive Office and it is to consider the appointment of Nancy Anderson Chief Assistant County Executive Officer to represent the county of Santa Barbara as alternate to the Board of Supervisors. Directors of Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, also known as PRISM. And instead this should state appoint Nancy Anderson Chief Assistant County Executive Officer to represent the county of Santa Barbara as alternate to the Board of Directors of Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management. And this quick announcement could just be added to the balance of today's agenda.

Additionally for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation And to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda, please see page two of today's agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. If you have any questions please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805-568-2240 again that's 805 568 And lastly, since I know we have quite a few members of the public interested in a few of our departmental items today. I wanted to just announce for departmental item number two regarding the Pacific pipeline appeal. We are anticipating that item to begin around 1030 this morning.

So again if you are interested in the Pacific Pipeline Appeal, departmental item number two that item is anticipated to begin around 10 30. And for members of the public wishing to speak on departmental item number four for the annual Truth Act Forum we are anticipating that item to be in the afternoon and beginning around 2 30 p.m today so again for the annual truth act forum departmental item number four that'll be this afternoon around 230 and that concludes my

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:37

announcements Would any board members like to pull any items

0:15 – 0:179 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7315:46

from the administrative agenda beyond what I have is a forty six. And I have a eleven from the public and for clarification you don't have a speaker on a 16 do you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role15:58

Chair Williams and members of the board that is correct they do not have a speaker on a 16.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7316:02

Any other items need to be pulled?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role16:05

Chair Williams and members of the board those are the items that I have in my notes as well A11 and A46.

Roll-call vote Moved by Steve Lavagnino · Seconded by Joan Hartmann
Show transcript
Can I get a motion on the consent calendar except A46 and ALM. With with the amendments to A16. So that's a motion by Mr. Lavagnino, second and a second by Ms. Hartman. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Unanimous then let's go to A11.

Chair Williams and members of the board. Administrative item number 11 is from the Community Services Department, it is to consider recommendations regarding the Sanctuary Center's Hollister 2 affordable housing development 115 West Anna Pamu Street City of Santa Barbara project approval of loan documents security instruments and this is in the first district we do have one request to speak on this item and we are going to zoom with Frank Thompson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed17:10

Good morning. Frank Thompson, representing Sanctuary Centers at Santa Barbara. I submitted the request to speak just in anticipation. I don't really need to say anything else except thank you very much for your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed17:23

support. Thank you Mr. Thompson. Can I get a motion on A11? Move staff recommendation. So

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7317:38

first by Hartman, second by Lavagnino. All those in favor please say

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed17:43

aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. A 46. Thank you, Chair Williams.

0:17 – 0:209 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role17:52

I pulled. Excuse me my apologies, Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item number 46 is from the Social Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding a Santa Barbara County system improvement plan for 2022 through 2027.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed18:13

If I may just give

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8918:14

context for why I pulled this. I just wanted to give support and shine a light on the amazing work of how our county takes care of our most vulnerable children, and this report was quite expansive 100 plus pages with tons of stakeholders who do a self-assessment every year as required by state law on our foster care system rates of returning kids into permanent housing. And so I don't need to belabor this, but I just wanted to give a bit of airtime to this important work that happens often behind the scenes and thank you for just maybe giving one or two highlights in the work.

Thank you so much Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed18:50

Capps. The system improvement plan is the culmination of our five-year process looking at how children are doing as they're engaging in child welfare and probation services, and it represents a tremendous amount of work from our staff, from all the feedback from our stakeholders, our resource families, our families who are participating in It really is helps inform us moving forward as far as where do we need to focus on doing better because it is really all about safety permanency and well-being for our kids.

So that's something that we're constantly striving to be better in even though I'm very proud that we do well, I think quickly but there's always room for improvement especially for most vulnerable kids. That's what we're focusing on is looking at those strategies to try and move the needle and do better improving outcomes. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7319:43

And I also just want to thank you for long, hard work. You know this has been an area of board concern and emphasis and obviously your leadership and your whole department's leadership has helped make a difference in these lives of some of our most vulnerable so thank you so much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed20:05

Thank you Supervisor Williams we appreciate the support.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7320:10

Okay can I get a motion on A46?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8920:13

I'm happy to move approval of 846. Second.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7320:18

All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries all right got a very special resolution to be presented administrative item number 55

0:20 – 0:233 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role20:36

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number 55 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution honoring the city of Lompoc on its 135th anniversary of incorporation and joining us in person today we have Mayor Janelle Osborne. And if Janelle would like to go to the podium anyone that may be accompanying her I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record Whereas the city of Lompoc is surrounded by beautiful rolling hills in Santa Barbara County, California and has a rich history that dates back thousands of years to when it was first inhabited by the native Chumash who have continuously resided in the area for at least 10,000 years.

And whereas the origin of Lompoc's name derives from the Chumash with various translations that reference lakes, lagoons, estuaries and where the land meets the sea And whereas in 1874, the Lompoc Land Company was formed paving the way to incorporation of the city of Lompoc on August 13th, 1888 as a California General Law City. Whereas throughout its history, Lompok has flourished with innovation from various industries including agriculture, flower and flower seed production, mining of diatomaceous earth, space technology, tourism, viticulture and the arts. And whereas Lompoc has been a major contributor to space technology with the establishment of neighboring Vandenberg Air Force Base, now Vandenberg Space Force Base in 1958 and is now a premier global launch facility.

And whereas the city of Lompoc, a full service business friendly city has continuously evolved with the times and currently enjoys the status of being a wine and arts and culture destination attractive to residents and visitors alike. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby honor the City of Lompoc for its significant contributions to the county, our nation and the world for the past 135 years passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed22:40

Just a quick thank you for the recognition. I am very proud to represent a resilient pioneering community with a long history with the Chumash, and I'm very happy to still honor it through having it named Lompoc. We have proven that through the ups and downs we are a resilient community. And in fact, the 135th birthday celebration really was about the fact that we are finally seeing the light and is not a train. So, we thank you for the recognition. We're looking forward to continuing to improve our community for all and the partnership that the county has with us. Thank you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7323:22

And just because we have some real substantive items later on, it's a good time to just let everybody know that the only time that our rules provide for clapping is during resolutions. So just let's remember that later and now we have very special resolution A56.

0:23 – 0:2919 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role23:44

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number 56 is sponsored by Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming August 26th 2023 as Women's Equality Day in Santa Barbara County. And I will now turn it over to Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8924:03

Thank you. It starts whereas Women's Equality Day is observed annually on August 26 to commemorate the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution granting women the right to vote and.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8324:17

Whereas Women's Equality Day serves as a reminder of the ongoing struggle for gender equality and the empowerment of all women regardless of their race ethnicity socioeconomic status sexual orientation or other identities and

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8924:33

Whereas gender inequality persists in various forms including unequal pay limited access to education and health care underrepresentation in leadership roles and systemic discrimination hindering the progress of societies worldwide. And

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8324:49

whereas recognizing that achieving gender equality is not only a matter of human rights but also crucial for sustainable development social justice and global prosperity and

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8925:01

Whereas governments, organizations and individuals have a collective responsibility to work towards eliminating all forms of gender based discrimination and violence. And to create an inclusive environment where everyone can thrive. And

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8325:16

whereas empowering women and girls involves promoting access to quality education, ensuring economic opportunities, enhancing reproductive health and rights, and eradicating harmful practices and stereotypes.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8925:31

Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors will commemorate Women's Equality Day on August 26th as a national day celebrating the importance of the women's suffrage movement and the work to secure and expand equal rights today in Santa Barbara County.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8325:50

Passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County State of California this 22nd day of August 2023 by the unanimous vote of all members present

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7326:12

Do we have any folks from Zoom?

PresenterVicki AllenSanta Maria LeagueProposedself-stated26:16

Yes, I'm Vicki Allen. I have some of my colleagues here on Zoom and the president of the Santa Maria League, I believe Virginia Sousa is there in person. So I'm a member of the board and leadership team of the League of Women Voters of Santa Barbara. Thank you to the Board of Supervisors for this resolution, recognizing that the fight which began over a century ago is not yet won.

The League of Women Voters of both South and North County are honored to have this recognition on the occasion of Women's Equality Day. To observe the day, the League of Women Voters of the United States issued this statement. On August 26th we're demanding our rights be restored and protected. We call on Congress to pass voting rights legislation, add the ERA to the Constitution, restore reproductive rights.

For the 60th anniversary of the March on Washington, this Saturday the National League is joining hundreds of partner organizations for a march to continue building a future of equality and justice. On social media for August 26th, the league is using the hashtag WID23 for Women's Inequality Day

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed27:50

2023. So again, I thank you to the board. Thank you.

CommentJoni JonesProposedself-stated28:03

And I'm Joni Jones and it's a privilege to speak to the board. Thank you for recognizing the important work of the league and that the league continues to do in our local areas and in our state and in our nation. And just we really appreciate the recognition.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.5928:26

Thanks. Thank you, Jenny.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed28:30

I would like to.

CommentSandy Grasso BoydProposedself-stated28:34

My own my name is Sandy Grasso Boyd and I'm also a member of the Santa Barbara League of Women Voters and I also want to say thank you for this recognition we really appreciate your support as women and men to see that we have our equal rights Recognized and also unequal rights on that are not recognized as well. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7329:02

Thank you, Sandy

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed29:04

I guess I better pop into this is Diane black and I'm on the with the board of the League of women voters and also on the leadership team. I don't know if you can see my T shirt. But I think it says women's rights are human rights and we really appreciate the resolution today. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7329:26

Thank you, Diane. We will go to a 57.

0:29 – 0:343 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role29:34

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number 57 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of August 2023 as Breastfeeding Month in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Meg Baird and Teresa Solis. And I will go ahead and read the resolution feeding month in August 2023 focus is on breastfeeding and employment work. The goal is to educate on the impact of paid leave and workplace support on breastfeeding, and engage our communities to play their role in empowering families and sustain breastfeeding friendly environments in the post pandemic worth life.

And whereas decades of research indicate that mother's milk is healthiest for children and breastfeeding benefits both mothers and babies. The optimal nutrition in breast milk contributes to reduction in the incidence and severity of diseases such as type two diabetes, respiratory and ear infections, obesity, asthma and sudden infant death syndrome. And whereas breastfeeding plays an important role in managing the double burden of malnutrition in addition to providing food security and reducing inequalities.

And whereas breast milk contains 3 million germ killing cells per teaspoon. Recent studies demonstrated COVID-19 antibodies in the breast milk of vaccinated or recently infected lactating mothers, which can potentially pass along protection to the breastfed infant. And whereas Santa Barbara County Public Health Department Nutrition Services, Women's Infants and Children, WIC has some of the highest breastfeeding rates in California and the United States along with a multitude of lactation education staff and seven international board certified lactation consultants IVCLCs.

And whereas nutrition services WIC pioneered a two-way breastfeeding texting program that is nationally and internationally recognized The innovation and comprehensive services provided in Santa Barbara County is looked to as a model for other California WIC agencies to follow. And whereas Nutrition Services' WIC works diligently to meet the breastfeeding goals of our low-income population, including the ability to assist in increasing and sustaining milk supply in light of formula shortages And now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors does observe the month of August 2023 as Breastfeeding Month passed and adopted today.

CommentMeg BeardProposedself-stated32:00

Thank you Chair Williams and members of the board. Good morning, I'm Meg Beard. I'm the Breastfeeding Coordinator for Public Health Department Nutrition Services and WIC Program. And some of our staff today is Teresa. She's a Lactation Consultant in South County. Chantal with Baby Kai, Regional Breastfeeding Liaison. And Andrea with her daughter Arianna, almost Lactation Consultant up here in Santa Maria area. So thank you for your time and support. Our Nutrition Services WIC program is internationally recognized for our breastfeeding services Like I said, we have some of the highest rates in California and the United States. We have a first-of-its kind two way texting program.

Lots of our staff have two to five day lactation courses. We have 669 electric breast pumps that we loan out to participants for free. Last year we issued 1,271 electric breast pumps so quite a bit helps families. We help working families and families that go to school every day. Which is our theme for this month. Also county, for the County of Santa Barbara there's 15 lactation locations throughout our county and for employees to express breast milk along with our breastfeeding friendly workplace and lactation accommodation policy.

This helps employees feel supported when they return to work and they also come back sooner when they know that they're supported for breastfeeding at work. And this helps with a workplace retention and engagement And thanks again for your support, and thanks again for recent increases in bilingual pay. And I have a proposal in for trilingual pay so we'll see where it goes. Thank you, have a great day!

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7333:39

Thank you, I just really wanted to thank you for your work. It's so important when so many of our babies are born and not having all the advantages of life in poverty with potential health inequities to help get those babies started off with All the advantages that we could provide for them. And of course, it's also wonderful to highlight something that not many people know which is that the county provides breastfeeding education and services to our clients. So thank you so much.

0:34 – 0:394 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed34:22

Go to A58.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role34:24

Chair Williams and members of the Board, Administrative Item number 58 sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming August 2023 as Child Support Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Metta Richardson and I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas August is Child Support Awareness Month, an annual time to raise awareness about a critical income support program That helps millions of children and families recognized in California and nationwide. And whereas, in partnership with 46 county and regional child support offices, Santa Barbara County Department of Child Support Services understands that every co-parent has different wants and needs for their children but all have the same shared goal to see these children thrive.

And whereas the services accessible through California's child support program have adapted and modernized in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic Technological advances like virtual court hearings and simplified online enrollment have made it easier for parents to access the service they need. And whereas, Santa Barbara County Child Support Services is dedicated to assisting parents with services that are designed to be neutral helpful and fair and served nearly 11,000 child support cases in 2022 collecting and distributing $29 million in support to families and children And whereas in August, Santa Barbara County Child Support Services is hosting an informational virtual workshop about Virtual Court. Offering training on child support services to the Good Samaritan Shelter and Horencia Indignia sponsoring a license release campaign for eligible child support customers distributing school supplies at the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department's back-to-school health fairs And in a tri-county collaboration promoting the child support program at the Consulate of Mexico and Oxnard.

And whereas Child Support Awareness Month underscores the critical importance of providing families with the vital support they need, and remembering that while every family has different wants and needs we all have the same shared goal protecting and uplifting the generations of our future. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims August 2023 as Child Support Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.

PresenterMeadow RichardsonDepartment of Child Support Services and I'm here today with Lucy Reyes our chilProposedself-stated36:43

Good morning Chair Williams and members of the board. I am Meadow Richardson, Assistant Director of the Department of Child Support Services and I'm here today with Lucy Reyes our child support services project manager. We are excited to be before you during Child Support Awareness Month. Child Support Awareness Month is a statewide and national initiative to help inform families about child support and the services that are available to them To reflect every parent's goal of seeing their children thrive, this year's theme is Different Wants, Different Needs, One Shared Goal.

Santa Barbara County Child Support Services is dedicated to assisting parents with services available to dads, moms and legal guardians designed to be neutral, helpful and fair. At this time, Lucy will provide more information about our August Child Support Awareness Month activities as well as recent departmental initiatives designed to increase access to services.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed37:50

Thank you. To commemorate Child Support Awareness Month, we are offering bilingual informational sessions about what to expect and how to prepare for a virtual child support court hearing. The sessions are offered weekly and at 6 p.m. throughout the month of August. And further information is available on our website or by contacting our department. In addition, we have scheduled presentations about child support services to Good Samaritan Shelter and Erencia Indígena.

We are also participating with San Luis Obispo and Ventura Counties in a presentation to staff in a month-long display at the Regional Mexican Consulate in Oxnard to promote child support services. In support of the Public Health Department's Back to School health fairs, we distributed school supplies and backpacks to children throughout the county. Children are our future and we want to help students prepare for a successful school year.

Lastly customer access to services is key and we are thrilled to share two of our recent initiatives with you Customers can check in via a self-service kiosk in our north and south county offices, and connect with staff virtually. In addition, meet now with the caseworker is a unique feature available on our website that instantly allows customers to Zoom with child support staff.

No matter where you live in the county, you can conveniently have your child support questions answered. Thank you all for helping us celebrate Child Support Awareness Month.

0:39 – 0:458 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7339:39

Thank you for your presentation. I'll just add, please don't make these wonderful staff chase after you. Pay your child support. It is not about your ex. It's about the kids. Thank you. Let's go to A59.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role39:57

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number 59 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution honoring Esther Jacobson-Bates upon her retirement from the Elroy Museum in Santa Barbara County and joining us on Zoom and receiving this resolution is Esther Jacobson-Bates. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.

Whereas Esther Jacobson-Bates served as Executive Director of the Elver Oye Museum of History and Art in Solvang, California beginning in 2003. And whereas during her time as Executive Director, Esther guided the museum through a period of significant growth and expanded public engagement. And whereas Esther was instrumental in the transfer of ownership of the museum from the City of Solvang after being gifted by the Brandt Erickson family to a nonprofit organization known as Solvange Heritage Associates. And whereas Esther worked tirelessly through grant writing, outreach to donors, planning of events to fundraise for the museum and building a community of supporters of the Elroy to bring the museum to improved fiscal well-being and long term sustainability.

Whereas Esther led the effort to renovate and update all interior and exterior spaces at the museum and brought new life to the museum's art gallery having curated many exhibitions Ranging from local artists and national and international artists, and renowned historical artists including Rembrandt. And whereas Esther built cultural bridges working with the Embassy of Denmark in Washington D.C., bringing ambassadors, musicians, performers, athletes, educators, and members of Denmark's royal family to Solvang. And whereas Esther displayed total commitment to the museum making herself available for the museum activities and support at all times And treating all visitors to the museum as she would guests in her own home. And whereas Esther guided the museum during the COVID-19 pandemic, projecting a calm positivity that kept museum staff and volunteers engaged, exhibiting a nimble responsiveness to ever changing conditions and collaborating with other local museums to find solutions to challenges which allowed the museum to continue to thrive.

And whereas Esther worked with Santa Ana's Valley native and Dittmer to co-author The Spirit of Solvang, a comprehensive book documenting the history and evolution of the Danish town. And whereas Esther retired from the Elveroy Museum on June 30th 2023. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara recognizes and appreciates Esther's nearly 20 years of dedicated service to the Elveroy Museum The city of Solvang and Danish American culture and history in the San Ines Valley. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors Esther Jacobson Bates for her exceptional career and recent retirement from the Elverway Museum passed and adopted today.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7342:49

Supervisor Harp.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8342:51

Thank you. In Japan they designate exceptional people who contribute to their community as national treasures, and in the San Ynez Valley Esther would be one of our valley treasures. She has really built up the Elvorhoy Museum in a way that connects people to their Danish heritage and helps define who they are, and it makes all of us want to be a bit of a Viking even if we don't have that in our blood.

She's been, as the resolution noted, really an honorary ambassador. When Danes come to this country they want to come to Solvang and she often also goes there representing our interest to their government. One of the things that's been extremely exceptional is the international quality art that she brings to the small Elverhoy Museum And in addition she's created a community of artists and giving them a place to display their art, people who live in the valley.

So it's been an extraordinary career we're eager to see what she does next and you can see from that picture with her grandchildren and her husband Mark who has thousands and thousands of events that she's hosted and attended been right there by her side

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7344:16

Go to A60.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8344:19

Esther may want to say something. Oh yes,

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7344:22

Esther?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed44:25

Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman and board members it really has been an honor and I am very proud to receive this recognition thank you for all those kind words Leading Elverhoye over the past 20 years, I carry with me so many great memories both professional and personal of my time spent at this community gem. And if you haven't already been there, I hope you will make it a point of visiting.

There have been so many wonderful things as I reflect on my time there And the accomplishments achieved and the obstacles overcome. And of course, it's about the people. It's all of those hardworking volunteers and others and their contributions made me look good as well. And I think there's a saying that really applies here that good people make good places.

privilege of being surrounded by the best. They schooled me, lifted me up and enriched my journey in so many ways. I'm immensely proud of the museum's trajectory and the incredible people who have contributed to success. Thank you for this honor today.

0:45 – 0:505 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7345:57

Administrative item number 60.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role46:01

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number 60 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Courtney Stockton of the Fire Department as the August 2023 Employee of the Month for Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Courtney Stockton And a few other members from our fire department, including Shauna Jorgensen. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.

Whereas Ms. Stockton exemplifies the county's organizational values of accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation, trust and ethics. And whereas Ms. Stockton models the transformative behaviors of collaborative problem solving alignment with the county's vision risk taking data driven decision making and strategic thinking. And whereas Miss Stockton as the only executive assistant in the fire department performs the duties of what would easily be three separate employees.

And whereas Ms. Courtney Stockton directly supports the Fire Chief, Deputy Director, Deputy Fire Chief of Administration, Deputy Fire Chief of Operations training EMS Division Chief and Facilities and Dispatch Division Chief seamlessly and flawlessly. And whereas Santa Barbara County Fire Department would like to extend our gratitude and acknowledgement to Courtney Stockton's husband Matt, and her children Josie and Ryder. Their support and understanding have undoubtedly played an instrumental role in Courtney's dedication and success. We recognize and appreciate the sacrifices they make which allow Courtney to excel in her role and serve the community with utmost professionalism. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Courtney Stockton as the Employee of the Month for August 2023, passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed48:03

Ladies and gentlemen, Chair Williams and esteemed members of the board. I stand before you today on behalf of Chief Hartwig who was unfortunately not able to make it. Nevertheless, it is my privilege to be here to partake in this celebration of an exceptional employee, Courtney Stockton. Since joining the fire department in 2014, Courtney's journey has been nothing short of inspirational.

Her commitment, dedication and tireless efforts have significantly enriched the fabric of our department. Chief Hartwig eloquently put it, Courtney is the heartbeat of our department. She is an indispensable force that propels us forward. Indeed her seamless multitasking and coordination across various roles enable us to achieve feats that would otherwise be insurmountable.

Recognizing Courtney's remarkable performance would be incomplete without acknowledging the vital role her family plays. Therefore, we'd like to express our heartfelt gratitude to her husband Matt and their charming children Josie and Ryder. Their unwavering support and understanding and sacrifices have amplified Courtney's ability to contribute the best to our department.

As we gather here to celebrate your well-deserved recognition as County Employee of the Month, let us also acknowledge the profound impact that you have on our department. Thank You Courtney Stockton for your unwavering dedication. Your contributions embody the essence of our mission and we are truly fortunate to have you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed49:50

Thank you very much. I feel very fortunate to be a part of the fire department family and to have such great support from the executive team. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.7350:08

Now's the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on general public comment?

0:50 – 0:587 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role50:15

Chair Williams and members of the board yes we have three requests to speak from the public today And we will begin here in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Jacob Moskowitz. And I just would like to note for the record, apologies to Andy there was some miscommunication on the speaker form but at least we have you down. Thank you.

CommentI've seen thisProposedself-stated50:36

You're welcome. Andy Caldwell representing Colab. What I was going to speak on was item A4 This is a budget revision request by the auditor controller and on page 65 of 65 pages was the purchase of the ambulances, $3.4 million. And again for the record I've seen this 100 times we didn't care who got that ambulance contract. Just simply didn't care, didn't speak during the hearings because we believe both the AMR and county fire were qualified. But my job is to serve as a government watchdog. We've never seen a $3.4 million sole source bid not go before the board for approval.

We keep asking the question how did that happen? How did a 3.4 million sole source bid not come before you? Plus it was a $3.4 million bid for ambulances with no contract. It's a fair question. We've not got an answer. In fact, I think I'm up to about 900 pages in our California Public Records Act request and we still don't have an answer to that number one fundamental question but we did find some other stuff. And again, I don't care if fire gets this but one of the things I am thoroughly convinced of and I've read every single document in that dump is you do not have enough time to pull this off by March And let me give you a couple of quotes from that document done.

This is from the city gate contractor that set up this whole thing and it's going to be hired by county fire to help run this. We are of the opinion that a permit application system that sets up competition between public and private is just another type of RFP round, and it does not serve the public interest to ensure integration, clinical care performance, and economic responsibility.

Here's another one from a county executive. The fire department is going to be the service provider, I'm profoundly concerned about the ability of the LEMSA to perform its statutory duties as a division reporting to a service provider. Does your county family have the permission to speak freely to the board? Do you know about these quotes? Here's another one.

None of the timelines in this timeline to get this thing up and running in March account for the presumptive legal challenges we expect to face. Not to be a fear monger, there is a very real risk of the failure of the EMS system on its current path. How is that? You guys did this right. Mona Miyasato should be congratulated you set this upright originally spent two to three years developing an RFP 2-3 years AMR gets the contract, you cancel the RFP and then what happens? Listen to this quote.

Much like the RFP we designed a system and then solicited bidders that process was structured as it stands today were soliciting providers through an ordinance and then we will design the system It's not ideal, and it could lead to service gaps. This is from your staff. They're not freely because they're being bull rushed into this thing. The only word for this is a bull rush.

And you've got to hire 40 dispatchers and upwards of 70 paramedics and get a program up and running that's never run before be done by March. And you don't even have the permit system set the permits out So one of your staff members in the document said the wise thing for you to do, give AMR another three year contract and do it right. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role54:49

We will remain in Santa Maria with Jacob Moskowitz and then we will go to Zoom with Brian Rosen. Jacob?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed55:01

Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed55:02

for the time and thank you for your service. Short story, five years ago I applied with our Sheriff Brown for a concealed weapons permit in Santa Barbara County that is the permit for an ordinary citizen to carry a concealed weapon Four or five years ago, I was denied based upon a legal justification at that time called lack of good cause. At the time the law stated that you had to prove a need your life was in imminent danger or you were in law enforcement or a jewelry salesman for example.

June 22nd of last year, the Supreme Court struck that down as unconstitutional. So leap forward for constitutional rights in my opinion. To my dismay, I now found out that I had no good moral character. Sheriff Brown found another way to deny me. A little bit of background about myself. First in the application process you have to provide letters of recommendation. I provided four.

One from a retired prosecutor from the DA's office from this county. One from a retired chief of police for Monterey County and two from the sheriff's own lieutenants. I don't understand how we don't have confidence about judge of moral character from people he's personally promoted into his ranks. We're talking about brass. He's also using the determination that there was an error on my written application, which isn't written it's done online on a portal because of that clerical error.

It is determined that I have no moral character. That policy is a Sheriff's Department policy. It is not rooted in penal code. Therefore, my denial is a direct result of the sheriff's policy. Which means the reliability lays on him solely it is not laid with the state. There is a provision within the state penal code that lying on an application is a criminal charge I've yet to be charged with it.

So am I guilty of something that Sheriff Brown didn't even bring to the DA? Or is he just going back based on his policy. I've been in the professional firearm industry for over a decade, I've personally trained some of the sheriff's deputies. I've been through law enforcement background checks as part of the employment screening for their own employees. I have passed those background checks I've passed federal background checks to the Federal Bureau of Investigation but because of a clerical error, I'm attacked and I have no personal character.

That's disgusting. In the middle of May, if I'm correct, excuse me, in the middle of March, Sheriff Brown was served with a tort claim by me. He has since ignored it. I have gotten no response Given another month approximately, he'll be served with litigation. I'm not gonna let this go. I think you can feel the passion. I am relatively upset that somebody would attack me and go after my character.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role58:17

Thank you. That is your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed58:18

Okay. I ask that you do not fund his defense. Explain to your constituents why he could pay for it himself or bring it out of his own budget instead

0:58 – 1:027 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role58:29

And we will now go to Zoom with our final speaker, Brian Rosen. Brian? And Brian, we do see you are using a touchtone phone so you may need to press star six to unmute yourself.

CommentBrian RosenProposed58:46

Hello Board of Supervisors. I want to thank you and for listening to me the other times I've come in front of you and I want to especially thank Doss Williams Because his aide reached out to the trustee and William Jones and his attorney, Randall Fox. And was given the promise that we would get a distribution of our inheritance within, I mean 30 days. At least a draft distribution agreement. Well guess what? Now they're delaying it for another 30 days.

It's just you know the more fees every time Doss' aide wonderful person Katie McCurley or anybody speaks with the attorney they're going to probably charge our state about $500 or maybe more but a lot It's really difficult. They have every incentive to drag this thing out, financial incentive, but they're charged with acting in the interest of the beneficiaries. That's their duty. But they have every interest to keep dragging this out and originally the trustee back on June 6th told us...June 1st he told us it would be within a month And it wasn't, and that was witnessed by my friend Patty Pageling that works with Susa Francina on environmental issues.

But then it just goes on and on. And it should have been taken care of a couple, a year and a half ago but we had to object to their extremely low list price about 2.5 million for this Montecito house that finally sold for 3.7 so they have every incentive to keep They're churning up the estate for themselves and are not acting with fiduciary duty or even paying for the time that Mr. Fox said in court that they never heard of a roof leak problem, even though we had all that evidence already submitted to the court.

And the Judge Stearns basically saved the house and got it covered right before the big storm. So I do want to thank Doss and your aides for their kindness, and it's just an ongoing matter. It's troubling that they can just... We might have to get a court order to get our inheritance. The good news is I'm getting a loan at 10.5%. So, I have a property up north that the person I thought was taking care of it completely trashed it. So, it's unlivable but I'm going to fix it up so I can get moving on with my life and I guess that's about all I have to say today. But I can't thank Doss enough for his kindness and for all of you for listening with such attentiveness It just shows what's really important in life. It's not money, it's kindness, it's concern and I've been showered with a lot of that.

So anyway, thank you very much and I guess we're just gonna have to see what happens. Hopefully we don't have to go to court to get our inheritance and hopefully they don't drag it on if they've been dragging it on for then over two years since my mom passed away. And I'm very unhappy about it. They can give a preliminary distribution, they just don't want to. That's what I sent a copy of that to Katie.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:02:04

Thank

CommentBrian RosenProposed1:02:04

you Brian,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:02:04

that is your time.

CommentBrian RosenProposed1:02:07

I sure appreciate it thank you very much

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:02:10

and that concludes general public comment.

1:02 – 1:0412 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:02:14

Okay we will go ahead with departmental item number one

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:02:20

Chair Williams and members of the board departmental item number one is from the public health department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an extra help service and retirement waiver for the Public Health Department.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:02:32

Good morning Mr. Chair, Supervisors. As you know, nursing shortages and challenges in nursing is not unique to our department nor our county or our state. And especially if we are talking about specialty nurses. We have Nurse Pappas who retired after being in our women's health program and due to vacancies and challenges in recruiting, we would like to request a waiver to keep her as an extra help until we find another candidate So we can maintain our women's services at our clinics.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:03:10

Questions comments from the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:03:11

board? About a motion I'll make a motion just with. I think this is just not only for your department for all departments that there are new rules as far as extra help and I think everybody starting to realize those so just what that make sure you go into this with eyes wide open but I'll make the motion to move staff recommendation.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:03:33

Second. Motion by Labanino second by Hartman. Any requests to speak from the public?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:03:41

Chair Williams and members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on this item.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:03:46

And then Mr. Nelson.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:03:48

Yes, thank you Chair Williams. I'm sure this employee is doing some great work and it's no personal reflection on her work for the county but it's a long-standing practice of myself to vote against these. You know I think that we need to be looking forward towards planning further in advance for these types of vacancies and I hope in the future that we can be. On top of that I see that most departments are getting their arms around that.

I'm also very interested in the future about some of these employees potentially just come back as contractors instead of his employees and that might be a more appropriate venue instead of what you have to do through post PEPRA type of legislation so I'm revoting no

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:04:34

thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:04:37

You have a motion the second all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed. No. Forward. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:04:45

We will take a brief 10 minute break and then take up D2.

1:19 – 1:2622 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:19:51

Calling the meeting back to order before we go forward with. With departmental item number two supervisor Hartman has a brief announcement.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.831:20:02

Yes thank you Mr. Chair this pipeline runs adjacent to the northeast corner of my property so to avoid any conflict of interest I must recuse myself from this matter.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:14

Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Madam Clerk. Will you please read departmental

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:20:23

item number two?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:20:24

Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the planning and development department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the applicant Pacific Pipeline Company appeal of the Planning Commission's April 26th 2023 denial of the existing oil lines 901 and 903 Valve upgrade project amendment. Case numbers 23 APL 22, 21 AMD 9 and 22 CDP 48 and this is in the third and fourth districts.

And Chair Williams members of the board before we proceed with the item today we do have one matter to take up and we have a number of documents to be voted into the record Chair Williams and members of the board, I did speak with our CSB TV when we were on break. And unfortunately the room volume is up as high as it can go at this time. I will talk very loudly.

Chair Williams and members of the board before we proceed with staff's presentation, we have a number. We have one item to vote in. We have a number of items to vote into the record and that were received afternoon on Friday. And per board policy anything received after Friday over a page in length will need to be voted into the record. The first is a public comment letter from Warren Powers Received Friday, August 18th at 512. Second public comment letter from Cindy Naughton Sunday, August 20th at 230. The third is a public comment letter received by Robert Almy Monday, August 21st at 424 and the last item be voted into the record as a public comment letter from Seth Steiner received Tuesday, August 22nd at 623 AM. And in order for these four public comment letters to be included in the part of today's record, the board will need to take action on that.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:22:27

I will entertain a motion shortly. But I just do want to while it is our practice to vote these into the record sometimes folks push the envelope because you know, the idea that a supervisor can read a long public comment letter that was sent at 623 for a hearing that begins at 9 o'clock and the other kind of side of the county is kind of defies Reason so I just want to urge members of the public.

To get in comments that they want to be read in the record with enough alacrity that we can read them.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:23:07

Entertain a motion to read to enter these into the record. I'll make that motion and I did read Mr Steiner's email from 623 AM I wasn't going to call out

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:23:16

names.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:23:18

I got it. Is there a motion? The motion to accept all the items.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:23:26

And I'll second

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:23:26

that. All those in favor? Aye.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:23:30

Opposed? Thank you. Okay we will go to staff presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:23:38

Mr. Chair members of the board.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:23:40

Before I go there let's do ex parte communications this is because the appellant is the former applicant we are only disclosing ex parte communications with. The applicants slash appellate. Anybody want to start.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:24:00

Thank you I met with Mr. Steve Gregg and Mr. Andrew Craig of the appellant slash applicant last week to discuss some issues and then, of course, I received all the emails that I think we all received together which were probably over 150

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:24:20

Mr. Chair and members of the board, just for clarification on ex parte I would recommend that you disclose any information you receive that's not in the public record that relates to this particular permit application.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:24:34

I think everything that we discussed is in the public record

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:24:39

Mr. Nelson?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:24:40

Yes, thank you. I met with Steve Gregg on over the phone yesterday of 21st also met with him in person as well as Andrew Craig on August 1st. Had a meeting with the new head of California Operations for Exxon Nathan Franca on 731. Also met with Steve Gregg and former Exxlon operations manager Brian Anderson on May 17th Also had a conversation with the same with.

Exxon and Steve Gregg on May 19th, 2021. I'm also had received an email from Kenha from SP can as well as extensive amount of. Form emails that came through in the other emails that are also in the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:25:29

record.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:25:33

Yes, supervisor caps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:25:35

I might be answering this too broadly, but here it goes. My office and I met with Steve Gregg and Brian Carlin representing Exxon. We met with the Environmental Defense Center, Anna Citron representing the Gaviota Coast Conservancy as well as Brady Bradshaw Center for Biological Diversity, Marisa Sullivan vice chair of the Coastal Band of Chumash and Tevin Schmidt with the Wachoto Foundation.

Also spoke with my planning commissioner a few times as well as UCSB's Environmental Affairs Board.

1:26 – 1:365 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:26:07

The. On the

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.731:26:11

strictly ones that are the appellant applicant met with them on two occasions pertaining to the this. Valve project once was yesterday 820 for one and another was. I since everybody's doing the laundry list. I have also talked with Taylor Katie Davis is the Sierra Club and Linda crop on the EDC on several occasions about this in addition to those you had several Remote conversations with both Mr. Capello and Mr. Greig about time limits for the hearing, it was strictly time limits from the hearing and a meeting with the state fire marshal and counsel Josh Cleaver and Jim Hosler

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:27:09

on the 3rd of August. Okay staff presentation

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:27:16

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. As indicated by Ms. Alexander the item before you today is the appeal by Pacific Pipeline Company of the Planning Commission's denial of their proposal to install safety valves along pipelines 901 and 903 This item was first heard by our zoning administrator it was improved in April, or I'm sorry, August of 2022. That was that was appealed and then it went to the planning commission, the Planning Commission denied it and then that was ultimately appealed by the applicant I'd like to introduce the staff that's here today. We have John Zurovich, who is the Deputy Director of Energy Management Compliance. We have Katie Nall who is the Project Planner and Erin Briggs, the Supervising Planner. I also wanted to note that the Office of the State Fire Marshal is here today.

We have Jim Hossler, who's Deputy Director or Deputy Fire Marshal and then Josh Cleaver, who is the Council Fire Marshal and they have a presentation they'll be making today as well. So, with that I'd like to turn it over to Ms. Nall and she will make the presentation.

CommentKatie NallProposedself-stated1:28:32

All right good morning Chair members of the board my name is Katie Nall and I'll be presenting the Pacific Pipeline Company's Line 901-903 Valve Upgrade Appeal. The appeal is in response to the Planning Commission's denial of the project The applicant proposes to amend the original major conditional use permit and final development plan by installing 16 new valves on the existing 901-903 pipeline system.

Approximate locations are shown on the map. The project includes five check valves which use an underground system that automatically closes when pushed back on, and 11 motor-operated valve stations which use an external power system supplied by either solar or a connection to an existing power line. Motor operated valve station equipment would be located within a chain link fence enclosure as shown in the bottom photo.

The project is necessary to comply with California State Assembly Bill 864, which mandates that operators install the best available technology on existing pipelines to reduce the volume of fluid released in the event of a line failure. Staff prepared an addendum to the originally approved EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15164 for the project. The impact areas analyzed are listed on the slide.

Additionally, the project can be found exempt under CEQA exemptions also shown on the slide. As previously stated, on August 22nd 2022 the amendment and coastal development permit were conditionally approved by the county zoning administrator. Three appeals were submitted by members of the public and were later heard by the planning commission on March 1st in April 26th 2023 where the appeals were upheld and the project was denied.

The appeal before you was submitted by the applicant and the next slides identify the eight appeal issues and staff's responses. Appeal Issue 1. The applicant states the Planning Commission's denial contradicts the purpose and findings of AB 864, where the intent is to increase the safety of the pipeline because the valves were identified in the risk analysis as the best mechanism to do so.

In response, the county's role is to ensure compliance with county code. The county does not have a role or responsibility in determining compliance with AB 864 which is reserved for the Office of State Fire Marshal. Appeal Issue 2. The applicant argues that inland valves were denied with coastal findings, however findings for denial were made for both inland and coastal zoning ordinances pursuant to the sections listed on the slide.

Appeal Issue 3. The applicant states that the Commission's finding for denial contradicts the only expert evidence provided on the record, which is the September 29th 2022 Visual Impact Analysis. Staff acknowledges the analysis focuses on six motor-operated valve stations within the Gaviota Coast and concludes three are minimally visible and one is distantly visible when traveling on Highway 101.

Appeal Issue 4. The applicant states the coastal denial findings for visual incompatibility is not applicable to check valves which are located underground. In response, the valves are reviewed as one project under CEQA and the findings for approval or denial are made for the project as a whole, not for each valve site independently. Appeal Issue 5. The Planning Commission determined that the pipeline's integrity has degraded beyond what was originally analyzed in the EIR. The applicant argues this denial was based on speculative conclusions about the safety of future pipeline operations and that there is no evidence that they would be detrimental to the safety of the neighborhood.

In response, the risk analysis concludes the proposed valves would reduce the baseline worst-case spill volume by 48%, therefore making the pipeline system safer. Because this is a de novo hearing, the Board has the discretion to determine whether the required findings can be made. Appeal Issue 6. The applicant states the denial disregarded the applicable CEQA exemptions, which would negate the Planning Commission's findings for denial. However, the Planning Commission's denial was based on administrative findings for the Inland and Coastal Land Use Ordinances. They are not CEQA related. CEQAs does not apply to projects that a public agency disapproves.

Appeal Issue 7. The applicant states the Planning Commission cannot deny the project based on increased spill potential because the original EIR already acknowledged spill-related impacts would be significant and unavoidable. In response, the Planning Commission's denial determines that the original findings could not be made for the current project because the risk of spill is greater today than originally analyzed.

Appeal Issue 8. The applicant states the denial overlooks the Office of State Fire Marshal's exclusive jurisdiction because 1, it focuses on pipeline safety instead of valve construction 2, it denies the applicants a vested right to restart and 3, it breaks the 2015 settlement agreement between the applicant and the county which states that the county has no authority over the construction and operation of the pipelines In response, the county's role is to review the project for compliance with county code. The project is proposing modifications to the existing pipeline so the county review is focused on valve installations and does not involve review of pipeline restart.

However, the applicant is correct regarding their vested right to restart and that counties restricted authority over the design of the pipelines. So there's been a lot of discussion on if approval of the safety valves would directly lead to restart of the pipeline. So this slide breaks down what is required in 2020, a consent decree was filed between the applicant and state and federal agencies outlining the actions that would be required prior to restarting the pipeline.

The outstanding items include anomaly repair where all external and internal anomalies must be remediated Compliance with AB 864 regulations, which is the project in front of you. Preparation of a restart plan for the Office of State Fire Marshal's review and approval, which includes things like additional surveillance technology and corrosion prevention. And finally, a state waiver approved by the state fire marshal to compensate for the limited effectiveness of cathodic protection.

The State Waiver or Special Permit is an order that allows the use of alternative methods to meet the intent of a state-adopted regulation. Extensive technical analyses are required for approval of a state waiver, and detailed conditions are applied based on the approved alternative measures to ensure that an equal or greater level of safety can be maintained.

These waivers are valid for five years before being renewed. They may be revoked at any time and their intent is to increase the safety of pipeline operations. Staff recommends your board make the following. Grant the appeal, case number 23 APL 22. Make the findings for approval of the project including the CEQA findings. After considering the environmental review documents determine that no subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall be prepared for the project and grant de novo approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval.

This concludes staff's recommendation. We are available for questions and once again we also have representatives from the Office of State Fire Marshal who are making themselves available for questions as well.

1:37 – 1:4416 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:37:03

Any questions from the board before we do this state fire marshal presentation? Thank you. Yes, I just want some clarity on so slide 13 if we can go back to that for a moment So I want to make

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:37:38

sure I understand correctly so before us today is just the safety valves. So the restart is not for this board and has no authority.

CommentKatie NallProposedself-stated1:37:46

Supervisor Nelson that's correct we are only looking at valve installation.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:37:51

So any discussions beyond that are part of the, I guess maybe it's for County Council. I just want to make sure that I understand what we're focusing on here as we make these decisions or do we have the ability to consider those outside you know whether this is how the restart might impact this project or how this project might impact a restart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:38:16

Mr. Chair members of the board supervisor Nelson The project before you is for installation of the valves And so what you're considering today as whether this proposed project whether or not you can make the findings So it is limited to their proposed

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:38:29

product And let's have the state fire marshal make their presentation Good morning. Morning my

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:38:57

name is Josh Cleaver, I'm staff counsel with CAL FIRE and State Fire Marshal's Office Advising Pipeline Safety Division. Chief Hostler will be giving a presentation but

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:06

there's up here down here but I'll help him answer any questions you have at the present time. Thank you. He's also here to keep

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:39:14

me out of trouble which i'm very good at getting into So my name's Jim Hosler, I'm the Assistant Deputy Director. I'm the Chief of Pipeline Safety for the state of California under State Fire Marshall. I also run several other programs for the state as

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:28

well.

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:39:30

Chair Williams, members thank you for your time today. So Office State Fire Marshall we are the sole regulatory authority for intra-state pipelines within the state of California. We also manage the federal program for pipeline safety or

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:46

intrastate pipelines To give you some history there. So we've

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:39:54

given you a quick presentation here hopefully to answer some questions you may have, to give you some documentation to look at. So, we are the sole regulatory for all hazardous liquid pipelines and CO2 pipelines in the state under federal program. Currently the state does not have CO2 regulations. We do not grant permits, we do not deal in CEQA. We deal with the pipe structure, the safety of the pipeline, the operation of the pipeline and those guidelines. As for siting, we don't have any authority to that. We can provide information to local counties and agencies such as we're doing today so that it helps better inform you of the activities that possibly would take place for the safety of a pipeline.

In this specific case, we reviewed and approved a plan to retrofit the existing pipeline with best available technologies that will reduce the volume of an oil spill. AB 864 primarily deals with reduction of spill volumes using best available technology. When the regulation was put together, we worked in a group with operators public local responders Of course, our office and we developed the regulations and we identified specifically as one of the items is valves. And specifically also motor operated valves so that is a solid block in a line should align start leak slide please.

So this is a very engineering intensive process when trying to look at spill volumes, where to place these valve locations. We're also to make sure that the most benefit is gathered from the location of these valves. That is placed on the operator our office doesn't determine that we don't decide where they think the valves go but we say what is the greatest impact to reducing spill?

pipelines are required to install the best available technology. Now once again, that's not rocket science. It's we don't expect an operator or two and it's actually stated in the statute off the shelf technology. So leak detection, fiber optics sensing black valves, valves was high on the priority list because it's an immediate stop and it actually stops the flow So it has an immediate impact detection is the item as well.

So they must limit the volume that's a key word in this statute and the regulation limit the volume of spill, and that's our goal. As our office is to limit the exposure as much as possible but also that the operator can produce or do their business within the community safely. With the risk analysis provided to us. And. Reviewed it for an engineering study through our staff and was also brought to my attention. We reviewed it additionally, and then at that time we did give approval for the plan that was proposed before our office. Next slide please.

So, pipelines are a very complex nature in many ways because every pipeline is different. It's the same but different and each offers in a unique situation or conditions that must be addressed. Our whole mission is to ensure safe operation. Pipelines compliance with state and federal law Our office thoroughly evaluated the risk analysis. I believe we probably did a more exemplary action on this particular item because of the concerns in the past history, but of course it is our job to ensure safety for all Californians. The OSFM believes that if there is a failure on this line, we believe that the valves will reduce the spill volume significantly and represents best available technology Along with other tools.

It is important to note that the pipeline must meet and pass additional safety requirements prior to any restart of the pipeline. Part of the restart is also looking at what best available technologies have been employed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44:27

Next slide, I think that's it? Yes, so any questions you may have? Supervisor Caps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:44:36

Thank you to the fire Marshall for being here. It's nice to have you. Yeah, I appreciate how you clarified it just what if you can zero back in on the purpose and function of valves? This sounds like an obvious question but if there is no flow of oil

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:44:55

would these valves be

1:44 – 1:5023 turns

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:44:59

Let me maybe clarify your question. If the pipeline is not operating and is not full of oil or if it is full of oil?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:45:10

If it's not full of oil, would these valves be a safety measure?

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:45:16

No. The pipeline would not be operating. It would be non-functional and the risk to the environment at that point would be very minimal because there's no fluid in

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:45:27

So these valves are needed for the safety of all of us if there's a restart to this oil.

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:45:34

They are required that if the operator were to put material or crude oil back in the pipeline and there was a hazardous chemical in the pipeline, yes it would. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:45:47

Supervisor Lavignia. Thank you and

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:45:50

by the way thank you for being here because everybody has quoted you but it's nice to have you here let me tell you Both sides, hey the fireworks. So it's great to have you here and hear straight from the horse's mouth so and this is I think what Supervisor Capps is getting to as a question I've also heard that okay why are we putting safety measures on a pipe that doesn't have anything in it?

So question I guess goes to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:46:24

Is,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:46:25

so there are active and abandoned pipelines is what I'm understanding. And where does this one? I guess how does this, what status is this pipeline in right now?

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:46:34

So under our rule we recognize two different statuses. In the past when there was a problem but it's been reduced as defined by PHMSA and our state agrees. There's active pipelines and abandoned pipelines. And between active and abandoned If it is to be abandoned, it must be void of all hazardous materials or liquids as much as possible. Separated from pump stations isolated and put with an inert material such as nitrogen water which we don't like or mud.

An active pipeline It can be an empty pipeline that an operator has said, we may want to use this in a future timeframe. We may want to operate this pipeline but we are gonna keep it active to reduce our risk or in this case they had to remove the material but they wanted to keep it active. This line has been considered active the entire time but they cannot just restart it and not just put oil until they meet their requirement.

I think to answer your question, is if the operator intends to restart. And I say if because we do not have a restart. Have an approved one? They must have certain safety equipment in place prior putting any oil in the pipeline who begin to restart. And to also clarify, because I think this may be a question is can they put oil in the pipeline without

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:48:15

our offices approval? No. Okay and then

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:48:22

so you have the jurisdiction over the safety and operations on interstate pipeline just correct as you stated okay so if we got to a situation where so it looks like we're the ones making the determination whether or not we would approve this valve

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:48:40

Project if we decided not to approve valve project. And the applicant was still interested in using

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:48:50

the pipeline and you are the authority over whether or not they operate that would they be able to come to you with a different plan that did not have value?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:49:04

I will answer that there

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:49:07

would be the potential that they could do that. They would have to submit another risk analysis, why not having valves which is required under law would somehow bring them into compliance with best available.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:49:19

So it would be in a position where they need to comply with their fundamental block from it. How they proceed from there is going to be decision for

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:49:30

Okay, I guess for our county council then is how would our county be able to decide that if at that point it's out of our jurisdiction?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:49:40

Supervisor Lavagnino, your board's jurisdiction is limited in this circumstance and so you're limited to having an application in front of you. So if the board were to deny this project as you stated then the applicant could reapply with a different plan after denial I think you have to wait a year but that is possible but otherwise unless there's an application before you the board doesn't

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:50:08

have So theoretically, we could deny the valve project

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:50:14

or safety for whatever reasons. They could then

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:50:21

put in a new application whether or not they have to wait a year. It could then possibly get approved by the Office of State Fire Marshal without any input from us and it could theoretically

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:50:32

open without safety valves in place.

1:50 – 1:5931 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:50:40

Members of the Board and Supervisors, I do want to make one clarification. They can't apply for the same thing in

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:50:45

less than a year. It would be something different

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:50:47

but I'm not sure what that would be. If they applied for something different it might not, they might have to wait a year. They only need to apply to us if they're making a change to their existing permit so it theoretically is possible that if they did not need to make a change to their existing permits it's possible that by our commercial jurisdiction that they could get approval for something different

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:51:10

And I think you want to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:51:11

weigh in on that as well. Yeah, thank you. The law the state law statute and our regulations are clear that valves are to be considered as. Denying the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:51:21

installation of valves would place them like conflict. With a law requirement. Right so if you deny it then they won't but they would not have valve which are required by state law unnecessarily at So you have a diaspora between what they are required to do and what they can do. And perhaps the project proponent will discuss that when they have a chance, but I don't see how they can come into comply with state law on something that says it valves if valves are not Thank you. Okay, seems like we could be creating a

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:52:07

serious catch-22 but anyway

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:52:09

all right thank you. Supervisor Nelson? Yes thank you Chair Williams there's a term that you used council it was fundamentally blocked so

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:52:21

that was when you're looking at another alternative so with a In a jurisdiction like Santa Barbara County denying the installation of valves defined as fundamentally blocked?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:52:34

I think that might be a good question for your counsel. But from my perspective, our perspective at the fire marshal's office if they cannot come into compliance with the law It would appear that they would not be able to start pipe, right? This law was drafted in response to the refugio spill on this particular pipeline. And it specifically addressed need for valves on pipelines in general but this pipeline too. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:53:02

it is applicable and without valves, I mean it feels almost logical that if you cannot comply with state law there must be an alternative route. But our perspective is that it must have these valves. Did I address where you're going with that? Yes, I think so. Feel free to ask more questions. So I'd like to add, so the entire intent of ABA or Chairman Williams knows this well. Or supervisor, I apologize.

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:53:43

Is that to reduce spill volume though and it's usually a combination of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:53:50

leak detection materials valves and the most Effective way to stop flow is to put a block on a line or close it off. So as proposed

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:54:08

that we have seen, majority of the plans that have been placed in front of our office is about also additional tools and it also depends on terrain location to water so there's multiple factors involved Motor operated valves are the quickest because somebody doesn't have to be standing there 24-7, 365 and they can do it. Check valves which I do not have the construction plans on the check valve but they are minimal exposure or viewpoint to the external environment but usually they are put above ground but they don't require a lot of equipment because they're

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:54:52

a force reactive device. So that is why our position is valves are strong use of the early leak prevention or reduction. An additional question here, have you guys looked at

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:55:09

if these valves were installed back when the refugio oil spill took place what we what the effects might have been?

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:55:17

We have not done any studies in that effect. Although I can say we did look at the existing risk analysis that was provided to our office and we've looked at, I believe, I may be incorrect on my number over 180 risk analysis of pipelines that are affected within the coastal zone or within a certain distance of the coastal zone and all of those expressed spill reduction volumes I cannot give you an exact number of what on this particular portion if it would have or reduced it. There was several mistakes made, my opinion in that condition. So accidents do happen unfortunately but the proposed items in the plan offer a large or significant reduction of volume.

I believe that it would help But I cannot give you a specific answer

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:56:17

of how much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:56:18

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:56:19

Might be able to add a little bit that when the risk analysis is conducted on a pipeline. It is under the it's under the assumption that it will have what is called a guillotine style rupture where it is simply. And product flowing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:56:32

freely

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:56:33

right? That is the baseline approach. And you would get a math based on your, you know the analysis and modeling that utilize it will determine how much product variable from each pipeline right? But I believe in the staff presentation saw reduction of 48% spill volume based on the segmentation places within block valve. That's probably the number you look towards. I cannot remember the exact you know gallon or barrel amount of reduction but That would be the analysis that we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:57:05

review and then approved as being best. One last question here. Current status of the

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:57:14

line is an active alliance under your jurisdiction?

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:57:17

Yes, and has been since 2016 when PHMSA actually handed us the pipeline. They took it out of the interstate rule placed under intrastate and then we were we took over authority at that time and then Josh and I were both involved in the consent decree

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:57:38

So the current pipeline, there's abnormalities that have been addressed right now. My understanding of the pipeline is there's an inert gas pressurized in the pipeline right now? Is that correct? Correct. So the pipeline is free from leaks as it stands

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:57:53

today? It would be free from leaks from putting hazardous liquid into the environment. I mean if it were to develop a hole or leak It would allow nitrogen to release into the atmosphere. The operator would have to give you that specific locations where it would, but as

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:58:13

our understanding it is in nitrogen and that would be the equation. Thank you. The pipeline is also holding pressure under nitrogen which would mean that not being nitrogen And I

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role1:58:31

could just comment on that. I think that's good for the public to understand, because I think there's this vision out there that these corroded pipes that are underground and that they would you know as soon as something any kind of fluid would be in there that they'd be leaking out but if it's holding pressure that seems to me that that makes sense that it's intact.

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated1:58:46

And before liquids would be introduced the operator would be required to provide us analysis and testing and proof that the line would hold liquids thank you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:58:59

It's not been here. Mine is for staff, I'm sorry thanks again for being here you answered a lot of really good tough questions thank you. Thank you for having us. Thank you we're probably not done with you afterwards. No right now I am. We're good yeah please don't leave. You're going to lunch all right my questions for staff on again let's go back to 13 slide 13 if we could from the staff presentation In the staff response, the last bullet item says that PPC does have a vested right to restart and the county does not have authority over construction operation of pipeline. So can you kind of explain the vested right to restart?

Like where does that come from and what actually does that mean?

1:59 – 2:1714 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:59:54

Mister chair and supervisor let me know. So when the county granted its permit originally to operate to construct and operate pipeline they gave the operator of the authority to operate the line There are some statements that contemplate a disruption in the service, but it doesn't have any specifics about the county granting the authority to restart. There's nothing within the permit itself that says the county has the authority to say yes or no on whether or not the operator is able to restart the line.

So it's inherent in the permit that allows them to operate that they could restart the line without having to come actively to the county to ask if they can do that.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:00:38

Okay. So even in the case of a spill, they still would have the vested right that's not contemplated or it's not discussed in the permit?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed2:00:45

Correct.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:00:45

Okay so then it just becomes a legal matter I'm assuming at that point somebody has a vested right we're saying you're not allowed to exercise that right and they have legal recourse at that point I'm assuming Yeah. OK. All right just wanted to clarify that thank you. Supervisor Caput.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:01:06

I'm going to double down on that clarification because I think it's really important for us. So because I understand the fire marshal would have a chance to review safety plans if there was a restart application but these are local decisions these are local people local damages local economics local pollution would we get that opportunity or is this an opportunity?

It's a process question that I don't have the answer to.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:01:35

I think that would be a B and D question not a fire marshal question

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated2:01:40

so. So I'm going to defer this one

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:01:45

so we were involved when we were involved in the drafting of the consent decree there is An ability for the operator to apply to restart. It does not necessarily mean that it will be restarted, right? They would still have to demonstrate as chief officer noted. To us that it could be operated and hold liquid right and do so safely. That is memorialized in the consent decree that they can submit a restart plan to us they can do.

Applications as a state waiver is noted in the staff's presentation. That does not necessarily mean that they are guaranteed to get it restarted right so I think that's important to understand right is that they have the right to attempt to restart it. They do not have the right just to restart it. Did that help?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:02:32

It does help, thank you. But why would you put in valves if you're not planning on restarting? I mean that's not for you to answer but that's potentially for the applicant but... Again, you don't need valves if there's no flow.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:02:45

We don't currently have flow. If you want to establish flow, you would need the valve. Thank you. Yes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:02:53

Okay, I think we're ready to go on to the appellant presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:02:58

Thank you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:02:58

and please don't go anywhere.

PresenterDawn SestitoPacific Pipeline CompanyProposedself-stated2:03:31

Good morning, Chair Williams and members of the board. My name is Dawn Sestito and I represent Pacific Pipeline Company, The Appellant. With me today are Brian Carlin, Andrew Craig and Steve Gregg. So I want to start by thanking you and thanking staff for your time and diligence already. And I want to thank the Office of the State Fire Marshal for being here today as well.

So we're here today to talk about AB 864. It requires best available technology to reduce the amount of oil released in the event of an oil spill. You heard the fire marshal talk about that. Reduce the volume of the spill. It's required for active pipelines. These pipelines are active. And Chair Williams, this is your bill and I think we all agree that it's very very important.

It was widely supported. Gaviota Coast Conservancy supported So did the Environmental Defense Center, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors and the Coastal Commission. And there was a question about whether if these safety valves had been on the pipeline would that have reduced the spill back in 2015? And Chair Williams you said that it would happen. You said that the impact of that 2015 oil spill would have been far less if the pipeline had automatic shutoff valves back then.

So the California legislature made the state fire marshal responsible for deciding what best available technology is under AB 864. And here's the statute, you can see the code up there. So best available technology includes but is not limited to and it lists things leak detection technologies automatic shutoff systems remote controlled sectionalized block valves or any combination of these technologies includes that is not limited to so that means it's a combination of technologies as you heard but it doesn't have to require valves So here's the current pipeline, and these are the valves that are currently on it. The yellow squares in the yellow diamonds.

And then on the right you can see the valves that we're asking you to approve today. They're green, the green squares in the Green Diamonds and you can see there's a whole lot more of them especially down by the coast to provide that extra protection that was intended by AB 864. And here's some background, a timeline of how we got to where we are today. So note that we asked for permission from the county, Santa Barbara County back in 2021 and then we're here today. Note also that safety valves have already been improved in San Luis Obispo and Kern County.

So now we're gonna talk about the Planning Commission's findings. So this is a summary of their denial findings. We've put them into two buckets And we're going to talk about the first. So this finding relates to the pipeline's coastal development permit, and it incorrectly concludes that the proposed valves are incompatible with the viewshed because certain valves will be visible along the Gaviota Coast.

So again here are the valves. But we need to focus on the ones in the coastal zone. So, in the coastal zone there's one check valve and six motor operated valves. And this is the only portion of the pipeline where the Coastal Development Permit applies and so these are the only valves that are subject to this first finding. So this is a check valve. The Planning Commission should not have denied this one because you can see the check valve is completely underground and it has absolutely no impact on coastal views whatsoever.

And as for the six motor operated valves in the coastal zone, an expert analysis confirmed that the valves were carefully cited to minimize visibility in compliance with the Gaviota Coast Plan. And as you can see in that photo there's already industrial infrastructure along the Gaviota coast. So this expert analysis concluded that no valves would be visible from any public vista point, any recreational location. And at most there would be four MOVs visible from Highway 101 for a matter of seconds when driving at a high rate of speed and two of the above ground valves would not be visible at all.

So there's no evidence to the contrary in this finding cannot stand. So now let's go to the second finding or the second group of findings. So here the Planning Commission found that the addition of safety valves to the pipeline would be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare. But rather than focus on the valves, the Planning Commission looked at the entire pipeline using assumptions not evidence about its condition and safety.

You've heard County Council and staff say that you're not supposed to do that. You're not supposed to look at the totality of the pipeline, what we're here today is on the valves. And the county indeed is legally preempted from evaluating pipeline safety. That is solely within the jurisdiction of the Office of the State Fire Marshal. So these are the rest of the findings but they are the same.

So what the planning commission should have focused on and what we're asking you to focus on is the addition of safety valves. As the fire marshal explained, if there ever were a pipeline failure these valves would reduce the spill volume significantly and that would improve the county's health safety comfort convenience in general welfare. That was the whole purpose of AB 864 to make pipelines safer And remember that AB 864 is required for any active pipeline. And what has to be installed is the best available technology, so the technology has to be available.

So we know that these safety valves that were proposing are available in San Luis Obispo and Kern County because they've already been approved. So the question for you today is will these valves be available in Santa Barbara County? So if you want safety valves on this pipeline This is your chance to approve them today, to give us permission to put them on.

If the appeal is denied and safety valves are not available within Santa Barbara County, PPC will have no choice but to consider other options to comply with AB 864. So this is a chart here, and we got this information on the right from Public Records Act requests. So what this chart shows on the left is the pipeline in question, the one that we're here to talk about. And on the right are four other pipelines that we got information about like I said from PRA.

And what this shows is what technologies were approved by the fire marshal for an AB 864 compliance plan? So the four pipelines on the right, you can see the Xs. They don't have automatic valve closures and they don't have additional valves. And those AB 864 plans were approved by the fire marshal. So we're proposing to include automatic valve closures and additional valves in addition to advanced leak detection, additional instrumentation, and the existing valves that are there.

But if this appeal is not successful, if we don't get permission from the Board of Supervisors to put these valves on then we'll have to submit an alternate plan to try to comply with AB 864. And we'll have to do that without automatic safety valves in Santa Barbara because they won't be available here. You will have told us no you can't put them on. So we'll have to do a risk analysis. We'll have demonstrate using these other technologies that we can meet the requirements of AB 864 And that alternate plan, if it doesn't include changes to the permit. If it doesn't include physical disturbance like the additional valves being installed won't require county approval so we won't have to come back to the Board of Supervisors for that approval.

We'll have to get fire marshal approval of course. So there's been already been some questions about restart. As you've heard, restarts not why we're here today that's not asking for permission for if you support the valves today that's not a vote for restart it's it's a vote for safety and making sure this pipeline is as safe as possible if it restarts As the Fire Marshal said, the pipelines are going to have to satisfy specific safety criteria before they possibly can be restarted. That's all set forth in a consent decree and that consent decree is related directly to these lines so it's specific to these lines it has specific requirements it's overseen by the Office of the State Fire Marshal and we put some of them up on this slide And they're going to be overseen by the experts in pipeline safety and those individuals at the Office of the State Fire Marshal are going to ensure that the pipelines are sound if they're ever restarted.

Here's a copy of the actual consent decree, there are the signatories to it on the side including PHMSA and OSFM. It provides a path to restart. It applies to this specific pipeline, a path to restart for this pipeline that path addresses pipeline integrity concerns and it was signed by all of these agencies and approved by a federal judge. Before it was signed, Gaviota Coast Conservancy and EDC commented to the judge. And do you know what they said? They said that they wanted, they demanded automatic valves on any new replacement or restarted line. So if this line is ever restarted, they told the judge, they should have automatic safety valves. And that is exactly what we're here today. That's exactly what we're asking your permission to put on the lines.

So outside the scope of this proceeding, and outside the authority of the county is pipeline integrity. But I want to address a couple of things because the Planning Commission's findings touched on it. So first after the release in 2015, the ruptured portion of the line was repaired. I think you heard that from the Office of the State Fire Marshal. The lines are filled with nitrogen which is an inert gas And they're actively monitored, they're holding pressure and they have been for years. And again you heard that from the fire marshal. They're holding pressure there's no holes in the lines right now.

As for cathodic protection the system remains intact it's actively monitored and maintained as required by the project description. And those are the requirements there from the project description So now I'm going to turn to CEQA. So we covered CEQA in detail on our written submission, so I'm not going to just address it at a high level here but we agree with staff that there's no CEQAs compliance concerns with installing safety valves again the question that were here today to talk about.

So only one exemption is needed to avoid sequel review and CEQa contains a statutory exemption that relates specifically to valves and it applies to projects that are less than eight miles in length It squarely applies here because the individual valves are very small and all together, all of the valves are less than a quarter mile in length. When a statutory exemption applies, the legislature deems the work exempt from CEQA so it's not a matter of interpretation legally there can be no CEQ review and the CEQ analysis stops right here.

And the state previously said the same thing. So this is during rulemaking for the regulations and what the state said there was a question about whether the AB 864 compliance would require additional CEQA review, and the state said no those would be covered by the eight mile CEQAs exemption and other exemptions to CEQa. But there's more categorical CEQA exemptions that apply here too. So existing facilities, a pertinent structures and small structures we discuss these in detail on our submission and remember we just need one of these four exemptions to apply.

And there's not really any serious dispute that the valves fit into these exemptions. The opponents instead point to exceptions to these categorical exemptions and our letter submission explains why those exceptions do not apply. So again for CEQA to apply you would have to deny all four exemptions that we discussed. Legally that would be improper, you can't do that but even if you did full CEQ review is not appropriate so the valves are to be added to a previously approved active pipeline and so the project review any project review has to reflect the baseline conditions that were in the originally approved EIR and the county doesn't have discretion To apply a different baseline. So the only possibly appropriate environmental review is the addendum that staff already prepared that looked at the incremental impact from valves and of course, that impact is beneficial because it would substantially reduce the volume of a potential release.

The county cannot use this appeal as an excuse to reevaluate the whole pipeline. It has no discretion to disregard the original EIR which is not expired. That's in fact something the county itself recently argued in court You can see a quote down there. And there's no change circumstances that would warrant additional CEQA review. The original EIR addressed the impacts of air emissions, it addressed pipeline corrosion in fact it addressed oil spills. It contemplated that there could be oil spills in the original environmental review and speculative comments can't be considered substantial evidence of any new impacts.

So for all of those reasons we agree with staff's recommendation. We ask the board please to uphold PPC's appeal and approve

2:17 – 2:2010 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:17:53

the safety valves. Thank you. Are there any questions from the board?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:18:07

Yes, Mr Nelson.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:18:08

Yes thank you Chair Williams. Slide 25 the approved AB 864 retrofit plans Yes. So you identify these pipelines A, B, C and D? Is that for any specific reason?

PresenterDawn SestitoPacific Pipeline CompanyProposedself-stated2:18:22

I think we just did that for confidentiality reasons but they're actually in the papers that are submitted with our submissions so they're in there but we thought

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:18:31

this would be more appropriate. The fire marshal would be familiar with all four of those pipelines? Oh yes. Okay thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:18:40

Any other questions from the board?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:18:44

So normally when the appellant is also the applicant, there is not a counter presentation only through public comment. But I have granted Mr. Capello 10 minutes to make a presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:18:57

Mr. Chair before we move to public comment can we please take a short break?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:19:01

Okay, well we're not going to public comment yet. This is well I guess technically it is public comment but this is a good time to indicate our rules have to respect certain limits of time especially because we have a hearing that is required by the state this afternoon on the truth act And so we do not have time for three minutes a pop. So we're going to do an old John Hartman trick, which is to incentivize folks who are willing to do one minute That will enable other folks to do two minutes. We'll have the one minutes first, you can identify yourself either to the clerk ahead of time that would be very helpful and then the other incentive for that is well you get to go first. The other incentive is I don't have to further reduce time for the other public speakers.

Yes Jacqueline?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:20:08

Chair Williams members of the board. So when we do return from our quick break I think the easiest that would be for us to identify you is when you come to the podium just state your name for the record first and last and that is assuming that you've already submitted a speaker slip to either Leah or myself so I'll just have you state your name for the record and when we come back from the break we'll just have you line up the individuals that want to speak for one minute thank you

2:30 – 2:4333 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:30:07

We're

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:30:08

reconvening and we'll ask our clerk to go through a public comment procedure.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:30:13

Chair Williams and members of the board, yes thank you. As noted prior to our break we are going to take any members of the public who would like to speak for one minute and one minute only first so if you are a member of the public and you would like to speak for one minute if you are on zoom please use the raised hand feature and we will assume that you are going to speak for one minute. If you're in the room if you can please prepare We usually do a line down the middle, but I don't want it to get too crowded. So just if you can just prepare to come up one after that the other and state your first and last name so we can cross you off our list. Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:30:54

And I, I received both requests from Mr. Capello who is the original appellant and represents the original appellants and from Exxon who is the applicant for additional time. I granted them both additional time and I just want to make sure that both parties don't have any objection to granting both additional time Seeing none, I'll let Mr. Capello come up and speak for 10 minutes.

And I'll close public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:31:26

Thank you, Mr. Chairman members of the board. Let me make it quite clear no one's asking you to deny automatic shutoff valves were asking you to delay them by getting an in full environmental impact report that's the problem here. You are the last bastion there is nobody else I don't know who you're going to have standing when this pipeline spills I just watched the Maui Fire guy say, hi. I should have turned on the alarms.

This is the problem right now. Who's the last person standing? And it's gonna be a county employee because if you don't at least address the issue of full EIR and that's what the Planning Commission said. That's what you should do. It boggles my mind that oil companies are here saying, if you tell us we can't put in an automatic shut-off valve, we're going to go do something else. That's not what you're telling them. You're saying no, you're going to put in automatic shut-off valves but you're going to do a full environmental impact report. There is no way you get around the environmental impact analysis. The Planning Commission noted that.

You know, it's interesting when I was in front of the Planning Commission, John Parkey. He said you know what this kind of reminds me of? It reminds me of where I had a horse trailer that had 400,000 miles on his tires and one of the tires blew out and the other three tires were holding air. Well to tell me that this pipeline is holding air and is active doesn't mean it isn't going to blow because the next time we put that trailer on the road one of those other tires is going to blow That's the problem here.

Exxon is not the person that did this to this pipeline, that person is cut and run. It's called planes. And your own district attorney's office had a jury trial and found them guilty of a felony for feloniously maintaining it. It is a Swiss cheese full of holes. And the state fire marshal, yeah that's their job to make sure it gets. Sure that's their job but it's your job as well to make sure the landowners that have this pipeline supposedly on their property are protected as well and that's my clients who are my clients? Let me tell you who they are I gave you three declarations. I could have trotted them all out here with one minute pieces of paper, and I told Chairman Williams that I wouldn't do that. My clients are 133 owners of property including five owners of property that have these valve stations on them.

Mark Tatrum with 276 acres of large cattle and livestock operation. The Rancho Tejigas over 3,000 acres with a valve station on it. The Mathis Gaviota Ranch, over 5,000 acres with a valve station on it. I can list you the names of properties over 150 acres. There's another 10 to 15 of them and here is a list of all of the owners that this is not, this is not a chamber of commerce issue. These are significant citizens of your districts particularly you Mr. Lavinino and you Mr Nelson particularly so. And you know what they say? Here's what they say.

I cooperated back when in 1988 Celeron wanted a pipeline put in, but this is what my easement says and I'm going to read it to you. It is agreed that all rights and privileges herein granted and granted grantee, that's the oil company, shall automatically end, automatically end, and terminate in the event that grantee or its successor and assigns It's been eight years that it hasn't been operated. Not five, eight!

Most of my other clients have three, four or five years in. So about a third of these clients have automatic termination. There is no easements on their property. Now why is that important? You can't put valve stations on their property because those easements have terminated. Does the county mention that? No, the county says well there's litigation and yeah that's a possibility. But I'm telling you specifically that we will not let them on our land.

That we will tie this up in court. That now is the time for this company to do it right. To make sure this pipeline that we know is full of holes, is fixed and done right. There's automatic shut off valves on the pipeline wherever they can. And you know what? There's no rush. What's the rush? Why are we rushing here? Why aren't they doing a full environmental impact report?

Now if you have landowners that I know, listen, I know you know a lot of these ranchers I know you both know them, and these are good people. And they said, I entered an agreement that says it's automatically terminated, and it's automatically terminated. Automatic is automatic. And for you to say, oh well, it's active. That's their story now. That's the new word. It's an active pipeline. That's not what the easement says. It says operate, operate, operate and maintain which they didn't do. They didn't maintain it. They were found guilty of a felony for failing to maintain it.

And by the way is it nice to put on automatic safety valves to cut the amount of oil that spilled? How much litigation did you have? Oh, you're still in litigation with Exxon over the trucking permits aren't you. And why did you deny the trucking permits for Exxon? You didn't right but you know what if that truck spilled if that truck broke and hit the Quiama River Twitchell Reservoir would be full of oil and that pipeline runs right along there and crosses the Quiama River in three separate areas. That's why you need an environmental impact report Where are they going to be doing all the repair work? Where are they going to be doing that? You've got, have you asked that question? Have you asked your staff?

I'm saying this too really. If Exxon walks around and says, we got an automatic shut off valve permit from the county. And that means we have a right to go on your property. That is an inverse condemnation. And you should have it a little chat with your county council about that. That they are using the guys of a permit they got from the county for an automatic safety valve as some sort of land right when they have no land right? That right has expired.

So Why do our clients want this safety valve project done with an EIR? They want it done with an EIR because they wanna be protected. They don't want the oil spill that would hit the property and then ultimately went in the Pacific Ocean. They don't want the oil spill that's gonna destroy their vineyard or their ranch, they don' want it into Quiama River. There was a massive oil spill in 2015 Plains filed an application to build a new pipeline.

What happened to that, by the way? They've now told you in the reports that they filed and they filed one in court just the other day, they're not going to build a new pipeline. So if they're not building a new pipeline, they're going to replace the pipeline. And if they're going to replace the pipeline, they're going to be building automatic shutter valves, new roads, they're going to be repairing the pipeline where there's 80 different anomalies that they have to repair and they're gonna be doing it without any oversight by anybody. Oh no, State Fire Marshal will be looking at the pipeline Not about the digging, not about the chumash, not about the birds and the bees in the environment. They don't look at that. He just told you that.

You do! They do! And what slays me is your county staff is here making a report when they're the ones that wrote the specific findings of the Planning Commission. That says you should be doing an EIR. How do they do that? I don't know how they do that, but that's what they did. The Planning Commission said no we don't agree with your staff report. We want findings on the EIR and they wrote them. Yeah how do I know that?I was in the room.

I saw it happen. So what's going on here? What's the rush? Exxon, they deserve something important for us. They deserve nothing. Why? They're cutting and running. They sold it! They're taking a $2 billion loss, it's in the public documents. They've sold it to another company that's gonna come in here in December and all you have nothing to worry about because we're guaranteeing it they said.

Have you looked at the guarantee? I have. You know how much it is? It's 100 million dollars. Sounds like a lot of money. It cost planes a billion dollars to clean up the oil spill. They paid our clients, the fishermen and the property owners that were despoiled with oil $236 million. A billion dollars to deal with an oil spill. And their Exxon's giving you a hundred million dollar guarantee?

This is about what it's worth, a piece of paper.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:41:44

Thank you that is your time

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:41:46

I could say a lot more, believe me. I got questions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:41:50

Mr. Lavinia? Thank you first off as a former performer myself dude i will book you as an opener anytime that was awesome can i get minimum wage yes i got a question would you indemnify the county you and your by the way I don't have any constituents along there. You've got to look at a newer map.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:42:15

Your Twitchell Reservoir? I don't have

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:42:18

Twitchell Reservoir. They're

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:42:19

mine now. But

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:42:20

anyways, it's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:42:22

okay. That was one of

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:42:24

the minor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:42:24

problems. They drink the Twitchell Reservoir water? Yes

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:42:27

we all do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:42:28

So question is... No, no we don't.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:42:31

Alright. I guess I'll just ask you one question then instead of asking a bunch of them. How'd you get here today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:42:38

How did I get here today? You know what, I'll tell you how I got here today. So in 1960... I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:42:46

don't, I'm not paying you by the minute like your folks do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:42:52

I drove on the same highway to meet Joseph Centeno who is a detective in the Santa Maria Police Department and he and I watched each other's career. Barry come on let's just get to it. And we're in his building and he's spinning in his grave with the stories that He's heard in this.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:43:11

I think you're totally

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:43:12

misrepresenting somebody

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:43:14

from that's no,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:43:14

I know it was

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:43:15

named after so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:43:16

very well

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:43:17

okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:43:18

and the truth was something that was important to him

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:43:20

well very I think it left this room quite a while ago but I guess you're not going to answer the question

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:43:27

I'll withdraw it no no go ahead ask the question I

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.732:43:32

drove Okay, let's proceed with the other public comments

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:43:40

I'm just curious how you got here

2:43 – 2:4917 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:43:48

Chair Williams and members of the board, we have 41 requests to speak on this item and we have a handful of one minute requests to speak on zoom. We are going there first and then we will return to the Santa Maria hearing room will begin with Nathaniel Williams to be followed by Irene Cook Nathaniel.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:44:10

Good

CommentNathaniel WilliamsProposedself-stated2:44:10

afternoon everybody my name is Nathaniel Williams. I also have Hector Carbajal in here We are business agents for Local 250 in Gardena, California. We represent our contractors that do the work for these pipelines and we are asking that you okay this project to make this a safer more cleaner and help your community move forward from this like the 2015 accident that happened so that way we can move forward and get this taken care of for you I just want to say thank you for hearing me out, and we're standing behind Exxon Mobil to move forward on this project. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:44:55

We will now go to Irene Cook to be followed by Catherine Carmichael. Irene?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:45:03

Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:45:07

At many different hearings, I've listened to endless discussion about mumbo jumbo details and regulatory nitpicking about Exxon's business in our county. We can talk about jurisdiction and authority until the cows come home but what it all boils down to is literally fiddling while the planet burns This county has set goals to address the climate crisis, and in 2019 you passed a resolution declaring a climate emergency. But here we are four years later continuing to do business as usual spending taxpayer dollars on staff time for yet another issue with Exxon, the company that has lied to the world for 40 years about climate change that is willing to sacrifice the future of our children and our planet at the altar of corporate greed and profit.

So as a grandmother and a taxpayer, I ask you to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of this application, require an EIR, and start taking bold action to address the climate crisis.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:46:14

Thank you Irene that is your time we will now go to Catherine Carmichael to be followed by Michael Leon. Catherine?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:46:24

Hi can you hear me?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:46:25

Yes we can please proceed

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:46:27

Hi, first of all I wanted to thank all of you both elected and staff. I know that this is a difficult job so thank you for what you do. Exxons and planes request, the use of existing compromised pipeline would pose an extreme risk for future spills due to the massive corrosion and weakening of the pipeline walls. Installing valves will not prevent additional spills since valves do not remedy external corrosion or prevent additional ruptures from occurring. Also, the valves are not required by AB 864 to reduce the spills because the pipeline is non-operational so there's no risk of a spill if there's no oil in it Please let's keep it this way. Let's not put any more oil into these pipes, thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:47:16

We will now go to Michael Leone to be followed by Carol Miller, Michael.

CommentMichael LyonsProposedself-stated2:47:27

Do we have audio?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:47:28

Yes please proceed

CommentMichael LyonsProposedself-stated2:47:30

on behalf of Get Oil Out and its members I'm Michael Lyons board president case of this existing aged and corroded pipeline with pose an imminent Risk of repeat spills. Repeat spills mean more damage to our sensitive and productive coastal resources, and the local economy these resources support. Upgrading the valves on an already failed pipeline assures no one that a future leak or spill will not occur.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:48:03

We will now go to Carol Miller to be followed by Michael Meredith. Hi, can you hear me? Yes we can. Please proceed

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:48:14

yes hi I'm a native Santa Barbara and a small business owner. I just wanted to say that it seems to me like Exxon is operating in a time warp. I believe that you the supervisors exist in 2023 if you were going to do a risk benefit analysis of this, you'd see the benefit would be Lahaina. The risk is a repeat of the 2015 oil spill They have obviously very good lawyers who can tell you how many angels dance on the head of a pin, but I believe that your staff and you can make a counter.

Give them a counter number and I'm not going to pretend that I know how that's done, but just want to say please continue existing in the present and do the right thing. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:49:04

We will now go to Michael Meredith to be followed by McCall Lynch.

2:49 – 2:549 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:49:14

Hello, am I on?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:49:16

Yes you are. If you could just speak loud and clear thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed2:49:19

I urge denial of this appeal. The sole purpose for start for reviving the pipeline is to be able to revive offshore oil drilling. And we have heard the company Threaten if these valves were not approved, they would still restart the pipeline possibly with less safety. We have local regional national goals for reduction of greenhouse gases which are not being met. This is going totally the wrong direction. You have good reasons that you can legally deny this I urge that you do.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:50:17

And we will. We will now go to Michael Lynch, who is our final one minute request to speak on zoom. Then we will return to Santa Maria. Michael Lynch.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed2:50:33

This is Michael Lynch. I request that you do not approve this. AB 864 states necessary requirements, but that doesn't mean that that's sufficient. I don't believe that a 48% reduction is sufficient and certainly not sufficient to make it not necessary to get an EIR update. I totally agree with Mr. Capello that we need a new EIR Especially because electric shutoffs will not work if there's no energy. Even if there's a backup generator, will it kick in soon enough?

All these things affect the EIR. So please have that and require that to be done first. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:51:34

We will now return to Santa Maria for any members of the public who would like to speak for one minute. And if you would like to do so, if you can please in a slow and orderly fashion proceed to the podium one at a time and if you can form a line If you can't stand for an extended period of time, just come up when available. And if you can please state your name first and last for the record.

CommentJoshua StewartProposedself-stated2:52:00

My name is Joshua Stewart. Thank you board members for considering this today as a conserved native Santa Barbara County resident. I urge you to grant Pacific Pipeline their appeal of automating adding and replacing valves because it can only lead to better protection of the environment Santa Barbara County has 414,000 registered vehicles of which 84,000 are trucks. Few people in this county are giving up their vehicles.

According to the Census Bureau data, 144,000 workers in Santa Barbara County average a 20-minute commute to work five days a week. The public transportation system available in Santa Barbara County is inadequate to support eliminating cars. The clean air buses Don't go everywhere and are still not clean on the inside. This county like it or not, is as reliant on fossil fuels as every other county in California.

Pretty pleased with sugar on top vote to grant the appeal and allow Pacific Pipeline Company access to the best available control technology to automate and upgrade their pipeline.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role2:53:14

Thank you

CommentJerry RoundsProposedself-stated2:53:21

Hi, I'm Jerry Rounds from Santa Ynez. And what seems to be what's going on here is that we've got Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown and she pulls it away at the last minute. I don't think that's fair. I was rescuing birds in 1968 from the oil spill I take people up the National Petroleum Reserve to go backpacking for long trips. We use oil to get there, we use oil on our tents, we use oil in our boots, we use oil everywhere. And to borrow an analogy from John Muir, if we do something here it affects the world right here and shutting down oil here which is what this is all about affects the well-being of people throughout the world. Energy has, cheap energy has improved the lives of billions of people and I think not allowing or recognizing our dependence upon oil is nimbyism and I think that is immoral.

Thank you.

2:54 – 3:008 turns

CommentTevin SchmidtProposedself-stated2:54:36

Supervisors, I'm Tevin Schmidt the Watershed Scientist for the Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation. We support the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project. The project does not meet any of the requirements of the CEQA exemptions in which the applicant seeks to avoid environmental review. The restart of oil transportation through lines 901 and 903 poses an immense risk for cultural resources, the environment, economy, and residents of Santa Barbara County.

Even with the proposed safety valves in place, isolated segments of pipeline that experience ruptures could still spill hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil onto the coast, rivers, and our communities. An oil spill caused by these pipelines is inevitable with both pipelines exhibiting dozens of anomalies of 50 to 74% external metal loss from corrosion. Pipelines also transverse the Santa Ynez and Sisquauk Rivers, which host important recovery habitats for Southern Steelhead, California Red-legged Frog, two distinct populations of California Tiger Salamander and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. We are due to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and deny the project outright. Thank you

PresenterKathy VreelandBealton Chamber of CommerceProposedself-stated2:55:45

Good afternoon chair and fellow board members. My name is Kathy Vreeland, I'm here on behalf of the Bealton Chamber of Commerce. I'd like to express our support for the county's staff recommendation to approve this project and allow Pacific Pipeline to install safety valves along the pipeline. A vote against this appeal will send a loud message to the business community That the county does not support existing ordinances which allow businesses in this county to function properly, nor would you be following state and federal laws that allow businesses with existing investments to maintain their assets. This all creates uncertainty in the business community. Our county needs to start allowing companies from all industries to have some assurance they can do business here.

We need to do a better job attracting all kinds of businesses, especially those that provide higher paying jobs. Again your vote to approve Pacific Pipeline's installation of safety valves will show you care about the residents and businesses in this county and that you can follow the existing laws that allow for this project to move forward. Thank you again for your time and consideration today

PresenterHertz Ramirezthousands of men and women that work for the Labor Center National Union of NortProposedself-stated2:56:51

Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Hertz Ramirez and I'm here on behalf of the thousands of men and women that work for the Labor Center National Union of North America Local 220. Just a point of privilege we are the proud owners of a building right down the street from here at 1158 Petareve Avenue so we ask you to come by and visit whenever you like but we need investments. We need investments in the community to provide good paying jobs for working people and this project is one of them We believe not only is it good and environmentally friendly to provide these valves to make sure that the project is done safely, but Pacific Petroleum has also committed to use union labor on the project. And a skilled and trained workforce is probably the best way to get this project done the correct way.

So we ask you that you approve this project as presented. Thank you.

GuestDanny ZaragozaTreasurerProposedself-stated2:57:46

Good morning, Supervisors. My name is Danny Zaragoza and I am the Secretary Treasurer for Laborers Local 220. We represent over 2300 hardworking men and women that actually are going to live in the county that this project is going to take place which is Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Kern counties. We are hoping that you know the board will approve the project. The new valves will enhance and improve the safety of the pipeline in our county Furthermore, Pacific Pipeline has agreed to using experienced local union labor for the projects. These jobs will provide middle class income or higher.

Also too will provide healthcare for their families and give hardworking men and women the ability to save for their future. Lino Local 220 agrees with the county staff's analysis and recommendation to approve the project. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:58:39

Good

CommentLeah BraitmanProposedself-stated2:58:40

afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Leah Braitman and I'm from beautiful Lompoc. I'm sorry that you have to make this choice. I am sorry that we'll all never get the two hours of our life back that we've spent. All because of these poor oil suits they didn't get their way. Because the fossil fuel industry, these oil suits, they had a choice over 50 years ago.

They knew that their product was faulty, that it would screw up the planet And these greedy expletives, they chose profit over us. They continue to choose profit over us. So if they were smart, they probably could have found a more lethal non-lethal product 50 years ago. They could have made money off of it but they didn't. So just in case you have only been watching conservative media, it's the hottest year on the planet.

There are bigger storms, duh hurricanes right? The Alps are crumbling! The Alps are crumbling so glaciers are disappearing and regardless of what some people say Lahaina wouldn't have burned without climate change So yeah, Steve. You can vote no on this project and trust me these suits are going to be back they're gonna be back in like an hour so please please choose to make it harder on these guys not easier

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:00:01

thank you that is your time

CommentLeah BraitmanProposedself-stated3:00:03

and I drove here in a Prius

3:00 – 3:0516 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:00:07

let the record show that she flipped me off when she said that

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:00:13

And if that

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:00:14

I will just intervene

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:00:16

on an asphalt road by the way,

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:00:17

thank you. That intervene in that our rules do not provide for those types of symbols nor do they we they provide for clapping or booing or things if somebody says something that you really agree with you can go like this.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:00:37

And if that concludes all requests to speak for one minute, it appears that we might have one additional speaker for one minute. Jonathan Ullman I see your hand is raised. Oh, that was for 1 minute so we will go. OK, we'll go back to zoom for Jonathan for one minute.

PresenterJonathan Allman I'mSanta Barbara Ventura CR club chapter just as Barry has clients I am representinProposedself-stated3:01:06

I'm sorry, I pre-raised my hand for the three minutes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:01:14

Jonathan there is no three minutes. There's only two minutes or one minute so you can well we'll go in order with the two minutes of folks who signed up Madam Clerk.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:01:35

Chair Williams and members of the board, we will return to Zoom with Grant Bigsby to be followed by Anna Eisenberg. Grant?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:01:48

Hi I'm a coastal California real

CommentAnna EisenbergProposed3:01:50

estate broker and a founding member of the Business Alliance for Protecting the Pacific Coast. Uh, we have over 8100 businesses majority in California. Our membership consists of visitors bureaus chambers of commerce realtors associations variety of fishing and surfing associations restaurant tiers hoteliers outdoor retailers all stripes. We all agree that.

Offshore oil and gas is bad for business. Our California coastal economy has over $54.3 billion in economic activity, and it supports over 654,000 jobs. Your decision today is a lot more about than approving a valve replacement. You are deciding whether or not to give a new car to a group of teenagers who've continually crashed their car multiple times. If you give them this new car they will find a way to get the keys and crash again.

The appellant's representative herself today said the pipeline has no leaks quote right now, end quote. Generally speaking pipelines don't leak until they do and in your own mission statement as a Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors you say we deliver exceptional services so all can enjoy a safe healthy and prosperous life that's all of us We are pro-business, but sometimes we have to make a choice between what types of jobs to support. BAPAC asks that you deny the appeal. The economic and environmental downside of a restart to the Santa Barbara Coast is too great.

It's time to turn the page

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:03:19

on offshore oil and gas development. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:03:25

We will now go to Anna Eisenberg to be followed by Mia DiCostanzo. Anna?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:03:36

Good afternoon, Supervisors. Thank

CommentAnna EisenbergProposedself-stated3:03:38

you for letting me comment via Zoom as I did not drive to the hearing today. My name is Anna Eisenberg and I'm an advocacy co-chair of UCSB's Environmental Affairs Board. Thank you all for your time and your careful consideration of this issue. I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's decision against the Pipeline Valve Project. As an out-of-state UCSB student, I've been incredibly lucky to experience the unique natural beauty the Santa Barbara area has to offer.

With the increasing threat of climate catastrophe it's becoming less and less clear what our future in these outdoor spaces will look like. As demonstrated by the events of the 2015 Refugio oil spill, the current state of the pipeline is highly uncertain and likely very dangerous. Its further use could threaten the valuable ecosystems, landscapes and human lives that rely on a healthy environment.

The addition of valves to the pipeline is simply not enough to ensure it will operate safely, and this piecemeal approach is a deliberate attempt to use state law to avoid developing a fully comprehensive plan. Because the most recent EIR was produced nearly 40 years ago, it fails to consider many critical factors including but not limited to this catastrophic oil spill and the current condition of the pipeline.

In this age of expanded scientific knowledge and intensifying environmental challenges we have a unique opportunity to ensure that our infrastructure is designed with the most current and complete information in mind. Our future depends on the measures we take to preserve our environment right now This essential work begins today by upholding the Planning Commission's decision and preventing the applicant from restarting this outdated and unreliable pipeline without informed oversight.

Again, I urge you to uphold the previous decision and support the property owner's appeal. Thank you so much for your time.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:05:18

We will now go to Mia DeCostanzo to be followed by Jennifer Stein. Mia?

3:05 – 3:1014 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:05:28

Hello, my name is Meeti Costanzo

CommentJennifer SteinProposed3:05:30

and I'm a student at UCSB and a part of the advocacy team within the Environmental Affairs Board on campus. The county supervisors should uphold the existing decision against the installation of valves along the pipeline. The applicants have deliberately split what should be a comprehensive restart plan into piecemeal issues based on technicalities creating confusion over who owns the pipeline, who will operate it and if that final operator is capable of maintaining a line that has already passed its planned lifespan.

In the midst of a worldwide attempt to transition away from fossil fuels we employ the county supervisors to use their vote in favor of a more sustainable future Meaning one that does not rely on outdated and failing technology as a source of energy. Moreover, all marine life, human safety and the quality of the ocean will be at risk if these valves are installed along the pipeline. Not to mention the fact that the local fishing industry which brings millions of dollars in job opportunities into the local Santa Barbara community each year would suffer when oil inevitably spills from the outdated infrastructure in place as it did following the spill in 2015.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize the intrinsic value that nature holds. And that is our responsibility to protect our environment whenever it may come under threat. Our region has already been impacted by a wildfire and a hurricane in the same week. And yet the fossil fuel industry continues to pollute our environment and threaten our climate. We ask you to stand with us and the Planning Commission to vote to support our oceans, environment and safety against this proposal.

Thank

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:07:07

you. We will now go to Jennifer Stein to be followed

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:07:12

by Robin Bizzio. Jennifer.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:07:25

Jennifer it appears you might not be connected to a microphone I am trying to allow you to talk. Oh there

CommentJen SteinProposedself-stated3:07:33

you go.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:07:35

Please proceed.

CommentJen SteinProposedself-stated3:07:36

Thank you. Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Jen Stein and I'm an Advocacy Chair for UCSB's Environmental Affairs Board. Thank you for taking the time to carefully consider this issue. I urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's decision against the pipeline valve project. It is very clear that the only reason the Pacific Pipeline Company is working so hard to get these valves approved is because they are planning to restart the pipeline as-is without further county oversight It would be a waste of time and money to install valves on a non-operational pipeline that was not intended to be reactivated.

Sable Offshore Corporation, the company planning to buy and operate this pipeline, stated in an investor presentation filed with the SEC that they plan to be operational by January 2024. That is four months from now giving Exxon and Sable no time to fully repair the old corroded vine. We have heard that the pipeline is currently holding pressure despite this corrosion, but do we really believe it will continue to do so for the next 40 years? This process is being conducted one piece at a time through multiple companies. Plains All-American, Pacific Pipeline Company, Exxon, Sable. It is unclear who will have ownership, who will operate it and who will be held accountable. Exxon does not want to retain outright ownership because they don't want to be held accountable when another spill inevitably happens So entirely new entities have been created to absorb the liability.

The county should demand a comprehensive plan from the final operating company before making a decision that conflicts with the Planning Commission. How can we approve this valve project if we don't even know who is going to be responsible for it and how they will operate? Once again, I strongly urge you to uphold the Planning Commission's decision against the Pipeline Valve Project. Thank you so much for your time!

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:09:21

And unfortunately it appears Robin has locked off of Zoom so we are going to Sharon Broberg to be followed by Jonathan Ullman. Sharon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:09:39

Sharon please proceed.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:09:44

Sharon you are very quiet if you can move a little bit closer to your microphone and speak loud and clear

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:09:52

Okay, that's better.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:09:53

That is a little bit better yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed3:09:55

Oh okay I'm a business owner in Santa Barbara and I urge you to deny this project replacing valves is the quick fix we cannot afford. The pipeline is outdated corroded and dangerous others have or will go into detail much more specifically about what's going on with the pipeline I'm also concerned about the transfer of ownership and the likelihood that Sable's will be in a bill, will not be able to cover any future spills or decommissioning costs.

Thank you.

3:10 – 3:1711 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:10:38

We will now go to Jonathan Ullman who is our final speaker on Zoom and then we'll return to Santa Maria with Janet Blevins.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:10:49

Hi, how's this?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:10:52

We can hear you please proceed.

PresenterJonathan Allman I'mSanta Barbara Ventura CR club chapter just as Barry has clients I am representinProposedself-stated3:10:53

Great thank you my name is Jonathan Allman I'm the director of the Santa Barbara Ventura CR club chapter just as Barry has clients I am representing my client today which is one Miss Leah Allman my daughter I'll get back to her in a moment and why she's relevant. But first, I want to say that the multi-billion dollar Exxon Oil Company is not looking out for this community. It's looking out for its corporate profits. The only ones who can stop this are the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.

The Exxon is a main contributor of carbon dioxide in Santa Barbara County. By allowing this pipeline to restart, you are setting off a carbon bomb. I'm dropping off my daughter Leah Ullman today at FSU Florida State University. This week it's been 100 plus degrees here every day in Tallahassee. It's not supposed to be this hot even in Florida The students are drenched walking from building to building. I have no other recourse but to ask for those who have power, utilize their power to stop climate change because we cannot continue on this way and I'm representing my client Leah Allman.

Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors unlike in Florida where the governor doesn't believe in climate change You do, and you can back up your values which you've stated on many occasions with action. Reject Exxon's appeal. Santa Barbarans, Californians of the world are watching so is the national press. You've received hundreds of comments opposing this appeal.

The residents of this community are opposed and the world is burning up. So the question now is what will you do?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:13:00

Thank you, that is your time. We will now return to Santa Maria with Janet Blevins to be followed by Andy Caldwell. Janet?

CommentJanet BlevinsProposed3:13:09

I had this made about 12 years ago. I was hoping I'd never need to use it again but I am using it again. Exxon Corporation lies! And lies and lies 40 years ago they knew exactly where our climate would be right now. They predicted it 40 years ago they knew it exactly their predictions are perfect and we are going to trust them never Never, never can we trust Exxon because they lie.

And rather than teach the public and improve their processes and try to come up with some sort of energy that would not kill us, they decided to continue to lie about what they knew and what our climate would be like in the year 2023. I started fighting oil in this county years ago when my granddaughter wasn't even alive yet. And when I went to the county page, they had nothing but offshore oil on the map. Nothing but offshore oil on the map. But I knew that there were hundreds of oil wells in the North County on land. There was not a map that existed for that.

Until I raised all kinds of cane at the county and oh, then they produced a map. Thank you. I cannot believe that in the year 2023 with temperature bombs dropping all over us with over 100 million trees in our state dead from beetles and extreme temperature and fire And all the other ways that we are ruining our climate. Please do the responsible thing and do not place valves on the pipeline which would only the only purpose would be to restart the pipeline. Thank you. That is your time.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:15:28

We will now go to Andy Caldwell to be followed by Dustin Hoise.

CommentI've seen thisProposedself-stated3:15:36

Chair Williams members of the board I'm confused. Is this a public hearing or a hostage negotiation? Think about it. Supervisor Williams you sponsored the bill with Hannah Beth Jackson. That requires these valves to be placed in these lines. Environmental Defense Center and Gaviota Coast Conservancy demanded that the safety valves be included. So we have a state law We have an exemption from CEQA.

And we're going to be the only county that denies them. That's Twilight Zone material. Supervisor Williams you've you have demonstrated to me and our members in by the way between San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara we have a couple of thousand members that are supporting this project that own most all of the land on the Central Coast And the fact of the matter is as you've said you'd be practical.

You'll be a practical environmentalist that doesn't just say no. The startup of the plants not before you today. You know should not even be able to talk about that and your deliberations or findings what's before you today is whether this state mandate that you authored will be enforced By not denying them the permit but by requiring them. To put those

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed3:17:06

valves in. That's the law and you wrote it. What are you going to do? You know, the bottom line

CommentI've seen thisProposedself-stated3:17:17

here is this is all about safety. And that then large number of the valves are in that coastal zone which is where we want them to be. Because you know the fact of the matter is And nobody wants to talk about this if you want to talk real air pollution. Let's talk about the oil seeps and what happens that drilling reduces those seats. This actually could be a net air quality benefit and we all know that but again it's not in the record why is that please do the right thing and vote in accordance with the law you sponsored thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:17:54

We will now go to Dustin Hoyseth to be followed by Seth Steiner Dustin.

3:18 – 3:248 turns

PresenterDustin HoisetzSanta Barbara South Coast Chamber of CommerceProposedself-stated3:18:05

Hello Chair Williams and members of the board. My name is Dustin Hoisetz with the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce, with business members from Gleda to Carpinteria. I just want to clarify in an earlier comment that this is not a chamber of commerce issue. As a chamber staff member I take my responsibility to represent local business interests seriously and to me this is not an oil issue it is a business issue which makes it a chamber of commerce issue I'm here today to talk about consistency and an equitable process. The Chamber and local businesses place a great value on consistency from our government. To maintain a thriving business community, it is important that businesses go into these processes knowing that if they comply with federal state and local regulations they will be treated fairly and that local jurisdictions will strive to maintain consistency with federal and state regulations Today's decision to approve or deny the pipeline valve upgrade project will highlight the county stance on consistency and an equitable process.

I'll skip ahead to save some time, the chamber is concerned about the message denial of this project would send to businesses within the county as well as businesses considering new operations here. The investment that has been made into the process to arrive at today's meeting has not been insignificant. Other businesses may feel apprehensive about operating here if the county's process appears to lack objectivity and impartiality.

Approval of the pipeline valve project appears to be the best option for Santa Barbara County going forward in terms of transparency, objectivity and consistency. Potentially denying this project on the grounds of not supporting oil flowing through the pipeline is not within the parameters of this discussion. Please approve the pipeline valve upgrade project in the interest of maintaining a consistent and equitable process. Thank you all for your time.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:19:50

We will now go to Seth Steiner to be followed by Marisa Sullivan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed3:19:58

Williams word. Before I launch into my 6.23 AM prepared remarks, I'd like to say something that came up earlier today. It seems that the staff and the applicant talk about a 48% potential reduction in the maximum spill or leak What's. It's puzzling and not comforting to talk about percents when what we're really interested in is it 48 percent of 10,000 gallons 100,000 gallons a million gallons ten million gallons that would be more pertinent This old pipeline has neither been fully inspected nor repaired since its big spill, and it's not needed for energy independence.

The long list of Exxon's disastrous accidents continues to grow wherever it operates and regardless of its assurances. Will my wife and I ever again be able to walk on Refifio Beach without getting Exxon tar on our feet? This company always finds ways to avoid responsibility for full cleanup and full restoration. It's slick, legal maneuvers leave us and our environment To pay. Exxon's proven deceit in lying for decades about its role in climate change exposes it as fundamentally untrustworthy.

And it continues to try to subvert our local and national carbon goals. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision, and don't be party to another catastrophic spill. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:22:04

We will now go to Marisa Sullivan to be followed by Larry Bishop. Marisa?

CommentMarisa SullivanProposedself-stated3:22:14

I think I said good morning when I first wrote this, but now we're in the afternoon. So good afternoon supervisors and the rest of the people I share this land and time with at this time today My name is Marisa Sullivan. I am the vice chair currently for the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation We are composed of close to 2,500 people and our ancestral territory was the I believe you have to excuse me right now. I'm a little nervous but Malibu going north up to what is the San Luis Obispo out to the Channel Islands and inland into the Kern area so this kind of thing directly affects our people There are other Chumash people besides who I represent, so I want to make that clear. I was listening earlier and I can appreciate the resolutions that were passed by the supervisors at the beginning of the meeting including the one for the city of Lompoc which had a few sentences acknowledging that the Chumash people were here for over 10,000 years Sometimes we don't even get that so that was kind of nice.

We also heard about the efforts put out by the fire departments and first responders in a beautiful community of people that pulled together in the recent happenings of the fire that they all had to respond to. You acknowledge the League of Women Voters, that continue to provide a voice for women historically. You acknowledge the mothers who breastfeed their babies and in this spirit of hope I would like to have us think about the future in the present Of the hope of all those mercy. The nursing mothers who've actually gone home now but that the world that they brought their babies into will be the one that they'll be able to survive in given that we've reached a point in our time that the effects of global warming have passed and we're well into global boiling as I heard not too long ago.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:24:32

Thank you. That is your time.

CommentMarisa SullivanProposedself-stated3:24:33

So please remember that there's what gets you know decided in this room right now has a long term effect for such as the babies that we saw earlier. That's what I would like to say thank you all.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:24:50

We will now go to Larry Bishop to be followed by Brady Bradshaw Larry.

3:25 – 3:315 turns

PresenterLarry BishopcountyProposedself-stated3:25:01

Good afternoon, I'm Larry Bishop. I drove here in an electric vehicle today and a retired hazardous materials specialist with the county. Our county produces plenty of climate killing oil right now. Please deny the ExxonValve project appeal to restart the use of their deteriorated oil pipelines. This pipeline passes within two blocks of my house in Honhoniata, what we settlers call Beelton. And has already been the source of an intentional large gas release at midnight in our neighborhood over five years ago.

By this release by Pacific Petroleum Services was sickening and kept our families, and many other neighbors awake all night. Exxon and its partners have failed to legally monitor and maintain these pipelines for the last 35 years, leading to the 2015 Rufufio deadly oil release. This valve project is in direct opposition to the goals of our climate action plan and will delay the county's efforts to reduce atmospheric carbon. Exxon knew since the 1970s our fossil fuel industry causes deadly worldwide damage to our climate. They knew the burning of their product causes massive death and destruction worldwide and continues.

Knowing this now, why on earth would you allow Exxon to increase their unsafe production of fossil fuels? Thank you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:26:34

We will now go to Brady Bradshaw to be followed by Julie Enzi

PresenterBrady BradshawCenter for Biological DiversityProposedself-stated3:26:42

Thank you, Chair Williams and Supervisors. My name is Brady Bradshaw. I'm a campaigner with the Center for Biological Diversity. I am here to ask that the Board denies Exxon's appeal. Regarding how I got here today, I'd like to thank Exxons for leading a successful climate misinformation campaign for much longer than I have been alive, successfully delaying and stopping alternatives to oil and gas, and creating conditions where we've all been forced to remain reliant on oil and gas until now.

Regarding the valve upgrades, I don't think the valves should be called safety valves. Would a seatbelt help somebody in a car that's sinking into a lake? In both cases these things provide only a false sense of security. Approval of this permit would likely terminate the county's oversight of a highly dangerous pipeline proposal that would impact Santa Barbara for decades.

We need to consider what will happen again when this same pipeline is filled with the same heated oil not nitrogen gas eight years after rupturing We need to consider that the current approval process may not protect us from another spill. The valve installation project will lead to the production of oil on a currently non-operational and highly compromised pipeline. You are not obligated by AB 864 to help Exxon piecemeal their way to another disaster.

And it's insulting to the people of this county that Exxon assumes that they are entitled to risk another spill. We know that corrosion happens over time, and this is especially true for subsea sections of pipeline. One offshore study shows that after 20 years, the probability of failure increases by 10% to 100% per year. The offshore platforms are now over 50 years old.

So this kind of failure risk has already been increasing for over 30 years and culminated in one terrible spill already. And the inability of the pipeline to operate safely is detailed on the PHMSA report. The impacts resulting from the valve installations and subsequent restart are the county's concern, and the county has a moral obligation to deny the project that could even possibly contribute to the restart of a pipeline that is tragically proven to be highly dangerous.

Please support the Planning Commission's well-informed decision to deny the valve installation project and do not allow Exxon to get away with this deceptive piecemealing of a highly dangerous project. Thank you.

CommentJulie HenzeProposedself-stated3:29:14

Hi, I'm Julie Henze. I live two hours south of here got up early and carpooled with other people to get here. I did the best I could. My husband can remember as a child sitting at the dining room table with five older siblings and two parents all smoking. We know now that was an unhealthy environment. We know now that whole industry is wrong. We know now how much money they have made off of our health, and they did it legally.

So what is the bigger picture here? I can't help but feel like we're talking about a cigarette factory that's in compliance and wants to do all the right things. But so what? Where does this lead us? You know where it leads us. It's death by 1000 cuts and they will tell you that there is no danger here, but we are headed on a path that we may not come back from unless you have the courage to take one step in the right direction.

We have a choice here so I ask The future of our planet. I ask you to think about your children other children. I asked you to think about my husband who had to sit there with no choice because it was legal for his parents to sit there and blow smoke in his face Things change. It's time we make decisions to support a healthy future. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:31:10

We will now go to Katie Davis to be followed by Judy Birch. Katie.

3:31 – 3:387 turns

CommentKatie DavisProposed3:31:17

Katie Davis and I came up here from Goleta in my electric car because I remember that awful devastating oil spill, the stench and the dead animals. And it's the summer without a beach because they were closed. So to remember that. I want to point out that it was the position of this county and the state of California that this line 901-903 should not be restarted and should be abandoned.

Our county district attorney and the state attorney for California went to immense trouble and expense to convict Plains for causing the refugio oil spill. And they asked the judge during sentencing to prohibit restarting 901-903 as a condition of parole, Do that because he said there's no way to jail a corporation, so there's no way to enforce that provision. But that was what this county and the state of California wanted because they knew that pipeline was unsafe.

And Exxon knew that if the pipeline was unsafe, that's why they applied to truck oil. That's why they've applied for a new pipeline. That's why they are creating this separate limited liability blank check company to actually run it so they can avoid liability cuz they know it's unsafe. The original pipeline EIR was certified in 1985. If you were to approve this project, you would have to rely on that EIR.

You would have to find that restarting this corroded pipeline is the safest alternative it was thought to be back in 1986. You would have to find that there are no change circumstances in the last 38 years. That's what Exxon just said, no change circumstances. But we have climate change, we have the changed circumstance that there's 40 to 50 year old platforms that were designed to last 25 years that you would be restarting. So you cannot rely on that old EIR and I want to point out how unpopular offshore oil is 72% of Californians nearly everyone I want to

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJudy BirchProposed3:33:38

Hello, everybody. I am not as good a speaker as everybody that's been up here but I'm going to try because I want to support what I believe in. I don't trust Exxon and a lot of oil companies for good reason. Thinking back to the Exxons Valdez one thing there the iceberg monitoring radar was broken over a year before that happened and they knew it And they did nothing about it, just like they knew about climate change. And they didn't do anything about that and lied to us.

And they never made people whole from that. The salmon fishermen that paid $300,000 for a salmon signers permit had to sell in 1994 for $47,000. They lost, they spent $300,000 and only got $47,000 when they sold the permit. So they don't make people whole after it and they haven't done I mean it's been two decades that they've been still fighting what they were supposed to pay.

And as far as this pipeline, it can't be made safe because it's corroded and putting a nice pretty shiny valve on a corroded pipeline doesn't do any good anyway. So I know they said you can't disapprove of the valves but you can. That's our only chance to stop the eventual pipeline that they're going to try to start up. Thank you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:35:15

We will now go to Jane Baxter to be followed by Ken Huff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 29Proposed3:35:22

Thanks for the opportunity to present my views. I support the Planning Commission's decision and urge you to decline this project. I'm concerned with unaddressed inland impacts from restoring the pipeline flow. I am one representative of the nearly 2,000 businesses and residents that depend on the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin for my water supply And I realize that neither Pipeline 901 or 3 traverse my groundwater basin, but the knee bone is connected to the hip bone as they say and any restart flow will flow over the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin.

Approving valves leading to the increased possibility of restarting the pipeline flow without further study would put Santa Maria groundwater at a higher risk. The Santa Maria groundwater issues have changed dramatically since 1986 when the EIR was written, And then, even then inadequately addressed the ancillary impacts of the project on the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. This issue needs to be readdressed in a new EIR that addresses change circumstances in the inland impacts.

Thank you for your attention.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:36:48

We will now go to Ken Huff to be followed by Anna Citron.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed3:36:53

Good afternoon, Chair Williams and members. Ken Huff with the Santa Barbara County Action Network. And we are represented by Environmental Defense Center on this topic and so I draw your attention. Hopefully you've all read the letter that has all of our logos at the top of it, and so I'm not going to try to repeat any of that but. Since that was written and I read it and agreed to sign it, I've read the staff report in detail.

Pretty quickly in the staff report to get to the summary which is that there were staffs recommending. That this be granted and then you go on to read all the appeal issue numbers 1 through 8. And it was a short summary here today, and they're in great length in their report so the staff. It seemed to me made it a very clear case that. The planning commission was within its well within its bounds to do what they did and so it leaves it that's it's It's your choice, you can deny it or not deny it. I urge you to deny it for all the reasons that are in our letter. I'd like to add to what Jane Baxter just said she and I have worked on Santa Maria groundwater basin issues for a number of years and in addition to this pipeline goes over our groundwater basin and it goes up to Koyama River.

Like Mr. Capello said, there's three crossings of the river and you know the other big spill that we had was about three or four years ago when a truck tipped over and spilled 4,000 gallons of crude into the river so this would restarting a pipeline that is so corroded and has these risks You know it could be a lot worse in the Kiyama River than one truck. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:38:53

We will now go to Anna Citrin to be followed by Doug Kern.

3:39 – 3:467 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:39:04

Good afternoon Chair Williams and Supervisors, Anna Citrin with the Law Office of Mark Shutilo representing the Gaviota Coast Conservancy. I carpooled today in an electric vehicle Double points. We are urging you to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of this project. The Commission's denial findings correctly recognize that the valves would be installed on the existing compromised pipeline to enable its resumed use, risking more frequent oil spills.

What is the project here? That question keeps coming up. The project is an amendment to the final development plan and conditional use permit that authorized the construction and operation of the entire pipeline system. In evaluating this amendment, looking at how the actual pipeline would operate with the valves installed is required. It's not just allowed, it's required.

So looking at this in isolation as though the existing line did not exist is just that that's not the right way to look at this. The Planning Commission's denial finding that the project would be detrimental to the health safety comfort convenience general welfare It's squarely within the county's discretionary land use authority. Expert reports, including the PHMSA report, the original EIR for this system, the final damage assessment provides substantial evidence detailing the pipeline's vulnerability to external corrosion and future ruptures and the environmental damage that can occur When external corrosion is unchecked. By contrast here, we have no substantial evidence showing that the pipeline is safe to use with the proposed valves in place.

The county has not been provided with the risk analysis that supposedly underpins this entire project. The county's not been provided with the safety audits that exist. Plains is their PPC has said they're not required to provide those. And to be clear, the county's 1985 EIR assumes an effective liner system and cathodic protection system to protect from external corrosion and did not address the risks and impacts associated with accidental releases when corrosion under insulation has thinned the pipeline wall and rendered cathodic protection ineffective at preventing additional external corrosion. Thank you that is your time. Okay thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:41:34

We will now go to Doug Kern to be followed by Linda Kropp

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:41:37

Doug. Chair

PresenterDoug Kernthe Gaviota Coast Conservancy but as an unwavering advocate for the preservationProposedself-stated3:41:46

Williams, honorable supervisors. My name is Doug Kern. Today I stand before you not just as the executive director of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy but as an unwavering advocate for the preservation of our environment. Gaviota Coast with its captivating landscapes and delicate ecosystems serves as a sanctuary that must be safeguarded for the well-being of future generations.

Our natural resources should be treated as invaluable assets, be passed down with their value unimpaired. History has taught us a somber lesson about the consequences of neglecting our environment. The origins of Earth Day emerged from the aftermath of the Santa Barbara oil spill, a stark reminder that our planet's well-being requires constant attention We bear the responsibility to ensure a healthy legacy for generations that follow us.

The impending revival of the refugio oil pipeline presents a test of our dedication to these principles. As stewards of this land, during a period of human-induced climate change we stand at a pivotal juncture, a choice that echoes the convictions of leaders who have championed environmental conservation Must prioritize careful consideration. Of the potential consequences protecting intricate ecosystems, biodiversity and the inspiration the Gaviota Coast provides.

I urge you to champion the cause of recognizing this Gaviota Coast and the rest of Santa Barbara County as a shared asset, an embodiment of our values and commitment to future generations. Let us honor the legacy of our past leaders that by becoming steadfast advocates of environmental protection. Deny the project

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:44:01

Thank you that is your time. Thanks very much. We will now go to Linda Kropp to be followed by April Zhang who's our final speaker,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 31Proposed3:44:09

Linda. Thank you and it's good afternoon now I'm with the Environmental Defense Center representing EDC Santa Barbara County Action Network and Get Oil Out and we urge the board to uphold the Planning Commission decision and deny the appeal PPC proposes to install valves on a damaged pipeline that spilled approximately 450,000 gallons of oil along 150 miles of California coast. The pipeline remains heavily corroded and has not been repaired.

Installing valves will not prevent another oil spill in the pipeline it's like putting lipstick on a pig. The valves won't fix the pipeline they won't prevent a spill they'll merely tell us that a spill has already happened. The staff report states that the applicant is not proposing to restart the pipeline as part of this request, but the sole purpose. Of the application is to allow restart of the pipeline. The applicant needs to show the office of the state fire marshal that the pipeline includes best available technology before the state will consider its restart request.

If the applicant was not considering restart of the pipeline this whole proposal wouldn't be before your board. The report also states that PPC has a vested right to operate the pipeline however there is no vested right to operate a pipeline that doesn't comply with its permit conditions and this pipeline doesn't because it does not have an effective cathodic protection system that will prevent a spill, that's why a waiver would be required.

Finally, we don't believe that this project is exempt from CEQA but I'm not going to go into that because we're hoping you deny the project and then CEQAs doesn't even apply. In closing the Planning Commission correctly denied the project noting the inherent risks of another spill at most the valves would only reduce the size not a likelihood of a spill A spill half the size of the 2015 spill would still devastate our coast, our economies and our communities. Thank you for your attention.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:46:23

We will now go to April Zhang who is our final speaker.

3:46 – 3:5112 turns

CommentApril ZhangProposedself-stated3:46:32

Good afternoon. For the last time hopefully I carpooled today in a hybrid car. Dear Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, my name is April Zhang. I am an intern at EDC and a current undergraduate student at University of California Santa Barbara. I'm asking the board today to please uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed valve project.

The Planning Commission correctly found that even with the installation of the new valves, there is still a risk of oil spill due to the degradation of the pipeline's integrity that has occurred since it was commissioned in 1994. The insufficient integrity, inadequate inspection intervals, lack of repairs as well as both internal and external corrosions made the risk of an oil spill higher than what was previously approved.

According to the failure investigation report by PHMSA, Plains' cathodic protection system is insufficient to protect thermally insulated underground coastal steel pipeline systems such as Line 901 and Line 903. The external corrosion which the cathodic protection failed to protect the pipelines against was identified as the proximate or direct cause of the oil release.

Not only did Plains not identify this as a risk-driving threat in their integrity management program, they failed to perform suitable analysis of the excavated corrosion anomalies. Plains' field measurements of corrosion anomalies were inconsistent with the inline inspection data and in both times where such inconsistencies were revealed, Plains did not consult the inline inspection vendor to resolve these inconsistencies.

It is a combination of the problematic design, insufficient maintenance and poor monitoring that led to the internal and external corrosion of the pipelines. To this day these problems have yet to be solved. I urge you to not bring us one step closer to restarting the pipeline that brought the community so much pain and suffering in the past. For the health.

Safety. Comfort. And general welfare of over 400000 students and residents like me and like everyone else in this room. I strongly urge that the board deny the valve installation project. That

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:49:05

is your time thank

CommentApril ZhangProposedself-stated3:49:06

you for your time.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:49:10

And that concludes public comment on this item.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:49:15

There any before we go back to staff and the applicant. Is there any

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:49:24

questions from the board in advance? Questions for staff or the

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:49:33

applicant?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:49:38

Supervisor Kaps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:49:40

I was hoping to ask staff a couple of questions of context. I understand that back in 2017 Planes Pipeline, they did have plans to replace the line. What happened to that briefly?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:49:55

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Capps, so in 2017 the former owner planes did submit a permit application to Construct a replacement pipeline or a new pipeline We have been processing that application since 2017 we are currently finishing up the EIR and that Permit remains in process

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:50:18

Okay, thank you and you mentioned EIR that's been brought up a few times from speakers and for this Project. Why wasn't a full EIR done? I understand that the full EIR was 30 plus years ago, is that accurate? And wouldn't it be ideal to have a full environmental impact report on something this massive and with this kind of history and these kinds of implications?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 32Proposed3:50:45

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Capps, so when we reviewed this application and again it's for the installation of the valves we looked to see what you know this project is just that the installation of the valves and where they're placed And so we did prepare, we looked at that and identified that the areas where the valves were going to be placed could be, the environmental review could be completed with what we did was an addendum to the original EIR.

We felt that the project impacts associated with what's being proposed today. Could be covered under an addendum and we also what they call stacked. Environmental documents, we prepared several notice of exemptions which would also apply To the proposed projects as far as existing facilities, small facilities. So it was several environmental documents that we prepared. We did not feel that there was a need to do another EIR or subsequent EIR based on what was the proposal before us and that's the installation of 16 valves in several locations.

3:51 – 3:5923 turns

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:51:55

Again, the valves to be utilized would mean that there'd be oil flow. So you didn't look at what the current environmental impacts would be for current flow. That was not what you looked at.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 32Proposed3:52:09

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Caps, no we did not look at the flow of the entire pipeline. The project before us was the installation of 16 valves in the pipeline.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:52:19

So the environmental impact that's on the record About flow that would put the valves of use is over 30 years old. Is that accurate?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 32Proposed3:52:33

Mr Cherry supervisor caps yes, the EIR the original EIR that was prepared was was I think approved in 1985 thank you. One last, and just one last response. And then in response to the application that we received to replace the pipeline staff has been working with a consultant prepare a new EIR another EIR that would evaluate the impacts of a new line which is located in some areas different locations so we're that's a completely different environmental impact report in response to separate application.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:53:08

Because the belief for that is that if If oil would be flowing through the pipeline through this exact area, one would desire a full environmental impact report. Is that why it's on the new replacement potential?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:53:30

So Mr. Chair and Supervisor Caps the scope of environmental review depends on the project description. So if someone is proposing a brand new pipeline that runs 120 miles staff is going to prepare an EIR for that project.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:53:43

Thank

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:53:44

you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed3:53:47

Supervisor Nielsen.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:53:48

Yes thank you Chair Williams. First question clarification is actually for the state fire marshal sorry to get you up there.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.733:53:56

See I knew I knew one of us would want you back up here

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:54:01

Yeah.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:54:07

Thank you gentlemen. Point of clarification on the presentation by PPC had a list of I think it was slide 25. I don't know if we can bring that up but it was one with the different check marks for the different pipelines and they had identified those A, B, C and D and that there might have been possibly pipelines have been approved without additional valves is that did I Was that an accurate

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated3:54:32

depiction? I think the proper statement would be no additional valves added. So, I believe there was a 20 inch pipeline on there. That line already has existing valves spaced a certain distance apart. It was part of and I don't have the numbers but I'm going by size because I did not see the report but with my knowledge of the systems in the state That particular pipeline has 32 block valves and I think some additional check valves or yeah, check valves that are remotely operated and also can be closed automatically.

Also the operator or the controller which is the person that operates the pipeline has the ability to close them and isolate so it was already segmentized What I believe Pacific Pipeline is offering with their block valves is to segmentize, to minimize the longer sections of pipe. Does that answer your question?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:55:38

I think so. I guess I'm trying to understand... Is it possible for this pipeline without these valves to move forward? It seems like there's been other AB 864 pipelines that may have. So I'm just kind of trying to wrap my brain around if they came back to you with a proposal Using whatever is feasible to them, right? If this board shuts off one of those options for them and they came back with a menu of ways to improve safety on that with what was feasible to them. There might be a possibility that there could be a plan approved.

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated3:56:12

So as we stated earlier every pipeline is unique. Every system is unique so we must look at each one individually Should the board choose to deny. The application the operator then at that time would have the ability to resubmit a proposal to us for a new risk analysis then we would be charged with reviewing it I can't offer you a comment at this time without looking at all the data to say whether we would approve it or disapprove it but that is going to be entirely in the operators realm at that point

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:56:51

Excuse me. I mentioned earlier in response to, I can't remember which supervisor or if it was a chair's question but I mentioned that valves would be required right? That is looking at this current submitted risk analysis right so you know pending an alternative approach from the operator looking at this particular risk analysis it calls for the use of valves to meet best available technology requirements There may be an alternative approach which they could submit down the road assuming there's something that comes to fruition out of this hearing today.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:57:25

Right, it's all hypothetical at this point because we're dealing with this risk analysis right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:57:29

now. If that was the case I'd be picking the right numbers for the lotto.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:57:33

So thank you. The other question to do with that was there's been discussion of a waiver And what I thought I heard is that a waiver only improves safety. It's not to, it has to have that requirement. Was that correct?

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated3:57:47

Yes and I don't love the term

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:57:49

waiver

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated3:57:50

but it's in statute. So PHMSA offers special permits. The state offers state waivers. That process and actually involves PHMSA as well. The operator would provide us an application They provide us proposals of how to address. And I've heard several statements about corrosion under insulated pipelines which we know is a problem but we've learned from that lesson and now we know how to address it from our side.

I'll let the operator address from their side but in that waiver process we work with the operator and PHMSA To develop and document specific engineering standards and practices, and safety processes to address those issues. And also require additional requirements that may be outside of code that we can't apply in code but we can go to a higher level in the state waiver process.

3:59 – 4:1321 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed3:59:03

And to be clear, just because a project proponent or operator anybody applies for state waiver. It is not guaranteed right? They must prove that they can operate this pipeline safely to us so it is not essentially somebody says here's the state waiver I'm good right? Okay thank you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:59:20

and to clarify I think there was a public commenter said That we were the last person standing in a way or the last organization, the county and county employee. Last person in the way of opening up this pipeline pipeline safely. My understand it's you right? Or your office that would be the last person standing to that not this board. Ultimately there's a plan will be presented to you guys will evaluate that and at that point and the company decides to move forward that investment.

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated3:59:51

I think the best response I can give to you is it depends OK. I would love to give you a very specific answer. Ultimately, the office of the State Farm Marshal has the final say whether the operator can start the pipeline that is under our authority but that's after requirements are met. I think on a local level In regards to permitting in this process, that's where your leadership is. But as for the actual physical operation of the pipeline and that's where our authority is.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:00:31

So before it's restarted there'll be a safety plan that you would approve?

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated4:00:34

Safety operations inspections verification. There's a long list of laundry that must be met under the legal consent decree under state statute federal statute and Inspections construction there, there's a huge list of things that my office or our office must perform prior to accepting a restart request

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:01:00

So I've heard it characterizes piece milling, but it's really a process. And this is one of the pieces in that process.

CommentJim HoslerProposedself-stated4:01:06

This is a step in the process to ensure safety. OK, thank

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:01:11

you. Have a question for staff, but they're still up here. I don't know if any other supervisors.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:01:18

Thank

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:01:21

you very much for answering those questions. Question for planning staff, somewhat unusual this time around where we actually had a Planning Commission recommendation but staff held firm on your staff recommendation originally went to the Zoning Administrator can you kind of talk us through how you guys came up with that? That is irregular and I think it'd be helpful for us to understand why you chose to bring forward your initial recommendation

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:01:47

to the board

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:01:58

Mr. Chair Supervisor Nelson, so it is not common that the department would vary from the Planning Commission recommendation It has happened on occasion during my time as a director here in the department we do that when we believe that the recommendation that was originally made and Is consistent with the law and provisions of our code and any requirements.

And in this case based really I think grounded in the state law is where we came from in deciding to make that determination.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:02:44

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:02:48

OK we still have a five minute panel rebuttal response and then staff comments to conclude.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:02:58

And Chair Williams members of the board we are carrying over the remaining time. Which I believe was a total of 10 minutes 30 seconds. Yes. And are you going to put

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:03:08

that up so I can see it? Thank you. You could leave the timer up.

PresenterDawn SestitoPacific Pipeline CompanyProposedself-stated4:03:24

Did you have an

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:03:24

additional presentation as well

PresenterDawn SestitoPacific Pipeline CompanyProposedself-stated4:03:26

or? No, I will ask at some point though that you can just put it up now slide 24. Great

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:03:39

thank you.

PresenterDawn SestitoPacific Pipeline CompanyProposedself-stated4:03:41

Okay, so again thank you Mister chair and members of the board. So the appeal before you today is about the addition of safety valves in AB 864 compliance most of the public comment that we heard that opposed installation of the valves focused on concerns about restart But that is outside the scope of this hearing, as staff has confirmed. And it is completely preempted under state statutes, federal statutes case law and a settlement agreement that was entered some time ago.

If there are concerns about pipeline safety, pipeline integrity, cathodic protection or restart those issues cannot legally support denial of the valves today. They are governed by the consent decree they will be addressed by the fire marshal you just heard the fire marshal tell you this long list of things that their office will ensure safety Integrity inspections, they will review all the data. They will review the pipeline. They are the experts in pipeline safety with sole authority to evaluate the safety of these lines.

PPC will not apply to restart the lines unless PPC is confident in their integrity and the fire marshal is not going to allow them to be restarted unless he is confident in their integrity. You heard directly from the fire marshal this morning that the lines are holding inert gas, that they have no holes. So Mr. Capello's statement and other statements from the public to the contrary, those are false. They have no evidence, they can't be given any weight, no weight by this board because they're speculation. You heard it from the expert who analyzes, who governs and looks at pipeline safety in this state.

And he said that the lines are holding inert gas. So, the Planning Commission made two groups of findings to deny the valves and we showed you today that those findings were wrong on view shed only four valves are visible in the coastal zones and just for a matter of seconds from a highway. The findings about health and safety are inaccurate. No one can seriously dispute that these safety valves are going to do anything other than enhance public safety by reducing potential spill volumes. Again, you heard that directly from the fire marshal.

And it's the fire marshal, we heard a little bit about risk assessment. People concerned the risk assessment wasn't turned in. It wasn't turned in because this board doesn't determine what the best available technology is under the state law. It's the fire marshal that does. The fire marshal got the risk assessment and as he explained this morning in his presentation, they did a thorough analysis, probably a more thorough analysis than any of their pipeline is what he told us.

Mr. Capello said this morning that the Planning Commission ordered an EIR. Well, that's just a blatant misrepresentation. That is not what happened below you have the findings no EIR was ordered the planning commission denied the valves to order an EIR now you would have to ignore the eight mile exemption and the other three categorical exemptions under CEQA Mr. Capello didn't address those, no one else addressed them. They squarely apply here. They were actually contemplated by the state when this very statute was passed and if you require a whole new environmental review anytime somebody wants to do a safety upgrade to a large piece of infrastructure, do you know what you're doing as a Board of Supervisors? You're telling people not to make those upgrades.

Is that what you want to incentivize? No safety upgrades? You also can't ignore the environmental baseline from the prior environmental review, and that baseline was a pipeline with oil flowing through it. That is the environmental baseline. So even if there was any kind of environmental review, it would be the addendum that staff already prepared that focuses on the valves and the valves alone.

So we're here today because these pipelines are active. Mr. Capello made a joke, that's not a word that we made up. It's not something we're using now for the first time. You heard the fire marshal say pipelines in this state can be active or they can be abandoned. These lines are not abandoned. We have to comply with state law. It is the state law chair that you wrote.

We have to comply with it. Mr. Capello also talked extensively about land rights, and that's a complete non-issue. The zoning administrator added a condition so before we begin any construction we're going to have to prove that we have the land rights to proceed. PPC will do that. That's a complete non-issue. As for Sable, so Sable does not own these lines right now. Sable is a completely separate company from PPC. It's a completely separate company from Exxon Mobil.

Right now, PPC owns these lines and that's why we're here today. There is a pending transaction and if that transaction closes, Sable will have to come here and they will have to seek permission to transfer ownership and operatorship of the lines. That will come through its own process through the county and it may come to you. But we're here today because no matter who owns the lines, whether it's PPC, whether it's Sable, whether it's some other entity these valves should be installed.

And you, you the Board of Supervisors can ensure that they will be installed no matter who owns the lines and you can do that by voting for the valves today. So all we're asking for today is approval to comply with the law that you wrote, Chair Williams, for this very pipeline. You heard Mr. Capello, no one here is stating we don't want safety valves. In fact, EDC, the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, the Board of Supervisors all supported this law that you wrote, Mr. Chair.

It's your law and I hope that you will stand up for it today. The proposal has already been approved by the fire marshal. Safety valves are available, they will be installed in San Luis Obispo and Kern counties. If you make them available, if you make them available today, they will also be installed in Santa Barbara County. But if the appeal is denied, Then we're going to have to attempt to comply with AB 864 in some other way. You heard the fire marshal, we have a right to submit an alternate plan and what will happen? What the fire marshal has to evaluate in looking at our plan of course it has to evaluate the risk assessment but it also has to look at what technology is available for use by the operator.

That's quoted on page four of our submission. It's 19 Cal Code of Regs 2110, what technology is available for use by the operator? So if you vote no for valves today, if you say no valves that technology is not available for use under the statute it is legally unavailable and so PPC will submit an alternate plan and it will not contain safety valves in Santa Barbara It will have valves in Kern and San Luis Obispo. It already has some safety valves, and those valves will be automated. PPC will automate those regardless.

But if you want the additional safety valves, the plan that the fire marshal has already approved, vote for them today. If you agree with us that safety valves are important and that they should be installed in Santa Barbara County, I'll pull the appeal and approve them. It's hard to believe actually that anybody wouldn't want the safety valves on this pipeline, the very pipeline that spurred AB 864.

As the fire marshal said and this is a quote, this is a step in the process to ensure safety. A step in the process to ensure safety. Supervisor Capps, you asked about restart. It's legally improper to consider restart and deny valves on that basis. If you want to know what you can do to ensure the safety of these lines let us put in the valves approve them that will make the line safer.

And voting in favor of the valves today is the only way for the county to ensure that safety valves get installed here in Santa Barbara If PPC has to come back with an alternate plan, it will be because you said valves aren't available. So that plan will not include valves in Santa Barbara County. It will include other types of technology and that technology will not require approval from the county. So that means that that will be an analysis that's done between PPC and the fire marshal and you will not have another opportunity to review it.

So we're asking you, please let us install the valves. Let us do the best thing for this pipeline. Let us make it safer. Let us uphold Chair Williams, the law that you wrote that this board supported, that EDC, that GCC, that they all supported at the time. Let's put in the valves. Thank you.

4:13 – 4:199 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:13:22

And we go to staff. Are there any comments that have been made today that you feel like you need to correct or comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 32Proposed4:13:30

on? Mr Chair, staff has no response to the comments and were available if you do have any more questions but we do not have any responses.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed4:13:44

Then it is to the board. Don't all jump up at once. Mr. Nelson.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:13:53

Yes, thank you Chair Williams I've got to say the highlight for me today was a Barry Capello. I'm kind of a Santa Barbara County political and history buff and actually get to see you in person was great it was exciting. You're great and Citizen McCaw And I'm sorry. Sorry Anna, but Mark doesn't hold a candle to Barry. You're just going

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:14:17

to make his ego bigger man. Come

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:14:20

on! It was good it was entertaining. But I do think we came back down to it's about maintenance that was one of Barry's points and I do think that with what I heard from the fire marshal what I've heard from planning staff is that this is an attempt to maintain that line these valves I think that what we have here today is a very narrowly focused requirement in the board.

We may not like it. We may want additional powers here to have local control and we're all going through that right now with the housing element right. There are certain things that we can't ignore certain things we can't. And we are limited at the end of the day to our purview and right now our purview is these valves I don't want. PPC to propose an alternative plan that doesn't include valves. I think that they've done their due diligence here and they proposed their best effort of what they believe is legally available to them to bring to us you know a big portion of this isn't Supervisor Hartman's district but a large portion of this isn't my district and those valves don't necessarily have to apply. My understanding of the AB 864 those weren't requirements That was PPC deciding that they want to do the same as well with staff's recommendation.

Thank you staff for pushing for that. So you know today I'm going to vote to uphold the appeal. I don't see how we deny this appeal unless our goal of this board is to obstruct the vested rights of the PPC. Our own staff kept constant with the original recommendation that is as stated by planning staff grounded in state law. We may not like it, we may not Wish it could be something different. I believe that's what we have to do up here on the board. It's not always pleasant. There's a lot of projects I vote for that I don't always like you know we have a lot of cannabis projects for example not a big fan of cannabis but it's a legal pathway that they've gone through. I believe that we need operate within our discretion and our discretion here is very focused on these valves.

And so at this point unless I'm persuaded otherwise by my colleagues I'm leaning towards denying the appeal or sorry

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:16:37

upholding the appeal.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed4:16:47

Supervisor caps.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:16:50

Follow with a with the counter perspective with due respect to supervisor Nelson, I want to thank Chair Williams for for the legislation that of course drew so much support from this community after that devastation. I can only imagine what it would be had been like to be an elected leader with that tragedy happened. That had such devastation and of course you want to do what you can to put in remedies. And of course safety valves is logical.

So thank you. And I know he puts, I think intentionally trying to jam you here and I just want to acknowledge that elephant in the room because of course you're doing the right thing. I'm sure the board was supportive at the time as was Senator Jackson. I want to thank the Planning Commission too because I know this was two days of hearings and they really took a tough look. They objected to the fact that there wasn't a full EIR. That's something that I share I don't understand that. I'm still learning processes, but I don't understand why there wouldn't be a full EIR on something this important and I want to thank our advocates and our constituents who you know this is by far the most number of emails and calls we've gotten since my time on the board because this is what Santa Barbara cares about.

Santa Barbara County not just certain districts where they're at the pipeline touches but the coastline that I represent the islands that I represent all the way from Gaviota Coast down to A speech. This is who we are and I appreciate our constituents seeing the big picture here this because this is I respect that we're being asked to talk about valves but it defies logic for me that you would need safety valves if you don't restart And with due respect it's not improper for me to look at the big picture. It's actually my job to look at the big picture I was elected to look at the big picture and the big picture is climate change. It' s a reliance on fossil fuels. It''s a direction that we're headed in the wrong direction. Nine years of the hottest temperatures on earth recorded.

Mass climate events continue to happen and yet we're being asked to say thumbs up or thumbs down On a myopic piece of this. Well I say no to that. I appreciate the analogy about safe. About seatbelts. Of course we're all for seat belts but you wouldn't put seat belts on a car that had been in a massive crash because the driver. Was criminally liable. I mean so I am.

I am tasked with representing my district. I am tasked looking for the future and for me this Is about restarting. This is about putting oil back in that pipeline and having safety valves for that use, and that is not something I can stand behind and so I'm voting to deny.

4:19 – 4:261 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:19:39

Let's drive in here. Thank you Mr Chair well what a great meeting to come back to after vacation start off with oil then we have cannabis and we're closing out with immigration Awesome. Hopefully you guys all stay for the next two hearings as well and I also have to say that this was my first Mr. Capello performance and I'm a big fan, didn't agree with hardly anything you said but it was awesome so And I know looking out in the audience, I've been here a long time now. So some of the faces are very familiar and I appreciate your advocacy for whatever side you're on that you're here in this room spending your hours for something that you're really passionate about.

And I think I have maybe matured on this issue a little bit where I think I can now point to a pretty long litany of issues, of votes that I have supporting transitioning to cleaner energy. But it's a transition and that's what always seems to get lost here is that when we come to these hearings it's don't ship it, don't truck it, don't pipeline But I still want to use it. Or maybe you don't want to use it, but the vast majority of people in Santa Barbara County are using and basically addicted to this product which is petroleum.

So we all some of us apparently a huge majority of people drove today an electric vehicle my hats off to you awesome appreciate that 770 pounds of that car Is plastic, which is made from petrochemicals. So as much as we like to try to divorce ourself from this product. We still use it a hell of a lot and I have grandkids and I think something somebody said today really stuck with me where it said.

And I think the argument was let's quit thinking like it's the 1950s were in 2023. Let's live in the year we're The reality is we're not in 2050 either, or 2060 or 2070 when we are going to hopefully have been transitioned out of petroleum and be on greener energy. So it always comes back to me that for us to be intellectually honest with ourselves that we still use this product and what is the most environmentally superior way to use that product?

It's not to get it from somewhere else. We always in this county want to talk about that we are the leaders in environmental community, Santa Barbara is special. The facts don't really back that up. I mean, we talked the biggest game of any other county I've ever seen. The reality is, I just looked at this because Supervisor Williams has been talking about this a lot at APCD and SPCAG. So I did some homework.

Electric vehicle usage per 1,000 residents in counties? You know who we beat? Fresno, Shasta, San Bernardino. Those kind of counties. We are ranked 21st among California's counties of electrical vehicle usage. So we're not transitioning, we talk about it, we hate Exxon, we hate oil companies, we don't wanna do anything with them but we use their product. So I look at this as what we're supposed to be discussing today and I understand why you look at the big picture.

But the reality is sometimes as Supervisor Nelson said, our jobs are to. work inside of a legal framework that makes it very difficult for us to make the decision that maybe our emotions want us to. So I feel like what we're trying to do or that constituents would like us to do is kind of put Exxon in this catch-22, is that hey we don't want to talk about restarting the line but you sure as heck can't put in these safety valves and so to make it more difficult.

So i see it's kind of a little bit of a political game The way I see this political game playing out though is the thing probably games as you can win or lose. And the way I see us winning actually, is to get in a protracted decades long legal battle because they're not going to go away. This isn't Larry's oil company down the street. This is Exxon and they have a lot of resources And whether you like it or not, they do have a vested right to that product.

And maybe we can push this hurdle in front of them but my worst case scenario is this, two worst case scenarios. The best case scenario is we get into this long protracted legal battle and we spend county resources defending our decision Resources that we spend usually providing social services, mental health services, housing for the homeless. Those types of things.

So we have very limited resources and I don't want to spend it in a legal battle with Exxon. Worst case scenarios, we don't install the valves. Exxon puts in another application somehow it gets signed off by the fire marshal doesn't come back to us We get another spill, and it's not just an environmental disaster then. It's a huge public relations disaster that we could have prevented.

So I totally get the thinking on the other side. I understand. And I really want to say thank you to our planning staff because it's not easy to stand up The 200, 300 emails and you know a lot of talk in the community. But the reality is it is the legally defensible right thing to do. And so I know that's not easy to do as staff, so we appreciate where you went on this and even though it may or may not be what I would like to do, I would definitely be voting to uphold the appeal.

4:26 – 4:3210 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:26:35

Well, yeah, you could probably imagine I felt a little bit for those presentations like every bit of additional time I granted both parties was that it was mostly feel like I'm as a little bug or if you like me a butterfly being pinned to the wall on. My legislation, but I'm still proud of the Assembly Bill 864 and the safety improvements it's made to oil pipelines around the state. And that think of the ecosystems and the people that won't lose as much property or as much environmental impact from future spills.

And I still support automatic shutoff valves with what we call them colloquially. And so that was probably a good strategic point to pin me down on that. And I would feel foolish if we denied this and Exxon gets an alternative plan approved at State Fire Marshal without automatic shutoff valves. That would make me feel very foolish, but I do not believe that is entirely clear because this is a unique case because it's hard for The state fire marshal to crystal ball everything because there just hasn't been a case like this.

And so I don't think they've been invasive evasive with any of our questions, I think they've tried to be as clear as possible but the confluence of all this is that it's still about as clear as mud and I cannot I just think that there are change circumstances that warrant a broader understanding of the impacts of the project. I do question the claims of exemption from the applicant and I cannot remove this decision from the context Of the damage that's being made to the world.

And that is as clear as the color of the sky to me, nor what damage has been made to our community. I you know, I do appreciate and this is where I will depart from the. So so I think it's not a surprise that I will not be supporting. The emotion to uphold the appeal. Here's where we switch over to DASA soapbox because I really appreciate the inconsistencies that Mr Labanino has pointed out We are not on track to make sufficient emissions reductions in this county, even if the Santa Ynez unit does not go restart.

We need to be better decisions as a community and to back up our ideals with our pocketbook and our action because of that I want to appreciate every person who called in or zoomed in But we need to exceed, or took an EV, especially those that are carpooled. We need to exceed 100,000 EVs in this county in the next six and a half years. To for us to meet. Our our share of the emissions reductions that the state needs to do that is intimidating figure but one that I hope we will all find a way to embrace and make happen.

So I wish anybody luck who wishes to make a motion but I'll entertain motions at this point Mr. Nelson?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:30:38

Yes, thank you Chair Williams. I want to just say thank you my colleagues too. I think it's a good conversation. I think we all are looking at the big picture. I think for me though it comes down to the tools that I have in working on that big picture and because of that I'm going ahead and make a motion to adopt staffs recommendations and uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission and approve the project.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:31:08

Is there a second? A second. There is emotion in a second. Supervisor caps. We would do or get will do a roll call. Roll call, please.

Roll-call vote 0–1 motion to adopt staffs recommendations and uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission and approve the project. Is there a second? A second · 4 under review
Show transcript
Supervisor caps now supervisor Nelson. Hi. Supervisor Levinino I and Chair Williams no
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:31:35

motion fails

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:31:36

so motion fails. We could go that make the other motion. I suppose we should just out of form. I think it probably will fail as well. So would you like to make a motion?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:31:49

Yes, I would like to make the motion to uphold the Planning Commission's denial. I believe that's the right terminology. That's right. Yes. Yes, yes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:32:00

I will second that

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:32:03

and chair Williams members of the board. That would be to deny the appeal and deny the project.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:32:08

That straight.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:32:09

Thank you.

4:32 – 4:348 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:32:12

Let why don't we do roll call on that just for form's sake.

Roll-call vote Failed 2–2
Show transcript
Supervisor Caps? Aye. Supervisor Nelson? No. Supervisor Lavagnino? No. Chair Williams? Aye
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role4:32:25

Motion fails

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:32:26

How about we bring somebody from the audience up to break the time?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:32:31

Well, that would be interesting. So my understanding and I feel free to be corrected by county council what this means is that the Board of Supervisors is unable to take action. That is not a denial. It's close to a denial, but it is not a denial and it is a unique circumstance where the Board of Supervisors is unable to take action.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:33:02

Mr. Chair members of the board, I'll just add that the government code requires that for the board to take any action there must be a majority of all the members so there must always be three votes to take an action So with a 2-2 tied vote this is no action by the board so it neither affirms nor reverses the Planning Commission's decision

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:33:29

Hope that's

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:33:30

clear to everybody. And if just for public information, I suppose that is similar to a denial though my understanding is it also does not carry with it the... I guess prejudice would be the right term that a denial would have meaning the applicant could apply In less than the year for another application. So normally a denial would prohibit the applicant from applying for a year, and this lack of action would not carry with it that provision.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:34:12

Mr. Chair and members of the board, you're correct it is not a denial. It's also not an approval so that means that the applicant could try again and do another application. Your board also has the option of continuing the item if you think that would lead to a different decision. If not then I think that would be the end of the item today but it may be back before you in the future if the applicant chooses to come back.

4:34 – 6:033 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:34:43

Everybody ready for a closed session? Can we get a preview for closed session.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:35:01

Mr. Chair, members of the board in closed session today, the board is scheduled to consider four items of existing litigation. Galdamez versus County of Santa Barbara. Anderson versus County of Santa Barbara Community Association for Modoc Preserve and County of Santa versus County of Santa Barbara and UDCAL versus County of Santa Barbara. These are all four separate Santa Barbara Superior Court cases.

And the board is also scheduled to consider labor negotiations for the employee organization, Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association The agency designated representatives are CEO Monomi Asato and Human Resources Director Maria Elena de Guevara. And our time estimate is one hour 15 minutes.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.734:35:56

Okay, well we will thank you all to the public for coming and for speaking that was and we will be back just before three o'clock We're reconvening the meeting of August 22nd, 2023. Will county council please report it from closed session?

6:03 – 6:108 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed6:03:13

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. The board met in closed session on four items of existing litigation all in Santa Barbara Superior Court, Galdamez versus County of Santa Barbara, Anderson versus the county, Community Association for the Modoc Preserve versus the county and UDCAO versus the county. The board also met with labor negotiators for the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association as the employee organization and the board took no reportable action.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:03:42

Thank you. We'll go to departmental item number three.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:03:47

Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amendments to the cannabis business licensing fee ordinance.

UnidentifiedCounty Executive OfficerProposed · by role6:04:00

Good afternoon Chair Williams and members of the board. Brittany Oderman, I am the Deputy CEO and I oversee the Cannabis Business Licensing Division in our office. Today I'm before you to bring a business license fee ordinance amendment. This is in response to our May 16th ordinance amendment where we adjusted fees to cover the cost of processing business licenses. At that time we looked at Staff costs and the indirect cost rates that kind of keep the lights on for those offices where that staff works.

And the board asked me to return with an amendment that would include the fees to recover the costs for our membership in the California Cannabis Authority, and access to their data analytics platform that we use to ensure compliance with our cannabis licensing program. Since adoption of the fees they've been adjusted, like I said to reflect changes in salaries and benefits. These fees currently cover initial applications compliance and renewal.

And so today we're just looking at an additional fee to cover the cost of that membership The methodology we use to establish the fee structure is, we are looking to generate approximately $280,000 to recover that cost for the use of the platform for fiscal year 23-24. And you'll notice that's a reduction to the cost we've been paying in the past. Starting in 21-22, we entered into agreement To pay $500,000 annually for access to that platform using an algorithm where they look at the amount of data that's being transferred and due to the number and types of licenses that we had in our county and the revenue that we were generating. That fee. It was commensurate with that.

Over time, as you know our revenues have gone down. Some of the state licenses that are being held in our county have gone down and so we started negotiations with the CCA several months ago to lower that cost and then with this direction on May 16th to come back to recover the fee those conversations progressed and we got to this point where we looked at a way that we could calculate I'm flat rate to the state fee charged for renewing a state cannabis business license. So our operators are required to hold state business licenses in many cases they have several because they cover acreage areas and so many of our licensees have you know 60 to 100 state licenses and each of those licenses are charged a state renewal fee and we would charge that 3% rate to each of the licenses that they hold So any operator with an active state license at the beginning of each quarter will be billed that 3% for the type and license that they hold.

And the cost of the operator will vary based on that number, according to the fee schedules that are included in your staff report that we presented in Attachment A of the board letter. We worked with the CCA like I said to lower the cost of access to the data so that's a win there. Paying $500,000 a year. But this amendment would add fees to the licensing program to recover our cost and that would be transferred on to all of the operators throughout the county in a way that we think is equitable since it is directly tied to the number and type of licenses that they hold. So a small operator will only pay for that if they hold one state license. They'll pay 3% on that state license versus someone who holds multiple licenses.

Our staff will invoice each operator with active state licenses quarterly, as shown in the fee schedule and that will be effective for the second quarter. So at the end of September we'll start sending out those bills should this ordinance pass and then the savings to our operations and impact to the tax revenue will be evaluated with our quarterly budget update that is coming to you scheduled for September 12th.

And with that, I'll just summarize our recommended actions today. You're considering the first reading of the ordinance amendments and we're amending Ordinance 5181 which establishes the Cannabis Business License Fee. Read the title and waive further reading of the ordinance in full and set a hearing on the administrative agenda for next week on August 29th to consider the second reading and the CEQA determination.

Thank you and I am available for questions.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:09:02

Looks like there's some takers for questions, Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.836:09:06

Yes, well done on renegotiating the CCA fee almost by half that's really tremendous. My question has to do with who actually then pays the 3% and in the staff report it says anybody with an active license from the state or anybody who is reporting transactions under the metric track-and-trace system so who isn't paying? Can you help me understand that a little better?

UnidentifiedCounty Executive OfficerProposed · by role6:09:37

Thank you Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Thank you. We're we're getting information from the state weekly on active licenses and people are in sometimes in process of renewing and they may show as Non-active during that point, but we would we would cross reference that with the transfers in the system And we would ensure that they get they get built for those licenses that are in process

not transcribed≈32s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.836:10:33

So everybody has that 3% charge. That's correct. Oh

6:10 – 6:1613 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:10:43

I've been hearing about some legislation that might be proposed by Assemblyman Hart or has been. Can you kind of dabble on that a little bit?

UnidentifiedCounty Executive OfficerProposed · by role6:10:52

Thank you, Supervisor Lavanino through the chair. We mentioned this in the past and it is still in the works. Assemblymember Hart has some legislation AB 687. It proposes to actually engage the CCA to distribute their data and the platform to all of the jurisdictions in California at no cost to those jurisdictions. There's some other things associated with the bill but that's the gist of it. It obviously has a price tag, because that's not free.

And so it is in suspense file right now at the Senate or the Appropriations Committee. We've heard that the governor's office will likely veto because the Department of Cannabis Control has come out opposing. At the same time and I mentioned this in the staff report, Unveiled to us access to metric called Metric Viewer. It's brand new, but they've been very quick to register our users. We have staff actually at a training in North Hollywood today for this for the second set We're very encouraged by MetricViewer and what it's doing.

We think the timing of all of this is interesting, and we're excited, and we're hopeful that potentially this cost to our county to get access to the data will go away potentially next year depending on what we decide to do with our membership. Right now, the systems are very complementary. We're looking at MetricViewer, and we're trying to download the data. It doesn't do the same analytics But we're working with the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office and their database, and they've developed some code to sort of routinely download information. And so once we get that all worked out I think we'll be in a really good place. So the state is now meeting us where we wanted to be five years ago.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:13:00

Supervisor Nelson?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:13:01

Yes thank you Chair Williams. Thank you, Brittany. As we potentially move towards maybe a different tax scheme how does that impact our relationship with CCA moving forward?

UnidentifiedCounty Executive OfficerProposed · by role6:13:15

Thank You Supervisor Nelson I don't think it would necessarily change our relationship with CCA. Having access to the data is important no matter your tax structure, given just because you're monitoring at the license level and the license indicate area for example or if we were looking at I know you Supervisor Nelson have mentioned some other creative solutions like WAIT. I mean those things are recorded in metric and so, I don't think that would change our relationship. I think we would still need some access whether we get it through that membership in the CCA or if we got it through Metric Viewer in the future

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:13:57

Thank you and just to piggyback on that, just for my benefit maybe the public. Where are we at with considering another tax amendment potentially? What's the current timeline?

UnidentifiedCounty Executive OfficerProposed · by role6:14:09

Thank you, Supervisor Nelson. We are in preliminary review of all the other jurisdictions and how they're taxing. I have been working with the Treasurer Tax Looker's Office to start to collect data because they looked at a lot of data in the past putting that together. I've started conversations with stakeholders so I've met with various groups in our North and South County. They sort of have different interests To understand how this would affect them and what some of you know, what some of their ideas are. Some of them operate in other counties and so they've seen firsthand how things work related to various tax structures. So we anticipate being able to bring something back to you before the end of the year so that we could further the conversation if we were going to consider something because as you know any change we make to the tax structure would have to go back on the ballot And so we're not looking at a March 2024.

We are looking more at November.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed6:15:07

Thank you. Welcome. I just want to see if there's any public comment because I don't have

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:15:16

a question I just want to move to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed6:15:17

comment.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:15:18

Chair Williams members of the board we have no request to speak on this item.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:15:22

I just want to thank you for your work with the authority. That's really going to save us some money, the combination of these two moves. You know, I want to highlight that we still don't Always know that all departments that are involved in permitting. You know, our using permit revenue to do that 100%. So I just want to encourage that part of this effort is We know nobody who's doing anything with permitting should be using general fund money to do permitting because it's recoverable.

And so you know I hope the departments involved. You know recognize that that is that's not the intent of our. Of our ordinances to is to use general fund money to pay for permitting our intention is to. Use permit revenue to pay for permitting. Supervisor Caput.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:16:27

Chair, just a quick comment I want to thank Ms. Oterman you already answered my questions and I agree that full cost recovery is an important principle and so therefore happy to see this development appreciate the work

6:16 – 6:2510 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:16:41

Supervisors having you better explain my no vote. So I thought $500,000 was too much for what we are getting forward. I still think 280 is too much but appreciate the fact that you brought it down and I don't think we get enough bang for the buck on this but I'm glad the fact that to see that it might be This might be the last year. We're doing this

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:17:01

Okay, can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.836:17:07

So moved second

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:17:09

This is for staff recommendation. Motion by Nelson, seconded by Hartman. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay I'm just going to turn over things to Mr. Lavagnino for a moment.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:17:28

Alright Madam Clerk can we please read department item number four into the record.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:17:35

Yes, Vice Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. Departmental item number four is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the annual Truth Act report and community forum. And I would like to note before we get going on staff's presentation we do have interpreter services here in person in Santa Maria Carlos Sarasato is here to translate anyone in person that needs translation from Spanish to English during general during public comment on this item and we do have Translation services for any members of the public who want to speak on zoom that need interpreters there And in addition, we do have Good afternoon, good afternoon.

not transcribed≈21s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:18:36

We have Natalia there, if you could please raise your hand. We have wireless equipment, that is to say, you can put on the headphones and I will be there doing simultaneous interpretation in Spanish of everything said during this presentation. I think I got it all, but if anybody has any questions let me know. Thank you. Thank You Carlos All right, I think under Sheriff Bonner is going to be presenting

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentIce DirectsProposed6:19:21

Good afternoon, supervisors. I'm going to try to figure out how to communicate with one of these things in front of me again but anyhow on behalf of Sheriff Brown, I want to thank you for hosting this community forum today to discuss the United States Immigration and Custom Enforcement access to persons within our Santa Barbara County jail system. I'm joined here today by Chief Deputy Wasilewski and Sergeant Eric Alexander, who will assist me in providing information and answering questions.

Today's meeting is being held in compliance with the California Government Code requirements and serves several purposes. The first is to allow the Sheriff's Office to report out on various topics including our current policies and practices Relating to ICE access to persons in the jail system. Number two, instances in which we have received requests for information from ICE and how we handled those requests.

And number three, instances in which ICE took custody of individuals after they were released from Sheriff's Office custody. Another purpose for today's meeting is to provide our community members and our policy makers with an opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions for consideration by Sheriff Brown and our team. I do want to point out that immigration enforcement is an incredibly charged subject matter with strong voices on both sides of the equation However, Sheriff Brown and our entire sheriff's office team want to be perfectly clear.

We do not enforce federal immigration law. And we are committed to properly applying the rule of law as it relates to the Trust Truth and Values Act. And ultimately finding the right balance in protecting our overall communities, as well as individuals within those communities. I want to take a quick moment to point out that of the 10,000 ish bookings and over 5500 releases.

That occurred within our system last year. There were only two individuals who were taken into custody by ice once they were released from Sheriff's Office. With that said, we are still committed to listening to our community members and our policymakers. And we will continue to evaluate our policies and procedures Just this year, we collaborated with the Public Defender's Office to fix an error within our criminal violation lists that were used by our team members.

And to enhance our ability to notify the individual's attorneys of record should we receive a request from ICE. We truly appreciate the feedback and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:22:34

suggestions we received. Yep,

CommentIce DirectsProposed6:22:44

that's it. All right so just going to touch on these three acts here the Trust Act became law in 2014 and it prohibits law enforcement from detaining non-citizens pursuant to an immigration hold or detainer beyond the time that they would otherwise be released from criminal custody Of note, the Sheriff's Office does not detain anyone for immigration violations and does not hold anyone in our custody based upon an ICE request.

The Truth Act became law in 2017 and requires that undocumented immigrants be provided with information should ICE want to speak with them while they are in our custody. It also requires that local law enforcement disclose ice access to undocumented persons who are in local custody in four ways. First prior to allowing ice to interview the individual the local law enforcement agency must provide a written consent form that explains the purposes of the interview and that the individual may decline the end of it the interview number two the truth act requires That local law enforcement agencies provide ice with notification.

That if a local law enforcement agency provides ice with a notification of the individual's release date and time then the local law enforcement agency must also provide the same notification to the individual and their attorney or permitted designee. Number three the local legislative body must hold a community forum annually if local law enforcement allows ice access to any individual and that is why we are here today.

And lastly any records that are maintained by the Law Enforcement Agency relating to this topic are subject to the Public Records Act. And finally, the Values Act SB 54. It became law in 2018 and provides additional information prohibiting the use of state and local law enforcement resources in conducting immigration enforcement. And with that I'm going to turn this over to Sergeant Alexander who will share specific information about our policies are procedures as they relate to the Trust Truth and Values Act and our 2022 data.

6:25 – 6:308 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 34Proposed6:25:24

Sergeant Alexander, I'll be narrating the remainder of this presentation. The Sheriff's Office does not conduct any immigration enforcement. Our policy is a comprehensive document that directs the actions of custody deputies and custody records personnel as it relates to compliance with the Truth Act. Our policy outlines what forms must be provided to inmates Under what circumstances and how ICE interviews are to be conducted, and how ICE access requests are to be handled under the law.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:26:03

ICE

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 34Proposed6:26:03

access means access to an inmate by ICE for the purposes of civil immigration enforcement including when an individual is stopped with or without their consent arrested, detained or otherwise held under the control of local law enforcement agency including all the following. Number one responding to an ICE hold notification or transfer request number two providing notification to ice in advance of the public that an individual is being or will be released at a certain date and time through data sharing or otherwise Number three, providing ICE non-publicly available information regarding release dates, home addresses or work addresses whether through computer databases, jail logs or otherwise.

Number four, allowing ICE to interview an individual in the jail. Number five, providing ICE information regarding dates and times of probation

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:27:10

or parole check ins.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 34Proposed6:27:19

Potential ICE notification begins with the arrest of an individual who is booked into one of our facilities. Part of the booking process includes fingerprinting all arrestees to confirm their identity. Fingerprints are submitted to the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Department of Justice forwards fingerprints to ICE, to be compared to their records for identity confirmation If a fingerprint match is made in the ICE database, the record is reviewed by ICE and they may submit a request for additional information on the inmate to our Custody Records Bureau via fax.

If a request from ICE is received by custody records staff, the inmate's pending cases as well as criminal history are reviewed by custody records staff for any criminal convictions that would be exceptions to the Trust Act. If an exception is present then custody records staff may notify ICE via email. If there are no exceptions to the Trust Act, no response is sent to ICE and the request for information is added to the inmate's file.

If exceptions to the Trust Act exist, custody records staff will provide the inmate with a consent form to be interviewed by ICE, the purpose of the interview and that the interview is voluntary. The form also notifies the inmate that allowable exceptions of the Trust Act are present in their criminal history, which allow us to share their release date with ICE officials.

If an attorney of record is known, they or their designee are also notified. Moving forward, Santa Barbara County Probation Office will also be notified as well. Once an inmate is sentenced or a release date is known and the inmate record is flagged for ICE notification, custody records staff will provide an email notification to ICE of the pending release date as well as written notification to the inmate.

Inmates are not held beyond the time that they otherwise would be released from criminal custody. If ICE sends an officer to one of our facilities to re-arrest an inmate who is being released from our custody We will provide a secure location for them to safely rearrest the subject on an ice hold or detainer. And that's upon release from the sheriff's office custody.

If ICE does not send an officer to re-arrest an inmate before they're processed, or released by jail staff, the suspect or the subject is released from the facility into their own care as a time served

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:30:06

release.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 34Proposed6:30:15

From 2021 to 2022, there was an increase in requests from ICE which was 39 versus 101. There was a significant decrease in the number of individuals that ICE re-arrested in 2022 which was 2 compared to 2021 which was 6, which accounted for less than 1% of the overall releases from jail. Calendar year 2022 saw an over 67% decrease in ICE

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:30:48

rearrests.

6:30 – 6:3724 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 34Proposed6:30:56

A note on ICE data and reporting, task force activity related to California government code 7284.6 parenthetical C parenthetical one states If the California Law Enforcement Agency chooses to participate in a Joint Law Enforcement Task Force for which a California law enforcement agency has agreed to dedicate personnel or resources on an ongoing basis, it shall submit a report annually to the Department of Justice as specified by the Attorney General.

Santa Barbara Sheriff's Office does not participate in Joint Law Enforcement Task Forces for immigration purposes. Accordingly, this data is represented as zero task force arrests when reporting to the state of California. The document for reporting this information is shown on the slide. When compared with the requests outlined in California Government Code 7283.1 parenthetical D, differing information is the result of an incorrect correlation between two datasets.

For 2022, Santa Barbara has reported zero arrests as a result of joint task force forces regarding immigration. However there have been two re-arrests which followed a time served release by ICE officers. And that concludes the presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed6:32:35

Any questions from the board? We'll go to public comment. How many speakers do we have?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:32:44

Chair Williams and members of the board, we currently have 20 requests to speak on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:32:55

We'll ask folks to try to keep it two minutes

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:32:59

otherwise we have an hour of public comment but I'm not going to cut you off quickly so say what you have to say.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:33:07

And I would chair Williams members of the board. I would just like to clarify for those that will have their comments translated they would get double that time so if Carlos can explain that they would get four minutes for translation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:33:23

Thank you, Carlos. And with that we will begin on Zoom with Juan Carlos to be followed by Liza Donacos.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:33:57

Oh Juan, you know what? Is there any way you can get closer to your microphone? You're very

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:34:02

quiet. Good afternoon. My name is Juan Carlos Diaz. Yeah, he's a community advocate of the organization. Can you somebody give me the name?

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:34:50

I would like to have the Board of Supervisors to create a policy so that the Sheriff's Department

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:34:56

will stop with all notifications or verifications with ICE. Las familias y comunidades del condado de Santa Barbara.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:35:22

The families and the communities in the county of Santa Barbara

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:35:24

deben reunirse con sus

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:35:26

seres queridos. They must be gathered as beloved people, our beloved people or considered as such.

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:35:34

No ser doblemente castigados y sujetos a las prácticas abusivas de detención y deportación

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:35:39

de hijos. I am really having difficulty, I don't know if you can hear but I'm having difficulty hearing you. Can you repeat that again please?

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:35:48

The families and the communities that must not be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:35:51

investigated

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:35:53

are subjected to detention and deportation. Maribel Ortiz of the community Martin Perez.

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:36:20

Martin Perez? Could we get the tech to give me some earphones or something because I'm having difficulty with the sound.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:36:32

Chair Williams and members of the board, I did just ask CSB TV if they can turn up the volume.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:36:38

Or give me a pair of earphones so that I can really hear them.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:36:40

Okay if they can I will

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:36:42

have them do that as well. Thank you so much there is some echo and I cannot get everything. I've just explained to him that his voice is coming with a little bit of an echo. I want to make sure to understand everything he's saying so that I can interpret everything he's saying

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:37 – 6:4229 turns

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:37:32

I think you've got to do your best possible until we can.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:37:36

Okay. Maribel Ortiz of the community of Martin Peras,

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:37:41

she also gave me permission for me to share her story To be able to end with the separation of families on behalf of ICE, she had a cousin and his wife.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:38:22

He went to get, tried to get a job at a strawberry

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:38:25

ranch. And at that time he was just the passenger with another person but they couldn't get the job Al no conseguir el trabajo, se fueron de vuelta. When they couldn't get the job, they turned around. Al retirarse... And upon leaving... La mira los paró en la calle fuera del campo.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:38:52

Immigration stopped them outside the field.

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:38:55

Como si ya los estuvieran esperando y se los llevaron. It was just like they

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:38:58

were expecting them or waiting for them.

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:39:00

Y se los llevaron a los dos.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:39:02

They took both of them.

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:39:05

De este caso nunca se supo por qué se los llevaron.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:39:08

On this case, we never knew why they were taken away.

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:39:14

In

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:39:14

other case, an uncle of Maribel

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:39:16

Ortiz,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:39:20

he was living alone and he was renting a room.

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:39:23

And that's what the renter told

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:39:26

him,

CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:39:26

go ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:39:26

ICE came to her house and they took him away. And nobody ever knew

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJuan Carlos DiazProposedself-stated6:39:40

why. What really is known is that these two people, they just come with one purpose. To honestly work to provide for the families and just contribute to our society And the last thing that she said was as follows. You must stop transferring and notifying ICE about the immigrant people that is in jail Los inmigrantes tenemos derechos de estar con nuestras familias. We immigrants have the right to remain with our families.

También tenemos derecho de tener algo que nos proteja.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:40:32

And we also need the right or to have the right something that protects us.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:40:37

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:40:37

you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:40:38

Carlos, this is time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed6:40:39

Su tiempo acabó señor gracias.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:40:45

We will remain on Zoom for Liza DeNacos to be followed by Christina Silvers. Liza? Looks like we might have lost Liza, we will now go to Christina Silvers to be followed by Frank Rodriguez. Christina?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:41:09

Good afternoon. Good afternoon and

CommentCressida SilversProposedself-stated6:41:13

thank you for the opportunity to make a public comment. My name is Cressida Silvers, and I live and work here in Santa Barbara County and along with my husband we're raising our children here. I'm speaking today to urge you to end all transfers and notifications to ICE And to make that county policy, the inhumanity and the abuse of ice is well documented. The legal and civil rights abuses physical and sexual abuses separation and neglect of children is not difficult to find a neighbor, a coworker, a schoolmate A loved one whose family has experienced the lifelong reverberations of that inhumanity and abuse firsthand.

ICE's policies and practices disproportionately target brown and black individuals and communities, doubling down on the immense harm our justice system already inflicts based on race. I commend the board for efforts to address these inequities in your hearings on the criminal justice system and racial inequity. Your resolution on racism as a public health threat, and your support of the Racial Equity Fund among other measures.

Creating a county policy to end cooperation with ICE is a concrete action that would give substance to your expressed intentions towards racial equity, and it would help restore the humanity and trust that cooperation with ICE has taken from us. The low number of ICE transfers reported already shows collaborating with them is not necessary. Please make it official and absolute. Insist on transparency and accountability from the sheriff And ensure our compliance with the criminal justice reforms of the California Values Act. Thanks very much.

6:42 – 6:478 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:42:56

We will now go to Frank Rodriguez, to be followed by Barbara Parme. Frank?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:43:07

Hello Board of Supervisors,

CommentBarbara ParmeProposed6:43:09

Chair Williams and Board of Supervisors. Frank Rodriguez with CAWS. Being able to plan out one's life is essential to have stability that is why at CAWS we call for the stability of tenants in their homes so that they're able to plan out their life years and decades ahead not just weeks and months Safety nets are essential to support families during emergencies. Emergencies that they can face once or multiple times in their life.

These societal safety nets include the relationship of Santa Barbara County residents with the Santa Barbara County Jail. As I brought up before, the first emergency my family faced was a deportation of my 20-year old uncle from the county jail. This was the first major crack that, especially emotionally, ripped my family's network into pieces. Allowing for the following emergencies like the housing crisis to push dozens of family members including my father to Texas and Mexico.

Ice transfers inflict double punishment for immigrants and the county should treat immigrant residents the same as all other residents. We are here today because of the work of immigrant rights advocates to strengthen state law for transparency and accountability. We understand that these efforts resulting in the Trust, Truth and Values Act was against the will of the State Sheriffs Association. And that is why we feel it is imperative to ensure we have true transparency and checks on the Sheriff's proactiveness to entangle our local county resources with ICE.

We have further doubts of true transparency when year after year we are left with the wordplay of transfer and pickup as a reason to not report to the California State Attorney General Office that we still see false reporting in their numbers. It causes fear that ICE is picking up folks that are not being reported. This not only holds the county legally liable, but shatters a trust that should be a societal safety net when our communities face an emergency.

We appreciate the hearing about the collaboration with the Public Defender's Office and hope that continues to be built upon. And lastly, we continue to push the work of 805 Immigrant with the hope that the County Board of Supervisors also gets proactive where able to Such as to provide a justice fund to support immigrant community members who are not afforded a lawyer in an immigration court and support the great work of the Immigrant Legal Defense Center, of MECOP, of IMPORTA, 805 Inductee Fund, and other resources to ensure that our undocumented community residents also have the societal safety nets they deserve. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:45:40

And we will now go to Barbara Parmey to be followed by Jennifer Ortiz. Barbara? And Barbara, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute yourself to provide your comments. Barbara, if you can please unmute yourself. We'll come back to you momentarily. We will now go to Jennifer Ortiz to be followed by Kim Pascage, Jennifer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:46:27

Hello, Board of Supervisors.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:46:40

Hello? Hi we can hear you now thank you Jennifer.

GuestJennifer OrtizSheriffProposedself-stated6:46:43

Hello, Board of Supervisors. My name is Jennifer Ortiz. I'm here with 805 on DocuFund and I'm here to ask that the Sheriff's Office needs to stop all transfers communication and notifications to ICE when local police and sheriffs act as a deportation agents that undermines the trust and confidence in law enforcement Making our immigrant community in Santa Barbara County feel unsafe. People are less likely to report crime when victims and witnesses fear they may be deported, when they come in contact with law enforcement. We know that true freedom and security are not possible for any of us until everyone including our immigrant family members, co-workers and neighbors can work live and build a community without fear of racial profiling, wrongful arrest or deportation.

Santa Barbara County families and communities should be reunited with their loved ones, not punished twice and subjected to ICE abusive detention and deportation practices. So today I ask that the Sheriff's Office stops all communication in collaboration with ICE. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:47:51

We will now go to Kim Pascage to be followed by Willie Lubka.

6:48 – 6:539 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:48:01

Hi, can you hear me? Yes we can. Please proceed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 35Proposed6:48:05

Great, hello Board of Supervisors. We continue to stand in firm support of the Truth Act which provides crucial protections for immigrant community members held in California's jails. The Sheriff's Office must uphold due process for immigrants held in local jails by giving them both the right to know when ICE requests to interview them to gauge eligibility for deportation and their right to say no via a written consent form to those interview requests. This will protect immigrants from coercion and intimidation by ICE in California jails. In the past, data from the California Department of Justice shows that Santa Barbara County has voluntarily handed community members to ICE who are eligible for release. Collaborating with ICE is a risk to public safety.

ICE is notorious for perpetuating intense harm against community of colors These ICE transfers inflict double punishment for immigrants. The county should treat immigrant residing residents the same as all other residents, no matter or worse. We also know that the financial impact for Espy County is overwhelming when Espy County Sheriff's Office cooperates with ICE. The people who are transferred to ICE are usually members of families and communities. They often are breadwinners who leave behind U.S. citizen children Spouses, parents and others who rely on them for financial and emotional support. Once they are gone they must tap into local resources in this put stress in our community. Thank you for holding the Truth Act Forum it is important for transparency purposes and for the public to understand how the policy plays out and impacts our local community.

The sheriff mentioned that two people were transferred this year to ICE that is two transfers too many we want to see that number at zero thank you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:49:56

We will now go to Willie Lumpka to be followed by Alondra Mendoza. Willie?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:50:01

Can you hear me?

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:50:08

Yes, we can if you can speak loud and clear near your microphone that would be much appreciated.

CommentWillie LumpkaProposedself-stated6:50:13

Good afternoon my name is Willie Lumpka I am with Buen Vicino a local community group. Buen Vicino means good neighbor. We are members of the 805 Immigrant Coalition There is no legal obligation for local jurisdictions to use their resources to assist with immigration enforcement. Responding to requests from ICE about individuals in custody is a voluntary, non-compulsory practice.

Many sheriff's departments in California have chosen not to assist in immigration enforcement as Santa Barbara does. Those counties do not have to hold Truth Act forms. In Alameda here's a sample from their policy The Alameda County Sheriff's Office shall have a zero contact policy with immigration officials, except when a criminal warrant has been signed by a judge. Agency members will not use resources including but not limited to personnel facilities or equipment to assist or facilitate federal immigration enforcement operations. The purpose of this policy is to ensure the agency's resources are used to promote public safety and maintain trust and cooperation within our communities. Our policy is designed to prioritize the safety and well-being of everyone in our communities regardless of their immigration status.

Many other counties have similar policies, and there is solid research on the effects of these policies. The data shows that when local law enforcement focuses on keeping communities safe rather than assisting in federal immigration enforcement efforts Communities are safer. I would urge Santa Barbara to follow the lead of these other counties to access the research, to show the data that backs up what I've just shared. Thank you so much for the opportunity to share.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:51:58

We will now go to Alondra Mendoza to be followed by Barbara Parmay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:52:04

Alondra? Good

PresenterAlondra MendozaMixteco Indigena Community Organizing ProjectProposedself-stated6:52:10

afternoon, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Alondra Mendoza and I'm a Community Advocate with the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project. Today, I would like to share a story in representation of the numerous immigrant families who live and work across the Central Coast in the agricultural industry to provide food for their families. Earlier this year, an indigenous Mixteco community member was deported to Mexico due to ICE. This individual lived in Oregon many years ago and had a deportation order. When this person decided to go get his driver's license in California he soon was found at his address by ICE.

They arrested him and immediately deported him to Mexico. He left behind his entire family, his wife and four children. Now the mother is the sole breadwinner of the house. The oldest son is now starting to work to help his mother cover their home expenses and basic needs. They do not have plans to move back to Mexico to reunite with their father because the oldest child is looking forward to pursuing college and to set an example for his three younger brothers who seek higher education.

It is unfair that our community members and their families are being torn apart by ICE. All of these, all of his children deserve to have their father here in California so that he has an opportunity to provide and care for them as well as to give them the social emotional support every child needs from their parents. With that said, mixed status families deserve to stay and have an opportunity to achieve the American dream. Thank you

6:54 – 7:0014 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:54:00

We will now go to Barbara Parme, return to Barbara Parme before we come to Santa Maria with Brooke Lotz. Barbara?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:54:13

Hello? Hi, we can hear you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:54:15

please proceed. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 36Proposed6:54:18

just simply wanted to say that The Truth Act is important and we need to have zero number of immigrants picked up by ICE after being in the county jail. This is destroying family lives that don't deserve to be destroyed, and our children, our young students are affected by this. Everyone's affected by this. We do not feel safe. This community does not feel safe.

And we should follow the lead of the counties that have, that are not communicating with ICE. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:54:58

We will now return to Santa Maria with Brooke Lotz to be followed by Vanessa Toran.

PresenterBrooke Lotz I'mMexteco and Tijuana Community Organizing Project as their immigration attoProposedself-stated6:55:04

Brooke? Hello Chair, hello Board. Thank you for holding this forum today. My name is Brooke Lotz I'm an immigration attorney and a Santa Barbara resident. I've for years worked with the Mexteco and Tijuana Community Organizing Project as their immigration attorney. And I was present last year at the Truth Act Forum and I have many questions that I did not hear addressed today from last year Among them, last year we discussed the difference between a pickup and a transfer and the Sheriff's Office at that time did not have a clear definition. Today I also heard the introduction of the term re-arrest which I think may Sort of relate to this pickup transfer thing, but I'm not entirely sure the sheriff's office did Indicate that they have changed their policy, but I would like to know how that has changed What was the policy last year as opposed to this year?

for true transparency just the restating of whatever is written down is not super helpful as an attorney and Another question that I have is, I heard that the policy regarding the notification of attorneys has changed but I'm not entirely clear how. So I do remember that last year there was a question about How folks who had been arrested indicated whether they had an attorney or not to the sheriff's office. And if they were unsure of whether they had an attorney that there was then despite an ice notification, then there would be no attorney notified. But what the law says is that if ICE is notified, then an attorney shall be notified. So if you can't do both, then you cannot do one under SB 54.

Another thing I had a question about was I did not see, I did hear about the two pickup transfers re-arrests and it's unclear to me if these were in violation of SB 54 or if not because we don't know what the offenses were. I know last year there were multiple offenses listed. We knew what the person who had been picked up had been arrested for. This year we don't have that information and I believe unless I'm incorrect Chair?

Because it just said the two transfers, right? We did not list the actual. They were can OK,

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:57:30

sorry that is your time thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.736:57:37

And just no doubt I think those questions are the same questions the public defender had and that will get into that later after public comment

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role6:57:48

we will now go to Vanessa Turan to be followed by Leo Ortega.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 37Proposed6:57:56

Good afternoon Chair and Supervisors. Vanessa Teran, Policy Director with the Mixteco Indigenous Community Organizing Project. Yesterday I was called by one of my former indigenous youth leaders who is now an adult married and has two children a four year old and a child an infant She called me because she needed to speak to someone who she could trust. Dismayed, I was informed that her husband was detained by ICE and that she needed support so that her husband was not separated from her family and children.

Her husband was stopped by a law enforcement officer while he was on his way to shop for food to feed his family but never returned home. He then called to say this, he had been packed up and transferred to ICE. He is now without any legal and language access support in a detention facility in Adelanto California. He also has a medical heart condition where his heart can cause damage to his well being without access to his medication. But there has been no advice on his right within the immigration system. I spent last night calling the detention center and various lines to support our community member with language access, and depositing money in order for him to have access to food and phone calls to call his wife and children. That individual did nothing wrong but was simply pulled over, arrested, and detained for being brown and undocumented.

He will not be there for his daughter's first day of school this week as she is about to enter kindergarten, a moment that embeds deeply into our core memories. This is heartbreaking. Who is to tell this child that her father was taken away from her? Our families migrate from region to region on our cruelly racially profiled and harassed and intimidated by our law enforcement.

We very well know that the sheriff has the power to update the policy on ICE transfers and notifications to end this practice, or that you as Board of Supervisors can pass legislation to ensure no county resources go towards funneling more residents to ICE where they're separated from their family and community. Because of this and endless stories I respectfully urge you to formalize a policy to end all transfers and notifications to ICE today. Thank you

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:00:00

I just ask you is that what jurisdiction did that case happen in?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 37Proposed7:00:06

So the family lives in Oxnard and they also, the husband works in construction in L.A., but he was living and working here. And so he's a Ventura County resident and they migrate between Santa Barbara County across the state depending on work. The mother, the wife right now is a field worker in the strawberry fields.

CommentSal MartinezProposedself-stated7:00:25

But it was picked up in Ventura.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 37Proposed7:00:27

Yes. So it could happen anywhere. Thank you.

7:00 – 7:078 turns

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:00:33

We will now go to Leo Ortega to be followed by Saul Martinez, Leo.

PresenterLeo OrtegaMixteco Indigenous Community Organizing Project in SProposedself-stated7:00:40

Good afternoon, Board of Supervisors. My name is Leo Ortega. I'm part of the Mixtec Indigenous Migrant Community and as well, I'm a Youth Program Coordinator with the Mixteco Indigenous Community Organizing Project in Santa Barbara County, specifically in Santa Maria. I urge the Sheriff's Office and the Board of Supervisors to formalize a policy to end all transfers and notifications to ICE Santa Barbara County families and communities should be reunited with their loved ones, not doubly punished and subjected to ICE abusives, detentions and deportation practices.

Coming from the migrant indigenous community we face many barriers by policies that marginalize our community. When I was eight years old my father was incarcerated At the Santa Barbara County Jail for several months for driving without a driver's license, something that's very hard for many indigenous communities living here in Santa Maria. After hearing his release date I was excited to see him again but unfortunately that was not the case.

The Santa Barbara County Jail transferred my father to ICE. Broken to hear the news as a little kid, I thought about how life would be Not having my father around was difficult, especially for my mother who only speaks Mixteco with little to no Spanish and English. And I witnessed the discrimination that my mother faced wishing for my father's presence. She navigated services independently.

A struggle at school teachers had a hard time communicating with my mother because of her indigenous language. Because of my overwhelming experience, I felt distressed from local law enforcement due to linguistic, cultural barriers and racist practices. Experiences like mine still exist within the migrant indigenous youth that I work with here in Santa Maria.

I believe no indigenous migrant family should go through family separation by ICE. The transfer and notification to ICE needs to stop in order to protect migrant indigenous families and ensure family unity. Just a reminder for you all that we're in stolen land. We're on Chumash land so hope you keep up you keep in mind of those indigenous families that are affected by this. Thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:02:58

We will now go to Saul Martinez to be followed by Francisca Camarillo. Saul?

CommentSal MartinezProposedself-stated7:03:08

Good afternoon Board of Supervisors, Sheriff's Office. My name is Sal Martinez. I am the Immigration Outreach Specialist and Education with MICOP in Santa Barbara County and San Luis Obispo County I'm here to ask the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff's Office to formalize a policy to end all transfers and notifications to ICE. Many, many counties in our state have already adopted this policy with ICE, Santa Barbara County should be one of them. We have many immigrants here that put food on our tables and we should stand up for them.

Santa Barbara County families and communities should have the right to be united with their loved ones instead of going through a process of separation. Our children should have the right to grow up with one of the parents, and to live without fear that someday mom or dad might not come back home. On many of my outreach and education events I see that the word immigration itself causes discomfort, causes fear within the community Even if they haven't done anything wrong, the fear and they still are afraid that someday they might be pulled over or detained, arrested and deported and separated from their families.

I respectfully ask you, the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff's Office to adopt a policy on non-cooperation with ICE. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed7:04:42

And Madam Clerk, I will close the roll for public comment but please proceed.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:04:47

We will now go to Francisca Camarillo to be followed by Raul Oliveira who will require interpretive services. Thank you.

CommentFrancisca CamarilloProposedself-stated7:04:58

Hello everyone, my name is Francisca Camarillo and I'm a TECU community organizer with Mixteco Indígena Community Organizing Project here in Santa Barbara County. Just as some of my compañeras had mentioned because of the practices that the collaboration between the sheriff sending information of the inmates to ICE due to this the families are vulnerable to separation and children with disabilities And other health conditions that require medications are the most affected.

If the parents are not there children are left without the care to support and attention that they need to survive. Children need their parents to support them in going to the doctor's appointments taking their medication and attending school. When a parent is separated due to ice they don't know if they will be able to see their children again who will take care of them when they are gone?

They don't know if ICE will be waiting at the court or outside of the jail when they are released, even though they already served a time. Being undocumented in this community, in this country is already a sentence that doesn't value their humanity but does value their labor through the working hands that feed our city, our state, our nation and other countries around the world.

They have to live perfectly and not commit any crime, cross a red light or even jaywalk. Others commit higher crimes than this and now have to even think about being separated from their families. Again, our families face these consequences by serving their time in addition to that, the extreme fear of family separation due to the deportation. Working with indigenous youth, I hear these stories from the youth who are fearful that someday their parents will face the criminal justice system and that their parents will be taken away by ICE.

However they are against this cooperation more than 25 indigenous Dekyo youth could not join us today but they urged the Sheriff's Office and Board of Supervisors to form a policy to end all of the transfers and notifications to ICE. Thank you

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:07:10

We will now go to Raul Olivera. To be followed by Karen Hauenstein excuse me.

not transcribed≈25s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

7:07 – 7:1211 turns

CommentRaul OliveiraProposedself-stated7:07:28

I'm My name is Raul Oliveira and I am an advocate for the organization and community of workers in the Proyecto Indígena Mixteco in the County of Santa Barbara. El aguacil ha estado cooperando con ICE de las personas con delitos menores simples, lo que viola la ley estatal y no ha sido transparente en proporcionar suficiente información.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed7:08:27

The officers of the sheriff have been violating the law by giving information to ICE that is not complying with these persons that may have committed small simple

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:08:45

For instance, in

CommentRaul OliveiraProposedself-stated7:08:48

the year 2020 a person was deported leaving their wife and the kids. And the history continues

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed7:09:11

repeating and when would this injustice be over?

CommentRaul OliveiraProposedself-stated7:09:15

The transference to ICE, it inflicts twice the pain on the immigrants. El condado debe de tratar a los residentes inmigrantes de la misma manera que a todos los demás residentes, ni mejor ni peor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed7:09:33

The county should treat all residents of the county like everybody else, no worse, no better. Thank you and I should the interpreter speaking. Mr. Oliveira expressed most of his thoughts in the Mixteco language but I'm not a Mixteco interpreter so he did the interpretation himself into Spanish and I did the interpretation into English thank you.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:10:02

We will now go to Karen Hauenstein and then we're going to return to Zoom with Maria Salguero,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:10:09

Karen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 38Proposed7:10:18

Hello, good afternoon. I would like to remind our County Board of Supervisors about the lives of Marilyn Ferris and Marlon Brumfield. I knew Marlon Brumfield personally. And my family was integral in the reasons why he sought higher education and inclusion in the Army When we talk about community safety and the rule of law, and following the laws that have been placed in our communities to protect all of the honest citizens in our communities from criminals.

We need to be very careful when we're lumping everybody into groups Because we know now that the people who murdered our friends, Marilyn Ferris and Marlon Brumfield. They were in our communities as illegal immigrants and they were wanted in other countries for things like murder. And that was known by ICE And the individuals who murdered our friends. My Marilyn Ferris and Marlon Brumfield had numerous contacts with law enforcement in our community before they committed their crimes of taking the lives of our friends so we need to be very careful about this whole information thing and We're never going to communicate about criminals.

Well we need to communicate about criminals. There's tens of thousands of people coming across the border and we don't know who they are. I mean what are we gonna be doing. Thank you thank

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:12:35

your time. We will now return to Zoom with Maria Salguero who is our final speaker on this item. Maria.

7:12 – 7:1913 turns

CommentMaria SalgueroProposedself-stated7:12:46

Hello, my name is Maria Salguero. I'm an immigration attorney for the Santa Barbara County Immigrant Legal Defense Center and I'm here to urge the county board of supervisors to end all collusion between local law enforcement and ICE and to end all transfers and notifications to ICE The collusion really enables the double punishment as some have mentioned of undocumented folks who oftentimes are arrested for minor offenses, but yet have to endure harsh harsher consequences in comparison to non. undocumented counterparts.

And for the same reasons that others have mentioned about lumping folks together, I urge the County Board of Supervisors to end racist practices because in fact immigrants have been lumped together and are assumed to be Criminals, murderers, rapists but in reality we are hard-working folks who are here and contribute to the community in positive and prosperous ways. And oftentimes as some have mentioned these arrests occur on minor offenses that truly do not merit the consequences that undocumented folks have to endure not only at the criminal level but having to be Transferred to immigration detention centers, and that is all I have to say. Thank you so much for your time

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:14:22

And that concludes public comment on this item

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:14:27

Is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed7:14:28

there any follow-up from any of this public comment that the sheriff's department wishes to make

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:14:39

Thank you Chair Williams. Just I do want to point out a couple of things when we're talking about the Truth Act, Trust Act we're not talking about minor crime. We're not talking about vehicle code violations or jaywalking these are serious significant crimes either current with being Held the answer on those current crimes and or they have serious significant criminal history.

In the past 15 years or 5 years with certain. Wobblers but it is not minor crime. And nobody from the sheriff's office or any other local law enforcement agency goes out and seeks to enforce Immigration we are out in the community. We are protecting the community by applying California criminal law. We make arrests when that is appropriate and only then if they meet the criteria once in our custody and ICE has requested information will we cooperate?

By providing them information about the time of release As it relates to the quote-unquote transfer versus release that has came up repeatedly and the reason why it has come up repeatedly is the Department of Justice, California Department of Justice and or the law has not made clear what is a transfer. We within the sheriff's office do know what a transfer is. That is when we, before allowing somebody out of our custody physically take that person while restrained and hand them over to California Department of Corrections and or another law enforcement agency.

In this case, that's not what we're doing. We are releasing the person from our custody and if ICE isn't there they're walking down the road and we're not going to stop them. By contrast if I am transferring them to the California Department of Corrections, I'm holding them. They are restrained in handcuffs until California Department of Corrections comes and gets them.

So again, the underlying problem is actually that the state has not been clear as to what they want. As to what qualifies as a transfer, what does not. However each and every year to include this year we are transparent about it. We will come here and we will tell you every single time that we have shared information with ICE. And every single time that ICE has came and picked somebody up. We're absolutely open about it and we always have been and will be.

And the other question came up about what had changed regarding our policy, specifically that related to domestic violence battery in years past. Domestic violence battery was a wobbler. It would have qualified. It does not anymore. And we discovered that unfortunately after the fact, and have changed our policy that now we do not share any information if it is a purely misdemeanor domestic violence battery.

All I have on my notes for items I want to talk about.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:18:05

Supervisor Nelson then Supervisor Harmon.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:18:07

Yes, I've got just a quick question. Under Sheriff Bonner, so I'm looking at the list of the different charges. Seen 101 inmates. So is that 101 inmates? Over the last year that were undocumented in the jail.

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:18:25

Those are 101 inmates that we have received a request from ice on some of them. We did not cooperate and provide any information whatsoever as Sergeant Alexander, we basically filed away their request.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:18:41

Do we know the how many additional? Undocumented immigrants that would be.

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:18:47

I'll defer to Chief Waslewski but I don't believe we specifically know

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:18:54

So we don't know. How do we know that these ones are?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:18:57

There were notified.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:19:00

OK, right thank you for the clarification.

7:19 – 7:3323 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed7:19:07

Supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.837:19:09

could you clarify the policy on how you notice notify attorneys?

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:19:16

Yeah, so. If a. Inmate identifies and says my attorney is so and so obviously that goes without saying we're going to notify the attorney what we have worked with the public defender on is in many instances they don't know who their attorney is. And so what we are looking at is going back into and obtaining additional information from court documents that we receive, and proactively trying to identify who their attorney is.

Hopefully that is going to identify for the most part an attorney whom we can communicate with. However it is still possible that if they don't tell us who their attorney is, we won't know.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed7:20:03

Supervisor Lavagnia?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:20:04

Thank you. And I want to thank everybody that came today, especially for our translator. Awesome job. So something just seems like it just seems like two different stories that I'm trying to reconcile and it's the advocates with the stories of people that come to them and it sounds like person is walking down the street gets picked up or gets caught in a driver's license issue which is very understandable and then gets hauled away by ice What, okay so maybe how do we get the data for all ICE activity in Santa Barbara County? I mean are they out there on their own or is it only through our jail. How are these stories coming to be and who else is what other agencies are dealing with this?

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:20:51

So what occurs via within the jail is 100% reflective of what we have shared here. However, the reality is when if you see ICE out in the community it says police on the back of there. And so the reality is somebody may take that and think, oh the police.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:21:14

But if there's a truth act form put out by the state that requires every sheriff to come and have a public meeting where's the requirement? I mean that seems like that would be the first requirement. ICE needs to come in and have an open forum and say these are our numbers this is who we arrested what they were wanted for. That would make way more sense to me And the local sheriff that has two people coming in and having a hearing. It would make

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:21:38

our life a lot easier, but I haven't quite found the local agency that's been able to force the federal government

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:21:45

to report it. Right. Okay. I guess that's the disconnect is we don't have the ability to force ICE to hold the hearing that then would explain why everybody... And I appreciate the lady who brought the other side of the issue, too. Because there is another side to this also that if you look at some of these charges that people were arrested for they're very serious and I think many residents in these communities whether they are documented or undocumented that live in the same neighborhoods if you ask them They'd be very happy that you kept some of these people in jail. So there's a lot of sexual assault, things with the minor and I understand advocates position that you should not be punished twice. I get that as well. It's very interesting situation but it just seems like we're putting a lot of focus on a situation and asking for change when and while somebody says to too many, there's two people here But you came up with like six or seven examples already of people that just happen to be caught up in the ice net.

And so I'd be very interested to hear from our federal counterpart, who happens to be a former colleague of ours about maybe getting some data from Ice Directs so that we could get a little bit more, peel the onion away a little bit more. Supervisor Caput?

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:23:22

Thank you and thanks to all of those folks who came here. I did want to just clarify another sheriff honor, you did speak to it but this sort of double jeopardy can you just again walk me through what happens because you're hearing these stories from the community that

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:23:37

sure so I mean double jeopardy is a legal term right? That is that you are charged or convicted twice for the same crime We're using this in a different context. Yes, in that in addition to being arrested for the commission of a crime here in our community that they are then subject to the potential for ice to come and pick them up and deport them. That's the concept of double jeopardy, but it's truly not. It isn't true legal double jeopardy per se.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:24:15

Thank you and the this call to not cooperate with ice. What would that look like? I just want to get a better understanding

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:24:23

so there are other counties that 100% the person could be a mass murderer. We won't cooperate. We do exactly what we do for all the lower level stuff, they just file it away. That's what it would look like potentially. I mean, that's an extreme example of it and that's why when I spoke about this is really about finding balance right? Obviously, I don't think any of us wants if a mass murders in our community to not communicate.

It's at the same point if somebody has committed a very minor violation, jaywalking or something like that that has come up. Yes we don't want them to you know get deported over something like that but again I think that's why I really wanted to point out this truly is about listening and it's about finding that right balance

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:25:20

And have, again this is my first Truth Act hearing. Have changes been made in these years that you've come here and you've listened and you've heard these stories? I'm hopeful the answer would be yes to that.

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:25:31

So the changes that have been made have been finding areas where we didn't get it right and we need to make it right. We need to fix it, and we will absolutely do that. The reality is again with 101 and even with the number of people that we did share information there were only two. And I think that really kind of lends in toward that right balance. That this isn't something where every single person who meets criteria is being picked up, that's not the case.

ElectedLaura CappsSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:26:06

I just want to acknowledge the courage of even folks coming and talking about their stories, even to hear in this space. I was on a school board when there's change in administration with the Trump administration and the fear of people stop showing up for appointments, neighborhood clinics. I mean it was just meals that were provided for free to kids who were not being utilized I just want to thank you and I'm educated. I'd love that list of questions from one of the lawyers because I would love to connect with you after this is over, but I would like to better understand both your questions and the answers. Thank

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:26:40

you if we can again. I think it bears worth saying again. We do not enforce immigration law. Local law enforcement does not arrest people for immigration violations period.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 38Proposed7:26:53

Thank you.

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:26:54

You know, and and I will Just to add maybe to that, the request to have a policy to not cooperate with ICE. The Board of Supervisors could pass that resolution but it would be not At all enforceable because the sheriff's office there's the sheriff is separately elected and they we cannot control their operations as much as occasionally I would like that but The We, we cannot do that. However, we appreciate that the Sheriff's Office has worked with Our Deputy CEO, Tonya Heitman and the Public Defender's Office to address some of the questions that came out of last year's Truth Act Forum. So I think this process has created some improvements.

We've seen a shrinkage in the number of pickups and transfers. And thank you for explaining those two terms again. I would just want to thank Tonya for doing that work And I would just want. I don't know who wants to say something but one of you talk about what have been some of the issues in that in the last year that you guys have resolved and are there any unresolved issues out of it because that's I'm trying to get to the attorney's question earlier because I think some of those were related

CommentIce DirectsProposed7:28:37

I don't know if we want to have Lamer come up, but sure. Absolutely for you know they brought to us the attention about the domestic violence battery. Absolutely brought to us. We absolutely need to change our policies as it related to that trying to find ways of enhancing the ability to get the attorney of record notified again has come down to discussion and that's still an open discussion.

It could be further refined in years to come. We think we have are working on a system where we're going to do, you know, proactive mining of information but it is an area that we can improve on.

CommentIrene CookProposed · by introduction7:29:21

And I would agree and I've appreciated being able to be at the table with the Sheriff's Department and talk through these issues The notification issue for attorneys is still one we really need to work on, and something that I hope isn't a year's process. It is something that happens sooner rather than later. The public defenders are appointed to the large majority of people who are going to be in the jails.

It's most of the notification will come to our office one way or the other. There is difficulty with different languages, there is a difficulty with different interpretation in fact we saw an issue with interpretation today here and one of the phrases that was used is this very specific legal term when translated from Spanish to English became minor charge when it should have been misdemeanor We have lots of those issues and so these are things that we're still working on. And I appreciate there's been open communication, and I have no reason to believe there won't continue to be but immigration is a very Ever-changing and very specialized area of the law. In fact, I've brought two of our immigration specialists, Holly Cooper and Onik Starrett who work with our office on these issues and have a great amount of work even with their...Holly Cooper is a professor at UC Davis has worked with our office and, you know, helped with consultation.

Onyx Starrett has been working with us for the last about seven or eight months because these issues are so specialized in changing and that's one of the areas that we are hoping because the earlier we are notified, the earlier we can say hey there's a mistake Some of the stories that we are hearing, some of the people who are being separated from their families may happen because of a mistake. Not because of a mass murderer that is in our midst but because of somebody who got charged incorrectly, who got charged with something that with a little bit of work we realized that's not what that should have been. The earlier we're involved, the earlier that we can get everyone involved and resolve it so that it doesn't land on your doorstep down the road

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:31:44

We just appreciate number one, that this is a new process that has come out of this once-a-year hearing process and that we have Tanya representing the CEO's office. And of course LaMere representing Public Defender and that y'all in the Sheriff's Department hasn't told us to go pound sand and it's taken some of those suggestions. That's good. We appreciate all that.

Because it means that the suggestions that the public make can have an avenue for being discussed and possibly implemented. And to me, that's really what this hearing process should create. Supervisor Nelson.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role7:32:31

Yeah, just one last comment You know I heard that there's a lot of fear in the community And I think that you know That's something that it's important that can come out of this meeting here is they really get the numbers out there so that you know people realize what exactly? Is going on out there and I did a little bit of research According to the Migrant Policy Institute which is informed by the US Census about 44,000 undocumented immigrants in Santa Barbara County We're talking about a hundred that were called out. So that's about two out of every thousand and only from the 100, there was only two people so it's only one out of 22,000 they're actually being moving on through ICE through our County Shares Department. So I hope these things are few and far between and that these things are being Done in a more judicious way that it doesn't inspire fear in the community.

You know that people in the community can continue to access resources that are important as well as interact with law enforcement because interacting with law enforcement is a real key to making sure that there's not additional crimes being perpetrated in the community because they're fearful to report those to law enforcement officers so I think whatever we can do maybe through this process to reduce that concern, I think is a benefit overall

7:33 – 7:344 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:33:49

Okay, any other comments?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:33:53

Yeah it's a receive and file. We need a motion to receive and

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.597:34:00

file. I'll make that motion. Receive and file the Truth Hack Report. There is a motion by La Mena, seconded by Hartman. That's items A through C. Supervisor Hartman are you okay with that?

ElectedBob NelsonSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.737:34:18

All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you we are adjourned Tuesday August 29th in Santa Maria Yeah yeah Bob's finally getting his wish