UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:0523 turns
Good morning, everybody. Welcome. I'd like to call to order the September 17th 2024 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, can we get a roll call please?
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board · 1 under review
Show transcript
but does plan on attending our meeting around 10 a.m this morning in addition Supervisor Williams is also currently absent but is on his way and should be with us momentarily.
Oh, he's here.
Okay, next item of business is the approval of the minutes from the September 10th 2024 regular meeting. So moved?
I will second that.
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. That's all there is here so that's it. Passes unanimously.
Next item of business will be our CEO's report. Ms. Villescaz.
Good morning board members. This morning I'm pleased to share another video from our series of Your County, Your Heroes. It features unsung heroes throughout the county who embody the spirit of selflessness and dedication and as you know the videos in this series are played on channel 20 throughout the week and are highlighted in our monthly county newsletter on CSB TV's YouTube page and our social media in both English and Spanish. This morning we are pleased to feature the county's animal services team as they jumped into action when the lake fire started on the 4th of July weekend to evacuate animals, so this story is so special because it not only shows a hard work of our employees but how the community came together as well to help each other during the emergency with that
Welcome to Santa Barbara County, where extraordinary individuals shine bright. Join us as we celebrate the unsung heroes who embody the spirit of selflessness and dedication from tireless volunteers to dedicated public servants. These remarkable individuals who inspire us all your county, your heroes.
Welcome back to the lake. Fire is now the largest in California for the year 2024,
though that greatest risk had been evacuated including large animals like horses and ostriches but also pets like cats and dogs.
Animal Services received a phone call that there was a fire burning up on Fig Mountain, so we go into a whole new mode. It can be a lot all at once because everything is fast-paced.
Folks need assistance either transporting them loading them caring for them or somewhere to place them and house them. A lot of livestock Chickens, pigs, horses, llamas etc. And our shelter facilities don't have that capacity and so we have agreements with a couple different agencies across the county to be able to use their facilities.
We received the call that we would be accepting large animals for large animal evac. We do our best to get those animals settled in, get them comfortable so that the owners have peace of mind as well.
Jacobson's feed showed up and said, we're going to donate hay. And what else do you need? Alamo Pentado equine vet said, What can we do? How can we help people saying I can house two horses. I have a four horse trailer. I have arena was amazing to see So much outpouring of support for what could have been a really, really disastrous event. The lives and the animals that were evacuated in the people and the things that were saved because the community stepped up. It's just unbelievable. Do you
want some food? No?
We do have two ostriches. The fire was now at the point where it was approaching my ranch and my house and the ostriches, we didn't know what to do at that point so we called animal services. Ostriches are very tricky to take care of and they are Not easy to transport either.
I got Officer Hart and said, well we gotta go up there. We gotta make sure those ostriches are OK. At first I wanted to be friends with
them. They don't know that they were there to help and make sure that we stay safe while also making sure that they stay safe.
Ultimately, the firefighters somehow that they were able to save the houses but also the ostrich pen which is miraculous because everything around their burned to be able to do what they did was something I guess very unexpected in a great way.
The team at the Santa Barbara County Animal Services is incredible, big hearts and yet at the same time some of the hardest working people you'll ever meet. You can feel that they're there to take care of those animals as if they were their own.
Awe-inspiring and just wonderful to see the level of compassion that neighbors had for their other neighbors. You know, we could not have been successful in our operations had we not had the community's support like we did.
It made me more aware of how good our community is. I'm proud to be working in Santa Barbara County because it's a great community.
0:05 – 0:0811 turns
Our animal services team is here today. Would you stand up so you could be recognized?
Well, that was awesome. So I come into work not always knowing what's going to happen but I have not had to wrangle an ostrich yet. Thank you for all you do. We really appreciate it, and to all the neighbors in the community that stepped up, the Elks, we really appreciate it, really. That was a great video by the way. Was that another Kelsey?
Yeah, and if you could please thank Kelsey
Griffin-Boutida. Yes, good job. All right so Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today? Oh, was at the end of the CEO's report? I'm sorry. Okay, all right. Sorry. Do not cut off the CEO.
Chair Lovenino and members of the board. Yes, I just have one quick announcement this morning to remind the public of how to participate in our board meetings for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda. Please see page two of our agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment 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 at the boards office At area code 805-568-2240. Again, that number is 805-568-2240 and that concludes my announcements for today.
Okay thank you very much.
Next item of business administrative agenda. Would any board members like to pull any items from the A agenda? Supervisor Nelson?
Yes I would like to pull 12, 15, 17 and 21. Any others? Good.
Okay, yeah that was plenty. So then we don't, we can go back to the four-fifths? Okay so I'd like to, Madam Clerk would any members of the public like to pull any items on the administrative agenda?
Chair Lavinino and Members of the Board, we have one request from the public to speak on Administrative Item Number 21.
Okay excellent. So I'll now entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda except for 12, 15, 17 and 21. So moved. Second. Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Abstentions? Passes unanimously. Next item is business will be the resolutions to be presented we'll come back to those other items in just a moment but first we have resolution number one administrative item number one Madam Clerk
0:08 – 0:142 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Commander Ed Olson upon his retirement from the district attorney's office after over six years of faithful and distinguished service of the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Ed Olsen and our District Attorney John Savarnak.
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Commander Ed Olson retired from county services on August 30th, 2024 having faithfully served the citizens of Santa Barbara County for over six years and whereas Commander Olsen began his career in law enforcement in February 1991 as a police officer with the Santa Barbara Police Department and throughout his more than 33 years of service he worked in various capacities and held numerous ranks including patrol officer Detective, Special Investigations and Crimes Against Persons. Sergeant, Patrol Traffic Crimes Against Persons and Restorative Policing Professional Standards.
Lieutenant, Patrol and Investigation Internal Operation and also served as a member of the Santa Barbara Police Department SWAT Team for 13 years as an operator, sniper, and eventually team sergeant. Upon his retirement from the Santa Barbara Police Department in 2018, Commander Olson joined the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office supervising the Bureau of Investigation in North County.
And whereas throughout his career, Commander Olson provided the employees of the Santa Barbara Police Department and the District Attorney's Office with positive leadership and served as an exemplary representative of the law enforcement profession as a whole. And whereas Commander Olson served the citizens of Santa Barbara County with extraordinary professionalism and sensitive law enforcement service while dedicating his life to the pursuit of justice.
And whereas Commander Olson's knowledge, skills and experience contributed greatly to the overall professionalism and goals of the Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office and the county. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors commends Commander Ed Olsen for his faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County congratulates him upon his retirement and wishes him and his family good health and many years of happiness passed and adopted today.
Members of the board, I won't go over Ed's incredibly distinguished law enforcement career. We simply don't have enough time for that today. What I want to talk about is what he meant to the county and the district attorney's office. Ed exemplifies the values that we as a district attorney's office and we, as a county, seek to portray to the public. Excellent service, caring about the mission of the organization and caring about the employees that work for us.
Ed was a demanding supervisor only because what he did in what the DA's office does every day is so important to public safety, to victims But his demands were always done in a supportive way. He built up the people he supervised instead of tearing them down. Mistakes, while inevitable, were always seen as opportunities to correct and for opportunities for somebody to grow.
What we're hoping as a county to create a work environment that people want to come. We're also hoping, as a county, that people realize the importance of public service and what we all of us who are County employees do on a daily basis to help the public. And Ed on a philosophical basis always understood that he always understood the importance of the mission and the importance His expectations were high, his expectations of himself were high.
And he got the most out of the people he worked with because they wanted to be a part of the team. They wanted to work with him and not for him. And for all he brought in terms of changing a culture of an office, for all the teamwork he engendered within the office We're an office with multiple divisions. We have attorneys, we have police officers, we have incredible victim advocates, we have the hardworking support staff anybody would ever have and that only works efficiently, effectively, and to the best interest of the public if all those different entities that comprise the one whole work together And Ed got that. He supported that mission, he bolstered it and he gave us thoughts ideas and directions that will carry on long after he retires.
He is an incredible police officer a great leader and a great friend and I'll miss you Ed.
0:14 – 0:204 turns
Thank you, Chair and Board of Supervisors. Thank you, Supervisor Nelson for supporting the proclamation. A lot of people to thank, but John, I really appreciate you giving me the autonomy and the ability to lead in North County like I did. We built something really special. I really appreciate the team that worked with me and worked side by side with me. They're an incredible group of people that really are committed Well being of the community, just like in the video. The lady said that we're so proud to be a part of this county because it really does matter to be in the service of others and nobody I need to thank more than my wife who for 34 years has been there sleepless nights and capable of running the household when crisis occurs and we were called upon to help for the greater good.
So thank you everybody. Thank you to my wife
Item two.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of September 2024 as Recovery Month in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Amy Lopez and the Be Well Community Based Programs. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas, the Santa Barbara County Behavioral Wellness Department provides in partnership with community-based organizations a continuum of care which includes the prevention intervention treatment and recovery from mental health and substance use challenges promoting the message that behavioral health is essential to overall wellness And whereas mental health and substance use disorders affect Santa Barbara County, and all communities nationwide.
And with commitment in support those impacted can embark on a journey of improved physical health, emotional health, and overall wellness. And whereas Recovery Month celebrated every September promotes and supports new evidence-based treatment and recovery practices, the proud recovery community, and the dedication of service providers and communities who make recovery possible in all its forms.
This year Recovery Month focuses on the four major dimensions of recovery, health home purpose and community. These are the factors that all individuals need to live healthy happy independent lives and reach their full potential. And whereas Recovery Month helps promote four key messages we can strive to be healthier and achieve our wellness goals. We all need a stable and safe place to call home finding purpose in life may be a powerful driver for recovery and building social supports in a caring community is essential for recovery And whereas the County of Santa Barbara Behavioral Wellness Department collaborates with partner agencies and community-based organizations throughout Santa Barbara County and out of county to ensure everyone has an opportunity to access services and support to achieve and sustain long term recovery.
And whereas we encourage and advocate for continued collaboration and integration of services to ensure success for individuals and groups who are in long-term recovery. And whereas our Recovery Month observance will support and highlight the multidisciplinary work efforts that are essential to improving the lives of those affected by mental health and substance use disorders, including raising awareness, educating communities, and by celebrating all recovery achievements. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims September 2024 as Recovery Month in Santa Barbara County and encourages all residents to support men, women, youth, and their families who are in substance use disorder treatment and mental health recovery programs throughout our community passed and adopted today.
Thank you.
Chair Lavinino and board members, thank you so much for your continued support. I want to introduce who I have with me today or who I'm with, I should say that I came with them. I have Tony Navarro our director division chief Melissa Wilkins and manager my fellow manager Katarina Zamora. I also have Deshawn Chavez and Donna Freeman here from CATA and Christina Vasquez from Good Samaritan Shelter And we may have Julio Roman in Santa Barbara. I'm not sure are we still doing that? Yes, Julio if you're there hey he's with Pacific Pride Foundation so on behalf of Behavioral Wellness Alcohol and Drug Programs our staff our contracted providers some of who are here today and the many clients and families we serve we thank you for your continued support of our system of care and for acknowledging and supporting recovery this is difficult work This is not a walk in the park.
It's more like hiking mountains at the same time it is very rewarding knowing that we have your support, knowing that our work is making a difference, making a positive impact seeing lives transform families reunify and when that one client parent or family member simply says thank you and knowing there are several more people seeking our help Knocking at our door, seeking our guidance. This is what keeps us going when we are hiking that mountain.
This is why we are here. For those of you that are here, it's recovery month. It's time to celebrate. So we cannot do this work without our contracted providers, some of here today. I'd also like to thank you and the Board of Supervisors for your support. Celebrating recovery should be an every day, every moment, every step celebration. It's hard for us. It is even harder for our clients.
We thank you for your support and for highlighting Recovery Month. And I'd like to ask anybody else if they'd like to say a few things. That's all we got. Thank you.
0:20 – 0:234 turns
Awesome, let's go to administrative item number three.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of September 15th, 2024 through September 21st, 2024 as National Forensic Science Week in Santa Barbara County and honoring the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office Forensics Services Bureau and joining us in person today we have Lieutenant Camarena and members of the Forensic Bureau. And if you can all join us at the podium and I'll go ahead and read the resolution Whereas National Forensic Science Week from September 15th through the 21st of 2024 honors and promotes forensic science by spreading awareness and sharing information about forensic disciplines with the community.
And whereas the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office Forensics Services Bureau has demonstrated exemplary dedication and service to our community, and whereas forensic science plays a crucial role in the administration of justice providing critical evidence and expertise in investigations And whereas the members of Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office Forensic Services Bureau have consistently exhibited professionalism, integrity and skill in their work. And whereas Forensics Science Week provides an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the contributions of forensic professionals nationwide Now, therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County hereby honors and recognizes the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office Forensic Services Bureau for their outstanding contributions to public safety and the pursuit of justice.
Passed and adopted today.
Good morning, Chair Lavinino and Supervisors. I just want to give you a quick thank you for recognizing these incredibly important professionals within your Sheriff's Office organization. They play in a very important role in providing our communities with effective public safety from the very onset of the investigation of a crime. They are responding out, they are evaluating and documenting our crime scenes, they are processing the evidence packaging the evidence and then they take it back to the lab and continue its examination and evaluation and they work incredibly closely with our criminal investigators in that successful prosecution again are providing our community with an incredibly important service, and for that we're very thankful.
And we appreciate the recognition of their professionalism so thank you.
All right well I'm now going to take up the administrative items pulled in numerical order. Madam Clerk please read administrative item number 12 into the record.
0:23 – 0:257 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, Administrative Item number 12 is from the County Executive Office. It is to approve budget revision request numbers 10091, 10120 and 10125. And there is a fourth vote required on these budget revisions.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you Chair Lavinino. This weekend I got to spend some time at Waller Park where I realized what poor condition the pavement is over there. And I got to see all these families enjoying their time at a county park, but then I got into my material on Monday and saw that there was budget revision for We're doing the pavement at Goleta Beach, and while I support that being done because it's really important, I think it goes along with my ongoing concern about our CIP investments. The geographic equity there, this is something, I know Goleta Beach needs this but a majority of our CIP was invested in the South County and I know that was something I brought up during budget hearings again. Not only did we in the CIP put $1 million towards this, we're gonna grab another half a million dollars of our deferred maintenance Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. underfunded on that project as well. So I just like to highlight these things because I think that there's some more work that can be done on investing in the county as a whole, so that was just my statement and then I'm happy to move it forward and support this in general but I definitely have this ongoing concern about how we are distributing our capital dollars throughout the county.
Can I get a motion?
On 12th.
I'll second. Thank you, Supervisor Nelson.
All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? 12 passes unanimously. That takes us to 8-15.
0:25 – 0:314 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number 15 is from the General Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the city of Santa Barbara City County Memorandum of Understanding MOU to support the administration of county funded parking permits within the city public parking facilities number six and number seven pursuant to a state mandated obligation to provide 81 parking spaces for the Superior Court of California. And this is in the first district.
Supervisor Nelson. Yes, thank you Chair Lavinino. Is General Service Director Kirk Lagwist here? I had a question for him. You know with this project, you know it's an important one. It's been on the books for a long time but one of my big concerns with this project all along was the parking that's why I didn't actually support it. You know I support it in concept but we already have a difficult parking situation in the South County that we're only going to make considerably worse by moving forward with the project. We were taking up a lot and now we're going to satisfy the needs of I know that there are contractual requirements for the courts, but I was wondering if there's any efforts to deal with the other parking issues for our county employees as a whole.
I hear from a lot of our rank-and-file workers that this constant concern that they have to park blocks away and then, you know, walk into work. Some of them work late at night especially those in probation and they have to after getting off at six or seven have to walk to their vehicles that might be far away so if they got just beyond the two hour parking restriction then those that want to park in two hours are constantly having to leave their desks to move their cars again That whole monologue is, are we doing anything else to potentially create additional parking for any of our employees down in the downtown area? Or is this all we're going to be doing moving forward?
Supervisor Nelson through the Chair. So when we were looking at the Garden Street lot, we had about 220 folks that had a parking permit that allowed them access to the Garden Street lot on average On each day, we'd have maybe 40 or 50 that would actually use the Garden Street lot that were county employees. Plus you had the judicial folks from the courts. So we looked at that and then we provided 25 parking permits to the admin lot based on traffic counts that we've had in the parking lot. We check traffic counts twice a day, morning and afternoon, to see how many are using the parking lot. And we figured with an additional 25 permits issued for the admin lot that we could absorb that in the averages there.
So we're two weeks in right now, and we're going to assess that. We issued those permits based on seniority and usage of personnel that have been using the Garden Street lot. So that leaves another maybe 20-ish that would, on average, potentially use parking. We did talk about possibly purchasing some our own parking permits for the parking garages but at $160 a month For folks that are in a hybrid situation and wouldn't use it every day, just didn't seem feasible. So we will continue to assess take traffic counts twice a day and at the end of September we're going to see what's the average based on percentage of use in the admin lot and then see if we can issue some more permits.
Is there anything we can do to survey our employees? Because there's a lot of our employees that never got parking passes at the Garden Street in the begin with, that were already using the streets and parking in neighborhoods. And so you know they were hoping eventually to age up into the Garden Street parking lot. They never got that opportunity because we cut that off and I'm hearing 80 new spots plus move over 25 We're going to lose about 100 spots and we already were in a huge deficit before. So maybe as part of that survey, not only surveying what we're currently doing but what are we not doing? What are the needs out there for our employees? I'm hearing that as a feedback from a lot of my constituents some of them that work up in the North County but then you know have promoted and now working administrative function there and now they're having to block you know park a half mile away or further and it does not seem like that's a viable option.
Some of them have requested Maybe, you know, parking in North County and taking a van down. But I've heard that idea has been shot down but I think we need to find some other solutions for parking in the downtown especially as the City of Santa Barbara starts to look at intensifying the residential uses in downtown so this is only going to get worse and that's one reason why it really wasn't big fan of probation building is because we're already taking a bad situation that we already know is gonna get worse and we're gonna make it, you know, the problem even bigger That doesn't mean we can't find solutions. We could still continue to work on solutions, I don't think we should just you know say yep we're moving forward good luck. I think we should continue to push into that find out what the issues are with some of our employees and it's often our employees they don't have to have the smallest voices.
You know we all get our parking spots you know most of the admin here the department heads they get their spots but sir rank-and-file You know, many of the people doing the hard work in the county that aren't getting those spots because they don't have either that title or that seniority. And so I just think we could be doing more and so I hope that you push in and look at looking that further.
So I'm fine with moving forward this and we need to contractually but I thought this was an important time to highlight this problem.
0:31 – 0:3620 turns
Okay thank you Kurt can I get a motion? So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Takes us to A17.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number 17 is from the General Services Department is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for services of independent contractor ASIC for inspector of record for the probation headquarters building project. Project number one nine zero one four point three and this isn't the first district.
And then you talk to Kirk again on here at this one so Director Lagquist Again, the probation building. So you know when this came up we have this inspector of record that we're hiring it made me think about what are we doing? Are we also going through our planning process as well where the same project goes through plan check and then has inspectors during all parts of the phases of construction like a private sector does? And so I think I know the answer on that but this is kind of a substitute for doing that. But could you expand? Are we doing both or is this our inspector as part of the process of building the probation building?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair. So this inspector of record, so this is a comprehensive inspection throughout the project and we've done this on any of our large construction projects. So Northern Branch Jail had an IOR contract as well. And their primary purpose is to ensure quality, timeliness and cost-effectiveness throughout the project. So they do special testing, daily testing, daily quality. Whereas Planning & Development, their inspectors focus more on code compliance including zoning, building codes, environmental regulations and adherence to land use with CEQA.
Again, it's quality daily what's being put into the ground. You know concrete testing making sure everything is going to code as well but P&D is more of the
final. So is P& D gonna come over and make sure code compliance is that probation is going to abide by code compliance? Or are we using this inspector to satisfy the code compliance needs of this project?
P&D will eventually will come out when we do like final occupancy. And they'll throughout the construction, I mean if we call it on them to come out and look at it?
If we did but I mean are they gonna be coming out like a normal project you know P& D will come out there when you pour the footings or before you put the drywall up to make sure the electrical is done. Is that part of this process or is this P&d doing that with a county project or are we able to hire a third party like this inspector in lieu of going through the P&E process
Sorry, very low chair. So typically we only inspect buildings that we have permitted so the practice at the county has been for general services projects that they self-certify and do their own inspections and that's a process that many jurisdictions take advantage of but they don't run through their own building permit process
Sure. So they're hiring a third party essentially to do that for them, right? Correct. And they're still having to abide by the code?
Correct.
Okay so there's an ability in the state building code to hire a third party versus having a local jurisdiction permit a process or to inspect a process?
There's the ability for the county not to have to run through their own building permit process. And so then they have to self-certify through a county architect, and then they run their own code compliance. So that's, yes,
that would be the process?
That's the process,
yeah. Okay, and the advantage of that is we have a third party where if something goes wrong, we might be able They're bonded and they have some kind of accountability. If we, in the inspection process when it goes through the county process if we miss something there's no benefit to the, like they can't sue us if we miss something on the code inspection right?
We don't sue ourselves
yeah. The public can't sue us if we missed something on that right? Meanwhile in this case we have somebody we can fall back on in the future and I think this is a good model and I just want to highlight it just because I know we have some challenges in building department that there may be another pathway that still satisfies the building code, that may not have to go through the county building process. Maybe we can allow other projects to get through in a timely manner to maybe take advantage of the same options that we take for ourselves so again I just wanted to highlight that again as an issue that i think that we should be looking at is we're trying to become more business friendly You know, if you know maybe that people have a choice to go either way.
So that was kind of what I wanted to highlight with this item. So I'm fine with moving forward with the contract, but I wanted to ask some those questions answered. Thank you. All
right. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion on 17? So moved
and I'll second.
Moved and seconded all those in favor. Aye. Opposed passes unanimously. Okay, so A21 we are going to trail. However I understand that there is a public comment on A21. So what we want to do is go ahead and read it into the record. We'll accept the public comment and then we're going to trail until Supervisor Hartman arrives. So let's go to 21 please.
0:36 – 0:417 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number 21 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Taheqa sanitary landfill groundwater protection system phase IVA fiscal year 2024 through 2025 and 2025 through 2026 county project number 828985. And this is in the third district. There's also a four fist vote required on this item and we have one request to speak from the public and that's Jason Papich. Jason?
Good morning members of the Board of Supervisors. I'm Jason Papich, President of Papich Construction and our firm submitted a bid for the Tejigas 4A landfill cell agenda item 821. Our firm formally protested the award to Sucre Construction which staff is recommending award due today I can understand the desire to award the bid to the lowest price bidder. However, as we pointed out in our protest Suket failed to adhere to the bidding requirements and by awarding to Suket today, this will forever set precedence within the county for the ability for contractors to not necessarily follow the public bidding requirements which Pappage Construction did in this case.
And I just want to make a couple of points. Papage being the second bidder. Value of 161,627 higher or less than one 10th of a percent. Higher over did follow the strict bidding requirements. The project contains community workforce requirement. Pappage Construction, while housed in San Luis County does a significant amount of work has a large staff housed in Santa Barbara County and we can ensure that the community workforce requirement is adhered to have a lot of experience with Community Benefit Agreements, community workforce requirements It's been a long time since we've had a Board of Supervisors meeting Happen to know the firm, they're a good firm.
And know some of their people which live in Bakersfield and beyond that spoke to having come to this job not real happy about it but my folks are eager and ready to perform the project and have the resources here to do it. So today I encourage the board to reject tickets bid awarding the bid to the lowest responsive responsible contractor package construction and who will adhere to all I'm going to talk a little bit about the process of completion of the critical infrastructure for the county package construction completed the last adjacent phase in 2014 to 4. We know the materials we know the complexities of the job. We have the resources to do it. There was a lot attorney letters that went back and So if there's any questions about those details, if you need any further information that you weren't able to digest I'm here to answer any questions today.
Well, thank you for being here. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes. Thank you. I think Jason and just for ex parte disclosure, I've talked to Jason quite a bit about this contract to this point. I've gotten to know Jason over the years. Many of his employees are constituents of my district and supervisor Lavanino. So perhaps construction is a well known entity. This was actually rebid, right? So the first time it was out for bid you guys actually were the high bidder. Is that right? We were the second bidder, Suket
was the higher bidder
Right so but you are the lower bidder But then there was another one that was not responsible and it was thrown out and your eyes where they original
we were actually provided a contract which we signed then Suket protested us in the second position. It was decided by the county That was financially proved to be a good visit that approach to take. We all sharpened our pencil, I'll say and you know came in a fair amount lower than the first round. Unfortunately so could just didn't follow all of the bidding requirements in the subcontractor listing and within that it leaves And potential claims and like I spoke to earlier precedent setting that I don't think the county necessarily wants and I want it on the record mostly because I ever make that mistake.
You know, and it could give us an advantage in the future. I want to make sure this is on the record.
0:42 – 0:488 turns
Okay. Yeah, this is kind of strange because I don't know how we want to break this up and I'm sorry that you know we don't have all of our board members here but we definitely wanted to wait until we had a full board she might be here in 10 or 15 minutes so I think what I'd rather do is will go to public comment and then So we're going to trail can I get a do I need a motion to trailer which is going to trail a 21. Until after public comment at least now takes us
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Yes, we have 11 requests to speak from the public on general public comment and all 11 are here in Santa Maria. We will begin with Dennis Carreras to be followed by Steve Wagner. Dennis?
Okay, and all of our speakers will be given three minutes this morning and I'm going to close the roll of public comment so we will have those 11 speakers. Good morning.
Good morning. Here to speak about Del Cielo Mobile Home Estates. It's going to be They're trying to get some change into the park. I just here to tell you that I have a handyman license and I do business in Del Cielo and I work for these people that have been retired for up You know, if it's a water spigot irrigation, a faucet, a garbage disposal. So any increase or any change that's going to happen in the park? It's going to affect a lot of people these people have been retired for many years. There's a fixed income they get by and I don't charge like the other guy, you know, I don't have any overhead, you know, I have a liability insurance and I have license But I make an exception for a lot of them.
My wife works at Home Depot, she's got 30 years so when there's a sale on faucets that are getting marked down, I don't go buy one, I buy five or six and to replace a water faucet for $30 they can afford it otherwise they don't have it or they go without it until they have to save. So I see it first hand We all have grandparents or some of us have grandparents, aunts, uncles. They're on fixed incomes. You know we all know so any change to the park it's going to hurt a lot of these nice people. So that's all I got.
OK
thank you very much. Thank you.
We will now go to Steve Wagner to be followed by Mary Harrison Steve.
Good morning and thank you for allowing me to speak again. And also, I understand this is a dog friendly atmosphere so if I speak before you again, I'll have my best friend with me. I want to talk about the senior park overlay. I'd like to also add on to what Dennis said which is money is not very prevalent in these parks And what you'll hear today from speakers coming are two areas. One, protecting the lifestyle of the senior parks which are under attack from what some people are calling predatory management companies going in changing the ages of the park And I'm going to speak about the darker issues, which is sales interference.
They interfere with the sale of an heir or someone who just doesn't want to be in a park, which is all age and the management company will say to the owner of that home or the air. Gee, we're not selling. We're not having this going on right now, but you can sell to us And here's the great part. You guys have a mobile home, a rent control ordinance affecting mobile homes because you know that mobile homes, you just can't pick up a mobile home and move it when you feel like you're not in a good situation so you have your mobile home ordinance and this is good but One of the exemptions in the Mobile Home Ordinance is a tenancy governed between the management and homeowner. They don't get the Mobile Home Rent Ordinance protection, they can charge whatever they want also If you do get that senior park overlay, you're going to be joining the communities of the City of Yucaipa, San Juan Capistrano, Huntington Beach, Petaluma.
Coquettee, Thousand Oaks and Ventura County just to the south. And if this does pass in the future it will let us look at the city of Santa Maria and say guys you gotta help our sister parks up there now. Look at what the county of Santa Barbara has done can't you do the same? Well That's basically everything I got. Let me see, oh one other thing. Managers aren't in the park. Emergency personnel aren't in the park.
The managers of Del Cielo are 15 minutes away and they also manage another park in Cambria 50 miles away so that's what these folks do and I guess that's my time so thanks again. Thank you
We will now go to. We will now go to Mary Harrison to be followed by Chuck Williams, Mary.
0:48 – 0:543 turns
What are you going I can't judge Harmony's intention about wanting to be inclusive. But, I look at a Tascadero's new 76 apartments for seniors at a cost of $27 million And that works out to $355,000 per unit. Speaking of affordable housing, that value is higher than any home in the over 55 parks. With Social Security heading to insolvency in the next 10 years It is predicted that there will be a 17 to 25% cut in individual payout.
This overlay would set a legal precedence such that either Harmony could or couldn't do the same to all of the senior parks I am fascinated by neighbors who have brought their parents out of Merrill Gardens because mom or dad, they're living past life expectancy. By 10 years, some by 20 and their assets are dwindling and it becomes a very affordable option to keep Mom I have a next door neighbor who just brought a mother up from Laguna Beach.
There are seniors who admirably, admirably have cared for special needs children through the years and they are safe and secure in a senior environment. Also, there are people who are legally blind. But because they have enough sense of light darkness shadowing, they can live in these settings. So I am concerned for the Gen Xers, the Millennials who are age 30 to 45 and the Gen Zs who are under 30 Because what are we doing to our children? They already have a $35 trillion national debt, and that's 12 zeros after the 35. I hope you will explain before you vote for Harmony how you're going to handle senior housing in the future. Thank you so much.
We will now go to Chuck Williams to be followed by Sherry Foster. Chuck?
Good morning, Chuck Williams from Old Town Orchid and I'm here representing New California State today and this is a reorganized California the state of California insurrection against the United States Constitution People of California are suffering from a tyrannical state government which fails to provide a Republican form of governance, enables and supports across the southern border the invasion of the United States of America by illegal foreign nationals.
and protects vicious criminals who commit outrageous acts of violence upon the citizens of America, all caused by a government of and for a monoparty system led by tyrannical dictator Gavin Newsom who openly defies federal law. California Mono Party political machine is socialist governor along with communist state legislatures. Socialist elected officials, agencies and unelected regional governance boards are colluding to create a communist California State in the direct violation of both Article 4, Section 4, Article 5 or I'm sorry Article 6 of the United States Constitution.
The state of California is moving at breakneck speed towards the ultimate communist state. The California 1850 Compact Constitution was legislatively replaced in 1879 by the Progressive Constitution After over 155 years of hard work to destroy all vestiges of the United States Constitution by using the 1879 constitution and through the court's decisions, over 920 amendments to the California Constitution. Massive taxes strangling the regulations, regionalism, deliberate destruction of the United States premier education and economic systems along with raping of one of the planet's finest environmental zones, the stage is now being set for the final nail into California's totalitarian coffin.
Since the mid-1990s, California has been a monoparty system. Over the years, the noose around the state's Republican form of government has been tightened with bogus constitutional amendments that include redistricting congressional and state seats and restoring to political party killings Amendment Proposition 14 that allows the two top vote getting candidates from the state state's primary to move into the general election regardless of party affiliation.
Worse yet, since the passage of the 2010 Proposition 14 criminal cartels have taken control of the poorest southern border of California and have established operations to traffic human slaves and to distribute We will now go to Sherry Foster to be followed by Leanne Wolever.
0:54 – 1:014 turns
Good morning, Chairman Lavinino and board members. This is a continuation of the California Republic reorganized State of California Ordinance 2401. The state of California insurrection against the United States Constitution. Since the passage of the 2010 Proposition 14, criminal cartels have taken control over the poor southern border of California and have established operations to traffic human slaves and to distribute massive amounts of fentanyl that kills thousands of Americans each year. This operation run by the Cartel Network works in conjunction with government financed non-governmental agencies and taking control of California's political machine.
In 2020, the California Attorney General's Office proposed an amendment to the California state constitution to replace the bicameral assembly and Senate with the un-cameral nonpartisan legislature. And to increase the number of members serving in the legislature that was considered for the November ballot if the uncameral Nonpartisan legislative proposition has passed. The loss of a representative form of government and the formation of a totalitarian state government would have been completed. The pattern and timing of these events are by design, and will doom the State of California and the citizens of the United States who live within its borders into tyranny patterned after the Communist China's Chinese miles takeover of China following World War II.
Whereas, California has a porous border and sections of inadequate fencing on the southern border as well has access from the Pacific Ocean onto miles of unguarded beaches. It is known that thousands of unidentified foreign nationals referred to as gotaways enter the state monthly violating federal immigration laws. Warehouse, the poorest border of California allows untold members of the legal foreign nationals to enter California trafficking humans for labor and sex trade with no plan to remedy to secure the border and violating federal law 22 USC section 7102 and California Penal Code 236.1 In Warehouse, the porous border of California allows untold members of the illegal foreign nationals to enter California trafficking dangerous life-threatening drugs including fentanyl which is killing citizens with no plan to remedy this secure border.
The purpose of all government is to promote the welfare and provide to the protection and security of the government. And when any form of organization and government provides inadequate for a subversive disperses, it is right. It is a duty of the people to alter or abolish it. Thank you Sherry that is happy Constitution Day.
September 17th we will now go to Leanne will ever to be followed by Allison Wales land
Good morning, my name is Leanne Williver. And good morning to everybody. I'm doing a continuation of reorganized State of California Ordinance 2401. Whereas the true purpose of all government is to promote the welfare and to provide for the protection security of the governed. And when any form of or organization of government proves inadequate for or subversive of this purpose, it is the right as the duty of the people to alter or abolish it whereas the Constitution's first 3 words we the people affirm that the government of the United States exists by The government of California, the current socialist governor and monoparty system along with local officials are following a coordinated design with the intent to actively engage in acts of insurrection against United States Constitution.
And whereas the existing state of California government thus called has not only abused the powers nominally entrusted to it but with The executive has usurped and exercised other powers to the manifest injury of Be it resolved, acting on behalf of all citizens of California, the reorganized State of California will establish a restored California government. The reorganized California government will consist of an executive branch, judicial branch and bicameral legislative branch of government. Be it further resolved, the reorganized State of California shall honor the Constitution of the United States of America as a supreme law of the land and shall honor Article 4, Section 5 and Section 6 The state of California shall ensure law enforcement in force and the courts prosecute those engaged in modern-day slavery according to Federal Law 22 U.S.C.
I thus protect the rights of the people under articles 4 section for the United States Constitution that guarantees to every state in the union a Republican form of government and to protect each one of them against invasion and on the application of the Legislature or Good morning, everyone. We are here to discuss the Constitution week against domestic violence in accordance with our compact secured by the California statehood of September 19 1850 today is a constitution day.
September 17th and I wanted everybody to know that it is constitution week also and I'm reading this really quickly. Thank
you, Liam. That is all right.
1:01 – 1:097 turns
Good morning. I'm here not as a commissioner, but representing the League of Women Voters because actually if you happen to hear today is National Voter Registration Day. Yay! Isn't it exciting? I'm here representing as Vice President of Voter Services as well as on the board with a couple of our members. Fabulous person who put some packets together for you for Joyce Lipman and Roz Silva sorry for our website. So again, I just wanted to say this is National Registration Day and we have several things going on in the North County.
Joyce is here and then we have several people at the local libraries including Nukiama. We made it all way up there to have resources available I'm going to start by saying thank you for the opportunity to be here today. We have a lot of people in the Santa Maria and Orchid in Lompoc in Guadalupe so I hope people come out and take the opportunity to be well informed. The league was established over 100 years ago to help people and educate I'm going to ask you to please register to vote whether you're 18 or 58 because as I heard someone say recently, you may not be into politics or government stuff but they're into you. And so it's important to truly get a full education on what is going on and that's what the league is here for. So thank you to the board
We will now go to Steven Simonson to be followed by Paula Robledo. Steven?
Good morning. I'm just here to speak in support of the Senior Park Overlay. I am a native Californian who left California 1973 for military service and found out that was my path after 34 years I retired from military service to come back and retire in my home state that had changed a lot in those 30 years because I was sent everywhere but California I found that I could not go out and buy a single family home, but being retired and trying to downsize. I went into a or purchased a home in a senior park And as greater numbers of working and retired Americans join the ranks of renters like me, most of them maybe not by choice.
We need protection from avaricious rent increases. A free market will never create or sustain affordable housing. A free market only guarantees profitable housing for landlords and more and more of these landlords are corporations that are even buying up single family homes and turning them into rentals Their latest scam is to acquire senior parks like mine and then convert these to more profitable family parks. This includes senior parks where the resident owns the home, but not the land. These unilateral conversions even against the consensus of the seniors living within those parks does not create affordable housing. It only creates profitable housing that threatens the livelihoods of seniors and decimates fragile elderly communities.
I urge Santa Barbara County to join other jurisdictions in California to create a senior park overlay to prevent such unilateral park conversions and protects seniors, most of them on fixed incomes from greedy real estate speculators and to keep us out of the riverbed. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
We will now go to Paula Robledo to be followed by Chris Yalotka.
Hi, good morning everyone. My name is Paula Robledo and I am a resident of Del Cielo Mobile Home Estates. I'm here this morning as along with many of my other residents to talk a little bit about Harmony Communities. Many of you may already know this information, many of you may not but I thought I'd read it aloud because sometimes hearing things out in voice versus just reading it has a bigger impact These two statements that I'm about to read were made by Harmony, published in a public forum articles.
One quote, at Harmony Communities we do not believe in housing discrimination. We believe a single mother with two kids should have the same affordable housing opportunities as people over the age of 55. We believe our community is well suited to accommodate struggling families and this change will help open housing opportunities for all, and in a non-discriminatory manner.
The next statement was made by Nick Ubaldi who is an employee of Harmony. He told the Sun in an email statement that the company believes everyone should have access to affordable housing in Santa Barbara County. And it, quote, does not discriminate based on age race or gender unquote. My opinion speaking for myself is that these statements clearly speak to the discriminatory mindset of Harmony and all its associates towards seniors If you think about the first statement when they say believe in housing, we do not believe in housing discrimination.
By the mere fact that they have made a practice of buying and taking over senior parks for no other purpose other than to convert them into all age parks That act in itself is discriminatory against the seniors who live within those communities. Most of those seniors have bought their homes in those communities. There are some seniors that live in those communities that are renters So my opinion is that if Harmony continues this path as they have in many parks across California, much to the destruction of those senior communities.
Putting seniors out of their homes putting them in vulnerable situations and making it so that their livelihood becomes financially unaffordable because Rent increases that Harmony will impose.
Thank you Paula, that is your time. Okay thank you. We will now go to Chris Silatka to be followed by Gary Hall.
1:09 – 1:148 turns
Good morning. I'm here today to tell the story of my experience with Harmony Communities. I inherited a mobile home in Del Cielo Mobile Estates after my mother's passing earlier this year. The early stages of sorting out the estate were moving along smoothly until Harmony took control of the park. We had our estate sale, and when I reached out about selling the mobile home, I was asked a bunch of questions regarding the will, mortgage company title, et cetera, and was informed that Harmony would be interested in purchasing the mobile home.
They stated the intent of purchasing the home would be to get the rent up where it should be. I left the conversation feeling confident that they would be helpful, and they might even purchase the home. However, this is when these predators began stalking their prey. A few days later, I received a certified letter stating I can only sell the home as an off-premise sale which renders it near valueless.
Or my option would be to sell it to Harmony. This whole process led us to several months of extra expenses, including lawyer fees, rent, utilities and mortgage. This has cost our family a ton of time and money. Finally, an offer comes through from Harmony which I anticipated being as we discussed in our phone conversation. However, their predatory behavior came shining through again as they were trying to make me believe that my mother's home is essentially worth nothing and that their offer is more than fair.
The offer was 50% of our phone conversation and 33% of the actual market value. In fact, the more-than-fair offer was far less than the appraised value four years ago. And as we all know, home prices have gone up significantly in the past four years. Luckily, I was diligent and spent time digging deep to find my rights. Otherwise, I'd likely be losing upwards of $100,000 of inheritance by accepting their extremely low offer.
I have found out my actual rights are backed by state laws, probate laws, and mortgage laws. And I'm now well aware that I have every right to sell the mobile home at its current site for fair market value. In closing, I hope you can see the extent to which Harmony is preying on families who are under stress, grieving and trying to navigate through a difficult chapter of life.
I also hope I can bring to light the tactics they're using to take advantage of the homeowners of Del Cielo Mobile Estates. And that is all. Thank you. Thank you.
And we will now go to Gary Hall who is our final speaker on general public comment today.
Good morning, good morning. My name is Gary Hall. I'm a senior retiree and a resident of Rancho Buena Vista Mobile Estates, a seniors mobile home park located in Santa Maria like the residents of Del Cielo. I specifically bought my home in Rancho Buena Vista because it's a seniors Park knowing my neighbors would also be seniors The park is designed to be a senior's community, not a family or all-age community park.
The amenities are designed for seniors.
We're actually talking about your mobile home meeting and trying to get it scored away but go ahead I'm sorry.
No it's alright. I want to hear from you.
You're going to.
The traffic is limited and the streets are mostly quiet and a good place for a senior to take a leisurely stroll I remain appalled to think that a greedy Senior Mobile Home Park owner would even consider converting senior mobile home parks. We must stop this grievous selfish act. I have not yet read or heard, this is back to you guys, of your plans to put this issue on a meeting agenda therefore I am again asking the County of Santa Barbara to initiate a moratorium The board of Supervisors has decided on converting any senior mobile home park to an all age Park until the senior mobile home Park overlay can be enacted.
This will resolve the immediate needs of Del Cielo residents and prevent a similar occurrence at the many senior parks in unincorporated Santa Barbara County. We can only hope that jurisdictions like
So we do have docketed for October 1st in a meeting on mobile home parks discussion. And we were kind of trying to just figure out the best way to handle that, but it sounds like it October 1st would be the time to do it. There was some concern. Go ahead.
1:14 – 1:1710 turns
Just for the members, we've heard your concerns. Our staff has been working to try to put something before our board. Right now we're tentatively planning for October 1st but I know that there might be some flexibility in that if we move at the next meeting but we have to work with our staff. But we will have some announcements and future meetings so you'll know.
So just to clarify, I just want to make sure so it'd be there October 1st or October 8th. Is that correct? Okay, so we'll let you know October 1 would be sooner but that would be in Santa Barbara but they're also mobile home parks in Santa Barbara that are affected or it would be October 8 which would be back here in Santa Maria. So we're going to figure that out and we'll make sure we get that information out as soon as we know and even if it's in Santa Barbara, you would still be able to come here to Santa Maria and give testimony and be able to hear everything that's going on down there Okay.
Okay, so that closes out public comment.
Yes, sir. Mind if I just make a quick statement? But just want to thank the Del Cielo residents for coming to speak. Currently our office is conducting a survey of all Del Cielo residents on whether they wanted to convert to a senior park or not There was contention made by the Del Cielo Harmony that many of them may, this may be a vocal minority so our office is conducting that survey and we should have those results here in about a week. So I just wanted to thank the Del Cielo group for stopping by and having their voices heard today at today's meeting. Thank you.
Okay thank you very much. That takes us to our departmental agenda We're going to continue on with D1. While staff is coming up, Madam Clerk can you please read it in and then we'll call for ex parte?
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Chair Levin, you know members of the board departmental item number one is from the planning and development Department it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Arctic cold extensive processing use general And this is in the fourth district and before we proceed to ex parte, we do have one item that was received afternoon prior to today's hearing. To be voted into the record to be accepted, and that is the presentation from urban planning concepts. The applicant on
Okay, Supervisor Nielsen?
Yes. Thank you, Chair Lavagnino. I have extensive ex parte on this item.
We want to vote in
or vote out. Please vote in the presentation. We want to hear from an applicant motion to accept that.
Seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Supervisor Nielsen, you want to start with Ex Parte?
1:17 – 1:3017 turns
Yeah if I could. Thank you very much Chair Labadino. A lot of ex parte it's the biggest project in county history I believe at a half million square feet but uh i've had extensive conversations with the applicant Tim Dayton and the agent David Swink since 2020 before I was even supervisor when I was staff most those conversations were about process including that the bifurcated process they would go through for approval put the project at risk because they would be getting the building approved before they got the use approved. I also talked to Mr. Asuna, the engineer for the project applicant about some of the traffic concerns in the area as we may, we're going over Better Avia is a two-lane road and a lot of traffic will be going into this project.
I did a tour once it was built with Tim Dayton and Ventura County Supervisor Matt LaVerve Once the structure was built, I got to tour the facility. I've heard from neighbors Jim Rice from Citrus City Cooling and Cameron Anderson concerns about existing traffic concerns already at Rosemary And better Avia about the existing conditions and then also what this project may mean to future traffic issues there. Also heard from Mark to share about concerns about the drainage in front of the facility and how that might impact neighboring properties and storm events. Heard from Greg France about concerns about PGD getting them hooked up in time because there were some concerns there I'm going to talk a little bit about the need for this facility, but also about the need for this facility for the Santa Maria Valley as an outlet for much of the product.
Heard from Glenn Battles concerned about power lines coming into the project and I think we work with PG&E to resolve some of those issues. Also heard from Frank and Patty Maldonado who are the current owners of the property underneath where it's at The track map, the parcel map had to be moved forward with the project or those could be separate and as well as how soon we potentially would hear this hearing. There's some concerns about their agricultural uses while this before we get that the maps recorded also yesterday I talked to Scott Snell from ATE which is the traffic engineer asked him a question about the traffic study and whether The guard shacks or the gates were considered as part of the traffic study and they were not, which are part of the built environment, which is part of some of the concerns on the traffic.
So I want to put all that out there on the record that these are the various conversations that I had and we'll go into some of the deliberations that we have today. Any other ex parte?
Just had a conversation last week with the applicant, my chief of staff and asked some questions about energy saving devices.
Okay I met with Greg France to discuss PG&E and getting them motivated to get moving out in that direction also met with Frank Maldonado Just in terms of scheduling this hearing and how we could move forward to get this item heard, but not on the merits or of the facility. So with ex parte done that takes us to our staff presentation
Mr. Chair, members of the board we have with us are my Deputy Director Travis Sewards of Development Review, Gwen Beiler a Supervising Planner and Steve Connor our planner three on this project and they're available to present today
Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. I'm Steve Connor and I'll be presenting the Arctic Cold Extensive Agricultural Processing Use Project which includes a general plan amendment, revised development plan, conditional use permit, and tentative parcel map. The project is located at 1750 East Baderabia Road approximately one mile east to the city of Santa Maria near the southwest corner of the intersection with Rosemary Road As discussed in the next slide, the proposed project includes a general plan amendment to allow an extensive agricultural processing use within the previously approved Arctic coal facility which is currently under construction.
The previous facility approval included a certified EIR and all impacts for the proposed extensive processing use were analyzed and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program was incorporated into the project conditions of approval. The construction site is depicted by the red dashed line boundary here, and a tentative parcel map will subdivide the existing legal lot into two legal lots that will separate the Arctic cold site from the existing uses on the subject property.
The existing lot is currently being used for row crops and also contains a 50,000 square foot agricultural produce processing facility doing business as mid-coast cooling labeled at the southwest corner here. The Arctic Cove facility is under construction on parcel 129-097-012, which is the 40.65 acre parcel, a smaller parcel there. The surrounding land use consists of predominantly agricultural operations and processors. Another existing agricultural processing, process or doing business as central city cooling is located off site and immediately to the north across East Arabia Road.
As mentioned in the previous slide, the request before your board is for a general plan amendment conditional use permit development plan revision and tentative parcel map for the proposed use. The general plan amendment will amend the comp six map of the comprehensive plan land-use element to add the agricultural industry overlay to propose lot one. The overlay, in addition to the conditional use permit is required for the proposed extensive agricultural processing of agricultural products.
The proposed extensive processing includes milling or pureeing, juicing and pasteurization of products from the raw state and incorporating additives such as sugar to the finished product. The development plan revision is also required for the proposed extensive processing use, in addition to a request for construction of a new 35-foot tall flagpole at the western driveway entrance to the facility.
As mentioned in the previous slide, the tentative parcel map will separate the Arctic Cold site from existing uses and provide a fee title separation of ownership that matches the existing configuration of the two assessor's parcels. The processing facility is currently under construction, and this photo was taken looking directly east from the existing road that extends south from Rosemary Road to Midcoast Cooling.
Here's a closer view of the entrance gate at the northwest corner of the facility as viewed from the western access driveway on Beta Arabia. This photo was taken at the Eastern Gate near the northeast corner of the facility, as viewed from Beta Arabia. On this site plan, the existing building is represented by the blue dashed outline and the proposed extensive processing use will occur within the red area.
As mentioned previously, the project is designed to meet all standard flood control requirements and incorporates an on-site retention basin shown along the west side to withstand all runoff impacts from a 100 year flood In addition, the project is designed to meet all standards for road improvement and circulation. Staff has added clarifying language to the conditions of approval in order to ensure project compliance with respect to traffic and drainage conditions.
The Traffic Demand Management Plan was revised under Conditions 6 and 7 to add traffic counts and reporting over the course of five years, starting with the final building inspection clearance. Corrective actions may be required if the traffic counts exceed the projected average daily trips for the project. A new condition was added to require drainage channel maintenance and potential replacement of the drainage system should off-site flooding occur as a result of failure to maintain the drainage channel.
The proposed project will allow an extensive agricultural processing use within a previously approved facility. The extensive processing use was contemplated in the EIR, so there will be no new environmental impacts nor will the impacts be more intense than those analyzed in the EIR. The project is consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and it also complies with Chapter 35 of the County Land Use Development Code, including standards that apply specifically to agricultural processing facilities.
In summary, staff recommends that you make the required findings for approval including an attachment included in Attachment 1. Determine that the EIR addendum is adequate. Adopt a resolution and approve the project subject to the conditions included as attachments 2-1 through 2-3. This concludes staff presentation. Staff from P&D Public Works and the applicant team are available to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Do you want to do questions now or do you want to hear the applicant first?
I have a couple of questions for staff.
Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes, so thank you. My understanding is this building was already approved through a CUP that went to the Planning Commission but now to get the zoning right for what they want to do ultimately on the building they have to go through the general plan amendment process is that right and so You know, I think when I had to ask the applicant at one point what happens if we didn't approve this? It would be the building would basically be useless. I mean it'd be a freezer but there'd be no way to do what the desired use is here and so the applicant went through this process in a bifurcated manner knowing that it was not for sure that eventually it'd be approved so it's at risk. Is that correct?
That is correct, Supervisor
Nelson. So they were fully aware that it come to the board where we have a lot broader discretion on the process? Right.
That is
correct. Okay so and I understand why they did that and I really want to thank staff for being flexible here because you know sometimes our process takes a long time to get through and so it totally gets the reason why to move forward but at risk means at risk because there's some things that may not be fully vetted at that point And so, you know, I'm going to have some a little bit of conversation with my colleagues hopefully on trying to solve some of these problems that are up with the project that I see potentially moving forward. But I'm looking forward to hearing from the applicant as well.
But as far as the trips, you know, traffic is one of the big issues out there for me on What you're saying is that we can do some trip counts. So as long as they keep below the number of vehicles that they had said, that's not a problem but is there any looking at what that traffic impacts like with queuing? Is that part of that as well or are we just looking at trip counts?
Supervisor Nelson and the board. Definitely, the condition is drafted to focus on the trip counts that the applicant provided to meet the CEQA requirements which then resulted in mitigation to the project right? So the counts are at the baseline that we're gonna be looking at to make sure that they're within the traffic counts that they provided to us. Queuing when I spoke with Public Works just yesterday if it becomes an issue on the streets and they get complaints that would warrant some sort of action on their part if it becomes a safety issue.
Okay,
yeah
because that's that's my concern. My understanding is the environmental document didn't contemplate the guard check so when the When the semis come, they stop and they check in. And sometimes those back up into the right-of-way. Then as well as the employees which is at peak 300 employees coming in and 300 employees going out so 600 trips. They're going to the gates that have to open up and down to let them in. So already again BetterAvia for the public is our one pathway essentially to east side of agriculture. It's a big thoroughfare for Thank you.
1:31 – 1:3911 turns
Just to add to the queuing question, so what we did look into yesterday just to give you some more information. Part of the Will Robertson called it a warrant. So based on the traffic trips they created this right turn pocket, right? And so it's about 200 feet 400 feet of term pocket. And 200 feet of throat length. So and they are here to help explain some of this stuff at 60 feet for a semi, that's about nine to 10 trucks that should be able to go into the right turn pocket according to their calculations. But I and so and then just the other thing we looked into yesterday too is Part of the way we structured or built this parking lot and the reason we made it so big is the idea was if there was queuing issues, they would be able to also park trucks on the property.
So hopefully that has been built into the project a little bit. Okay.
Thank you. And then Would this project would be required to have all the operations park on site? I mean, is that already one of the conditions so there would no be. So their employees wouldn't be able to park offsite or none of the trucks would not be able to park offsite
at this point? That is the absolute intention and that's why there's really we over parked for those for that for that very reason. I
understand the intention. Is it a requirement?
It's Yep. It's a requirement.
Okay. Just want to make sure that's on the record. Okay. Thank you. Those are my questions right now.
Okay, thank you very much. That moves us to the applicant presentation and we'll be given seven minutes.
Good morning Chair Lavineto, members of the board. David Swank with Urban Planning Concepts here to present the Arctic Cold Storage Facility Project. I also have here Mark Lloyd who is a surveyor if you have questions on the parcel map and I also have representatives from Fisher Construction Group if you have any questions on any of the operational aspects of the project As Steve had mentioned, this is the location of the project.
It's currently under construction. I'll pass this over for expediency to come to this slide here. So this project as Supervisor Nelson had mentioned, this is probably the largest facility in Santa Barbara County we have. I would actually call this project kind of unique in terms of the cooperation and partnership between the county staff and also the applicant to make this work. And through Supervisor Nelson's office, we had a lot of support for this project.
This project is a major benefit to our area farmers. It provides a lot of benefit. It provides a lot more. access of our local produce to actually, because of the nature of this project it's a cold storage facility. It's not a processor. This literally can help bring products from Santa Maria of our berry markets that actually can go worldwide because of the nature of the project. Arctic Cold has multiple operations as well as Titan which is their major tenant They're located in Oxnard. Also, they are now operating under the old Lineage Logistics Facility on La Brea. They own that one too as well.
In terms of the number of employees during peak harvest times there can be substantial employee benefits to the project Also there's significant sales and as I mentioned this project brings our area farmers access to regional, national, international markets. And also they have major national clients including Smucker, Sunkist, you know PickSuite a lot of the major agriculture users utilize this facility.
As Stephen mentioned, the project is under construction. Actually they are very close to occupancy on this building I think they have just one or two other minor items and they can explain exactly where there are into that process but they are very close to occupancy that's on the building And the issue that came up here and I can explain how we got here and why we're here today, which is really the core question. So as we are going through the process this project, the puree production, which is really what we're talking about here.
One of the customers they have, they create purees for jams, jellies like smuckers and that requires chemical reactions. It requires heating for pasteurization which is required by national FDA standards. So as we are going through, this was always part of the project description. It was evaluated in the EIR. It's an internal use that Titan does is one of the uses that they do in terms of the processing of this product and then as we are very late into the process as we're investigating it's kind I think the first of its kind in Santa Barbara County. They do do it in Santa Maria but not in Santa Barbara County.
The question of processing and it turned out that in the Act 2 zone If you're doing something that's pasteurizing, it's considered intensive agriculture and you need the general plan amendment be placed on it. And again this was very late in the process and as we all know in the agricultural industry everything is based on harvest schedules, everything is on contracts, futures in terms of estimated and that's what the farmers depend on so going through then and basically putting a halt to the project And going through the process of adding the AG industry overlay which I think everybody agrees that that's beneficial, you know to the project. It could place harm on those which place harm on our farmers so the decision was made and staff supported it that we would temporarily remove that that processing which is one use in this building.
I mean the building still going to be valuable they're still doing cold storage were still freezing our agricultural project for agricultural products But we have this one use, which is integral to Titan's business model that they have to have. But it was decided to take that off to allow the project to be approved to commence construction and then while it's under construction, we would process the ag overlay. Now we do understand there is a risk that's involved in that but because of the nature of the time they have to have this building operating for our farmers, we had to go this route. We really had no other choice But as I mentioned, this use was evaluated in the EIR.
It's an internal use. There is no increase in impacts. One of the questions that Supervisor Williams had is this increased energy use? No because it was already evaluated. This project, this is a green project where solar everything else that we're doing on there We had a staff recommendation approval for this general plan amendment. Your planning commission did unanimous recommendation of approval actually commending the project, so I think everybody agrees that it's something that I think is very important to our farmers will only make this project site this facility more profitable. better for our farmers, better for the county, better for revenues. So you know we do agree we apply with all the applicable policies as the staff has said it's consistent with the general plan to be able to do this and now that we understand we have to do this with these kind of facilities is hopefully more will come in We know we can, will do this as part of the normal process.
And also you know all the impacts have been mitigated. We agree with the revisions to the conditions of approval because we're very confident we're going to meet them because they do this on multiple other projects so they know their actual process. The staff recommends approval and we also request that you would approve this general plan amendment so that they can continue the use. So that ends my my presentation. I know Supervisor Nelson had questions on the operational and I have the folks from Fisher here that can answer any questions you have on the facility.
Thank you very much. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Labadino. You said you guys are getting close to occupancy. So there's not occupancy yet on the property? That's correct. OK, so I'm confused because it seems like it's operating out there. So are you guys operating without an occupancy permit?
Chair Labadino, Supervisor Nelson, I'll have folks come up here because they explain exactly what's going on in there.
1:39 – 1:4825 turns
Supervisor Nelson, the board, Juan Ozuna Fisher Construction. So yeah currently we're going through all our final inspections. We've got all our fire and life safety, all our building inspections, final inspections are complete. Those have been complete since April so currently it is going through continued testing and commissioning on the facility We are down to just a permit compliance sign off for some overflow parking striping, and that will be our final sign off that will initiate everything for a full certificate of occupancy.
Okay. Yeah, that's all it's all building fire and life safety signed off complete building inspection.
So it's been operational since April
going through testing and
commission start up? Yeah,
no, no enhanced Commission no enhanced processing that are associated
because you guys are bringing the product into the freezer and have employees and semis coming in now with
yeah going through all the testing and questioning of the equipment Okay. For operations, yes.
All right it seems to just as an observer that it's a bit active just like any of our coolers at this point so I guess that's concern of mine if this is just what commissioning looks like and we're already having semis that are backing up on the better avian impeding traffic I'm concerned about when it fully is operational then so if it's not doesn't have occupancy yet
yeah
and we're just commissioning and it's already impacting
traffic Yeah, I've talked to Titan which is operating the main gates where there's a majority of the traffic and we've discussed this with them and they do plan to open the gates and do the queuing inside. They've got two lanes one for employees and one for all trucks so I do believe it's going to be an operational procedure where they'll set up a standard operating procedure to ensure that they don't back up into Better Avia and impact that eastbound lane.
Your your agent was saying that. That this was the processing piece is just an extra part of it, but it isn't essential part of this project right without this. It's really not. Right,
yeah. From Titan's business model they have a freezing process and then this enhanced processing so there's two sections of the processor so I'd say it's half of the processor.
And the processing is the one that has all the impacts as far as staff like having second factory right? We have a lot of employees there to operate The processing
of the hot products is actually very automated. So it's really not many more employees that come in. It's the freezing, sorting and that piece that goes through the freeze tunnels and straight into the freezer. That's the high labor activity. Thank you.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Nelson, I just to add into this conversation about the activities at the facility we are currently looking into what is occurring at the facility to ensure that it is in compliance with our permit requirements.
And if I could there's another there was another condition that's been added about The drainage feature, the ditch that's in front of the project. That's been a concern for many in the agricultural community about these now driveways that are potentially impeding the flow of water whether it's stormwater or whether that's water that comes off the fields. There's a condition in there that you guys will need to maintain that again. You guys have built it out. That's a completed feature already right?
Correct.
OK, so it's not being maintained now just I drove by yesterday and there is significant vegetation in there which ends up holding sediment which causes the issues that we're concerned about. So again these are all things that are early on in the process that are making me nervous because once this is built and moving on and you know it's kind of our boards last opportunity to try to make sure that the project complies with the neighboring community. And so you know a lot of these things, I'll leave that for my deliberations thank you.
Okay the applicant still has a minute and a half left and i understand you'd like to speak?
Mr. Chair, Honorable Board Members, my name is Mark Lloyd, L&P Consultants representing the property owners, the Maldonado family and the tentative map only. As Steve presented to you there are a tentative map to split the property into two parcels I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. Thank you. The zoning is 80 acres and therefore that property cannot be split further under the current zoning.
And I would ask that the board adopt the staff recommendations for approval of the tentative parcel map at a minimum so that the Maldonado family can move on from this these proceedings. And I'm here to answer any questions that you may have. And lastly, I'd like to thank the planning staff's excellent work, particularly Glenn and Steve. Gwen and Steve were very responsive.
And again, thank them for their efforts. Here to answer any questions you may have in regards to the tentative map. OK.
Don't see any but they might pop up. Thank you. Okay, that takes us to public comment. Madam Clerk are there any requests to speak from the public on this matter?
Chair Lavanino, members of the board we have no requests to speak from the public on this item.
Okay, I'll bring it back to the board for deliberation. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Lavinino. You know in hindsight I do wish this project would have come together because I think we may have done some things differently. I don't know if my colleagues know that area as well as I do or Supervisor Lavinino but we probably had access off this project off of Rosemary and probably would've had a light there to move through that if we'd been able to do this project all at once but since this came through as just a CUP we didn't have those tools.
That were prohibited for us planning staff to ask for those types of things. Maybe even would have located the project closer to Rosemary and to begin with so. So we're kind of caught between a rock and a hard spot, right? We need to move this project forward. It's really valuable for our community but at the same time there are some concerns about how it's going to have impacts and if we would have had some additional tools if we went through the general plan process to begin with or this project would've been proposed somewhere else. We actually have some manufacturing zoning in our county. This is a manufacturing facility And so we maybe should have looked at that as another site. But and I think the applicant was warned about that during the Planning Commission hearing, but this is not a for sure bet.
So in the spirit of trying to find solutions, I think we found a good solution with the new conditions on the flood control channel there on requiring the applicant to potentially replace the driveways with the span bridge if there is flooding in the future. And I think they've agreed to that. That's part of the conditions by understand What still remains is the traffic issue. And so talking to the community that I have and looking at this, since this facility's a 24-hour facility as it is, really I think the key is to stagger the shift change to outside the peak hours is what really would be the solution here. And so, you know I would like to ask the applicant to either add to the project description a prohibition on a shift change during the peak hours agricultural traffic there which would be 6 to 9am and then again from 3 to 6pm out there.
They have the ability since it's 24 hour facility to move that around and some hoping that they'd be willing to accept that amendment to their project description And that would take care of the traffic issue because BetterAvia, I mean it's really heavy during those hours but outside of that it's not and so it's a facility that can move accordingly. So I think that that would be a good solution to this. Move the project forward we don't have the same traffic issues in the future if they want to maybe amend that I would encourage them to go look at maybe getting access off of Rosemary In the future, maybe they can come back with an amendment in the future. But I think this would be enough to get the project moving forward which is my goal as well as not have a serious impact to the traffic in that area so I don't know do we need to get...
That's my request. I'd rather have it on the project description and have the applicant amend it accordingly. Is that acceptable?
1:48 – 1:5422 turns
Let's hear from the applicant, please.
Okay. Chair Lavenito, Supervisor Nielsen looking at our normal traffic we're doing like six in the morning or they were well outside of peak hours so they're very flexible in terms of the time so I don't find that an issue.
So yeah 6 a.m. is peak for ag so that's what that's why it's a concern so I want to move them to outside the six-to-nine window for their shift change so that doesn't impede the other ag traffic that's happening in the valley.
Supervisor Nielsen, I think that we find that the nature of this is being a cold storage. They can really meter out there so I think they can be pretty flexible on that because they schedule these ahead of time.
So again shift change for their staff. So I think we actually worked on some language to be added to the project description. Could the staff have a copy of that? That you could put on the screen?
Give us one second supervisor
So I'd love to hear from my colleagues but if they would indulge me, I would like to eventually make a motion to approve this project with the amendment to the project description that we see here in a moment.
Okay, we need to vote the additional slide into the record. So I'd like to make a motion to accept this slide
from staff.
I'll second. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay do you want to hear from us now or do you want to wait till after the applicant? I don't care. Okay why don't we start with Supervisor Hartman
Well, first of all I appreciate all the work that Supervisor Nelson has put into this on traffic and drainage. I remember when we had a discussion up here about how we can encourage more processing in our county but it's a way that we can capture more value when there's coolers and processing land values go up higher paid jobs and we capture more the value of the product here in the county so On principle, I'm very supportive of this. I did just have a question.
Who all are the customers? Is the product produced by the applicant or are you serving a large number of berry growers throughout the area?
Yeah, it is mainly large berry growers throughout the area. Titan buys the strawberries from the local growers and they process them so it is very beneficial.
So fewer GHGs pushing
all out and getting it here? And the benefit of having the processor attached to the freezer is that it doesn't get processed put on a truck shipped to a freezer. It just goes through a door into the freezer.
Just mitigating some of the effects as it seems I'm very enthusiastically supportive
Supervisor Williams.
Yeah, I just you know cold storage is vital for AG. You know and I think it goes to you know my philosophy with agriculture is that it has impacts but it has less impacts here than it would have elsewhere. It's you know The California and the United States is a big consumer. It's a better thing for our community to have the prosperity from it, but it's also a better thing for the environment and for I would say the United States to have food grown closer and shipped closer and stored closer so you know if you want to build one in Kiyama where everybody would be really thrilled.
So And I think it's creative to deal with the traffic issues by fully addressing shift changes. So, I support that as well.
Supervisor
Caps?
Yeah, I'll add my support and I know this has been years in the making. I appreciate the Planning Commission's unanimous support for this and I'm happy to lend mine as well.
Thank you. And then yeah, I support the project. We're going to have a lot of employees. It's creative ways to deal with that. Supervisor Nelson sits on the Caltrans board trying to get as many people together to drive out You know, benefit to the employee as well as everybody else traveling on Better Arabia. Also, you know, the Chumash model is they have a lot of employees and they do bus routes where they have the employees park in certain areas and then bring them in and take them out.
So I'm really interested to hear where you are on the traffic portion of it what you can live with And what Supervisor Nelson has proposed. But yeah, obviously I've heard from a lot of members of the local farming community and they're very excited about getting this open ASAP. Supervisor Hartman.
Well, I just I heard a number of people say that they appreciated planning staff and just wanted to highlight that and and just had a question have we learned anything in this process to make it easier for those who want to do processing or
1:54 – 2:0516 turns
Thank you. Thank you. And sometimes it seems like an attractive option. And in this case, we made it work but it doesn't always work to the benefit of the applicant and the public. So if we can process them together, we can consider all factors at one time and then they get through the process would be more quickly in the long run.
And so let me pursue that just a little bit. So it was the pasteurizing that required the general plan amendment?
It requires the overlay, the ag industry overlay.
I see and is that a good requirement to keep?
I am reluctant to opine on that without investigating that further. I mean, it has been a standard that's been a part of the county's code for a very long time. We are looking at allowing some minor smaller processing through the ag enterprise program that we're going to be bringing to the board but it would be something we'd have to look more deeply into
Okay I'd be interested in that if unless there's something obvious good it serves just because it's been around a long time we could look at it.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah, I just kind of got on a policy discussion outside the project but we do have some manufacturing zoning you know that's where some of this ag stuff can go as well that's already there so you know I would look there first you know as an opportunity and making sure that we maximize that make that easier to develop projects in the manufacturing zoning Because it is adjacent to agriculture.
You know, so I think it's really depends on the circumstances and I do think you know when we open up other places maybe that's that areas and developed as quickly because people have other options. So I would like to try to get us to start to move move that manufacturing park area to see its fulfillment. Do we need to do anything else?
How long does that take? Okay, we're waiting for some things to appear online in coordination with the Brown Act and making sure everything is posted legally. So it might take a minute or two here. So at this point is okay to hear from the applicant about this. Okay, so it might be a good time while we're waiting for it to get posted online if the applicant can just speak to this language revised project description regarding the shift changes?
It looks like it. Well, we're going to find out right here.
Chair Lavinino, yeah we accept that.
Okay and that then are we up online yet?
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Unfortunately it hasn't appeared online. It was posted about five minutes ago but it is not appearing online yet. Sometimes it can take up to 10 minutes so we do have copies available here in the room and for the applicant but if we could just pause to ensure that is online.
Okay does anybody in the audience have a good story? I see Mr. Papich waiting anxiously for 821 still, so we're going to go to that right after this. Why don't we take a five-minute break and we'll come back and finish this up and get right on 821? OK, we're going to reconvene this meeting in the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. And we are coming back to this just checking with the clerk to make sure the revised project description has been posted online and clerk.
Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board. I did just want to note for the record that the second motion that was made on this item by Supervisor Nelson or motioned by Supervisor Nelson seconded by Supervisor Williams to include these additional slides from planning and development staff are available online with the rest of the materials for this item and are available in the back of the room and for the board members and the applicant.
OK. Very good. Let's just hold 30 seconds. I just saw Supervisor Capps walking in again, so I want to make sure she gets on record to be able to vote. She's caught up in security. There she is. Okay. All right, so kick it back to Supervisor Nelson.
Yes I just want thank you Chair Lavinio and thank you my colleagues. I do want to also think staff Gwen, Steve and Travis. Travis worked extensively with our office on trying to get this a solution for this project and getting here in a timely manner. And I support Supervisor Hartman's desire to find So I think this is a good step forward that we can actually tell people this stuff can get accomplished in Santa Barbara County. Sometimes it's a little painful and but you know, we can't get there so again. I want to reiterate my motion to do staff recommendation with the posted revised project description addition on traffic.
2:06 – 2:115 turns
We have a motion and a second all those in favor. I any opposed passes unanimously all right, thank you very much. Okay that takes us to. Mr. Pappas just shot me a look, we're going to 821 let's read 821 back into the record and we'll go from there.
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Administrative item number 21 is from the Public Works Department and it's to consider recommendations regarding the Taheqa Sanitary Landfill Groundwater Protection System Phase IV-A or IV- A, I'm unsure. Fiscal year 2024 through 2025 and 2025 through 2026 County Project Number 828985 and this is in the 3rd District and there is a 4th vote required on this item.
Okay, I'll use a little chair I'm going to give you 3 minutes to come back and. Restate your case.
Supervisor Hartman for your benefit. Jason Pappage, president of Pappage Construction and we were a bidder on the Teague sanitary landfill phase 4. A gen item 821 and Suket construction was the low bidder. We were the second bidder slightly over them. However, Suket failed to follow the public bidding requirements and their requirements at the contract for sublisting And listed a number of subcontractors where they and evidently intended to use them for 100% of the bid items listed them for far less which then opens it up for.
Bid shopping potential claims to the county all sorts of things but what it what mostly does by I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing in terms of you know public bidding unfair. You know subcontractor listing requirements and all slew of challenges moving forward if this precedence is set. So, you know, my desires for the county to reject I'm here to talk about the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting.
I'm going to start by saying that Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. To my knowledge doesn't have employees that live in Santa Barbara County which we ready and willing to an eager to work on this I guess to sum all that up. I understand the desire for a county to to award a project I just want to say thank you to all of the subcontractors and ultimately cause harm to the overall spirit I don't have questions for you but I would like to hear from our public works department and possibly County Council.
Good morning, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Chris Netton Public Works. So just at the 30,000 foot level when we look at these bid packages were looking for contractors that first of all and foremost we want to process that's fair and competitive. And then we want to ensure that our contractors that are performing the work are competent and can do so to follow our specifications which Papage certainly is as well as the other bidders And we went through the process, we reviewed the documentation. We reviewed the bid protests and ultimately just determined that there is the low bidder is responsible and responsive. And in working with county council on the particular issues of the bid protest found that Suket's bid is responsive.
2:11 – 2:1923 turns
And so the the mistake that was made in the potential for bid shopping.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I don't know that it would be classified as a mistake, per se. There's just some they basically they're supposed to provide a brief description and there is just some contention. I think that that description was maybe too brief but in following up with Suket and their response to the protest letters It was clarified that this isn't a bid shopping potential situation, it's just apportionment of performance of the subcontracted duties to the specific subcontractor.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you, Chair Lavagnino. And I think this is an example of why frankly, I was really concerned about the community workforce agreements. You know, I had always said I could support a community workforce agreement that would actually assure that we had actually community workforce and I guess I don't understand how Suket, who's not a local company is going to be able to satisfy this. It's a $21 million project and you know we have a local contractor in Pappage where many of those employees live in our county and has done a lot of work here is now getting a LA contractor that's gonna slide into their CWA to take away local business from a local contractor that's within less than 1%.
And I know that we're trying to find the cheapest So I guess my question is for County Council. What is You know, is it if it was a dollar more would we have to cancel it and rebid it to do this? Is that really how this works or is there any type of discretion this board has to choose you know an equivalent bidder. That truly is a local bidder so that's where I have heartburn on this and I want to understand that better
Mr. Chair and members of the board, I'm not aware of a local preference as part of that but I am looking at your discretion on whether you could either, I know you have discretion to cancel and rebid but I am looking to see if you have discretion if you could award to another bidder and I'm not sure yet so I am looking at that now.
Can I ask our public works director, what's the kind of shot clock are we on right now for
this? Thank you for that question. We're on a very tight deadline. Should have been in construction right now, but we did rebid the project because there was enough issues with the previous bid that we felt it would be more fair to get a fully competitive bid between all the parties by rebidding it. But that has eaten up our float time. We need to have this project into construction as soon as possible. Got it.
Thank you. And how were we? Did we have an engineer's estimate on this going in?
Chair Levin, you know we did I don't remember the exact number but it's.
I'm just curious who is considerably over or are we somewhere in the ballpark?
The rebid was roughly in that area of what we were expecting.
Mr. Chairman members of the board My recommendation is that if you'd like to consider doing something different, even today that you trail the items we could look a little bit further because I'm sure so there's the option to cancel the bid and redo the process. Although you've heard from Mr Sudden about the timing challenges with that The other option would be, so we're supposed to bid to the lowest responsive responsible bidder.
And so we could look to see if there's any indication of the first bid not being responsive and that would give your board discretion to make a different decision. So we could look at that if you trail the item.
Okay let me ask about, so it was already challenged correct? So the bid was challenged and there's a formal process for that. Can you just thumbnail sketch that real quick like who takes a look at that?
Yes Chair Lavanino when a protest comes in we review it internally with our team and then we work with County Council and then we develop our response to that.
Okay so this is already passed legal review Okay. So, yeah just for myself personally I'm with Supervisor Nelson as far as I mean you know I think the goal of everybody on this dais is to get a quality project delivered and if we have the opportunity to use local we definitely want to be using or putting our local people to work that was what was sold with the countywide workforce agreement was We were going to get a lot more local workers.
So this is really concerning is some, you know major project and we're bringing in folks from L.A.. So I you know now I feel like almost our hands are tied because we're on this we're on this really short leash but I think if we do move forward this is a real eye opener for me that What a lot of people were arguing, the locals were saying that you know if this passes it doesn't ensure anybody locally is going to be getting to work. And that looks like that's the way that this is playing out but I'll open it up to any other board members that would like to discuss it.
Supervisor Hartman?
Well I don't think this necessarily is an indictment of the workforce agreement. We don't really know where the subcontractors would be hired from but if we do have a local company, I'm with you and Supervisor Nelson, I would much rather if it were pretty even, I'd much rather go with a local company for sure
And I think that was what the board had originally intended was a local preference, but I'm pretty sure that's if I can get County Council to weigh in. That's actually not legal is that correct? Because I think that's what we originally wanted to do.
I'm sorry,
I'm just asking. Oh yeah,
repeat the
question. Just just yeah, I don't know a lot of stuff at you at the same time. I was just saying it was the will of the board obviously that we would like to build in a local preference, but I think legally that has some I think we have like
a preference but not a requirement
which is I think we're distinguishing here.
2:19 – 2:2110 turns
I think it's important to note that this is a nonresponsive protest. And so like I said before, I mean if we if the board were to determine the protest was valid. And we look to see if there's evidence of. The what the contractor being non responsive than I think
But I'm assuming that you already looked at that when the bid protest formally went through and it went to County Council's office, and you guys would look to determine to make sure that they were actually responsive. In the protest process,
Mr Chair members of the board, We do work closely with the department on advise on options.
Okay, Supervisor Hartman?
And how is
local preference assessed?
I'm not sure. Yeah, I don't think that we have a local preference as part of the bidding process. But I think there's something in the project labor agreement standard that addresses it but I'm just not positive.
Can we trail this? Yeah let's trail it. Another hour or two if that gives us something a little bit more. Go ahead.
Chair Lavinia, I'm not sure if it's helpful or not but the way the CWA improves local participation is that the contractor whether they be local or non-local have certain requirements to bring the labor to the job site from the local halls. So even if it's a contractor from out of the area, the labor that they bring to the project is intended to be local labor
Okay, appreciate that. So why don't we, we're gonna trail this to the end of the meeting so it gives our council time to research and kind of look into this one in particular and we'll revisit it before we close the business. Okay? Sorry. Okay, do I need a vote on that or can we just trail it? We can trail? Trail, okay. So that takes us to departmental item number 2.
Madam clerk, can you please read that into the record?
2:21 – 2:307 turns
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a response to the 2023 through 2024 grand jury report on individuals in crisis, the right care at the right time.
Good morning Chair
Lavagnino
and Supervisors. I'm Tanya Heitman, Assistant County Executive Officer and with me assisting with the presentation today is Lindsay Walter, Principal Analyst. Under Sheriff Bonner and Director Navarro are also with us today to assist with any questions you might have at the conclusion of the presentation The grand jury issued a report entitled Individuals in Crisis, the Right Care at the Right Time.
This report focuses on behavioral health crisis response services and perceived barriers for law enforcement issuance of holds pursuant to Welfare Institutions Code Section 5150. I appreciate the grand jury highlighting an area that has long been a source of confusion. Perceived restriction on the use of 5150 holds by law enforcement in our county has surfaced in a number of reports and been a source of debate amongst the system partners.
To gain greater understanding, a review of board actions related to holds as well as staffing and funding associated with them was conducted. Records dating back to 1978 were located and demonstrated that there was no action by the Board that restricted law enforcement's ability to place 5150 holds. Although it was clear that other staffing models and contracts were approved that placed a greater emphasis on models that resource this work outside of law enforcement.
Interestingly, in an effort to minimize the use of law enforcement resources for a portion of our history, our local ambulance provider was utilized for them. Today, we continue to place an emphasis towards utilization of individuals trained in de-escalation and behavioral health interventions to serve those in crisis. However, we want to be clear that law enforcement is vested with the authority to place holds and our local efforts are not designed to restrict them from exercising their legal authority but rather to support them.
Whether that's by providing additional training to them or additional non-law enforcement staffing options. We hope that all can agree, as the title of the grand jury report suggests, the right care at the right time. Our focus should be on supporting those in crisis and getting them the care they need regardless of who places the hold. As noted in the board letter, there was an earlier version of the grand jury report that the sheriff was asked to respond to. That initial response is included in the board materials as attachment B.
Subsequently, the grand jury revised their report and the sheriff provided a new response that was dated August 19th and is currently available on the grand jury's website. Although it's not in your packet today I would note that in his final response the sheriff agreed with both the grand jury's finding and the recommendation 1B. With that, I want to turn it over to Lindsay to walk through some additional background information and the proposed responses.
Good afternoon Chair and Board Members. The first focus area relates to law enforcement and the use of 5150 holds. For a 5150 hold, the Welfare and Institutions Code describes the detention of mentally disordered individuals described as a danger to others or to themselves or gravely disabled. The Welfare and Institutions Code provides that a qualified peace officer or designated mental health expert can upon probable cause take or cause to be taken a person into custody for a period of 72 hours for evaluation in crisis intervention or be placed into a treatment facility.
Currently, Behavioral Wellness provides regular training on 5150 holds and continues to host these with entrusted partner agencies. These trainings have been provided to the Sheriff's Office, Santa Maria and Santa Barbara Police Departments, and hospitals. We agree that the grand jury's first finding that the expansion of trained law enforcement officers with 5150 hold ability and more behavioral wellness clinicians would be beneficial to Santa Barbara County citizens. There is currently much collaboration occurring between law enforcement and behavioral wellness, but there is benefit to further investments which would support the county's most vulnerable.
The second focus area is crisis services in the county and co-response teams. Co-response is a model that pairs law enforcement officers with mental health professionals to respond to calls involving people experiencing behavioral health crisis or emotional distress. The model aims to provide a more compassionate and comprehensive response to these situations while also offering alternatives to arrest.
For co-response, there are currently six co-response teams which utilize blended funding. There are four teams in the Sheriff's Office, one team with Santa Maria Police Department and one team with the Santa Barbara Police Department. Additionally, Behavioral Wellness and the Santa Barbara Police Department are collaborating on adding another team. Each team has a behavioral wellness clinician and the teams are fully staffed as of August 2024.
In February 2024, behavioral wellness and independent consultant KPMG provided an operational and performance report on the county crisis services to the board. Data from that report showed a low call volume for the sheriff's co-response teams. Per the report, co-response teams experienced low volumes over the four week period analyzed with a total of 62 calls received across its three teams. This equates to an average of 16 service interactions per week, five service interactions per team per week and one interaction per day across each team. Across weeks co-response spent an average of 77 minutes on crisis service calls lower than that a mobile crisis. To address concerns at desperate data from the sheriff and behavioral wellness KPMG made recommendations regarding establishing shared definitions for data collection and metrics from outcome reporting The departments are in the process of working on these recommendations.
In recommendation 1A, the jury recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct behavioral wellness to increase the number of clinicians available for co-response teams. The board has supported co-response teams as an opportunity to better serve its citizens and divert mentally ill From our jails, however this recommendation will not be implemented as each team is fully staffed and co response utilization data does not demonstrate a need for additional staffing at this time. Additionally the redesign of our crisis system is underway the new medical mobile crisis benefit began in January 2024.
This benefit has allowed for expanded hours for behavioral wellness, staffing of the access line and a new overnight mobile crisis in access line telephone coverage by contractor Crestwood Behavioral Health which was an A agenda item today for approval of the contract. The county will be monitoring both the new mobile crisis response as well as the crisis response team's utilization and will continue to evaluate whether additional resources are needed.
I would like to thank the Grand Jury for its attention and thorough analysis of the county's use of 5150 holds for those individuals in crisis, and the deployment of our co-response teams. As our responses have indicated, the county is aligned with the Grand Jury's desire to ensure access to appropriate care and coordinated efforts with agencies for 5150 training and hold writing. The board is committed to continued improvements in the delivery of crisis services. That concludes a presentation. We are available to answer your questions.
And for your board's consideration, we have recommended actions A to C as they appear here on the slide.
Okay thank you very much Supervisor Kaps.
Thank you. Thank you so much. This is fascinating to see sort of the history and the ways in which this topic and this tool has been utilized, and it seems to me if I'm understanding correctly, this is one area where we... The tool is being underutilized but not necessarily because of staffing or training. We have the staffing and training. Is that what I'm hearing through the agreements of the grand jury's finding?
2:30 – 2:3613 turns
Supervisor Caps for the chair, when you refer to the tool are you referring to the holes?
Yeah yes.
I don't know that there's specifically any information that says that our holds are underutilized. We know that holds are placed the co-response use of the holds is very low, the utilization of co-responses is perhaps lower than what we would like but I don't know that holds overall are underutilized.
I'm not sure if that's the case. But as far as I understand, the deputies outside of the co-response only utilize this
once. Yes and under Sheriff Bonner may want to speak to that further but you are correct that in our county the holds are largely placed by clinicians
We're going to be looking at how we can train those in the various fields to be trained how to do this accurately. That's correct is one of the recommendations so yeah, maybe under Sheriff Bonner and I appreciate that you the sheriff's office department to place these holds, what's potentially some hurdles? If you could just elaborate on that please.
We've put together a really good system that combines the 40-hour CIT training with some additional training specific to how to do a 5150 hold within our Santa Barbara County process And quite frankly, the low number that are occurring outside of co-response is actually a good thing because that means that the existing crisis response and co-responses working. And there's only a small instance where we need to have a non-co-response team make that 5150 hold because either a co-response team has handled it or I'd like to hear from Director Navarro.
Thank you
I just wanted to clarify the answer on your question regarding the training of law enforcement on 5150 designation. That is provided to law enforcement in their academy and so in our system we have also, we do the regular 5150 training for those who are new designees in our county That would be something we, and we have provided to law enforcement officers for instance in the Santa Barbara Police Department who are now on a limited basis riding hold. So our training is a refresher for them if you will of the training they receive in the academy.
And yeah, just more generally. I mean, I know we hear time and time again from advocates that we need to keep people who are having a mental health crisis out of jail. And so just if you could speak more generally in reaction to this grand jury report what this highlights and sort of next steps from here given the recommendations and a lot of alignment?
Supervisor Caps for the chair as Lindsay mentioned when KPMG was here they did make some recommendations that the departments be well and Sheriff's Department work together to better align their data, to increase their communication and come to greater alignment around the policies and procedures for their teams. That work continues today They have a ways to go yet to bring to fruition data dashboard that will show true alignment with their data.
But overall I think we have to continue to monitor how mobile crisis is being implemented, how it's being utilized and be able We're going to take a look at both options, mobile crisis and co-response to ensure that we're providing an adequate response in a variety of different situations to stakeholders whether they call 911 or they call through the access line either way. And that's something that's going to need to be monitored closely over the coming year and possibly further as our system evolves.
Supervisor Hartman.
Well, I have a number of questions. I'll start with a little story. I was hosting a forum on homelessness in Lompoc and found myself in a position where a member of the police department was pointing at me and saying it's your fault that we can't do 5150 holds. And that caused me to go to our B-Well director and Tony Navarro explained that this is kind of a misunderstood So I think our sheriff's department understands this very well and I think now that the Santa Barbara Police Department does. But I wonder if there needs to be more education of some of the other city police forces and perhaps training or otherwise we're sort of stuck in this blaming the county for issues that really they have some control over My question here though, when a 5150 hold is administered can they go to the CSU or do they have to go to a mental hospital?
What happens?
2:36 – 2:4314 turns
Supervisor Hartman, thank you for that question. So as you know we've recently reopened our crisis stabilization unit on May 30th and it is now locked unit and receives 5150 holds. We just finished working with Crestwood our provider to create protocols in which law enforcement can bring potential residents that they want to put on a hold directly to the CSU for staying there instead of to the emergency department or to the PUF. And so we started that week before last, I think and we have been doing meetings, meeting with Santa Barbara Police, meeting with the Sheriff's Office. Our local hospitals have been informed. So everyone knows that there can be direct drop-offs by law enforcement to the CSU now and there is a medical screening And if that medical screening indicates that there's further possible medical issue happening, then they will be taken to the emergency department.
It sounds like maybe there needs to be education of the local police departments too would that be something you would do and consider? Yes
Connor Pierce our crisis services manager is currently in the process of conducting meetings with Santa Barbara PD officers and sheriff's officers to discuss the protocol the process and get the word out
So I have another question. In my district there was an unfortunate incident recently where a 21 year old got in trouble, clearly a mental health issue unfortunately it's at this age were things like schizophrenia and mental disease first manifest And I think law enforcement did a good job, but he ended up being booked in jail. Fortunately his family could afford to bail. But if they couldn't and now they've got all these legal proceedings anyway and if they couldn't he'd still be in jail. So what happened there? I mean if this is supposed to keep people out of jail and I know we don't want to talk about a specific case but I'm just asking in general When people are in mental health crisis, oftentimes they're doing things that are a danger to themselves and others that may not be legal.
Do they have to go to jail? Is there not some way that we can deescalate?
From the behavioral health side of the House. We need to be notified and called and invited to at to a situation those are not things that we monitor, we don't you know, we're not have that automatic monitoring of knowing when there's a call potentially someone with a mental health or behavioral health issue is in crisis and so that is something that we need to
So obviously we had a pretty significant felony that happened out there and required an extensive law enforcement response along with an arrest warrant that was issued. And when we have an arrest warrant, we have an obligation to take them into custody. I believe in this case ultimately the individual was actually transferred to the psychiatric health facility.
After booking.
Correct, but when you have a warrant issued by a judge we are obligated to take them into custody and book them.
Well I guess from my perspective that raises lots of questions but I guess the other question that I have is on co-response itself and it said that KPMG Thank you. So I know that be well and the sheriff's department are trying to reconcile definitions and how we really account for this, But what is the model of co response? I mean, what are the Are there differences of perspective between what the sheriff's department brings to this and perhaps would
Whenever possible and that is exactly what co-response does. There are going to be instances where you have a violent felony, right? When there is a public safety concern they're going to be taken into custody. You also may have instances such as this where you have an arrest warrant issued by a judge where we have some obligations legal obligations to follow where they still maybe taken into custody however co-response works together and they do Get people the help they need without taking them to jail.
And could I have Director Navarro also, is there a shared definition and what is the work still to be done around co-response?
I brought John Winkler with me here today to give you the most up-to-the-minute change in that regard because they meet himself and the leadership of co-response meet monthly together to work on this issue. But I can give you an example of one of the areas where we have met to build consensus and a shared understanding It was not always the case that when there was a call for service, a 911 dispatch to someone potentially having a mental health crisis that it would be co-response is the first to respond.
Patrol oftentimes would be the first on the scene and be handling the situation. And if co-response got there, that people patrol may have already taken the person and they're not someone to respond on the co response side when we met in leadership and talked about that lack of shared understanding both sheriff Brown and myself directed the teams to understand that we want co-response dispatch anytime there is somebody that is being calling that may have a mental health crisis.
So could I interrupt there? So so patrol's going to get there quicker, right in most cases. So what would they do while they're waiting for co-response?
Fortunately, many of the officers and I think that is again what under Sheriff Bonner was speaking to have been trained in CIT crisis intervention training. And so in the moment they may be able to detain and deescalate a situation to a degree until such time the co-response gets on the scene. And so now that is the direction the consensus we're moving in is that patrol will not just We're trying to bring that together. Thank you.
2:43 – 2:4819 turns
I just had a clarification. Yeah, I'm sorry. Under Sheriff Bonner if you could just reiterate and make sure I am clear on this so all deputies get trained in doing the 5150 holds in the Academy?
Everyone who goes through the Law Enforcement Academy gets some initial training, broad overarching California law as it relates to 5150 holds including myself 30 years ago. What we do with B-Well and with our Behavioral Sciences Unit is we provide them very specific training about this is how we accomplish this within Santa Barbara County. Right, so they get some additional training that's very specific. Not the broad overarching California law version of it but here's how we do this to include that when possible we use our be well services first followed by co-response followed by okay all of these aren't available now will have a deputy or police officer go ahead and make the 5150 hold but again its its specific to Santa Barbara County
Thank you. And then to speak to Supervisor Hartman's example, are you familiar with what the training of other police departments within our county receive in terms of 5150 holds? I know that's not your jurisdiction but.
Yes, in that again the training provided, the initial training provided at the academy. However even the local training is also the same right so B-Wells providing the exact same training to us that they're providing a Santa Barbara PD and our you know we have fidelity within that Localized component for the agencies. I think some of what what Supervisor Hartman is talking about, that's just legacy information right? So if you had asked me a couple years ago, I would have told you at some point in time way way back when that this was changed so that our local law enforcement officers were not allowed to. However, ACO Heitman and her team were able to dig through microfiche and find where this all stemmed from which was 70's into the 80's of contracts that were entered into for this service.
And it was essentially just something where we all came together and agreed this is a better method of doing it back then but again over the past 40 years The stories have changed or become more and more inaccurate.
And I know Assistant CEO Heitman used the phrase we need to keep monitoring, but do you feel as though we're moving in the right direction in terms of like the first line? I
think we have a very good system in place, right? We use the best resource and it's kind of like the fallback So, you know your mobile crisis teams first followed by co-response followed by okay we don't have either of those or their extended ETA then we'll utilize the on scene deputies or police officers to handle it.
Okay thank you
Supervisor Williams. I just think that the amount of collaboration and discussion between the departments have gone up a lot in the last, well just in the eight years since I've been here and that's really welcome because that means we're going to be able to get a better result more often. So you know I think it's good. I think it's good that this grand jury gives us extra impetus and eventually there probably will be more 51 50s, you know done but the you know the fact that we're producing facilities that will be better handle them was also part of making this work better
All right, Madam Clerk are there any public comments on this matter?
Chair Loenino and members of the board we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
Okay I'll bring it back to the board for a motion.
Sure I'll move to approve I believe it was A through C.
A through C.
Second.
All those in favor? Aye. Thank you. Any opposed? Okay passes unanimously Just curious if we're ready for a 21 yet or do we want to go to departmental item 3.
Let's get more
time okay, let's hear it.
My preference would be for you to go to item 3
OK we'll do item 3 first so can you please read item 3 into the record.
2:48 – 2:583 turns
Chair Levin you know members of the board departmental item number 3 is from the community services Department. It
Chair Lavanino, members of the board. Garrett Wong will be making a presentation this morning so I'd like to invite him to begin.
Good morning, Chair Lavanino and members of the board. My name is Garrett Wong and I'm the Climate Program Manager. Whoops. We're here today to talk about the proposed energy reach code, which would be implementing a component of the recently adopted climate action plan. Limiting the increase of natural gas from new construction as our community grows is an important step in limiting the increase of greenhouse gas emissions.
This process started back in well before April 2022, but the board had given us previous direction to begin developing a policy that would effectively regulate natural gas infrastructure and new construction to the effect that it would essentially be prohibited. Staff had been working on that policy. We'd been working on that policy in collaboration with the cities of Carpinteria and Goleta, who are also adopting similar policies.
And all three of our jurisdictions were actually poised to bring these policies to adoption. However, in April 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Essentially denied the City of Berkeley's appeal to rehear a lawsuit that was brought by the California Restaurant Association, which effectively made the city of Berkeley's policy, which was the model policy that we had been following ineffective or they had to repeal it, and other jurisdictions that have followed in suit have also done similarly. And the reason for this was that the court had deemed that the city's ordinance would be considered preemptive of federal regulations which typically regulate energy use through appliances.
However, it was the court's opinion that the city's policy was preemptive of the federal action. So now that the ordinance limiting or prohibiting natural gas and new construction is no longer a viable option, we are now coming back to you with another policy tool to get to a similar goal. However it'll be different impact. So an energy code is a different tool that we have available to us.
Local energy reach codes are policies that local governments have been developing and adopting over the past two decades as the state of California updates its energy code over time. Local jurisdictions are also able to adopt local policies that would effectively go beyond, or reach beyond the state code to encourage greater energy efficiency, greater renewable energy, potentially greater energy resilience in both residential and non-residential construction.
Energy reach codes are primarily enforced through the Title 24 energy modeling report. All buildings before they are constructed have to essentially model all of the appliances, the end uses, the design and construction of that building and model its energy as well as its carbon impacts as it's being operated. If this board were to adopt an energy reach code, there would be an additional step of seeking approval from the California Energy Commission which is mostly a rubber stamp approval process so long as that meets the California Energy Commission's criteria.
One which is that all the policies that local jurisdictions enact must be deemed cost effective So to demonstrate how this policy would work conceptually, we have a chart on the right hand side of the presentation here. So currently under the state policy energy code natural gas is still allowed if that's desired by builders however Energy Reach Code would require a higher level of energy performance. And that energy performance is based off of energy efficiency, but it's also based off when energy is used throughout the day and what the carbon impact of that energy consumption is throughout the day. So that is all modeled and estimated.
And there's a number that's attributed to what a building's energy performance is And a local jurisdiction can essentially set a higher level of performance for a building to be required, which should be easily met by an electric building because electric buildings are lower in carbon intensity. They're sourcing their power from the electric grid, which is increasingly more renewable and carbon free.
For a natural gas building, though there would likely be more energy efficiency or more energy conservation or renewable energy measures that would have to be implemented in order to compensate for the carbon impact that that natural gas building has. And so at the end of the day we're getting More energy efficiency out of buildings, we're getting higher energy performance out of buildings even if they have natural gas. And this still allows for natural gas buildings to be designed and constructed if that's so desired by applicants.
Since we've been working on the previous natural gas regulation, we have settled on or we have proposed some definitions and rules around applicability and potential exemptions having worked with stakeholders and the Agricultural Advisory Committee. The current proposed definition for new construction to which this would be applied to is currently based off of the value of the project relative to the value of the existing structure.
This is something that the building official recommended that we use since it's already a trigger for other regulations that the building official and the Building Division looks at. However, we do hear from others as well as other jurisdictions that use other thresholds that are in alignment with other procedures and policies that they have. We've also developed a proposed list of potential exemptions. These wouldn't necessarily be automatic exemptions, this would be a list of potential eligible uses that could be exempted so applicants could apply to have their projects exempted if they were considered one of these categories This list of exemptions was developed over the course of our stakeholder engagement process with the natural gas regulation that was done with stakeholders involving in the building industry, affordable housing and the Agricultural Advisory Committee as well.
If a project is exempted from this policy, what we would likely require is that the buildings are designed and built to be electric ready. Meaning that they have the infrastructure and the capacity to accept electric appliances and equipment if in the future those natural gas using appliances are removed. As we're developing this policy, we'll be working with local jurisdictions. The cities of Santa Barbara, Goleta and Carpinteria are interested in developing similar policies. We're trying to align as much as possible in terms of timing, in terms of applicability what the actual requirements would be and we're coordinating on outreach.
All of our stakeholders would be, we're currently involved with the utilities, Central Coast Community Energy and the Tri-County Regional Energy Network. We already have some presentations planned for certain stakeholders such as the Santa Barbara South Coast Chamber of Commerce and we're continuing to reach out to other stakeholder groups who would be affected by this policy.
And the hope is that we would have these meetings and workshops with the stakeholder groups, develop the policy and bring it back to the board for first reading. So to conclude, our recommendation to the board is that the board direct staff to proceed with developing an energy reach code that does encourage all electric buildings as potentially and excuse me. And also provide other directions to staff if there are other things to keep in mind as we're developing this policy.
Thank you.
2:58 – 3:0916 turns
Questions for staff? Supervisor Hartman.
I'll wait until after public
hearing. Okay, I've got two I think so what percentage do we know what percentage of like Santa Barbara County has natural gas hookups right now? Like on existing because I know that this is supposed to be for new But when I look, I'm looking around the country and I'm seeing where these are being implemented. Let's say like San Diego then it starts off as new and then it goes into the retrofit stage.
Have we researched that at all? Do you know if what kind of percentage were working with a mix of electric versus natural gas now?
The information that we have is a lot of the information that goes into the Climate Action Plan, which tells us how much energy is being used by the entire community in one period of a year. So it doesn't get us the granular level detail that we need to see to answer that question unfortunately. I would venture to say that it's relatively low, kind of like electric vehicle adoption. It's still in the early stages of adoption. There are probably some homes that are some of the older all-electric homes that might still use You know, resistance for heating and coils for stoves.
But then we also have newer homes like my own home which is a townhome complex in Goleta and that's all electric. And that's 150 units all in one space. So I think as the newer construction is coming online more and more of that will be already all electric because some builders are seeing benefits of doing business that way already
Okay. Then I have a question about whether or not this already seems kind of like it's, it's already mandated by the state because is unless make sure I have my information correct so California law by 2030 you wouldn't be able to buy natural gas furnace or heater. Is that correct? That is correct. Okay, so really by 2030 regardless of whatever we do you're not going to be able to build a natural gas house unless you don't want to have any heat or hot water?
Correct. Okay, so basically all the construction after 2030 in California are close to it probably up to this point right now is this might be a moot point. All right I just wanted to make sure I knew what was already being banned by the state Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you um so these exemptions that somebody would apply for who then decides whether they're exempt or not?
We develop a process that would likely be implemented through the Planning and Development Department, so this could be through plan check or permit review. How long would that process take? We haven't designed the process or we haven't developed the criteria as well.
Is there, I guess maybe this question of county council. These reach codes seem like kind of a backdoor way of banning natural gas. Have these been challenged in any other jurisdictions or are these things that you know? I know it's a different approach to it but it seems like that the courts have said there is a federal preemption here already exist. And so I guess I'm concerned, especially when it's the expressed desire to eliminate gas as part of the reason for adopting a reach code.
Mr Chair and members of the board there was a case involving the city of Berkeley which is what you're referring to that did hold that federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over regulation of appliances And in that case, the city of Berkeley had attempted to ban all gas appliances by regulating how the gas was entering into the buildings. So but that doesn't mean that we can't encourage or incentivize so there is some options here and we don't have a specific language in front of you. So as we would go forward, we would work with staff on options
So that actually brings up a really good question based on Supervisor or Chair Labadino's question. Based on the Berkeley decision, would the state's ban of natural gas appliances be unconstitutional? It seems like that would be moot at this point if they're saying that's a federal issue and if we can't as local jurisdictions I don't imagine the state has then they would also have to be under those same requirements. So making that 2030 requirement probably no longer operational, is that a reasonable way to look at that?
Supervisor Nielsen, I haven't looked at that issue specifically and how the state's role in regulating. Sometimes there is overlapping jurisdictions sometimes things are delegated from the federal government to the states so I'm just not sure.
Okay that's trying to understand the environment that we're looking at moving forward but there would be an additional process with this including if someone wanted to use gas they'd have to provide additional documentation is that what I understand?
I think the way to view this is applicants will know at the outset what kind of information has to be gathered and submitted as part of any kind of permit application. So, so long as we're clear about what information is needed it's not necessarily adding another layer simply identifying what needs to be submitted to be evaluated. Okay thank you. Supervisor Caps?
Yeah, thank you. Maybe this helps Supervisor Nelson. There's 60 other jurisdictions in California that have similar codes and it's actually a really cool map local energy code dot com. You can It's great to be back up here shortly after. We passed our Climate Action Plan and see this very concrete step forward, just asking to bring this back. I'm thrilled. Excuse me.
And I would just like to talk about different issues, because of course it's related to fossil fuels and climate events and extreme weather. But the benefits of affordability in health me as a mom who raised a kid with this gas stove, I didn't realize that 12% of child asthma is created potentially by just that stove. And so if you could just speak to affordability and the incentives and any other health considerations as well?
Sure, so it's true that indoor air quality does improve when you don't have combustible flame in the home. There are also issues with carbon monoxide as a potential danger and then the natural gas system itself as an infrastructure is also prone to accidents and spills as we've seen in Ventura County and the like So there are a number of different health benefits that all electric building can help alleviate.
When you're talking about costs, we all electric appliances are typically more efficient than natural gas burning appliances. Natural gas uses the principle of heating air to heat something else. And so there's a lot of excess waste heat that goes out into the environment, whether it's in your kitchen or whether it's in your natural gas heater. Electric appliances utilize technology what are called heat pumps which is kind like your refrigerator working in reverse. So it pulls temperature from external environment and then infuses heat into I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing in terms of how we're able to get this into the container that it's trying to affect. A lot of that is able to be more efficient, 100 times more efficient than natural gas.
So there is, I hear the concern that people have when it comes to affordability of electricity but The other area where we see cost savings is in the upfront costs of actual building construction. So dual fuel building would have two trades involved in constructing a building for the electric side, for the natural gas side. If you're only doing all-electric then that's one less trade that has to be involved so it'd be lower costs overall to design and construct.
Thank you. And again, I just share an anecdote of a friend who just put in a heat pump and it was almost through utilizing the existing incentives was almost entirely paid for. I can't guarantee that for everybody but it's pretty remarkable and noted that not just in California but across the country he pumps far outpaced I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing with the purchase of natural gas furnaces so I think market forces are actually.
What this potential code could reflect as opposed to again trying to reduce our emissions and I mentioned these other jurisdictions, I just want to have some assurance perhaps when you bring I'm just wondering if you could provide some benchmarking as to where we're kind of looking, I think that's it for now. Thank you.
3:09 – 3:164 turns
These ordinances doesn't necessarily make them legal. I guess that was what I was getting after was, you know just because we were going down that route as well and so I am concerned about what that looks like in the future but I'm not an attorney so I'll leave that up to the attorneys to figure out. I'm sure they will I'm sure those who oppose some of these policies will fight those out in courts and we'll deal with it.
You know, my perspective and what I'm hearing from my constituents is you know affordability's an issue. And electrical costs are considerably higher than natural gas costs in running those appliances. And so if you just look at your natural gas bill yes there was a little spike last year when those costs went up but generally over time natural gas bills have been Considerably lower than electric bills. Also, reliability. I represent a lot of rural areas. We had another power outage today in Los Alamos. We have a couple dozen a year in Los Alamos so having an alternative source of energy for very unreliable network of energy with electricity maybe this is the route we go down in the future once we have microgrids and all these little communities but right now we don't.
So what we're gonna do is we're gonna cut off The same communities that we profess to try to want to protect in this county in the future if they have reliability issues. We have these power safety shutdowns because we have a wind event, or we have bird hop on a line and we can't get electricity to a community for a weekend. You know, I've got Casamilla, I've got Sisquiock, I got Gary. Okay? These are all the communities that are in our social justice element that we're supposed to be protecting. You know this urbanization stuff sure but a lot of my constituents aren't urbanites and so having redundancy is really important And so I am concerned about this. I do, I'm just as concerned as who riser caps on the health concerns of asthma.
I think those studies have shown that if gas appliances are installed correctly those aren't the case it's really because it's poorly installed equipment and that leads to I just think there's differing opinions on how, you know what This looks like and if market forces are going to drive that, then I think market forces should. I just don't think this we should create additional layers of governance here which is you know what? I promise you guys it's gonna make the planning process longer.
It's gonna make it more expensive and you know and that's something that we've been trying to try to find ways to make a less expensive. If we really think this is the right thing to do then the market will take care of itself and find its own efficiencies when it comes to these products but Again, that's why we have a diverse board to think about these things differently and discuss these issues.
Supervisor Williams? So moving forward this would affect new construction and remodels over what threshold 50% of?
So currently the definition that we're using is I think it's I think it's important to note that the value of the addition or replacement is over 75% of the existing structure. I
think this is really important just to highlight because most of the public fear about these types of things there's based on a misconception You know, in my view you can't hit it from both ends. Right? You can't be like hey this is going to be really effective and cost everybody a lot of money and then say oh because it's getting increased construction that's not gonna have anything at all You know it one or the other.
So these kite types of ordinances have been around for a long time longer than they were called reach codes in fact we passed one in the city of Santa Barbara. You know that was different than this but the same idea as It was a it would was title 24 plus 20% so you had to be 20% more efficient than title 24 just kind of how the primitive versions of these ordinances worked out there. It's it's withstood the test of time however, it's better for it to concentrate on this trigger I'm not going to go into the details of that.
increases construction costs more than if you just hone in on the natural gas infrastructure. So I think this is a good route from a public policy perspective to achieve the end in a more efficient way of achieving the ends. So I just think that we should talk about it as it is, which is not something that's going to affect like existing rental housing and cost people a lot more money. It's new construction and by its nature new construction has a is different in whom whom it will affect It is also a place of concern, but building a system that doesn't bank on massive fugitive emissions which is really why I turned against natural gas. Natural gas has been a part of good clean energy transition but we have more and more leakage I just thought it was interesting in the letter that we received from the multiple organizations
3:16 – 3:257 turns
I never thought we'd get them on board, but yeah. So and just to talk about that for a second about you know if this was just new construction. I wouldn't be so fearful of it, but like the city of San Diego passed something they were one of the leaders in going all electric and then now they've passed by a retrofit demand by 2035 And that might work in Montecito and Santa Barbara, where people are okay with putting it out. But Guadalupe, western side of Santa Maria, Casamelia, those types of places, people, and you're gonna say well we're gonna give them one. I guess I'm getting into deliberations so let's go to the public and we'll hear what the public has to say and then we'll come back to deliberate
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, we have three requests to speak on this item. We are going to begin on Zoom with Lee Heller to be followed by Andy Caldwell here in Santa Maria.
Uh, good afternoon chair and members of the board. I have to admit I was a little surprised when this item came up because the Berkeley case makes it impossible to mandate that buildings are all electric so the 1st thing we need to understand here is there is not going to be a mandate in this ordinance To require that all new construction or 75% and up is electric. This would have to be an ordinance with incentives in the forms of carrots and sticks to encourage it, and what those look like can come at your direction.
I'm in favor of this because I've been learning over time just how polluting gas stoves are. I miss cooking with gas. I've gotten used to my induction cooktop but I don't want to live in a home where even the properly installed appliance is polluting the air and causing me present or future disease. It is also true that we are seeing a rapid rise in clean and affordable electric energy, and this is an opportunity to encourage new construction or major overhauls to move in that direction. I'm also on the APCD Citizens Advisory Committee so I know what you know about how far short we are falling as a county In meeting our GHG reduction goals. So this is a way to encourage not require new construction or significant reworking to move in that direction, so I hope you will direct staff to come back with an ordinance that provides 6 and carrots to help us move in that direction.
Thank you so much.
We are now going to Andy call here in Santa Maria and then we're going
Chair Lavinino, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. We found it somewhat amusing that the staff report uses the word and so did Lee Hill or encouraged five times versus a mandate but you don't need an exemption for a suggestion. You don't need an exemption for a suggestion this is a mandate And more than that, it exceeds the state mandate. Why does Santa Barbara County always have to exceed the state mandate with regard to the Reach Code for instance? Or this push to go all electric?
And of course it certainly is in the spirit of things an end run around the court decision. I'm going to get philosophical with you because what you're really doing here is making people an offer they can't refuse because the cost. To go with natural gas with the conditions is an offer they can't refuse. Are you a representative or are you a ruler? Because right now people are free to choose an electric vehicle, electric appliances, battery backups. They're free to do all of that mostly with tax rebate subsidies and sometimes zero interest loans. Your constituents are free to do everything you want them to do right now.
But why do you feel it's necessary to coerce the other people that don't want to do that? You know, let's go back to the Constitution. People were mentioning that during public comment. There's a concept that you derived your just powers versus unjust powers from the consent of the governed. People can consent to go all electric, but you're taking away their ability to keep natural gas.
At least in new construction and don't kid yourself some of that new constructions going to be future rentals it is going to affect the price and the cost utilities because natural gas is cheaper and finally to Supervisor Nelson's point. You know we had a in I live in a Pomo we had almost 36 hours shutdown of power there If you're all electric, that means you can't even cook the food that's going to rot in your refrigerator or your freezer.
Why do we want to put all of our eggs in one basket when you have power safety shutoffs and then storm events plus rolling blackouts? Again, are you rulers or are you representatives? Because I don't believe if you put this up to a vote of the people. I don't believe most people would support banning natural gas in new construction existing construction or what have you.
Let people choose if they're not buying what you're selling That's your problem, not theirs. Because you've been pushing this on the public for decades and people still want their cars and their natural gas appliances. Thank you.
We will now go to Santa Barbara with Jonathan Ullman who is our final speaker on this item.
Jonathan? Thank you very much my name is Jonathan Ullman I'm the director of the Santa Barbara Ventura chapter of the Sierra Club. The letter written by 46 organizations on September 30th, 2022 for the support of the Reach Code that your staff was working on before two Trump judges overturned the Berkeley decision. And made it so that none of the reach codes that were passed all across the state could go into effect and yours could not even see the light of day.
I ask you to support this, it is not a mandate, it is for new buildings and this is freedom because right now the CEO of Sempra, which is the owner of SoCal Gas, he made $27 million in 2023. $27 million in one year! I would suggest that the representatives who are saying oh this is unfair for people of lower income, I suggest they look at what SoCal Gas is making The quality of their product, which is highly flammable and harmful to people in kitchens.
I suggest they look at what's really going on because what's really going on is the oil and gas industry is trying to take away choice from Americans.
3:25 – 3:316 turns
And that concludes public comment on this item.
All right. Well, it's good to be CEO because CEO of SDG&E made $23 million last year and the CEO PG&E made a paltry $17 million so he's going to be looking for another job I guess. All right bring it back to the board for discussion. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you Chair Lavignino We all have different constituencies, I understand that. And what I am hearing from many of the businesses and my constituents is they would prefer to have the choice, the option choices here and even the mission here it's not only carrots and sticks. And I don't think sticks are choices right? I mean we're basically we're not going to hit you as hard.
I mean I think that's really perverse. You know if it's just carrots that's a different conversation We're going to have sticks involved. That's punishment. So you may not it may not be an outright ban, but it's That would make white might make a different choice then. Would be in agreement with the board majority here on this so that's where we go so I can't support that. I'm going to listen to my constituents and I think having choices is the best way of doing it. I also am deeply concerned about my unincorporated communities that are often faced without power Which also creates a lot of public safety concerns as well. Maybe when you look at exemptions on here, you also might exempt some of the unincorporated areas that are outside these urban areas.
I mean maybe that might be something you just want to look at as well for redundancy purposes so anyway uh i don't think it'll be able to support moving forward. Supervisor Hartman?
Yeah um as I understand our task we're We're looking at four options. The fourth option has been not allowed, so we're considering the third option which will then come back to us in greater detail. I think our job is to be leaders, to be looking at the future anticipating what's going to happen and trying to prepare our communities to the best of our ability. I had an interesting experience about 10 years ago. I built a residential second unit and I wasn't paying attention. And so it has gas and I wished it didn't. I wish that there had been something like this because Where I live, we've got to have propane. It's a fire danger.
Got to get it turned off. I'd much rather have it be electric and as to resiliency the future is where we're going to have battery backup and that's going to be...I know Mr. Wong himself is working in communities like Casamilla, Guadalupe and Nuki'ama to bring greater resilience to those communities I think that that's what leaders do is anticipate how we get ready for the future. It may not be that all these things coalesce, but that's why we're talking about new development, not existing development.
I was listening on Saturday to the radio and Evan Kleinman that does a cooking show was talking about the dangers of gas stoves. So this is people are starting to understand this so I think at many, many levels gas is not a good option for the future and I'm very supportive of moving forward with Option 3.
Supervisor Caput?
Yeah, thank you. I just I'm supportive of moving forward. I look forward to what you bring back and I think that's really important to understand too that this is not a vote on the actual reach code but to bring it back and continue the dialogue. And I just hope we can move forward Recognition that this is there's such sort of entrenched, you know pro cons. But to me this is really about science and affordability and understanding that we understand better about technologies which are continually changing and studies are continually showing us dangers of certain things that we relied on and especially the oil and gas industry which has had such a powerful hold on our laws It's so hard to move away from that. And so these are just incentives, but it's not I don't see it as ideology.
I see it is practicality. This is cheaper to do electric. It's healthier. to our county. So I'm just, like Supervisor Hartman said, I want us to be a leader. I hope again that you rely on our partners to help inform the best smartest way to do this that doesn't negatively impact we should be helping the most vulnerable communities that are in the unincorporated with the affordability aspect of this. The new homes that are going in, low-income homes they should be first in line to have the cleanest apartments and condos and townhomes far too long our vulnerable populations, our low income populations have bared the brunt And so I just I see this as an opportunity to kind of understand that these old divides don't have to hold us back anymore and we can move forward.
And again,
3:31 – 3:363 turns
Supervisor Williams.
Thank you, Mr Chair that this isn't just going to be good for the environment. This is going to be good for the consumer. I mean number one taste if Evan Kleinman's on board then it's obviously going to be It is just incorrect to assert that natural gas is better for consumers. Natural gas is not so you can people, maybe you have short memories but there are points where our constituents were getting $500 gas bills each month in 2023 they were never getting $500 electric bills in 2023 at least not at the same scale And that is for a specific reason.
Electricity, we hedge on your behalf to insulate consumers from the danger of price spikes. Natural gas is not hedged in the same way and you know so you can either You can either believe, you know as obviously one public speaker does that natural gas price spiking was for profits. That's possible or you can believe that they are constrained in their hedging ability.
Either way it is inferior for the consumer in the long run to electricity Additionally, consumers that have high electricity bills can avoid cost in a way that natural gas cannot. Electricity is only more expensive for four hours during the day. And so people who need to reduce their electricity cost can more easily do that than with natural gas, that does not have a large price differential throughout the day.
Electricity is going to help consumers a lot more than natural gas ever will. And when we're looking at a public policy pie as we do with our Climate Action Plan, it behooves us to do climate pollutant reductions in a way that is most efficient from a cost perspective. And this is one of those most efficient ways from a cost perspective. So I fully support staff recommendation.
All right. Well, in my house I have both and as a good old American, I like to be able to choose if I want to run electricity, I have electricity. If I want to change my stove out and put an electric stove, I would do that. I don't need the state or the county or whoever it is to come in and tell me what I have to do And I think one of the things that we left out of this is, I represent a district that is 85 or 86 percent Hispanic. There is a cultural phenomenon that the reason why we're telling people what to do or we feel the need to tell them what to do is because they aren't going to go away from gas stoves. You're gonna have to take it away from them and I just don't think that's our responsibility.
I mean like my electric bills are five times what my natural gas bills are. My natural gas is a joke, it's so low and I use it for heating and for cooking in many months it's under $30 a month. I've never had a PG&E bill under $150 a month but it's just the idea to me of This is a soft ban. This is saying, well you're going to do it this way and if you don't you have to jump over all these other hoops to get there so it is a soft ban.
And when we talk about what the health outcomes are 12% of asthma and it's not good for kids. There's a lot of things that aren't good for kids that we don't ban. You know I think we saw Through prohibition, banning alcohol did not work. We still don't ban cigarettes and I'm sure that's a lot higher cause of child asthma than natural gas stoves. So I just think letting people choose is just the American way.
And I think if we followed the model that we did with smoking, it would work much better. What did we do? We educated, educated, educated and kids today don't want to smoke they stay away from it and maybe that's where we should be investing our money but I just don't think mandating this is a good way to move but I can see where we're going so this looks like it's gonna be coming back to us but I will open it up for a motion
3:36 – 3:4525 turns
We have a motion to
approve
staff recommendation.
I second think
okay, those are for the record they are through see yep. Motion on a and C been moved and seconded let's do a roll call vote please
supervisor Williams.
So are we ready to take 821 at this point? You're going to get the Golden Attendance Award today. Are we ready? Yeah, okay let's read it one more time into the record again please.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank thank you very much. Chair Levin, you know members of the board. Administrative I'm number 21 is from the public works department. It is to consider recommendations regarding that he gets sanitary landfill groundwater protection system phase IV a fiscal year 2024 through 2025 in 2025 through 2026 County project number 8 2, 8, 9, 8 5 this
Mr. Chair and members of the board, thank you for trailing the item so could look at the details of this bid. So we talked earlier about the boards options of approving the contract today or rejecting all bids and directing rebidding. We did earlier talk about the possibility of the board considering the protest. However, after reviewing the bid procedures for this particular project, the procedure was not set up for the board to consider the protest.
The protest process outlines that the director of Public Works is the final decision maker so as a result The contractor, Sukut was not noticed for today to be present about a protest and so they're not present to respond to any issues. You also asked about local labor preference that's not a basis to award this contract but the bid process does require compliance with the Project Labor Agreement Mr. Son had previously described how that works, that it's based on union local hiring halls.
The project labor agreement includes a goal of 50% local labor and then requires using Santa Barbara residents first when hiring from the union fire halls but it's not a guarantee. It's a good faith effort so that I think addresses all the questions that the board has.
Okay so in the normal bid challenge process, the Board of Supervisors is not involved. It's the Director of Public Works that makes final determination.
Mr. Chair I don't know if it varies by project but I can say that on this particular one,
yes,
the procedures provide that the Public Works Director is a final decision maker.
Honestly even though I'm on the Board of Supervisors much more comfortable with the head of Public Works making Who knows who and who knows what kind of thing. That's probably why we have it set up the way we do. Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, Mr. Sneddon I know this is in my district and I've got some constituents are very eager to have this go in quickly because they are experiencing some of the issues. So could you talk about how time is of the essence here
Sure, Chair Supervisor Hartman to the chair. Yeah so this project is critical for the expansion project that will help have the landfill have the capacity needed to get out to 2038 which is the life that we're looking for everything to come fully online
and it'll protect the watercourse
Correct. Yes, the liner project is a critical piece of infrastructure for the landfilling because exactly what you said it makes sure that no leachate gets through the landfill and into the groundwater and everything is treated properly.
And into the ocean which is right there.
Supervisor
Williams? Was Supervisor Hartman finished? I thought so. No. Well, I mean, I think number one, I think Pat Papich is a I consider it a local. I think they're union contractor and I appreciate him being here and you know having close eyes on the project. It seems to me that the process has gone through and we I'm a member of the board of Supervisors. And I should be awarding it to if I'm pronouncing that right, they are also a union contractor and according to our provisions of CW a they've got you know they can bring in a core workforce but after that they've got to I'm going to go ahead and open it up for public comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I felt differently if like many contracts we have the ability to reject all bids and you know I've opened to the discussion but does not seem like we have this with this contract.
Supervisor Nelson. Oh, I was just going to say I doubt the CWA had anything do with this since they're both union contractors used to paying good wages and benefits. Supervisor Nelson?
Yeah, to address the CWA point that I was making earlier and I said I would originally supported CWAs to begin with if we could have assured through CWA's we'd actually have local And that's why I brought it up, not because they're influencing here. That was what I thought was a fallacy of the CWA was they really did not protect us to making sure we're actually going to get local companies. So that's why I mentioned that previously.
What I'm troubled by is that we literally had a contract with Pappage for this already early this summer and then Suket appealed it and there was enough there that they went out to rebid Now it's gone through and it's flipped and you know PAPA is bringing up those issues with it too but now we've run out of time. And now we got to go move forward or else it so it's just really it's again and.
We should be ironclad from the beginning
yeah well I mean we had a contract with already local one and you know, and so it seems like rewarding these outside agencies to appeal our local contractors and then running out the clock and now we're going to move forward with it with somebody outside the area that's why I'm frustrated you know is because if we could go out again You know, the tiebreaker but we're out of time now. So that's where I'm frustrated how this process has played out. I would suggest that if we do move forward that maybe we get a report back on how this goes with actual local labor I do think that's something we should be getting a look at. I mean, I know we're very limited through the state bidding project process for public works projects. I know that we don't have the same type of procurement tools but I think we should be using them if they are out there especially when we're within 1% because I think there is a good argument to be made So I think that's a really good point.
I think it would be a lot easier for us to do this by choosing the other contractor even though they're slightly less expensive so. This is my my thoughts on this.
And this doesn't happen every day but it so I hope it's not an impact for the department but I for one would just like I would like to be aware of it so that I know what's going on and feel a little bit more comfortable because like right now. I don't feel like I I don't feel great about it and but I also know we need All those in favor, aye. Any opposed? Abstain.
Okay so we have a 4-0-1. Okay and again thank you Mr. Papich for being here hopefully this last time we do that one. So now we're now going to be recessing the closed session County Council could you please read the items for consideration today
3:45 – 3:474 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board there's one item in closed session today it's existing litigation. It's the Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Directors for the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and it is the county flood control water conservation district versus Catherine Montgomery. It''s a Ventura County Superior Court case and the time estimate is 20 to 30 minutes.
We're reconvening this meeting of September 17, 2024. County Council, could you please report out from closed session?
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the Board. The Board met in closed session as the Board of Directors for the Flood Control and Water Conservation District and heard one case. The Board took no reportable action.
Okay. And with that we are adjourning this meeting and our next meeting is Tuesday October 1st in Santa Barbara.