Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Good morning. I will call the order of the September 1st, 2026 regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Supervisor Lavagnino.

Here.

Supervisor Lee.

Here.

Supervisor Capps. Here. Supervisor Hartman. Here. And Chair Nelson.

At this time, please stand and join us in pledging allegiance to our flag.

Ready? Begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, by indivisible with liberty and justice for all. The next item of business is the approval of the minutes from the August 25th, 2026 meeting. Can I get a motion for approval? I'll move the minutes.

And I'll second.

Okay, motion by Labanino, second by Capps. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Next item of business is our County Executive Officer Report and welcome Ms. Peterson for your first Santa Barbara meeting. Welcome, please.

Thank you, Supervisors. I have two items to report this week. The first is from the County Executive Office. We're delighted to let you know the County of Santa Barbara has been selected to join a national initiative that helps counties strengthen how they support people with behavioral health needs in the justice system. The county was chosen for the county's Aligning Health and Safety Technical Assistance Initiative based on its strong application, longstanding cross-agency collaboration, and demonstrated commitment to improving outcomes for residents with behavioral health needs. Through this technical assistance partnership, experts will work with the county to improve care coordination, expand access to services, and enhance safety and outcomes for the community. The project kickoff and timeline will be shared publicly once provided by the Council of State Government's Justice Center. My next announcement is from First Five. First Five Santa Barbara County will host a virtual ed talk with Dr. Mariam Kia, Learning the Language of Resilience, What Early Childhood Educators Need to Know, on Thursday, October 1st, from 3 to 4.30 p.m. Dr. Kia will explore resilience as a skill that can be intentionally built and practiced through relationships, trust, play, emotional safety, and connection. Participants will gain practical strategies to support young children's emotional regulation and restorative skills. This free event will be hosted via Zoom, and those interested in attending can learn more and register at first5sbc.org. Thank you.

All right, thank you, CAO Peterson. And with that, Madam Clerk, do we have any announcements today or changes to our agenda?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, I just have one quick announcement this morning regarding public participation. For information on the Board of Supervisors' methods of public participation and instructions on how to provide public comment on items listed on today's agenda or during general public comment, please refer to page two of the agenda. Individuals who wish to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance using the link provided on page two. Please note that Zoom is available solely for the purpose of providing verbal public comment and is not intended for viewing the meeting. Alternative viewing options are listed on page two of the agenda. If you have any questions, please contact the clerk of the board's office at area code 805. 568-2240, or by email at sbcob at countyofsb.org. And that concludes my announcements for this morning.

All right, thank you, Madam Clerk. The next item of business is the administrative agenda. Would any board members like to pull any items for the administrative agenda?

Okay.

I'm going to pull A12 for roll call vote on that one. Other than that, can I get a motion for the balance of the administrative agenda?

Move the balance of the agenda. I'll second.

Okay, a motion from Hartman, a second from Capps on the balanced agenda. That's all the items except for A12. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Motion passed unanimously. It's time in our meeting that we'll go ahead and move on to our resolutions to be presented. We'll start off with administrative item number one. Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number one into the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lavagnino. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of September 2026 as recovery month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have Tony Navarro, our behavioral wellness department head, and Melissa Wilkins. If you can please make your way to the podium. I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas National Recovery Month observed each September recognizes the recovery from mental health and substance use disorders is possible and celebrates the strength, resilience, and accomplishments of individuals and families in recovery while honoring the providers, organizations, and communities that support people on their journeys of recovery. And whereas substance use and substance use disorders continue to be significant public health concerns throughout California, with more than 9,000 drug overdose deaths occurring among California residents in 2024, demonstrating the continued need for preventing early intervention, treatment, harm reduction, and sustained recovery supports. And whereas Santa Barbara County has made meaningful progress in reducing overdose deaths, with the number declining from 158 deaths in 2023 to 96 in 2024 to 93 in 2025, including a substantial decline in fentanyl-related deaths from 111 in 2023 to 46 in 2025. This progress represents lives saved and demonstrates the impact of coordinated prevention, treatment, recovery, harm reduction and community-based efforts. And whereas recovery is a personal journey that looks different for every individual and may include treatment, peer support, family and community connection, stable housing, meaningful employment, education, and other supports that help individuals achieve and sustain health, wellness, purpose, and a fulfilling life. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara through the Department of Behavioral Wellness and in partnership with individuals with lived experience, families, community-based organizations, healthcare providers, schools, first responders, recovery communities, and other partners is committed to expanding pathways to recovery, reducing stigma, increasing access to treatment and supportive services, and ensuring that individuals and families have opportunities to achieve and sustain recovery and reach their full potential. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby proclaim September 2026 as recovery month and encourages all residents to support individuals and families in treatment and recovery, promote awareness of available resources, and join in celebrating the strength, resilience, and success of our recovery community. Pass it adopted today.

Thank you, Chair Nelson, Supervisor Lavagnino, and Board of Supervisors and county staff for today's resolution, giving us an opportunity to speak publicly on this important month of recovery. And here to say a few words is Melissa Wilkins, and she is our branch chief over the alcohol and drug programs here in Santa Barbara County.

Good morning, thank you Chair Nelson and Board of Supervisors. I just want to say thank you. Recovery is possible in this county only because of the work of a network of individuals that are supporting each other. Those range from social support programs to treatment programs to prevention programs. And it's with that help of those community-based organizations and that network that individuals have the opportunity to experience that sense of belonging, to learn recovery skills, and to gain a new sense of purpose. In recognition of Recovery Month, I would like to give a shout out to our contracted treatment providers who support 1,500 people at any given time. They support every step of that recovery process. So I want to thank you to CADA, to Sanctuary Centers, to Good Samaritan Shelters, to Aegis Treatment Centers, to our STD Wellness and Recovery Access Point, to each of those programs and to the staff who have lived experience, who provide hope for others every single day. Those organizations serve a network of our community. They serve over 40% of the population, including Medi-Cal members, as well as those who are uninsured, underinsured, and individuals with private insurance. I also want to thank the Board of Supervisors for your ongoing support as well as our county partners. Thank you in particular for designating opioid settlement funds to support recovery residences over the last two years. By that financial commitment, we've been able to add 12 additional recovery residence beds serving over 100 people and supporting them in developing those recovery skills and that long-term recovery journey. So thank you for that. And with that, I just want to thank each of you and thank you for declaring September as National Recovery Month. Thanks.

Thank you. Chair.

All right. Next item of business is administrative item number two. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item on the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, again, we have Behavioral Wellness Department Director Tony Navarro and Suzanne Grimacy. If you can please make your way to the podium. Whereas suicide is a significant and preventable public health concern that affects individuals, families, friends, coworkers, and entire communities, and prevention requires a comprehensive approach that addresses risk factors, strengthens protective factors, promotes connection, and increases access to support and care. And whereas in 2024, 4,042 Californians died by suicide and more than 30,500 Californians received emergency department care for non-fatal self-harm, demonstrating the continued need for sustained community-wide suicide prevention efforts. And whereas Santa Barbara County recorded 47 deaths by suicide in 2025, underscoring that suicide remains a significant and ongoing public health concern in our community and that continued sustained prevention efforts are essential. And whereas suicide prevention is a year-round responsibility that is strengthened when communities foster belonging and connection, reduce stigma around surrounding mental health and help seeking. recognize warning signs, promote safe access to care and crisis services, and equip community members with the knowledge and skills to support someone who may be struggling. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara through the Department of Behavioral Wellness and in partnership with individuals with lived experience, community organizations, schools, healthcare providers, first responders, and other community partners is committed to making help accessible and building a community in which every person knows that support is available, including through the Department of Behavioral Wellness 24-7 Crisis Response and Services Access Line at area code 888-868-1649, and through community education and suicide prevention trainings, including Question, Persuade, Refer, QPR, which equips community members to recognize warning signs, offer support, and connect someone to help. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby proclaim September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Month, passed and adopted today.

Chair Nelson, members of the Board, thank you so much for recognizing September as Suicide Prevention or Suicide Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. While we have made progress, I believe, in recognizing suicide awareness, the 47 lives that were lost in our county last year remind us that we still have a lot of really important work to do. Behind every number, as we all know, is a person, and there is a family, and there are friends, there are people with lived experience, and there is a community that is forever touched by that loss. Suicide awareness is truly a shared responsibility, one that every person in this room carries a role in. It's about creating communities where people feel connected, and where asking for help is met with compassion and not with stigma. It's also about giving people the confidence to recognize when someone may be struggling and to know what to do. Wanna make sure that people know one of the ways that's important to us that we recognize this month in our county, and that is with our Suicide Awareness Out of the Darkness Walk, which is taking place this year on October 3rd at Goleta Beach Park, begins at 9 a.m. It's a wonderful and powerful way to come together as a community. You can come and walk alone. You can walk with a team. You can form a team. There's no cost to walk. Just need to register. We've got flyers in the back. We have flyers here. But really, truly encourage people to consider to come and join our community in this important event. And most importantly, want to remind the community that nobody has to struggle in silence or alone and that help is available. Behavioral Wellness has a 24-7 access line that can be reached by calling 888-868-1649. Thank you for keeping suicide awareness a priority all year long and not just during September. Thank you.

Thank you. Next item of business, administrative item number three. Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number three into the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the Board, administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution honoring and celebrating the legacy of Carlos Santana at the Santa Barbara Bowl. And joining us in person today, we have Graham Lyons, Board Chair for the Santa Barbara Bowl Foundation, and Moss Jacobs from Santa Barbara Bowl.

And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Thank you.

Whereas legendary rock star Carlos Santana has performed at the Santa Barbara Bowl over five decades, beginning with his 1978 appearance and continuing through more than 25 concerts, making him the venue's most frequent performer. And whereas Santana's concerts have long captivated Santa Barbara audiences, and his signature blend of Afro-Latin rhythms, blues, rock, and jazz has not only earned him 10 Grammy Awards, three Latin Grammys, induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, and recognition as one of the greatest guitarists of all time, but also the enduring love and admiration of the Santa Barbara community. And whereas his concerts at the Bowl have brought together diverse audiences in a shared spirit of harmony and optimism, reflecting his longstanding message of unity and light through music. And whereas Carlos Santana honors the traditions and contributions of musical forbearers such as Bob Marley, Marvin Gaye, Peter Tosh, Bunny Whaler, and John Lee Hooker, artists who also helped shape the cultural history of Santa Barbara's iconic stage. And whereas Santana continues to inspire the Santa Barbara community through committed philanthropic efforts, including the Milagro Foundation, and through his unwavering integrity, exemplary gratitude, and unparalleled good vibes. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara honors Carlos Santana and recognizes his historic relationship with the Santa Barbara Bowl, his decades of cultural impact, and his extraordinary contributions to music, unity, and community spirit passed and adopted today.

Chair Ellison, members of the board, Graham Lyons, thank you very much for this resolution. I think it definitely represents an honoring of a musician that we have all recognized for decades that has contributed both to the musical community and the community as a whole, which I think really represents a lot of what the Santa Barbara Bull Foundation and the County of Santa Barbara in partnership have tried to provide with the Bull as a facility where we can be able to bring artists like this into the community. So thank you again for the resolution.

Thank you all very much. This is a very unique moment for us to have Carlos come back. It's been 18 years since he's been here and this is quite an honor and he's gonna be very impressed by this. So thank you all very much.

All right, Madam Clerk, now will you please read administrative item number four into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number four is sponsored by Supervisor Capps. It is to adopt a resolution recognizing Captain Eric Gray and Search Dog D for their deployment to Venezuela in support of earthquake search and rescue operations. And if you can please make your way to the podium. I see we also have Fire Chief Garrett Huff with us today. Whereas on June 25th, 2026, a devastating earthquake in Venezuela created hazardous conditions and left individuals trapped within collapse and damage structures, prompting an international search and rescue response. And whereas Captain Gray and Search Dog D, members of the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, were activated to deploy to Venezuela as part of California Task Force Two, as USA Team Two, International Urban Search and Rescue Team, to assist with the critical mission of locating victims trapped in rubble following the earthquake. And whereas Captain Gray and Search Dog D have been a dedicated team assigned to California Task Force Team 2 Urban Search and Rescue Team since 2021, demonstrating an exceptional commitment to public safety and the preservation of life through their specialized training, experience, and partnership. And whereas Captain Gray and Search Dog D have responded to multiple search and rescue assignments through Santa Barbara County and California, providing critical capabilities during incidents involving missing persons, disaster response, and other challenging search operations. And whereas their deployment to Venezuela demonstrated the highest level of professional service and reflects the commitment of Santa Barbara County Fire Department personnel to assist communities in need. both locally and internationally, while operating under adverse and dangerous conditions in the search for victims trapped in rubble. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge and commend Captain Gray and Search Dog D for their courageous service, dedication, and commitment to search and rescue operations and for their deployment with US 18-2 search and rescue to Venezuela in response to the June 25th, 2026 earthquake passed and adopted today.

Chair Nelson, Supervisor Capps, and all the board, I wanted to say thank you for acknowledging and recognizing Captain Gray here. I wanted to take a moment to give you a little bit more detail about Fire Captain Eric Gray and what has truly been a remarkable career of service. Eric and I were both hired in 2005 and spent a lot of our early years working alongside of each other at different stations. So I've known Eric for 21 years now. And Eric is not only a fire captain, but he's a devoted husband, father, and friend. Eric's passion for urban search and rescue began in our fire academy. Captain Howard Orr is one of our training captains now, but he deployed to 9-11 during the World Trade Center attack with his search K-9 Duke, and that really inspired Eric to commit to that through his career. So in 2008, Eric was paired with his first canine partner, Riley, who was a yellow lab, through the National Disaster Search Dog Foundation. And since then, he's had three canine partners. Dee here is his current. Eric's taken that passion not just a step further, but a giant leap further. Through his years of training, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, he has earned an incredibly rare opportunity to join California Task Force Two, which has been mentioned already. One of only two teams that the United States deploys internationally for search and rescue. That means that Eric not only represents us, but the LA County Fire Department. He is the only member outside of the LA County Fire Department that sits on that team of 180 people. His international deployments have taken him to Japan following the 2011 earthquake and tsunami, Nepal in 2015, Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria in 2017, Turkey in 2023, and most recently Venezuela in 2026, which we are recognizing him for today. Closer to home though, Eric and his partners have responded to numerous incidents within our county and throughout the state of California. His first response was in 2010 to the gravel truck that crashed into a home at the end of 154. I remember that call vividly because that was my first day as an engineer. They've responded to the Montecito debris flow, the Paradise Fire, the North Complex explosion in Santa Maria and countless others. Eric's role on the team has expanded much more than just being a canine handler though. He serves as a medical specialist and now is one of two search team managers overseeing the entire search operations. Another testament to his expertise, trust, and respect that he's earned. Eric has never sought recognition for this work. In fact, he really didn't want to be here today. He simply stayed quiet, stayed trained, stayed ready, and has gone wherever he's been called. Eric, I'm proud of you, and I'm proud of having worked alongside of you all of these years. I'm proud of how you represent our fire department, our county, our country, and the whole world. So thank you. We want to show our thanks to you today.

I'm usually a man of many words. A few just for you today. Thank you for this recognition. Thank you for the opportunity to do this work. It has been a passion. The opportunity to represent this county, this department, and the means and matters and the places that we've gone has been not lost on me. It's a humbling, I didn't know 2005 when I watched Captain Orr do his thing that it was gonna lead me to the places that was gonna lead me. And it's been remarkable. So today I appreciate you all for taking the time, you for taking the opportunity to recognize the work that we've done. So thank you.

Thank you, Captain Gray. Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Capps.

Yeah, Chief Huff, I just wanted to thank you for having the idea to bring this forward. Captain Gray. We all are feeling your courage and I know we all believe that one of the most meaningful parts of our job is to support our first responders and to be able to work side by side with you and to look you all in the eye and just honor the courage and know that you all do things that I could never do. and to know that you've, on a daily basis, are serving the people of Goleta, Station 12, Cayo Real, near Patterson, but then go off and do these incredible missions as well with Search Dog D. I'm a big, big, big dog person, as a lot of people are, but it's such an honor to have you here. It touches our hearts. Thank you.

I appreciate it. Thank you again.

All right. Madam Clerk, will you please read administrative item number five into the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number five is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Fayann Moutanraya, Diana Hernandez, Natalia Rossi, and Elise Romachoti. of the Behavioral Health Services Act BHSA team and the Behavioral Wellness Department as the September 2026 Employees of the Month in Santa Barbara County. Whereas the Behavioral Wellness BHSA team exemplifies the county's organizational values of accountability, customer focus, equity and inclusion, innovation, trust and ethics. And whereas the Behavioral Wellness BHSA team models the transformative behaviors of collaborative problem solving, alignment with the county's vision, risk taking, data driven decision making and strategic thinking. And whereas the Behavioral Wellness BHSA team demonstrates an unwavering commitment to meaningful stakeholder engagement in the development of the department's Behavioral Health Services Act Integrated Plan, reaching diverse communities, including residents of Guadalupe and the Cuyama Valley, and engaging community partners, advocates, clients, families, and service organizations whose voices helped shape the department's priorities. And whereas the Behavioral Wellness BHSA team established a bimonthly BHSA steering committee that brings together an exceptional broad cross-section of partners, including county departments, justice partners, law enforcement, community-based organizations, clients, and family members, creating an ongoing forum for collaboration and shared accountability in implementing BHSA. And whereas the Behavioral Wellness BHSA team has provided thoughtful and strategic leadership as the department navigates significant changes and state behavioral health regulations, and their transition from the Mental Health Services Act to the Behavioral Health Services Act, helping position the department and its partners for successful implementation while keeping community needs at the center of the work. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge the Behavioral Wellness BHSA team as the Employees of the Month for September 2026, passed and adopted today.

Really, really proud to honor this team who was Overwhelmingly voted by the leadership team in the extended leadership team of be well to be our employees of the month this year for their excellence this past year You know when you work within a county system of care and make the commitment to serve It's not unusual for the role that you were hired to perform to evolve over time changing community needs regulatory requirements and funding priorities may cause responsibilities to expand or contract to add new duties and

and while others become more complex or less complex.

Yet through all of these changes, the core responsibilities of the role generally remain intact. But for this group of staff, the past year has been entirely different. Their roles have transformed so significantly that it required a name change to what they do from the MHSA, Mental Health Service Act team, to the Behavioral Health Service Act team. It also required an entirely new set of rules governing how and with whom they conduct their work, how those new responsibilities are documented and reported, And perhaps most impressively, it required, in really relatively short order, the mastery of what amounts to an unabridged and ever-expanding dictionary of behavioral health terms and new acronyms, supervisor caps. So through it all. Natalia, Fayann, Diana, and Elise remained positive and inspiring. They built trust and confidence and fostered community engagement far beyond expectation. And they facilitated Santa Barbara County's Proposition 1 Behavioral Health Service Act process with such skill and diligence that Buell's inaugural three-year plan was accepted and approved for implementation by the Department of Health Care Services on virtually its first draft. There were only a few obligatory questions from the state and minor edits. Any effective and sustainable system of care can only be achieved when its organizational foundation is solid and stable. And over this past year, this BHSA team demonstrated exceptional dedication, diligence, and professionalism, truly going beyond expectations to help ensure that this most substantial renovation of the county's behavioral health care system in more than two decades is successful here in Santa Barbara. Be Well specifically and Santa Barbara County more broadly are extremely fortunate to have these remarkable professionals helping us usher our behavioral health system of care into what state agencies now call California's behavioral health transformation. I'm going to now turn it over to Suzanne Grimacy. She is their team's direct executive lead to say a few words.

Thank you Tony. Good morning Chair Nelson again and members of the board. Thank you so much for this opportunity to recognize a truly amazing team. You already heard from Tony what the transition from MHSA to BHSA was like. It's been a tremendous undertaking. This team has approached it with creativity, with collaboration and an unwavering focus on community. What I especially love about these four women, they represent the power of partnership, and in some cases, a very personal connection to their work. Fan's mother, Tina Wooten, who was our, excuse me, Tina was a friend and a very strong coworker, she was our department's consumer empowerment manager. After a heroic battle with cancer, she earned her angel wings, and shortly thereafter, Fan joined the team to carry out her mother's work. Tina's work was dedicated to raising the voices of those who may not otherwise have been heard, and Fayan has carried out this work. Diana joined us from the Department of Social Services when many of their staff were displaced, another wonderful example of how our county family works together, and we're so grateful to have Diana on the team. Elise began with us as a UCSB writing intern, and she very quickly grew an absolutely essential role in the team. So we're so grateful to have Elise. And Fayan here with a beautiful tear in her eye. She somehow manages to, I'm sorry, geez, do I know you? Natalia, who manages to consistently bring a smile to everything that she does and knows BHSA better than anyone that I know. And if you know BHSA, you know what that means. She's been an incredible leader through a complicated transition. Each of these four bring something unique to the work, and together they have accomplished an extraordinary amount. I'm very proud of this team, grateful for everything that they do, honored to work with them, and so grateful to see them honored today. So thank you.

Supervisor Hartman.

I just wanted to add I don't think any county department has ever had such major transition in such a short period of time and it seemed from our vantage point to go seamlessly so it's really an honor to meet the people who are responsible. Thank you so much.

All right, now we'll move on to our sixth and final resolution to be presented today. Madam Clerk, could you please read item number six into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number six is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson and Supervisor Lee. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation for Lieutenant Ugo Peter Butch Arnaldi upon his retirement from the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department after over 53 years of faithful and dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today, we have our Sheriff Bill Brown and Lieutenant Ugo Butch, Peter Butch Arnaldi, excuse me. I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Ugo Peter Butch Arnaldi will be retiring from county service on Sunday, September 27th, 2026, having faithfully served the sheriff's office for over 53 years during which he served as a deputy sheriff, senior deputy, detective, sergeant, and lieutenant. And whereas Butch started his career with Santa Barbara County on September 18th, 1973, as a reserve deputy sheriff until 1974, when he became a full-time deputy sheriff. During his 53 years of service, he has worked in various capacities, which included detention and corrections, patrol, field training officer, senior deputy patrol, mountain patrol, Sergeant South County Operations, Criminal Investigations Bureau, and Lieutenant South County Patrol Goleta, Isla Vista Foot Patrol, Carpinteria, Criminal Investigations Bureau, Judicial Services Criminal Records, Civil Bureau, and Northern Stations. And whereas Butch was involved with labor relations, having served on the Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association Board of Directors for 18 years, and the Sheriff's Manager's Association Board of Directors for over four years, served as the sheriff's explorer post advisor for over 26 years, which resulted in numerous explorer scouts becoming employees of the sheriff's office, including his two children. And whereas Butch earned numerous commendations to include the Montecito Association Citizen of the Year, the Law Enforcement Torch Run Special Olympics Southern California, Chief Jim Gardner Unsung Hero Award, the LETR International Executive Council John Carrion Unsung Hero Award, the Thomas Fire 19 Debris Flow Major Incident Commendation, the Isla Vista Mass Casualty Incident, the Sheriff's Unit Citation Award, the Catholic Charities Partnership and Service Award, the American Red Cross Santa Barbara Chapter Community Hero Award, the H. Thomas Gary Award for Outstanding Performance, twice, with the second for his leadership in the White Fire Evacuation, the Sheriff's Office Distinguished Service Award, twice, the California Congress of Parents, Teachers, and Students Golden Oak Service Award, and several additional awards from various other state and local organizations. And whereas Butch Arnaldi's knowledge, skills, and experience contributed greatly to the overall professionalism and the goals of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office, as well as the objectives of the county. Now, therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara does hereby acknowledge Ugo Peter Butch Arnaldi upon his retirement.

Pass it off to Ted.

Well, Chair Nelson and members of the board, it's a pleasure to be here in front of you and our community to have the honor of recognizing a truly exceptional public servant as he prepares to conclude what can only be described as an extraordinary career. Lieutenant Butch Arnaldi is retiring after 53 years of law enforcement service. A milestone that is as rare as it is remarkable that all of that service has been with the same agency, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. Lieutenant Arnaldi began his journey with us on September 18th, 1973, when he joined the Sheriff's Office as a reserve deputy. Less than a year later, he transitioned into an extra help position, setting the foundation for a career defined by his dedication, his versatility, and his unwavering commitment to the law enforcement profession and to this county. Over the decades, Lieutenant Arnaldi has served in an impressive range of assignments, everywhere from the main jail, being a hospital guard, to court services as both a bailiff and transportation deputy, working in the civil bureau, patrol, and mountain patrol. He was appointed a deputy sheriff in 1974, and he completed the final Santa Barbara County Peace Officer's Basic Training Academy in 1975. His career progression reflects both his professionalism and his leadership. He has served as a patrol deputy, a field training officer, a senior deputy, an administrative assistant, and he went on to become promoted to sergeant in 1990 and lieutenant in 1996. In these roles, he contributed to field operations, investigations, key administrative functions, and notably, he served as the longest serving chief of police services for the city of Goleta, a role in which his impact is still felt today. Beyond his formal law enforcement assignments, Lieutenant Arnaldi's contributions to our community extend even deeper. For over 43 years, he has served with Special Olympics Southern California, the flagship charity that law enforcement has embraced, and he has been our liaison, working tirelessly over those four decades to connect our agency and all of the community with this wonderful Special Olympics cause. He has offered support that has changed lives and has strengthened community bonds with people with intellectual disabilities. He has worked closely with the County Family Assistance Center during disasters, fires, floods, debris flows, providing stability and care when our community needed it most. He also assisted in the chaplain's program, in court services, in mountain patrol, and patrol, most notably, continuing to serve wherever he was needed. Butch is also a man with a deep and abiding faith, and he has been actively involved in his church for many decades in our community. Butch participated in the family plan at the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. He committed, literally, his entire family to our organization. His wife, Marla, who recently completed a 28-year career with our agency as an administrative office professional senior. And can you stand up and take a bow there? As well, Marla. and stay standing so we can recognize the rest of the Arnoldi clan as well here. His legacy continues with his son, Giuseppe, who is a custody deputy with the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office. And his daughter, Francesca, who is a sheriff's deputy with our organization. So as you can see, the Arnaldi legacy will live on long after Butch walks out the door for the last time at the sheriff's office. But Butch's legacy is not defined only by the years that he served, but by the heart that he brought to his work, the mentorship that he offered to generations of deputy sheriffs, and the compassion that he showed to the people of this county when they were in need. His career embodies public service at its very best. So Butch, on behalf of every one of us in the Sheriff's Office and our entire Santa Barbara County community, I thank you. I thank you for 53 years of commitment, professionalism, and steady leadership. Thank you for dedicating your life to protecting and supporting the people of Santa Barbara County. We wish you the very best in your well-earned retirement, and we are deeply grateful for everything that you have given to us. Congratulations.

Chair Nelson, Supervisor Lee, rest of the Board and Sheriff, again, thank you for this resolution and the kind words spoken this morning. I first really need to thank my family. From my grandparents, to my parents, to my sister and her family, to my wife of almost 44 years, Marla, and our children, Giuseppe and Francesca, and her husband, Dustin, for the encouragement, support, sacrifice, and most importantly, for sharing me with the sheriff's office and the public we proudly serve on a daily basis. A lot has already been said, so I'm not gonna repeat this. So I will modify it a little bit. I am one of the very few who have worked for five different sheriff corners. I believe I'm the last one left with a three-digit potty number. And again, as mentioned, as a full-time sworn deputy, I worked both patrol and the main jail. As a sheriff's sergeant, I worked patrol and criminal investigations. And then as a sheriff's lieutenant, I have done patrol operations, criminal investigations, as was mentioned, longer serving chief of police for the city of Goleta, city of Carpinteria, chief of police on two different occasions. I was the sheriff's first adjutant when he first was elected. and countywide watch commander, which was an outstanding role and function. And I was a patrol station commander at headquarters Isla Vista, Carpinteria, and now at Santa Maria. And as has been mentioned, I've been a lieutenant. It'll be 30 years coming up in a couple of weeks. So again, a lot of stuff has already been mentioned. Another thing that I was very proud of was assisting the Santa Barbara City Police Department in their annual Festival of Spanish Days celebration. I did that for over 40 years, and we would have to, every year, supply between custody deputies and sworn deputies and detectives over 220 positions to help out for that four-day event, and that was a really very well experience. And again, it's also been mentioned, and Susan reminds me of that, when we spent many hours at the Family Assistance Center during the different major fires, floods, and mass casualty events that were both, you know, these disasters were both human-causal, some natural. Finally, it is I that should be thanking each of you. And the public. for not only supporting me all these years, but for entrusting me to care for you, watch over you, and comfort you in your time of need. Be it a disaster or a personal crisis that you may be enduring, I have had the pleasure of working with some of the finest law enforcement professionals throughout my entire 50-plus year career. Santa Barbara County and the Sheriff's Office are very fortunate and are extremely great hands with the current employees in all job classifications. As your first responders, this is our calling. We were chosen to be there for you and for others. What a rewarding experience and honor to have been chosen during those times to display our compassion, our faith and support for our brothers and sisters. Again, thank you all, thank everyone in the audience, all my fellow coworkers of all ranks and classifications, and most of all, may God bless you and thank you again very much.

Supervisor Lee.

Butch, I doubt this day will never come, but I'm glad that I get to be here to be part of it, as many of you are here today. So Butch and I served together on the Carp City Council, and I got to sit next to him. In every meeting, he would show me pictures of his beard and the deers. Every single time for quite a while, so... I don't know where I'm going with this, but Butch, you taught me a lot about who you are, and you are someone who I look up to, your role model. You are someone who is a mentor to so many. So I'll always be grateful for your service to our community. So I'm so happy for you and your family. So thank you for what you do.

I sometimes think of myself as one of the county historians, you know, I've been doing this for a little while and I can't find anybody in any history that I can find that has served the county for 53 years, let alone one department and a sheriff's department at that. So I think, Butch, you may be our longest standing employee in county history. And, you know, I don't think there could be anybody better to serve our county than you. So thank you for your ongoing service to us. And I know, as you reminded me when I walked up there, you still have another month. So thank you. All right. Thank you, Butch.

All right, I believe that- So Chair, are you gonna vote against it if he comes back as extra help? That's the only question. I think it's a lifetime waiver.

Okay, lifetime waiver.

All right, thank you. All right, that concludes our resolutions and we'll go ahead and move on to our administrative items that were pulled. So I'll give a moment for those who would like to head on out and then we'll get started with our regularly scheduled business.

I said I did.

All right, we're gonna get started again, and we'll get back to our administrative agenda. I believe that there was only one item pulled by the board, which was pulled by myself, which was A12 for a roll call vote. Excuse me, if we could take our, we're gonna get started again, if we can take our conversations out to the hallway, that'd be appreciated. All right, so we can continue back to the meeting here now. And I pulled item A12 for a roll call vote. I also, just for the record, I think I knew this from the clerk that there was no items pulled by the public. Is that correct? Can you prior to our vote?

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board, that is correct. We had no requests from the public on our administrative agenda.

All right, so could you read item 812 into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 12 is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding county membership and the local government climate alliance.

And I just ask for a roll call vote on this one, although I know that many of my colleagues may support our inclusion here i think the advocacy here may um being contrary to some of my personal and district uh positions so i just wanted to vote against um us joining this uh climate alliance so um supervisor hartman um so i'd be happy to make the motion that we um join the climate collaborative and i will second happily okay all right with a first and a second any further discussion seeing none i'll go ahead and just we'll do a roll call vote or no we can do a voice vote and i'll just vote no here so all in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed nay motion passes four to one with supervisor nelson opposing All right, that concludes our administrative agenda. At this time, we're going to go ahead and move to our general public comment. These are for items on the agenda that, or items that are not on the agenda, but under the purview of the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County. Madam Clerk, do we have any speakers for general public comment?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, yes, we have six requests to speak from the public on general public comment today.

Okay, let's go ahead and get started.

We are going to remain here in Santa Barbara for all six of our requests. We're going to begin with Donald Keller to be followed by Carol Miller. Donald?

Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Board. It's a complaint about the planning and development department that's been perpetuated against me for the last eight years. I think you as a board know that the department has gone after people. I've been dealing with this for eight years. I'm not wrong in what I assess, but it's been perpetuated by the letter that I got another complaint by a neighbor a street over that's actually trying to get my neighbor next to me to complain because all these complaints are virtually, there's no, named tied to it. They can just call up and not like what I do or not like what I have in front of my house. And the department has just gone after me. And it hasn't stopped. And I've reached out to all of you with comments. Roy, I appreciate it. And Bob Nelson. I just don't feel that I've been treated fairly. You guys have allowed this department to charge people $340 an hour to investigate nothing. you need to stop this insanity. This is crazy. You know, I'm a small business owner. I've lived in the Santa Ynez Valley for 53 years. I've lived in this house for 32 years. And the last eight years has just been It's a blaze. You guys need to tone it down. This is not the way that you get somebody's attention. You don't threaten, intimidate them. I've just kind of seen enough of it. And you guys need to address it. I should be able to represent myself. come and speak to you guys about a problem I have. I got a sister with mental illness. She had a trailer on my property, not living in it. It's something that I had to do to move it for her because she had no way to move it. I had my motorhomes. I lost two different spots because people smartly are moving out of California and their property's up for sale. So I've moved them, but I'm kind of over it, and I think you guys need to represent me and speak to the Planning and Development Department. I know so many people in the Planning and Development Department. I'm just exhausted by the names. I'm exhausted by the threats and intimidation. You don't need to run an operation like this. This is not how you get my attention. I think you need to be fair to everybody, especially me, and look at the facts. I've lived there 32 years, and now people People can just complain about me? Come on. You guys are better than this. This threat and intimidating letter charging me to investigate me. I think you guys know that it's not right. And I want to see some justice. I want to see something done about it. I want to see you go back and look at it and say that this isn't right. Regular people need to live their lives. I need to live my lives. When I'm gone, my daughters are going to be living in the house. So I'm not going anywhere. But I really would appreciate you guys taking the time I'LL GO TO THE NORTH COUNTY MEETING BECAUSE I HAVE A LETTER, ANOTHER LETTER THAT DIDN'T LIKE MY WORK VANS IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. NOT EVEN MY PROPERTY. IT'S THE COUNTY PROPERTY. IF THEY GOT A BEEF WITH IT, CALL THE HYBRID SURE.

THAT IS YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

WE WILL NOW GO TO CAROL MILLER TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANNA GARCIA. CAROL?

Good morning. In June, I read to you from my Jewish father's autobiography where he recounted his own father being roughed up by Nazis. My paternal family's history is why I patrol once or twice a week at 5.30 a.m. I have witnessed ICE agents hanging about the jail lobby waiting to pounce on someone. They left that day empty-handed, but mostly they don't. And they've been incredibly active recently. Who knows where they're taking these people, Liberia? I don't know if you read the horror story in the New York Times, anyway. In some ways, seeing the ICE at the county jail was surreal, but also very familiar. Turns out I've had Nazis deep in my psyche for my whole life, so they were easy to recognize. So our county facilitating the work of Nazis is a little hard to stomach to say the least. The signs that you ordered to be posted on county properties several months ago are obviously not working. So are you going to remain cowed by the sheriff or are you going to use your authority to do something meaningful? One of the most important questions any of us face is, you know, who will you be when history calls? So what's your answer? And I know, unfortunately, you all will have many more opportunities to answer that before this national nightmare is over, but you got one opportunity right now. Thank you. Thank you.

We will now go to Ana Garcia to be followed by Erica R. Ana? Let me set a context real quick.

Yes, I'm going to start with sharing a video of activity that happened over the last week where they assault a community member who's just present.

We're allowed to have cell phones in the lobby. Hey, hey, don't put your hands on me. Hey, hey, hey. Get back. Calm down. Get the fuck back. Get the fuck back. Calm down. Let's go. Just relax. It's okay, guys. Just don't interfere. That's it. We're not doing anything.

We're not doing anything. None of us are doing anything. We're the peaceful ones.

We're the peaceful ones. You don't need to be violent. Yeah, it's behind the door.

The lobby is okay.

Okay. What? I'm in your way? Does that say reserved for you? Okay, can I have some... card to get his super ride nope right now just as long as you stay back

You all have the video in your email. It is posted on the SB Resiste Instagram account for anyone who wants to see the violence that we are experiencing. That was just before I entered the room where I was threatened with being pepper sprayed in the building just for existing in that space. This is unacceptable. You all passed your policy, and we want to know how will it be enforced. Don't shake your head, Bob Nelson. aligned with the Nazis that are taking over our streets. You're a disgusting person who has no morals. We demand an investigation immediately to be started at both jails. We demand an inspector general to be assigned to actually monitor what's happening at the jails, and we want that expense to come out of Sheriff Bill Brown's salary, being that he cannot meet the requirements of his basic duties. We are your bosses. You are here for us. You work for us. These are Nazis that are entering our community and brutalizing us. ICE is getting information from the jail officers. We have proof of this. Not addressing it is putting Santa Barbara County in a precarious litigious position. And I will be the first to take that up. Do your jobs.

Thank you, Ms. Garcia.

We will now go to Erika Arr to be followed by Katie Davis. Erika?

Buenos dias. Mi nombre es Erika Rios y vengo en representación de un familiar mío que está detenido ahora mismo en Adelanto, California. Él se presentó a una corte aquí en Santa Barbara, California, por unos delitos que él tenía, se presentó a corte y después de eso, todo esto que voy a hablar me lo hizo saber esa persona que es familiar mío. Se presentó a la corte, después de la corte le dijeron que lo iban a remitir a la prisión de Santa Bárbara por tres meses para que pagara sus delitos. Después de eso, lo llevaron el día jueves pasado 28 de este mes, lo llevaron a la prisión de Santa Bárbara y lo pusieron en los separos.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, my apologies for stopping our public member, but if there would be a request for a translator, perhaps we can ask our translators on Zoom if they are able to do that. Is that okay? And we can start your comments over again. Okay.

That way, make sure everybody can hear you, understand what you have to say.

And I do see that Carlos is available on Zoom. Perhaps we can remove him from our Spanish channel so that he could provide.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can. Thank you so much, Carlos.

Great. May I give some instructions to the speaker so that I can do consecutive because I'm not able to do simultaneous while she's there. May I say that in Spanish to her? Yes, please. Ma'am, your interpreter is speaking. Can you hear me? Yes, I can hear you, yes. Look, if you could please start again and say, make a sentence, stop, and give me time for me to interpret in English for the Supervisory Board. Go ahead, start, give a sentence and give me a space so that I can interpret it for you. Thank you very much, ma'am.

I come as a representative of a relative of mine

I came here representing a member of my family, a family member.

Hoy este día. Today. Ese familiar fue llevado a la cárcel de Santa Bárbara.

That family member was taken to the Santa Bárbara jail.

Presuntamente para quedarse tres meses para pagar sus delitos que debía.

to possibly stay three months in to pay for the crimes that he may have committed. When he arrived at the jail, he was put in a separated place. About two hours afterward, he was all by himself in one of the areas that are for the separated ones. Then another defendant came in and started beating him several times, beat him up.

The people in the jail took a long time before they arrived. just to check to see what had happened. But meanwhile, this family member wind up quite beaten up.

The first thing that said when they took him to prison, They say he was going to spend three months in, and then he was going to come out free of the charges. But when he went to jail or prison, everything changed.

After he was beaten up, everything changed up. Then the sheriff arrived. And they said they're going to present a report because nobody knew why that person had come in to beat him up.

Or why the personnel that works on the inside had taken so long to come to help him.

He was in a separated area all night. He did not receive medical attention.

They say that the next day they're going to give him his personal cell.

Durán, lo sacan de los separos y lo llevan a no sé qué área como de recepción, no sé.

After he was taken from the separated area, they took him to a reception area.

Y él escucha cuando el sheriff y otros encargados de la oficina están llamando a migración que en ese momento, en 45 minutos, va a salir fuera.

Well, he said that he could hear that the people at the offices were calling immigration, announcing and telling them that he was going to be released in about 45 minutes.

He asked, wait a minute, why am I not going to spend the three months that you're going to get me out right away? Ellos no tuvieron una respuesta, solamente le dijeron que él tenía que salir ese día y que lo estaban esperando afuera.

They didn't give him an answer. They said you have to get out now and they were waiting for him outside.

En el momento que esta persona sale, fue arrestado por las personas de migración.

The moment he got out, he was arrested by immigration personnel.

At the moment that he came out, they beat him up and then they put his hands behind his back. He was kind of retained or detained. And between Santa Barbara and Camarillo, when he was taken there, he was beaten up several times and his hands were placed in a way that it looked like they wanted to break him. And he was asking whether we're doing that, but he was beaten up, being hit in the stomach.

He was never given an explanation of why the three months were changed to just one day and why was he turned into immigration.

¿Por qué nunca recibió asistencia médica?

Why he never received medical attention?

¿Y por qué fue entregado a migración?

Why was he turned into immigration?

Esta persona llegó hasta Belanto, California.

That person was taken to Adelanto, California.

He did not want to sign anything, and when he got to Adelanto, he received another big note.

After being beaten up, they gave him paperwork for him to sign. He did not want to sign them up.

He was beaten up on a table enough for him to decide to sign. Supposedly, this was the entrance to or the intake of the prison in Adelanto, Calicabano. I saw the video in which he's taken out of the jail and there are witnesses. There is one of them here present.

When immigration picked him up, he was already beaten up in his face already. After today, no person from the government, from the sheriff, from any government agency has communicated with the family to let us know

to let us know about what had really happened in the Santa Barbara jail.

I think they're violating all the rights of the human being.

I am here in company with a person that is supporting me. All right. But I am a member of the community. I ask for help.

This person now is fearful for his life.

He has not received any kind of medical help and now he's still locked up in Adelanto Hospital.

All right, thank you. Thank you, Bill. The problem began here in Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara is a place where the whole community We're good.

I don't understand how a sheriff gives an order to a person to be out for three months and then leave in one day.

I don't understand how a sheriff can... Erica, thank you for this story, but that is your time. I'm looking for help.

I'm looking for help.

Thank you, that is your time. Human resources.

This is interpreter speaking, am I being released? I can't hear you. Erica, thank you.

Is that it?

Thank you, Carlos.

Okay, I will go now into simultaneous. Thank you.

Thank you, Carlos.

All right. Our next speaker, I believe, is Katie Davis.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, our next request to speak is Katie Davis to be followed by Anna A., who is our final speaker.

Katie. Hello. The oil ordinance passed the Planning Commission in April, but Chair Nelson has delayed the vote here multiple times. So I wanted to come and address the question of the popular support for this ordinance that is being delayed. UCSB is a top research university, and they did an amazing in-depth oil workforce study that you should read. Dr. Madhavi is a statistician. He teaches statistics at UCSB. And the poll they did by mail with a large sample size, with high response rates, checked against demographics, was a best in class form of poll. There is majority support for an oil phase out, even in the fifth district. As to Measure P, there are activists now who are toddlers when this was on the ballot 12 years ago. They don't know why it keeps being brought up, but I was there, I get it, Measure P lost. That was before the Paris Climate Agreement and international consensus on climate change, before local climate disasters like the Thomas Fire and the deadly debris flows, before the Refugio oil spill, before there were climate action plans and 100% renewable energy goals, before solar got cheap and EVs became real cars. It was a long time ago. But even way back then, oil was not popular in Santa Barbara County. People would not have volunteered to gather 19,000 signatures to get Measure P on the ballot or been able to get those signatures otherwise. A reputable polling firm back then found more people supporting than opposing the theoretical measure in March of 2014. That poll asked various questions, agree or disagree. We should be cutting our use of fossil fuels to reduce our impact on global warming and climate change, not drilling for more oil. 55% agreed and 34% disagreed back then. Accidents happen when you drill for oil and we cannot afford the risks of polluting our water or beaches again. 62% agreed, 33% disagreed. This was over a decade ago before the Refugio oil spill, before the Cuyama River spill, before the proposals to drill through the Santa Maria groundwater. In July of 2014, a different poll found 54% supported Measure P and 41% opposed. Between July and November, oil companies spent $8 million to defeat Measure P and they succeeded. In that moment, really leaning into the legal risk and with some good reason. A similar measure in Monterey was challenged in the courts. That was ultimately one of the reasons the legislature passed AB 3233, clarifying the right of local jurisdictions to prohibit and phase out oil, and why an ordinance today is on solid legal ground. Oil has never been popular in this county, not in my lifetime. Protecting our environment, our air, our water, and a livable climate is popular. Every year, thousands of people go to Earth Day events in this county. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Davis.

And we will now go to our final speaker, Anna A. Anna?

Okay, hello, I'm here as an Esbiracista volunteer. And on April 23rd, this board adopted policies intended to deter armed ICE agents from staging on county property. The county then posted signs prohibiting unauthorized civil immigration enforcement on county properties. Today I am asking a very simple question. How are these policies actually being enforced? Because this past week we learned that David Mireles, who was arrested on August 19 on suspicion of a misdemeanor DUI, was released from custody on August 20th and subsequently died on jail property and was not discovered for approximately a week. Our community deserves a transparent investigation into what happened. Why was he released? What medical and welfare checks were performed? And why was he not discovered sooner? Because ICE agents have repeatedly been present at the Santa Barbara County Jail during the release of specific individuals, wait for the release, violently take them into custody, and leave our county with no issue. And we have witnessed this happen multiple times and has increased these past few days. We have also witnessed ICE agents physically confront and assault people, including vulnerable individuals being released from the jail and communities. Community members attempting to monitor what happened, as you saw in the video. And if the sheriff's office is not facilitating these operations, We need transparency around that. And we also demand this board to demand answers from the Sheriff's Department. Demand full transparency and an investigation demand clear communication or information sharing between Sheriff's Office and ICE concerning the release of people from the Santa Barbara County Jail, and determine whether ICE operations on county property were being authorized under the policies adopted by this board. Establish clear accountability measures to ensure that county policies are being enforced. Our community is watching. We are paying attention to what happens inside this jail. We are paying attention to what happens to the people when they walk out of it. And we are paying attention to whether these policies passed by this board actually create an impact in our community. This comment is not to make you feel guilty or sadness, trust us. No one has grieved and felt more than the ones who have been impacted by this current violence we are experiencing in our county. This comment is to empower you to take our county back and to use your leadership to protect our county of Santa Barbara.

Thank you, Anna.

And that concludes general public comment for today.

All right. That concludes our administrative agenda and our public comment. We'll go ahead and move on to our departmental items at this time. Madam Clerk, do we need a break at all? Okay, let's go ahead and take a five-minute break before we begin our departmental items. All right, welcome back to September 1st, 2026, a regular scheduled meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We are just concluding with our public comment and administrative items, and now we'll begin our departmental items, and we'll start off with departmental item number one. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the Board Department, item number one is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amendments to the County Land Use and Development Code, LUDC, case number 24, ORD 28. Article 2, Coastal Zoning Ordinance, CZO, case number 24, ORD 29. Montecito Land Use and Development Code, MLUDC, case number 24, ORD 30. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element, case number 26, GPA 5. Coastal land use plan case number 26 GPA 6 and uniform rules for agricultural preserve to adopt the utility utility scale solar project

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the board. The last time we were before the board was on June 14th and the board gave the department direction to explore some additional options with respect to the utility scale solar ordinance package. Today I have Matt Hernandez who will be presenting Whitney Wilkinson, Supervising Planner, and Alex Tuttle, our Deputy Director. With that, I'm gonna turn it over to Whitney and Matt to make the presentation.

Thank you. Greetings, Chair and Supervisors. My name is Whitney Wilkinson, and I'm joined today by my teammate, Matt Hernandez, and we will be presenting to you today. Our Fire Marshal, Fred Tan, is also here today in case there are any questions related to fire. Here is an overview of what we'll cover today. The purpose of today's hearing is for your board to consider utility scale solar amendments. This hearing is continued from July 14th when your board considered the recommendations of the Montecito and county planning commissions and received public comments regarding the project. Today we will present additional information and revised ordinances per your board's direction. We'll also discuss environmental review, seek additional direction to finalize the amendments, and review the recommended actions. Here is a summary of your board's direction that we will discuss in more detail on subsequent slides. Your direction was to explore expansion of tier one projects up to 15 acres in size that support onsite agricultural operations. Establish a 10,000 acre cap for the larger commercial scale tier two and tier three solar facilities, including presenting options for distributing the cap geographically. Proceed with staff recommended uniform rules amendments and to develop a tier one permitting pathway for standalone battery energy storage systems up to a quarter acre, while also exploring setbacks from sensitive receptors, providing more information on containment standards, and exploring potential financial assurance in bonding. This slide shows the permit pathways for tier one solar energy systems. Tier one projects are exempt from planning permits or require a coastal development permit in the coastal zone and also need to comply with the tier one development standards. The black text reflects what was presented to your board in July and the changes shown in red font show the amendments your board directed staff to prepare at July's hearing. The amendments include a pathway for up to 15 acres of ground-mounted solar in the AG 1 and AG 2 zones. We anticipate the size of solar development will scale with the electricity demand of each agricultural operation. Projects under a Williamson Act contract would remain subject to the uniform rules. There is some discussion at the July hearing about siting requirements for these systems. Staff has not proposed any additional siting considerations regarding avoidance of prime soils or cultivated agriculture in order to give flexibility for landowners. We will discuss the Tier 1 battery energy storage system allowance on subsequent slides. Your board directed staff to establish a 10,000 acre cap for the total combined acreage for tier two and tier three solar energy facilities and to return with options for distributing the acreage. Staff has prepared some options for your board's consideration. This map provides the north and south county boundaries outlined in brown. These are based on the housing market area boundaries used in the housing element. The first distribution option is based on population using 2024 census data. Just over half of the cap, about 5,300 acres would be reserved for solar energy facilities in North County and the remaining just over 4,600 acres for the South. The second option would be an even split between Pacific Gas and Electric and Southern California Edison's service area boundaries with a cap of 5,000 acres within each service area. The boundaries can be seen on the map outlined in green. You will note that option one and option two are very similar. The third option would be a cap based on the proportion of agricultural land within North and South County with the majority, just over 9,300 acres being allocated for North County and less than 700 acres in South County. The final option would be to have a countywide cap without geographic constraints. It would be distributed throughout the county based on the discretionary approval process. The amendment package includes updated uniform rules amendments per your board's direction at the July 14th hearing that limits utility-scale solar for off-site use at up to 15% of the premises or 100 acres, whichever is less, for non-prime contracted land. I'll now pass it over to Matt to talk more about battery energy storage systems.

Thank you, Whitney. At the July hearing, your board directed staff to return with an option to allow small standalone battery energy storage systems up to a quarter acre under the tier one permitting framework. Currently, standalone battery systems may be permitted in many zones as public utility facilities or private utility services, but generally require a discretionary permit. The focus of the tier one battery ESS allowance is for the smaller commercial standalone systems that are not accessory to or supporting existing development, but that are more commercial in nature. Again, these would currently be permitted as utility facilities or services. The proposed amendments would create a streamlined tier one pathway for standalone battery systems occupying up to one quarter acre. THESE SYSTEMS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN SPECIFIED INDUSTRIAL, COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AGRICULTURAL AND PUBLIC UTILITY ZONES. LARGER SYSTEMS OR SYSTEMS THAT OTHERWISE DO NOT QUALIFY FOR TIER ONE WOULD CONTINUE TO USE THE EXISTING DISCRETIONARY PERMITTING PROCESS IN ZONES WHERE THOSE USES ARE CURRENTLY ALREADY ALLOWED. Tier 1 systems would also have to comply with the applicable development standards, such as site coverage and biological resource protection, as well as fire code requirements through the existing building permit process. The next few slides will address additional issues that the Board asked staff to evaluate, including setbacks from sensitive receptors, containment standards, and financial assurance. As mentioned, county fire staff is also available today to answer any technical or fire safety related questions. To accommodate this new pathway for standalone battery ESS, the board asked staff to evaluate appropriate setbacks between battery ESS and sensitive receptors, such as residences, hotels, hospitals, schools, and other places of public assembly. Staff reviewed the state's model ordinance on battery ESS from the governor's office of business and economic development, which provides three different setback options for consideration. The first option it presents focuses on basic compliance with the fire code, which stipulates a 10 foot buffer from lot lines and buildings. The second option the guidance presents for consideration is a 30 foot buffer from lot lines often required for emergency vehicle access. And finally, the guidance presents a 50-foot or greater buffer as a more conservative option, particularly near residential buildings and other sensitive receptors. Some jurisdictions that staff reviewed, including San Diego County and the city of San Marcos, have adopted 100-foot setbacks from sensitive uses. However, the state guidance notes that there's limited evidence, rather, demonstrating that setbacks greater than 50 feet are necessary to protect nearby occupants. Larger setbacks can also substantially limit where these systems can be located, especially on smaller commercial or urban parcels. Based on this information, staff is proposing a 50 foot setback from adjacent sensitive receptors for tier one battery systems as a starting point. And of course the board may identify a larger setback. A SYSTEM THAT CANNOT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT COULD STILL BE DEVELOPED WITH A DISCRETIONARY REVIEW WHERE SITE SPECIFIC ISSUES CAN BE EVALUATED IN GREATER DETAIL. THE BOARD ALSO ASKED STAFF TO EVALUATE WHETHER ADDITIONAL WATER RUNOFF CONTAINMENT STANDARDS SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS, INCLUDING FROM SOURCES SUCH AS FIREFIGHTING WATER OR FOAM. For context, many battery systems contain lithium ion batteries, and the biggest risk from this battery type is a thermal runaway incident in which pollutants can be emitted into the air and fall to the ground, potentially contaminating soils, surface, and groundwater. However, advances in the design and management of these battery systems, as well as the regulations that govern them, have significantly reduced risks associated with thermal runaway. Additionally, sampling around battery ESS fires in California did not record emissions of several air toxics that exceed adverse health effect exposure levels. There are also already several regulatory requirements in place for battery ESS. The California Fire Code addresses thermal runaway, fire, explosion, gas generation, detection, and emergency response. It also requires applicable battery ESS permit applications to include a project-specific fire safety and evacuation plan. In addition, the California Public Utilities Code requires applicable battery ESS to prepare both a emergency response and an emergency action plan. These plans address equipment failures, nearby residents and responders, environmental impacts, and coordination with local emergency management agencies. BATTER ESS are also subject to applicable stormwater and hazardous material requirements. In addition to the fire code, staff also reviewed the National Fire Protection Association 855, which sets minimum standards for energy storage system safety. Those standards require spill controls for certain battery technologies with free flowing liquid electrolyte, but those requirements generally do not apply to lithium ion systems. There is also no general requirement to contain firefighting water, foam, or runoff from lithium ion battery ESS. This is because generally water and foam are not used to suppress a thermal runaway incident. Lithium ion systems generally do not contain the quantities of free-flowing liquid electrolyte that trigger these spill control provisions. Instead, lithium ion risks are addressed through separate requirements related to thermal runaway, fire detection, and emergency response. Staff also reviewed the program EIR and comparable regulations from other jurisdictions. The EIR found little evidence that groundwater impacts from these incidents would be significant and regulations reviewed from other jurisdictions do not require containment of firefighting runoff from battery ESS incidents. Given the requirements in place related to stormwater, hazardous material, and emergency planning requirements, and in consultation with the county fire marshal, staff is not recommending any additional containment standards. The board also asked staff to evaluate whether Tier 1 battery energy storage systems should be required to provide a bond or other form of financial assurance. The existing fire code already requires applicable systems to include a decommissioning plan and the code also requires a system owner to remain responsible for mitigating continuing hazards or removing damaged equipment following an incident. Staff also reviewed projects from other jurisdictions and previously permitted county battery storage projects and did not identify a standard bonding requirement for small battery ESS. GIVEN THE LIMITED SIZE OF SYSTEMS ELIGIBLE FOR TIER ONE, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING A FINANCIAL ASSURANCE REQUIREMENT. FOR LARGER STAND ALONE SYSTEMS THAT REQUIRE DISCRETIONARY REVIEW, FINANCIAL ASSURANCE COULD STILL BE REQUIRED ON A PROJECT SPECIFIC BASIS. THE COUNTY PREVIOUSLY PREPARED A FINAL PROGRAM EIR FOR THE UTILITY SCALE SOLAR AMENDMENTS. FOLLOWING THE BOARD'S JULY DIRECTION, STAFF PREPARED A REVISION DOCUMENT TO EVALUATE THE REQUESTED CHANGES PRESENTED TODAY. THESE CHANGES INCLUDE THE EXPANDED TIER 1 PROVISIONS, ACREAGE CAP OPTIONS AND STAND ALONE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE PROVISIONS. THE REVISION DOCUMENT ULTIMATELY CONCLUDES THAT THESE CHANGES DO NOT RESULT IN A NEW SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OR REQUIRE RECIRCULATION OF THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR. With that, staff is requesting final board direction on the remaining policy items. First, confirmation of the proposed tier one allowance for agricultural operations of up to 15 acres. Second, selection of the preferred option for allocating the 10,000 acre cap on tier two and tier three solar facilities. And third, direction on the battery ESS provisions, particularly the setback from sensitive receptors. THE BOARD MAY ALSO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON ANY OTHER CHANGES TO THE PROS PERMITTING FRAMEWORK OR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. FINALLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE BOARD MAKE THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS. TO MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS, INCLUDING CEQA FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERWRITING CONSIDERATIONS. TO CERTIFY THE FINAL PROGRAM EIR, INCLUDING THE PROGRAM EIR REVISION LETTER AND TO ADOPT THE MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM. to adopt the proposed ordinance amendments to the LUDC, MLUDC and CZO. And because of our limit of no more than four land use element amendments per year, and the fact that we are currently running up against that number, we are asking your board to conceptually adopt the land use element amendment. Final adoption would then be continued to the September 22nd general plan amendment window date. WE'RE ALSO RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD ADOPT RESOLUTIONS AMENDING THE COASTAL LAND USE PLAN AND UNIFORM RULES TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. AND FINALLY TO DIRECT PND TO TRANSMIT THE ADOPTED RESOLUTION TO THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. THAT CONCLUDES OUR PRESENTATION AND STAFF IS NOW READY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

All right, questions from the Board? Supervisor Levineo.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on the idea of putting up a bond or anything like that, so if you're just a landowner that wants to put up a quarter acre, is there an insurance policy? I mean, are people selling insurance policies on these things? How do you make sure that in case something goes bad on your property that you're covered financially?

Supervisor Lovenino through the chair. We haven't looked in specifically to insurance requirements but there are requirements through the building permit that are part of the fire code that require decommissioning and require responsibility to clean up any hazardous materials or that would result from an incident such as a fire at one of these facilities.

Okay. for any insurance agents out there. I think this is a new line of underwriting, so. Chat says yes. Chat says yes, okay. And then I'm curious what the role of the fire marshal is, right, if you want to take a question. Just like when a new proposal comes in, does each, regardless of tier size, does each BESS have to go to the fire marshal for review?

Yeah, we've requested with our partners at P&D that anything, any land use permits, conditional use permits would come through the fire department. And then we would, so far, our experience is with the Goleta Bess. And we worked with that applicant to work on the regulations, the setbacks, all the items that we required. So we would look at every system coming in. Okay.

And so this is kind of a newer field for you personally, I guess, right? And then, so is there new like training for on best activity and fires associated with that? I mean, how do we know, how do we ensure that, you know, we're doing state of the art

review and and how to fight the fire sure um this is fairly new and it's been a topic at the state level state fire marshal's office a lot of visits by by the state fire marshal and his counterparts and his uh for us locally uh i think we start with our basic requirements you know setbacks roads access uh fire protection for the Goleta BEST and for all other BEST systems, we would be requiring a hazard analysis document that educates us on what's going in, the size of the equipment, the energy capacity, what the recommendations are for putting out the fire. We've learned pretty quickly through some incidents, you know, Lahaina is one of them, Palisades and Eaton, you know, there's lithium ion batteries everywhere. And so we've had to learn pretty quickly. If you recall, I think it was last year, I sat with Jesus and did a little bit of an education. It was an education for me, but the boxes that you saw in the PowerPoint are, ESSENTIALLY THE MITIGATIONS FOR FIRE. THEY'RE THE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS. AS FAR AS WATER RUNOFF, WE ARE BY POLICY AND BY FIREFIGHTING TACTICS, IT'S CONTRAINDICATED TO USE WATER EXCEPT FOR JUST COOLING THE ADJACENT BOXES, MAYBE THE BOX ITSELF. lot of times putting while adding water to the fire or the battery itself makes it worse so a lot of the steps we're taking are cooling and the new chemistries of the batteries we continue to learn about but the new chemistries are are I would say have much more tolerance to heat have less have less materials that could, during a thermal runway, produce vapors into the atmosphere. We're doing the best we can, but I think that technology's we're catching up with the technology, and there's a required training that we do. When the Goleta BEST was installed, we took all of our local crews, we visited, we gave them all the, or the company that went out there, gave them all guidelines, and we uploaded that into our MDCs, and firefighters, as they arrive, have the contact numbers and strategies and tactics, so.

Cool, because that was going to be my next question of how does that get communicated down? Now, let's say, I mean, that was before we had this ordinance. Now, let's say we put this ordinance in and we kind of get a little bit of a proliferation. How is that communicated to every station that they know So I'm taking it there's ongoing training, new training available.

Yeah. So we, earlier this year, established policies for battery energy storage systems, excuse me, through our training section. We're just collaborating. I oversee fire prevention and planning and engineering works with our planning and development partners and our building and safety partners. So as we see new developments come in, we've written into our policies and our codes. And before I knew how to spell GIS, There was a time I didn't even know how to spell GIS and that's a joke I've used, but now I know the value of it, right? Because I oversaw the GIS program for four years and I still kind of oversee our GIS professionals. So we've tied that in with planning and engineering. We get those plans. We get it on that method, get it to our GIS professionals. We put it on our MDCs. We get all the documents embedded in there. And then our planning and engineering captains will also reach out because it is a requirement for training. They reach out to the stations. And so all of it's collaborative and tied in.

Okay, great. And then one last question just for staff is on noticing. Are we gonna write in any kind of noticing requirements to surrounding homeowners, landowners,

SUPERVISOR LOVING YOU KNOW THROUGH THE CHAIR THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY PART OF THE DRAFT SO IF THIS STAYS WITHIN THE EXEMPT TIER THERE WOULD BE NO NOTICING. RIGHT.

SO THAT'S ON THE EXEMPT TIER BUT IF YOU'VE HAD THAT'S JUST TIER ONE BUT IF YOU GO TIER TWO, TIER THREE THERE IS NOTICING. OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. AND THAT JUST FOLLOWS NORMAL I MEAN IT'S NOT A IT JUST FOLLOWS THE NORMAL C.U.P.? JUST THE NORMAL C.U.P.

NOTICING WHICH IS TYPICALLY 300 FEET TO NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. GOT IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. WHILE WE HAVE FIRE MARSHAL TAN UP HERE, I HEARD YOU SAY IT WOULD COME TO YOU FOR THE TIER 2 AND TIER 3 BUT NOT THE TIER 1?

WE'RE GOING TO SEE ALL OUR PERMITS SO THE TIER 1 IS GOING TO COME TO US AS WELL. WE WOULD WANT ACCESS AND DEFENSIBLE SPACE AND BE ABLE TO APPLY THOSE REQUIREMENTS ON THERE.

IT COMES THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LAND USE PERMIT PROCESS BUT THEY WILL SEE EVERYTHING THROUGH BUILDING PERMITS.

OKAY. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE ON THE REVIEW IN THE BUILDING SIDE on the planning side for the fire department?

It's essentially the same. Our process comes through land use. My fire captains take the initial look at it. If it becomes difficult, they start bringing it up towards the deputy fire marshal and myself, sometimes the fire chief. Once those conditions are set, it's almost like, hey, this is what you're going to have to do if you want to build or develop. If they accept those terms and they apply for a building permit and then And then my plan checkers, safety engineers or civilian plan checkers will look at those, take a look at those conditions and pass them down. So it's, and the communication, they're all within two rooms of each other.

Okay, thank you. Just wanted clarification on that. Supervisor Capps.

Yeah, no, thank you to the Fire Marshal for being here. And I'm glad, Supervisor Lavinino, that we started off with safety because that's clearly the number one concern here, especially when it comes to battery. And I was able to tour... that facility in Goleta and it's impressive and I know it's newer technology and then has been some other battery storage facilities and it's much bigger than what we're talking about here. I think it's six acres and really impressive and they did talk about the protocols and working with the fire department and the way in which they have automatic shutoff if there's any kind of detection anywhere in the system. So my question for you is just has there been any issues with them since they've been there? I think it's been several years.

We have not experienced any issues with the Goleta BESS or any solar arrays so far. Time will tell. There's usually at some point, given enough time, something will happen. But we've had most of our lithium ion experience has been with vehicles or improper use of vehicles, but nothing with BESS systems yet or solar arrays.

Yeah, I just would encourage anybody that's in the city of Goleta, but it's right next to a housing development that's JOHN PRICE'S, IT'S REALLY NICE. SO THE WHOLE DISCUSSION WAS ALL ABOUT COMMUNITY CONCERNS AND HAD THERE BEEN ANY AND THERE REALLY HADN'T BEEN ANY AS FAR AS THEY REPORTED. THIS IS THE COMPANY GRID STORE. AND, YOU KNOW, JUST A MILD HUMMING THAT WAS VERY QUIET AND REALLY IMPRESSIVE TO JUST SEE. AGAIN, IT WAS SIX ACRES AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS .25. SO IT WAS VERY REASSURING TO BE THERE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR HARTMAN.

I had a question for our fire marshal, and that is, I had a conversation yesterday with Teledyne FLIR, and they're talking about technology that they have to detect heat, thermal imaging, rather than fire or smoke. And I gather that the NFPA standards are now including that for compliance. And I wondered if you could speak to that. How does something work down to our level at County Fire for what we do for detection.

Sure. You know, it's odd for me because, you know, we had Butch Arnaldi here and he became a sheriff just before I was born. But when I look at my career, it's now been almost 29 years and so much has changed. But one of the things that we've noticed is fires burn hotter and they get bigger more quickly. I came from, you know, we used to have one radio per unit. We now have two or three radios each. thermal imaging cameras were really expensive. Only the trucks had them. And when I got here, all the engines got them, but it was a huge commitment for the department to buy them because they were so expensive. But that has worked down now to where the technology, I at one point had one that I could attach to my phone, a FLIR camera, to detect heat. Now, that probably wouldn't last too long in a fire, but our past devices, our firefighters now have past devices with thermal imaging cameras on them. So we have the handhelds that are really expensive, and we have the ones on their past devices. And I think you all probably... maybe saw those during your training day.

That's right.

Yeah.

So then the question is, I mean, would we have such a camera on a facility to detect thermal changes and then connect it to the operator's phone so they get immediate notice of any change in heat?

So grid store is mostly unattended. I think there's regular maintenance there. But it is highly connected and a lot of safety measures. So if there's any detection of heat rising, and this is what we're told, any detection of heat rising, that box will get shut off. they'll get noticed at their call center, and then the fire department will get contacted. So there's pretty quick, it may not be, I think it's an internal heat dissection, and then we can come on scene and use our thermal imaging.

Great, thank you. So, Supervisor Capps, were you done with your questions?

Oh, okay. Not all of them, but definitely on safety, I'm done.

Okay, well, I can wait till after you finish. Okay, well, let's see. I guess I wanted to start with the CAP. The Planning Commission recommended 16,000 I think we came down to 10,000. I'm not sure quite why. So I'm open to that discussion still. And then I've lost, in the meantime, what was the rationale really for dividing the cap? We have different options. Why is it that we want to divide it? It seems to me that one of the key things is you want to locate facilities where there's grid interconnection, substation transmission capability, where you have land characteristics that work, so you're not in sensitive habitat. You have some access. So it seems to me that those are more important than just an arbitrary division. So I need reminding on why that why we went in that direction. And then I guess the key thing that still I'm trying to figure out is the cap of the setback. And I wonder if you would walk me through just once again setback generally, setback for sensitive receptors, and It's 10 foot, but we need 30 feet to get fire. Would that automatically happen? So just help me understand the setback issues a little more.

Supervisor Hartman, through the chair. So for the battery storage, it's kind of layered, but it's a 10-foot minimum setback from adjacent structures and lot lines. So that's like your basic default setback of the facilities.

I'm sorry, right there. So is it structure or lot line?

Both. 10 feet from structures. AND LOT LINES. SO 10 FEET FROM LIKE STRUCTURES SO 10 FEET FROM LIKE STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY. ON THE PROPERTY. IT HAS TO BE THERE HAS TO BE A IT HAS TO BE THERE HAS TO BE A SEPARATION FROM ADJACENT SEPARATION FROM ADJACENT STRUCTURES. STRUCTURES. INTERNALLY. INTERNALLY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. INTERNALLY. INTERNALLY. AND THEN 10 FEET FROM LOT LINE. We also just have a catch-all of compliance with the fire code. So the fire code may require additional setbacks for access, but it may not. So it just kind of depends on the site configuration.

So that's not a decision here?

Right, that would get addressed through the fire code. And then to address the sensitive receptor issue, it's... When we previously were at the board with the original draft, it had just said that if sensitive receptors were located within 50 feet, that additional analysis may be required to determine the appropriate setback because it is somewhat dependent on the size of the facility and the type of battery. But coming back to your board with this new standalone concept, it was shifted from a a looser construct to a more definitive 50-foot setback from adjacent sensitive receptors.

I'm sorry, 50-foot setback from?

Adjacent sensitive receptors. So that would be sensitive receptors on adjacent properties, not on site, but on neighboring adjoining properties.

So you would measure from the battery facility to a structure?

To a structure. Okay. Potentially if there's like a public assembly space. that may be outside that you would measure to that, but it's not lot line to lot line, it's 50 feet to the receptor.

And then if the BESS is next to a vacant lot, how might that work?

Well, that's a good question. There would not technically be a sensitive receptor to measure against. But if you want to sort of anticipate how that lot may get developed and not constrain the development ability of that vacant lot, then we would need to sort of account for that. So you'd have to have a setback, a specific setback in those scenarios. For example, an adjacent residential lot that happens to be vacant, I think you'd want to account for that.

Okay, so maybe we need to think about, Director Plowman, you had some thoughts.

Yeah, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So in that case where it's vacant, you might want to, the board might want to consider there would be a setback on the vacant property for any structure that came forward. And then you could measure a setback on the property that's proposing the best. So we would assume, you could assume like a minimum 10 foot setback for residential structures. on the vacant property and then you would then have like a 40-foot setback from the property line for the site that was going to be available for the battery energy storage system.

Okay. I think those are my questions for now, but again, I'm wondering about what the cap should be and how we divide the cap. I'm still open on those questions.

And to answer that question, Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, I believe it was a suggestion that came from the Grower Shippers Association in their comment letter or their presentation at last public comment was a suggestion of just dividing the cap so that all the solar isn't built in on the ag properties in the north. But yeah, so I believe that's the source of that suggestion. It wasn't coming from staff.

All right, thank you. Supervisor Capps and then Supervisor Lee.

Yeah, thank you. I'm gonna put my cards on the table. I'm going to ask some questions related to the economy because I believe that we should not have the 10,000 acre and actually go with what the Planning Commission recommended, which is 16,000 acres. And that's where I was at the last hearing. So I would like to ask some questions related to the economic impact and I'm not sure if our planning department is the right folks to answer so I'm just sort of putting them out there because since our last hearing I spent some time learning more about really how far or how much we need to catch up as a county in this capacity and how other counties and other countries are far outpacing us and so I just would like to spend some time. care a lot about the resiliency factor, about the need to make sure that we have safe havens, that our schools are staying open, et cetera, that we are meeting our missions goals. But I also really see this as such a driver of economic development in our county. And just, again, since our last hearing, did some more research to understand the fact that this ordinance, because again, it's taken some time that we need to catch up. And so 10,000 acres to me just does not cut it. We need 16,000 acres. And in fact, Kern County is far outpaced us and they've been doing it for a lot much longer. And they've as a result, $50 million in new property tax revenue in the last several years, 25 million in sales tax revenue, about 8,000 construction jobs. I know that labor was here at our last hearing. I'm not sure if Carmen is still here now. So my first question for any expert that would like to answer is really about the jobs that would be created by this ordinance once we finally pass it.

SUPERVISOR KAVANAUGH, THAT IS NOT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT EXPERTISE. I UNDERSTAND.

WE EXPECT THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WOULD SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENT THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO REFLECT ON THAT. THAT IS INTEREST OF MINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. MAYBE THIS IS A BETTER WAY TO GO BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF CONSULTATION HAS HAPPENED WITH THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY AND THERE IS THIS BALANCE THAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED. county is an example that this doesn't have to be an either or with the agriculture landowners but in fact this is such an additional revenue stream for so many landowners in other counties across the state and so if anyone either now or in public comment can speak to how that adding solar to their properties has actually helped them remain financially viable during drought, during changing commodities. Has that gone into the development and was that part of the Planning Commission's recommendation to go to the 16,000 acres? Or maybe Supervisor Hartman.

Supervisor Caps for the chair. IT WAS ALMOST THE OPPOSITE. THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CAP WAS OUT OF EXPRESSED CONCERN BY THE COMMISSION OVER THE WHOLESALE CONVERSION OF AG TO SOLAR AND WANTING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF LIMIT TO HOW FAR THAT COULD GO. Yeah, establish some sort of backstop provision. Okay.

Again, I just, I look forward to public comment and learning more, but I do think that we have, we've had, obviously, as we'll discuss in a future item here today, we've had industrial-size oil and gas development for several, many, many decades, and it's about time, and so I just urge this board, when we get there, to consider going further and seeing the economic benefits that I think we're just on the precipice of. That's the nature of my questions for now.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Capp. Supervisor Lee.

Thank you, Chair Nielsen. So I want to talk about views and visuals. How does this onus protect those, like when you're driving up and down the county, there's beautiful places like Gaviota and North County, South County. What can we do to protect that from going away with this ordinance? Is it something that we can put in such as making sure that anything over 20% grade goes through a traditional planning process? Is that something that we can consider and adopt?

Supervisor Lee through the chair. So for the the larger facilities the tier two and tier three so those are you know your more commercial scale there are various development standards in place to preserve and protect views there's screening requirements there's visual analysis that has to occur as well as a restriction or prohibition on development of solar on slopes in excess of 20%. Those, because of the sort of the tiered approach, those more stringent requirements do not carry over to the exempt or the Tier 1 projects. Now those are going to be smaller in scale and it's really that smaller size that would sort of be your protector of visual impacts. That's not to say that something like the 20% slope standard couldn't apply to Tier 1 as well. That's not currently presented, but that would be an easy addition to add to the other development standards that are in place and applicable to a Tier 1 system, if that was the desire of the Board.

and Supervisor Lee through the chair just to add to that so if if there was a desire by the board to establish in tier one everything below 20 percent slopes can be exempt but if you exceed the 20 percent slope then you would be a land use permit so we would be creating sort of a fourth level there for for exempt what what is currently considered exempt it would be then a land use permit if you were over 20% slope.

Okay, that is something that I would like for us to consider.

To protect views or?

Yeah, to protect views, specific. Anything 20% over that for tier one that we do that.

If I might, what's the slope for the county solar array that we see?

SUPERVISOR HARTMAN THROUGH THE CHAIR, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT PERCENTAGE BUT I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT'S PROBABLY 30% OR OVER, CLOSER MAYBE TO EVEN 40%.

Okay. Other questions from board? Supervisor Hartman?

Yeah. Just a quickie. I wanted to underscore something Supervisor Capps noted, and that is resilience. The South Coast Chamber has as a top priority more energy reliability. It's really a problem for businesses, and it's a problem for new businesses. And so what the solar and battery offers is the option for microgrids and local power production when something happens to the transmission lines. So I think that that has been a driver for us in South County and why there's been a lot of receptivity to developing this. I just wanted to note that the Goleta Water District also has quite a solar battery storage capacity, and there may be others like that, so. That's it.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Hartman. I guess I'll just make a few comments about the caps. I know that was a conversation that Supervisor Hartman brought up on where that kind of came from and also I know Supervisor Capps also highlighted that. I think, you know, especially some of us that were here during the cannabis ordinance where we saw quick growth in areas and we just wanted to potentially get our arms around it before we looked at potentially opening up in the future. I think it's where CAPS started coming from on the most recent history in land use in Santa Barbara County. And I think what we're looking for, or at least agriculture is looking for, and I think I represent them on a lot of fronts, is a check valve. You know, I think as they look at the economic opportunities that come forward, I think that's why the 5,000 acre cap might be a good check valve for at that point that needs to come back to the board, take a look at what does those impacts look like are we taking up prime agriculture? Is this something that we wanna slow down or speed up in the future? And I think that's what that was about. I think there's votes on this board to go above 5,000, but I think it's an opportunity for us as a board to take a look. And I think that's what agriculture is looking for, is they're concerned about what these impacts might look like. Market conditions don't always exist in this area where it's heavily subsidized. And so sometimes projects that would not make sense if it wasn't heavily subsidized are preferred. And therefore, you know, the long term agricultural use might be the better use overall. Also, I understand the supervisor caps brought up jobs. You know, a lot of these are temporary jobs versus, you know, some of these ag jobs that are ongoing day in and day out, and I think that's one of the concerns for the agricultural industry as they kind of look at this moving forward. I also know that, and I don't know of our assessors here, but I know a lot of these utility scale solar projects are exempt from property taxes. I don't know if these ones would be as well. Might be good to hear. Maybe some of our speakers might be able to look at that. There's some definitely revenue taxation code on that. So that's one piece. I want to kind of get back to the battery storage issue especially around the quarter acre and that's just tier one um so that would be a zoning clearance or is that exempt now if from a land use permit chair nelson uh tier one projects would be exempt and require a coastal development permit in the coastal zone okay so there'd be no permitting pathway on a land use side again it could be that's right okay um so there's no recourse for a neighbor that might be concerned about the proximity. And even staff, if they had some concerns, they really couldn't do anything because it was allowed. Is that correct?

That's right.

Okay. So that's, again, that's been one of my ongoing concerns about this. I think that that's something we should be considering because I think basically any future project that comes within in the future that gets an exemption is basically approved by the board today. If we move this forward, then we're approving those potential projects in the future. And if somebody goes, hey, why'd that happen? Was there any say in it? Yeah, it was decided today by this board if we move forward with that without any type of discretionary process. And that's why I would actually prefer us looking at an LUP for those as a minimum on these best projects, especially those that are front-of-meter projects I think even a quarter acre is still a lot can fit on a quarter acre. And so I think that's a concern that I think we should be at least discussing as a board on whether we want to make that decision today that all those moving forward are now approved without any further discretion of not only the board, but staff even wouldn't be able to deny a project. getting back to uh some of the other impacts i heard and i i'm trying to still understand uh the groundwater impacts so i'm hearing you may not use and maybe uh fire marshal tan if you can come back up so you're not going to use water only maybe to cool a battery unit is that right a lithium battery

That's correct, yeah. It's a little counterintuitive for us, too, as firefighters, you know, because there's fire, we want to put water on it. But on lithium, the experience with lithium ion batteries is that it makes it worse, and then the runoff issues worsen as well. So our practice... We haven't had any experience with a BESS fire yet, but the guidance we've gotten is to cool the adjacent boxes. Cool that box if possible. Most of our experience has been with electric vehicle fires. it's best for us just to let those take their own course, you know, to burn out. So there's not a lot of water runoff there.

So no water, but are there other liquids? Are there battery, I guess is it battery acid? Again, I'm a little here, so if you could help me.

Yeah, so the different chemistries, and they are changing, and I'd invite some of my counterparts here, they may be able to speak on them, but The initial, what we all saw in Moss Landing was the LPF, the batteries, and those have lower temperature thresholds and also probably have more liquid. The newer batteries that are out there now, the nickel magnesium, magnesium's reactive to water, so you don't want to use that, but there's a lot less liquid. And then there's now like sodium batteries that are getting developed, which is even less. So I think that the technology is getting there.

So I'm hearing reduced risk, but I'm not hearing elimination of risks. Any chemistries, any chemicals, do they ever hit the ground and penetrate? I guess that's the big concern. Is there any type of... material that would ever penetrate. Because I know, like, Moss Landing was on concrete. Was it within a building?

Yes, yeah.

A lot of these best storage projects are often on, like, decomposed granite. So they're more porous. And that's kind of what I'm trying to get to is, do we need to have further containment to make sure that that is contained? You know, even in oil and gas, we have containment around an oil well, you know, do we have these things in place for these possibilities as well?

I think with the testing that you know like UL underwriters laboratories everyone that's that's that we've seen the possibility of the electrolytes coming out you know puncturing you know once they get into the cabinet they're they're working you know and if they get punctured those or any resulting thermal runway would just shut it off you know so they're all really encapsulated and wrapped up very well It would have to be some kind of catastrophic or intentional, I think, destruction that would happen to those batteries to let anything come out of those. But, you know, anything can happen, but there's less of those fluids in the newer technology, you know, to be concerned with.

Understood. And I guess that's where we're talking about something catastrophic and how that's dealt with. And I can guess maybe that goes back to this question about bonding and some type of coverage there, you know, not requiring anything like that. Again, going back, you know, to compare it to the oil and gas industry, you know, all those oil wells now are bonded moving forward on cleanup costs and capping those wells. Are we saying that there's going to be, there's no insurance required or any bonding on battery storage projects? So, you know, if you had a catastrophic event, whether it was caused intentionally or not, COULD JUST WALK AWAY AND WHO CLEANS UP THAT POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN?

CHAIR NELSON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, SO THE FIRE CODE DOES HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER OR OPERATOR TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A CLEANUP AND MITIGATION OF HAZARDS AFTER AN EVENT. so that's something and as well as a decommissioning plan so that's something that happens through uh statutory code requirements as opposed to like a separate planning uh dictate but no bonding you know even for like a mine they have a bond you know so i mean it's a really low

threshold for most of our projects that have some type of, you know, something that might have some environmental impact like this. But we're just going to exempt Vest from those types of requirements?

For this smaller tier, the quarter acre, That is staff's recommendation. We did look at other jurisdictions as well as permits that have been processed both locally and and regionally for larger systems and most of our research showed that there wasn't separate bonding applied to them. That's not to say it couldn't be applied through a discretionary process, but it's The more you're trying to make something exempt or whittle down the level of discretionary review, the harder it becomes to do site-specific determination of whether bonding is appropriate. And so our recommendation for the Tier 1, again, given the size of these facilities and the measures already in place and required, would be not to require separate bonding.

Yeah, so I think that that's a mistake. I think you still have the liability there that goes with that, whether it's smaller liability, absolutely, which should be a small bond. But again, I think there's something there that we should be reviewing and should be taking a look at. You know, there's a long time ago, getting back to oil and gas, where there was no bonding required there. But as things move forward, people realize that that was something that should be done. And so that's now in place. Again, I think that there should, these are some of the considerations that are important. These are lessons learned. And I don't think we should use the exuberance about pushing forward with these technologies to not carefully consider the ongoing and long-term impacts there. So anyway, so those are some of my concerns moving forward. Supervisor Capps, thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Nelson. You brought up jobs and sort of the quality of them and if they're temporary. And I had asked about the jobs and kind of what type they were and no one here was able to address them. But I've since learned that we do have Bill Baker of IBEW on the line as well as Josh Verdrano of the Building Trades. And so with your permission, I don't know if they could answer. Your concerns are my question, too, about what sort of types of jobs, or we could do that in public comment. It's your prerogative.

Either one or further deliberations. I'd be happy to hear from them, too. Maybe they can test it if they're, are they some of our public commenters today? They are. Let's have them maybe address that during public comment. Okay. That's okay. Sounds great.

I KNOW WE'RE NOT IN DELIBERATIONS I KNOW WE'RE NOT IN DELIBERATIONS YET BUT SINCE WE WERE YET BUT SINCE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE CAP AND I TALKING ABOUT THE CAP AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A WANT TO TALK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND. SECOND. SO A CAP NUMBER IS ALWAYS SO A CAP NUMBER IS ALWAYS WHATEVER THE BOARD DETERMINES IT WHATEVER THE BOARD DETERMINES IT IS THAT TUESDAY. IS THAT TUESDAY. SO AND I JUST CAUTION A LITTLE SO AND I JUST CAUTION A LITTLE BIT I MEAN I STARTED DOING THE BIT I MEAN I STARTED DOING THE NUMBERS AND A QUARTER ACRE SITES NUMBERS AND A QUARTER ACRE SITES THAT WOULD BE 64,000 DIFFERENT THAT WOULD a 16,000 acre cap and it would be 2,500 sites of six acres. So that's a lot of battery storage. As Bob pointed out, when we came up with the cannabis number of 1400, um and then later there's a lot of impacts involved that you didn't know about when you set the cap so i would just suggest i mean honestly it's it's not live or die heal for me but we own my family does own some prime ag up in san benito county and we've been approached multiple times already to convert it to um over to battery storage into solar and um BEEN VERY HESITANT BECAUSE AT THE TIME WE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THE GROUNDWATER AND COULD YOU EVER GO BACK TO AG AND YOU CAN'T REALLY SO IT'S LIKE ONCE THAT'S THERE IT'S THERE AND YOU'RE MARRIED TO THAT AND IF THE TECHNOLOGY GOES AWAY I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT HAPPENS SO I WOULD JUST SAY YOU KNOW YOU CAN START WITH A NUMBER IT'S GREAT TO START WITH A HUGE NUMBER BUT I THINK YOU START AND YOU BUILD AND LIKE I SAID WE CAN CHANGE IT OR FUTURE BOARDS CAN CHANGE THAT CAP NUMBER ANY TIME THEY WANT SO I would say, let's start, figure out what it looks like, how it's moving forward, what's happening, what's happening on the ground. And I don't know if we can build out that much, even if we want it to, but in a, Response to the question about the jobs too, and I know we always say, well, that's a temporary job, but I've heard that many times opposing oil and gas projects. Well, those are temporary jobs. As our trades guys will tell us, all construction jobs are temporary jobs. That's their life of going from one temporary job to another temporary job to another temporary job. So I look at a job as a job. And I know this would be a godsend to a lot of folks in the trade. So I'm looking at that as well.

Excellent. Thank you, Supervisor Lavagnino. Supervisor Lee.

Good. A question for Fire Marshal Tan. So could you estimate the cost, what it will cost for cleanup for battery, fire, a big one? It all depends.

Yeah, I think from what I know about these installations, there's probably some underground wiring, probably heavy gauge, but then the units just, you might have some foundational work and then the units just come as a package and you drop them on and start making connections. You know, my experience with the oil and gas to Supervisor, Chair Nelson's question my experience with oil and gas you've got miles and miles and miles of underground work and if those get abandoned those you know could be nine figures so i think i i do agree you know some type of bond um i don't know if that's from fire or p d um you know for incidents some type of it may be an insurance document that that says hey we can you know like we'll be we we have enough financial responsibility that that could you know that could alleviate some concerns um but as far as a bond i think you know i i would want to make sure because you know working with my county partners we're always hey this is this is a situation who's got the capacity and the funding to take care of it you know so if it's it depends on the scale of the boxes uh if we've got 10 units it's probably not that much but we still have to have the money to be able to get some of the contractors to come out. There's now a pretty significant recycling secondary market. Some people might take it for free. So I don't have a good number for you. The number, I think the industry wouldn't want me to say it's a nine figure number because I don't think it's a nine figure number compared to some of the things we have going on here. But maybe six figures. Thank you.

Right, thank you Supervisor Lee. Supervisor Capps, you have a, okay. Question that just kind of came to my mind where we're talking about this. You know, there's other, as I'm trying to chase down this groundwater potential issue, I imagine the State Water Regional Boards haven't probably taken this up at any point. Do you guys know of any of these agencies that have looked at this, those that are regulating this on a statewide level? Is there any?

Chair Nielsen, I'm not aware of anything specific that Water Board has taken up. I think these facilities would be regulated like any other development as far as stormwater requirements.

And I guess that's so, and so I don't think they have yet, but I mean, in the future, as we start to look at these best practices, I'm curious if the State Water Board might have comments, you guys send out on comment letters on projects, would these types of projects be something that you sent out for comments from state agencies or not because they're smaller than a quarter acre?

uh supervisor or chair nelson members of the board so if they're exempt from permit the water resources or flood control division still reviews building permit applications for compliance with any any requirements so if a project happened to be exempt from planning but still triggered stormwater requirements that would get caught through the building permit process normally if it's something of small in size like quarter acre or less it's triggered by the amount of impervious services that's being proposed so as to what the stormwater requirements might be there wouldn't be just a blanket catch-all for any type of vest. It would be triggered by impervious surfaces.

Okay, so in the future, potentially, there would be conditions from some of those agencies?

IF STORM WATER WERE TRIGGERED THEN THE FLOOD CONTROL WOULD CONDITION THOSE PROJECTS TO COMPLY WITH ANY STORM WATER REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THAT'S A REGIONAL PERMIT OR GENERAL PERMIT THAT APPLIES COUNTYWIDE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR CAPS.

I KNOW WE'RE GETTING INTO DELIBERATIONS HERE BUT IT'S HARD TO I KNOW THE SAFETY CONCERNS ARE VALID BUT California has added the amount of battery storage in the last three years that equivalent of 12 nuclear power plants, and we all have a lot of concerns about the safety of nuclear power plants, and there's a lot of danger of nuclear power plants, and yet, you can look it up, there's just been a handful of incidents of fire, so we just do have to keep things in perspective and proportion, We need to ask the right questions, but again, there's been so much battery storage throughout the state in the last three years. It's happening everywhere, so we have to keep it in perspective in terms of proportionality.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Capps. Any further, no further questions here at the board? So let's go ahead and move to public comment. Madam Clerk, do we have any public commenters on this item?

Chair Nielsen, members of the board, yes, we have 12 requests to speak from the public on this item. We are going to begin here in Santa Barbara with Katie Davis to be followed by Maureen Allenberger. Katie?

Hello, I'm here to support the solar ordinance. For too long in Santa Barbara County, where we have about 300 days of sunshine annually, the most abundant and cost-effective form of renewable energy has been overly prohibited. I don't think it makes sense to police the cap in North and South Coast, let people build solar where they want and where it makes financial sense. I do want to make sure you aren't introducing onerous new restrictions that don't exist currently. For instance, don't introduce limits on behind the meter solar and batteries for use by residents and businesses. I noticed that standalone battery doesn't specify between behind the meter and front of the meter. So I want to make sure I'm still allowed to put just a battery on my house with this ordinance. So if you could have staff just make sure that these restrictions that they're suggesting don't apply to resident and business use behind the meter for batteries. So dorms, tech companies, et cetera, should be encouraged to install as many batteries as they need instead of polluting diesel generators as a backup system. So make sure we don't have new restrictions that don't since we're not differentiating, so I'm worried about that. Solar on buildings and parking lots reduces the demand on the grid and the amount of land used for solar. The county should do all it can to facilitate solar on the built environment as well as the paired and standalone energy storage. Battery storage allows us to store and benefit from the solar power in the evening hours after the sun sets, but when the cost and demand for energy are still very high, batteries improve energy resiliency by providing 24-7 power here in Santa Barbara County, where we are at the tail end of two grid systems run by SCE and PG&E, and they provide backup power in the event of outages, and I've have the battery on my house, so I don't have outages, which is great. And so all businesses and houses should benefit from that. They will also help us retire the aging and very polluting gas power plants. There's one in Goleta and many in Oxnard that powered Santa Barbara County in the past. The ordinance to allow solar on industrial and agricultural zone land is protective of wild lands. If there's a situation where utility-scale solar isn't appropriate, you will have discretionary approval, so that's good. And it is important that we're not overly restrictive on this rapidly developing and innovative field. Ag-friendly solar assets, agrivoltaics, allow ranching and farming alongside solar. solar panels can create sun and shade for crops shielding plants from excessive heat and cold and Increasing the yield of many crops solar can also shade farm workers and livestock. So it's very compatible. Thank you so much Thank you.

We will now go to Maureen Ellenberger to be followed by Irene cook Maureen

Good morning, Chair Nelson and board members. Thank you for the opportunity to participate in democracy today. I am chair of the Sierra Club of Santa Barbara Ventura Chapter. I'm speaking today on behalf of the members and the broader Santa Barbara County community in strong support of the proposed solar and battery ordinance and the extension of Tier 1 treatment to standalone battery storage for up to a quarter of acre. In May, California achieved something historic. We became the first major economy in the world to supply over half of our electricity from solar, 51% for an entire month, not just peak hours, all month. That's utility-scale desert solar all the way to home rooftop arrays working together, sustained through overcast days, nights, and evening demand. We still, as Supervisor Capps mentioned, have a ways to go and work to do, but Santa Barbara County has an opportunity to lead in this momentum and be viewed as an innovator. But what also is important to discuss is resilience. Our entire county is at the end of transmission lines. North County on PG&E, South County on SCE. We're all vulnerable to the same grid failures. When those lines go down, as they did in the Thomas fire, we lose power, we lose emergency radio network and communications. Building solar and battery storage locally spreads that vulnerability and hardens us against grid failure. The Planning Commission has already established the quarter acre size as the threshold for battery storage under Tier 1. They recognize that storage at this scale, whether paired with solar or standalone, has the same limited footprint and land use impact. Extending Tier 1 to standalone storage is the consistent application of that framework. It's already been environmentally reviewed, and it's important to our energy resilience. As technologies improve and costs drop, we expand these systems into more neighborhoods, more places that have a difficult time in storms, and more rooftops, strengthening our grid and protecting us from catastrophic failure. That's innovation. That's progress. That's leadership. The Sierra Club, alongside Clean Coalition and Community Environmental Council, has signed on to a coalition letter supporting this ordinance. We urge you to complete the Planning Commission's framework. Thank you for all your great work. And by extending Tier 1 treatment to standalone storage, our grid's reality is fragile. Our climate risks and fire risks are accelerating. This ordinance helps us harden ourselves for the catastrophes ahead. Thank you very, very much.

WE WILL NOW GO TO IRENE COOK TO BE FOLLOWED BY BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ. IS IRENE HERE? WE WILL NOW GO TO BENJAMIN SCHWARTZ TO BE FOLLOWED BY

GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND SUPERVISORS, GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND SUPERVISORS, CLEAN COALITION STANDS CLEAN COALITION STANDS STRONGLY IN SUPPORT. STRONGLY IN SUPPORT. WE STAND STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF WE STAND STRONGLY IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDINANCE. THE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU TO STAFF AND THE PLANNING THANK YOU TO STAFF AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND SUPERVISORS FOR COMMISSION AND SUPERVISORS FOR MANY YEARS OF HARD WORK. MANY YEARS OF HARD WORK. SO IT'S EXCITING TO BE HERE. SO IT'S EXCITING TO BE HERE. I HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS I I HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS I PLANNED ON SPEAKING BUT JUST PLANNED ON SPEAKING BUT JUST WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF SH Clean Coalition actually did kind of an economic analysis a number of years ago, I think probably 2020, when we were first analyzing what it would take to provide community microgrid and resilience to the region. And what we found is for blocks of 10 megawatts of solar and 20 megawatt hours of energy storage, the likely total economic stimulation is around 17 and a half million dollars with $14 million of added wages, about 155 construction job years, $2 million in site leasing, and at least 51 O&M job years as well. So that was a number of years ago, and I'm sure things have changed, probably in the slightly more lucrative direction, just based on property values and electricity prices. But the idea is that there are certainly jobs, and some of those jobs will start with the construction and end with the construction, but others will continue. And that certainly requires monitoring for projects, making sure that they're participating in markets, annual maintenance, things of that nature. So there definitely is a big economic opportunity. In terms of raising up other examples like nuclear and oil and gas, especially in relation to bonding, I think it's actually really important. Oil and gas, part of the reason that California put into place bonding requirements, I think AB 1167, was because of the permanence of oil wells. That if you stop drilling, that doesn't mean that you're done with it. That if the person or the entity that is financially responsible leaves, there still needs to be someone to do the cleanup. The same is true with nuclear. Batteries are very different, specifically small-scale batteries, because they do not leave a permanent footprint. You put them on a concrete pad, you take the concrete pad away, you remove the battery, and it's gone. So I don't think it's necessarily an apples-to-apples comparison. And then I'd just like to finish by noting that The purpose of this meeting here today, and specifically in regards to small-scale storage, is taking a look at the environmental impacts of that small-scale storage, whether it makes sense in the current framework. And I think Maureen explained it very well that 0.25 acres of storage was already contemplated by the Planning Commission and it was adopted for paired storage. And the further letter demonstrates that it's very much inside the existing framework for standalone storage as well. Anything related to fires, anything related to potential impacts from these projects need to be considered on the scale that we are talking about. This is not Moss Landing we're talking about. This is a very small .25 acre system. And I think that the conversation really is important to frame around the size that we're talking about, the safety and the potential likelihood of disasters. Thank you.

We will now go to Spencer Brandt to be followed by Doss Williams. Spencer.

Good morning, Chair Nelson and Supervisors. Spencer Brandt here on behalf of Central Coast Community Energy. Just want to take the opportunity to provide a little bit of color to some of the discussion around energy storage safety, particularly as it relates to the Moss Landing facility and that incident. That facility is in our service territory in Monterey. Most of our organization live and work in Monterey County and are neighbors of that community. And so this is something that is not just theoretical to us, but is personal for us as an organization. And I think it's important to understand about this incident that this is the worst case scenario. There have only been three incidents worldwide that have ever happened that are on the scale of what we saw in January of 2025. And even still, I think that it's important to understand what was the scientific data that was collected to analyze were there impacts And the answer is nearly 15,000 air samples at more than 1,300 sites were collected just over 12 hours after the fire began. Never recorded emissions above one-hour adverse health exposure levels. Roughly 100 monitoring stations were deployed at the site in the neighboring communities by the Environmental Protection Agency, and monitoring indicated no risk to public health throughout the entirety of the incident. At the two stations that detected levels of hydrogen fluoride readings did not exceed the Cal OSHA workplace safety standards. There was also extensive drinking water monitoring conducted that showed no risks to public health. and University of California researchers found no evidence of elevated heavy metals in agricultural soil samples from six sites all within two miles of the incident. So I think it's important to stay grounded with what we're actually talking about here when it comes to the worst case scenario. This type of facility being that it is indoors, that it is utilizing an older technology, the nickel manganese cobalt chemistry, rather than the industry standard lithium iron phosphate that is used today. That type of facility would never be permitted in the state of California. It could not be permitted. And under this ordinance, it could not be permitted. So I think it's important to just take that into account, as well as the massive success that the energy storage industry has seen when it comes to safety. Between the time period of 2018 and 2023, battery storage failure rates fell by 97%. That was at the same time that the technology was deployed 25,000% more than it was in 2018. So this is really I think an exemplary safety record and something that should make us all feel very well about the increasing safety of energy as we continue in the energy transition. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir.

Could you just repeat that again? I didn't write it down, the safety, the last point you made.

This is from the Electric Power Research Institute, which found that the failure rate for grid storage, energy storage measured by per gigawatt fell by 97% between 2018 and 2023. This is at the same time that deployment of energy storage grew by 25,000%.

Thank you.

We will now go to Doss Williams, and then we will go to Santa Maria with Claire Weidman. Doss?

Good morning, Chair Nelson, supervisors. On behalf of Central Coast Community Energy, we are your nonprofit, locally governed energy provider that provides clean, renewable, reliable energy for 1.2 million folks. Solar is essential. It is the most cost competitive resource available to us, the cheapest power that we can buy on your behalf. We have over 918 megawatts of solar in our portfolio. That's new power purchase agreements. That's not spot purchases. That's long-term contracts. I will say the renewable revolution is here. And it has provided jobs. I looked up at the stat for the solar industry and battery industry stats that they put out. 100,000 jobs statewide. And I will just say, I've been going to building and construction trades apprenticeship class graduations for 25 years. And before the renewable revolution, they were pitifully small. You'd go to a graduation and you'd have a handful, you know, of guys, you know, not that younger than me, right? Since the renewable revolution has come, you have these huge local classes of apprentice electricians, sheet metal workers, laborers, and you look at them and you can see that it's the future because they're young, they're diverse, There's women in the construction and building trades more than ever before. So the local personal impact of the jobs, high wage, high value jobs in our community is as at large as Supervisor Capps maintained it was. For the renewable revolution to finish, we need to use some of that solar at night. And you need storage to do that. You need battery storage to do that. In fact, your documents that you have ratified require that. Your climate action plan for us to achieve the numbers in that climate action plan requires that storage. And local storage has been very hard to come by. We went out last year for an RFP for it. We only had one project come back, the 10 megawatt project that we are, that's currently being built in Santa Maria. We urge you to support the quarter-acre standalone storage allowance and staff's 50-foot setback from sensitive receptors. Fifty feet is a very conservative number, and it's where the evidence points, and it's because they're heavy metals. I want the heavy metals. Even when a fire incident happens, they fall back to earth very fast. There is one issue with that, which is the question of what to do with a situation like the Isla Vista microgrid. That is within 50 feet of a clinic, but it is also both of those are county-owned. So I ask you to think about that and the projects that have already been identified as low-conflict sites like Tehegus, Las Flores Canyon and Mariposa Reina. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Thank you.

We will now go to Santa Maria with Claire Weinman. Then we will go to Zoom with Aaron Lawrence. Claire.

Hi, good morning Chair Nelson and board members. On behalf of the Grower-Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties, we appreciate the response to comments and positive changes that have been made since the ordinance was last before the board. We support the Tier 1 agricultural onsite use exemption of 15 acres to support agriculture. This will help to facilitate resiliency and flexibility as many other challenges for agriculture compound. I know there's been some great discussion, but just wanted to add regarding the cap. The Planning Commission recommendation wasn't unanimous. It was split over concerns with impacts to agriculture on what that number should be. Agricultural production jobs are continuous and multiplied. We'd want to make sure that any numbers being looked at for jobs and tax revenue aren't being inflated or comparing like to like. In fact, California Farm Bureau has historically opposed some solar projects and legislation because of the impacts to prime farmland. Just as a refresher, we supported a cap of 8,000 acres total for the county to support the county's energy autonomy without a disproportionate impact to agricultural resources in the communities they support, especially in Santa Maria and the Lompoc Valleys. So we do support an acreage cap and for that cap to be distributed throughout the county so it doesn't unduly impact one location. Although our board of directors does not have the opportunity to discuss the specific merits of option one and two, option two is consistent with the recommendations of the county's agricultural advisory committee or AAC. Options three and four do not provide the same protections for unique agricultural places like the Lompoc and Santa Maria valleys. We are open to revisiting an increase in the cap at the future if warranted after adopting option two at this time. We very much appreciate the board's revisions to meet different needs and circumstances throughout the county and supporting both energy diversity and agricultural vitality. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Wyman.

We will now go to Zoom with Aaron Lawrence to be followed by Anna Citrin. Aaron.

Hello.

Yes, we can hear you. Please proceed.

Good morning chair members of the board. My name is Aaron Lawrence. I leave the North American early fire detection business for. Very, and I'm joining today at supervisor heartments invitation. Our primary manufacturing facility is on Hollister Avenue in. Some of you may have seen it, or even toward it. I want to speak in support of the direction of the utility scale solar amendments represented and to speak plainly about the one question that is on the top of this board's mind and I know is at the top of all Californians' minds when it comes to solar and battery energy storage systems, and that is the fire risk. This summer, Californians watched two of the largest warehouse fires in history, Medline and Tracy, and Lineage and Boyle Heights, six days apart. Both started on roofs that carried commercial solar arrays. Boyle Heights burned for the better part of a week and put smoke across the LA basin. And before that, Moss Landing showed us what a battery fire looks like when things go terribly wrong. The risk profile is heightened with remote wildland solar sites that in worst case can start another wildfire. These are real risks, but they are manageable and the technology to manage them exists. It's proven and it's built in your county. I think of these renewable technologies like cars without airbags. When a seatbelt was optional and highway fatalities was something every family had a story about, nobody responded by giving up the automobile. Engineers built crumple zones and anti-lock brakes and airbags that sensed a collision to deploy on impact. Cars got faster and safer and at the same time because the protection technology advanced alongside the thing that was protecting. And that is where solar and battery storage are right now. We must continue to pursue a renewable future. The answer to those fires is not fewer panels or fewer batteries, but it is a comprehensive risk management approach that uses advanced preventative technologies, the same way the answer to highway deaths was not fewer cars. I'm here to provide awareness of protection strategies that reduce risk to the community, housing, these sites, and future infrastructure. Fires typically don't begin with flames. They begin with heat, a failing connector, a battery cell starting to run away, and overheating. Each one gets hot before it gets dangerous, and sometimes for minutes or sometimes for hours or days. Thermal imaging cameras engineered in Goleta are deployed globally to continuously monitor solar rooftops, solar fields, and battery assets. They recognize temperature change that precedes a fire and give site owners and first responders time to act before it becomes a larger hazard. In fact, today, in this very moment, FLIR thermal cameras are being installed at a Texas best site that had a fire originating at the best feeder cable that was not detected by the internal BMS or battery management system. Those batteries are sodium iron, which carries a lesser risk than a lithium ion battery, but these sites are highly energized.

Thank you, Aaron. That is your time. We will now go to Anna Citrin to be followed by Emily Engel. Anna?

Good afternoon, Chair and Supervisors. I'm Anna Citrin, Legal and Policy Director for the Gaviota Coast Conservancy. This ordinance is an important step forward to achieving a sustainable energy future for our county. As part of your approval, we urge you to include a county-wide cap for tier three facilities on agriculturally zoned land, protection for Williamson Act contracted lands that sustain open spaces and the agricultural economy on the Gaviota Coast and throughout the county. And we also urge you to retain all mitigation measures and development standards that protect the visual, natural, and cultural environment from the adverse impacts of large solar facilities. Thank you for advancing this important ordinance.

We will now go to Emily Angle to be followed by Nancy of OC. Emily?

Good morning, supervisors and staff. Can you all hear me? Yes, we can. Please proceed. Thank you. Thank you for taking my comment. I'm here to speak like my colleagues, Katie Davis and Maureen Ellenberger on behalf of support for this ordinance. Sufficient solar and batteries will help safely retire the aging and polluting gas power plants that have powered Santa Barbara County in the past and help us meet our 100% renewable energy goals. I speak on behalf of myself, our Santa Barbara Sierra Club group, which includes over 8,000 local members and supporters and young families who are unable to be here today because they're working at school or taking care of other family members. This solar ordinance will help all of us to have a cleaner, healthier community that is more energy reliant. and more economically viable. It will also allow additional solar farms and industrial and agricultural zones, allowing ranches and farms a potential new source of income, which will really benefit families and farm workers of all types. Phasing out oil also will save lives, and this ordinance will help with continuing to do that work. Now is the time to phase out oil and bring in renewables at scale for the good of all of our citizens and for our environment. I really appreciate all the work that you all do. And I really appreciate, to be honest, I've listened to the whole call and all of the concerns about safety and economics mean a lot to all of our community members. And the fact that you're being so thorough is so important to all of us. Thank you for taking this into account and for protecting all of us and creating a better future for us and our children. Thank you.

We will now go to Nancy Evosi to be followed by Joshua Madrana, who is our final speaker. Nancy. Thank you.

Good afternoon chair Nelson and supervisors, my name is Nancy of those and I'm representing the organization Santa Barbara County action network or SP can. Our membership has asked us to be more proactive and advocating for projects that help Santa Barbara county transition towards cleaner more resilient energy. The request aligns directly with our focus on sustainable land use and environmental protection, we support a framework that allows clean energy to move forward. while maintaining reasonable protections for neighboring properties and communities. In particular, we support the proposed 50-foot setback and the quarter acre maximum parcel size for the tier one battery energy storage. These are reasonable requests which help us make use of abundant energy and they help us meet the county's strategic energy plan. We also support directing clean energy development towards buildings, parking lots, and other underutilized spaces. These are opportunities to produce more local energy without unnecessarily disturbing additional land. This approach can give county residents cleaner air, create local jobs and strengthen community resilience and make better use of the land that we already have. We also want to recognize Supervisor Hartman for raising at the July 14th hearing the idea of exploring crops that may be particularly well suited to grow beneath our or alongside solar panels. We encourage the county to continue exploring opportunities like agrivoltaics, where food production and clean energy can coexist to benefit our community. For us, this is what sustainable land use looks like, protecting our environment, supporting agriculture, creating local jobs, and building a cleaner and more resilient energy future. Let's continue to make Santa Barbara a county leader in resilience and a model that other counties can continue to follow. Thank you so much.

We will now go to our final speaker, Joshua Medrano. Joshua?

Hello, can everybody hear me?

Yes, we can. Please proceed.

Fantastic. Thank you so much for this opportunity, supervisors. This is Joshua Medrano with the Tri-Counties Building Construction Trades Council of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. And I come to you today to ask full support for this ordinance for solar. Now, a question was answered earlier, how many jobs do we think can be created? And it was mentioned that all jobs are important to the construction trades, and that is absolutely right, regardless if they're temporary, permanent, seasonal, whatever it is. Everything equates to a head of household income, which then correlates to more local tax dollars being utilized. Now, just to give you an understanding of what typical footprint might happen, as you know, the majority of you toured the Goleta BESS project. That provided 40 full-time tradespersons for its store. different tradespeople from the IBEW, Local 413, Chief Metal Ironworkers, you name it. It took a plethora of labor represented there on that project, and that equated to about 40 full-time tradespersons during that time, during that year, for a 60-megawatt, 160-megawatt-hour battery system. And just to let you know what that equates to, to labor hours, that is over 35,000 total hours. Now I wish that I can say that this information came to me naturally, but I do have to tip my cap to the Santa Barbara independent as well as grid store website for that information.

I think the time is now as, as, uh,

Das Williams spoke earlier that we are on this revolution right now of renewable energies. And as all of you know, the trades will continue to be at the forefront of any type of technology or modernization that comes through the construction trades. And we will stand ready to be able to provide the skilled and trained people WORKERS THAT THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF PROJECT REQUIRES TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS INSTALLED SAFELY AND TIMELY AS WELL AS ON BUDGET. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND AGAIN, THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

AND THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS ITEM.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. Let's go back to staff before we come back to the board for some final questions and comments. Staff, anything they'd like to add?

Mr. Chair, Supervisors, there was a question I think that came up as to the applicability of this standalone battery energy storage provision that I wanted to speak to. I think there was a question of would this apply or not apply to someone, say, putting a Tesla battery pack on their garage or like a sort of a backup battery to support a commercial operation or something like that and no that that's not the intent with this standalone battery storage is for like a truly standalone system that is unattached or not an accessory to another primary use of the property um As an example, right now there's a permit application in place at Westmont College for a battery system to support their onsite campus utility needs. So regardless of what the board does with this standalone battery provision, those types of accessory supportive batteries could continue to be permitted as they are today.

All right, thank you. Okay, back to the board. Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Lee.

Thank you, so that's the answer to the Katie Davis question, right? Okay, so I can put that out. I have two questions, and the first has to do with slope. And back to Supervisor Lee's question about protecting visual areas. So we have, in my district, visual corridors in Gaviota and in the Santa Ynez Valley. How would that relate to the solar development if it's in a visual corridor?

supervisor Hartman through the chair so for the as I mentioned for the tier 2 and tier 3 facilities which are the larger facilities there's requirements in place for visual analysis and screening components and RESTRICTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT ON STEEPER SLOPES. THOSE STANDARDS DON'T CURRENTLY APPLY TO A TIER ONE SYSTEM FOR THOSE SMALLER SYSTEMS. REALLY SMALL. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'RE IN A VIEW CORRIDOR OR NOT. SO THAT WOULD BE A NEW CONCEPT TO APPLY TO THOSE TIER ONE SYSTEMS IF THE BOARD WAS INTERESTED IN THAT.

Okay, and my other question really goes back to the issue of the IV microgrid and the setbacks and how you consider that if you have somebody internally who would give up the setback or do you have a solution for this?

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So that is, in that situation, the clinic is on a separate parcel, so if we were to apply this 50 foot setback from adjacent sensitive receptors, that project would sounds like have a hard time meeting that standard. It is in the coastal zone, so it's not an exempt permit. It is a coastal development permit, which gives opportunity. So if the board were interested in that scenario of when there's a permit involved, allowing more site-specific, determination of a setback as opposed to a rigid 50-foot no adjustment possibility, then we could build that in. The tricky part is trying to build in that flexibility when you're doing it through an exemption. But where there's a permit involved, it allows for that more site-specific analysis.

So if we're to incorporate your suggestion into a motion, what is it we would be asking?

Well, I think you'd be asking for the ability and there's essentially two options. You could have the 50 foot setback from adjacent sensitive receptors be the standard that if you're trying to get an exempt FACILITY YOU WOULD NEED TO MEET THAT STANDARD BUT IF YOU WANTED TO ASK FOR A REDUCTION OR ENCROACH INTO THAT 50-FOOT SETBACK YOU WOULD GET KICKED INTO A PERMIT LIKE A EITHER A LAND USE PERMIT IN THE INLAND AREA OR A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN THE COASTAL ZONE. THE OPTION TWO WOULD JUST BE TO consolidate all of those BESSs into a permit structure where there is no sort of rigid 50 foot setback. It would just be determined if you're within 50 feet of a sensitive receptor, there would be the site specific analysis that would dictate sort of the appropriate setback given the size of the facility and the adjacent uses.

So given this particular is in Supervisor Capps is it the second option that you would favor or I think this is an important issue because it's one these microgrids are something we really want to see and especially we've got a major grant in Isla Vista and we want to accommodate that. And again, resilience is key, and universities and microgrids have been really helpful in disasters keeping the surrounding areas going. So I think it's important we answer this question.

Yeah, so I think in the coastal zone, because there isn't really the exempt option, in the coastal zone for these types of facilities because it's all development regulated by a coastal development permit we could apply that sort of flexibility across the board IN THE INLAND AREA WHERE WE HAVE THIS EXEMPT HERE I THINK THE MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION FOR YOUR BOARD IS DO YOU WANT TO STILL CARVE OUT A WAY IN WHICH SOMEONE COULD DO ONE OF THESE STAND ALONE BEST SYSTEMS THROUGH AN EXEMPTION IF THEY MEET THAT 50-FOOT SETBACK AND ONLY TRIGGER A LAND USE PERMIT IF THEY'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION TO THAT SETBACK OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST kind of group them all together as a land use permit with sort of a site-specific setback determined. I think those are your two options.

And I think, so it's either they all get a permit or they just get a permit in the coastal zone. And if you want flexibility to be built into the system and the process, you would direct us to include language in the code that says that setback can be adjusted based on site specific conditions. So but the only way we can adjust the setback in the inland area is if we get a land use permit requirement. If it's exempt, it's exempt. So it's just the decision whether or not you wanna be able to adjust those setbacks.

Thank you. Those are my questions.

All right. Are there further questions before deliberations? Supervisor Lee?

This is for Director Plowman. I was unclear about the insurance. Is insurance required in this ordinance or is it not?

Supervisor Lee, through the chair, we do not have a requirement for insurance.

Okay. But it's something that we can put in?

In theory, yes. I think the board could require some proof of ability to be financially solvent enough to clean up an incident. We have something like that for oil and gas operations. In theory, the board could require bonding for something like that. What we have found is that other jurisdictions have not required that, but those are options for the board to consider. Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. I've got a question. I was, it was Aaron Lawrence, the gentleman from Teldyne that was in public comment that kind of got me thinking about, he was starting to introduce some technologies that they have out there and kind of compared it to is the adding the safety belts, you know, on a car. And where we're at right now is about the safety belts. They're saying there's technologies that are coming in up here. Do we have any bat here, any best available technology requirements on some of these best storages? Because I think that that's one of the really important questions is some things that like and that's actually where I'm getting at with you guys. I'm not trying to kill these things. I'm just trying to get some of the safety pieces in place because there are still a lot of unknowns. And what I'm hearing here Is there stuff that's coming online? May not be required now, may not be required in other jurisdictions, but maybe it should be. And so, once these things are built, especially things with exemptions, we're not gonna be able to have I'm curious about the tools we have for implementation on further safety measures on these. So again, that's kind of one of the whole reasons why I'm pushing us more towards some type of discretionary permit so that we can potentially add some of these requirements as they come forward. I'm now thinking about maybe flood control in other places as a way to add additional conditions later on that come up, but I'm really concerned about this right now. So do we have any BAT requirements?

Mr. Chair, Supervisors, so in the zoning code as part of the draft amendments, there are no best available technology requirements. So it would rely on PROJECTS MEETING BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE REQUIREMENTS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS ANY BATTERY SYSTEM OR STORAGE SYSTEM HAS TO GO THROUGH SORT OF THE UL TESTING OR SOMETHING COMPARABLE AND HAVE LIKE ENGINEERING SIGN OFF AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO THERE IS, BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN EMERGING CONSTANTLY EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY. So I think the current framework is that it would be reliant on a project complying with fire code, building code, and meeting all the standards that they require as part of their permit review.

At the time of the permit?

At the time of the permit.

Right. So if things change in a year or two, those ones are grandfathered in, right? And they wouldn't necessarily need to come into compliance with current UL requirements or current SAFETY REQUIREMENTS?

AFTER CONSTRUCTION OR IN PLACE, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

THANK YOU.

THIS IS JUST A FOLLOW-ON TO YOUR LINE OF INQUIRY, CHAIR. Nelson, we were told that NFPA standards now include thermal monitoring, thermal detection. So I think we don't have to do this at the local level. I mean, I think it's being handled through, as we said, the building and fire codes, and they're evolving to do this. But that earlier detection, of course, gives everybody more security.

So that begs the question, though, the fire code is only as good as it is when it's adopted, right? When the project permit goes in, there's no recognition of the evolution or new technologies. Is that what I'm understanding?

Mr. Chair, members of the board, that's correct. Just like anything, really, other building code requirements are only what's in effect at the time a project is going through the review process.

But I do think thermal detection is already now just come into, that was my understanding.

Fire Marshal Tan, could you clarify, is thermal detection now required on BESS sites?

We do have, for at least Goleta BESS, the internal thermal detection, and then we've also got area detection for sniffers, if you will. As far as some of your comments on future REQUIREMENTS, THERE'S A SLIVER WHERE ALARM SYSTEMS ALWAYS HAVE TO BE UP TO DATE. SO WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET IN THERE AND MAKE SOME AMENDMENTS TO MAKE SURE AT LEAST DETECTION AND ALARM SYSTEMS ARE MAINTAINED AND UP TO DATE. SO.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SUPERVISOR CAPS.

SO JUST TO PICK UP ON SUPERVISOR HARTMAN'S QUESTION ABOUT THE BATTERY STORAGE AND SPECIFICALLY THE ONE WE'RE we're excited about in Isla Vista in terms of the microgrid. So just so I understand all the details here and the options, I'm looking for flexibility in what we pass. And I'm just hoping you can help us get there with the right technical language. Would it work to have a 50-foot setback with a minor conditional use permit? does that achieve flexibility and also provide for some?

I'm sorry, Supervisor Capps to the chair. Are you talking about the example in Isla Vista?

So I think you have a reason you could restate it or just if I if we're just trying to get ACHIEVE A BALANCE OF FLEXIBILITY ACHIEVE A BALANCE OF FLEXIBILITY AND HAVE REVIEW.

AND HAVE REVIEW. RIGHT. RIGHT. SO SUPERVISOR CAPTURED THE SO SUPERVISOR CAPTURED THE CHAIR. CHAIR. SO IF THE BOARD WANTS THE SO IF THE BOARD WANTS THE ABILITY FOR THESE BESTS TO ABILITY FOR THESE BESTS TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY ON THIS 50-FOOT HAVE FLEXIBILITY ON THIS 50-FOOT SETBACK, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS SETBACK, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS ONE, WE ALREADY HAVE THE ONE, WE ALREADY HAVE THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN THE COASTAL ZONE. THE COASTAL ZONE. SO WE'RE OKAY THERE. SO WE'RE make it a land use permit, and then direct the department to include language that says that 50 foot setbacks can be modified, reduced, given site specific conditions. I THINK WE WOULD PROBABLY ASK FOR A BREAK SOMETIME TODAY AND TRAIL THE ITEM SO WE COULD COME UP WITH SOME LANGUAGE THAT THE BOARD COULD REVIEW. BUT YOU WOULD GIVE A STAFF THE FLEXIBILITY TO REDUCE THAT GIVEN SITE-SPECIFIC CONDITIONS. WE HAVE DONE THAT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. I THINK WE'VE JUST EMPLOYED THAT IN THE AG ENTERPRISE ORDINANCE IN SOME PARTICULAR CASES WITH CERTAIN USES. that we allow for a reduction in setbacks based on site-specific conditions and neighboring consent, essentially.

All right.

Okay.

Okay, back to the board. Now we've asked our questions, so let's roll into deliberations.

Does anybody want to kick it off?

There's a lot here to unpack. WAITING FOR SOME LIGHTS HERE.

YOU WANT TO START WITH NUMBER ONE? TIER ONE 15 ACRES?

LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. PERFECT. THANK YOU. SO WHERE ARE YOU AT WITH THAT? I AGREE. WITH WHICH ONE?

TIER ONE, TWO, THREE? CONFIRMED TIER ONE ALLOWANCE UP TO 15 ACRES. THAT'S THE FIRST. IS THAT A TYPO?

I THOUGHT IT WAS 16.

15. this was for the solar array for internal the ag pumps and things okay so i'm good at that is everybody good with that got some nodding heads on the first part of 15 acres great and then the next one would be the uh to make 10 000 acre cap for on which options that the board is interested in let's kind of get a survey here and then we can maybe deliver a little bit i'll weigh in on that just a second Did you wanna?

I'm good with 10. I know you would like 16 or 20 or whatever. I think we'll probably all be long gone before we get to 10. I mean, that is a lot if you think about it. Think about how much cannabis is out there and that's a thousand acres. This is 10,000 acres. I mean, at a large facility like the one in Goleta, it's six acres. I'm not talking about solar. I'm talking about batteries. Just to clarify. So you're doing both. Okay.

I still think that's all. The cap is really geared towards the solar. Okay, solar only? And it's 2% of agriculture.

That's fine. I mean, a lot of conversations happened around the Planning Commission. My understanding, it was a 3-1 vote, and they landed at 16,000 in part because it was 2% of our total agriculture in the county. So it is a lot, and it's a major advancement, but it's, again, I've been speaking about proportionality.

So let's go back, though. So You don't want it in the Gaviota Coast, correct?

No, I never said that. Yes.

Okay. I thought you were talking about scenic highway. Because I'm just trying to figure out now where those 10,000 acres are going to be. And I know we were talking about, I don't really like the idea.

We will have solar on the Gaviota Coast.

Okay. All right. Cool then.

Okay. So where's our... Let's get back to Tony. So...

I'M OKAY WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION.

I AM, TOO.

ALL RIGHT.

I AM, TOO.

16 IS DO IT.

OKAY. I AM NOT. SO NO SURPRISE THERE. I WOULD PREFER THE TEN THOUSANDTHS BUT NORTH AND SOUTH. BUT I'M OVERRULED ON THAT. SO THAT'S WHERE THE BOARD IS AT ON THAT PIECE. UNIFORM RULES, AMENDMENTS?

THE ALLOCATION NORTH AND SOUTH,

I would have you dealt with that or no we can talk about that so I thought we were doing planning commission's recommendation but I'm glad to clarify greater so the plan keep it at 16,000 is what the board majority is currently looking at a distribution of that North and South, is that something that Sue Frazier, Hartman, are you?

I want more flexibility and really to base it not on a North-South, but really on the conditions that I described earlier, both the environmental conditions and the the connection to the grid and the grid capacity to serve it. So I think that's more important.

So that would be cap option four, which would be no split? Is that what you're on?

Yeah, and I support that.

Okay.

All right, again, if... Well, what's your... Well, I'm still concerned. You're just worried that Prime Ag is going to get soldered over.

Yeah, I think we're going to get soldered over, at least to want to be able to have that stopgap so we can, at that point, if we're at 5,000 acres, now 8,000 acres or 16,000 acres, I want us to be able to take a breath and look at that. I guess there's other mechanisms of doing that. You know, maybe if we were seeing some negative impacts, a Board of Supervisor member can bring it back to the Board and say, time out. I would have preferred to see it happen through a cap to put some control measures because some of us may not be here in the future. But again, that's one of my reasons why I'm concerned about it. And that's why I would prefer a cap that would be lower and more equally distributed.

And if this is the last time we sell utility scale solar ordinance, I would be shocked. I mean, how many times did we change?

You're being awful fatalistic right now. Well, I'm just saying that. You're going to be long gone.

No, it's going to be like this. We're building an ordinance, but you have to realize, I have the scar tissue from the last one, is like when you build an ordinance, and we did the Ag Enterprise ordinance the same way. You can't, it's impossible to build an ordinance the first time and say, this is right. Because what's going to happen is you're going to do it and then we're going to have implications. There's unforeseen things that are going to happen and we're going to go, oh, we've got to pump the brakes on this. We're okay with that. That's not that big of a deal. So I'm just saying, you know, I don't want to get married to all of these things. They're all undoable by us and changeable by us. So, you know.

Yeah, especially CAP, which is a policy call. It's not a land use call. There would be no CEQA on that. That would just be a county ordinance. Okay.

Yeah, we can always go down too, right?

And that's the concept, you know, again, I would prefer the guard rail sooner, but I understand what the board majority is on this. So we'll keep moving along.

So let's go back to option four. What was the last question you were having?

So right now, so it's going to be the 16,000, which was the planning commission's recommendation with what I heard from supervisor Capps. And I got nodding heads from the board majority on this, that there'd be no split North and South.

I'D RATHER SEE A SPLIT ON THAT PART JUST BECAUSE I DO SHARE THAT CONCERN THAT IT COULD GO TOO MUCH IN OUR AREA. NO BIG DEAL.

Two rows of capture, no split, or where you at? No split. Okay, and two rows of lee? No split. No split, okay. So we'll keep moving along. Gotta land this plane. Okay, even while we're building it. Next one was uniform rule amendments. Everybody's happy with the uniform rule amendments that was discussed. I know that kind of got, And then I think it comes down to our last item was the best piece from the board. And one of the more controversial pieces, but I'll go ahead and supervise your caps. Let's go ahead, get your thoughts.

Just to clarify what I was asking, I hope this makes, maybe I'm stating it a little more simply, is just what the flexibility is to make it a land use permit. 50 foot setback can be modified site specific and neighboring consent. Is that?

And so just for clarification, the change would be best up to 0.25 acres would require a coastal development permit and a land use permit rather than being exempt. so that we can add the flexibility for the 50-foot setback.

That'll never get built.

With your way in your planning questionnaire.

What if we want to keep the lower permit requirement and still have flexibility? Supervisor Hartman, through the chair, if it's exempt, it doesn't come to planning for review. So we wouldn't be applying any kind of standards like that. IT WOULD GO THROUGH BUILDING REVIEW, BUT IT WOULD NOT GO THROUGH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.

SUPERVISOR HARTMAN, I THINK ONE OF THE OPTIONS I PRESENTED WAS YOU COULD HAVE A 50-FOOT SETBACK AS SORT OF YOUR EXEMPT PATHWAY.

That's true.

And then if an applicant wanted to propose less, then that would kick them into a land use permit.

Okay, that was what Supervisor, Chair Nelson was just suggesting.

Yeah, those are your two options. It's either start with the land use permit in all cases or retain like an exempt pathway if you can meet that 50, more stringent 50 foot setback.

That would be my preference.

I'm good with that.

Yes. So again, I prefer an LUP on all of these tier ones. I mean, I think that's where I've been at just because I think that LUP is a pretty low standard in our county. And I just think about all the other things that we have LUPs for that are far less concerning for a neighbor. You could have a battery storage project show up about 20 feet from your property line under this, an exemption with no pathway for you to have any type of recourse. And so I just think that that's a pretty big jump. And so that's why I've been pushing more towards an LUP. So then at least that neighbor has, not that I love our appeal process. Again, I've been very critical of that in the past.

but i think um we're jumping in a little bit into the to the deep end here too quickly on this and i would rather has again a walk before we run so that's why i'm more on that in supervisor lebanon one on that i would say too you do a cup it's not going to get built no cps right but if you i i agree with you i'm just saying you go too far if you do a cp it's not going to get built if you have no oversight then i think we end up getting ourselves in some sort of trouble down the road an lup is is not i mean it's not something i would want to do to somebody but what's the investment to put in a quarter acre yeah uh supervisor lebanino you mean like financial investment yeah i think you'd probably have to ask uh maybe members of the audience mr williams you have any idea

I don't have the figures in front of me. I think the intent and the reason why this could be important as an exempt pathway is this size batteries are not being developed for export energy at this size right now.

We're just looking for a cost.

Do you have any idea what the cost is? Right now the CUP would cost more than what you would get.

Okay.

All right, I don't want a CUP, I'm saying an LUP. What's an LUP cost us, cost them?

Plenty.

It's funny that like when we weren't talking about solar or battery storage, LUPs, everybody was like, eh, that's the cost of doing business in Santa Barbara County, man. Now all of a sudden, it is kind of funny that when it's a technology everybody likes, it's like, hey, you know, let's make it exempt. It costs, you know, we shouldn't put that cost on the folks. we're gonna have to have something out there to where a neighbor has some sort of recourse

SUPERVISOR LOVANINO THROUGH THE CHAIR, IT REALLY RANGES THE COST OF AN LUP. WE HAVE SOME FIXED FEES FOR LAND USE PERMITS AND WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE NOT FIXED FEES. SO DEPENDING ON THE HOURS IT TAKES FOR A PLANNER TO PROCESS A BESS AT A LAND USE PERMIT, IT COULD BE FIVE HOURS, IT COULD BE TEN HOURS. so let's say it's between three and five thousand dollars or and if it took longer it could be more it could be thirty thousand but i'm gonna say it's probably close to five yeah it could be up to ten really depending on the issues on the sites all right uh

Supervisor Hartman, did you have a comment?

Did you want us to comment or just where we stand? So I support the exemption unless it's, they want less than the 50 foot setback.

Supervisor Capps and then Supervisor Lee.

I will follow Supervisor Hartman's lead.

So as I, me too. Okay. Supervisor Lavagnino.

I'm going to pass on this one for now.

Okay. Come back. All right. So I think that's actually the main pieces that we needed to talk about. The question would be then I think staff is saying that they might need to make some minor adjustments to

uh change to lup for under 50 feet and bring that back and show us that those language before we we adopt that and make our final action yes is that correct mr chair just one other the vacant lot issue i wonder if they can capture that as well the setback if you're a vacant lot because you don't have the measure you had some language or some suggestions about how you would deal with that i think we want to make that explicit as well

correct so yes if we could um mr chair if we could trail the item okay um it could be just looking at our we're here all day so good we could trail the item till the end of the day okay in a day or after yeah

If it gets done by the time we're done for a closed session, we're glad to take it up earlier as a board. So just let us know. So I guess the main thing is with the four main points here at this point, the question is do we have three votes to move forward? And it sounds like we do. Supervisor Lee, did you want some further clarity? I do.

Well, there's a couple of things I want to...

to add? Yeah. Okay. What else would you like to have considered? So where we're at, let's just kind of level set where we're at right now. So we're fine with those first three points as a board majority. 16,000, no cap. We're also moving forward with, okay, with the 15 acres for agricultural use and also the uniform rule piece. And now we're just really focusing on the best part, which we've at this point- Yeah, that was, okay, no, that was option four. That's on there.

Good, and the slope. So the question you have is about slope. Right, the 20% slope, having an LUP for tier one included.

Okay, so the question is, going back to the tier one piece that we're currently now potentially have an LUP, SUBARIZERLY YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, IF IT GOES ABOVE A 20% SLOPE, THAT THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE AN LUP, IS THAT CORRECT?

CORRECT, TO PROTECT VIEWS AND VISUALS.

MR. CHAIR, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THAT'S THE 15-ACRE AG COMPONENT?

NO, I THINK, IS THIS 15-ACRE AG OR IS THIS THE... THE SLOPE. IS THIS FOR BESS? I'M SORRY, I NEED CLARIFICATION FOR THAT AS WELL. IS THIS FOR BATTERY STORAGE OR SOLAR?

OH, EITHER ONE. OKAY. I DIDN'T...

SO, MR. CHAIR, We believe that the question was related to ground mounted solar.

That's right, solar. Okay.

Yeah. And so the question that had been raised to the department was what happens in the agricultural foothills where we have 15 acres of solar? AND AN OPTION IS SO IF THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT VISUAL IMPACTS THE OPTION IS THAT THE BOARD COULD SAY IF YOU'RE OVER 20% SLOPES ON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND YOU'RE DOING GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR YOU WOULD GET A LAND USE PERMIT RATHER THAN BE EXEMPT.

DO WE HAVE A MAP OF THAT? WHAT'S OVER 20%? YEAH. Can I ask Roy a question?

Our mapping is not that precise in terms of the exact percentage.

We can give you a graphic of what a 20% slope looks like. We can bring that back if that's what the board is interested in.

I don't know if you need to do that. Supervisor Lee, is that clarifying your motion or what you're looking for? And Supervisor Levin, you have a question or clarification on Supervisor Lee's concern?

I'm just curious, so, because coastal development permit's going to be required for most of the carbon, so you're mostly worried about viewshed up on the mountain, okay.

Great. Those are very important to... Yeah, I get it. Okay, good.

Yeah, ours is the only one that's out of compliance right now, so, the county-owned one.

Good. And the other thing I want to bring up is insurance. Do we want to talk about insurance requirement? Is that something that...

Yeah, this is, again, so good point, Supervisor Lee. Is that something that, staff recommendation is that there'd be no insurance or bonding at this point? Existing regulations is sufficient for your guys'

That would be staff's recommendation for the tier one. With the tier two or tier three projects and any associated battery storage, there is already a provision in for financial assurance that can be applied. So this would really just, for the tier one, the recommendation is to not apply it.

And Supervisor Lee, you'd like to have that applied?

Is that correct? I'm happy with two and three, but I open up for tier one if we want to talk about it.

Supervisor Hartman?

I'd do a little open horse training. I'd be willing to go with the 20% slope, greater than 20% slope for an LUP if we could get rid of the insurance requirement for the small tier one.

That works for me.

Okay.

All right, staff, do you guys have a, and since I think you're probably the third vote here caps, are you comfortable with those scenarios? Okay. All right, so I'm kind of divining that there's a majority here on,

direction being given by the board is staff comfortable and understand where the board is at at this point uh mr jerick uh board members yes thank you so just to clarify i think with the slope issue uh for the tier one uh we we would just uh for any ground mounted solar uh in tier one if it's proposed on slopes in excess of uh 20 and get kicked into a land use permit

I think that's the direction that Supervisor Lee is suggesting that Supervisor Hartman supports. And Supervisor Capps, I'm not sure about Supervisor Lavagnino, but we have three. And we've been at this for a while. Are you guys comfortable with where we're at? Any further direction for the board before you guys come back for this trailed item?

I think we have the direction we need.

All right, any further comments from my colleagues here on this, Supervisor Hartman?

I just think staff did a great job. It's really hard, and this is so complex, and they were able to think on their feet, and Alex isn't even hearing me, but great job. He's still working.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Capps?

I just want to also thank the Planning Commission, as well as so many advocates, and again, so many years have gone into this, so thank you.

All right, thank you, Supervisor Capps. Supervisor Lavagnino?

And I think we would be remiss if I didn't thank former supervisor Doss Williams. Absolutely. You mentioned him as an advocate, but this was when he first got elected. I remember the first week. This is what he wanted to get done. County machine moves a little slow, but you got it done, man. You did. Maybe not everything you wanted, but things are moving in the right direction for you.

All right, thank you. So as chair, I'll go ahead and just trail this item. And so that's a conclusion of department item number one. And at this time, I think we are gonna go ahead and break for closed session. Let you guys go get some lunch. If there's any chance you guys are done after lunch, we'll be happy to take it up immediately. So those people who are interested can see final comments.

Do you know how long you'll break for lunch?

We'll find out here right now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. In closed session today, the board- Well, guys, one second, hey.

Come on, give us a second here. Madam County Council.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. In closed session today, the board is scheduled for a conference of labor negotiators. The employee organization is Santa Barbara County Firefighters Local 2046, and the agency designated representatives are CEO Jana Peterson and HR Director Christine Schmidt, and the time estimate's 30 minutes.

How long?

30 minutes.

Okay, so we'll probably be back no earlier than 1.30 at the earliest, but we'll probably go a little bit longer, thank you. All right, welcome back to the September 1st, 2026 regularly scheduled meeting in the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. We're just returning from closed session. Madam County Council, can you please read out from our closed session on the items that we discussed?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board. In closed session today, the board met on conference with labor negotiators for employee organization, Santa Barbara County Firefighters Local 2046, and the board took no reportable action.

All right, thank you. So we're returning after... Tentatively completing department item number one, we're actually gonna come back to that for final action when final language is available. That could be at the end of the day, but planning staff comes back earlier, we'll go ahead and take departmental item one and finish that up. But at this time, we're gonna go ahead and move to department item number two. And before we get started, Supervisor Hartman needs to discuss it.

We did send a letter to FPPC to see if I could participate in this, given the Sable pipeline runs close to my home, and we did not hear back. So rather than continue the item, I will recuse.

All right. I have an abundance of caution. Supervisor Hartman will be stepping out during this item. And with that, Madam Clerk, will you please read Department item number two into the record?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a Coastal Resources Mitigation Fund San Ynez unit mid-cycle fee reassessment.

All right, Mr. Briggs, please. Mr. Chair and members of the board, today giving our presentation is Jack Sabara in the Energy Division at P&D. And my name is Aaron Briggs, and Director Plowman will be with us shortly.

Okay, great. Good afternoon to the other side of the spectrum for energy projects and hopefully not as complicated as ordinance writing. My name is Jacqueline Ybarra, like Deputy Director Briggs said, and I'll be presenting the Coastal Resources Mitigation Fund's Sandy Inez Unit Mid-Cycle Fee Reassessment that the Energy Division recently undertook for your review and approval. The recommended actions on this item include A, to consider and approve the reassessment of the San Ynez Unit Coastal Resources Mitigation Fund fees for 2025 through 2027, B, consider and approve the revised allocation amount for the fund's upcoming 2026 through 2027 grant solicitation cycle. C, amend the fund's guidelines to document this reassessment. And D, determine that actions A through C are exempt from CEQA. This slide gives you an overview of the Coastal Resources Mitigation Fund program. So three offshore oil development projects currently pay mitigation fees into the fund as a requirement of their county permits. These include the San Ynez Unit, Point Arguello, and Point Petronellas projects, which are highlighted in green on the figure. Fees have been assessed every five years since the fund's inception in 1988, and they were last assessed for 2023 through 2027. Mid-cycle reassessments can occur and have occurred in the past if project changes substantially affect the fees. As far as how the fees are calculated, each project can be assigned up to 20 points that reflects the project's residual impacts based on that project's original EIR, previous fee assessments, and current data. Those points are then multiplied by $20,000, which was the per point dollar amount assigned in 1988, and then they're adjusted to reflect current dollars based on the change in the consumer price index. The oil projects are billed annually and then those funds are directly available for associated grant cycles where the county awards eligible coastal enhancement projects specific grants every two years. We are currently in the 2023 to 2027 fee cycle which was previously approved by your board in December of 2022. That assessment assigned the Santa Ynez unit 2.5 points totaling $132,750 annually and that was based on a non-operational facility. However, as we know, Sable Offshore Corporation acquired the Santa Ynez unit in 2024 and restarted oil production in 2025, which triggered this mid-cycle fee reassessment as the project was no longer non-operational. This mid-cycle reassessment would assign the unit six points totaling $318,600 annually which would be prorated beginning in May of 2025 through 2027 based on an operational facility with no major project changes since they restarted. This new fee would not exceed the project's permitted maximum of $327,400 annually, and fees would be assessed again during the next five-year cycle for 2028 through 2032. Getting into how we conducted the assessment, this slide shows a summary of the historic points assigned to the San Ynez unit since the fund's inception. As I stated before, assessments are based on residual impacts identified in the project EIR, and they're designed to be based on all previous assessments and consider current data. So for example, in the beginning years, the highest total points ever assigned to the SYU was 12, and that was based on construction impacts for the full build out of the project, which included a proposed marine terminal at the time. In subsequent years, points were reduced as construction was completed to reflect a smaller project than originally designed and analyzed in the EIR, and points were also reduced as the project moved into its operational phase. In the early 2000s, points were reduced again to reflect the completion and restoration of some larger cumulative projects on the coast, And then most recently in 2016, points were reduced to reflect a non-operational status of the facility due to the shut-in of the SYU's export pipeline, then the Plains All-American Pipeline, and now known as the Los Flores Pipeline System. The last line shows the proposed mid-cycle reassessment, which would basically reinstate those six points that were assigned to the facility before the shut-in to reflect the restart of operations. This slide breaks down those total six points into the different impact categories that we consider, and those include environmentally sensitive resources, aesthetics, recreation, and tourism. We reinstated the number of points assigned prior to the shut-in, taking into account current data, including the restart of the facilities, that have no new development, really no procedure changes, that have had no major incidents, and no oil production over their permitted maximums, as well as no new cumulative projects or project completions. As you can see in the last column in orange, that even though the points are reinstated at six, the total monies have increased from the last operational period due to that change in the consumer price index. Okay, the final two tables for you. The first shows the revised fund payments for all projects if this reassessment is approved. The modified SYU fees are shown here in that first line in red. The bottom table shows you just the revised SYU payments, and that shows that the county would collect an additional $309,750 in prorated fees for 2025 and 2026, and then $318,600 in future fees for 2027. That total of $628,350 would go toward the upcoming 2026-2027 grant cycle, which would commence under the board's approval soon at a separate upcoming hearing. Other minor administrative updates on this item include updating the funds guidelines to reflect the reassessment and that's provided in full as attachment B to your board letter. And then also determining that all actions on the item are not a project under CEQA section 15378 which excludes government activities that don't result in direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Okay, so to recap, staff recommends that the board approve the following actions. A, the reassessment of the San Ynez Coastal Resources Mitigation Fund fees for 2025 through 2027. B, the revised allocation amount for the 2026 through 2027 grant cycle. C, amend the fund's guidelines to document the changes described, and D, determine all these actions are exempt from CEQA. This concludes staff's presentation, and we're happy to take any questions.

So I have a question, but I see some of my colleagues. Do you mind if I ask a question? Yeah, I'll jump right in. So I'm really curious about who would owe these fees? whether that's, I think it's Exxon that would own these, owe these fees, not Sable, as far as the standing as a unit is concerned?

So Chair Nelson, it would be Sable who owes the fees. We billed them in 2025 and 2026, and they've paid their fees, so they would be billed for the retro, sorry, retroactive fees in 2027.

So isn't this crimp a condition on the permit?

Chair Nelson, yes, that's correct.

Sable's not on the permit, right?

That's correct.

Okay, I'm still confused then.

Chair Nelson, so when this invoice gets sent out, it's sent to both Exxon and Sable. And in reality, Sable pays the invoice.

Okay.

We do recognize the conundrum that we're talking about. So we do copy both parties on items like this, but it's Sable that does respond and eventually pay the invoice.

On behalf of Exxon? Because it seems like we should send to Exxon and then if that's between Exxon and Sable at that point, if we don't recognize Sable as a permit holder, because this is a condition of the permit, that's the whole concept here, right?

Yeah.

So just trying to clarify and understand where we're at logistically and legally through this. All right, other questions? Supervisor Lavagnino and then Supervisor Capps.

Mr. Chair. So in 2016, I don't have a problem with this moving forward. I'm just interested in the retroactivity of it. So is that, I mean, have we done that? Is that normal practice?

MR. CHAIR AND SUPERVISOR LIVINGSTON, WITH THE EXAMPLE OF THE OIL SPILL, SO THE OIL SPILL HAPPENED IN MAY OF 2015 AND THEN IT TOOK EXXON SIX TO NINE MONTHS OR 12 MONTHS TO ACTUALLY WIND DOWN THEIR OPERATIONS TO DECARBONIZE THE FACILITIES AND ESSENTIALLY IDLE THE FACILITIES. um we processed the reassessment after that and went back and essentially refunded them the difference so uh kind of the same thing here except now they've restarted and we're collecting more money that was my exact question i want to know at the oil spill did we go back and that year refund so we did so this is a look back

I SHARE SUPERVISOR NELSON'S, IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE OF THE PERMIT BUT I WAS MORE INTERESTED IN THE BRASS TAXES, IT'S GOT TO BE FAIR BOTH WAYS IF IT CHANGES AND THIS IS SO I APPRECIATE THAT, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, SUPERVISOR KAPS.

IS THIS CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE'VE DONE IT IN THE PAST?

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Capps, yes.

Okay. And can you just for the, I have to say I've been increasingly getting more emails from constituents and I represent a lot of coastline of people asking why aren't, why isn't there more taxes? And so this at least it will be something to point to if we do in fact pass this today. So thank you for bringing it forward. So can you just remind us all what these, what this fund benefits the, HOW IT BENEFITS THE COASTLINE.

SURE, SUPERVISOR CAPS TO THE CHAIR. SO THE COASTAL RESOURCE MITIGATION FUND, SO THE OIL OPERATORS PAY ANNUAL FEES INTO THE FUND AND THEN MONIES ARE DISTRIBUTED TO NONPROFITS AND GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS, SPECIAL DISTRICTS THAT FOCUS ON, WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? benefiting coastal resources projects in either for environmental sensitive resources habitat restoration tourism recreation so we have a criteria of projects that can apply and we evaluate them and then your board decides who what projects get awarded great i know that um it's always a

A wonderful hearing when we have those, when we get to decide, because all these different nonprofits come forward and make their pitch. And can you just refresh us on a few of the projects that have been funded so we can kind of fill in the gaps of what this will help do?

SUPERVISOR CAPS THROUGH THE CHAIR, SO RECENT PROJECTS, THERE'S BEEN COASTAL ACQUISITION PROJECTS, SO THE COUNTY WILL, YOU KNOW, PURCHASE COASTAL PROPERTIES FOR RESTORATION IN PERPETUITY. THERE ARE SMALLER RESTORATIONS PROJECTS ON THE COAST THAT RESTORE PUBLIC TRAILS, PUBLIC ACCESS. THERE HAVE BEEN OTHER. CABRIO HIGH SCHOOL. OH, YEAH, CABRIO HIGH SCHOOL IS THE BIG ONE. CABRIO HIGH SCHOOL, COME ON. with all the students and all their funding for their museum exhibits.

Okay.

Aquarium.

Okay. And just to be clear because, so there's no, with this, NO NEW FACILITIES OR EXPANSIONS PROPOSED. I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR WHAT WE'RE DOING TODAY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANY CONFUSION OUT THERE THAT THIS ISN'T A NEW PERMIT OR A NEW EXPANSION OR A NEW ACTION, REALLY, OF ANY consequence other than a fee that has been consistent with every oil project that has occurred. It just didn't occur for a while because of the operation says stopped. You're nodding your heads. I just, I want you to, the public is so concerned, at least the constituents, the vast majority of the constituents that I represent. So I just would like you to affirm that this does not mean any expansion of what's currently being pumped.

Supervisor Capps to the chair. That is correct. Thank you.

back to you guys loving you. Yeah. And I just want to be clear too, that this is not the tax that Sable, whoever is operating is paying this. This is in addition to, this is just a fee that was associated with the original permit back in 1988. So there are a lot other funds coming in from, from them. So we're looking at this number and it doesn't look like a lot. This is not what they are paying as a, as a, as a property ad valorem tax. So someday we'll get that number would be nice as well.

Excellent. All right, any further questions from the board? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, are there any public commenters on this item?

Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.

Okay, back to the board. I just need to, I don't think I got quite the answer. I heard we're going to send it to both Sable and Exxon, but who are we writing it to? I mean, is it Exxon? Because I think it should be Exxon. If we say that Sable doesn't have a permit, All right. Madam County Council, do you want to opine on this for us?

Mr. Chair and members of the board, it sounds to me like the staff is sending it to both Sable and Exxon, and I think that is compliant, but they could send it just to Exxon, and that it could be, they could forward it if they wanted to.

It seems like it's a condition of Exxon's permit that we don't recognize that's owned by Sable, so... It just seems like I'm trying to be consistent with that. And so I think we should send it to Exxon and they forward it to Sable. So be it. I'm just trying to be consistent legally. So that's my hope that, I don't know if that's direction you guys can, I don't know if I want to go that far as giving a direction. That's what might be my hope here. So we have staff recommendation. I don't think we need anything else added to that at this point. Can I get a motion on staff recommendation?

So moved.

Second. It's got a motion from Supervisor Capps, second by Supervisor Lee. Any further discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion passes unanimously 4-0 with an abstention for a recusal from Supervisor Hartman. So that concludes Department Item Number 2 and we will go ahead and continue on to Department Item Number 3. While people are setting up, Madam Clerk, you can go ahead and read that into the record.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Fire Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a report on the 2026 through 2027 winter preparations.

All right, we'll let you guys sit down and wait for Supervisor Hartman to get back here. She'll be here in a moment.

Chair Nelson, excuse me, I apologize. We don't have FIRE and OEM here just yet. We can go without them or we could wait for a little bit and I can go try and contact them.

Just give me one second for agenda management purposes. Director Senn, are we all together now?

We're ready, Chair Nelson.

Excellent. And we just read that into the record. So with that, Director Senn, you want to kick us off?

chair nelson members of the board chris snedden with public works we have with me today matt griffin our flood control deputy mustafa staji our transportation deputy and we have chief huff from fire as well and we're here to talk about the 26 27 el nino update and go through some of the winter preparation activities that we're working on With that, I'm gonna kick it over to Matt to run through some of the statistics about El Nino and what it's looking like in terms of the upcoming winter.

Good afternoon, Chair Nelson, Supervisors. This El Nino status slide was developed by the National Weather Service. Recall that El Nino means that there are above average ocean surface temperatures in the Eastern Pacific. El Nino is not a weather pattern and El Nino is not a storm. We are currently in El Nino conditions. NOAA's Climate Prediction Center forecasts a strengthening of the El Nino into the heart of winter, as shown on this graph. Strong El Nino conditions are represented by the dark red. So how much rainfall are we going to get this year? That's the question. This slide was developed by our flood control hydrology group. It shows the percent of average rainfall countywide over the past 75 years. The red indicates strong El Nino conditions. Strong El Ninos do give a higher likelihood of above average rainfall than in other years. Some of our most significant rainfall years coincide with strong El Ninos, including 1983 and 1995, both of which saw significant storm damage. But that's no guarantee that El Nino means that we're going to get heavy rain. There are also several years of strong El Ninos that resulted in average or below average rainfall. Some of you may recall 2016, it was coined Godzilla El Nino. That turned out to be a dry year. These next three slides were developed by the National Weather Service. NOAA's Climate Prediction Center publishes seasonal outlooks by looking at observed conditions and various modeling scenarios. So this slide is for the fall going into winter. Well, I'll first back up and say that these are not forecasts. Forecasts more than seven days in the future are highly variable and speculative. These are just predictions. THIS SLIDE IS FOR FALL GOING INTO WINTER AND THEY'RE PREDICTING INCREASED LIKELIHOOD OF ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL. THIS SLIDE IS FOR THE HEART OF WINTER AND AGAIN THEY'RE PREDICTING A LIKELIHOOD OF ABOVE AVERAGE RAINFALL FOR THE HEART OF WINTER AND THEN LATE WINTER GOING INTO SPRING THEY'RE ALSO PREDICTING above average rainfall.

Matt, before you go any further, can you explain the difference between the two? I'm guessing I didn't pick up on the two maps here.

Oh, they're just different times. I'm sorry. So on the left is the rainfall map, and I didn't really pay attention to it, but on the right are temperatures. Gotcha. If you're interested, they're predicting above average, likelihood of above average temperatures THIS FALL GOING INTO WINTER, BUT AN EQUAL CHANCE OF ABOVE AVERAGE OR BELOW AVERAGE TEMPERATURES IN THE WINTER AND INTO THE SPRING. RAINFALL LEFT, TEMPERATURES ON THE RIGHT. GOT YOU. THANK YOU. AND AGAIN, I WOULD CHARACTERIZE THIS AS THEIR BEST GUESS. THIS IS NOT A FORECAST. I attended the National Weather Service webinar last week, and to quote them, they said, this is the time to prepare for winter. It is not the time to panic. With that, I'll pass it over to Chief Huff and William.

All right, I was expecting Director Hubbard to be here and I don't see her. So I'm gonna try to wing this as the best I can. So the EOC remains in a state of readiness all the time. We have 24 seven duty officers that work within the EOC and we continually train for the different levels in which the EOC can be activated. We have different MOUs and agreements in place, and I'll move to the next slide, Chris. All right, so the departments that are heavily involved in this is Public Works, Fire, Sheriff, Community Services. Again, we have outside agencies of FEMA, the Weather Service, which we brief with daily, State OES or Cal OES, and Water Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, our city partners, and the nonprofits that we work with. Next slide. So we have a website, ReadySBCAlerts. You can log on and sign up for alerts. We've been really trying to get that messaging out there. You can get email, text message alerts, whichever you choose, even a phone call recording. You can also log on, there's a new site called Genesis, and you can see if your zone has any specific alerts, and a lot of people use that WatchDuty app. We don't endorse that, but I know that a lot of people use it, and whenever there's evacuation alerts or things like that, that does populate on that WatchDuty app, so I just wanna. say that we'll continue to work through the the fall and the winter on social media and Preparedness month is this this month starting today? National flood preparedness is October 17th through 24th, and we'll continue to Do webinars and prepare the public for the storm as it as it formalizes? next slide So we've had a few fires in the last recent years. The Lake Fire was on the verge of getting taken off the list, but was just, I believe as of yesterday, kept on the list for probably one more year. Remember the closer there was a fire in history, there's a greater potential of having debris flows and significant flooding, the way that the water reacts with the, the soot and things like that. So that's the, we're keeping a constant eye on the debris flow risks and burn scars. Next slide. And again, we have field notifications, sirens in some areas, door knocks, the sheriff has been very good about doing door knocks when we know in advance. They have a high-low siren for when we don't know in advance. The ReadySBC alerts, we have wireless emergency alerts which come through the cell phone companies and you can set up a grid and messaging on that system. And then we have the NOAA radios that some people have that still wind up. Again, readysbc.org, an AM radio station, county call center, 211, that Genesis app, and rainfall and road closure information's all available on that website, next slide. So just like any time we talk about preparedness, the more we can prepare in advance, the better we are when we actually need to respond. So the more people can do, the six Ps in this circumstance, know what you would pack up and have that plan in place before you need to leave. So preparedness is the name of the game. County Fire, so we have water, every county fire firefighter is trained in water rescue. We have basic water rescue devices on all of our equipment. We have special teams that are trained in advanced swift water technician. So they can do, like in the picture there, they can actually go out and rescue somebody in the water. ALL OF OUR TYPE 3, OUR WILDLAND ENGINES ARE FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE AND SO THEY GIVE US A HIGHER PLATFORM TO GET THROUGH SOME FLOOD WATERS. OUR AIR SUPPORT UNIT HAS HELICOPTERS WITH HOIST WHICH COME IN HANDY FOR THIS. WE HAVE WATER CRAFT, WE HAVE BULLDOZERS, FRONT LOADERS AND OTHER HEAVY EQUIPMENT THROUGH OUR CONSTRUCTION SECTION AND WE WORK WITH PUBLIC WORKS TO PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH SANDBAGS AT DIFFERENT COUNTY FACILITIES. NEXT SLIDE. We practice and train year-round for these types of emergencies. A lot of our districts know the potential based on history and how floods have reacted in the past. With the RFCC, we now have a better coordination and communication program throughout our county. WHERE WE RELY ON OUR PARTNER FIRE AGENCIES. WHEN IT GETS BIGGER THAN THAT WE UTILIZE THE STATE THROUGH CAL OES FOR RESOURCES OUTSIDE OF OUR COUNTY AND CAL OES ALSO ALLOWS US TO APPLY FOR EXTRA MONEY FOR PRE-POSITIONING WHEN WE MEET CERTAIN WEATHER TRIGGER POINTS SO IT STARTED OUT FOR ONLY FIRES AND NOW IT'S MOVED INTO FLOOD AND DEBRIS FLOWS. WE'VE GOTTEN THAT QUITE A FEW TIMES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS AND WE'RE GOING TO OPTIMIZE THE PUBLIC MESSAGING ON THE READY SBC PLATFORM AND WITH THE LOCAL MEDIA NETWORKS AND SOCIAL MEDIA.

The Flood Control District prepares each year for extreme rainfall events. So we're not doing anything special this year. This is par for the course. Our maintenance preparations primarily include our annual maintenance program, which ensures that our engineering infrastructure is fully functional. We also remove vegetation and debris from creeks and rivers to maintain their natural capacity. Many of our creeks are undersized. They don't have capacity for large storm events, so no amount of maintenance of those creeks is gonna prevent flooding during extreme rainfall. We also, like OEM, have done extensive agency coordination with our partner agencies, and we have our continual capital improvement projects intended to reduce flood risk ongoing. Preparedness is not only a county obligation, and it's not only a state and federal obligation, it's also a community's obligation. So one thing we have been doing differently this year is increasing our public outreach to make resources available to the public. That includes a webpage with a lot of information that can help them prepare. We maintain three sandbag stations throughout the county where people can get free sandbags. COUNTY MAINTENANCE STAFF IS AVAILABLE FOR SITE VISITS, TOO, IF PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR PARTICULAR PROPERTY. DURING EMERGENCY RESPONSE, FOR US THAT PRIMARILY ENTAILS DEBRIS MANAGEMENT OF OUR DEBRIS BASINS. THE UPPER RIGHT PICTURE HERE IS GLEETA BEACH IN 2023. where we had debris disposal operations on the beach. This work is coordinated closely with county parks. The parking lot has been reinforced to account for all those heavy truck trips to mitigate for damage associated with these activities. We also, of course, maintain 26 miles of levee in Santa Maria, so we'll be doing levee patrol. We also do reservoir operations coordination with our federal partners at Twitchell and Bradbury Dams. Next slide, please. And then this slide is just to emphasize some of the resources available online. The one that I'd like to emphasize the most is our real-time rainfall website. You can get real-time rainfall streamflow information or reservoir information here. There's also several cameras at flood control facilities. It's just a really good opportunity to gauge what's happening in the watershed. This is the tool that we use in our office when it's raining. With that, I'm gonna pass it off to Mustafa Estagi with our Transportation Division.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the board. Yeah, so in our division, like fire and flood control, this is the season that we are focusing a lot on winter preparation. And we check on our culvert and drainage infrastructure, making sure they're being fully inspected and they're clear of any debris. Also, we stage our equipment near the vulnerable areas right before every medium or large scale storm. Also, make sure that all resources and equipment are ready to go. Staff are trained and we go through tabletop exercises and making sure we have contracts leveraged to be able to expedite the operations during the response. And in terms of the operation during the response, our main focus will be placed on maintaining safe access for our traveling public. And depending on the storm, the type of damage and the extent of damage, we might have to close certain roads and perform debris removal and road repair operations during a response or after. We'll obviously prioritize the vulnerable areas across the county, such as single access roads. Also throughout the response, we'll send out our engineers to check on the condition of our critical assets, such as bridges, making sure they're structurally sound, and also focus on the road repairs. And throughout this whole process, we'll maintain close coordination and collaboration with Office of Emergency Management, Flood Control, and our public safety partners. And right after the storm, we slightly shift our focus back to documentation, design, and restoration of these damaged project as soon as possible, as much as the resources allow. And here we have a few pictures from 2023 storms. On the top right, you can see the major slip out on Halama Road. On the bottom left photo, this is a photo of the Gibraltar Road in South County area. Also, I just wanted to highlight that we do have a website that shows live road closure information that comes from our county maintenance system. We always keep the website updated so everybody can refer to that as well. With that, I'll hand it over to Director Armas.

Thank you. Chair Nelson and members of the board, the Community Services Department tackles it from multiple fronts. First, as noted on the slide, we do make sure that our parks are safe. We focus on clearing basins and culverts, doing some tree work in advance of any events, of course, making sure that the equipment is in proper order and we do the safety checks to make sure it is operable and will not do any harm to any of our employees. We also, of course, prepare our staff, make sure that there's a common understanding of how we're going to respond to issues associated with any events. Goleta and Hama Beach are of particular concern to us. We've seen some damage over the years and needs a high degree of focus and attention and as necessary it becomes trail closures become necessary both as a safety measure and to address any conditions that may have surfaced. On the housing side we do a fair amount of preparing for services to the homeless. We have shelter facilities that are open from November through March of each year. We have approximately 13 facilities divided across the county, two in the Santa Maria area, two in Lompoc, one in Ivy, six down in the South Coast, and two in the Carp area. Vets Hall and churches are common. locations where we will provide shelter. Since October of last year through March of this year, we've assisted about 240 individuals contending with events of that sort. And as noted here, we also coordinate with our nonprofit partners, make sure that the services are available to those in need.

So as you can see, we have a lot of expertise here. Unfortunately, fortunately, we have a lot of experience with Disasters in this county and people who've been through it a lot that we know that we need to be prepared and start preparing all throughout the year for it. There are a couple of things that are a little different this year, or there's one big thing, which is we have some resource constraints that we haven't had recently in big winter years or big disasters, and that's something we're keeping an eye on here. for a couple of reasons. One is in the 23, 24 disasters, we had about $60 million of disaster costs incurred and that's costs actually incurred and also projects that are waiting for approval. And of those, we've only received about $4 million in reimbursement. So that's putting a bit of a strain on the reserves that are set aside for these types of events. Then on top of that, in 2026, we incurred about $8 million in response and needed repair costs. And the 2026 storms were not state or federally declared. So those are directly impactful to the flood control and transportation reserves. So they're feeling the effects of both of those things. And then the future of FEMA is in flux. That's a little too many Fs there, but they did a working group and some of the recommendations that came out of the working group included basically at a 30,000-foot level that FEMA would have a higher threshold for when they do get involved in declaring disasters. And when they do declare, they're probably going to bring less resources to the disaster and put more of the burden on the state and the local agencies. And in addition, things like privatizing national flood insurance programs, which could have effects on homeowners. So we're monitoring that as well. We have been in conversation with the state and we haven't heard any substantive conversation from the state about them stepping in to prepare CDAA or Cal OES as some kind of backstop for that, which really means there's gonna be a lot of burden on local agencies if there is a disaster this winter. So if you put all those resource limitations together, the reduced reserves available, and then less state and federal resources, We will be looking at, depending on the size of the storm and what time in the season it comes, if we can be expecting multiple storms, we're going to be looking at more strategically prioritizing what work we take on throughout the winter just to make sure that we can address everything that needs to be addressed. Of course, we will still be focusing on our core mission of protecting life and safety and we have all the expertise and we will have all the commitment to be doing that as well as always. And with that, we're happy to answer any questions you have.