Board of Supervisors — 2018-01-09

Hi, everyone. ♪ ♪ ¶¶ ♪ Thank you. Good morning and welcome to this January 9th, 2018 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room. We are experiencing serious flooding throughout the county and Supervisor Williams couldn't make it. And we're going to go through our admin agenda but we won't go to the departmental agenda except for one item today.

So Mr. Allen would you call the roll please? Departmental agenda item number one, the SB CSRS board appointment. That we will move on. We also have an ex-agenda item about a proclamation of the flood emergency. So would you call the roll Mr. Allen?

Mr. Williams? Ms. Wolfe?

Here.

Ms. Hartman? Here. Mr. Adam? Here Mr. Lavinino? Here

public comments on matters not on today's agenda?

Once again, Mr. Caldwell has a slip for public comment and I have two other requests that just came in so Mr. Caldwell will be followed by Pauline Kahn and then Denise Adams

There's two things I wanted to bring up. One of them is the cancellation of your meeting. I can understand if your meeting is causing critical people to be pulled away from their duties, that that would be a reason to cancel. Other than that, if Doss Williams is the reason, I don't know why you'd cancel it. I know there may be some people impeded from coming here but Again, there's other people that did show up for the meeting.

One of the things that I wanted to bring up with regard to today's agenda and since it's canceled, I guess I can talk during public comment on it is it's absolutely amazing to us to watch the response of the county and the state To the federal announcement that they want to reopen leases. And again, I know the 69 oil spill is their reason of the day for saying we don't want that.

But have you thought about the fact that if the feds do open up those leases and the county and the state and the coastal commission say well we won't allow the pipelines to come on or we won't allow processing facilities to be built? Then their alternative is to just tanker from federal waters. And what we can't fully grasp is the feds are saying they invite offshore Leases which will bring revenue, one way shape form or another and jobs to the region. And the politicos say hell no.

Then you turn around and the feds say that they're going to punish and or potentially prosecute people for marijuana including government agencies taking in the revenue. You say where there's a will there's a way. So how is it that oil, oil is less desirous than marijuana? If you want to talk about health impacts, marijuana can trigger onset of schizophrenia. You want to talk about global warming?

Lawrence Livermore Laboratory scientist and a member of the IPCC says each joint produces two pounds of carbon. Multiply that by 40 million pounds a pot. The bottom line is whether it's pollution or health concerns, how do you compare oil and marijuana? One being illegal, the other one the federal government supporting in terms of your policies and impacts to the economy and quality of life.

Thank you.

Ms. Pauline Kahn to be followed by Denise Adams.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. Perhaps this is not the best time to be here because of all that's going on outside and Das Williams is not here. I live in the first district. I have two agenda items, not agenda items but public comment items. One is, I live just above the lower part of Mission Canyon Road right at the intersection with Foothill and I am asking to please slow down traffic in the 600 and 700 blocks of Mission Canyon Road from 35 miles per hour to 30.

My second reason for being here is Please have the Mission Canyon Road Corridor become a county historic landmark. It comprises a geologic Chumash mission and pioneer history that is unparalleled in Santa Barbara. It is the oldest and the last natural looking north-south corridor from the city to the foothills. I have nominated the entire historic cultural landscape from the old Mission to Foothill Road, including parts of West Mountain Drive, Mission Ridge Road, Alameda Padre Serra and the six and 700 blocks of Mission Canyon Road for Historic Landmark status as a historic site. This is Santa Barbara's most intact historic area and is located in both the city and the county.

Mission Creek Bridge landscape is three quarters in the county and one quarter in the city. Mission Canyon Road Corridor contains Chumash artifacts and archaeological site. The pioneers who built the 19th and early 20th century sandstone walls cherished nature, and kept the native plants in topography as part of the landscape. Architects Luda Maria Riggs and Windsor Soule designed homes along the corridor. The feel of Chumash and pioneer days still exist.

I have written this tome 487 pages Nomination document, has a lot of history in it. And it has been submitted to the County Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission and the City Historic Landmarks Advisory Commission. This particular edition is for you if you want it. If you don't want it would you please return it to me? It has more than 1,300 hours of volunteer labor and $78 of donated Binder and materials.

Thank you. Is it online or? It is online, David Villalobos of your planning department has put it online yes. And in this letter it tells you where to access it. Thank you so much.

Denise Adams

Good morning, Supervisors. I'm here today representing Vista del Montecito. This is my third fire in nine years and it's not pleasant. And I want to thank the few of you who have been responsive to Montecito in the past But part of our problem, from my perspective having been there since 1980 is we really do not have adequate representation for Montecito and we have advisory boards.

I did go and made an effort to go on January 3rd to the Montecito Planning Commission meeting which was not canceled even though most of us Had been evacuated for up to three weeks and we're just now returning to ash infested homes to the tune of $100,000 plus in damages with no mattresses sleeping on the floor only to be returned again into evacuation modes.

When I called my district supervisor's office, I was told it was no big deal No big deal because the evacuation order had been lifted prior to Christmas so there was no reason why we couldn't all attend a meeting on January 3rd. It was no big deal, we're back. Doesn't matter that our mattresses are in the dumpsters, the environmental health department's out telling us it's toxic. It was no big deal. So I think Montecito lacks a level of leadership. When I went to the Montecito Planning Commission meeting, I was told that they were accountable to no one. They are an entity unto themselves. I would like to get clarification from the board what the Montecito Planning Commission does. If it's only advisory, it's insufficient at this point. We have some special needs that we've requested for example related to public safety.

Barker Pass Road is the direct Major evacuation route taking all of Westmont, Cold Spring School, Coyote Road, Mountain Drive off that hill. It is half city, half county. We need some mechanism to how Barker Pass road's going to work in an evacuation. Public safety is a big issue for us. It's lined with eucalyptus hills we have asked Since the fire in 1978, the Coyote Fire to remove or deal with those eucalyptus trees which there's about 7000 of them but along Barker Pass are highly combustible and they're on our major evacuation route.

We would like to ask you for leadership because in our little town, West Montecito where I happen to be the Westmont quarter there is no leadership, no representation. We're very concerned about our safety and we hope at some point the Board of Supervisors can assist us because it's not coming out of our local community. And I have and our neighborhood has participated in the wildlife Thank you.

So that concludes the public comments on matters not on today's agenda.

That's correct, Madam Chair.

Okay I'd like to go back and approve the minutes can we do it all in one motion? The four sets of minutes?

Yeah that would be appropriate.

So may I have a motion to approve the minutes of December 12th 2017, December 14th 2017, December 21st 2017 and January 23rd 2018. So moved Okay, and all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes stand approved. So what I'd like to do now is turn to our administrative agenda then we'll go to the X agenda item then we'll work on a next meeting date and then we'll discuss departmental agenda number one and then we will continue departmental agenda number six and the others we will continue to the meeting date that we decide.

Mr. Allen.

Chair Hartman, members of the board just getting started with the administrative agenda we did post an addendum last Friday adding two items to the administrative agenda and we also posted a next agenda item for your board to consider as well and we'll talk about that in a little bit this morning. Item 838 was added to the agenda last Friday that's from Supervisor Hartman it's an appointment of Jessica Tade to the Historic Landmarks Advisory Committee And then item 839, also from Supervisor Hartman. This was to approve the appointment of John Park to the Planning Commission. It's a term ending December 31, 2018 in the third district and we'll be discussing that item in a couple minutes I assume because we're going to continue that one as well.

So,

and that was D. Let me ask a question of Mr. Gazzone. Yes, Mr. Allen?

I just want to note I also have a request to pull item A28 and a request from the public to pull item A21 for discussion.

All right, would you read A21 into the record?

Madam Chair, members of the board, item 821. It's from the Public Works Department and it comes to the board as the Board of Directors of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District. And this is to consider recommendations regarding the Lower Mission Creek flood control project reaches three and four. This is in the first district. And I have Sam Miricarabi to speak on this item.

Please.

Good morning. My name is Azam Mirtorabi, I am the owner... I'm sorry. My name is Azam Mirtorabi. My husband and I we own the property at 3224 Dela Vina Street. Now, I'm here to remind you that this is a quasi-judicial proceeding. That means that you must deeply And objectively consider this our objections that are attorney made and we have made here today. And also I was informed by the clerk that you already made your decision, you are going to approve this. I just want to ask you to defer your decision after you read our objections and then another thing I wanted The first thing that I would like to put on the record is We do that in protest because we asked for documents for a long time, has not been provided. Just recently they provided some so we object to this and then we want You know just the record to reflect the same and I want you to read our objections before you make your final decision.

This is directly related to our property we have not been informed of this agenda item from the county. I found it by accident so I am here to just tell you please please be careful before you render your opinion. Thank you so much.

Mr. Gazzone?

Chair Hartman and supervisors, I understand that public comment came in on item A21 which was a contract amendment concerning the Lower Mission Creek Flood Control Project but there were also comments within that address item D6 that the board may wish to continue. We've checked with flood control just now and item 821 is not exigent for today. The board has the option of approving it today, or considering it today, or moving it to the 30th along with item D6 if that is your desire. Contrary to what the speaker said, Item 821 is not a quasi-judicial item. It's a legislative act of approving a contract and probably best thought of as that this contract involves studies of reaches of the project, portions of the project that overlap with item D 6.

My sense is the two might work together and that it would make sense to continue them both. So could we hold this out, or move to continue it when we consider item D6? Okay. And so then A28, CEO Miyasato.

I'm sorry, I was going to speak to 828.

Yes but we need to read it into the record.

Chair Hartman and members of the board item 828 is from the Sheriff's Department. It's recommendations regarding the creation of the Stepping Up Initiative Governing Board.

Supervisors, I'm not sure which of you pulled this but I appreciate that. I'm asking that the board continue this item until the meeting of the 23rd and I've also talked to the sheriff about that.

And Supervisor Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair and is there a reason it needs to be the 23rd? because it would seem like it might be more advantageous to wait until the next CCP meeting which is early February so if we can make it till after that, that would seem to be better unless there's some reason why it needs to be the 23rd.

Supervisor through the chair, we could although that's the date that I talked to the sheriff about was the 23rd. It's because there's another meeting of the stepping up group that he was trying to accommodate but I would appreciate if we could at least list it on the 23rd and if I have more time to talk to him we can continue with that meeting to the next February meeting.

So I think this we want to consider now then could I get a motion to continue A28 until January 23rd? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? So that item is continued. So were there any other administrative items Mr. Allen 828, 821

Chair Hartman, members of the board. I guess at this time we may want to consider the continuance of 839 which is the appointment of the Planning Commission? Yes thank you. So we may want to also consider then

continuing that to the 23rd as well

unless your board is going to have a meeting next week

Dr. Russell, what day? We tried to hurry this to have an appointee for the Planning Commission at its next meeting. The next meeting has been I think postponed so when can we appoint?

Madam Chair my understanding is that pursuant to the MADI Act there is a noticing period that has not yet Run its course so it would be wise. We request that you make the continuance to, it can be as soon as the next meeting whenever that meeting would be. We had tried to get the person Mr. Park seated for the meeting tomorrow but it's just not possible. So whenever your next meeting is, is soon enough. Thank you.

Okay and we haven't discussed that yet but Supervisor Wolf.

I just need some clarification you said a Planning Commission meeting has been postponed is that tomorrow's meeting?

No, tomorrow's meeting through the chair Supervisor Wolf. Tomorrow's meeting has not been postponed. Okay so

which is a big meeting for a lot of folks?

Yes it is.

So then to Madam Chair why wouldn't we approve this so that you have someone on the...

We tried but we have other requirements for the length of time that the opening has to be posted and we haven't met that timeframe

Yes, that's my understanding. I was informed of that this morning by the clerk of the board and I believe that Mr. Gazzone concurs.

So you won't have someone Well that just, for such an important issue then maybe the marijuana issue tomorrow should be postponed. So that someone from the third district can sit there unless your current commissioner will be seated.

She's had a tragedy in her family and she's not even in the area right now.

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, I'm sure that your point and the issue that you identify quite valid and important issue will be discussed by the planning commission tomorrow. I will make sure that they are aware of it and discuss that issue and then it will be up to them.

Okay, and thank you Mr. Russell. Mr. Gazzone can you tell me what is the legal framework for how long openings have to be posted? And is it just for planning commission?

No under something that's referred to as the Maddie Act there's a public notice that goes out and then there's a statutory time period after that before which an appointment cannot be made and I think we're a few days short of that for today's meeting.

And is that just for planning? No,

it's for all vacancies. All scheduled vacancies. For

all of our commissions when we make appointments?

Yes and clerk of the board does that as a matter of course is to put those out ahead of time.

So that means the HLAC appointment cannot go forward either, is that correct?

I'm just curious if other board members are aware of this. When I appoint commissioners, I don't know that there's a time frame so can you tell us what that is?

We're going to go ahead and pull up the Maddie Act so that Mr. Gazzone can read the exact language, but this actually only applies to special vacancies where there's someone leaves during a term in the midst of a term then we post that notice pursuant to the Maddie Act and Mr. Gazzone will describe the exact dates that we deal with, the time frames. But last week when I received the information regarding the third district planning commissioner, that day we posted the notice and that notice that I posted pursuant to the Maddie Act allows the board to make the appointment no sooner than January 16th.

And does that apply for HLAC as well?

So it's only when someone leaves a position in the middle of their term.

That's correct.

Well, I will just say and now understanding this but it's really unfortunate that tomorrow we're going to have such an important meeting and not have a full commission there.

I can say that the third district planning commissioner will be in attendance as a member of the public and so won't be able to participate then in discussions, but at least we'll be engaged. That's about the best we can do under these circumstances. Okay. So I think we're ready for a motion to approve the administrative agenda except for items A39 and A21. And may I have a motion?

I will move that we approve the consent, all of the consent items with the following notations. That item A28 is being moved to January 23rd and we are continuing item 821 and 839.

May I have a second? And thank you for that. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Except maybe A21, you want to talk about how it relates to the departmental agenda.

Right. Mr. Gazzone. Correct. I think it just might help the clerk of the board if you're continuing A21 to have it continue to a date certain and- Alright so that

brings the next

meeting date and there is- Why don't we say the date certain would be at our next meeting day.

And I think that actually the request, if we link A21 and D6 would have both of them go on January 30th based on availability of council for the owner as well as public works. So January 30th would be my recommendation.

Okay so I'll move A21 continue to January 30. That will be the motion.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Okay, that brings us then to the X agenda item Mr. Allen would you read that into the record please

Chair Hartman and members of the board, we did post an ex-agenda item and distribute this to the board. This is from the county executive office and the recommendations are regarding the ratification or proclamation of a storm emergency.

And procedurally, we have to vote to accept this onto our agenda and allow public comment and then we have to actually vote on the substance so

I'll make a motion to accept it and to accept public comment

Second. Okay, and are there any public comments on this item?

I have no request to speak.

Okay so all in favor of Supervisor Lavanino's motion to bring this into the agenda say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay that brings us then to the proclamation itself. Supervisor, I mean CEO Miyasato.

Chair Hartman and board members, whoever makes the motion if I could request that you add in there that the board also requests that the governor of California proclaim the county of Santa Barbara to be in a state of emergency.

Okay, Supervisor Lavinino?

I will direct the governor to Declare Santa Barbara a state of emergency, please.

Okay all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay the X agenda item stands approved so that takes us to the next item which is when is our next meeting date and I believe next Tuesday does not work but next Wednesday Would work and that would be January. Is that 17th?

I'm out of town, 17 1819 2021 sorry. I'm available next Monday next Tuesday. Why is Tuesday not work?

I think Supervisor Wolf you're not available

yeah we. We did we yes, I'm

If I could, schedules have consequences and people do schedule things when we have days off. And especially if they're national holiday. And so I think you just have to put off until the following week.

So your suggestion is what date Supervisor Adam?

What's our next regularly scheduled meeting?

23rd? Well then, I'm in Washington DC on the 23rd. So you weren't coming to the next meeting? I wasn't going to come to that meeting anyway so I'm at NACO but I did that with a plan of what was going to be on the agenda on the 23rd and not on the 9th. So I do want to hear the items that are scheduled for today. That's why I came today and checked ahead of time to make sure we were having a meeting today.

Yeah, for the record I started checking. I don't know what time you started checking but I was starting to check before 6 o'clock in the morning and we could have waived this meeting off anytime up until 7 o'clock when my staff and We're here and I know that it's a tough deal. I would have called the meeting off had And I got my Alabama tie on, by the way.

Congratulations

on your win. Thank you very much. Yeah, Saban's a genius. So anyway, I'm ready to have a meeting today but...

No, if I could just say, I just think that would be... I can't even find the words. I spoke to our CEO yesterday because there were a number of comments and people who were concerned about having this meeting today, because of the evacuation that was taking place and they knew that they probably wouldn't be able to come here well now. It's even worse with the highways closed.

And I thought that early this morning, potentially we could have made the call to have canceled the meeting but that didn't happen. But I think we would be disenfranchising a lot of people who are interested in this discussion and can't come to the meeting. May not even have electricity to even be watching the meeting. And on top of that, this whole meeting is just disturbing and I disagree with one of our public speakers when we have our first responders out right now searching for Searching for our citizens and it feels really bad for us to just think that this is another meeting. This is an emergency situation that we are in, and I, in my years of serving on the board, the loss of life is just a tremendous impact to our community. And I don't think it's something that we should take lightly so I'm sorry that it's an inconvenience to some of us.

I would say that we reschedule a meeting then for the 25th, which is a Thursday and there's no, we don't have SB CAG or anything else. We would just have two meetings that week, the 23rd and the 25. Madam Chair?

First off, I think we're also starting to infringe on county council's ability to get done what we're asking them to get done with what this meeting is. And I totally agree with the idea about canceling today or rescheduling today. I get that. I just wish I would have had notice of it but I understand the reason and I'm okay with that. But we can't reschedule this thing for two weeks from now. We're on a shot clock and we need to get this business done.

So I don't want to wait till the 25th. By the way, that's the NACO trip which is the 23rd through the 26th and like we said this is why we schedule things and that's why I was planning on being out of town but we have Thursday of this week Friday of this week we have the 15th the 16th you know and the problem is... I could

do the 19th I thought you weren't going to be

here? No I'm not gonna be here the 19. The 11th the 12th the 15 the 16

Those are all options. Right,

and the problem is we don't know if it's gonna be any better four or five days from now either so I mean it was the same thing with the fires when rescheduled people were still evacuated when we wanted to with the date that we were going to reschedule too so I understand the sensitivity of it but at some point we're gonna have to have a meeting and I agree with you it's probably not today but it should be soon

Well, so what day are you suggesting? Does the 11th work?

Yes.

I can do the 11th. I have to reschedule everything but it's

fine. Supervisor Adam?

You know, I'd like to ask for a 10 minute break.

Sure. 10 minute break. We'll reconvene about 5 till 10. Good morning.

♪ Hi. You. Hi, everyone. ¶. Hi, everyone. ♪ ♪ Yeah. Yeah. Hello.

Okay, reconvening our January 9th 2018 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Barbara. And we are going to reschedule many of the items on today's agenda and we've been trying to figure out complex schedules and when we could all get together and when we can get a room so various We've explored various options and it looks like this Friday, January 12th from 8 o'clock to 1 o'clock.

And that would be in the planning commission room Mr. Allen? Okay so we're rescheduling this meeting items D2 to D5. Continuing those items. I think Supervisor Lavinino...

I was just going to say, do we need a motion or?

I think we do

yeah.

I'm just trying to make sure that works for everybody. We talked to Supervisor Williams and he said that's okay. Mr.

Gazzone. Chair Hartman, generally this is an area where the board has great discretion in rescheduling. I believe you do have a public comment speaker who would like to address the board on this, on the dates.

Okay. Yes, hello. I do want to speak in regards to the cannabis issue that was scheduled for today however After talking with some other people, I was told it's probably best just to wait and have it all on the same day. So, I will do that. Thank you.

Thank you and we apologize for the scheduling difficulties. With that public comment, I think we're ready for a motion then. Mr. Gazzone?

Chair Hartman, as I understood it this would be only as to D2 through D5 and then he would separately handle D6. And D1.

Okay. Supervisor Adams.

So there will be no agenda?

Yeah, we've taken A21 and put that with, we postponed that to January 30th so you're right.

I'm right there will be no agenda okay so that's good.

Okay, so I think we're ready for a motion. Would it be a motion to continue these items to Friday January 12th? Second All in favor say aye Any opposed? Motion passes So that brings us to item D1 would you read that into the agenda Mr. Allen

Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item D1 is from the county executive office. It's a hearing to consider appointments to the retirement board of the Santa Barbara County Employees Retirement System and I'll just note that these appointments are the result of a recruitment effort that was initiated several months ago. That effort resulted in eight candidates coming forward. The establishment of an ad hoc committee consisting of supervisors Hartman and Lavinino to review the applications And then come to the board with recommendations and so I'll turn it over to the members of the subcommittee.

Okay, Supervisor Lavinino did you want to say anything? I just want to say we had some wonderful candidates.

Yeah, I just wanted to thank everybody that filled out an application and everybody was obviously Everybody we spoke to was qualified well I think everybody that applied was qualified and everybody who spoke to is outstanding and I just appreciate the fact that people are willing to step up And serve their community in such a, especially very difficult position as the Board of Retirement.

And I think we had a lot of really good qualified candidates and these were the two that we felt were

probably- Help to balance out the board as a whole, yes. So okay, do we have any public comment on this?

I have no request to speak.

Chair Hartman, it understood from our retirement board that there was a request that as the board makes this motion that you actually discuss the actual seat numbers that these persons would be going into and there are two of those seats.

Well

we'd like to do that if we knew what they were so if

Mr. Levin could

help us with that that would be great.

Yes, we received a memorandum from Mr. Levin and maybe Mr. Levin can elaborate on the assignment of the seat numbers and if we could make that part of the motion that would help Mr. Levin out.