Board of Supervisors — 2019-07-02

All right, good morning. I'd like to call this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors to order. Madam Clerk can I get a roll call please?

Ms. Hartman? Here! Mr. Adam? Mr. Williams? Here. Mr. Hart?

Here.

Mr Lavinino?

Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the June 18th meeting? So moved. Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Pass unanimously. CEO's report, Ms. Misano.

Good morning Chair Lavinino and board members. My quick announcement this morning is that I'm very pleased to introduce our new Chief Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, Jacqueline Alexander. As you know, this is Jacqueline's first official meeting as Chief Deputy Clerk of the Board. She started yesterday in her role July 1st but she has been with the county since 2012 and has served the last three years in the clerk's office. As you are aware she has been clerking the board meetings over the last several months and in her prior role also managed the assessment appeals and LAFCO programs and will continue to do so until we get some vacancies filled. Jacqueline has extensive knowledge of parliamentary procedure, the Brown Act, agenda preparation and management.

And I'm confident that Jacqueline will do an excellent job for us in the county and be a great addition to the management team. She has a vision for the clerk's office and a desire to take the division to the next level through technology training and innovation. I also want to take the opportunity to thank Mike Allen who is on vacation right now for his work and leadership in the Clerk of the Board's Office for the last 28 years. We'll be celebrating Mike's long career In the future and we'll give you information about that. So please join me in congratulating and welcoming Jacqueline

It is both an honor and a privilege to be appointed as Chief Deputy Clerk of the Board, and one that I do not take lightly. I'd like to take a moment to express my sincere appreciation for both your trust and your encouragement, and I look forward to being a part of both the challenges and the opportunities that lie ahead for our county.

Well very good. I know we are in very good hands you've kind of It's hard to replace a legend, so you've got big shoes to fill but I know you're up to it. And we wish Mike well also in his travels around the vineyards of Italy. I just got a text yesterday he was in a vineyard named Santa Maria. So he was pretty happy. But Jacqueline welcome and we know you're up to the task and we just look forward to a long career and storied career with the county, so congratulations.

All right, with that we will move right into our administrative agenda. Let's do our A1, if I can get just a vote on moving A1 please first. Second. Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, can we read A1 in please?

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Samir, Sam and Sari of the Agricultural Commissioner Weights and Measures Department as the July 2019 Employee of the Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Sam to the podium and anyone else you'd like to join with you?

Whereas, Sam Ansari began his career with the county in 2013 as a Weights and Measures Inspector 1 with the Agricultural Commissioner's Weights and Measures Department. And due to his persistence, dedication, and endless motivation has reached the position of Weights & Measures Inspector 3. And whereas, Sam continues to be a positive force in the department embracing the county's core ACE values and his willingness to be held accountable, his unwavering commitment to customer service, and his motivation to improve efficiency. And whereas Sam contributes his opinions and ideas openly and honestly, his unique enthusiasm always encourages communication. And he treats everyone with courtesy and respect.

Whereas Sam understands all aspects of providing education and outreach to industry stakeholders and the general public as he continues to maintain the challenging dynamics of the department's Weights & Measures program. And whereas Sam is recognized as a valuable resource willing to go the extra mile in assisting his co-workers and his overall commitment to public service, which serves as a model for the entire department. Now therefore be it hereby resolved in order that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Sameer Ansari as the employee of the month for July 2018 passed and adopted today.

Good morning Chair Lavinino and members of the board. I'm Rudy Martel, the Assistant Agricultural Commissioner. I want to thank you for this time to say a few words about our Employee of the Month Sam Ansari. When Sam interviewed with our department in 2013 he showed great enthusiasm energy and shared with us some great stories of his past employment experiences.

At the end of his interview Sam said to us if you hire me I promise to always give you 110%. To this day, Sam has kept his promise and he's always given us 110% plus. Sam always maintains his upbeat personality. He always says good morning to all the staff and at the end of the day never fails to have a good night to all of the staff members. Sam's energy level never drops. He is always motivated to work, always flexible and willing to help others.

Sam brought to our department a great deal of experience from retail management. We've utilized his experience in the training of our staff on how to provide great customer service to our industry. Sam's motto is kill them with kindness, and this has worked for him on many occasions. Sam is a wonderful asset to the department due to his open and respectful style of communication, his dedication to providing education and outreach to the industry, and his commitment to customer service. It was well-deserved recognition. Thank you.

I just want to say that I really appreciate this recognition and I can tell you without a doubt in my entire career, this is the best job I've ever had. Never take you for granted and I appreciate the opportunity to serve so thank you. Appreciate it.

Very good. We'll move on to the balance of our administrative agenda, are there items that the public would like to pull?

Chair Lavinino and members of the board we have one request to speak on our admin agenda and that is A23. Okay

how about board members you've got a 23 as well anybody else that is our city contracts sheriff's department all right let's go to the public A23

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number 23 is from the Sheriff. It is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement to provide law enforcement services between the County of Santa Barbara and the cities of Buellton, Carpinteria, Goleta, and Solvang. And we are going to Santa Maria for Andy Caldwell.

Members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. As many of you know We're not big fans of 100% cost recovery policy, including the hourly rates being charged. The $1 million fee increase we just saw this last year and we're not opposed to the county contracting out for services. So the point being in this particular issue, we're getting the worst of both worlds.

I pulled the Goleta contract. I don't know if your staff can pull this up or not, but I pulled a Goleta contract up page 20 of page 32. It's exhibit B payment methodology and it says this section 1 point B county obligations The city will not be billed for general overhead costs of operation of the county government unless or until authorized by applicable provisions The county shall not charge a city for any service or function performed by the county attributable to services made available to all portions of the county such as custody, coroner etc. So we understand the second part as far as the custody or coroner But we'd like to know whether or not you've got one rule when you contract and or provide services to the cities versus your constituents in the unincorporated area.

And, or those that are using your services because the bottom line is everybody needs to pay their fair share And it appears to us that, for instance, county council, the CAO's office and others are not being billed to these cities. So therefore it violates your policy of 100% cost recovery. And it means in reality that your fee payers are having to subsidize law enforcement in the contract cities.

So we would like this to be pulled and have a thorough explanation on, and an assurance given that in fact the 100% cost recovery policy is in effect across the board with your board. Thank you.

Okay thank you. Ms. Miyasato?

Supervisors I know we have members of the Sheriff's Department here as well as Auditors Department who worked on these cost recovery numbers so if you'd like to hear from them

We're going to go ahead and open it up for questions. Okay surprise and you want to first you want to

hear that. Getting less services or paying more when some of these other cities are less. And I can't tell from the board letter because the board letter says they're working toward full cost recovery for all cities and is in the final year of assistance with two of the four cities, so which are the four cities and how much money?

And while someone all

run up at once now

coming up I'll also just add that my understanding is that these contracts are closer towards Cost recovery, so mr. Caldwell may have a point but these ones are moving in the right direction and we do have to establish agreements with our cities

All right, Supervisor Adams to the Chair. Kyle from the Auditor's Office. Quick clarification. So the policy is full cost recovery to the extent legally permissible. In this case there's specific government code which says we cannot charge general overhead of operation in the county so therefore we exclude those costs. If that weren't the case we would treat it equitably like any other fee model or cost model.

I'm sorry run that can you bring your microphone up

just a little

bit? Okay so which yeah what does the government code say

So there's a specific government code provision which says that a county, when contracting with the city may not charge general costs of overhead of operation to the county as well as services that it makes available to all portions of the county. So last year before we implemented this model your board adopted a resolution which basically outlined which cost those were so we took a thorough analysis of all the components of our overhead costs Said, hey this is chargeable because it's incremental to providing the service or this is not because it really is general overhead. And this really goes back to the original Los Angeles model when they were trying to provide services to the entire area of Los Angeles County. They wanted there to be some incentive for the city to join the sheriff's larger police force operation and therefore those overheads were excluded that went into government code and now all counties have to abide by that.

Okay. Well, I'm not arguing over that You know That's that's fine because it is what it is and it's the law we have to follow and that's we're doing But my problem is where we're saying in the letter and maybe you can address this better We're in the final year of assistance with two of the four cities and that indicates to me that there's a discount being given to two of the four cities as Which is clearly, to me, taken up from unincorporated service areas like Orchid, Nolita and Montecito.

And so I want to know how much that is and what cities is it?

Supervisor Adam to the chair, I can clarify that there actually is no subsidy built into this year's contracts for any of the cities. When I think the board letter said phased out it meant in the fiscal year that was drafted which was in you know May and June of 2019 so these current 19-20 contracts have no subsidy they were for Buellton and Solvang and basically they eliminated a menu item in exchange for coming up to full cost and removing the subsidy A menu item is an item in addition to just standard patrol services.

Okay So so this is sort of Inflammatory language that isn't really accurate

It would be more accurate to say that the subsidy has been removed from the 1920 contract,

okay? Well if we could have incorporated that it would have led to a little less consternation for me Thank you

All right So thank you for being here though, and being as well prepared as you were with really good answers. I appreciate that. Yeah. All right. Are there any other items that anybody would like to pull on the administrative agenda? If not, I'll take a motion to move the administrative agenda balance. Move the administrative agenda. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed? That passes. All right, and that moves us to our departmental agenda item number one. No? Public

comment.

Oh public comment! Let's move to public comment.

Chair Lavinino, members of the board we have three requests to speak on general public comment today. We are going to start with Rob Solomon to be followed by David Blue Wolf Diaz

Good morning. My name is Rob Solomon, and I'm here representing the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. And the coalition has submitted two draft ordinances, urgency ordinances, one for coastal, one for inland, and a list of state provisional license that we know of as of July 1. They also have a cover letter, which I trust you all will read. I'm only going to read the second half of it.

It goes as follows. Despite the fact that board members expressed their opposition to actions by the state legislature to continue exemptions for projects in permit review Instead of taking action to protect local control, which state law allows, your executive office has compounded the issues by continuing to authorize provisional licenses on non-conforming projects that have never been validated and whose land use applications are far from complete.

Even after the end date in your ordinance for continuation of non-conforming uses has expired. In addition, despite the fact that your board has adopted ordinance amendments in April to address cultivators who obtained their licenses through fraud. We are not aware of any systematic effort to identify these cultivators or direct them to abate. In light of the above we are providing draft urgency ordinances for your board to consider Which would have the effect of minimizing the nuisance aspects of odor from ongoing, unpermitted cannabis operations both in the coastal zone and inland areas.

These ordinance are narrowly tailored to address this specific problem. Cultivators who either relied on their affidavits to obtain licenses or have unlawfully expanded their operation from January 2016. And who do not have controls on their operation which would mitigate odor impacts, either in the form of odor control technology or inadequate setbacks from existing residences or pre-existing agricultural operations.

We're asking the County Council review these draft ordinances, make whatever changes he deems necessary and that you agendize and adopt these ordinances to your July 9 meeting. It is past time for your board to take meaningful action to protect your constituents. Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Williams? Well I appreciate Rob bringing us some suggestions. I think on the issue of enforcement that he touches upon, it's an important one because the county has not seen eye to eye with where the state has gone in trying to extend temps. Fortunately that legislation was defeated and Because of the authorization that staff was given at the last meeting, my understanding is that we have withdrawn consent on expired temps. And can you sort of detail that? Which is important because There may be some correlation between nuisance projects and folks who have expired temps or attempting to operate without license.

Mr. Buzanich?

Chair Levenino, Supervisor Williams as directed by your board earlier this year we reviewed all of the folks who had Not submitted a permit application to our planning department and had that application accepted by the Planning and Development Department. Looked through those with existing temporary licenses in May, in the coastal zone. And then again in June, in the inland portions of the county and we identified one operator, one license in the coastal zone that had actually long ago stopped cultivating but still have that temporary license continuing. And I notified the state Cal Cannabis to please cancel that one license.

In the case of the review that occurred in June following the end of the amortization period of the legal non-conforming status. In the inland portion of the county, I identified two licensees who were not in the permit path. But those were two folks who had recently been enforced upon, and we're awaiting a final determination to utilizing the materials from Sheriff and District Attorney to cancel those provisional licenses for those two operators that were recently enforced upon.

Happy to answer any other questions.

And then my understanding is that there's also two others in the carpentry area Expired permits that one of which our sheriff's team, enforcement team has verified is no longer cultivating and one that should be forthcoming.

Supervisor Lavenino and Supervisor Williams, that's correct.

Mr. Gazzoni? Chair and supervisors, the board does have a cannabis item agendized for the 9th where some of this material would also fit. And I think you've had now the brief response to public comment.

Actually, that's what Mr. Gazzone was just telling us is public comment is not a back and forth and not for us to spend too much time on each one. So July 9th we're agendized for cannabis issues and we'll be discussing that on the night. Thank you for being here though, appreciate it. Okay next

speaker. And our next speaker, Chair Labanino, members of the board. Our next speaker is David Blue Wolf Diaz to be followed by Ed Kolaski.

Thank you very much. Mr. Hart, I have a letter here I'm going to have forwarded to you about the 8% increase in the community Isla Vista tax that we had a discussion awhile back where everyone's paying an 8% increase including people under HUD and Isla Vista with one exception. And there's quite a few elderly and disabled people. Your parents could be out there they're gonna have to pay an 8% tax extra. And the only segment that's exempt is of some apartments that the county owns because of that fact, those HUD clients are exempt from paying the 8% tax. I don't know if it's Class discrimination issue of some type that's going on here with the county and the citizens in this community. But I'm going to make certain that you get a copy of the letter of the increase and that tax, this is just concluding our conversation we had awhile back.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Regularly, they'd monitor and filter that kind of chemical out so the community in the area would be a lot safer. It would be nice to see what the radon levels are especially up in the Gaviota, Devereux area because that whole area has been shut down. The geodesic domes were taken out that were picking up all this chemical pollution.

And then lastly, I was interested in knowing is there any way that county like maybe perhaps other municipalities in our county create a little safety net where when the Environmental Defense Center and other local environmental groups sue and win. That a portion of their money's going to a fund? Because with all the oil wells coming off the radon and the oil levels are going to rise again in this community. And there's going to be a lot of cleanup needed on the beaches, and they should take a strong responsibility in using those funds. Just not the taxpayers, we shouldn't have it covered at all. They should also see how they are environmentally dominated and concerning about our community. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Chair Lavenino, members of the board, our final speaker is Ed Kalaski.

Good morning. It's nice, it's Independence Day and I'm glad that Janet Wolfe is no longer here. It sort of like couldn't be a better day. I waited five years for an explanation as to how that was solely over the garage, that our second story was located solely over the garage. When clearly it's not solely over the garage, it's over the dining room, kitchen, laundry room part of the living room and the garage.

And nobody has explained that to me. Five years of coming here asking you would think that someone would volunteer to explain Alex Peugeot's decision to rule that it's solely over the garage? He didn't even let the other members see the drawing. Of course, he was chairman so he gets to see the drawing ahead of the meeting. Five years! So what's next now? Now they want setbacks. Okay.

Is this another story? Is this going to be episode two of an ongoing dying project? You know, they ruled back in 2014. All seven members agreed that we did not have to have setbacks. Now they want setbacks. John Vertak, a guy on the board down there made a remark to me that I found a little bit offensive. This photo is not very good but basically he said Slovaks are easy, they always give up He at first was saying that he was a Slovak.

Later, he reneged on it. I guess he's German or something else. This is Dubcek back in 68 standing in front of an army tank, a Russian army tank. He didn't give up. I'm not going to give up. But I am a human being, and one should not be treated by the government for five years. So Lou used to always say that this is a democracy after I pointed out what kind of democracy does this to an individual.

So I had two friends who lost their lives during this period. One almost surely would be alive had my building been constructed. He went to Vegas instead, got a contagious disease and died within a month. The other one shot himself. I'll bear you the remarks. Thank

you. That closes out our portion of public comment Moves us to our departmental agenda. Madam Clerk, can you read in item one please?

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number one is from general services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding extra help services and retirement waiver for the General Services Department.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Lavineto, fellow board members. This is an item where the General Services Department is requesting authority to appoint a recently retired office automation specialist, Mr. Ken Layman as extra help in order to adequately transition the institutional knowledge to support the Board of Supervisors during board meetings. This will be a three to six month transition during which the recruitment and cross-training of a replacement will take place.

This will ensure sufficient time for a smooth knowledge transfer, and minimize potential disruptions to the IT services provided during board meetings.

All right, I've heard of Mr. Layman. Anybody have any comments? Supervisor Adam? Well

we go through this all the time and I like Mr. Laymon fine no disparaging intent imparted here but as far as you go GS has to plan ahead for these things. You knew Mr. Laymon was going Going to

retire, right? Supervisor Adam through the Chair. Mr. Lehman did announce his retirement last May and while it would have been our preference to be able to fill double-fill that position that was not an option that we had. And we recognize that IT personnel do retire however in this particular instance due to the critical services that Mr. Lehman provides to the board we believe that It is not something that we could immediately acquire on the open market. That really it's the tacit knowledge of the board processes, that we really can transition best having somebody who can directly provide oversight and direction so that they can provide services without

Well, what do we do when Mr. Lehman's sick? What if Mr. Lehman ended up with God forbid some kind of disease that required him to be off and take a treatment course or something for four months or six months?

We do have additional personnel that can step in to provide service during that time. However, when we go out for a selection for his replacement we want to make sure that we do the due diligence to select the proper person due to the fact that Mr. Lehman does interface with our executive team and the board as well so it's something that we really want to treat with a fair amount of due diligence and pragmatism

It just seems to me that we should have a deep enough bench to be able to handle the normal vicissitudes of life, like people getting sick. Potentially somebody retiring and make it without having to bring somebody back all the time because this is chronic issue. And we just do it all the time like

hey, we're today by the way vicissitudes. Okay, I'm looking it up right now Ups and downs

So You know, I did I I'm just gonna oppose it. I know it's gonna go through and Welcome back. Mr. Layman

All right Is there a motion to move item d1?

so moved

moved Moved and seconded roll call, please

Miss Hartman, Mr. Adam, Mr. Williams.

Aye.

Mr. Hart?

Aye.

Chair Lavanino? Aye. Motion passes 4 to 1.

Okay a change of circumstance or fortune typically one that is welcome unwelcome or unpleasant right on nice one Doreen would be very proud of you okay so that wraps up our departmental agenda we move to closed session mr. Gazzone

Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board has agendized for two matters. The first is conference with legal counsel one decision whether to initiate civil litigation. The second is public employee performance evaluation for the county executive officer. My estimate is a total of about 45 minutes. Okay very good

adjourn to closed session.

you you Hi. Thank you. Yeah. you You. You. you Hello, everyone. Hello everyone. Music playing The The Hello, everyone. You. Hello, everyone. Yeah. Music Yeah. Hi. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. you Hello. you Hello. Hello everyone. Music The . . Hello, everyone. . . Hello, everyone. Hello, everyone. ♪ Good morning. Yeah. Thank you. you Music Good morning. you

All right, we will reconvene this meeting of the Board of Supervisors coming out of closed session. Mr. Gazzone?

Chair and supervisors today in closed session, the board considered two matters. The first was a conference with legal counsel concerning a decision whether to initiate civil litigation. The second was public employee performance evaluation concerning county executive officer. There are no reportable actions.

Okay very good. We will adjourn to July 9th in Santa Maria.