UnGovr Words

Board of Supervisors — 2019-10-15

Board of Supervisors — 2019-10-15October 15, 2019

Switch meeting
BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 October 15, 2019

Click any transcript line to jump the video there.

Meeting Summary

  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

This summary was AI-generated to save you time. It may miss or misstate details, so verify against the official recording and the transcript.

At a glance

CEO’s Report

  • The County is hosting an Elected Leaders Forum on homelessness on October 30 at the Hotel Cork.
  • The forum will be noticed as a special board meeting open to the public.
  • The event aims to gather feedback on state legislation, funding, and the Phase Two Community Action Plan.

Agenda Changes

  • The Clerk announced an addendum to the closed session agenda.
  • The addition includes a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation in Jordan v. County of Santa Barbara.

Administrative Agenda (Items A1–A10, excluding A4)

  • The Board approved resolutions recognizing Dyslexia Awareness Month, Latinx Heritage Month, and Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
  • Resolutions of commendation were adopted for Veteran of the Month Arthur Peterson and victim witness advocate Joan Fairfield.
  • A resolution recognizing the artistic contributions of Jeffrey Bloom was also adopted.

Resolution Opposing Federal Oil and Gas Leasing

  • The Board considered a resolution opposing the BLM’s proposed leasing of 122,000 acres for oil and gas development.
  • Public commenters debated the environmental risks of fracking versus the economic benefits of local production.
  • Supervisors discussed the political nature of the plan, carbon emissions, and jurisdictional limits.
  • The motion to adopt the resolution passed with three ayes, one nay, and one abstention.

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

  • The Auditor-Controller presented recommendations for the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
  • The report covers financial highlights for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019.
  • The Board adopted the staff recommendation unanimously.

Outside Counsel Contract with Goodwin Procter LLP

  • The Board considered retaining outside counsel for PUC Phase 2 rulemaking on public safety power shutoffs.
  • The County’s position includes requiring adequate utility notification and implementing essential mitigation measures.
  • Costs for the counsel will be shared with several other counties and cities.
  • The item passed with four votes in favor and one abstention.

Second Amendment to Agreement with Myers Knave LLP

  • The Board considered a second amendment to a legal services agreement with Myers Knave LLP.
  • Staff explained the County’s obligation to pursue recovery of federal funds spent on debris flow damages.
  • A public speaker opposed the item, arguing the County’s litigation stance was contradictory.
  • The item passed with four votes in favor and one abstention.

Agreement with Kingston Martinez & Hogan LLP

  • The Board considered a two-year agreement for immigration-related legal counsel on an as-needed basis.
  • Staff clarified the counsel would advise on hiring decisions involving non-U.S. citizens after exhaustive recruitment.
  • One supervisor expressed skepticism about the necessity of the contract.
  • The item passed with four votes in favor and one vote against.

Ordinance Setting Compensation and Benefits for Board of Supervisors

  • The Board considered an ordinance setting compensation and benefits for its members.
  • The item was presented for a second reading.
  • The ordinance passed with four votes in favor and one vote against.

Fresnel Point Lane Bridge Replacement – Resolution of Necessity

  • The Board held a hearing to acquire real property interests by eminent domain for the bridge replacement.
  • Staff cited the poor condition of the existing bridge and failed voluntary negotiations with property owners.
  • Counsel explained that the Board’s role is to determine necessity, while valuation disputes are resolved in court.
  • The motion to adopt the resolution of necessity passed with four ayes and one no.

Independent Redistricting Commission Update

  • Staff presented an update on the selection process for the 11-member Independent Redistricting Commission.
  • Supervisors discussed timeline pressures and the potential for prolonged lobbying of commissioners.
  • Staff agreed to rework the schedule to begin applications after January 1, 2020.
  • The Board voted to receive the file.

Closed Session

  • The Board considered six litigation items, including Griffin, McCrory, Homar, and Jordan.
  • The only reportable action was in the case of Jordan v. County of Santa Barbara.
  • The Board authorized county counsel to appeal the State Labor Office decision to Superior Court.
  • The decision to appeal was made by a 5-0 vote.

Full summary

Opening and Roll Call

  • The meeting was called to order by Chair Lavagnino. A roll call confirmed the presence of Supervisors Williams, Hart, Hartman, Adam, and Chair Lavagnino. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

Approval of Minutes

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes from October 8. The motion passed unanimously.

CEO’s Report

  • The CEO announced that the County is hosting an Elected Leaders Forum on homelessness on Wednesday, October 30, from 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM at the Hotel Cork (400 Aliso Road). The forum will be noticed as a special board meeting, open to the public, and intended to gather feedback on state legislation, funding opportunities, and the Phase Two Community Action Plan.

Agenda Changes

  • The Clerk announced an addendum to the closed session agenda to include a conference with legal counsel regarding existing litigation (Jordan v. County of Santa Barbara) under Government Code section 54956.9.

Administrative Agenda (Items A1–A10, excluding A4)

  • A motion was made and seconded to approve Administrative Items A1 through A10, excluding Item A4. The motion passed unanimously. The following items were presented and adopted:
  • Item A1: A resolution designating October 2018 as Dyslexia Awareness Month and recognizing the work of the Santa Barbara Right Care Center. Representatives from the Right Care Center spoke regarding their services.
  • Item A2: A resolution proclaiming September 15, 2019, through October 15, 2019, as Latinx Heritage Month in Santa Barbara County. Representatives from La Casa de la Raza and El Centro spoke, thanking the board and requesting support for community land protection.
  • Item A3: A resolution of commendation honoring Private First Class Arthur Peterson as the October 2019 Veteran of the Month. Peterson’s granddaughter spoke on his behalf regarding his World War II service and local community involvement.
  • Item A5: A resolution proclaiming October 2018 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Representatives from the Public Health Department’s Every Woman Counts program and the Santa Barbara Breast Cancer Resource Center spoke regarding screening efforts and patient navigation.
  • Item A6: A posthumous resolution of commendation for victim witness advocate Joan Fairfield for her 40 years of service to the District Attorney’s Office. The District Attorney, a former mentee/supervisor, and Fairfield’s grandson spoke in her honor.
  • Item A7: A resolution recognizing the creative community building and artistic contributions of Los Alamos resident Jeffrey Bloom. Supervisor Hartman spoke regarding Bloom’s photography book and community theater efforts. Bloom spoke to accept the recognition.

Agenda Reordering

  • A motion was made and seconded to move the balance of the agenda to address pulled items in order. The motion passed unanimously.

Item A4: Resolution Opposing Federal Oil and Gas Leasing

  • A resolution was presented opposing the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed amendment to the resource management plan for the Bakersfield region, which would allow leasing of up to 122,000 acres of federal public lands in Santa Barbara County for oil and gas development, including hydraulic fracturing.
  • Public Comment:
  • Seth Steiner (North County resident) supported the resolution, citing concerns about water contamination, air pollution, seismic activity, and forest fire risks associated with fracking.
  • Andy Caldwell (representing COLAB) opposed the resolution, arguing that California imports significant oil, that local production reduces reliance on imports from countries with fewer regulations, and that roads created for oil operations serve as fuel breaks for firefighting. He also challenged the board to provide a plan for alternative energy infrastructure.
  • Larry Bishop (Buellton resident) supported the resolution, arguing that alternative energy sources are viable and that the federal leasing scheme undermines local sustainability efforts.
  • Board Discussion:
  • Supervisor Hart stated that the BLM recently opened lands north of the county for leasing and is poised to do the same in Santa Barbara County. He urged the board to oppose the plan, noting it is a political act and that the state Attorney General has deemed the environmental impact report insufficient.
  • Supervisor Williams supported the resolution, stating that the proposed reserves are high-carbon fuels requiring fracking and that the plan is a step in the wrong direction for reducing carbon emissions.
  • Supervisor Hartman supported the resolution, noting that subsurface rights affect surface areas near county parks and private lands.
  • Supervisor Adam stated he would not support the resolution, describing it as overbroad, outside the county’s jurisdiction, and unnecessary as the oil in the county does not require fracking.
  • Chair Lavagnino stated he would abstain, consistent with his practice on resolutions applying to federal issues.
  • Vote: The motion to adopt the resolution passed with three ayes, one nay, and one abstention.

Item A5 (Revisited for Public Comment)

  • Jessica Berry spoke regarding her personal situation as a victim of violent crime and subsequent legal issues with a former employer. She stated that Joan Fairfield was her victim witness advocate. Chair Lavagnino noted that staff from the CEO’s office would be speaking with her to assist.

Administrative Item 11: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report

  • The Clerk introduced Administrative Item A11 from the Auditor-Controller, regarding recommendations for the County’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and financial highlights for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2019. A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded. The item passed unanimously.

Administrative Item 17: Outside Counsel Contract with Goodwin Procter LLP

  • The Board considered a recommendation to retain outside counsel to participate in Public Utilities Commission (PUC) Phase 2 rulemaking regarding public safety power shutoffs. County staff presented the county’s position, which includes three main points: requiring utilities to provide adequate notification, implementing essential mitigation measures on the ground, and establishing a "ratchet effect" to prevent backsliding on existing protections established in Phase 1. Staff noted that costs for this counsel would be shared with Sonoma, Napa, Mendocino, and Marin counties, as well as the City of Santa Rosa and San Luis Obispo County.
  • Supervisors discussed the economic and public safety impacts of power shutoffs. Concerns were raised regarding the potential destruction of the generation and delivery model, the air quality impacts of increased generator usage, and the need for long-term infrastructure solutions such as microgrids and battery storage rather than reliance on generators. Other comments emphasized the need for intermittent shutoffs rather than constant ones to reduce economic and public safety risks, and the importance of the PUC considering the economic consequences of outages on consumers and local businesses. One supervisor expressed concern that the county’s approach might be inconsistent with its previous litigation against Southern California Edison (SCE).
  • A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded. The item passed with four votes in favor and one abstention.

Administrative Item 19: Second Amendment to Agreement for Professional Legal Services with Myers Knave LLP

  • The Board considered a recommendation regarding a second amendment to an agreement for professional legal services with outside counsel Myers Knave LLP. This item required a four-fifths vote. A public speaker expressed strong opposition, arguing that the county’s stance on power shutoffs and its litigation against SCE were contradictory and that the county was shifting costs to ratepayers.
  • County staff explained that the county had sustained damages exceeding $100 million from the debris flow and had a federal obligation to pursue recovery of funds spent by federal agencies (such as FEMA and the Army Corps of Engineers) if a third party caused the damages. Staff cited precedents where jurisdictions were required to repay federal funds if they failed to pursue liable parties. Supervisors discussed the necessity of recovering damages to ensure the county has resources for future disasters and the legal obligations regarding federal funds. One supervisor noted the county’s own deferred maintenance issues and questioned the long-term viability of the utility model.
  • A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded. The item passed with four votes in favor and one abstention.

Administrative Item 20: Agreement for Professional Legal Services with Kingston Martinez & Hogan LLP

  • The Board considered a recommendation to enter into an agreement for professional legal services with Kingston Martinez & Hogan LLP for immigration-related legal counsel on a two-year, as-needed basis. Staff clarified that this was to have qualified counsel available to advise on hiring decisions involving non-U.S. citizens, which would only occur after exhaustive recruitment efforts failed. Staff estimated costs per case to be between $1,000 and $5,000. One supervisor expressed skepticism about the necessity of the contract, stating it sounded speculative.
  • A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded. The item passed with four votes in favor and one vote against.

Administrative Item 23: Ordinance Setting Compensation and Benefits for Board of Supervisors

  • The Board considered a recommendation regarding the adoption of an ordinance (second reading) setting compensation and benefits for members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. A motion was made to adopt the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded. The item passed with four votes in favor and one vote against.

Public Comment

  • Four members of the public addressed the Board: 1. A resident discussed vandalism at their property and alleged procedural irregularities and bias in the Board of Architectural Review process regarding their building permit application, citing a five-year delay. 2. A resident identified as a former peace officer and veteran spoke about their personal circumstances, including homelessness, and requested support for their situation. 3. A resident referenced the Martin v. City of Boise case, arguing that criminalizing homelessness when no shelter is available violates the Eighth Amendment, and urged the County Attorney and Sheriff to review the ruling. Staff responded that the county is following the case and has discussed it with the Sheriff’s Office. 4. A representative from the Environmental Defense Center thanked the Board and Fire Department for progress on oil spill response, noting recent training with the Coast Guard. They highlighted gaps in equipment (boats, boom) and emphasized the need for prevention of offshore and coastal oil and gas development. One supervisor concurred on the need for prevention but disagreed with the stance against all coastal development.

Departmental Item 1: Fresnel Point Lane Bridge Replacement – Resolution of Necessity

  • The Board held a hearing to consider a resolution of necessity to acquire real property interests by eminent domain for the Fresnel Point Lane bridge replacement project at Romero Creek. The properties involved are owned by True Horizons LLC and the Grissini Trusts.
  • Supervisors reported on ex parte contacts. One supervisor reported multiple general conversations with the property owner (True Horizons) and county staff regarding the project and negotiations. Other supervisors reported no ex parte contacts.
  • Public Works staff presented the project status, noting that two continuances had been granted to allow for negotiations between the county and the property owner, which ultimately failed to reach an agreement on value. Staff detailed the poor condition of the existing bridge, which has a sufficiency rating of 23.1 (lowest in the county for bridges over 20 feet) and requires temporary support. The proposed new bridge would be slightly narrower and shifted south. Staff outlined the four impacted parcels and three owners, noting that the True Horizons parcel is the only one with west-side access, while the others are on the east side. The project schedule targets advertising in May and construction start in August. Staff recommended the Board make the required findings for the resolution of necessity and CEQA determination.
  • Staff presented exhibits detailing the location of temporary construction easements and permanent easements required for the bridge replacement project. The presentation identified specific parcels, including True Horizon, Grissini, and Keston properties, and outlined the square footage and purposes of the easements (e.g., drainage improvements, driveway conform, temporary bridge placement, fish passage, and native landscaping). Staff explained that temporary easements are needed for construction access and bridge demolition/reconstruction, while permanent easements are required for maintenance access and environmental mitigation mandated by the permitting process.
  • Staff emphasized that the eminent domain process is being pursued because voluntary negotiations with property owners did not result in an agreement, despite the use of federal and state funding. Staff noted that the process is designed to protect both property owners and the agency.
  • The Chair opened a public hearing for property owners and impacted persons to address the board on five specific issues: project necessity, compatibility with public good/least private injury, necessity of easements, written offers made, and CEQA compliance. One written comment from Mark Schwartz was accepted into the record.
  • Two speakers addressed the board: 1. Jonah Shacknai (representing True Horizon): Stated support for the bridge reconstruction but opposed the current eminent domain action. He argued the process was premature, procedurally flawed, and that the county’s appraisal methodology was faulty. He cited concerns regarding environmental impacts on Romero Creek, lack of hydrology studies, and alleged bad faith in negotiations. He requested that the county take ownership of the creek or obtain a maintenance easement and engage in meaningful negotiation before proceeding with litigation. 2. Lily Phillips (representing True Horizon): Reinforced the previous speaker’s points, stating the project was ill-considered and premature. She questioned the necessity of all proposed takings and urged the board to postpone action to allow for further study and meaningful engagement with property owners.
  • Supervisor Williams questioned the appraisal discrepancies and suggested a tie-breaking appraisal or median/mean calculation as a resolution method. He expressed discomfort with moving forward without exhausting negotiation options but acknowledged the legal framework for continued discussion within the eminent domain process. He also noted the county’s limited resources for creek maintenance compared to other jurisdictions.
  • Counsel (Duff Murphy) explained that the board’s role is to determine necessity, not valuation. He outlined the statutory eminent domain process, which includes court-supervised settlement conferences, mediation, and depositions to resolve valuation disputes. He noted that the county can seek possession of the property to meet construction deadlines while valuation disputes are resolved separately.
  • Supervisor Hartmann asked for clarification on the board’s required findings. Staff confirmed the findings relate to public interest/necessity, compatibility with public good/least private injury, necessity of the property, and that a written offer was made (or owner could not be located), plus the CEQA determination. Staff clarified that valuation is not a statutory consideration for the board’s findings.
  • Supervisor Hartmann asked about CEQA and upstream impacts. Staff stated that the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) approved in 2016 covered the project limits, and upstream maintenance impacts are addressed through a separate Flood Control EIR.
  • Supervisor Hart emphasized the urgency of replacing the structurally deficient bridge to prevent potential failure and liability. He stated that the eminent domain process provides a transparent, legal forum to resolve valuation disputes while allowing the project to proceed.
  • Supervisor Williams reiterated his preference for a negotiated solution involving a third appraisal but acknowledged the legal process as the alternative.
  • Supervisor Hart moved to adopt the staff recommendation. Supervisor Hartmann seconded the motion, citing the urgency of the bridge condition and the opportunity for continued discussion on valuation and CEQA concerns. Supervisor Lavagnino concurred with the comments.
  • The motion passed with a vote of 4 aye and 1 no.

Independent Redistricting Commission Update

  • Dennis Buzanich from the County Executive Office presented an update on the status of the Independent Redistricting Commission established by Measure G. He outlined the selection process, which is designed to ensure independence from political parties and special interests. Key points included:
  • The commission will have 11 members with specific residency, voter registration, and financial interest restrictions.
  • The County Elections Committee will review applications and select the 45 most qualified applicants.
  • The initial five commissioners will be selected by random drawing, and they will select the remaining six members.
  • The commission must conduct at least seven meetings before drawing maps, post maps online, and hold seven additional public meetings.
  • A new state law signed by the governor requires specific prioritization of redistricting criteria (contiguity, community of interest, city integrity, identifiable boundaries, compactness, and non-discrimination).
  • The map cannot be adopted before August 1, 2021, and must be filed with elections officials within six months of census data publication.
  • The next statewide primary election is scheduled for March 8, 2022. Candidate petitions must be issued by September 16, 2021.
  • Joe Holland from the Elections Department noted that the election process for the March 2022 primary effectively begins with the issuance of petitions in September 2021.
  • Supervisor Lavagnino expressed concern that selecting commissioners early would subject them to prolonged lobbying and public attention before they begin their work. He suggested shortening the timeline between selection and map creation.
  • Supervisor Hart recommended extending the application phase to avoid the holiday season, which might reduce applicant numbers. He noted that the current proposed timeline allows for flexibility but creates a tight window at the end for map adoption and public meetings before the September 2021 petition deadline. He suggested considering a legislative remedy to delay the primary election to June to alleviate the timeline pressure.
  • Supervisor Adam expressed hope that the process would be transparent and effective.
  • Staff acknowledged the feedback regarding the application phase timing. They agreed to rework the schedule to begin applications after January 1, 2020, to avoid the holidays and shorten the waiting period for selected commissioners. Supervisor Lavagnino suggested a six-month lead time for the application phase, which staff agreed to incorporate into the revised schedule.
  • Supervisor Hart moved to receive the file. The motion was seconded. The motion passed.

Motion to Enter Closed Session

  • The Chair thanked attendees and announced the transition to closed session. Mr. Gazzone outlined the agenda for the closed session, which included six items: existing litigation in Griffin v. County of Santa Barbara, McCrory v. County of Santa Barbara, and Homar v. County of Santa Barbara; a joint item for the Board of Supervisors and Water Agency regarding the decision to initiate civil litigation; existing litigation in the Southern California Fire Cases (Judicial Council Coordination Number 4965); and existing litigation in Jordan v. County of Santa Barbara. Mr. Gazzone estimated the session would last between one and a half to two hours.
  • The Chair set the closed session start time for 12:30 PM, with an anticipated return to open session around 2:00 PM.
  • The motion to enter closed session was seconded by Steve Lavagnino. The roll call resulted in a unanimous vote. The motion passed.

Report from Closed Session

  • Upon reconvening, the Chair requested a report from Mr. Gazzone regarding the closed session proceedings. Mr. Gazzone confirmed that the board considered the six previously listed litigation items. He noted that the only reportable action taken was in the case of Jordan v. County of Santa Barbara.
  • The board authorized and directed county counsel to appeal the decision of the State Labor Office to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Barbara. The decision was made by a 5-0 vote. The motion passed.

Adjournment

  • The Chair announced the adjournment of the meeting and noted that the next meeting is scheduled for November 5th in Santa Barbara.