UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:02 – 0:0422 turns
Yes.
Pickles and Swiss, and I ordered what you got last time.
Oh so bad. So I'll have Corey give me some cancel that's cool. We'll give it to somebody else
there's some.
Yep.
Smells so good. Ready? Good morning everybody, I'd like to call this meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order Madam Clerk, can I get a roll call please?
Mr. Williams? Here. Mr. Hart?
Here.
Ms. Hartman? Here! Mr. Adam?
Here
Chair Lavagnino?
Can I get a motion to approve the minutes from October the 8th?
So moved.
Moved and seconded, roll call please.
Mr. Williams?
Aye.
Mr. Hart? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam? Mr. Adam?
Aye
Chair Lavenino?
Aye
Motion passes unanimous
Very good do we have a CEO's report this morning
0:04 – 0:0617 turns
Yes good morning chair members of the board I have one announcement today. The county is hosting an elected leaders forum to address the topic of homelessness from 1 to 330 on Wednesday, October 30 and solving at the Hotel Cork which is located on 400 at 400 also road. The forum will be noticed as a special board meeting of the Board of Supervisors in order for all county supervisors to have the opportunity to attend, and city council members have all been invited as well. The meeting is also open to the public. The purpose of the forum is to hear concerns regarding the impacts of homelessness on local communities, learn about recent state legislation and funding opportunities, understand best practices, gather feedback for future funding, and receive input into the phase two community action plan to address homelessness.
So again, that's on October 30th from 1 to 3.30 at the Hotel Cork. That's it.
Okay very good thank you very much Madam Clerk any changes to today's agenda?
Yes, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. I just have one quick announcement this morning. We post an addendum to our agenda on Friday amending our closed session agenda to include conference with legal counsel existing litigation paragraph run in subdivision D of government code section 54956.9 Jordan V County of Santa Barbara and that is included on our posted agenda online as well as available in the back of the room.
Okay very good With that, we'll move to our administrative agenda. Can I get a motion to approve items A1 through A10?
So moved.
Excuse me. A4 is being pulled though so let's do A1 through 10 excluding 4.
So moved.
Moved and seconded roll call please.
Mr. Williams?
Aye.
Mr Hart?
Aye.
Ms Hartman? Aye Mr Adam? Chair Lavenino.
Aye.
Motion passes unanimous.
Okay, so why don't we let's just
move to item one and then we'll deal with four after all the resolutions. So item A1 please
0:06 – 0:114 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, Administrative Item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution designating October 2018 as Dyslexia Awareness Month and recognizing the work of the Santa Barbara Right Care Center. And if I can have Julie Angelis and Summer Colvert to the podium please? And anyone else you'd like to join with you?
Go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas dyslexia is the most common different learning ability and is defined as unexpected difficulty in reading for an individual due to issues in getting to the individual sounds of spoken language, which affects the ability of an individual to speak, read, spell, and often learn a language. And whereas, early diagnosis of dyslexia is critical for ensuring that individuals with dyslexia receive focused evidence-based intervention that leads to the promotion of self awareness and self empowerment. And the provision of necessary accommodations so as to ensure school and life success.
That has been providing critical screenings for parents who have concerns about their child's speech and language development, in addition to a number of valuable services to support and treat children who have identified delays with their speech and language development since 1984. And is one of the 170 right care centers across the country. And whereas the Santa Barbara Right Care Center's Literacy Intervention Program, BRAINLAB, designed to address reading language and cognitive skills was started in 2012 and is designed for students in second grade through sixth grade and is offered at no cost to participants. And whereas the work done at the Santa Barbara Wright Care Center is absolutely essential to the overall effort. To identify and treat different learning abilities such as dyslexia, and our county would benefit from the expansion and development of similar programs.
And now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors designates October 2018 as Dyslexia Awareness Month and recognizes the work of Santa Barbara Wright Care Center passed and adopted today.
Thank you so much. My name is Julie DeAngelis and this is Summer Calvert, and we are speech-language pathologists from SB RightCare, and we provide services to Santa Barbara families at no cost to them. And we're able to do this through the generosity of masons, private donations, and grants we receive from community organizations. So we're honored to receive this recognition today, and we hope that awareness of dyslexia and the struggles it presents for students can be realized every single day. It is our hope that students with dyslexic receive the necessary intervention to help them become successful readers.
This allows them to build self-confidence and pursue their dreams. Thank you again for recognizing our efforts.
A2.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming September 15th 2019 through October 15th 2019 as Latinx Heritage Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Andrea Medina, Anna Huynh, Chelsea Lancaster and Frank Rodriguez to the podium please?
Whereas National Latinx Heritage Month, also recognized as Hispanic Heritage Month, is a time to recognize the significant contributions and achievements of Latinx Americans who serve as leaders in business, media, government, the military, law, education, science, athletics, the arts and humanities, and other fields. And whereas Latinx Americans actively participate in our democratic institutions, including serving as elected representatives in the U.S. Congress, governors, judges, county supervisors, mayors, city council members, school board members and other essential public offices.
And whereas Latinx residents have an important role in our local economy and workforce, and whereas according to the census 45% of Santa Barbara County's population and 20% of the overall U.S. population is of Latinx origin, which contributes to our diverse heritage traditions and rich cultural fabric. And whereas in 1968 President Lyndon B. Johnson and Congress first celebrated the contributions of Latinx Americans by officially proclaiming the week of September 15th as Hispanic Heritage Week And in 1988 is expanded by President Ronald Reagan to its current month long celebration. And whereas the county of Santa Barbara celebrates Latin X cultural heritage traditions and contributions now therefore be it hereby ordered him resolve that this Board of Supervisors declare September 15th through October 15, 2019 as Latin X Heritage Month in Santa Barbara County.
And encourages all residents to celebrate Latinx heritage and recognize Latinx Americans as valued members and contributors to our society, past and adopted today.
0:11 – 0:1611 turns
Thank you very much. My name is Anna Nguyen, co-executive director of La Casa de la Raza with Andrea Medina and on behalf of La Casa de la Raza we would like to thank you for this resolution and ask for you to support our efforts to save our community center and its sacred land. We also thank you for opposing the leasing of county land from oil and gas extraction and ask that you protect this land. Thank you.
And we are here representing El Centro and just want to stand in solidarity in the asks that were made by Ana. We also want to acknowledge that we have a lot of work to do in our community, especially in terms of making sure that our spaces are safe for all communities, all Latinx communities including Afro-Latinx members, queer members, trans and nonbinary folks. So we have a lot of work to do and we're honored to be alongside folks like this doing it. Thank you.
A3 please.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Private First Class Arthur Peterson as the October 2019 Veteran of the Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Private First Class Arthur Peterson to the podium please? And or his representative.
Hi, I'm Arthur's granddaughter and it's an honor here to be here for him. He's just getting over an illness so I'm stepping in for him. Great. I'll go ahead and read the resolution.
Thank
you.
Whereas Private First Class Arthur Art Peterson was born in Mexico City, Mexico on March 30th 1924 and moved to San Antonio Texas in 1925. And whereas Private First Class Peterson served in the United States Army's 101st Airborne Division during World War II as a paratrooper from 1943 to 1945. And whereas, Private First Class Peterson has been awarded two Purple Heart Medals, the Bronze Star Medal and the French Legion of Honor Medal in recognition of his heroism during D-Day, Operation Market Garden and the Battle of the Bulge.
And whereas, Private First Class Peterson became a naturalized citizen of the United States while stationed in London, England two weeks before D-Day. And whereas after the war Private First Class Peterson moved to Santa Barbara where he married Gloria Davia Peterson his wife of 71 years. Whereas Private First Class Peterson and Mrs. Peterson have four children and are the proud grandparents of six grandchildren and three great grandchildren. And whereas Private First Class Peterson owned and operated a local business for many years, was active at Our Lady of Sorrows Church, and was a dedicated volunteer with the Veterans Administration Clinic, Boy Scouts Troop 3, and many other local organizations. And whereas Private First Class Peterson and Mrs.
Peterson have attended reunions of the 101st Airborne Division and have returned to Europe for the commemoration of D-Day during 60th and 65th anniversaries. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors commends and recognizes the heroism of Private First Class Arthur Peterson by honoring him as the October 2019 Santa Barbara County Veteran of the Month passed and adopted today.
It's with great honor that I'm able to accept this on his behalf. He's been a big influence and he's a true soldier, thank you.
Thank you for being here. Supervisor Hart.
Yes, thank you Sonia for joining us today on behalf of your grandfather we are all we are all very grateful for arts bravery his sacrifice and his commitment to our country and particularly for his heroic acts of bravery during one of the most difficult In historic moments in our country's history and World War II. I think it is particularly noteworthy to mention that Art was naturalized as an American citizen after being born in Mexico two weeks before D-Day while he was in the service And after returning from his commitment to our country and military service, he was a very active volunteer here representing our veterans organizations. Working in the local church and the community in many different ways. So we are really honored to recognize him and thank you very much for attending in his place.
Please wish him all of our best wishes for his health, your whole family, and our great respect and gratitude for his service. Thank you for recognizing him. We all appreciate it.
0:16 – 0:224 turns
A5.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number five is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2018 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Ed Tran, June English and Joy Agnon to the podium? And anyone else you'd like to join with you? All right. Whereas, in the U.S., one in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime and when breast cancer is detected early in a localized stage, the five-year survival rate is 98%. As a result, women should work with their medical providers to establish a plan to detect the disease in the early stages which includes regular mammograms, clinical breast exams and self-breast exams.
And whereas health care plans cover preventative services such as breast exams, the Public Health Department's Every Woman Counts program provides support for breast cancer screenings and diagnostic services for low-income women who do not have resources for this important service. And whereas in the past fiscal year, Santa Barbara County Every Woman Counts health educators provided 1,121 tri-county individuals with breast cancer education and referrals to free screenings This includes 105 immigrant MiSTech farm worker women in Santa Maria and Oxnard. In addition, provides women whom partnered with Every Woman Counts program conducted free breast cancer screening and diagnostic services for 6,490 Tri-County individuals. And whereas in the past fiscal year, Santa Barbara County's Every Woman Counts has provided 350 Tri-County women with screening assistance, navigation, and 34 Tri-County women received patient navigation services.
from the program's nursing staff to support patient compliance and eliminate barriers to timely screening, completion of diagnostic testing and facilitating referral for treatment. And whereas we are in support of Santa Barbara County's Every Woman Counts preventative efforts now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors does proclaim the month of October 2018 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month to promote the health of all residents in the county of Santa Barbara passed and adopted today.
So Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, my name is Ed Tran. And I serve as the Assistant Deputy Director for Public Health in the Community Health Division. Thank you for the opportunity to be here to accept this proclamation and for your support to proclaim October as Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Locally, our Every Woman Counts program works with low income and at risk populations throughout the tri-counties area to educate and coordinate breast cancer screening and diagnostic services. The ultimate goal of the program is to increase the survival rate through early screening and detection of breast cancer. In addition, our small but mighty team work to assist women with navigating the challenges And barriers they may encounter throughout the process of screening, diagnostic testing and referral for treatment if indicated.
Originally we had planned on having two of our program staff be here today to accept this proclamation but due to unforeseen health circumstances one of them had to excuse herself. Instead I'd like to introduce you to two amazing people, one of which is our own staff and the other is our valued community partner. Both work to promote and ensure women in our community are aware and have access to early screening, testing, and treatment.
It is an honor to work alongside them as they are ever so passionate about the work they do to help address health equity and optimal health throughout our community. With that said, to my left is June English. June is our healthcare program coordinator who oversees and administers the program. And next to her is Christina de Bernardino who represents the Santa Barbara Breast Cancer Resource Center.
Dear Chairman Lavagnino and the rest of the members of the board, thank you again for recognizing our work. And we are actually a regional program. We cover three counties and so this is our busy month for outreach and education and navigation for the women in our area in Santa Barbara alone. We have an activity tonight. I'm up in Guadalupe on Saturday, my health educator is working in Isla Vista on Thursday and Friday. And we have some other screenings and activities here in Santa Barbara County. So we don't stop but this is our busiest time. But one of the most significant activities as Ed has alluded to has been the case management, we call it navigation. That we have undertaken. The state has looked at the outcomes and decided that we needed to do more besides just supporting the providers and educating the women, to support the women through the diagnostic process.
And we have partnered with the Santa Barbara Breast Cancer Resource Center since the 1990s when our program began at the state level and when they also were founded. We are both doing navigation so it's a partnership I think that has been beneficial to the women of Santa Barbara County In terms of providing a little extra reinforcement when they are needing enrollment and treatment services, as well as our usual role in navigation for diagnostic care. So I wanted to thank you all for your interest and support of our program.
0:22 – 0:315 turns
Thank you very much for the recognition and especially for honoring the county in the Every Woman Counts program. The Breast Cancer Resource Center was founded in 1997 by a group of women who were experiencing breast cancer and needed to find a way to support one another. Today we serve women with education, with outreach With helping them find the resources that they need. While we recognize that this is a disease that can take a life, we also recognize that the opportunity for early detection is critically important and And it's so funny when women come through the door, or ironic I should say. They're like we didn't know you were here and it's because they didn't need to know we were here. So for over 20 years now, we've been able to be there and every service we provide the women is free.
And we are privately funded and we appreciate the recognition because when you need us, you need us. And so getting the word out is really important. Thank you so much.
A6?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number six is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a posthumous resolution of commendation for victim witness advocate Joan Fairfield for her 40 years of faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And if I can have our DA Joyce Dudley, Megan Riker-Reinschild, and Kelly Selmon, daughter to Joan Fairfield, to the podium please.
And anyone else you'd like to join with you? I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas, Joan Fairfield began her career with the County of Santa Barbara District Attorney's Office as a victim witness advocate in 1979 after an 18-year career as a stay at home mom. And whereas, Joan epitomized the ideal victim witness advocate with her keen ability to delicately balance an understanding of legal language but compassion for people scarred by violent crime. And whereas Joan helped to give thousands of victims a voice as they navigated through the criminal justice system. And whereas Joan's encouraging words were transformative in bringing hope to victims in the midst of devastating situations, giving them strength Encouraged to get through trials.
And whereas Joan will be deeply missed by her family, friends, co-workers and the many victims whose lives she touched. Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors posthumously recognizes Joan Fairfield for her 40 years of faithful and distinguished services to the citizens of Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. I stand before you but hardly alone. There are many members of the District Attorney's Office here in Santa Maria if you guys would stand up in Santa Maria and here in Santa Barbara aside from the back row please stand up for your member of the District Attorney's Office. And as I said that beautiful back row and stay standing if you're a member of law enforcement would you also stand up?
And here's Jones family. Thank you very much. Wisdom and warmth. And warmth and wisdom. Joan always led with one, and then quickly followed with the other. That was who Joan was. She was a guardian angel to countless victims in her over 40 years as a member of the District Attorney's Office And she was a warrior when it came to justice and a law enforcement official who died in the line of duty.
I can't think of a person who is more loved for a longer time than Joan Fairfield in our office, and it was my honor to serve with her. Also with me today is Megan Reinchild. Megan started out as Joan's mentee and ended up as her adoring supervisor. Megan?
It's a heavy, heavy day. We would have preferred for Joan to be here but we believe in our hearts and spirits that she is here with us. If you'll allow me to make a few comments about what she meant to the community, to her family and to the many, many thousands of victims that she served. Before Joan left in May on leave, she proudly told me that she was the second most senior employee in the county.
She also often proclaimed that she loved her job and would keep on doing it as long as she could still help people. And that is exactly what she did up until the end. She stood alongside individuals during the darkest chapters of their lives. She embraced the work serving others as a gift, as a true gift. She never took it for granted and in fact she viewed witnessing people's resilience in the face of darkness is a true privilege.
She had the unbelievable ability to say the right thing at the right times. And still after 25 years, many of us who worked in the office alongside her myself included would say what would you say to a victim experiencing this or that? She always knew the right thing to say. She shined a glimmer of light on the other side of countless hearings, interviews and sometimes a jury trial even when the finality of the criminal justice system didn't bring closure. And it often didn't.
It can't be overstated Joan's contributions not just to those who became victims of crime but also as important her co-workers Generations of law enforcement officers, DAs, investigators, legal professionals and her victim witness colleagues. Her office was conveniently located on the first floor of the DA's office near the entry, exit and elevator. Often the door was open to anyone who needed to vent, share, review a case or just get some Joan Sage advice personal or professional.
There was never a rush she would always stop what she was doing to listen and be present for whomever was in front of her. A lesson that I'm afraid is lost on many of us in the hurry of everyday life. During the last three months of her life, she didn't express fear or regret but a profound sense of gratitude. She would happily say I had a wonderful life and this was due to creating a deliberately purposeful life here at the county but also giving of herself to her family and to her friends.
If she were here today, she would be saying thank you to the community, to the county for affording her the best job she could have asked for. But today we say thank you to her with a belief that she's here in spirit reminding us of the importance of public service and pausing to listen Show love and lend a helping hand. Thank you.
0:31 – 0:376 turns
Hello members of the board I am Joan Fairfield's grandson First of all, I'd like to just thank you for the recognition and award I know that my grandma was so strong in her faith, so much that she would tell each and every single one of you that there's 99.9% good in every single person. It doesn't matter who you are or where you are what you're doing or what's going on in your life.
So try and believe that in your heart of hearts that there's always some good in somebody. If you ever met my grandma Just remember one thing that she did and something that stood out in her, so that way we can continue her legacy in some way. But just thank you so much for the recognition and I know she's looking and she's here and she is just happy and smiling. So thank you very much.
A7 please.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number seven is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman and it's to adopt a resolution recognizing the creative community building and artistic contributions of Los Alamos resident Jeffrey Bloom in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Jeffrey and Carol Bloom to the podium? I'll go ahead and read the resolution.
Hello.
Whereas Jeffrey and Carol Bloom moved to Los Alamos in 2012, settling in to enjoy its quiet small town charm after decades of living in Los Angeles. And whereas while in Los Angeles, Jeffrey was a screenwriter, director, photographer, and producer in Hollywood making features in television movies but also wrote screenplays, theatrical plays stories, poems and even a book or two.
And whereas in rekindling his love of photography Jeffrey decided to author a 200 page book called Characters with the logline expats rascals renegades iconoclasts adventurers escape artists reinventors entrepreneurs farmers rugged individualists and other neighbors visitors and friends A collection of snapshots and portraits taken during a period of 14 months in Los Alamos, a community of around 1,800 souls living more interestingly than one might think at the north end of California's beautiful San Ynez Valley. And whereas after publishing characters Jeffrey has followed up with subsequent additions that now include 440 portraits of Los Alamos residents. And whereas in addition to publishing portraits of Los Alamos residents, Jeffrey and Carol Bloom have started a community theater that has produced three plays and encourages all local talent of all acting abilities to participate.
Let it hereby be resolved that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recognizes their artistic contributions and projects that Jeffrey Bloom undertakes in an effort to engage the arts community in Los Alamos, and to shine a light on the lives of everyday residents of this special community passed and adopted today.
And there is a Los Alamos contingent here. When Carol and Jeffrey Bloom moved to Los Alamos in 2012 from Los Angeles, Carol was a joiner. She joined the meds club, the library board, the kids summer in the park, the senior center board. Jeffrey not so much. He could be found circling the perimeter camera in hand. The Los Alamos community has an influx of new residents, many from the more urban LA area and it may not have been so easy for long-term residents some with generational roots, some who prefer to stay quietly in the background but through his portraits collected in this book Jeffrey let people know we see you, we honor you and you are amazing I had an opportunity to be at the Old Days Parade a couple weeks ago and I had a copy of this book.
Lots of people, you can see there's a signature on the front, lots of people were so excited they came to sign their picture in the book. And I actually am in the book too! So very exciting. You know, art helps us see the everyday and the familiar in new ways. And even old-timers in Los Alamos began to see themselves in new ways. But Jeffrey wasn't content to stop with having his neighbors be the subjects of his art.
Unlike Santa Maria and the PCPA where they're well known for their dramatic talent, Los Alamos has not been known for its actors and its theater. But that has just begun to change. Jeffrey has written and directed three plays. Just last Sunday I attended a crazy talented sold out house in which the dramatic talent of Los Alamos has blossomed and residents have become artists themselves. Jeffrey is a community builder and his work shows the role that art can play in weaving together the fabric of a community. Los Alamos is stronger, healthier, more resilient, a lot more fun for his efforts. He has greatly enhanced that wonderful sense that we all seek of belonging.
0:37 – 0:4316 turns
Thanks. I didn't know that I was going to be given an opportunity to say anything, so I'm a writer who didn't write anything but I'm gonna improvise a little bit first Carol I would never I could never do this without Carol my wife and inspiration and the support and encouragement of lots of friends A number of whom came here today, surprising. And I do what I do for the joy of doing it and the challenge and being honored for it is just really the icing on the cake. Thank you very much for all the trouble and Joan for all the wonderful words.
I'm happy to be here and thank you very much.
All right, very good. So we have a number of items that have been pulled. So so far my list is A4, A5, 11, 17, 19, 20 and 23. So are there any other ones besides those that have come from the public? Does that cover it?
Chair Lavendy, no members of the board,
that is it. Okay, so then can I get a motion to move the balance of the agenda I got a 17. Yep, so balance of the agenda. So moved second moved and seconded roll call please
Mr Williams. Hi Mr Hart Miss Hartman. Hi Mr Adam.
Hi
chair Levin you know
hi okay we'll move to take them in order a four please yeah
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number four is sponsored by Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution opposing the leasing of federal public lands in Santa Barbara County for oil and gas development as part of the Bureau of Lands Management's resource management plan for the Bakersfield region. All
right, and we have one from the public on that? Do you want to lead off, Supervisor
Hart? Let's have public comment first. Okay,
let's go to the public first.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. We actually have two requests to speak on this item and that is in Santa Maria. And we're going to begin with Seth Steiner to be followed by Andy Caldwell. Seth?
Good morning. Can you hear me? Yes,
we can.
Okay, as a North County resident I want to thank Supervisor Hart for his important resolution and for the support of those supervisors who also oppose the leasing of these federal public lands for oil and gas development and fracking. As for hydraulic fracturing, there are many well-documented concerns about its disastrous effects. Even its proponents concede that it can contaminate our water, pollute our air and lead to dangerous levels of seismic activity.
Further, oil operations and their extensive infrastructure would increase the risk of calamitous forest fires. All this in the pursuit of short term profit for a few and more oil and gas than we need or can ever safely use like to underline that. We don't need this oil. We are, after all, in the midst of climate change regardless of what some might like to believe and the ongoing and inevitable energy transition of our economy with its many opportunities for jobs and economic growth.
The BLM scheme results from foolish and myopic rush of the current administration in Washington to roll back health and environmental standards that protect us all. We depend on our county supervisors for decisions that will encourage our economy to grow in safe, smart and sustainable ways. Ways that bring more good jobs and a wholesome and hopeful environment for our youth while promoting less not more cancer and emphysema.
While the board may not have it within its power to block outright this ill considered plan from Washington through the BLM, we rely on you and other agencies of our government. To do everything possible to place roadblocks to protect the county and its people. From the countless negative effects of this alien BLM proposal Thank you
0:43 – 0:4810 turns
Okay, so thank You but we don't We're not gonna have any clapping or booing if you like something That's what we do. Go ahead
and we're going to stay in Santa Maria for Andy Caldwell Andy
Chair Lavendino, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. This is what we call virtue signaling in an echo chamber. You need to come out of that echo chamber and see what's actually going on in the real world that it represents, the state of California. Point number one, California imports more oil than any other state in the continental United States.
So you can pretend, you can virtue signal all you want. But we're not using less oil or gas in this state. We continue to use more and the more that you try to shut down the oil and gas industry in the State of California, the more oil we import from countries that are producing it with less environmental regulations or concerns. We support what's called wise use in our forests. And the bottom line here is unlike what Seth Steiner said, the fact of the matter is when you allow wise use including oil and gas operations in forested areas They create roads, those roads create access for firefighters and they also serve as fuel breaks.
And unfortunately, Salute Carbohol has been trying to up the protection in the forest which would make it even harder for us to fight fires and prevent fires. The other thing going on here, of course is many of you consider yourselves progressives and that you care for the poor. But you cannot defend the fact that California's electricity and gasoline prices are 50% higher than the rest of the country. And the poor their energy needs are something It takes a bigger portion of their income than anything else, especially when they have to have long commutes. So you're not helping the environment or the poor. And then finally, and I challenge any one of you to put this on the agenda. I've asked for this number of times before.
You claim you've jumped on the AOC sky is falling bandwagon that we got 10 to 12 years to save the planet. But you're still using concrete and you're still using asphalt in road construction projects, building projects throughout this region. I simply am asking you for a plan on how and what you're going to use other than asphalt and concrete. It's not a hard question. The other question we keep asking you is, show us a map of what Santa Barbara County would look like if we built all the wind and solar we need to get off the grid? Just show us a map. Schedule this for an agenda to prove that you're not just doing cheap talk. To appeal to your base when you have no plan because there is no plan. Thank you.
Is that the
end of public comment?
And that's our final speaker
on that item. Okay, I forgot we do need to read this into the record so let's go ahead and read the resolution into the record please.
Great, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board if I can have Rebecca August and Jeff Kuyper to the podium and anyone else you'd like to join with you?
There is one more public comment here in Santa Maria for the record.
Okay, we'll take that after it we read the resolution and thank you.
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas the Bureau of Land Management of the U.S. Department of the Interior oversees the leasing of federal lands and mineral estates in California for oil and gas production, and whereas in April of 2019, the Bureau of Land Management announced plans to initiate the leasing of federal public lands for new oil and gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing projects as part of an amendment to the resource management plan for the Bakersfield region And whereas, if approved this will end a five year moratorium on the leasing of federal public lands in California for new oil and gas development projects. And whereas the Bakersfield region includes the counties of Santa Barbara, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Madera, Kern, Kings, Fresno and Tulare.
And whereas 122,000 acres of federal public land in Santa Barbara County are being considered for new oil and gas development including parcels adjacent to Los Padres National Forest. And near Lake Kachuma, Halama Beach, Refugio Pass and Nahui County Park. And whereas making federal public lands available for new oil and gas development leases that may include hydraulic fracturing poses a risk for the quality of Santa Barbara County's water, air, open space and public health. And whereas opening up federal public lands for new oil and gas development leases will further exacerbate Local greenhouse gas emissions, which is contrary to the county's energy and climate action plan. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors opposes the Bureau of Land Management's proposed amendment to the resource management plan for the Bakersfield region that would allow for up to 122,000 acres of new leasing a federal public lands for oil and gas development including hydraulic fracturing within Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
0:48 – 0:5820 turns
Thank you, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. And special thanks to Supervisor Hart for taking a leadership role on this issue. My name is Jeff Kuyper, I'm the Executive Director of Los Padres Forest Watch. I'm here with Rebecca August our Advocacy Director and we are thrilled to have this opportunity to accept this resolution. This is an extremely important issue for residents throughout Santa Barbara County and throughout Central California. This is a drilling and fracking plan that will cover eight different counties. Over 1 million acres.
And what is so troubling about it is the areas that it targets. It targets school campuses, it targets county parks, it targets state parks and beaches, open spaces, recreation areas, the Pacific Crest Trail, lands directly adjacent to national parks. These are areas that should be off limits to oil drilling for a variety of reasons and for fracking. So your action today is taking bold and decisive leadership protecting our clean water, our clean air, our wildlife habitat, recreation, open space, our communities and our climate. So thank you again for taking this action that couldn't come at a better time we expect The BLM to approve this plan at any time this month. And so again, we thank you for making the statement and taking action to move our community towards a better and cleaner and brighter clean energy future.
Thank you. Okay?
Thank you, and then we have a speaker still in Santa Maria. So if you could identify, can you identify yourself before you speak too please?
Yes, my name is Larry Bishop from Buellton. And before I begin my comments, Tandy's comments about the poor in Santa Barbara County being affected by high energy costs. Look at countries who have dedicated, in recent years their efforts for alternative energy and they don't have much of a poverty. as we do, and they do take care of their people. And they do pursue alternative energy aggressively. In addition, we have hundreds of miles of roofs.
And depleted oil lands and ocean in which to develop solar and wind energy, it's going to not detract from the beauty of our county. I support Supervisor Hart's resolution to stop the corrupt federal agents from destroying our local federal public lands for short term corporate profits. The recent federal and corporate BLM land oil lease scheme is an end run around responsible local and state sustainability efforts to protect our local water, air, land, wildlife.
And especially our world climate that sustains all humans and all life on Earth. Please do all you can to stop this rapid grab of our resources at great cost to our local environment. Thank you again, Supervisor Hart. Thank you. Supervisor Hart?
On October 4th, the Bureau of Land Management announced that more than 700,000 acres of federal public lands north of Santa Barbara County are now open for potential leasing for oil and gas development. As Mr. Kuyper mentioned in the very near future, the Bureau of Land Management is poised to make a similar decision In regards to public lands in Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara County residents and visitors alike recognize the value of preserving and protecting our federal public land for generations to come.
Today we can visit and enjoy Los Padres National Forest, and several of our county parks without having to worry about the negative effects that new oil and gas development could pose on federal public lands and our county parks including Lake Kachuma, Halama Beach, and the Holloway Falls Park. New oil and gas operations on federal public lands will change the character of some of our most treasured natural resources.
To protect the natural resources in recreation areas that are close to the roughly 122,000 acres That are being considered for leasing for new oil and gas production by the Bureau of Land Management. I urge my colleagues to send a clear message to the federal government that we as a community are opposed to this effort, that this is unfortunately, I think, a political act by the Trump administration to fulfill a campaign promise. It isn't the product of a long and thoughtful public engagement process. The Attorney General for the State of California has pointed out that the environmental impact report for this leasing operation is insufficient. It does not consider alternatives that would mitigate damage to environmentally sensitive areas or to disadvantaged communities.
Our member of Congress, Congressman Carbajal, has raised similar concerns. I decided to bring this item forward with a request from Forest Watch to make sure that our county is on the record in opposing this federal oil lease.
Thank you. Supervisor Williams?
Well, I support this resolution. I think it is planned by the Feds and by the President to open up more public lands for drilling in such places as As our community is a step in the wrong direction. I am just as opposed to the level of oil imports, as was mentioned by Mr. Caldwell. But the kind of, in general, the reserves of oil that we have on land-based sources in this county are highly viscous, difficult to refine, they're high carbon fuels.
And if they weren't, you frankly wouldn't need to frack them. So I look at this as a step in the wrong direction as we attempt to reduce our carbon emissions as a community and as a county government. So definitely, I don't support, in general, In our community at all but least of all on public lands. Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you, I'll be supporting this as well. I think a point that gets lost people think well maybe it's public lands forest service lands it doesn't really affect us but there are surface rights and there are subsurface rights and this is subsurface rights near our county parks Nahowi, Point Sal, Kachuma also private lands like Alisal Ranch and Kate School so this really matters to us here in Santa Barbara County I don't think anybody wants fracking in their neighborhood or near their county parks.
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, thank you. I won't be supporting this and I assume that my request has been granted and you've got a new copy without my name on it.
It's true yep
Okay, perfect. Yeah and it's just over broad. I think it's kind of hysterical and if there was a project that was proposed, I might not support the project for specific reasons but just saying that we're not gonna do it in what seven counties or something is sort of ridiculous to me. And way outside our jurisdiction and the Monterey that they'd be mining in Santa Barbara County doesn't need to be fracked in normal course of events. So I don't think fracking In our county is a big deal because it just doesn't add any value
Okay, we'll call for a roll call vote please oh Can I get a motion?
move the resolution
second
Mr. Williams, aye. Mr. Hart, aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adam?
No.
Chair Lavagnino?
And I'm going to abstain as I have on every other resolution that applies to federal issues so I'll be abstaining.
Motion passes three with one abstention and one no. Okay
all right that takes us to item A we think it's five or six so Go ahead. Those have both been read into the record, so let's just call her to the podium and then we'll figure out.
0:58 – 1:029 turns
Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board I have a request to speak on, I believe it's item A6 from Barry.
Okay. Five, all right. It has been read into the record already.
Yes, and this has been previously read into the record. This was to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2018 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. No it was A5
actually, A5.
Go ahead speak on what you would like to speak on.
Thank You Joan Fairfield was my victim's witness advocate I was the victim of violent crime And I'm here to ask for the board's assistance with my situation. Just to give you an idea of who I am, my name is Jessica Berry. My parents went to UCSB. I also graduated from UCSB with Dean's Honors. I put myself through. It took six years but I did it. I was a championship ice skater. I competed with Christy Yamaguchi and trained with her for 11 years After graduation, I went to Citigroup in San Francisco. Actually, I started here at Merrill Lynch where I was a rookie of the year and then I went to, I was recruited to CitiGroup in San Francisco where I was one of only three female financial executives out of 300 in Northern California and my branch was the most heavily trafficked in the Northern California area Thus, I am fairly apt at most things but I have not been able to rise up and overcome the challenges before me after becoming the victim of violent crime.
In San Francisco, I was held hostage for three days and it pretty much destroyed me as a person. I came back to Santa Barbara because I thought I would be safe here. This is my home. I unfortunately fell in with a predatory employer who put me on a 10-year plan. I was very distraught with PTSD. At the end of the ten years, he was holding my wages and my own personal savings. And he also was sexually abusive to me for those ten years.
And when I was supposed to receive my wages and my personal savings, he instead sued me with a fraudulent unlawful detainer. And has since sued me two more times so I am being sued by my rapist and Joan Fairfield was my victim's witness person. The district attorney has done absolutely nothing to help I am being destroyed by legal actions that are fraudulent and evidenced as such.
I have no money to fight these because my wages and my savings were stolen by the person who is suing me. I don't know what to do and nobody is helping me. I've gone to the sheriff's, the head investigator of the sheriff's told me to file a palimony suit. This is a lawsuit that does not exist in California and to my employer I was not in a relationship with he was abusive to me. The sheriffs were called twice by the neighbors to the house while he was abusing me.
And I just need somebody's help to get over this. Thank
you, and I believe Terry from our CEO's office has already talked to somebody in staff that will be speaking with you and helping you.
I sincerely appreciate your help. Thank you very very much and I'm sorry to have come to disturb your meeting with my... No need to apologize. Thank you very much.
All right thank you.
1:02 – 1:079 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Administrative item number 11 is from the auditor controller. This is to consider recommendations regarding the County of Santa Barbara's comprehensive annual financial report and financial highlights for fiscal year ended June 30th, 2019.
Thank you. And I'm sorry that I pulled it because you've had to sit here the whole time. Um, our audit controller Betsy Schaefer is in the house with her staff, but I did want to pull this because um, You know CAFR is not supposed to be exciting, I don't think. But you made the financial highlights readable and well whoever's responsible in your office this is the best one since I've been here and I don't know how That you might not know, but this is something that I use in my office all the time. This is something that's easily referenced.
I use it for going out when I'm speaking to the community. So outstanding job. I know it looks a little bit more like a USA Today than a New York Times and maybe that's why I like it right? It's like a lot of charts and graphs and pretty pictures but You also packed a lot of information in a well-laid out product. So just hats off to you guys and the whole office, kudos, great job.
Thanks. All right we'll go to... So was that worth staying for? Okay A17 is next.
Chairman you know members of the board administrative item number 17 is from County Council it is to consider recommendations regarding an outside council contract with good in McBride scurry and a LLP.
OK I think this supervisor Hartman
yes thank you we've had a lot of interest in these power shutdowns and I would like Mr Kazani to talk a little bit more about this item and what the county is doing
Chair and supervisors, good morning. With me, seated with me this morning is Senior Deputy Michelle Montes who is doing a lot of the work on this. And further back in the audience we have our Office of Emergency Management Director Kelly Hubbard who's been our partner on moving this forward. Very briefly, the board at a meeting on August 27th received reports from Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison about de-energization events also referred to as public safety power shutoffs.
The board expressed some concerns on adequate notification and mitigation. And currently the Public Utilities Commission is undergoing what's referred to as Phase 2 rulemaking, and this item helps us to participate in that. And after the meeting on August 27th, we've worked with Sonoma County, Napa County, Mendocino County, Marin County, City of Santa Rosa and San Luis Obispo County. And would be sharing the cost of this outside council to speak at the Public Utilities Commission item. And we have a trove of documents going back and forth to get the county's position in on this. And I think I need three fingers Summarize the county's position one is for utilities to provide adequate notification Second is for utilities to provide essential mitigation measures on the ground in our County and the third which I will footnote to our OEM director Kelly Hubbard is a Ratchet effect that is to keep the current Public Utilities Commission direction and move forward and improve them and not backslide on these upon this area And I think we're making some progress on this.
We've seen already a direction from the Public Utilities Commission director to release medical baseline contact information that had been hung up in the process for awhile, so I think this is a worthwhile project and again I'd just like to thank Senior Deputy Michelle Montes and our partner on this Kelly Hubbard of Office of Emergency Management.
I think she does so
on and I didn't fully understand the 3rd finger.
Yeah, so it's all right. So yeah, so so I think this was any time there's rulemaking going on well the public jurisdictions will want to improve protections just want to be mindful that the utilities have an opportunity to go back in time and potentially weekend protections that are in there right now so we're kind of a trust but verify approach on this And wanting to make sure that there's a ratchet so that we're improving notifications, improving mitigation measures on the ground and not having any backsliding.
1:07 – 1:1615 turns
So phase one involved a lot of recommendations on how the utilities work with public safety partners and requirements on how they do that timelines being able to respond to a local emergency operation center if requested. Being responsive to requests to turn the power back on if it's deemed by local public safety officials to be more beneficial for public safety. So there was a lot of decisions in phase one that we want to make sure they stick to in phase two, because that is still open to consideration. So that was that third component that I mentioned is continuing to make sure we uphold what was decided already.
And I think within phase two it breaks down into two pieces. Part one is wildfire plans and part two, which is the part that we're very interested in, is the notification and mitigation component and this will be going on for several months. I believe Supervisor Adam
pulled this item
as
well if I'm correct? If you have any comments or questions? Yeah, yeah I did.
I did and what I'm worried about here is, and I initially supported the lawsuit against SCE. And with some express reservations there in closed session and I'm becoming worried that we're going down a very dangerous road here where we're gonna destroy our generation and delivery model. And, We saw some, and we got to look at it from afar which was kind of an advantage.
Saw some harbingers of things to come with these 700,000 people that got their power shut off. And I think I'm going to start abstaining from these things as I'm going to deal with 19 as well. I'm not sure we're doing it right and in fact, I think we may be doing it wrong. Trying to access redress for perceived inadequacies in performance. Now, I'm not sure that's the right thing to do.
Okay, Supervisor Williams?
Well, given that many members of the public's position on this could be described with one finger. I think us having a more nuanced approach is appropriate but the, I might add a fourth or at least in the discussions hope that you not forget Which is that, you know, sundown or winds are somewhat predictable in their patterns. And in between sundown or wind events there is usually at least 8 to 12 hours if not longer and that the consequences for our community of Of a constant shut off for 3 days time versus the consequences for our community for an intermittent shut off is dramatic. And so if our utilities, particularly sundowners are relevant to SCE territory.
If SCE has a shutoff of 500 or 1,000 households, We want them to have sufficient staffing continuously, to be able to repower lines and make it an intermittent event instead of a constant event. And I think that's a really important part of how to minimize both the potential public safety problems that could be incurred and the economic problems that could be incurred.
Supervisor
Hartman?
Thank you Mr. Chair, there's two long term and short term. Short term in the Santa Ynez Valley where it can get to be 105 degrees and more when these shut offs could happen we're working to identify resources, identifying need and trying to match them up and appreciate our fire department playing a role in that And the silver lining here is there is an opportunity to do community building and to look after one another. But long term just having more generators isn't the solution, and I'm hoping that we can think about mitigation as more local resiliency through microgrids and battery storage.
I was listening to the radio today and the Saddle Ridge fire in LA they believe Power lines again so this is an ongoing issue and we're going to have to figure out ways to deal with it but simply notifying people is I think not enough responsibility on the part of utilities
supervisor Williams. Yeah, I forgot that very important points thank you John for remembering I mean you know in the past when power has been shut down for other reasons such as arcing The number of generators that get turned on in the South County is so huge that it just demolishes our air quality and causes a lot of issues. I mean, public health issues. If we probably looked at statistical deaths that take place from poor air quality, it's a significant issue. Statistical deaths is not real, it's just years being taken off people's lives. So I think for our materials, we really need to accentuate the need for long term infrastructure like batteries instead of just pointing people towards buying and renting more generators which we've been partially guilty of.
It's not good for our long run picture to destroy our air quality in an effort to mitigate this.
Well, and I was at the public safety power shut off meeting yesterday last night in Santa Maria. And the idea to talk about generators did come up and staff was very quick as well as our fire department to talk about the pitfalls of just thinking a generator is going to be the answer to everything. So by the way, I have to say Matt Pontus and everybody that put that together yesterday Including yourself. Everybody did an outstanding job, Gina DePinto. We didn't have as many people as I would have liked there from the community but those that were there, Received a lot of really good information and had a lot of questions answered, so.
Supervisor Hart?
Well I think this item is really apt and very appropriate to have us have representation at the Public Utilities Commission. This is exactly the venue that has to consider the economic consequences of having power shut off to two-thirds of the state of California. And with the price tag that that represents even in this relatively short duration event, an enormous price tag is essentially a tax on consumers And so the Public Utilities Commission needs to reckon with the fact that we're paying for having the power shut off. We're paying economically, we're paying for the impact in our local communities in real dollars and cents. The impact on businesses, disruption of people's lives and you know the state needs to do a better job of figuring out how this works better by investing those costs in appropriate infrastructure for the long term.
Having us make that case to the Public Utilities Commission is a really important part of this dialogue. Well,
although I don't wish ill on anybody. I was kind of glad to see that the outages did hit the Sacramento area because that's where a lot of our state legislators live. So hopefully, I noticed that the first story on rough and tumble this morning is State Orders PG&E to Reform Outage Program. So unacceptable was the headline so anyway thank you very much for being here Kelly. Okay and can I get a motion on A17?
1:16 – 1:2932 turns
We have the staff recommendation.
Second.
Roll call please.
Mr. Williams? Aye. Mr. Hart? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye, Mr. Adam?
Abstain.
Chair Lavanino? Aye Motion passes four with one abstention.
Okay go to A19
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Administrative item number 19 is from County Council, it is to consider recommendations regarding a second amendment to the agreement for professional legal services with outside counsel Myers-Knave and there is a four fist vote required on this item.
Supervisor Adam I believe pulled this item?
I just wanted to abstain, same objections as last time.
Okay motion
I filled out a slip
for one of these. Chairman
Lavinino, members of the board we do have one request to speak on this item and that's Andy Caldwell in Santa Maria.
Okay go ahead Andy.
Chairman Lavinino, members of the board, I only filled out one slip but in my mind both A-17 and this one are connected at the lip and the hip and you know the bottom line here is I mean, to tell you the truth, I know that all of you are intelligent people. I really do, I respect your intelligence but I think there has to be some intellectual dishonesty here because this does not pass the laugh out loud test.
In essence, you want them to keep the power on even if there's a wind event and or the time it takes them for check the power lines after the wind event. But on the other hand, you sued them for the fires associated with those wind events. And now you're spending $1.5 million to defend yourself for your complicity with either the fires and or the debris flow after the fires.
To talk about political schizophrenia, this is manifest today. You can't have it both ways and add insult to injury you are the ones that have collapsed the vertical integration in the franchise model for these utilities so that they are in essence becoming only electricity delivery services not generation. You can't sue them for causing a fire and then try to argue that they have to mitigate the impacts of shutting down the service when fire conditions are prevailing.
You're like I said, you're either just intellectually dishonest or you're just flat out unethical. That you want to have it all ways, you want them to pay it all the ways and yet who are they? It's the ratepayers. When you say well, the utilities should pay, do you think the stockholders are going to pay when they shut off the power? No, it's your same constituents. It's you, it us, it is the county.
The disconnect on these items is unbelievable. It's probably the worst, most ridiculous thing I've seen in 30 years before this board that you guys are all over the map. You're really scrambling and drowning in your own rhetoric and virtue signaling. This is your fault. You didn't help clear brush. You don't let ag be planted in these places. You haven't created roads, fuel breaks, control burns.
And you want to sit up there holier than thou saying the utilities need to pay for everything. Including when we sue them, including when we turn the power off and including when we tear apart their franchise model. I'd sure like to debate one of you or all three of you in the community on this. Thank you.
And that was our only request to speak on that item.
Yeah, I guess I'd like to ask Mr. Gazzone one of the things that has come to our attention about possible clawbacks for money that was spent here by Army Corps of Engineers and other jurisdictions that had not sued. If you could just go down that road for me a little bit on why the necessity to sue Edison.
Chair and supervisors, this is an area where the county clearly sustained damages exceeding $100 million. Whether we talk about damage to roads from 50,000 truck trips to remove the debris, other damages just the cost of emptying the debris basins. And I think part of what you're referring to is the county under federal law has an obligation that when a third party causes damages for which federal funds are expended. We're expected to go pursue that money. And whether we pursue it or not, we're liable for that money to the federal government.
The federal government has previously gone after entities, organizations, the state of Hawaii for money that the state of Hawaii could have pursued and ended up paying back millions of dollars to FEMA for assistance at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. I'm grateful to Cal OES and FEMA for answering our request to come in and help us with debris removal to the tune of about $110 million. But we do have obligations as I'm How many angels dance on the head of a pin question. It's a very real requirement that we go after it, so I think part of my recommendation to pursue this litigation was to make the county whole for damages that are otherwise borne by the taxpayers or rate payers and also to fulfill our duty as to these FEMA funds.
And the look back is five or six years from Army Corps?
It's a pretty convoluted statute, but it refers to three years after the last federal agency touches the audit report. So the audit reports are typically four, five, six years later. There might be a comment period We've looked extensively at the fate of other jurisdictions. Hurricane Katrina, state of Hawaii with Aniki and these are occurring any place from a year or two to five or six years down the road so it's out there.
Okay, so if we hadn't pursued litigation at some point five years from now we could have Army Corps coming back and saying we spent $110 million you should have looked at where else Who else was responsible for that?
I think it's not a theoretical risk. That's what they do. The Department of Homeland Security Inspector General looks at and audits these actions, and I think the path that we're pursuing is the prudent path so that the taxpayers and rate payers are not surprised down the road with having to pay back money. Okay.
Supervisor Williams. I very much believe that this is not just a question of Maybe a philosophical question or a legal question. This is also a very nitty gritty real question, will the county have the resources in hand to respond to future disasters if we don't try to recover damages like this? We might not have the resources necessary to respond properly. So, to me this is a very visceral, very real question of are we willing to stand up for our constituents and make sure that they are responded to with the necessary resources for us to do the best job we can?
Okay. Supervisor Adam.
Yeah, I think the best way we can respond to our constituents is to make sure that those circumstances that were present. That enabled all of that to happen don't happen again and I don't like talking about this in open session like this, but I'm going to say I don't think we did the best we could have to mitigate those circumstances. And to that extent it's our fault. So I don' t think it's not representing your constituents. I think it's practicing good management.
And not allowing those circumstances to be built up.
Okay, understood. Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Hart.
Thank you. I don't want to bash the investor-owned utilities, but I would like to say that if you ask them how long are these shutoffs going to last? They say well it's going to take us about 10 years to upgrade our infrastructure. We need to insulate the lines. We need to put in metal posts. I would argue that they could have foreseen that and that ten years ago they could have started doing this and so they do bear some responsibility.
In the meantime, they're CEOs and highly paid $11 million a year. That's a third of what we're asking for our thinking or somewhere I don't know what the number is but it's a big chunk. And there are some courts that have said that the shareholders should be the ones to pay not the rate payers and I would think that that's fairly a strong position to be in. You have to create the conditions and the incentives in the market. And if we just swallow it, then that's not going to be the kind of incentive that will encourage them to do better in the future.
Supervisor Hart? Mr. Chair? Let's go to Supervisor Hart and then we'll come back to you, Supervisor M.
Sure. Level of that analysis that Supervisor Hartman made is that in addition to being behind on the hardening of the infrastructure, which the Public Utilities Commission is also complicit in that decision. They were the gatekeeper for those investments. The utilities built a model that has centralized energy sources with large distribution networks that have Across you know and vulnerable environmental elements that make it inherently unstable. And many people have been arguing for a very long time that we ought to do energy a different way, that we ought to do it in the local communities and in a distributed way closer to demand that inherently is less risky in that sense.
Exactly what we have been attempting to do with our influence at the local level to join up with Our neighbors in a community choice energy model that is better suited for that To address that issue and that's you know, a long-term investments going to take some time to turn this ship around and in the meantime We're gonna have to have The investments made by the utilities to harden their infrastructure. But I don't think this is Intellectually dishonest. I think it is an honest disagreement about the strategic decisions that have been made about energy and the distribution of energy in the Bringing of energy to customers in the state of California And I think that the Public Utilities Commission and the investor-owned utilities have made wrong strategic Decisions over a very long period of time that leave us where we are today with consumers paying To have their power shut off and paying to harden infrastructure That perpetuates this Dysfunctional system long into the future.
Supervisor Adam?
Well, I just find it humorous that we're being retrospectively critical of maintenance by the investor-owned utilities. It's really the pot calling the kettle black since we have roughly 700 million of deferred maintenance on our own assets here. And the other question I want to ask is what do you think is going to happen when the investor owned utility goes bankrupt?
1:29 – 1:3234 turns
My chair and supervisors, my final comment possibly on this is just having painted the picture of our responsibilities to FEMA and Cal OES is really to just echo another thank you. To both of those organizations their chief counsel's live in my cell phone we talk frequently They were, I'll just say a godsend after the debris flow getting resources here quickly to get the streams channels and debris basins cleared so we could get back up on our feet.
So this is part of our responsibilities for that assistance.
All
right?
So we have A19. Does somebody want to make a motion to move forward with A19?
Move the staff recommendation. Second. Roll call.
Mr. Williams?
Aye.
Mr. Hart?
Aye.
Ms. Hartman? Aye, Mr. Adam?
Abstain.
Chair Lavagnino?
Aye
Motion passes four with one abstention
by the way since I pulled A11 we never did take a vote on A11 so if somebody can make a motion to move staff recommendations I just think it's so moved okay
second
roll call
Mr. Williams? Aye Mr. Hart? Aye Ms. Hartman? Chair Lavinino.
Aye.
Motion passes unanimous.
8-20.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number 20 is from County Council it is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for professional legal services with Kingston Martinez & Hogan LLP.
And that's Supervisor Adams
Yeah, I'm just aghast that we can't find one professional in the US that's qualified. Does anybody want to talk about that? Is there somebody there to talk about that? Mr. Gazzone?
Chair and Supervisors, again this item is to have outside counsel for immigration on call and available for a two-year period if the need arises in any decision to hire anyone other than a U.S. citizen would be case by case we've coordinated with CEO's office on that and the board agenda letter recites that they would We do so only after an exhaustive recruitment has failed to find the right person. So this is not me asking for permission to hire foreign, it's asking to have the right tools available to inform that decision when it arises and it has arisen more than once on this. It's a two year contract I would think that case by case we would spend some place between $1,000 and $5,000 for the item and I'm available for any questions.
Well, Mr. Chair it sounds very speculative and I'm not going to be supporting.
Okay roll call. I'm sorry motion?
I move staff recommendation.
Second. Mr. Williams? Aye. Mr. Hart? Aye Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr Adam?
No.
Chair Lavanino?
Aye
Motion passes four with one no.
Okay A23 is our last item
1:32 – 1:4116 turns
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. Administrative item number 23 is from human resources, it is to consider recommendations regarding adopting an ordinance second reading setting compensation and benefits for members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
Supervisor Adam? Just a roll call vote please. Motion.
Move staff's recommendation.
Second. Roll call.
Mr Williams? Aye. Mr Hart? Aye Ms Hartman? Aye Mr Adams?
No.
Chair Lavinino? Aye. Motion passes, four with one no.
Okay have we exhausted the administrative agenda? This is what happens when we only have one or two items on the D agenda somehow we fill space okay this moves us to public comment how many requests to speak do we have today
Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board I have four requests to speak on general public comment today. We are going to begin with Ed Kalaski to be followed by Jay Johnson.
What a way to start the day. I call my talk today Vandalism and Corruption, a short comment on the vandalism at my place. It occurred at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. I'm sitting in the front window working on my computer and apparently one or two people came up and vandalized my car This doesn't normally happen. It's the first time ever in my residence. Apparently, I think that people came out to see what they were going to do at a later date and decided well they're here now they might as well vandalize it now so I assume that Alex Peugeot was somehow responsible for that Okay, in regard to my second story here which is regarded by the Board of Architects, well by Alex Bejew as being solely over the garage.
We gave them everything that they requested. It was for sure we were going to get passed. We had a 5-2 vote going into the fifth meeting. Alex decided he wasn't gonna show our project. Is that legal? to show your project before the Board of Architectural Review and you're not allowed to showed it, he kicks us out in 15 seconds. He doesn't tell us why we're being rejected. He didn't let us ask any questions. He had one of the members, Dylan, jump up and scream at us so we could not ask any questions.
This is the way you run a business? It's been five-and-a-half years! Why isn't he gone?! This isn't a question of He said, she said there it is. There's the drawing. It shows you that it is not solely over the garage yet they write a report based on the old design. They take five and a half months to do it. Three weeks after the meeting I went up to see Ryan who's writing the report and I asked him why are you using our old drawings?
I'll get you some new drawings. It didn't matter he wrote the report on the old drawings And he incorporated some of the new drawings. But, of course, he wouldn't incorporate this drawing because that clearly shows that the second story is not solely over the garage. A couple of the other drawings it's pretty obvious that it's not but who are you going to object to? Janet Wolfe?
She was corrupt I couldn't even go see her or talk to her after our meeting. This is how we run the business here? Five and a half years. I talked to several attorneys to see what I could do, and they all said basically the same thing, 40,000 to start if the county appeals it'll be another 40,000. And a couple of them even said it will probably depend on the judge we get as to whether we win or not.
This is law. This is the people that I talked to here for five and a half years.
Mr. Kolaski, you're over your time. I'm sorry.
Thank you.
And our next speaker is Jay Johnson to be followed by Paul Boring.
My name is Jay Johnson University of Arizona graduate I have more post standards than the gentleman sitting right here. That's peace officer standard and training. I shouldn't be homeless, I work for the government. I've even had breakfast with, I don't know Mr. Powell. I shouldn't be homeless but I had spinal cord surgery and cancer and I was let down I shouldn't be out on the streets.
I never harmed nobody, never been to prison but I put a lot of people away. It shouldn't happen. I have two friends in my life. My mother and father passed away. I picked cotton in 1970. I was raised right, never harmed nobody. But your lives are saved because of people like me. I serve my government, I have two friends in my life, Ed Kowalski and Kimberly right there.
My father or not my father but my brother is the passenger engineering captain fire department I can show you proof of everything in my life. Bear down, University of Arizona. What can I say? I just want you to approve his thing. I even built in Stafford, Arizona an engineering company. We built the mirror telescope called Lucifer, the biggest one. I've done right in my life, never harmed nobody.
But I would ask anybody in this audience, they all disappeared, if you got a garage or anything in the back of your garage, I just want to lay down and get a doggie. Just get a doggie and lay down on an air mattress. Clean your sidewalk, walk around but I can guarantee your neighbors will love me. I've never harmed a soul. I have defended this country. I defended this government and I shouldn't be allowed to sleep on the sidewalks And with the drugs and the meth heads, the opioids. Let's go through the whole gamma.
I have to humble myself and I know war. The best part of war is to walk away. That's the best part is to walk away. And the second best part is You don't want that black cloud on your head. Fear, I have none. I've served my country. I have a peace officer's standard in training
advanced. Mr Johnson can you, need you to wrap up please? Thank you.
Our next speaker is Paul Boring to be followed by Linda Crop who is our final speaker.
1:41 – 1:496 turns
Can you pull the mic down so we can hear you? Thank you. I'd like you guys to grab your pen and a little piece of paper, and take a note for me. This is a statute that's the US Appellate Courts The name of the case I'd like you to Google is Martin versus Boise, Idaho. Some of you may already know about it. I would love it if the county attorney would most importantly out of everyone here read it, it's 38 pages.
It's funny, I've read it several times but just the other day I was reading it and at the conclusion one word came to my mind, neighbors. I grew up in Ontario, California. I had a mother and father who were blue collar workers. We moved to four bedroom house for $19,999 so I'll never forget that amount in Ontario. I got beat up because my dad didn't work as a vice president of a bank and for $20,000.
The whole street was people who owned liquor stores, businesses. My dad he rolled down the street in a brand new pickup truck with ladders on it and they couldn't stand that. So neighbors turns out after 15 years of living in that house my folks had several neighbors that were their friends and same people just needed some time. The law of the land now as prescribed by the justices that I've just given you a case to look at and read is that homeless folks need to be treated with, in a little bit different way than I think most cities started out treating homeless folks. They created these camping laws and if you violated these camping laws they just wrote your citation after that didn't work well We'll take them to jail and they conveniently created the revolving door.
Well, you can't pay the fines we're putting on you as a court says. You can go down here to the probation department and get on public and go out and do community service work. We'll pay off your fines that you owe at $9.75 an hour but we don't want you sleeping in our streets. Luckily in Boise, Idaho a few people got arrested there several times. They didn't leave the city that was the hope if they made it tough enough on the homeless people well they wouldn't want to stay here they'll go to another city and they'll be their problem That didn't work.
That's failed. The bottom line is when the justices got a hold of this information, their opinion was that the 8th Amendment had been broken for these people and these folks were abused by cruel and unusual punishment. That's what our judges have said about that problem. And now they suggest since they can't sleep, you can't take that away from them. There's no shelter homes, shelter beds because they've got religions The only thing I'd ask of you guys is to just please take the time, it's 38 pages.
And do what I did, I came up with neighborhoods. I think each and every one of you could come up with a scenario that comes from the writing by the judges that will help us in the fight against homelessness in Santa Barbara County. Thank the sheriff for reading the 38 pages and he has assured us that he's not going to cite anyone, thank you.
Chair and Supervisors, the case that the public speaker was referring to is Martin versus City of Boise. It's a 2017 Ninth Circuit case in the city of Boise in late August asked the US Supreme Court to review that through a petition for writ of certiorari. The case has a fairly narrow holding but discusses not criminalizing homelessness essentially when no sleeping space is practically available in a shelter. So we're following that case and we have discussed it with the sheriff's office.
Thank you.
And our final
speaker is Linda crop. Thank you and good morning chair Lavagnino members of the board, Linda crop from the Environmental Defense Center to talk about oil spill response so totally new subject. First of all I want to thank your board for authorizing the fire department to be a first responder and initial incident commander as part of the 2019 oil spill contingency plan. And I want to thank the fire department for assuming this responsibility and appointing an oil and gas emergency planner.
So we're making a lot of progress four years after the refugio oil spill. One of the results of that progress is, um, the fire department had its first training with the United States Coast Guard in State Oil Spill Prevention and Response or OSPR Organizations last week and I was able to go and observe and Supervisors Williams and Adam were there, which was great. And I was so impressed with the level of participation By our county fire department, by other local fire districts. By the Coast Guard, by the state. There were dozens of people there. It was very professional.
Hopefully it's the first of many trainings. But a couple things, a couple takeaways I wanted to share with you. It was very informative. First of all we learned that the storage trailers were missing some equipment And this is one of the things we've been trying to focus on, is does the county have the resources? The personnel, the equipment. So some of the equipment was missing. Hopefully, the state might step in and help replace that.
We learned that the county doesn't have the appropriate boats. And so again, we can see how we can acquire those but I mentioned these to you because we have the people they wanna do their right thing. They need the resources, they need the assets. They had two skiffs and some jet skis which was not appropriate for laying out the boom. It's good for maneuvering but it was very clear that to make this work we're going to have to invest up front and so I'm getting in way ahead of everybody else in line for the budget for next year. I think this state will help where it can so let's leverage that It doesn't rest all on our shoulders, we'll do anything we can to help. And then finally what we learned was the limits of oil spill response. We were informed that boom is not effective at wind speeds over three quarters knots or if wind and current are oppositional or if you have waves so I think the final takeaway is we need to prevent oil spills.
We need to stop offshore oil and gas development, coastal oil and gas development, inland oil and gas development. We need to do everything we can to be ready but let's try to prevent oil spills in the first place. And thank you again for your support.
Okay. Thank you. And I think that wraps up public comment. Anybody in Santa Maria? Mr. Adam.
1:49 – 1:492 turns
No, I would just concur that we should try to prevent oil spills but I disagree that we should not have any oil that developed on the coast.
All right, we're going to take a break come back at five after 11.
2:01 – 2:041 turns
You. Yeah.
2:06 – 2:2218 turns
Let's reconvene this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors.
We'll move to item D1. Madam Clerk?
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, departmental item number one comes from Public Works and General Services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Fresnel Point Lane bridge replacement resolution of necessity Project at Romero Creek Acquisition of Temporary Permanent Easement, APN 0073800004, 007380006, 007380007 and 007380024. This is in the first district and there's a fourth this vote required on this item.
All right, this
next item on the agenda is a consideration of a resolution of necessity to acquire by eminent domain the real property interest for the Fernald Point Lane bridge replacement at Romero Creek. On the properties located on Fernald Point Lane Santa Barbara which are owned by True Horizons LLC, trustee of the Kathleen S Grissini Trust and trustee of the Lawrence P Grissini Trust.
Any information from county council prior proceeding with this hearing?
Chair and supervisors the board agenda letters recommended actions and text Accurately described the pieces that you're looking at today, which is under a code of civil procedure one two four five decimal two three zero a resolution of necessity there are some findings you need to make on that and those are outlined in the package and later in your script and As well as you have a CEQA determination to make. I would also recommend that the board at this time provide ex parte disclosures concerning any contacts about this project.
We'll start with Santa Maria, Supervisor Adam? Ex partes, I have zero. Supervisor Hart? I do not have any ex parte. Supervisor Hartman?
I don't either.
Supervisor Williams? I have tons of expiry disclosures on this. I could provide at a future date all the dates, but Multiple occasions in the case of the Shackneys, which is True Horizons. And traded both phone calls and text messages. I have spent an equal amount of time Discussing it with our own staff Particularly in public works, but also in general services.
Okay
and supervisor Williams I think would help the property owner if you had Provide could provide any detail as to any impressions from that about the whether the public interest and necessity require the proposed project Just anything in specific on that or whether these were general conversations
These were both general conversations about the project, about the intricacies of multiple property owners. And most of the time it was trying to ensure that both county staff and True Horizons would negotiate including the advice Secure a an estimate of the value on my head space. The words spacing it just for a moment, I'm sure staff will go over it in a moment. But in general you could characterize as them making their case to me but you could also characterize it as me urging both sides to negotiate
Okay, and I have no ex parte to report. Are there any questions of the Supervisor for County Council at this time? Okay. At this point we will go to our Public Works Director Mr. McAulpin if you could proceed please.
Yes, Mr. Chair and board members thank you for holding this public hearing this morning for the resolutions of necessity required for the Fresno Point Lane bridge replacement project. And before I get into the condition of the existing structure if you would look at the staff report that's before you today it actually has a date in there of September 10th and that was five weeks ago And we had essentially two continuances in that time frame. The first was a three-week continuance to allow the property owners True Horizons some additional time to complete their land value efforts, and then Public Works asked for a second continuance so we could continue working with True Horizons with the goal of finding a potential deal and to avoid the actions that are before your board today.
Unfortunately, the county and True Horizons could not come to an agreement on values. We tried hard and I wanted to thank Ms. Lily Phillips and her husband Jonah who are here today for their time in working with me and my team trying to find that deal. I want to touch on bridge condition before we roll into the meat of the presentation. If you look at the first slide of our presentation, you can see The existing condition of the bridge. We have a Temporary support system underneath the bridge. These are some photos taken shortly after The debris flow You can see the reason why we had to put the temporary Support system in here. We say we have some pretty significant horizontal cracking in the decks and I always get this wrong but we got stalactite
If you were confident in saying it, we wouldn't have challenged you. But now I'm going to look it up. That's
the correct term. Going
from the bottom, it would be a stalagmite coming up. So it's stalactites coming through the bridge. Moisture is coming through our bridge deck and this bridge is a few hundred yards away from the ocean. The air down there has salt in it so you can only imagine what it's doing to our rebar in there. We've spoken about this many times. Caltrans inspects our bridges every two years.
So they come in and they look at bridges over 20 feet in length, this one in particular was built in 1959. And a lot like PCI, I can't do a presentation without saying PCI. The scale is 0 to 100, 100 would be a brand new bridge and zero would be a bridge that has no service life. The sufficiency rating for this bridge today is 23.1, so it has the lowest sufficiency rating in the county bridge inventory greater than 20 feet in length. So the service life of those, the temporary support system is about five years. It's been in there a little over seven years.
We were lucky during the debris flow that it was not taken out with the amount of debris that came down the channel. We have not put load limits on it yet, but the schedule before you today if the item is approved will allow us to get public traffic off this bridge as quick as possible and our hope would be to get the temporary structure built next summer if all goes well.
So at this point, I'm going to turn our presentation over to Walter Rubicava. He is our transportation engineering leader and then I'll come back up to close Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Thanks Scott. So the purpose of this first slide is to discuss the project vicinity and then we'll go over just a general project overview. I'm going to start with the project vicinity, to give you an orientation north is up on the slide east is to your right and west is over to your left. This project that you see here is located in the Montecito area It is south of the U.S. 101 and the Union Pacific Railroad, obviously north of the Pacific Ocean.
It is located on Fernald Point Lane which you can see here in the yellow line here. It's approximately a quarter mile east of Pueblo Lane and it's about a half mile east of the Miramar. This another indicator here this blue dash line here that's the alignment of Romero Creek. And like I said here, this little green dot here that represents the location of the bridge.
As far as project overview, I'll discuss the alignment first. The alignment of the proposed bridge is approximately the same alignment as existing. The new structure is approximately 4 feet less in width so that alignment is shifting slightly to the south. We have four Impacted parcels and three owners and what I mean by impacted parcels for today's discussion at least is those are parcels in which we are looking to acquire either a permanent or a temporary easement or in some cases both and we'll discuss that in the following slides so As you'll note, the assessor parcel numbers on all the parcels have the same six digits.
For the first part it's 007380. So what I'll do is just focus on the last three digits. I'm going to start off with the True Horizon Parcel which is APN 024 that's on the south side here. There's another True Horizon Parcel on the north that is north of Fernald Point Lane and south of the Union Pacific Railroad property Just to the right, that is the Grissini property identified as APN 007.
And then we have the Keston property which is APN 006 and that's just south of Fernald Point Lane. No not yet. What was that? Oh yeah and then the tree horizon is 004. As far as access to the roadway, the True Horizon parcel identified is 004. That is the only parcel that has access on the west. The three remaining parcels that we had discussed are all on the east, so there's a total of 13 residents on the east side of the bridge. There also is a nursery at the far end.
They all access Fernald Point Road from the east side. So I'll just point out that it's really the only feasible vehicular option to get in and out of Fernald Point since you have the Pacific Ocean on the south and then the Union Pacific Railroad on the north. As far as schedule, as Scott mentioned we're looking to advertise this project next summer around May and we begin construction probably about three months later in August. Now before I
move to the next slide I just want to point out it's going to be a blow-up of this area here so I'll do my best to kind of describe where we are in space. Next slide please So this is an exhibit of the temporary construction easements, just to kind of give you an idea where we're at. This here is Romero Creek. This is Fernald Point Lane and this little rectangle you see here that's the location of the proposed bridge.
The True Horizon parcel that we discussed on the south side is located here. This is a True Horizon parcel located on the north, Grissini property and the Keston property. So I'll talk about that a second. That easement there is required for drainage improvements and for a driveway conform. It has a square footage of 951 square feet I should point out that the Improvements themselves will be within the roadway right away however in order to construct those improvements We will likely encroach into the property to the south and for that reason we need to acquire proper legal access For the temporary construction easement And then moving to the north, this is another True Horizon property. It's identified as number two that is on the APN-004.
This easement here is needed for a temporary bridge. Its square footage is 2,246. So as I mentioned earlier, the existing bridge and the proposed bridge are on the same alignment. And because of that when we demolish the bridge and construct a new bridge, we need to continue to provide access to those owners on the right side of the bridge. So because of that, we'll be placing a temporary bridge in this location.
As you can see here it's hard to see but there's an access point onto that property. And again, that's for the purpose of a temporary bridge. The Keston property was originally identified as number 6. That was originally part of this resolution, but since then the contract has been signed that was signed in August of 2019. But just for reference that is for a driveway conform as well and its square footage is 881 square feet.
Next slide please Okay, this is looking at the permanent easements again. This is for an all-point lane all the easements on that are on the north side of Fernald Point Lane I'll identify this easement here and this easement here first. Those are both within the creek embankment, the first one identified as number four that's in the true horizon property that is for a fish passage and native landscaping square footage on that is 2185.
The Grissini property identified as number 5, same purpose fish passage and landscaping. Total square footage of 1,082. And both those conditions are required by the permitting process in order to construct the project. So looking at this item number 3 that's another true horizon easement This easement is needed for access in order to maintain the fish passage and the native landscaping. Again, that's a permanent easement and that's 1719 square feet. Next slide please So this last slide is a very busy slide, but what it is is a combination of both the temporary and permanent easements.
What I will focus on here is this parallelogram that you see here. You saw that in the temporary construction easement. That's needed in order to place the temporary bridge and construct the permanent bridge And then in the permanent easement, this is needed for access and this is for the fish passage. So the reason that there's two actions taken on that is the temporary construction easement allows for the construction and the placement of the bridge In the permanent condition, it only allows for access in the green.
And then in the orange area that you see here, that's for the area needed for the fish passage and the native landscaping. So with that I will pass this back to Mr. McGulpin.
2:22 – 2:3819 turns
Thank you Walter and Mr. Chair and board members, I just want you to know when the department decides to come forward with an action such as this we don't take it lightly. I think the last time we did this was Humboldt Drive up in Santa Maria Orchid area and I would much rather have been here this morning on the admin agenda getting your board to approve an agreement to purchase the property but unfortunately that Didn't happen and we're using federal highway bridge program funding and we're using state toll credits and this is the next step in that project development process, and that's that's why we're here today and I The imminent domain process really is designed to protect the property owners and protect the agency because we just, we couldn't come to an agreement.
So now we go across the street and we have people that will help us get there. So with that said, that kind of concludes our presentation. Myself and Walter will cover here to answer questions. Our project manager Ron Benzel from Public Works outside counsel Duff Murphy is here and we have the general services real property team here as well for any questions that may come up. So with that said, I'll turn it back to you Mr. Chair.
Thank you Mr. McAuliffe and are there any questions of the supervisors at this time for public works or anybody at the table? Okay Supervisor Adam, you good?
I'm
good. Public comment? Well we're getting there. I have a little script here So this is a public hearing to allow the owners of the property or their representative and any person who will be impacted by the project to address the supervisors only, and I stress only on the following issues. One, whether the project is necessary. Two, whether the project is planned and located in a manner that is most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Three, whether the easements are necessary for And four, whether a written offer has been made to the owners. And five, whether it meets CEQA.
So clerk of the board are there any letters that are requested to be made part of the record?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. The clerk of the board did receive one public comment on this item on October 10th at 1145 AM from Mr. Mark Schwartz and that has already been made available online as well as distributed to the board.
All right, can we have the microphone turned off in Santa Maria because we're picking up a bunch of background noise here.
Well
I do end
up having a question just
because- Let me get to that point first. The letter's been accepted and will be incorporated as part of the record regarding this project. And we'll go ahead to Supervisor Williams' question first.
Can we talk about the appraisals and about what are the differences of maybe methodologies? I mean, why were we not able to reach agreement
in staff's opinion. Supervisor Williams there is a portion at the end which is for open discussion with all of the issues that we have. So I'll now call for a public hearing on this item. I ask the clerk of the board to please call forward the owners of the properties or their representative and any person who will be impacted by the project to address the board at this time. Please speak directly into the microphone and state clearly your name and city of residence for the record. Thank you.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board I did receive two requests to speak on this item. And first we're going to Jonah Shacknai to be followed by Lily Phillips. Jonah?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I know it's a legal requirement but I know that you'll open-mindedly listen to my comments. First of all, I want to say for the record that we support this project. I think there's little dispute that the bridge is in some degree of disrepair and we'd all benefit, all the residents of Fresnel Point would benefit from its proper and thoughtful reconstruction. However, we do not believe that either the Department of Public Works or the Department of General Services has been workmanlike appropriate or respectful in this process.
Specifically there are plans to disturb the Romero Creek and plant new vegetation. We are unaware of any environmental impact statement or any hydrology work that has been provided. We're very concerned obviously as a point source Discharge to the ocean that many of the undertakings above screen upstream have not been considered in planning this project. And we are concerned as property owners that the so-called mitigation approach of the county will in fact lead to potential flooding and serious injury to our own selves, as well as our neighbors. I should also state for the record that this negotiation, this process began with an outright offer by True Horizons to deed at no cost To the county, our portion of the Romero Creek.
We made this offer with a belief that the county is in the best position to both maintain and safeguard this creek and to make certain that whatever public works occur either on site or upstream are properly considered for their impact environmentally and certainly to the residents. This offer was literally left off by both the Department of General Services and the Public Works Department. It was not even discussed with any seriousness of purpose.
We also believe that approval to proceed with the eminent domain process is premature, this is not ripe in our view. It reflects a hurry up and wait, and hurry up again attitude by the county staff. This has been going on as a controversy for years. We were only engaged recently in this process. In fact, the documentation that reflects our involvement that's been presented to the Board of Supervisors is factually erroneous.
It does not state properly the timetable for this work. So, the plans that have been made available to us are incomplete. They only go through a 66 or two-thirds percentage completion. It's impossible to comment and properly draw either a value or an impact assessment from those. The project has changed in its scope even in the last two months. We were notified originally that this was meant to be a 12 to 18 month project. It is suddenly shifted to an 18 to 36 month project.
Again, this was not considered in the value assessment by the county. We also believe there's been an extraordinary amount of procedural error and bad faith in the process. We believe that the Department of General Services acted recklessly. We believe that they were not forthcoming with legally required information. And frankly it's only because of the intercession of Supervisor Williams And applying under the Freedom of Information Act that we were provided basic documents that underlie the value proposition that the county presents to you. It turns out, of course, once we saw these materials that it was easily apparent why they were withheld. The appraiser that was hired by the county is an agricultural appraiser with minimum qualification.
The methodology used, we've now verified with several other appraisers was faulty from its inception and therefore invalid. Moreover many of the elements that are required in terms of notice negotiation with the property owners were not followed. Despite Mr. McAlpin's crocodile tears about the pity of coming before you with an imminent domain request, and despite I think his good faith efforts to mobilize the right people in the room to have a thoughtful discussion that never occurred.
Thanks again to the intercession of Supervisor Williams who provided a meeting about two-and-a-half weeks ago We presented an appraisal that we obtained from a highly regarded, seasoned and locally expert appraiser. That appraisal was not even read prior to the meeting. In fact the general services staff was completely unprepared for the meeting. Had not read the county's own appraisal, and was completely unprepared to enter into any meaningful discussion or negotiation. So I would submit to you with all due respect that representations that there was any degree of negotiation meaningfully with the homeowners is simply factually incorrect. Now what do we want from this? Two things. Our first and highest hope is that in fact the county would take over ownership or at least obtain a maintenance easement for the Romero Creek.
Again, we think this is a significant public safety issue. There are a lot of undertakings that have occurred upstream, the basins, the netting, the nets. All sorts of things have been undertaken to prevent the kind of tragedy that we experienced a few years ago. That tragedy could easily reoccur though these remedial efforts have been taken upstream because no one is concerned with downstream. During the horrible events, there was vehicular traffic in the creek. Cars were literally washed out into the sea. The Coast Guard pulled us from our property.
So this is not insignificant. Our neighbors were severely affected. Most recently, Mr. and Mrs. Finneyfrock also neighbors were highly disturbed by rainfall that did not result in a debris flow but rather resulted from the fact that the creeks upstream were dredged without proper notification to the Finneyfrocks giving them an opportunity to take remedial actions in their own area of the creek. The fact is that the county should be owning or at least controlling the maintenance of all of these creeks. It's really unspeakable that all of this work would occur upstream and we commend you for doing that, but that there would not be adequate consideration to the downstream effect of all of your actions.
So we have a lot of disagreements with the county in this matter We're perfectly happy to sit down in a thoughtful manner and try to work out a compromise, but we would argue to you that the action that you've been asked to take today is premature. It's procedurally flawed, to be sure, and all of that, of course, would evolve in a litigation process. And I think you too have to consider two things. Number one, you're on a schedule. The eminent domain process despite its intention to try to move projects along Is a laborious legal process, you can be assured that we will defend our rights very vigorously in any jurisdiction that's appropriate. We'll be following the procedure to file grievances with the county that reflects on some of the staff behaviors at work.
And we will, of course, cite to the court all of the deficiencies procedurally that have occurred. There is also the question of the appraisal itself. It is flawed from inception. The methodology is incorrect. Again this has been verified by several outside experts and it's really unthinkable that the county would not even enter into a meaningful discussion of the deficiencies of its appraisal at rather seeks to steamroll this process through the County Board of Supervisors. Again, we've been willing to sit down for months. Information has been withheld and only became known to us with the intercession of a member of the Board of Supervisors and with senior management within the Public Works Department. We have been shabbily treated in this process.
There has not been thought to environmental impact, there's not been thought to property value because this is after all a proposed taking. And we and our neighbors are deeply offended. And again, to spare the county the resources necessary for protracted litigation which will be highly involved where we will elucidate all of the grievances that we have procedural and otherwise. We would encourage you to instruct the public relations department and the general services staff to sit down have a meaningful negotiation give us visibility into environmental impacts. And proceed hopefully with an agreement so that this type of legal proceeding would be unnecessary.
So thank you, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have of us as property owners.
Okay, before we get to that, I want to know if there are any other owners of the properties or their representative or any other person who is adjacent to the project that wishes to address the board?
Yes, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board I have one request to speak. One more request to speak and that's Lily Phillips. Yeah we
had simply registered my wife Lily Phillips in the event that there would be substantive questions that I would be unable to answer so she is here as a resource and available should there be any questions of the property owner but we consider this a very serious matter. Supervisor Hart Talked a lot about environmental impact, even Supervisor Adams. About the need to mitigate, to be thoughtful before beginning construction projects. This is a prime example of an ill-considered project that is simply premature to be before you today. No question that the bridge needs to replace how it is replaced and whether there's in fact necessity for all of the takings. That are proposed to the Board of Supervisors. I think is a very legitimate question that needs further study there's a difference between necessity to complete this project and Necessity to comply with regulations that are completely unrelated to the project So again, we encourage a lot of thought a lot of consideration to whether a postponement of this action would be an appropriate remedy and let's set a date and hopefully have the Board of Supervisors instruct staff on To really meaningful engage with no hide the ball tactics, all information that's required legally out to us and other property owners to see.
And let's try to arrive at a thoughtful conclusion.
Thank you very much. At this point I will now close the public hearing on this item and I will open it up for discussion with supervisors. Supervisor Williams?
Well, I think one of the most constructive things we could talk about is the question of the appraisals. The county did an appraisal. The True Horizons did an appraisal. There are significant differences in what that, as I understand it, significant monetary differences between those appraisals and As I understand it, the normal procedure for how we try to reach resolution in these matters is a tie-breaking appraisal. That this is often a method used and I'd like to understand What's the difference in appraisals and why would we not pursue that route for resolution?
Even if it meant the parties having to agree in advance, to use the tie breaker or to use a median or mean between the three appraisals.
2:38 – 2:444 turns
Chair and Supervisor Williams in response. My name is Duff Murphy, I'm a special counsel working with the county in eminent domain proceedings. The hearing today is to determine whether the property is needed for the project. So that's the primary issue of what the board is considering and what staff is asking the board to undertake. Directly answering your question as to whether there is a process by which The parties, the county on one hand and the property owner on the other hand can meet and try to resolve the issue of the differences of the appraisal.
In some ways that has already occurred. The property owners did present an appraisal to the county it has been reviewed there was a A brief discussion of a counteroffer by the county that was rejected by the property owners. Within the context of the eminent domain proceeding, there are statutory dates when we exchange appraisals and the court sets up a system whereby we have settlement conference. We exchange appraisals, we take the depositions and ask questions about each of the appraisers. In addition to that, and this is before trial, in addition to that there's a mediation process Whereby the parties sit down voluntarily and discuss their differences. And in many instances, the appraisers come to those mediation meetings and with the help and assistance of a mediator we're often able to excuse the reference but bridge the gap between what the property owner feels is just compensation and what the county believes is a reasonable appraisal.
So there is a process within the eminent domain structure It's been adopted by the legislature of California and implemented by the courts that in many ways answers your question. By setting up various deadlines, schedules and procedures whereby we can work with the appraisals and try to reach a resolution. That's the formal aspect of the court. What often happens is that during the process, once the eminent domain action is filed, the parties continue to discuss the issue. So insofar as there has been an exchange or a partial exchange of, I don't want to say partial, an exchange of appraisal information by the parties It has allowed up until this point at least two face-to-face meetings that I have been advised took place between the property owners and the county staff discussing the issue of value.
They were unable to come to a resolution, but in a certain sense, the data is now before us and it would be of some assistance to continue the discussion. But given what Mr. McAulpin said in terms of the timing of the project, there are also deadlines and procedures in the court To allow the county to acquire possession of the property, go forward with construction that runs separately but simultaneously with the issue of value. So the county will be able to potentially take possession of the property to meet the construction deadlines but also continue with the discussion and with the process of trying to reach a resolution or just compensation.
So I mean, I understand that the basic position of staff is that a certain amount of negotiation can continue in a form supervised by the courts. You know, I guess I can understand in some sense why they do that. Given that only one of those two meetings as I understand it were ones in which both parties were prepared to really talk about the merits Of each other's appraisals.
I don't feel that we've exhausted this side of the potential for negotiation and I just take eminent domain really seriously as a step, and I'm not comfortable to move forward. I am somewhat relieved to hear Potential for continued negotiation because I do think if both parties can agree to it there is some fairly straightforward ways to remedy the fact that Two appraisers seem to have Like totally different opinions about this right? I mean, it's not even they're not even close which is a little bit disturbing because you know, I think of appraising as a little bit of a science and I Not an art.
I did want to address one informational issue, so I suppose today I'm not ready to take staff's side in this but I do want to defend staff and the question of where staff has to wrestle with how much action and participation in the creek itself. If any of us lived in Ventura County or another county, the county would have no role in maintenance in the creek whatsoever.
We as a county go above and beyond by attempting to maintain and remove impediments when they are a threat to safety in the creek. That's not what other people do, what other counties do. And so there is a tension between the county taking that responsibility and the county having unfortunately less than unlimited resources to do that. And so I think it's just important to explain to the Shackneys and to other neighbors, that there is an inherent tension When we're doing a duty that no one else does, and we've got $20 million to do $45 million worth of work. That there are limits to our ability to do creek maintenance.
Supervisor Hartman?
Mr. Gazzone would you outline again for us what our job is here today? What findings we need to make?
2:44 – 2:5014 turns
Chair and supervisors, the resolutions in the package accurately describe the board's duties today. You're making a series of findings that the public interest and necessity require the proposed project. Second, that proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. Third, the property described in the resolution is necessary for And then, essentially the financial piece is that the offer required by the government code has been made or the offer which doesn't apply in this case was not made because the owner could not be located. So it's really four findings plus your fifth as always is the CEQA determination.
So recapping, public interest and necessity require the project. The planning or location of the project is most compatible with the greatest public good in the least private injury. Third, the property is necessary for the project and fourth that the offer required by the government code has been made.
So valuation is not part of our consideration?
It is not a statutory consideration. And I would say that, uh, not peculiar to this project, but just in general, um, as Mr Murphy had outlined the process has generally done in a pretty prescribed back and forth way per the government code and under the court supervision if it doesn't succeed as a voluntary sale. And that might be in part because of the difficulties of having evaluation discussion in a public forum
And could you also talk about the CEQA piece of it before?
Yes, and that is described at one of the actions. Basically, the board is determining that there were no substantial changes as to this piece of the project from what had been previously studied and certified in the mitigated negative declaration. I have a question.
So what is our liability on a bridge that's already identified as structurally deficient. Caltrans and if we waited around God forbid something drastic happened at this point.
Chair and Supervisors, so I'll take maybe the first part of your question is before you get to the legal obligation. You've got some notice on a problem with this bridge. Typically as harsh as it sounds it's good to be the government when it comes to statutory liabilities on this but I think that this would be a case at some point the bridge will be in a state of repair where we would face a liability exposure.
Supervisor Hart. Yeah, that's where I start is the condition of the bridge You know, this is a real and present problem and it's encouraging to know that Mr. Shackney represents that they understand that and that they want to be part of the solution And that this that's critical for the neighborhood and everybody and we don't want an accident That happens where the bridges is damaged in a way that we can't have access to your neighborhood So we got to get this thing going and I'm confident
you take care
Peter, your mic's still on. I'm sorry. It's all
right. I am confident that the legal process of eminent domain is probably the right forum to work this out because there is a big gap here as evidenced by Mr. Chakni's comments and concerns about the process and offers Supervisor Williams's representation of how far apart we are in the offers. I don't know what we would do other than to enter that prescribed process that gets to that valuation legally, transparently with everybody's full participation and at the same time allows us to go forward with fixing the problem that is a real current problem.
You know, I think that the words eminent domain carry a lot of weight and are concerning. But the process is so prescribed and so clear that it protects everybody. And it just feels to me like that is the only thing we can do to make progress on this and at the same time move the project forward so that we don't get in a situation where You know, I'm
I don't want to inject myself in the negotiations on this thing. I think sometimes it is best sorted out by litigation and just going through the process of negotiation. You're obviously gonna change the bridge out, In danger of failing, so that's not really an option. And so it was really just about the money and we can argue about that at leisure while we replace the bridge.
Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Williams?
This question is for Mr. McLaughlin, could you as I understand it? There's two issues the value and that's to be discussed Going forward and then CEQA and the upstream impacts and how adequately that's been studied And could you comment on that?
2:50 – 2:5418 turns
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Herman, yes the value would be part of this process depending on if the recommendation gets approved or not and then I think County Council Gazzone mentioned that the MND was approved by your board in 2016 that looked at all the specific impacts to go in and replace this existing bridge
And were they upstream or was it just at that site?
Within the project limits, the APE, the area of potential effect was researched. So certainly the maintenance work that we may do or may not do above this location would be considered through our maintenance EIR through flood control. Supervisor Williams.
I understand the logic that the discussions will continue and in case they do, I guess me inserting myself in the negotiation, it's a little late for that not doing that. But my thought again tends towards the value of doing an additional appraisal and agreeing before that appraisal is done what the methodology of using that appraisal or using all three appraisals would be.
I'm a little concerned that if the board goes forward today, that in the... I would say in the beginning it may be that there was a lot more participation by the law end of this and that True Horizons in an effort to reach resolution has tackled this more themselves. In recent months, and I'm a little concerned that once you go back to court the knee-jerk reaction by both sides would be to lawyer up. Not that I don't appreciate the work that our lawyers do but that to me there's a solution here that lies in negotiation and in the science or art of appraising more than In dueling attorneys.
Okay, I don't see any more lights at this point. I will request a motion to adopt the resolution and other recommendations.
I'll move the staff recommendation.
And just before seconding, I wanted to state my reasons why. And that is because I think there is some urgency. I think that there is an opportunity to continue discussing the concern that they mentioned about the appraisal and also the maintenance CIR of the concern that they mentioned about CEQA. So I'll second.
And I will ditto those comments.
Yeah and I guess just speaking to the motion, I appreciate Supervisor Williams' interest in trying to find a third appraiser that would work this out you know and find a compromised place. Appreciate the Shackney's interest in that too. I suspect that the challenge is the gulf is so large that agreeing on the appraiser is probably like finding the deal The court in the process from eminent domain is the adjudicator of that. That will be that 3rd appraisal and you know, we're just going to let the chips fall where they may it may take some time to go through that process but fortunately will be able to move forward with the bridge project and protect the neighborhood in the meantime.
So we have a motion if we get a motion and a second OK do a roll call please
Mister Williams no Mister Hart I miss Hartman I Mister Adam
Aye.
Chair Lavanino?
Aye.
Motion passes four with one no.
Okay, I see Dennis moving towards how long is this item?
All
right let's go ahead and take it before lunch so we can
2:54 – 3:003 turns
Chair Lovenino, members of the board, departmental item number two is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on the Santa Barbara County Independent Redistricting Commission.
Chair Lavinino, members of the board, Dennis Buzanich County Executive Office. And I'm here and I know Mr. Holland is in the building as well and he will be joining us shortly. He's in the adjoining room finishing up a phone call but we could if it's your pleasure go ahead and start. So the purpose of today's report is really just to provide you an update on the status of the Independent Redistricting Commission that was approved by voters as Measure G.
And just to go over and make sure that for yourselves, as well as members of the public That the selection process has been is identified and what that looks like. And then a proposed possible speculative kind of calendar of events that we might look at going forward. So, couple of things to notice that the selection process is designed to produce an independent Commission in independence from the from your board from political parties from campaign contributors or other special financial interests There's 11 members on the independent redistricting commission as established by measure G there are very specific residency requirements voter registration requirements and Individuals who would apply for this would need to be free of any kind of financial interests in contracting with the county or otherwise.
There were very low thresholds for campaign contributions and restrictions on their ability to be appointed to various commissions, or work as staff both in the past as well as going forward. One of the key proposals for this is that once the folks are able to apply to be a part of the Independent Redistricting Commission, to be considered as one of those 11 members. The county elections committee will review all of the applications and to select and then make public the 45 most qualified applicants.
The initial five commissioners would be selected by random drawing, by various buckets of applicants for each supervisorial district based on their current boundaries. And those initial commissioners would select five more district-based committee members, commission members plus one at large member from the remaining qualified applicants as selected by the elections official.
In terms of how that commission is identified to work and to operate, seven commissioners. So recall there's 11 total but seven commissioners are required to be a quorum. The members of that commission are going to be subject to all of the county's conflictive interest codes Brown Act as well as ex parte communication requirements The commission must conduct, again this is all in the ordinance that the voters approved in Measure G. The commission must conduct at least seven meetings prior to the drawing of any maps.
Post those maps online, and then conduct an additional seven public meetings. And these have to be spread through all of the various supervisorial districts. Conduct seven more public meetings after the drawing of a map or maps to guarantee public input. In our county code, it identifies rules required to be followed in creating districts including geography, cohesiveness, congiguity, integrity, compactness and communities of interest. And I'm happy to remind myself how to pronounce congiguity after the last ten years of doing work on the redistricting plan.
It's also important to note that a bill was signed this past weekend by the governor, identifying these same exact criteria that are listed here and that were listed actually in Measure G and are present in our county code now. The one things that I would point out, we can bring some more information back to your board later. The new state law as signed by the governor requires that these elements of typical fair redistricting plans now have to be done in a very specific priority order.
And so going forward, the independent redistricting commission in this county We'll have a very scripted set of requirements based on what the governor signed this weekend about how to rank the prioritization of each of these elements. Supervisor Williams. Do you do you have that ranking handy? I'm gonna look maybe council's like half a step ahead of me or if not, I do have it Oh they are
there. They're the chair and supervisors So senior deputy in Ryerson has has the comparison chapters here and can address the rank order. I
3:00 – 3:0613 turns
Okay, so the first priority is that the Supervisorial District shall be geographically contiguous. And then the second one is the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. There's more details to that but I'm just giving you the priority order. The third is to the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of a city or census designated place shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division.
Then there's a fourth one that I believe is new. It says Supervisor Oriel district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents to the extent practicable supervisorial districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets or by the boundaries of the county. The fifth is that supervisorial districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.
And then there's also the criteria, the board shall not adopt supervisorial district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.
And if I could add to that, some of these when we look at how does it actually transpire on the ground? The one that looks like it was added, this subdivision four bounded by natural and artificial barriers streets or other boundaries. We see this from time to time in zoning and other aspects so this is something that the county's had experience with before in terms of not having a line Just go in the middle of nowhere, but have some kind of understandable whether it's a freeway a stream You know the base of a mountain
So a couple of the other operational considerations Established by measure G and included in our County Code now That it will require seven or more votes for the independent redistricting Commission to adopt a map And the adopted map will need to be filed with the elections officials within six months of the census data publication. In 2010, the census data was published in mid-March of 2011, so a full year after the census.
So six months from maybe mid March is when we're gonna look at
So Dennis, help me with that. So I'm trying to figure out what's the timeline between the time that the commissioners are chosen and when they actually start going to work and when they come up with a map?
Let me try this since this has a timeline built in so if we were to let's say go down to So if we go to the second to last row here, to answer your question directly. Then there's also an additional state law that was passed this year that says that a local jurisdiction cannot create and approve a map before August 1st of the year after the election or census, sorry, year after the census. So you can't pick them, you can't select the map Before August 1st of 2021.
Here's and we'll maybe I'll start with their so that's there the cut the the commission according to measure G needs to be established by December 31st of 2020, so that's actually
in the okay because
yes
what I'm worried about and I think what's going to end up happening but it looks like this is dictated by what was in measure G. Is that you're going to have people selected Identified in the public and these poor people are going to be lobbied for quite a long time before we get around to actually drawing a map.
Chair Levin, you know I think if we go through the rest of the timeline there is a lot of flexibility and we've built some slack into this schedule. But I think given that there is that back end deadline of December 31st of 2020... Oh, we're only in 19
right now?
Okay,
I'm confused. Alright so we still have a whole year before they have to be
chosen. Before they would have to be chosen is 15 months from now. So I think that's key. So here's our proposed timeline, and again we've got a lot of additional slack. At the front end of this process and we'll get to a problem at the back end of the process at the end of this discussion as well. But generally what we're looking at is, is we could begin the application phase as soon as next month. We don't have to but we could with the possibility of that period ending on or around January 31st of 2020 so 11 months virtually ahead
3:06 – 3:1411 turns
That's kind of what I'm worried about. Okay, is that you identify these people and you select them and they're going to get. I mean their lives are gonna change for a whole year probably before they need to but that's just a personal thing. I just think it's I know we want to do things as quick as we can but We're going to be asking people to do something that is going to have a lot of attention on it. And we're choosing these people because they basically haven't been part of the system and they're gonna instantly become part of the system in a major way as soon as they get identified, so.
So maybe I can go through the major steps real quick and then we could talk about the timeline. All
right, go ahead.
So, so after that application phase there would be need to be a period of time of a couple of months or so to basically review those applications by the elections official and Joe's here. To be able to review those it's hard to know whether or not we're going to get 11 applicants or 1,100 applicants right and I think that's one of the challenges going forward here And and I think out of an abundance of caution around not really being sure how many applicants we're gonna need How they're gonna need to be reviewed and remember. I went through those criteria They're not They're they're not simple criteria To go through and review so I want to make sure we do allow some time for that applicant review phase giving the elections official time to do that Just for a matter of point, Census Day is April 1st of 2020.
So that's happening in there and again it takes a while for the Census Bureau to process that data and then send those data files to us by census track and sentences block One, the next step in the process though after the review would be that commissioner selection process. And it's kind of a, as I mentioned before, it's a two-step process. Pick the initial five and then have that initial five pick the remaining six.
But that I think becomes key and it comes from this pool of 45 that the elections official has been asked to create. Somewhere in March 2021, the census 2020 population data will be released to all of us and that will really be able to then provide the commission, the Independent Redistricting Commission with the data they really need to do their work. There is some preparation and training and understanding of all the regulations and discussions and all that can occur prior to the release of the data, but it's not an exhaustive amount of time.
Then somewhere between Following that selection process there would need to be the orientation public hearings that are mentioned including those two rounds map development And it would be map or maps That would occur following the selection Adoption would need to occur and as I mentioned before to the chair The map cannot be selected before August 1st of 2021 And one of the key things though that to note is that March 8th of 2022 Is the schedule now for the next statewide primary election and at this point I'd like to turn it over to Joe if you don't mind Joe and just describe the process That you and your election staff go through prior to March of 2022 well
We issue petitions in lieu of signatures to for candidates and so September 16th of 2021 is when we be issuing those. Petitions to potential candidates, and obviously if you're a potential candidate, you need to know which district you're going to be running in. And if we don't have those set by September 16th. Then we got a problem. So the election really began September 16 for the March 8th 2022.
Primary so September 16th of 2021. Similarly, we're having a March election in 2020 and that. That elections already begun with petitions are out there right now for people to want to run for supervisor.
So I think you know one of the while we've got this lead time kind of a little bit of a luxury of lead time here. We have a bit of short shortened time for fear period at the back end where the maps are being created Have to be recirculated for those seven public meetings again, and then getting to seven votes on the Independent Redistricting Commission may require some time. And again if it can't be done before August 1st but prior hopefully to September 16th. I will also note that the maps actually become official 30 days after they're chosen.
So one could imagine that if it was August 2nd of 2021, that the map is approved by the commission. It would be September 2nd before those maps would become official and then as Mr. Holland has just noted, that means opening up the petition process for candidates for the March 2022 election would begin two weeks later. One possible option here would be to consider a legislative remedy that at least for those primary elections following the decennial census, the every ten year census. That they would have the primary election slide back to the normal June slot Which would then delay that petitioning process that Mr. Holland's noted would need to start mid-September, that could push that back by approximately three months.
And so that might be something and I think there might be a lot of support for that given the fact that every single jurisdiction is now bound by this nothing prior to August 1st and then also are going to have this very similar process do we have because the dates that Mr. Are very much prescribed in state statute.
Okay, Supervisor Hart? Well I think this is a great presentation and it's a very complicated process and you described it really well. I thought that Chair Levinino's point about having folks sitting in this newly spotlighted role is a really smart observation. I hadn't thought about that. The one thing that I did, I did have concern about is the originally scheduled application phase and the timing of that. It almost perfectly aligns with the holiday season and 1,100 applicants versus 11 is much less likely trying to recruit people during the holidays. So I would make a recommendation that you extend that time at least and I'm not sure what to do with Supervisor Laminino's comment but this just that time is really concerning because we do need to get enough applicants to have a legitimate pool to have this whole process work and Effectively, I think you're really talking about only people being even aware of this probably mid to late January.
Chair Lavinino and Supervisor, I appreciate the comments. And we will definitely look at reworking the schedule and beginning after the first of the year probably fits well with what Supervisor Lavinino's noted as shortening that waiting around period without necessarily creating a bind for the election official in the selection of the 45 most qualified. So I
appreciate that direction. Okay is there any public comment?
Chair Lovenino and members of the board, I have no request to speak on this item.
Supervisor Adam, do you have any comment?
3:14 – 3:1722 turns
Now I can't get the darn thing on. No, I really don't have much to say about it. I'm hopeful that this is a more transparent process and it leads to some good work being done. And it sounds like the state's kind of on the same page as well so hopefully it works out well.
Well, as a veteran of the time that we did it last go around. I will say it could not go any worse so far as process goes. We will go to thank you very much Dennis. Do we need a motion?
Supervisors, so a couple of things we heard is one about the application phase not interfering with holidays and to shorten the period so that we don't bring back either bring back the wrong rock. Supervisor Lavinino and some echoed that it is too long. Possibly because we have the application phase beginning a year before the committee has to be selected. So is there any time frame that you're thinking is more appropriate before when the final commission selection has to be made? Right now, we have an application beginning in November which will We're giving ourselves a long runway just to make sure that we can get education done, etc.
But is there a year's a long time? Are you making any other suggestions for us to look at eight months six months nine months
I'd say six is good, if that works. Okay
we can develop a schedule to do that.
Okay. Thank you for that input.
I agree with that, by the way. I think that having those people just hanging out there for a long time is kind of a... It could be potentially fraught with danger so if we... You might lose a few
of them along the way. Well
yeah, that's right. People have lives and things happen. Yep.
Okay very good. Do we need a motion?
It's
simply
a receiving file, sorry. It's simply a receiving file plus the sequel.
So moved?
Moved and
seconded. Roll call please.
Mr. Williams? Aye. Mr. Hart? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye! Mr. Adam?
Aye
Chair Levenino?
Aye
Motion passes unanimous All
right thank you very much appreciate that Dennis and Joe And we will now be moving to closed session Mr. Gazzone
3:17 – 3:182 turns
Chair and supervisors, today the board is agendized to consider six items. The first existing litigation Griffin versus County of Santa Barbara. Next existing litigation McCrory versus County of Santa Barbara. Third existing litigation Homar versus County of Santa Barbara. You then have an item sitting as both the Board of Supervisors for the county and the Board of Directors for the water agency. One item of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation.
And then you have two more matters of existing litigation. One is the Southern California Fire Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Number 4965 and then an item that we added on Friday, existing litigation Jordan versus County of Santa Barbara. My estimate is about an hour and a half to two hours of closed session.
All right so we will start closed session at 1230 and we'll be back here probably around 2 o'clock.
3:29 – 3:391 turns
You. Good morning. Yeah. You. Okay. You. you Hello.
3:40 – 3:453 turns
Hello everyone. The
Hello. Hello. Hello, everyone. . .
Can I turn off my phone for some reason? ♪
3:46 – 4:591 turns
♪ Good morning. You. You. Thank you. Yeah. Hello. You. you Hello. Hello everyone. Music playing The Music Hello, everyone. . . Hello, everyone. Hello. You. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. You. Good morning. You. Yeah. Hi. you You. Hello, everyone. Hello everyone.
5:00 – 5:052 turns
♪ The The Hello, everyone. Oh
Hello, everyone. Hello, everyone. ♪ Good morning.
5:09 – 5:103 turns
All right, I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. Coming out of closed session Mr. Gazzone can we get a report?
Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board considered first three matters of existing litigation Griffin versus County of Santa Barbara, McCrory versus County of Santa Barbara and Homar versus State of California as well as County of Santa Barbara you also had one matter of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation One other matter of existing litigation, which was Southern California Fire Cases Judicial Council proceeding 4965.
And the item that we added on Friday was an existing litigation, Jordan versus County of Santa Barbara. The only reportable action was in Jordan versus County of Santa Barbara, which was a unanimous decision authorizing and directing county council to appeal the decision of the State Labor Office to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Barbara. That was a 5-0 vote.
No further reports?
Okay, and with that we will adjourn. And our next meeting is November the 5th in Santa Barbara.