Board of Supervisors — 2021-08-03

All right, Mona, it looks like we have all five of us on here.

Great. I think County Council and Clerk of the Board and Jeff Rappel are in the chambers.

Okay, great.

Chair Nelson, we're ready to go when you are.

Okay, we're ready to go.

All right, good morning. I will call to order the August 3rd 2021 special meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

chair Nelson and members of the board we have no requests to speak under general public comment this morning

All right, thank you. We will now proceed to the departmental agenda.

Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number one is from General Services Public Works Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the acquisition of 630 Randall Road Santa Barbara California by the Santa Barbara Flood Control and Water Conservation District for flood control purposes APN 007120101 RES file number 003892. This is in the first district and there is a four-fifths vote required on this item.

Thank you Madam Clerk.

Any information from County Council prior to proceeding with this hearing?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Supervisors. First I just want to start by welcoming our outside counsel on this item, Doug Dennington, and he's joining us via Zoom. This is a matter under the Code of Civil Procedure. The power of eminent domain may only be exercised as provided by these statutes. Part of these statutes require notice and hearing where the property owner has a reasonable opportunity to appear and be heard.

And I recommend that you treat this matter as one where you would give ex parte disclosures, provide a short summary of information and from whom you received that information.

All right. Thank you Madam Council. Are there any questions for board members or ex parte disclosures?

I'll just say Supervisor Nelson, I have had one conversation with the property owner about two months ago, I guess it was.

All right. Not seeing any additional ex parte. Thank you Ms.

Van Molen. At this time, Maureen Spencer will you please proceed?

Thank you. Good morning Chair Nelson, members of the board I have a short presentation consisting of three slides. If that can be brought up, please?

Thank you.

Thank

you.

The first slide shows the location of the Randall Road debris basin as it sits within the community of Montecito. It's located at the intersection of Highway 192 which is East Valley Road and Randall Road immediately adjacent to San Ysidro Creek Next slide, please. This slide is a zoomed in aerial view of the debris basin boundary and the associated parcels.

The parcels outlined in red have been acquired by the district. One small rectangular parcel outlined in red has historically been owned by the district but the other ones were recently acquired. The blue shaded parcel is the only remaining parcel that needs to be acquired for the project. The remaining parcel is an integral part of this debris basin project.

Next slide, please. This slide, it outlines the required findings for the resolution of necessity. In summary, the public interest and necessity require the project following the Thomas fire and resulting debris flow events The project is being undertaken to develop a debris basin to capture sediment, gravel, boulders and vegetative debris for the benefit and safety of the Montecito community.

The project is planned and located in a manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury. The natural topography of the area and existing watercourses necessarily drive the location of this project. The improvements on the properties selected for this project, including the subject property owned by Ms. Montgomery were damaged and destroyed during the prior debris flow events and have not been reconstructed.

The use of these properties for the project was designed to minimize private injury and maximize the potential for the greatest public good. Finally, the subject property owned by Ms Montgomery is necessary for the project As shown on the prior slide, the Montgomery parcel is surrounded on three sides by other properties acquired for this project and is located within the proposed debris basin facilities.

The project cannot be constructed as planned without acquisition of Montgomery parcel. On April 18th 2019, the county sent an offer to Ms. Montgomery to purchase property based on appraisal at the time then on May 28th 2021 The county submitted an updated offer to Ms. Montgomery for the full amount of the county's appraisal at the current fair market value, to purchase a property as well as an offer to purchase a permanent exclusive easement over the property both of which were rejected.

Mr. Chair that concludes the public works presentation and staff is available for questions.

Thank you Ms. Spencer are there any questions from the board members at this time? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm just curious if the land right now is, if they wanted to would they be able to rebuild on that particular piece of property?

That is a good question and I don't...I'm not sure what the answer to that is so I would have to defer That question to county council, I believe that yes they would be

allowed.

Mr. Chairman members of the board that is not something that we have looked at so i'm not sure the answer to that question

okay

but

that is in the prior debris flow area

Mr. Chair, yes it is. I wasn't sure that question was for but yes. Oh okay

thank you. All right any other questions from the board? Okay seeing none

this is a public hearing to allow the owners of the property or their representatives and any person who will be impacted by the project to address the district only on the following issues Whether the project is necessary, whether the project is planned and located in a manner that is most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

Whether the property is necessary for the project, whether a written offer has been made to the owner and CEQA. Madam Clerk are there any letters that are requested to be made part of the record?

Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board on July 26th we received correspondence from Mr. Todd Amspoker as well as four emails this morning for Price Postal and Parma LLP on behalf of Catherine W Montgomery the property owner of 630 Randall Road APN 007120101

All right, the letter has been accepted

and will be incorporated in as part of the record regarding this project. As well as the letters received emails received today. I will now call for a public hearing on this item. I asked the clerk of the board to please identify the owner of the property or the representative and any person who will be impacted by the project to address the district at this time.

First, please clearly state your name and city of residence for the record. Thank you.

Chair Nelson and members of the board available on zoom today we do have Mr. Todd Amspoker who is representing Miss Catherine Montgomery as well as Miss Catherine Montgomery.

All right, uh Mr. Amspoker?

Good morning, this is Todd Amspoker. I'm Mrs Montgomery's attorney. I would ask that Mrs Montgomery go first if you would she had some a few comments that she liked to make first and then I'll conclude our remarks if that's okay.

That's fine. Ms Montgomery when you're ready?

I'm ready hello thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak today Obviously, I know this isn't easy for you. This isn't easy for me but I'd like to start with in four weeks it will be my 30th anniversary to being married to Mark and I have two things from that 30 year marriage. I have my wedding ring and I have Randall Road. I have nothing else. Randall Road has meant Everything to me over the last three years of dealing with the loss of my daughter, the loss of my husband, the loss of my life as I knew it is that COVID all of the things is that I always knew that Randall Road was there waiting for all of us to return.

I dream about walking The property which Mark and I have had together since 1993, 1995. Excuse me, 1995. And you know, I was told at the start of this process by Ben Romo that my property could not be taken away from me. That was told to me repeatedly that my property could not be taken away from me. That it could not be taken by eminent domain And, you know, the county came to me. It told me that and then the county came back to me is like we changed our mind. We're going to take it by a minute domain from you and we're going to pay you less than what you paying your neighbors or so forth. And we're going to take that land from you.

And I guess my, you know, it's all that I have and I'm not interested in selling it And I'm not interested in doing anything with it other than coming to it as soon as I can fly, finding the spot where Mark and I slept and lying down on that spot. And then spreading their ashes on Randall road because it's all that we have. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Montgomery. Mr. Amspoker?

Thank you members of the board my name is Todd Amspoker I'm Mrs. Montgomery's attorney already wrote a letter I wanted to add some things for the record obviously there's nothing I need to add to my client statement but a couple of things that I sent this morning First, I sent the email that Mr. Romo sent to my client some time ago making that written commitment not to, that the county would never condemn the property.

I also provided the FEMA grant documents. There's no doubt that this is a FEMA project. Everybody knows that it's very clear in Mr. Romo's email and then the notice of voluntary participation which was also in the email this morning but no condemnation would be used so I'm just still questioning why we're here Today, I also wanted to refer to various federal regulations that make it clear that the sponsoring agency for projects with FEMA money such as the County of Santa Barbara may not use eminent domain and those regulations are found in 49 Code of Federal Regulations 24.101, 44 Code of Federal Regulations 80.13. So it's our legal opinion that the county is simply violating federal law by pursuing a condemnation of this FEMA project.

But there's another legal problem that I wanted to mention as you know there was an EIR addendum done For this project, I also sent in the EIR addendum this morning to make a part of the record. The EIR addendum divides this project up into two sections with the later section including my client's property to be built at a later time. All the other properties except my client's property have already been acquired. The problem and the legal problem that's presented here is that the construction of this project has already started I also submitted an article, and all of you are fully aware of the commencement of construction in May. But there's an article that I submitted this morning from The Independent about the commencement of construction of May of 21.

So the problem is this project has already started construction. Once having started construction, the county has no choice other than to complete it. So it's our conclusion as a matter of law that your discretion To make a decision about whether or not to condemn the property has been taken away because of the commencement of the construction. Therefore, the property just simply can't be condemned at this point.

I also mentioned in my letter the other property immediately north of my client's property that was acquired for $4 million by the county. There is something odd about that transaction, which suggests that not everybody has been treated fairly or equitably in this entire project. That other property was purchased for $3,595,000 in 2016 only a short time before the debris flow That house that was very heavily damaged in the debris flow, it certainly wasn't habitable. All of the site improvements were completely eliminated yet somehow the county was able to obtain an appraisal The sale price was close to $4 million, and in fact the sale price by which the county purchased that property was $4 million. Again, same size property, uninhabitable house on it, heavily destroyed by the debris flow.

Very similar situation. How that property could be acquired That there is such a situation when this owner, north of Mrs. Montgomery's property somehow made a substantial profit between the time the property was originally purchased in 2016 until the time the county decided to pay them $4 million for that property. We ask that you cancel this unfortunate effort to condemn the property.

We ask that you not violate your prior written promises. Thank you.

All right, are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Chair Nelson and members of the board we have no additional requests to speak on this item.

I will now close the public hearing portion of this item. The matter is now to the Board. Are there any comments from my colleagues? Supervisor Williams

I just want to make sure that staff responds to the questions insofar as particularly it's my understanding that staff outlined a possibility where Ms. Montgomery could retain ownership and have certain uses of the property that might And I want to make sure that that was articulated and known by both parties. So, I hope that can be articulated by my staff.

Thank you. Excuse me, Chair Terrell Nelson, Supervisor Williams. The Miss Montgomery has been offered for us to purchase an exclusive easement over her property And for her to retain ownership of it. And we've also offered to build a memorial for her and her family. We've successfully worked with another property owner at the debris basin site on a piece of property that we acquired, and we are going to be building a memorial in the area for her and her cousin.

So that has been offered but it was rejected

And if there's anything else that either County Council or Miss Spencer would want to articulate in response.

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Williams, I don't have anything to add to that.

Spencer?

No, I don't have anything to add thank you.

Any additional

comments from other board members? It's difficult to see you Supervisor Hart there, welcome back. Do you have any comments?

No Mr. Chair the staff information was very helpful.

Thank you. Supervisor Hartman?

I would like Public Works just to address the need for this and also why we aren't building it in two phases and why do we need the entire property?

Yes, turn Nelson supervisor Hartman. The project was designed to include all of these parcels to maximize the benefit to the community. And if we were to build a smaller base and it would mean less protection to the community. And our goal is to always to maximize that. And why the advantage of building this basin in one season is it allows a contractor to not have to demobilize and remobilize for another season.

And it also allows us to complete the basin prior to the upcoming winter rains, and therefore we would have a completely functional facility to begin the protection to the community downstream.

All right. Any other further questions from the board?

My one question, and I think I know the answer but I want to ask for a counsel. There was an assertion made that there was a employee of the county that made a commitment on behalf of the county. Was there any authorization from the board to make such a commitment? Is it is the board bound by anything along those lines?

Mr. Chair and members of the board know the county is not bound by any statement made at that time.

It is unfortunate that was made. I

wasn't doesn't seem to have been a proper statement to be made. There was rights reserved by the board ultimately, to make a decision on what's

necessary and best for the public Are there any, I'm not seeing further questions. I apologize that the Zoom meeting is a little difficult. I guess my last parting comment would be

Ms. Montgomery your words were very impactful meaningful and I understand right? I guess I can't understand but I sympathize with your loss And it's not an easy decision for myself or this board to go down this. Down this direction, I also want to thank Mr Dennington and. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

I cannot imagine the anguish that Ms. Montgomery has been through, and we are not ignoring that. In fact for me that is the very reason why we must proceed with this project. We cannot allow when it is within our power To reduce the likelihood that others will share and experience that grief. We cannot hold back from building a basin that will maximize the community's safety, and it is I apologize for any impression that a staffer made, but the community has been through a lot since that time.

And it is not just the Board of Supervisors that is demanding a greater level of safety. It is the public, it's the people of Montecito and the people of Santa Barbara County that are demanding a greater level of safety And when we have it within our power to build that, I think we are

morally required to do so. Thank you Supervisor Williams. I will now close the public hearing

portion of this item. The matter is to the board and I redo request a motion to adopt the resolution

and other recommendations. So moved, Mr. Chair.

Seconded by Hartman.

Right so we have a motion from Supervisor Williams and a second from Supervisor Hartman. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?

Motion passes unanimously

Okay, we will now recess to closed session. County Council, will you please read the items for consideration today?

Thank you Mr. Chair. We have two items on for closed session today. The first is conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units underrepresented employees managers and executives and the second is conference with real property negotiators for assessor parcel number 005080006 201 Temple Street in Summerland

Miss Dunwall, how much time do you expect?

My time estimate is about 40 minutes.

Okay so we should be back between 10 15 and 10 30 to adjourn the meeting

thank you Gene Zanon considered permaculture? No, but he is. We're back in the meeting. We're back. Okay.

Chair Nelson we are ready to proceed.

All

right thank you. We are now reconvening the meeting of August 3rd 2021 will County Council please report out from closed session

Thank you Mr. Chair, Supervisors we the board met in closed session for two items conference with labor negotiators with all bargaining units unrepresented employees managers and executives and conference with real property negotiation negotiators 201 Temple Street in Summerland and took the board took no reportable action

right thank you Miss Dunwallen we are now adjourning to or we're now adjourned to Tuesday August 17 2021 in Santa Maria thank