Board of Supervisors 03/05/24

Okay, now I can call to order March 5th 2024 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk we get a roll call please?

Move approval.

Second. Okay we need one minute I'm sorry. We've got a little technical issues today so we're going to move a little slower. Okay, we have a motion from Supervisor Hartman and second from Supervisor Nelson. Let's take a roll call vote because I do need to, um, I was absent from that meeting.

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, I do have a few announcements this morning. Go

ahead.

We received a request from the sponsoring supervisor to continue administrative item number one to the April 2nd board meeting. Administrative item number one is a resolution to be presented by Supervisor Lavinino honoring Ted Sten upon the conclusion of his service on the Santa Barbara County Board of Retirement. This continuation can be added to the balance of the administrative agenda. In addition, I have a quick announcement to make on administrative item number eight Administrative item number eight is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding an appointment of the public works department director prior to board action on administrative item number eight in accordance with government code section 54953 subdivision C3, the Public Works Department Director salary information shall be summarized verbally effective April 1st 2024 Chris Sneddon's biweekly salary will be approximately $8,624.

Additionally we received a request from the department to withdraw administrative item number 25 from the agenda. Administrative Item Number 25 is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson, it is to approve the appointment of David Ketelar to the Behavioral Wellness Commission term ending January 1st 2027 and this withdrawal can also be added to the balance of the administrative agenda.

Lastly for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment On general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page 2 of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. If you have any questions please contact the clerk at the board's office at area code 8 0 5 5 6 8 2 2 4 0 again that number is 805-568-2240 and that concludes my announcements for today.

Thank you very much. Do we have a CEO's report for today?

No report this morning chair.

Okay, that takes us to our administrative agenda.

A7 and A16. 7

and 16. Supervisor Nelson.

Yes I'd like to speak on A7 and A16 but I would also like to poll 19 and 21. I need to recuse myself from those two. Okay.

Supervisor Williams. Nope. Sorry, I just had my mic on. Okay and Madam Clerk do we have any items to be pulled from the public?

Chair Lavagnino members of the board yes we have requests from the public to speak on administrative items number four seven eight and sixteen.

Okay are there any items that we are not pulling? That would be That would be the balance. So I'll now entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda except for the items that have been pulled 4, 7, 8, 16, 19 and 21.

So moved.

Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. We're going to go to resolutions to be presented. We'll come back to the balance for those items that were pulled in just a moment. We will move to administrative item number two. Madam Clerk can we please read that into the record?

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, Administrative Item Number Two is sponsored by Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution designating March 2024 as Women's History Month in Santa Barbara County. And joining us in person today we have Kathy O'Dell and Nikki Parr And if you can please join us at the podium. And I will go ahead and read the resolution.

Whereas, the month of March is recognized as Women's History Month and International Women's Day is on March 8th 2024. And whereas, the month and day are a global celebration of the economic cultural social and political achievements of women. And whereas we celebrate and highlight the invaluable contributions and triumphs women have made in our community And whereas the County of Santa Barbara wishes to uphold the achievements, educate on the challenges and provide more exposure to the rights of women and gender equality and equity. And whereas the gender gap in power and leadership remains entrenched both locally and globally. An additional $360 billion per year is needed to achieve gender equality and women's empowerment across key global goals And 54 percent of countries still lack laws in all key areas of gender equality.

And whereas Women's Economic Ventures is a champion of empowering women dedicated to uplifting and supporting historically marginalized communities to identify and address barriers to achieving economic success. And whereas in the last five years WEAVE has assisted 2,100 local women entrepreneurs and their businesses creating 6,000 jobs fueling the local economy Equipping women and with the tools and education to launch and grow a thriving business. And setting the bar for what is possible for women to accomplish in our community. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares March Women's History Month and March 8th as International Women's Day, and is especially grateful for women's economic ventures who so boldly lift up and empower the women of Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.

I do accept this on the behalf of all the women in the community, and particularly the entrepreneurial women that WEAVE serves. As they continue to bring their new business concepts and ideas to fruition, to add to women's history. We go back looking through women's history and see how many things that we all interact with every day that we didn't know were invented by women.

Like the washing machine and the windshield wiper, and actually it was a woman who first discovered laser technology for cataract surgery. And we know that someplace amongst all of the women we serve here in Santa Barbara County there are those with other new compelling ideas and so we thank you for acknowledging that.

Okay?

Thank you for being here.

Thank you go vote.

Supervisor Katz.

Yeah thank you. I just wanted to thank our speakers and I love the focus on economic empowerment because it goes hand in hand with discrimination with poverty with all of the things associated with the strives that women still need to make. It wasn't too long ago where a woman would have to have her husband signed in order to get a loan. All of these things are still things that we need to fight for and having Weave right here in our community first for so long doing such Amazing work has helped so many men and women and so many children. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, this takes us to the administrative items have been pulled by the board in the public will take up the administrative items pulled in numerical order. Madam Clerk can you please read administrative item number four into the record?

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number four is from the Auditor-Controller's Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the renewal of a contract with Brown Armstrong Accountancy Corporation, Brown Armstrong for the county's annual financial audits and we have one request to speak on this item from the public and we are going to go to Chuck Williams here in Santa Barbara. Chuck?

Hi I'm Chuck Williams from Old Town Orchid. I'm representing myself today And I wasn't going to speak on anything on this, but Commitment to specific projects which may result potentially in significant physical impacts on the environment. And there is a specific project that this would apply to in Old Town Orchid, and it has to do with a roundabout. And there is significant impacts with that. And I'm gonna leave it at that and I'll speak again at the next item.

Thank you.

And that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay let's go to item A7 please can you read that into the record?

And Chair Lavinino, members of the board would you like to get a vote on this item or take them

all together? Go ahead can I get a motion on A4

please?

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board administrative item number seven is from the county executive office it is to adopt a resolution to amend the 2024 Board of Supervisors schedule of meeting dates and locations to add an additional meeting at 2 p.m. on Tuesday March 19th 2024 to conduct a housing element rezone workshop to be held in the Planning Commission hearing room and we have one request to speak from the public on this item

Okay, I think Supervisor Hartman also pulled this item. So why don't we have Supervisor Hartman go first and then we'll go to the.

Sure, well the first thing is I'm very excited about this workshop. We did have a previous workshop where the board articulated criteria that they would like to see in project proposals as we consider the rezones and this will be the opportunity actually to hear from developers. The way it's scheduled as i understand it it's simply to look at South County given that I represent certain areas in mid and north county However you define it, I would also like to include or invite those who would like to present at this meeting. So that's my first plea and my second is that UCSB is also providing about 750 units and if they could be invited to attend if they'd like to describe those in the schedule when what kind how they envision that unfolding at which economic levels, that would also be great.

Okay Supervisor Capps?

Thank you I'd like to echo the request for UCSB which is as we all know a linchpin to our housing challenges right now to be part of this meeting. I'm really glad we're having this meeting it was suggestion that came I believe from the League of Women Voters and more transparency so that developers who are seeking rezones from us They get to there's awareness from the public about what kind of promises are being made, what kind of plans they have that will affect all of us. So I appreciate this hearing and look forward to it.

Supervisor Nelson? Yes thank you Chair Levin. I understand the concern that this might be just a South County, the way it's designed right now. And I wanted to address that for a moment. I understand that down the south is very different situation than we have up north down south there's a lot of difficult choices to be made in the North County. We're fortunate enough to have a significant inventory and not the same level of demand In the in the North County, we haven't necessarily had the same level of advocacy and sophistication that has gone with. Many of our projects hiring consultants to come and put together projects and presentations and what my concern about now at the last lately. Late in the process asking them to present would put some of the really good projects at a disadvantage that haven't gone out and hired those consultants and government affairs professionals to promote their project to the board.

As Supervisor Hartman pointed out that she also represents North County as well but all but two of the North County projects are in my district. And so I'd ask if we want to go ahead and do a North County presentation that we give maybe the North County Project this may be an extra month to get that start to get that together because but that might impact our timeline as well. So I'm OK with it. I'm not saying we shouldn't do it but I'm just saying that so we don't put many of our North County products that have not been informed that this would be the process that they would go through.

I'd ask for more time for them if that's if that throughout the board will wish to go through.

But you don't have any concern if somebody wants

to do it there has a project that wants to I do. I think that we should give them the time so it's a level playing field for all the North County projects. Well,

I only know of one. OK well let's go to Director Plowman

Mr Chair members of the board a month delay would delay the ultimate conclusion of the rezone process and I would not recommend that But certainly the board's option. OK,

well let's go to public comment.

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board we have one request to speak from the public on this item and we're going to zoom with Michael Stolte. Michael. And Michael. Good morning

esteemed members of the board I'm here to speak on behalf of Keysight 26 Which was included in the housing element voted on December 5th, 2023. It has come to our attention that only projects within the housing element in South County are invited to the rezone workshop and we would like to request that our North County site also be invited. We believe that our project has valuable components that lend itself to being rezoned and we would appreciate the opportunity to partake in the workshop.

Alternatively if we are not included We would only have the standard three minutes to speak about the merits of our project on the day of the rezone hearings. We respectfully request that our project be given the same opportunities as others in the South. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

And that concludes public comment on this item.

Okay, well it's to the board how does anybody want to proceed? I'll just say personally, I mean, I think he's going to come to the meeting anyway and speak for three minutes and then have his thing outside. So I don't know why we just don't give the extra seven minutes.

I guess my concern is that none of the other North County projects that all asked about this have been told at this point that it was gonna be a South County hearing so if it's all them at a disadvantage to that one project And that's one project that's also at the same time Has an application to be annexed into the city of Santa Maria. So it's I'm, I'm not inclined to give that project special treatment versus the rest of the, you know, I don't know 30 North County sites that are out there again if we need wanted to give the north a rest of the projects in North County time.

That's great but it's going to delay the whole entire process. I think the choices that we have to make in the North County aren't about necessarily the bells and whistles of a project but because we have a lot of options and not as much of demand we can look at things like DMTs public resources neighborhood compatibility as prior higher values than some of the choices you're gonna have to make down in the South Coast so that's why as somebody who has a majority of the north county projects in my district I didn't ask to have As we call the beauty contest because I didn't think we needed it because I thought there was a lot of other good criteria out there for our board to make some good decisions. So, um, I'm not supportive adding the North County without an extension on this presentation.

Okay

well

Supervisor Hartman

Well I'm very eager to have the Bailey Avenue project presented as well and I'm eager to see what, to understand better what the North County projects are like. If people are invited and I can't see saying you can only have three minutes and others can have ten it seems only fair that those who would like to present are given that opportunity and if people don't want to That's fine too. It's not as it's not as competitive in North County, but I'm still very eager to see what the projects are being proposed.

I don't disagree, but I think we need more time to be fair to those north county projects

so well it is two weeks away and then you said if it's a month month would have been okay, but two weeks. Look, I didn't like doing this whole thing to start with of an outside meeting. But if you're going to do an outside meeting for purposes of allowing more transparency in that to tell somebody that they can't present is...I just don't think it's good policy.

One additional question and maybe it's for Supervisor Hartman or Director Plowman. So the Bailey Avenue one, that's not up for rezone though? Or is it? It's my understanding that and with that so projects to have that weren't up for rezone. That are just builder remedies projects they're also going to be presenting too I mean does that because that opens up kind of the floodgate as well of projects that we might be presenting in that

day. Supervisor Nelson through the chair, that site was not up for a rezone. So it is not actually included in our housing element. So we had not anticipated them making a presentation So it is a builder's remedy project. Yeah.

Supervisor Caps.

Yeah I just, I think that the projects in the north should be given equal time maybe it doesn't have to be a month but maybe that's something that staff can just work out of a schedule where we tack on at the end like we're doing on the 19th a special meeting maybe it's only half hour long or something I don't know I just think Supervisor Nelson raises good points of fairness and I also would like to hear more about these North County projects.

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Williams? So I think we should not delay and I think we should make a decision to either hear them all this day or not. And the reason is because we're already We in our heads have eight years to produce this housing. It's starting to be more like seven years, and if we don't produce it with the milestones then we lose zoning authority.

Um, and so I just think it's pretty important to use. Every block of a few weeks and I know it's been very difficult for the chair in the clerk's office to be able to schedule this in the 1st place. So I think if we're going to have North County folks present, it should be at this meeting just because we've got to do it and all. Hunker down, I think the 10 minute thing is a really. Good happy medium because it's shorter than an appeal hearing but longer than public comment. It's you know that whoever came up with that idea, I think was smart about format and so whoever that was thank you for doing that and I do think that everybody should get a chance to do it.

And if everybody's going to get a chance it's gonna be that date.

So Bryson Nelson. Yeah so

again I think it's OK you know that was an afternoon and I wasn't going to be here that's why he was scheduled that day in the afternoon because I wasn't gonna be here in the afternoon. So again I'm. If this is what with the conversation we wanted to have back previously and we wanted to kind of let them know that there would be a beauty pageant for the North County projects as well. I'd have been okay with that. And I still think that's okay. I don't want to delay it.

You know I guess if you guys want to move forward with that. You know I'm not going to kick and scream too much but I do think that it gives a single project a little bit of a disadvantage the project that's probably more unique than any other projects combined because of the political entanglements and that that project has. But I guess you know ultimately the conversation is gonna be the five of us in early May and I'm hoping That we are thoughtful and maybe not necessarily use the same type of criteria on that day. That's the important day really for me not necessarily this one.

So I'm OK with if you guys want to hear that one. It sounds like that there's there's votes for that and I'll move along but ask for some consideration we get to that point in May because I do think that there is a lot of balancing and it's a tool that says something we call on the tool a balancing that we've been trying to do up in the North County to make this work and make sure that the right projects get built at the right places so thank you.

So I would move that we. Include Tuesday, March 19th into our hearing schedule and that we invite UCSB to present if they would like to. And that we invite any North County projects that are part of our housing element to also present at their discretion.

All right and Director Plowman you're good with that?

Yes sir.

Okay all right so you have a motion okay is there a second? Second by Supervisor Williams. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously, okay perfect that takes us to administrative item number eight.

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number eight is from the County Executive Office it is to consider recommendations regarding an appointment of the Public Works Department Director and we do have one request to speak from the public on this item and we are going to remain here in Santa Barbara with Chuck Williams. Chuck?

Thank you once again. I am not a big CEQA fan, but I really don't like it when it's being misused and this is a situation where it could be misused. And it's a long story and I'm not going to go into it because you guys have already been down this road and it involves the Orkut Oasis Senior Center. This roundabout is being put in because of that senior center. And- I'm sorry, this is, I'm not sure you're on the right. I'm getting there, okay? Let's get there. Okay, this project it's going to have trucks and cars and tractors and school buses and parents hauling school kids.

And you think that round about won't need maintenance for all these pieces of equipment? I am absolutely opposed to this being approved for that particular project. And we've already spent, we're already spending two million bucks on this project so. I'm going

to leave it right

there. Okay just

for the public's, just for the public, this is considered recommendation regarding an appointment of Mr. Chris Nedden as a public works director? I will

make a recommendation he's a great man.

All right well good. Thank you. Hey we finally got there all right. All right, we got there. And then I think another thing that might be confusing to some people is we do have on our agendas they do talk about CEQA and County Council can you just weigh in on why we always say that this is not a project under CEQA so that folks don't pull every item when it mentions CEQAs?

Mr. Chairman, members of the board we added the CEQA language a few years ago to items to just make it clear to the public which ones have an impact on the environment or such as this one item A8 where it's just an administrative activity so it's just a clarification and information. Okay

so in clerical and administrative items like that we call out that CEQAs that this is not a project under CEQA I don't think Nominating Mr. Sneddon as Public Works Director is going to affect the environment too much, who knows? Jury might still be out on that but congratulations all right so can we get a motion to approve item A8? So moved.

Second.

Chair Lavagnino. Chair LaVenue, members of the board just to note for the record are my apologies. There was one vote missing after I hit it record so it only looked like four members of the board voted for that item but it was passed by a unanimous vote of the board. So my apologies on that. We will now go to administrative item number 16 this is from the Public Works Department is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for services of independent contractor for the Santa Maria River levee bike trail project county project number 862372 and this is in the 5th district.

Okay

when we start with Supervisor Hartman

so I pulled this item and I just wanted a progress report or update what's happened between when this board approved the 1.5 million and to date and how you see it unfolding.

Sure, good morning Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So the project has completed the initial stages of the preliminary engineering so we've completed the survey and the right-of-way surveys along the levee. We've completed some conceptual 30% plans just for use in the environmental documents there's still a long way to go to detailing out the plans and working with the stakeholders We've incorporated the components at Bonita School Road into the bridge project so there'll be an under crossing in the bridge project to accommodate a potential future path.

And we've had several meetings with stakeholders including the Corps of Engineers and the farmer representative groups and some other community members just to get initial feedback on the project and inform how we move forward with the process of developing the project This item will get the EIR going so that there's a lot of studies that will be involved in that and we'll continue to stakeholder process throughout that, that to address not just the environmental issues but the other things that need to be worked out for our project to move forward.

And the goal would be over the next year to complete the EIR and move the project along to where we have the input considered from the stakeholders and kind of built into the project so that it's positioned for potential future funding.

And what interactions have we had with the Corps of Engineers about this, so far?

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. They won't we've had meetings with them and informal discussions about feasibility and about some of the constraints, and they don't give formal responses but there aren't things that would make the project infeasible. There are just our constraints that you would have to work within to get permits for a project like this but there are trails on levees that are core levees throughout the country

Thank you. Supervisor Nielsen.

Yes thank you Chair Lavanino as we do the environmental study my understanding in CEQA that ag resources is a an area that's to be studied. Can you tell me that ag resources will be studied and be studied thoroughly because I do think CEQAs document supposed to inform the board of impacts and I think we should be very clear and eyes wide open on what those impacts are if this board ultimately goes through with permitting and building that trail.

Supervisor Nelson to the chair, yes there is a. There will be studies of those impacts through the environmental impact study process. I think the other thing we need to be mindful of is there are. Impacts that there may be that aren't specifically CEQA impacts but might be regulatory or other impacts that we need to look at as well so we'll be working with the Ag Commissioner and other stakeholder groups to see what those impacts are as well.

I guess my last question was, I know. One of the requests that I had was that we did the survey work and the engineering work in advance of you know spending too much money out for this project. My understanding is that we still don't have access along the entirety of proposed project area that some of this is private property and at this point we haven't had much success in acquiring that or working with the property owners.

I'll just say right now that's my concern with moving forward to spend another three hundred thousand dollars if to get to a point You know, we might be stymied in the end. The million and a half that we've committed from the county was to mitigate a previous environmental impact and impact to recreational opportunities. I think there's a lot of great other recreational opportunities in the North County but there's always not enough funds so I really want to husband these funds as best as possible to make sure that we're not spending them if it ultimately Going to end up with a dead end. And so could you give us the status of acquiring or actually getting access for the entirety of the proposed trail?

Sure, Supervisor Nelson through the chair I believe you're referring to the West End where there would be a connection point into the city of Guadalupe and this sort of sequence of project development is to get early preliminary plans and then go do the environmental process That has to be done before we get into the phase of looking at utility coordination and permitting right away those types of things so getting that project defined and studied under CEQA is the first step. And then the next step would be to pursue any right away acquisitions or other utility work or things like that that need to happen.

So once the environmental documents done. We'd go through that process after approval of a project or can help me where that fits in the timeline?

Sure, Supervisor Nelson through the chair that after if once the board certifies the environmental document that would begin the process of looking into the acquisition.

And what's the timeline on that?

So the environmental document should be done in the next 6 to 12 months. Thank you.

OK we have a public speaker on this.

Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Yes that is correct we have one request to speak from the public on this item and we are going to Zoom with Claire Weinman. Claire.

Good morning confirming you can hear me.

Yes Claire we can hear you it's very quiet so if you could just speak loud and clear that would be greatly appreciated. Okay

branch voice copy that. Good morning, my name is Claire Weinman. I'm the president of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. We still have some major concerns about the project's underlying fundamentals for that specific use in that specific location. We would love to see this funding invested in North County that's a better fit and there are many worthy projects.

We're very concerned about the project description being utilized and the importance of this very early on. If the project does move forward, we would like to ask for closer coordination more so than it has been for this specific item and to pursue the Cadillac Tesla design option for the extensive concerns with the conflicts that it would create. Thank you.

And that concludes public comment on this item.

All right thank you very much for that Claire. Can we get Supervisor Nelson?

Yeah I think thank you Mr. Chair Lavigne. I think Ms. Wynum brings up a good point So when you look at the projects and the project alternatives, I imagine you're looking at. I guess where are we at with the project description? Is it what was agreed to at the board previously with the more robust as Claire called it that the Cadillac or Tesla version is that still what we're studying as the preferred alternative?

Supervisor Nelson through the chair. Yes that's the general starting point and then you know the EIR will call out specific mitigations if any that would have elements that would need to be included to mitigate and then there may be other elements that would be added or modified based on working with stakeholder groups and direction from your board.

Well I think a lot of those ideas that you know Supervisor Lavinia had pointed out at that hearing are good opportunities to mitigate the impact to ag resources which so is if those start to go away as project alternatives then I think we even need to get more robust. And the impact to ag resources and get deeper into there. So I hope that that's not the route we go down, so I'm going to actually abstain at this one. I'm still concerned about access and fully having a bid out project before we move forward spending these funds. So i'm not gonna stand in the way but i'm not gonna move forward today.

Supervisor Hartman?

Move staff recommendation

Chair Lavinino and members of the board my apologies again. I think those technical issues will just continue throughout our day today but let the record reflect that that motion was passed with four yeses and one abstention from Supervisor Nelson. Thank you.

OK. That takes us to item A 19.

Supervisor Lavinio, I'm actually going to recuse myself on that so go ahead before they read it into the record. Okay for the record on A19 and A21 there are two vendors having to do with Tahigas that were donors of my campaign more than $250. So out of abundance of caution I'm going to go ahead and abstain and leave the room for these two items. I previously had another item Around to you guys that I actually refunded some funds of a donor so that I could vote on the item. I just became aware of this yesterday, that this conflict so and not have enough time to do something else about it. I'm going to go ahead and recuse out of abundance of caution on these two items. So I think that's satisfies my requirement County Council. All right. Thank you and if for some reason that my vote was needed to further this I would make sure I did what was proper to actually have the item moved or delayed so that I could participate.

It's always my priority to vote on things and not to have to recuse myself but we've got some new rules in place and unfortunately it hits me on this one. So thank you. OK. All

right. Supervisor Nelson's left the building. So can I can we read in 19 and 21, please?

Chair Lavagnino members of the board administrative item number 19 is from the Public Works Department is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for services of independent contractor with Diani Building Corporation And this is in the third district and there is a fourth this vote required on this item Additionally administrative item number 21 is sponsored by the Public Works Department It is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement with Pacific Petroleum California, Inc. for hauling and storing Resource Center waste liquids. This is in the third district and there was also a fourth this vote required on this item.

Move A-19 and A-21. I'll

second.