BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 July 18, 2017

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

0:00 – 0:001 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:20 · ≈ 9:00 AM

You.

0:03 – 0:1817 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:27 · ≈ 9:03 AM

And we're here in the county Santa Maria hearing room. Would you call the roll Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:33 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Mr. Lavinino? Here. Mr. Williams? Here Ms. Wolfe? Here Mr. Adam? Here Ms. Hartman?

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:40 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here Please stand and join me in the pledge Ready, begin.

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction3:46 · ≈ 9:03 AM

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:03 · ≈ 9:04 AM

And turning to the minutes of July 11, 2017 may I have a motion to approve? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes and now I'd like to add an item to our agenda that was not posted and That is the discussion of the Alamo and Whittier fires. Mr. Gazzone has advised us that we can add items to the agenda in still comply with the Brown Act when it's an emergency exception and when the board votes to add the item to the agenda so may I have a motion to add this to the agenda? A second, all in favor say aye.

Any opposed? So Mr. Allen would you read that into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:52 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board. This is an item from the County Executive Office in the Office of Emergency Management and it's to receive an update on the Alamo and Whittier fires by our Chief Peterson to adopt a resolution ratifying the proclamation of local emergency direct OEM to return monthly for the re-ratification of the emergency until such time as the response and recovery conditions dictate otherwise and to approve the CEQA action

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:20 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Petersen is in Santa Barbara and will be giving an update from there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:54 · ≈ 9:05 AM

So we have an audio issue in Santa Barbara so the chief may not be able to hear us. So maybe give us just a second here. Okay I think we're ready to go. Chief Peterson, are you there in Santa Barbara?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:41 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Chief Peterson is here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:43 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Good morning.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:47 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Good morning Chair Hartman and board members. Eric Peterson Fire Chief here this morning with an update on our fire activity in our county and I'm also here with our Operations Chief Woody Enos. I want to start with the Alamo Fire and are you looking at the Alamo Fire perimeter map up there?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:06 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Right now we're looking at you, but we can switch.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed7:09 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Okay I just want to make sure I'm referencing the right map. The Alamo fire is now 100% contained it's at 28,700 acres we had one residential structure destroyed unfortunately one damaged and 13 outbuildings destroyed by the fire last night I heard that there were 30 acres of vineyards also lost It's a remote area, as you know. There were significant values at risk. We were worried about power lines, vineyards, grazing lands were of concern on top of the obvious residential and life loss potential.

We had quite a lot of grass consumed by the fire in grazing lands which will require supplemental feed to be brought in for livestock or actual moving the livestock. Just information, we had fixed-wing tankers dropped over 250,000 gallons of retardant on the fire at a cost of just over $1 million. And helicopters dropped over 800,000 gallons of water at a total cost of one and a half million dollars. And the estimated total cost of the fire now stands at just short of 20 million dollars.

But overall, a very good firefighting effort. We had no injuries to the public. A very successful evacuation thanks to the Sheriff's Department and Search and Rescue. And 20 minor injuries to firefighters mostly heat related. There is a fire progression map of the Alamo Fire there it is. I think its just an interesting frame of reference. The light green area there shows the third night and the incredible I'm And there's the perimeter map for that.

The Whittier Fire is, Woody and I just came from their briefing, it's now just over 18,000 acres and this morning they're calling it 62% contained. We are now pretty optimistic that we've seen the worst of this fire. Temperatures are down today, humidity is up which is going to give us an opportunity to get inside the perimeter of that fire and go direct with crews and equipment. Highway 154 is open and I understand Sheriff Brown is up there with you to give you an update on evacuation progress so I'll stay away from that for now.

Yesterday you may have seen the Director of CAL FIRE Chief Ken Pimlott And United States Forest Service Regional Forester, Randy Moore and Regional Fire Director Bob Baird visited our county personally to inspect the fire and just sort of weigh in. They had a small press conference. I just want to say that our county has received incredible support from our partners at CAL FIRE and the U.S. Forest Service. Couldn't be happier with the support that we've been getting.

So for now there's a lot of fire inside the line but the perimeters of the fire are looking significantly better. This morning, the east side of the line which was Division Bravo was shown as all black so all that red fire activity that we saw that you can still see up there that's a little bit of an older map I think that was yesterday's that's all tied in with black they've got crews that have connected Those two black areas from West Camino Cielo down to 154 so really good progress there.

And as I said, there will be fire in the line we're going to continue to get calls on it but generally speaking the fires looking really good. I wanted to show you a couple of infrared maps if you can see them. There's a before that was taken about a week ago There's that. That was just a couple of days into the fire. The aircraft that takes these pictures or gets this information flies out of Boise, Idaho and it's owned by the federal government and it flies over all of the activity, fire activity in the country Every night. And so it's really a helpful tool and this technology has come really a long way in the last few years, so what this shows is how active the fire was during the first few days of the fire and if you go to the next map It shows where we are now.

So, we're still seeing the perimeter of the fire in red but it's you can show that as black but you can see that there's the really active fire activity is now behind us this is really helpful for firefighter safety because it allows us to put crews in areas and be sure that we don't have fire underneath them and unburnt fuel beneath crews with fire underneath it that can, you know, conceivably burn them out. So it's a very very helpful tool You may have seen yesterday we had a fire on Zaca Station Road. Yesterday, we were fortunate to be able to divert some aircraft off of the Whittier Fire and help ground crews put a fairly quick stop to that fire.

I think it's now at 50 acres right around there. They'll be mopping up there for a day or so, but we were able to make fairly quick work of that fire. All of our stations are fully staffed. Your county firefighters have performed extremely well on this fire and finally I think it just goes without saying but I think we all need to just buckle up for a busy fire season. We're still early in the season and you know fire activity is Is showing us that it could very well be very busy and with that either myself or Chief Enos can answer any questions you might have.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed13:23 · ≈ 9:13 AM

So are there any questions board members have for Chief Peterson before we have Sheriff Brown come up? Supervisor Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed13:32 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Well, first I just want to thank you Chief on behalf of all of the men and women of your organization. Want to give you thanks. I've been very impressed by the professionalism and really the passion of the people on the line. They really, really, want to prevent loss of life and property that occurs. I won't even, one of the things I've heard from people isn't even, I wouldn't even say it rises to a complaint because they're so thankful of what your folks are doing but Most people are not used to retaining information from topographical maps.

And something I heard more than once is we usually convey information on topographical maps with reference points that Thank you. You know most people could recognize and and I think that just might help people understand because there's just so many people it goes one way or another where people either are all alarmed even ones that don't need to be. People aren't alarmed enough when they see really good weather.

Maybe late last week falls into that category, and they think the fire is over and then they're surprised all of a sudden when we issue more evacuation warnings. So just a suggestion for the next go around but everything I think has been working tremendously well and just want to thank you for your work.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed15:34 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Supervisor Lavanino. Thank you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8815:36 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Madam Chair, I would echo the thank you. I think we all spent time out on the line and saw the men and women out there working hard. The question I have is You know, what I'm hearing from quite a few folks is the question about what is our policy regarding controlled burns and why do we always seem to be finding ourselves in a position that we're fighting fires and putting people in danger when we're fighting blazes that are burning fuel that hasn't been burned in 50 or 60 years.

And the question I'm getting is why aren't Actively dealing with this on our terms instead of when a fire comes along. So if you could address that and I think it's something we should discuss at a later time Policy-wise, I don't remember bringing since I've been on the board talking about it too much So it'd be interesting to have that discussion later, but um if you could talk about controlled burns that would help

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed16:34 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Sure well as you mentioned it is it is a big subject in it and it does require I think its own Meeting and focus, but I think it's safe to say that we would love to be able to do more controlled burns. We'd love to be able to do more aggressive fuel treatments in some areas. There are a lot of moving parts to it. Some of these fuel beds are so old and so deep now that once you light them on fire, it's really difficult to put them out. So that's one concern. You want to make sure that you can actively maintain what it is that you let loose up there.

There are air quality issues that need to be taken into consideration, there are the issues of dealing with ranchers and fence lines and cattle getting loose. There are a lot of moving parts but I completely agree with you that we would be well served by a more aggressive approach to control burns in this county. It's not for lack of trying, and I think that this whole episode this year has provided ample evidence that we could probably be well served by doing more of that.

Generally speaking, I look forward to addressing that issue as we come back. There are environmental issues, of course, that we have to address before we do those things but it is It's something that we definitely need to focus on more.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8818:09 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Okay, well I don't know what the other board members feel like but I would appreciate bringing this back once we get through this season and start discussing what our policy is right now. How we can take a look at listening to some of the constituents' concerns and opening it up to the public and weighing in and coming up with something that's sound on both sides and balanced but puts us in a position where we're dealing with this on our terms.

0:18 – 0:2518 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:40 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed18:40 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Adams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed18:43 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Go ahead Chief Peterson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed18:46 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Oh I just, I was sent a picture to this issue. I was sent a picture by one of our division supervisors, the battalion chief up in the Fufio area that shows this fire, the Whittier Fire burning into what was the Sherpa Fire and it almost serves as an advertisement for controlled burns because you know as you might expect the fire as it burns into that old burn scar essentially just goes out so to that point

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed19:15 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed19:16 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Yeah and as I recall the Ray fire hit the Zaka fire put that out right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed19:24 · ≈ 9:19 AM

That's correct

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed19:25 · ≈ 9:19 AM

yeah so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed19:27 · ≈ 9:19 AM

it was a major factor in putting that fire out

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed19:29 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Yeah

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed19:30 · ≈ 9:19 AM

so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed19:31 · ≈ 9:19 AM

you know I've been talking about this with you for a long time and I look forward to working on it in the future. And I hope that you guys will bring a D item back because the right time of year to do this is in the fall and after you get a couple inches of rain, and so if we get on it right now we might be able to get some good done before it rains too much and then stuff won't burn. But then it doesn't get out of control and gets so hot that it just burns everything all the way into the ground and kills all the seed in the top layer. When it burns as hot as it's burning out there right now, you're killing a lot of the seed. Stuff will come back. There's stuff down deeper.

But it's not the same as if you have kind of a cool burn on top of it and then you get a little bit of rain on top of that. And you've got everything set up to just grow back right away. So I look forward to getting something done this fall, if we can.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed20:33 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Chief Peterson what happens now? We tend to think that once the fires are out that you're done but there's quite a bit of follow-up am I correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed20:45 · ≈ 9:20 AM

That's correct, there will be a lot of rehab after this fires out. We'll be working with the federal government and US Forest Service to address obviously spots inside the line but we are going to be concerned about I'm with the federal government on what we do about that slope. If we get significant rain next year, you can imagine the impact that might have on Highway 154 but you can also imagine the huge amount of silt that potentially could wash into Cochuma Lake and lessen the containment capacity of that lake.

There's a lot of work ahead of us well after this fire is out.

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed21:49 · ≈ 9:21 AM

Supervisor Wolf and then Supervisor Adam. Thank you Madam Chair, Chief Peterson I want to express my appreciation to you and all the other firefighters who worked on this you know other local firefighters state and national folks one of the things that I had an opportunity to speak with you yesterday was After seeing everything that we've gone through from Zaka to where we are today the fire science that's being used by you and the other professionals on the line I think is stunning. And now also seeing these infrared maps, I don't recall that those were maybe they weren't I just don't remember but I think they were available back with Zaka but I can see how you know with technology and like I said fire science it's so important on the actions that you take.

And I think that goes a long way having pros on the line, so I just want to thank you for that. It seems to me that we also were, you know luck had something to do with how where we are right now with the Whittier fire and that we didn't see extensive sundown or winds. And we had that cool onshore flow coming on. So you know it seems like it could have been much worse. Sometimes when those sundowners come there is nothing that can necessarily prevent it from moving down slope so I think everything combined, your talent and weather and everything we've seen a positive outcome and I appreciate you also talking about the future that Just starting fire season. But as we learned from the T fire it's almost year round is fire season and but I think everyone everyone is on alert and I guess the other just my final point before we hear from Sheriff Brown, I think the evacuations was a really important part of the success of Making sure that we didn't have injuries or loss of life.

And to all of our community members who heeded the warnings and the orders I want to express appreciation to all of them because it made your job easier. So anyway with that Madam Chair my sincere appreciation to all the pros out there. Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed24:32 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Thank you. Yeah I was just going to ask you if you recall that there was a group of ranchers that were trying to have a control burn on the west side of the Tepeskay area for the last couple of years and they couldn't get that done. Do you know anything about that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed24:55 · ≈ 9:24 AM

I not enough to speak to it right now, but I will definitely circle back with my vegetation management people. I'm sure they're well aware of whatever effort was underway

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed25:05 · ≈ 9:25 AM

because that would have helped significantly in terms of having a place to stop that fire when it got to the backside of the tip skate area and threatened all those homes and whatnot

0:25 – 0:337 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed25:21 · ≈ 9:25 AM

I see no more questions. Chief Peterson, but I just would like to add my gratitude and I had an opportunity you got me on the helicopter to overfly the area and had an opportunity to see it as I've never seen it before and how fire behaves How many contractors come from throughout California and throughout the country. That was also something very interesting to me that the bulldozer operators in the helicopter operators and how everybody joins as a team that to me is incredible.

Thank you very much. So with that I think we'll have Chief Sheriff Brown come up

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed26:09 · ≈ 9:26 AM

He's been a chief before, so he answers to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed26:11 · ≈ 9:26 AM

that too. Thank you Madam Chair and members of the board for the opportunity to brief you on the evacuation situation. As you're aware, the Whittier Fire broke out on Saturday the 8th at about 142 in the afternoon at the same time that the Alamo fire was burning and this fast-moving fire caused the immediate closure of Highway 154 From Armor Ranch Road in the San Ynez Valley to Foothill Road along the Santa Barbara Front Country.

And due to the fast moving nature of the fire, the West Camino Cielo road community was also placed under a mandatory evacuation order status. And the Sheriff's Office, along with members of the Sheriff's Search and Rescue Team conducted evacuations of those areas that were placed under mandatory evacuation orders. And as you heard previously participated in the rescue of 83 children and camp counselors that were trapped at the Circle V Camp.

Throughout the following days, the Sheriff's Office was asked to have roaming fire patrols to patrol the evacuated areas of the fire zone. To staff the EOC on a 24-hour basis and to staff the law enforcement liaison position at the incident command post also 24 hours a day. Also due to staffing issues with the highway patrol, the Sheriff's Office was asked to provide security at several of the road closure points as well.

On the 14th of July, in conjunction with the incident command and due to expected fire behavior a large area in the front country was placed under an additional mandatory evacuation order status. This new area included the area of Winchester Canyon Road west to El Capitan Ranch Road excluding the Winchester Commons and the enclave of Wagon Wheel and Langlow Ranch Road Expanding this area of responsibility for the Sheriff's Office required additional staffing and patrols to secure this new area.

On Monday, the 17th, the areas west of Highway 154 were removed from mandatory evacuation orders and residents were allowed to return to their homes. While Lake Kachuma Park is still closed to the public that status is currently being evaluated To date, there have been approximately 100 sheriff's personnel utilized in the various positions relating to this incident and approximately 60 search-and-rescue personnel. And that includes 20 personnel who came to us from Ventura County who responded on a mutual aid request.

It's anticipated that all of the remaining evacuation orders are going to be lifted shortly, with the exception of the West Camino Cielo area west of the Winchester Gun Club. As a result of our evacuation orders we contacted approximately 663 different phone numbers with our reverse 911 system and we evacuated approximately 5,000 people The vast majority of those who were evacuated were campers and visitors to the Lake Kachuma and Paradise Road campgrounds.

Our air support unit flew multiple sorties, both an initial attack and a firefighting role, and then they switched to a 24-hour rescue airship role that they currently continue to do. We did receive some complaints from some of the homeowners who were concerned about not having enough roadblocks and enough roving patrols in the fire areas. They feared that the staffing wasn't sufficient to secure their residences, we did provide to the extent that we could based on our staffing levels and also Other demands are regular patrol coverage and the fact that we had two fires going simultaneously, a very unusual occurrence obviously.

And then we also had two other large events, the St. Joseph's Festival in Carpinteria and the Santa Maria County Fair going on at the same time. I do want to single out several people for the tremendous job that they've done. The three in particular I'd like to mention are Commander Kelly Moore, Lieutenant Sean O'Grady and Sergeant Jeff Green. They have been people who have been detailed to work more or less continuously on these fires since they have occurred. And in addition to that obviously there's the large number of deputy sheriffs, our search and rescue personnel and our dispatchers. All of them have done a magnificent job as have all of the first responders who have worked on this fire and it's really a pleasure to be able to see the teamwork come into play and to see our mutual aid system in California which really is the best in the world Really come together and see all of the resources that we were able to get from outside of our county to come and assist us.

One, and I also wanted to shout out to not only the fire service but also to the contractors as you mentioned as well who are putting their lives on the line as well in attacking these fires. And I'll leave you with this thought, I don't know how I got so lucky but during the terms of my two predecessors which totaled 16 years there was one major fire in Santa Barbara County.

In the ten and a half years that I've been here during that time we've had 11 major fires that I've been able to count plus a host of other smaller vegetation fires. So is it your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed31:47 · ≈ 9:31 AM

fault? Is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed31:48 · ≈ 9:31 AM

it your fault? I don't know how I got so lucky but I do want to say this obviously The more we have the better I think we get at working together with fire authorities and again just want to say a great job to everybody that was concerned.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed32:05 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, interesting that you said that because our terms have been the same so I too have experienced just what you mentioned. You know I see our probation department staff here interim chief. Taylor and I want to make a shout out to probation for ensuring that our kids from Los Prados were safely evacuated. And as I understand they have returned back to camp yesterday so kudos to all of you And of course the work that Sheriff that you and the others did at the other campsite. You know we listened to the heroics of all the individuals who saved those children and camp counselors. It was an amazing story and I just want to express my appreciation for all that you and your staff and associated agencies have done.

Thank you. Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed33:10 · ≈ 9:33 AM

I just wanted to thank you and your men and women of the force. I know that it's long hours and of course it should provide us in the undersheriff and you with even more urgency to try to overhire some more folks but just want to thank you and your folks for their work

0:33 – 0:377 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed33:33 · ≈ 9:33 AM

I don't see any more lights up here. I did want to add one more thank you and that is to Matt Pontus our assistant CEO who has been acting manager of our office of emergency management, he's a former federal firefighter and every time I was there he was there day and night and I think CEO Miyasato has more to add here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed33:55 · ≈ 9:33 AM

And if you wouldn't mind, I'd actually like Matt to come up. So as you know Rob Lewin is our Office of Emergency Manager and he had to leave in the middle of this event. Matt Pontus served as the emergency, the EOC director which is actually the CEO's role or delegate. Matt was there the whole week And not able to see his family for a whole week. And I just want to remind the board there's a whole contingent of your departments and your staff who actually are working in the EOC during an emergency, who come in at night, who come in during weekends, who aren't able to see their families, who gave up birthday parties and other things to be there to support the incident. And I wanted Matt just to say a few words if he could about that effort.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed34:36 · ≈ 9:34 AM

And think Sheriff Brown had something he wanted to add first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed34:38 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Before I relinquish the podium here to Matt Uh, Mona actually beat me to the punch on part of what I wanted to say was to thank the other county departments as well for the tremendous work. But I also want to thank the board for the great support that you provided. Chair Hartman out and show her the fire area. I know Supervisor Adam was out looking at the fire area in the Alamo Fire, Supervisor Wolf. All the supervisors have been tremendous in terms of showing that they're they have a tremendous amount of not only interest but support for the people that are on the front line it means a lot to us and we appreciate it thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed35:24 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Madam Chairman, thank you for bringing me up today as well, CEO Miyasato. So coming into this incident it was really Director Lewin that set us up, set us on the right path and got the OEM team engaged. We have Elsa and Jeff and Brian Ryan and Casey that kind of gelled together and pulled the team together. Our Gina DiPinto. Ran the JIC out there and really through staff training with all the county departments.

And partnerships we work together to make things happen, and it really was under the auspices of the Orfalea Foundation. That really helped us fund the EOC, that it be a community EOC. And that includes all of our partnerships out there with universities, the utilities, Red Cross and everyone that we had out there working together. We had a big effort on this incident to translate into Spanish for our Spanish speaking members of the community and just a really good well run event out there with everybody working together.

So I just want to say also a special thanks to CAL FIRE team and the federal team that managed the incidents and kept information coming back and forth to us so that we could do what we needed to do out there. And that's it, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed36:44 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Thank you were there any questions for Mr. Pontus? CEO Miyasato

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed36:49 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Just one quick shout-out now to the City of Goleta they actually helped us and they had staff in there the whole time Ann Wells was incredible she probably lived at the EOC during the whole event so thank you to the city of Goleta

0:37 – 0:4210 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed37:01 · ≈ 9:37 AM

And CEO Miyasato did you want to add any more about the proclamation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed37:06 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Thank you for reminding me so as you know we proclaim the local emergency on Sunday evening. The governor proclaimed shortly afterwards that afternoon, so what's on the agenda today is your board's ratification of that proclamation or else it expires in seven days and its direction for us to come back every 30 days until we believe it's no longer needed. We believe that with the Governor's proclamation there will be more opportunity for resources so we'll continue to look at that as we look at recovery.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed37:35 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Okay with that I see no more lights so we'll go to public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed37:40 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board we have one request to speak from Mr. Caldwell.

PresenterAndy CaldwellColabProposedself-stated37:50 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Chair Hartman members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing Colab. I want to pick up with the comments I made last week and in to try to create a paradigm shift in your mindset outlook and values you know when we had the pipeline burst at Refufio we had press conferences ordinance changes and lawsuits why because A perceived lack of management oversight and maintenance created a what some people characterized as a disaster.

Well we believe that your policies and your lack of maintenance and oversight creates these fire hazards. We believe the reason we're getting more and more fires is we're moving farther and farther away from common sense management of wild lands Your hillside policies, resource protection policies, environmental sensitive habitat overlays. Prohibitions against mechanized equipment in the forest service. The lawsuit there was a recent lawsuit when the state and the feds were talking about doing a fire break a local environmental organization sued them and stopped it.

How many animals how come we haven't done a calculation of how many animals died from the fire? Why don't we have a calculation on how much damage is going to come about as result of sediment into the watershed and damage to infrastructure including Highway 154. You have a double standard when there's an oil company to kick around, you jump all over it but when your own policies your own priorities in your own values Create widespread destruction in the ecosystem. All that you do is wring your hands in public, pat yourselves on the back saying good job putting out the fire.

I think if you were to add the number of fires and the number of acreage that's burned as Sheriff Brown said in the last 10 years we are a fire capital of the United States of America. And again your policies and those that you support at the state and federal level, why not protest outside of Supervisor Carbo, I mean Congressman Carbajal's office about forest policies?

Why not outside of Senator Hanabeth Jackson's? Why is it that the oil industry if they have a spill or do damage to the ecosystem they're considered a villain. But all these eco policies resource protection policies are still considered sancrosanct despite the tremendous damage that's happening we believe you can't have it both ways. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed40:54 · ≈ 9:40 AM

That concludes public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:56 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Okay Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed40:59 · ≈ 9:40 AM

I just would note that the state of California in the last couple years including when I was on the The budget subcommittee on natural resources has allocated increasingly more funds towards CAL FIRE for controlled burns as part of comprehensive watershed restoration, meaning they go in and do controlled burns and do larger restoration work at the same time which has much more benefits for stop-and-fire than just doing one or the other.

at once so this is definitely something that the state is moving on more often. Of course that doesn't help us necessarily because we don't have massive forests compared to the Sierra Nevada but it is a shift in policy and budgeting on the state level.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed41:58 · ≈ 9:41 AM

And we have one more public comment that slipped in, is that true Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed42:03 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Yes, Chair Hartman we have one additional request from Bruce Wales to speak on this item.

0:42 – 0:4514 turns

PresenterBruce WalesSanta Nez River Water Conservation District a little later I'm going to addressProposedself-stated42:11 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Madam Chair, Board of Supervisors. Good morning my name is Bruce Wales going to speak on behalf of the Santa Nez River Water Conservation District a little later I'm going to address the matter pertaining to water wells and groundwater. I'd like to focus right now on the fact that the real problem here is surface water and fires and when reservoir capacity is gone it's gone And Gibraltar Reservoir is for the most part gone.

And what people don't realize is that it really isn't gone because there's an agreement between water agencies to give the city a virtual reservoir of 8700 acre feet, much of that water being delivered through Kachoma so Kachoma becomes even more important And I want to support the board. I want to support Supervisor Labanino's comments about control burns. We need a systematic program working with the county and water districts for control burns to protect the capacity of Kachuma.

You know we have short stream high slope south coast burned out essentially completely If the fire had covered the San Rafael's with the big tributaries in the Kachuma we would have had a real problem. And again when it's gone it's gone so I think it's very well served that this board productively and progressively face that issue thanks very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed43:50 · ≈ 9:43 AM

So that was our final public comment and so I bring this back to the board and we need a motion to receive and file the report and ratify the declaration. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed44:04 · ≈ 9:44 AM

will move that we ratify the declaration of emergency and receive and file the report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed44:10 · ≈ 9:44 AM

And is there any further discussion? Supervisor Lavanino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8844:13 · ≈ 9:44 AM

I think with what we've heard today and I'm not sure if there's a consensus on the board but I think it would be wise to schedule a D item in the near future so that we can get to this sometime in the fall to discuss our policies regarding control burns.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed44:29 · ≈ 9:44 AM

And if I might just ask that it be broadened to vegetation fuel management

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8844:33 · ≈ 9:44 AM

as well. Sure, whole thing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed44:37 · ≈ 9:44 AM

And Supervisor Wolf. No I was

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed44:40 · ≈ 9:44 AM

just going to vote on the motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed44:41 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Oh OK so we have a motion is second and some direction to staff. So all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. So we're turning now to our administrative agenda. We have just one honorary resolution to be presented today that is A23 may I have a motion to approve.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed45:03 · ≈ 9:45 AM

So moved.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed45:04 · ≈ 9:45 AM

A second all in favor say aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed45:06 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed45:07 · ≈ 9:45 AM

No opposed Mr. Allen would you read that into the record?

0:45 – 0:505 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed45:13 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Chair Hartman members of the board we have one resolution to present today this is a resolution proclaiming July 16th through 22nd 2017 as pretrial probation and parole supervision week and Beverly Taylor is here I think Some of her hard-working staff and they'll come on up to the podium and I will read the resolution into the record. Whereas during the week of July 16 through 22, 2017 probation parole community supervision officers criminal justice and juvenile justice professionals in communities across America will join to celebrate pretrial probation and parole supervision week Whereas the probation department today consists of over 320 dedicated professionals working collaboratively with other agencies and community partners to deliver evidence-based programs to adult and juvenile offenders while focusing on the enhancement of safety, reduction of recidivism, protection of and compensation of victims And the promotion of crime prevention services, intervention, rehabilitation and restorative justice principles.

And whereas probation officers and juvenile institution officers provide an efficient and cost effective use of public resources by supervising nearly 3.8 million adult probationers and approximately 350,000 juvenile offenders nationally. And within Santa Barbara County locally supervising approximately 4400 adult offenders And about 630 juvenile offenders managing approximately 800 cases in the intake process at any given time.

And whereas during the department's 108 years of service, probation's role has evolved dramatically and the department serves as an integral partner in law enforcement and criminal justice in our local law enforcement and criminal justice system. The Probation Department staff possesses and displays a high degree of professionalism, commitment and pride in the work they perform for And the institutions and the communities served in each regional location while striving to guide and direct offenders to become productive and successful citizens.

Whereas, Santa Barbara County Probation Officers and Juvenile Institution Officers dedicate their lives to offender rehabilitation and community safety in order to improve the quality of life for all our citizens. Now, therefore it be hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara and the State of California hereby proclaims the week of July 16 through 22nd 2017 as Pre-Trial Probation and Parole Supervision Week and recognizes those officers for their significant contributions to making Santa Barbara County a safer place to live. Passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed47:53 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Good morning Chair Hartman supervisors CEO Miyasato. I want to thank you for your recognizing our officers for pretrial probation parole supervision week and additionally we appreciate your ongoing support for operations and our personnel to highlight both. I've invited three officers Ashley Cabral Patrick Kiesling and Rose Zamora to briefly share with you a day in their life

CommentSenior Deputy Probation OfficerProposedself-stated48:28 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Oh I'm sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed48:31 · ≈ 9:48 AM

It happens a lot.

CommentSenior Deputy Probation OfficerProposedself-stated48:32 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Thank you. Good morning Chair Hartman and Board of Supervisors, I am Senior Deputy Probation Officer Ashley Cabral and I am currently assigned to the Los Prietos Boys Camp. There are 75 juvenile institutions officers assigned to the juvenile hall in camp. Although their primary assignment is the care and custody of the youth, the officers often assume the role of counselor and mentor and they do so with dedication and pride.

The goal for the hall and camp is to provide youth with life skills and resources that will help them make better life choices. Recently, the juvenile hall has adopted incentive-based programming. This focus offers youth incentives for displaying appropriate and expected behaviors. Overall the environment is more positive and there has been a reduction in negative behavior.

At camp, the youth are provided with unique incentives. Most recently 12 youth attended a Dodger game and were seated in a catered suite. Community members often request work crews for various community events during the 2016-2017 fiscal year The youth performed 4,252 community service hours including maintaining defensible space with US Forestry. Additionally with our focus on education we are proud to report that five youth graduated from high school while in custody at the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall and six graduated while completing camp commitments during the 2016-2017 fiscal year Many of the youth also participate in regional occupational program courses including culinary arts, small engine repair and paint and auto body to help them learn valuable job skills while earning high school credits.

We work diligently to provide the youth guidance and accountability to assist them as they transition out of our custody. I am thankful to be a part of such a dedicated team and it was an honor to share some highlights with you today.

0:50 – 0:5410 turns

CommentPatrick KieslingProposedself-stated50:27 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Good morning Chair Hartman and Board Members. My name is Patrick Kiesling, Juvenile Institutions Officer. I'm one of the three JOs to have a unique opportunity of Community Transition Officer. We split our time working in the community at the Los Perros Boys Camp. We are assigned certain youth at camp and we work with their families in their homes. It is unique because JO's work with youth either in the juvenile hall or at camp but We get a window into their lives at home.

Knowing their families and home environment helps to better understand, engage and motivate these young men while they're at camp. It helps to more successfully assist in their transition back home. Another powerful connection is the regular contact with the youth assigned probation officer. I can offer real-time information on the youth's progress at camp and provide family updates which assists the PO in developing a more meaningful community transition plan.

The bridge between the camp and the community has proven to be critical for the youth's continual success after graduation. In our role, once a youth leaves camp we continue to monitor their activity and progress in the community. In closing it is an honor to be in a position to positively impact the lives of these young men. Thank you for the opportunity to share and I hope I provided you with a window into the life of a Community Transition Officer.

CommentSenior Deputy Probation OfficerProposedself-stated51:59 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Good morning, Chair Hartman and Board of Supervisors. My name is Senior Deputy Probation Officer Rose Zamora. I'm also a veteran in the United States Air Force. My father is an Army Vietnam veteran and my brother is a Marine. What I've learned from personal experience is that we were not given the supportive services to address the trauma of war and circumstance.

Fortunately today we have a program that helps veterans who are struggling and provides them with services that will address the issues related to trauma. I've been fortunate to have been a part of this program for four years. This program is Veterans Treatment Court, which had its inception in Santa Maria and is now offered in three regions of the county. Veterans Treatment Court is a 12-month collaborative program designed for veterans who have been involved in the criminal justice system by way of committing nonviolent offenses.

Probation plays a large role as we provide a higher level of community supervision holding them accountable. Probation provides veterans with evidence-based risk and needs assessments to identify each need such as mental health issues, substance abuse and homelessness. Once these needs are identified probation officer offers veterans evidence based programming to assist them in reaching lasting positive change.

Probation has also assisted in spearheading a volunteer mentor program ensuring that veterans receive peer support I have been honored to have been a part of numerous success stories. Mothers have been reunited with their children, fathers with their families, combat veterans have pursued higher education and have become treatment providers. Many of our veterans have chosen to give back to the community and support new veterans in the program.

They continue to live by the creed no man left behind. Lastly, I would like to encourage each of you to attend a Veterans Treatment Court graduation You will see the sense of pride each veteran has for one another as well as the gratitude they show towards probation and key players that have assisted them on their journey back home. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed54:14 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Again thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed54:15 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Thank you Chief Taylor that was really fabulous to hear directly from the people who are turning lives around sure appreciate it. Turning now to our administrative agenda. Are there any items any supervisor would like to pull for discussion? Supervisor Lavanino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8854:35 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Madam Chair I'd like to pull A5.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed54:39 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed54:41 · ≈ 9:54 AM

A5 and A12.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed54:46 · ≈ 9:54 AM

And do we have any public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed54:49 · ≈ 9:54 AM

No requests to speak from the public on the administrative agenda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed54:52 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Okay, would you read A5 into the record Mr. Allen?

0:54 – 1:0114 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed54:58 · ≈ 9:54 AM

Chair Hartman members of the board item A5 is from the auditor controller and the County Executive Office to approve budget revisions and transfers necessary to close the county's accounting records for all county funds for fiscal year that ended on June 30 2017 and it's a four-fifths vote required

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed55:17 · ≈ 9:55 AM

In Supervisor Lavanino did you want to go first.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8855:20 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Sure we might be talking about the same one I have no idea but a fine yeah but there's its budget revision request so I'm concerned about forty nine eighty one and five thousand and it's not actually the budget revision requests I'm most concerned about although I am. I'm just kind of curious if we could get an update on the Property tax system. And is this is this money being moved over because we're over budget on that program or was it already anticipated that we were going to have to move these dollars over to start with?

And I unfortunately, I didn't let anybody know ahead of time I was going to ask this question so I'm not sure if anybody's here and wondering

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed56:10 · ≈ 9:56 AM

if anyone from the auditor's offices in Santa Barbara So we can provide an update to you and I don't know if Mr. Frabwell who's assisting Mr. Filotti in the close has more information?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed56:26 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Good morning Madam Chairman and Supervisors. Let me address first the number 5,000 and that is to set aside 1.35 million dollars to establish funding to develop the proper tax administration system. The system is approximately 17 years old. It does not meet the needs of the department at the time And this fully funds the replacement of that system. So it isn't a system that started, that was over budgeted. It's a system that is identified as a priority for them that they need to fund.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8856:59 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Right. Okay well on that one then at some future meeting I'm going to need to hear from Mr. Holland because we've been talking about this system since I've been on the board and I don't think this is the first allocation of 1.3 million. I think this is in addition to some other Dollars but I don't expect you to know that Jeff. So I understand what you're saying. I just I'm not sure that that's That's the whole story so I'm just curious.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed57:29 · ≈ 9:57 AM

We will ask Mr. Holland to come back with a report to the board at a future meeting on them on what's the status of the system. Supervisor Adams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed57:40 · ≈ 9:57 AM

Well great minds think alike because that's exactly what I was pulling. You know the thing and I know we're not going to get any answers here today, and I didn't call anybody either but you know how much has been spent on this system so far? Isn't this the thing that was Colorado something Yeah Colorado software and then they went belly up and there was some other rumors swirling about that deal.

You know what do we have to show for all the money that's been spent? And when is this project supposed to be complete, did we pay the next guys for deliverables ahead of time? Which is what we did last time which I just found that one of the things when I got here. I could not even believe that we actually paid money in advance for a product that didn't exist on the basis that they would invent it, which they didn't do.

And I think that was two million bucks. So you got at least two million bucks in this project in addition to the one point three. So so we definitely need a D agenda item on this and I think we should hold this item and not act on it until we get that D agenda item and get a report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed59:13 · ≈ 9:59 AM

And Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair let me add my concern with this item as well and I think that what Supervisor Adams suggested first of all it needs a four fifths vote. I think we should hold this one back until we get more information.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed59:33 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Is there any time crunch CEO Miyasato?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed59:37 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Chair I believe that you can, we can bring this item back at the next meeting and so the board can take action on the rest of your enclosed items except for this. We can bring it back next meeting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed59:50 · ≈ 9:59 AM

And do we need a separate vote on this to bring it back or you just have direction and were okay? I think I have direction. Supervisor, oh Mr. Filati is here. Go ahead Mr. Filati.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:00:07 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Members of the board, just to clarify that the two items that were pulled 4981 and 5000 are separate. The 5,000 is for Mr. Holland's APS system and the rewrite of that system. That's separate from the property tax system that the treasurer and the auditor controller are implementing at this point in time. So just to be clear that those are two separate items.

Regarding pulling the item and holding it, you know all of these budget revisions that are brought to you today last week today and a couple that are going to arrive on the 25th were necessary to close out the books. And so if you, and we have actually closed the books for 16-17. Now if you go ahead with this action it is a four fifths vote to do this but you would also have an opportunity in the next year's budget with a four fifths vote to either undo this transaction or reallocate the money somewhere else.

My request would be to go ahead and approve all of these today, but keep in mind that perhaps when Mr. Holland comes back that money could potentially be reallocated at that point in time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:01:28 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Mr. Filotti could I just ask a question? Would it be possible to bring this back on the D agenda next week with the other items

1:01 – 1:0618 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:01:39 · ≈ 10:01 AM

It would be possible if you wanted to discuss it again, though all of these have actually been posted to the general ledger and the financial status reports so that the books have been closed. We closed on July 10th. And then we're working now on preparing a financial statement. So, we always with all of these budget revisions work closely during the closed process with the Budget Director and the CEO and get their concurrence on moving these forward. Now absolutely it's up to you as the Board to make the final decisions I would just for so that we don't have to Thank you.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:02:35 · ≈ 10:02 AM

CEO Miyasato. Given that information for Mr. Filotti, why don't we try to locate Mr. Holland or one of his people in his departments working on the system to trail the item and then before the end of the meeting if we can get clarification for your board we can do it then. And Mr. Gazzone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:02:52 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Either or the 25th also works if you wanted if he couldn't get him today you know if you want to trail this one item to the 25 that would be fine.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:02:59 · ≈ 10:02 AM

That would be my... Mr. Gazzone

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:03:03 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Chair Herman whatever action the board takes either trailing it which might be a good start see if we can resolve it today. We will work offline with Mr. Filati to see if consistent with the budget act we could accomplish his accounting goal while still retaining the boards control over these funds and not directing expenditure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:03:20 · ≈ 10:03 AM

And my preference would be to bring it back on the 25th, we could have a fuller discussion and there are other items on the agenda related to this. Okay. I think that's it. I don't see any other, oh Supervisor Wolf

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:03:37 · ≈ 10:03 AM

I'm sorry. So did you want to bring back this entire item agenda item five or just that one? Or two?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:03:48 · ≈ 10:03 AM

I mean while Mr. Filati is here if you could just explain the difference between 4981 and 5000 I thought they were part of the same system.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:04:00 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair. They are two separate systems as I said, the assessor has their APS system and that's what the 5000 revision is for. The 4891 is the system which is the Almentum System is operational now with the treasurer and the tax collector. And so what we're doing here with 4981 is taking $125,000 of salary savings from this current year and moving it into next year to be used for our outside consultant Simpler Systems to assist us with Final phases of implementation of that system and also with the reporting requirements that are necessary to be enhanced above what the existing system has. And then in addition to that, we have 70,000 that we're trying to...

We will replace some seven-year old servers and those are at the end of their useful life so we want to be sure that we can get those replaced before they fail.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:05:16 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Supervisor Lavanino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:05:18 · ≈ 10:05 AM

I mean, I definitely want to bring back 5000 and I don't know if other people want to bring this one back as well but.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:05:26 · ≈ 10:05 AM

So Supervisor Adam I see you nodding your head. You'd like both to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:05:29 · ≈ 10:05 AM

come back? You know my my information is that they're related if not if not the same and so maybe I'm wrong and we can deal with that at the time. I mean there's no reason it's there's no reason to hold it up because we're also doing things next week in budget revisions to close out the budget so we're not closing out the budget right now anyway. Let's just bring them back next week and then they can explain it to my satisfaction And everybody else is that these are two separates, and they are good expenditures, and then we'll don't move on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:06:10 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Supervisor Wolf did you have something to add? I was just going to make a motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:06:14 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Okay CEO Miyasato did you have more, okay. Madam Chair for item A5 I move that the board approve budget revisions as noted except for items 4981 and 5000 and those two will return to the board on our departmental agenda at next week's meeting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:06:36 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Okay and would you call the roll vote on this Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:06:40 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Mr. Lavinino aye, Mr. Williams aye, Ms. Wolff aye, Mr. Adam aye, Ms Hartman aye, passes 5-0.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:06:48 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Okay turning to A12 and was that you Supervisor Adam who wanted and Mr. Allen read that into the record and then we'll hear from Supervisor Adam.

1:06 – 1:0913 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:06:58 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item 812 is from human resources it's to consider recommendations during the proposed ordinance and resolution providing the modification of hours for family-friendly winter break schedule.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:07:11 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Supervisor Adams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:07:12 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Yeah I just, I really want a separate vote on this because I just think we should stay open for business. You know there's people trying to get things done even during that time and it may be a little bit slower but that doesn't make it less important for people who need to get things done so I just want a roll call vote.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:07:33 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair I'll move this item. Do

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:07:36 · ≈ 10:07 AM

I have a second? Second. Any additional discussion? Would you call the vote?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:07:42 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Mr. Levin you know I Mr. Williams as well. Hi Mr. Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:07:47 · ≈ 10:07 AM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:07:48 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Miss Hartman. Aye. Passes 4 to 1 and turning to a 19 Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item A19 this is to the board from the public works department and it's the Board of Directors of the water agency and this is regarding the countywide integrated stormwater resource plan grant.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:08:14 · ≈ 10:08 AM

Thank you and I just wanted a little more background and explanation it seems to me this item fits with something we're on our D agenda today so could you describe where we are in the process and how this will unfold Mr. McAuliffe?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:08:28 · ≈ 10:08 AM

Yes absolutely Madame Chair and board members. Today you're accepting a grant, a Prop 1 grant to help us put together the stormwater resource plan. It's going to be a regional plan with our eight or nine other regional partners cities water agencies and UCSB have agreed to join in on the plans so We're lucky to have a well-known and well respected consultant, GeoSyntec who bid on the project. We had two bidders so our hope is we can get this plan done over the next 8 to 12 months and we would come back at that time and do a full departmental presentation for your board with all the different options certainly in looking at stormwater capture as a valued option for our watersheds

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:09:13 · ≈ 10:09 AM

And having this plan is significant for getting implementation grants down the road?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:09:19 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Yes, thank you for bringing that point up. Yes we need to have this plan in place to be eligible for future water type grants that come out of Sacramento in the future.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:09:29 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Good. Thank you very much I'm excited about this. Okay may I have a motion to approve the rest of the administrative agenda Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes now we're turning to public comment for items that are not on today's agenda do we have any speaker slips?

1:09 – 1:137 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:09:56 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board we have one request to speak today we're going to go to Santa Barbara for Peter Morin

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:10:12 · ≈ 10:10 AM

You may remember that a couple years ago I was here before you begging the county to take over the Jail Ride program which had been privately run for a decade or more and overseen by my organization, the Committee for Social Justice. A few weeks ago I got an email from Doctors Without Walls asking me what was happening with the ride program Even though I'm not responsible for it anymore.

I contacted someone in DASA's office who talked to the jail, and it turned out that that jail ride program had been suspended. It isn't clear for how long it had been suspended but the major reason was that the Rockstar Cab Company which had been providing the rides at night had gone out of business. Now my first problem, of course is that the jail didn't feel as if it was required or it would be advisable to notify anybody about this and it certainly didn't notify any of you as supervisors.

Because the sheriff runs his own show, I understand that. I was uneasy when this transfer was first made because my experience with the jail staff outside of a guy named Laz Salinas when he was the jail commander and was terrific was that there was a certain reluctance on the part of many people up there to cooperate with this program I do not know what the situation is now. I don't know what the staff is, I haven't talked to anybody at the jail. They may be working very hard to replace the Rockstar Cab Company.

It is also disturbing to me that no interim plan was devised in order to provide these rides when Rockstar had stopped. A sheriff could have driven a van, another cab company could have been called on a nightly basis when necessary but nobody did that. A couple people have suggested to me that I call the jail, but I have no standing in this matter whatsoever.

It isn't my responsibility anymore and I just want to refer it back to all of you as supervisors and tell you that you are the ones who first accepted responsibility for this and then pass it over to the sheriff And I certainly feel that some of you should be keeping after the sheriff to make sure that this program is resumed as soon as possible, or that an interim solution is provided before another cab company is found. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:12:58 · ≈ 10:12 AM

That concludes public comment. Thank you. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:13:05 · ≈ 10:13 AM

And I just wanted to let Mr. Marin know that we'd be happy to ask for a briefing from the Sheriff's Department as to what their plan is and include Mr. Marin in the discussion. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:13:24 · ≈ 10:13 AM

And CEO Miyasato, you'll follow up on that for us?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:13:28 · ≈ 10:13 AM

We will contact the sheriff's office to make sure they heard or will convey Mr. Marin's request.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:13:34 · ≈ 10:13 AM

And I see one more speaker slip came in. I just wanted to make sure that wasn't for, okay it's not. Do we need a break or shall we keep moving forward? All right moving forward. All right so we'll turn now to our departmental agenda. Would you read the first item into the record

1:13 – 1:215 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:13:58 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Mr. Allen? Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item one is from general services it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County future renewable energy report

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:14:14 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Madam Chair. Can you hear me?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:14:20 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:14:21 · ≈ 10:14 AM

OK. Madam chair members of the board Jeanette Pell General Services Director on May 2nd during the update on the solar installation at Cali Real, the Board of Supervisors requested we come back to discuss future renewable energy systems for county owned facilities. And so today we are returning with this report and I'm going to turn it over to Skip Gray, the assistant director.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:14:50 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Morning Madam Chair members of the board. We'd like to talk a little bit about the direction we're heading on our renewable energy program. Like to start by giving you a little bit of background on the energy policies that the county has put in place so far In April of 2013, we rolled out our benchmarking policy and our energy action plan. At that time we also implemented our utility manager system which has been a great system to track all of our utilities in the majority of our buildings.

And then in March of 2014 the board adopted the zero net energy policy And our building commissioning policy came after that in January of 2015 and then in August of last year, the board adopted the energy efficiency standards policy. So all of these have kind of set us up and we've done some work on all of those and implemented some things but This kind of takes us to the next steps and you all know the benefits of renewable systems, things like reduced electric and gas bills. I won't spend a lot of time on this.

You know we help our local economy when we do these projects because we'd like to hire local vendors. And solar costs are pretty predictable and comparable with or lower than some of the retail energy costs that we're spending. So where will we if we place these renewables as we move forward? And obviously, we have a lot of options for placing solar on county property.

Today, we're not going to zero in on specific sites just yet. But these are the campus areas we're focusing on. We have an RFI ready to go out and really get serious about this, and our thought is that we will come back here shortly and do that. But what we're looking at right now is taking into consideration things like the long-term viability of the building or parking lot where we place these renewables.

Is this something that's going to be around for a while? And when we look at the roof condition, if we decide to place solar on a roof of one of our buildings and you never know. We might be able to integrate a roof replacement into the project and pay for it with the utility savings so we're going to look at all those things. We're also going to look at renewable solutions other than solar like maybe small wind and solar thermal.

So really we're going to begin and identify the potential future renewable energy options at each of our campuses. We're going to estimate our costs, and we're going to estimate very important the return on investment for each of these possible sites and being sure to only focus on those that have the highest ROI. We'll then come back to the board this fall and inform you of potential projects at very specific locations, and then receive your feedback.

Take your direction and we will finalize our selections and recommend potential projects and get an RFP out and also the financing solutions that we will be using. We will ask the board then to award those projects and get started on construction. We again I stress we're going to give you plenty of opportunities to review the specific locations before we begin any construction.

As far as funding these projects, all renewable projects have to generate enough savings to pay for themselves by offsetting the utility bills obviously. Our financing options were going to be talking to the debt advisory committee And that could be traditional bonds, it could be some form of energy conservation bonding, QECBs or CREBs. Or even some sort of a leasing program.

Obviously we're going to take advantage of any rebates keeping in mind M2, Supervisor Williams as you mentioned just started July 1 and we want to make sure we get on it quickly so we don't run out of those credits or they don't run out and we don' t get our choice to utilize those. So we're envisioning kind of two phases as we move forward. In addition to installing renewables, solar and whatever else it only makes sense to ensure that our buildings are energy efficient as possible to get the most out of our solar installations It just doesn't make sense to add solar and other renewables to an inefficient building. You know if you have a hundred watt incandescent light bulb, and you build a bunch of solar panels to power it, and then you change that bulb to a 10 watt LED, you kind of overbuilt your solar.

So we want to make sure what we have As we start adding these renewable projects that will be mindful of that to make our work, to make the buildings most efficient as quickly as we can. But at the same time, we know we gotta get started on the solar so we're gonna do that. So to do that, we're going to start by doing a financial grade energy audit of all the primary county buildings and properties. And again this is in combination with looking at solar so we're doing these two things at the same time.

We'll identify all the energy conservation measures after that will come out of that audit For each building and that will be things like replacing our aging equipment, our HVAC units, our controls adding variable speed pumps and drives of course LED lighting in both our buildings and parking lots. And then water conservation efforts as well. We'll then group all of these conservation measures into projects or into a project or projects on different campuses And then we could theoretically then borrow the money, issue debt to implement these projects. And once they're complete and online, the thought is or they will our county utility expenses will drop and then we'd be able to use those utility savings not capital dollars to make the debt payments each year on the money we borrowed to do the projects.

So that's basically our plan keeping in mind we want to do solar and energy efficiency at the same time. And I guess we're asking you to receive the report and give us a green light to go.

1:21 – 1:2811 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:21:25 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Thank you Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:21:30 · ≈ 10:21 AM

I'll wait after till after public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:21:32 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Okay seeing no more lights do we have any public speaker slips?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:21:37 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board we have two requests to speak. We're going to start in Santa Barbara with April Price so if you can go to Santa Barbara and then come back here for Mr. Caldwell

PresenterApril PriceCommunity Environmental Council and I would just like to support the recommendatProposedself-stated1:21:55 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Okay, good morning Madam Chair and Supervisors. My name is April Price with the Community Environmental Council and I would just like to support the recommendation to move forward with this preliminary analysis of renewable energy measures including siting and the financial analysis At the Community Environmental Council we believe that this is a great first step in moving forward towards responsible energy future here at the county. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:22:27 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Mr.

PresenterAndy CaldwellColabProposedself-stated1:22:28 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Caldwell? Madam Chair, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. I want to take off on a point. You know we're all for saving money but this reference to offsetting a utility bill is a misnomer. Because built into everybody's utility bill in the state of California is this target of 50% renewables, which forces the utility companies to buy renewables no matter how much they cost or how efficient they are. Secondly we have subsidized the solar and wind energy sector especially solar they don't pay property taxes. So you look at like for instance Diablo Canyon Spitz 20 million a year in property taxes but the solar farms and slope pay zero. Then you have these quote unquote incentives and rebates what is that? There's no such thing as free money they're taxing everybody's utility bill And putting that money in this pot for incentives and rebates.

Then you have AB 32 and SB 32, and the whole scheme that is taxing carbon emissions. There's billions we believe there's almost $5 billion that have been taxed out of our economy to subsidize this whole thing. And then let's talk about redundancy. So you have the 50% renewable, now the state leader of the Senate wants 100% renewable. Then you have community choice aggregation in addition to these mandates.

So why would you still build your own system when plugging anything into the wall in a few years is going to be solar or wind anyway? You've got double or triple redundancy building into this thing and you think you're saving money. Well but you're only saving money by looking at a utility bill that's laden with the cost of the mandates, the incentives and the rebates.

The other thing You don't want to talk about is the fact that our energy bills now electricity bills in California are 50% higher than some states. Secondly, we are now paying Arizona to take our excess solar. Because you can't store it, it peaks in the middle of the day. We don't have anything to do with that we're having to pay Arizona to take it off our hands.

Final point everybody makes a big deal out of Diablo's waste stream so to speak from uranium Have you ever studied what it's going to take to dispose of solar panels? What goes into a solar panel? Can it be landfilled, can it be recyclable or is it toxic waste like some of the light bulbs that you forced us to buy. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:25:38 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:25:42 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Well I think the short answer of why to proceed is because we want some of the renewable projects to be done here and we want some of the jobs and job benefits to be here in Santa Barbara County. I don't think that it makes sense for us to just I think in particular if we as staff is moving towards I want to also remind staff that there are, I don't know if the First analysis of the on-bill financing program that the utilities offer was outdated.

It may have been once at that time they charged interest for it, but the utilities do not charge municipalities for their on-bill financing program meaning for a given project we could receive up to $250,000 for an energy efficiency program from SCE or PG&E At zero percent. So to me, in the middle of a budget deficit that seems like a no brainer to save money and also make sure that our energy consumption is more in step with our values and create good work on infrastructure in our own county.

So I do support the staff recommendation but want to remind them that the city of Santa Barbara has done eight of these on-bill financing projects. I believe the county's only done one, I think we may want to take advantage of 0% loans to save some money.

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:28:02 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:28:07 · ≈ 10:28 AM

So CEO Misato what is our deficit next year? Anticipated to be.

1:28 – 1:3515 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:28:17 · ≈ 10:28 AM

A budget we said the estimate was about 20 million dollars negative for all general, all departments.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:28:23 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Okay Mr. Gray what do you anticipate order of magnitude savings out of this thing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:28:30 · ≈ 10:28 AM

You know if you look at, there's two things. One is the solar and the utility cost savings from that and the other is the energy efficiency on our On our on our buildings efficiency that we do The utility bill the electric. Well, I guess all utilities around four to five million dollars for the county annually So if we can get a 10% savings then the thought is you know There's our there's our savings and that savings is what would be used to finance any of these projects

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:29:09 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Okay, so it's like a half-a-million

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:29:11 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Could be as much as that. Again, that's a guess at this point without having done the audit or had the solar RFI out yet.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:29:18 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Okay well my dad used to always tell my mom that he was she was gonna make him go broke saving him money because she'd go out and buy stuff on sale and stuff and so yeah understood You know these are the kind of things I think this is sort of fiddling while Rome burns. But then again you know there might be if you can pay for something in a couple of years and on bill financing it's fine but you know I don't think we should dislocate our shoulder patting ourselves on the back for saving a bunch of money here because it's really in the scheme of things it's pretty small.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:29:59 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Madam Chair, through you to Supervisor Adam. You know one of the things we're trying to do with this program is to replace a lot of our aging equipment and the hope is don't know yet but boy if we can do that with the utility budget as opposed to just basically reducing using those that's already budgeted and instead of capital dollars that's that's the approach we'll see how it goes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:30:23 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Okay you got my attention now. If it's bleeding over into maintenance, that is excellent. I think Mr. Gray understood what word to use there. Swerving uncontrollably into success.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:30:43 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Supervisor Wilk. Okay thank you Madam Chair well first of all Jeanette and Skip thank you for bringing this back and I also want to express appreciation to Roy sitting behind you who wrote the report, I thought it was very helpful and informative You know you touched on the fact that why we brought this back was because we saw such success from the solar array that we have on the Chi Real campus and board directed or asked that you bring this back to us so that we could look at other options because that one was showing Not just savings, but we were recouping the amount of money that we had invested in a shorter period of time and I know just For me personally from our home when we put a solar array on our our home. I think there was an expected Time of return to 15 years, but it's been so efficient.

I think we're up to about eight years That will have financed the total array by a significantly shorter period of time. Not to mention the amount of reduced monthly bills that we have and I can guarantee you, I learned that same lesson and I'm not spending that extra money Mr. Adam. I think that there are certain things in here that Mr. Haitman talks about that we can be looking at right away that has to do with the HVAC systems, water and the light bulbs so you know I hope when you come back you'll be talking about those three issues as well. I think you alluded to that that we have to take care of those things before we- to have an energy efficient building Before we move forward with the solar panels and the windmills and so forth. But I think this is obviously an excellent first step, and I look forward to moving this forward on our county buildings.

And really standing up for the policies that you outlined that we adopted back in 2013 if not earlier than that. So this is us doing the right thing and standing up for our county policies that we've enacted many years ago. Thank you Madam Chair. Supervisor Adam did you have more?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:33:03 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Yeah I was just going to say when you come back next time, I think the idea of what happens to all these things in the end. You know are they recyclable do they become toxic waste? I think that's really an important question because I'll tell you this whole battery thing just you know lithium ion batteries in cars and stuff what are we going to do with all those things?

Not that you have to deal with that but all these different kinds of bulbs, any of the new technologies including the solar panels that we are having to put on now. What are we going to do with those in the end? I think it's really important that we understand what the disposal ramifications are and whether or not they can be recycled, repurposed whatever in the end.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:33:53 · ≈ 10:33 AM

I just wanted to chime in here before Supervisor Wolf. I'm particularly interested in battery storage, I know they are doing this in Orange County and in response to what Supervisor Adams said what our report says is that lithium batteries can be made of non-toxic and nonhazardous recyclable materials and have recycle value at the end of their lives so that will be part of what you're going to tell us but I think storage is absolutely critical and having just gone through the fire and the issues associated with our vulnerability to get electricity if we can have more storage especially for some of our critical county infrastructure that would be very important. So I hope you can kind of focus on that when the report comes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:34:42 · ≈ 10:34 AM

back. Supervisor Wolf. Madam Chair you took the words right out of my mouth, I was going to focus on batteries and read the exact same section that you just quoted so I don't have anything else to say but we are definitely on the same wavelength or battery path.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:35:04 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:35:05 · ≈ 10:35 AM

I'll just chime in since we're talking about it. It is also something that if we invested in that, it would provide a real need because as the two supervisors from Goleta are aware, Goleta's the end of the line and so it's particularly vulnerable from loss of energy and of course building up battery storage could obviate the need for a new power plant out that way.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:35:36 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Well I just wanted to say thank you to everyone who's brought this forward and we await eagerly for when you bring it back. May I have a motion?

1:35 – 1:393 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:35:46 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:35:48 · ≈ 10:35 AM

And authorize the… So we have a motion and a second, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes so we'll take a 10 minute break

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:17 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Okay.

1:51 – 2:0020 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:51:49 · ≈ 10:51 AM

We are reconvening our July 18, 2017 Santa Barbara County Supervisors Board meeting here in the Santa Maria hearing room and we are turning to the second item in our departmental agenda. Would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:52:03 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board. Item 2 is from Public Health. This is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding water well permits and to receive policy direction.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:52:14 · ≈ 10:52 AM

And Ms. Topliff?

PresenterCarrie TopliffPublic Health DepartmentProposedself-stated1:52:15 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Thank you. Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:52:16 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Fay?

PresenterCarrie TopliffPublic Health DepartmentProposedself-stated1:52:17 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Good morning, Chair Hartman and members of the board. I'm Carrie Topliff. We're not

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:52:21 · ≈ 10:52 AM

hearing you quite well.

PresenterCarrie TopliffPublic Health DepartmentProposedself-stated1:52:22 · ≈ 10:52 AM

I'm Carrie Topliff, the Interim Director of the Public Health Department. And I'm here this morning with Larry Faye, our Environmental Health Services Director and Glenn Russell. We want to talk to you about water wells As the drought has deepened in Santa Barbara, so has the interest and activity around water wells. We wanted to make you aware of some recent trends that we're seeing and also suggest some potential policy options that you might want to consider for the future.

Take it away.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated1:53:02 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Thank You Carrie and Madam Chair members of the board I'm Larry Fay, Environmental Health Services Director. It seems like every couple of years we're back here to talk a little bit about what's happening with water wells and enter into a discussion of whether or not there are any policy options that ought to be considered in changes in what we do in the way of permitting water wells.

So why are we here? It's no big surprise. In spite of last winter's rain, which was a welcome relief, we remain in drought condition here in Santa Barbara County. We continue to see increased well drilling activity and I'll have some figures up there in just a moment at least increase relative to our historic levels you will see that we have over the last three years seen a downward trend In 2016, September 2016 I think it was, Environmental Health received a rather scathing letter from the California Coastal Commission with concerns about our current well permitting regime.

And the Coastal Commission made a number of recommendations. All of this is in the context of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act and the formation of groundwater management agencies throughout the county. You'll recall at least some of you that we came to the board to talk water wells in 2015, I believe. And one of the things we walked away with was to revise our application forms and collect a little more information about wells that are being proposed to be drilled in the county And I thought it would be good for us to give an updated report since 2015 as to what's going on with well activity.

Interestingly, 2014 was our peak year. You can see from 2009 through 2013 we consistently ran between 50 and 100 well permits a year that's pretty typical of going back to previous years. We saw the big spike in 2014 and you can see That numbers remain high, but they are going down. We're now at a workload under 200 permits a year and in fact I just looked at our data yesterday and through the end of June of 17 we're at about 63 well permit applications, so if that continues through the year we'll be at 120 wells. So beginning to get back down to what we would see as more historic activities. Also in the graph you can see that the largest block of wells are those that are for irrigation purposes and second-largest block are those that are combined irrigation and domestic uses.

Relatively small number of wells that are solely for domestic water supply And I'm not sure why we're still getting a few applications that are unspecified. So I need to start looking at that and find out why we're seeing that. I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.881:56:11 · ≈ 10:56 AM

have a question on this slide. Thank you Madam Chair. Larry do we do we have the breakdown of geographically where these are all located?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated1:56:24 · ≈ 10:56 AM

I can get that information by parcel. I don't have coordinates for the wells themselves, but we could give parcel-specific data on where these wells are being drilled.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:56:36 · ≈ 10:56 AM

Also... Can you give us anecdotal? And over the arc of the time, especially the time that there was such a spike.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated1:56:48 · ≈ 10:56 AM

The 2014-2015 spike, there was a lot of activity in the Montecito area and I don't know if that made up 30%, 40%. We have that information. I don't have it at my fingertips I think we've seen some of that drop off in the last year or so, and it's more spread out throughout the county. But without getting into our database, I'm kind of reluctant to give firm numbers on that. Another thing that is kind of interesting with this form is we have a lot of information about wells and well location, but it's all on paper records.

And we're embarked on a project now to working with interns to pull all those files up and get them into our database so we'll actually have A lot more specific information about wells when they were drilled, how deep they are and what they're producing. What kind of formations they're going through that will be information I suspect will feed the planning activities of the various groundwater management agencies. I know we consistently or frequently ask for information about wells and well locations

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:57:58 · ≈ 10:57 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair I'm looking at the irrigation and domestic the one that's kind of in the beige color is that down below on note it says irrigation includes ag irrigation and landscape irrigation wells. So is that the irrigation and domestic?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated1:58:20 · ≈ 10:58 AM

No no the irrigation domestic would be to just give a specific kind of example, a new winery that we put in a well for irrigating the vineyards they may be using water supply and the wine making process and then they may also have their own housing and employee housing on So that well would be used for domestic purposes to supply the residences and used for irrigation purposes. That would probably be the most common one. When we talk about irrigation, the reason we put that footnote in there is we're not speaking exclusively to ag irrigation. A lot of irrigation wells are landscape irrigation and we don't have that broken out at this point in time and it's something we could begin to collect in the future if we wanted to get it. One other note that I didn't mention, and this was important when we talked to the Ag Advisory Committee is to make the distinction between new wells and new withdrawals.

Many of the wells that were drilled or at least some of the wells that were drilled over the last years have been drilled to either replace wells We're failing or to add, I don't want to say add capacity but to add wells to enable irrigators for instance to maintain withdrawal capacity or extraction capacity that they may have had previous to the drought. So there's not a direct relationship between an increased number of wells so it's not necessarily linear that these new wells are all constituting new extractions of groundwater.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:59:55 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Supervisor Adam?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated1:59:56 · ≈ 10:59 AM

And I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:59:56 · ≈ 10:59 AM

just want to make the point here that you guys may not understand that wells actually wear out. Wells don't work forever just because you drill a hole in the ground, put the pipe in there and draw water through it for a number of years. Sometimes the water chemistry makes it rust and disappear over time. And sometimes there's sand that gets drawn through and ends up making the perforations larger. For a variety of reasons you just have Redrill a well and you can't put it in the exact same spot that it came from. So you have to move it a little bit.

And so there's a maintenance component to this thing that I think often gets lost in the mix.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:00:39 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Supervisor Lavanino

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:00:40 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. So on the irrigation and domestic we're cohabitating in the same checkbox ag irrigation and landscape irrigation currently

2:00 – 2:1724 turns

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:00:55 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Supervisor, Supervisor Lavanini through the chair. If I understand your question correctly.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:01:02 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Well, I guess I'll make it easier so if somebody comes in for a they're identifying to you that it's a well if there's no real difference on the form if they're irrigating their landscaping or we're

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:01:14 · ≈ 11:01 AM

actually doing an ag well. Supervisor Lavanini through the chair. That's correct. We just have a box for irrigation. You don't ask what they are irrigating, what crop And I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:01:22 · ≈ 11:01 AM

think you were asking for direction. I think the first direction would be that we absolutely have to find out what's free, what's for agriculture and what's for landscaping. And so make that change modification for us and collect new data. And it's not like there's tens of thousands of wells that we need to get this information for. I mean, this should be something as far as where they're located and, you know, what they're actually being used for is something that we should be able to mine down quickly and carefully because you know we're looking at this in a universal scope where we might just have a very minor problem in a very limited area.

You know so I'm just looking at this chart. I think this tells the whole story when you said we're back down to 120. It looks like it's self correcting but anyway I know you've got much more to go through but that's my initial.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:02:25 · ≈ 11:02 AM

But Supervisor Adam has something first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:02:28 · ≈ 11:02 AM

Well and this might be for Mike Gazzone a little bit. You know there's a reason probably that we don't specify what the difference is between irrigation and domestic purposes because domestic purposes have a higher ceiling standard right then than an irrigation well would normally. And that's actually, sorry I'm looking right past Mr. Gazzone to Mr. Faye. Mr. Faye the sealing difference

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:03:04 · ≈ 11:03 AM

is? Supervisor Adam through the chair when we updated our well construction ordinance in 2012 I believe we went to a standard 50 foot seal so that applies to either domestic or ag at this point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:03:15 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Okay didn't know that see I've always put in a 50 foot seal on all of our ag wells thinking that maybe someday somebody's going to take something domestically out of it and then That's the cheap place to put in a 30 feet of seal because you can't do it again if you put the 20 foot seal in. But there is another, on these applications where somebody is saying I'm going to irrigate domestically or irrigation You know they have a right to reasonable and beneficial use on their property.

In many cases I mean if if there and this is where it gets back to Mr. Gazzone you know just because somebody puts water to use as an as a landscaping use doesn't mean it's unreasonable or not beneficial that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:04:15 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Chair and Supervisor Adam, that is correct. And a lot of what we'll be discussing today comes from the California Constitution's authority that really allows jurisdictions to limit against the waste or unreasonable use of water which is the flip side of beneficial use. So normally when we're looking at something like this, we're focusing on what's a reasonable use? What's a beneficial use? What's a waste?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:04:41 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Do you know what the case is on point for that defines waste?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:04:50 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Probably one of the best examples, a real bookend on waste would be flooding a field to make a duck hunting venue. So that's one of the cases from the California Supreme Court going back many years. That's an example of waste in a dry area So we look after that. It's going to be really multifactored, hard to spot until you drill down—no pun intended—drill down into what the exact use of the land is and what saving measures might be required so you don't really vest into a waste of water. If new technology might allow you to use less water and accomplish the same result, that's a factor that's out there also But when we look at this, there is a fairly gross case of flooding a field to make a duck shooting venue was considered an unreasonable use or a waste of water.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:05:47 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Well I'm not sure I can recall. I think it might be Pleasant Valley versus Boorer but I'm not absolutely sure that I'm getting the right one. There's a case where There was a rocky field that was irrigated for the purposes of grazing some cows and somebody argued that that was a waste. And the court said that that was not a waste so because it was reasonable and beneficial to that person.

So it's You know when we go and start talking about what people can do with the water that resides under their property you get into a slippery slope where you may end up on the razor blade slipping down into the bucket of alcohol. So this is something that You know we would love those of us who would love to tell people that they can't use something that they have but the other guy doesn't.

But you know it's set up that way so you're really fighting the way things are to try to circumvent that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:06:58 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:07:00 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Well I. I think it's a good issue that we talk about because my principal concern is in the cases where you have non agricultural use that is Drilling into the municipal water supply essentially. Montecito has 1500 wells, most of which are into the same supply that everyone who's not on a well depends on. That's like having 1,500 wells in Kachuma, I mean 1,500 more pipes in Kachuma without any record of how much is coming out of it. Right? That's an issue. But there are differences and that's why I think Labadino's point that we should be differentiating between agricultural and non-agricultural use is really important

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:07:59 · ≈ 11:07 AM

We'll see if you were in the Santa Maria Valley it would be an analogous situation to that. You would have a Kachema underground that everybody is essentially tapping into with some exceptions around the edges but and I don't know the geology of, and I don't know if we have anybody here who actually knows the geology of the Montecito quote basin unquote for lack of a better term because I'm not sure that there is a Kachuma underneath Montecito because we know that there's properties that do have drilled wells and do not have water. And then there's other properties next door that do have water and so that means that there may be sporadic spots of water and or a consolidated rock aquifer which means you're drilling into consolidated rock with cracks in it hoping to hit So there are those places that defy the Kachuma comparison, and those are not basins per se.

There may be a semi fairly reliable set of water underneath there but that doesn't mean it's an underground lake like the Santa Maria Basin. And that's what I worry about with respect to Montecito because I think that the geology there is unknown to me and I'm not sure that there's anybody really at the county that knows about that. Do you know about that Mr. Fay?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:09:41 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair. We do have a staff hydrogeologist for a couple of other programs, but he does have some familiarity with the groundwater situation in the South Coast in particular. It's information that I'm sure we could pull together, but I think your characterization that Montecito is more of a bedrock aquifer kind of situation and not a big pool of water and unconsolidated material like we have in Santa Maria or in Santa Ynez around Lompoc Is probably a fair characterization.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:10:15 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Well see if that's the case then somebody may be pumping on water that the municipalities never and it's not even accessible to them. It may flow by a different path into areas we just don't know where those are so you can't just assume that because you can poke a hole and get water out of it that it's all connected

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:10:35 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Well I would just indicate that this couple, the information that has been presented at all of the GSA formation meetings by people that are far more qualified than any of the three of us is that there are four sub basins in Montecito that have some interrelationship between each other meaning they're not Thank you, Mr. Chairman. in the Montecito for sub basins than there is in Kachuma. We don't know how much less because we don't have metering of wells so we don't really know how much is getting drawn out.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:11:44 · ≈ 11:11 AM

From the meter you can't tell how much is there. You can only tell what you've extracted. So it really doesn't do any good.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:11:52 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Can do some good but there's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:11:55 · ≈ 11:11 AM

obviously

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:11:55 · ≈ 11:11 AM

more

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:11:56 · ≈ 11:11 AM

now. Let's go back to the presentation I'm sure we're going to have a rich discussion but it gets a little scattered and it's such a complex topic both in terms of water law and hydrogeology of subsurface basins so Mr. Fink

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:12:09 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. One other just clarification on this slide. When we're speaking about domestic purposes, we're speaking of drinking water as opposed to irrigation. When we talk about irrigation, we're talking about there's two kinds of irrigation uses so I think that might have been getting a little bit lost in that and for us drinking water has different set of standards. We don't require water quality testing for an irrigation well but as soon as you're moving into the domestic supply Then we have testing requirements that go into it before the well can be used for drinking water.

Generally speaking, and we've gone over this in the past but I think it's always good for a refresher. Generally speaking water well permits are termed as ministerial permits. A person submits an application, they meet the siting requirements, they meet the construction requirements, the permit is issued. It's not something that we have a choice of saying no on. And we inspect the wells to verify that it was constructed in accordance with the state adopted standards and standards of our code. Primarily around the depth and quality of that surface seal that Supervisor Adam referred to earlier.

There are a couple of exceptions, water well that is going to be drilled to serve a small community one of the state's small water systems or small public water system is tied to a conditional use permit issued by P&D that's a precursor for us to issue the permit for that well And the second is if an applicant were to indicate that they're intending to export that groundwater by a tanker or some other means, a conditional use permit would be required if they were able to get one at all.

The second exception to the ministerial permit is in the coastal zone, a well is considered a development permit and a coastal development permit is required before we can issue the well permit and that is a discretionary permit. Now a couple of the things that have occurred this last year, two years or at least since the last time we're here that I thought were important and which bring the board's attention. The first one I want to speak to is an incident that occurred in I think it was September last year and that was a water well that was being drilled in the Goleta area up I'm drawing blank.

It was up in Elwood Canyon and the driller hit an aquifer that was rather interesting they were down 3,000 feet hit a artesian aquifer resulted in an artesian flow of over 100 gallons a minute And a tremendous release of hydrogen sulfide gas, enough so that reports went to the fire department. In fact I think the first report that went to APCD and the fire department was from a resident that was almost two miles away from the well that was being drilled.

This was a major release of hydrogen sulfide. A number of folks self evacuated in the vicinity It took two days to locate the source, had responders from both Goleta and Santa Barbara Fire I believe engaged, caused major disruption for the neighborhood. Once the source was identified as the well drilling activity we had I thought good Enforcement capability under construction ordinance to step in declared the well a nuisance, gave an abatement order to the driller and ultimately compelled them to abandon that well which they did within 24 hours and shut things down. But the bottom line is it took about 48 hours to locate the release and actually be able to take action to correct the problem I will say that was an unusual occurrence, but it was very very significant for the community that was affected by it.

The second issue that has come up and I referred to is the letter we received from the Coastal Commission There were two really major thrust of that letter one Was Pointing to the fact that we had as environmental health in the past issued permits for wells in the coastal zone without having obtained, without having the property owner having obtained a coastal development permit prior to issuing the well permit.

When we learned of that, which was a number of years ago, we changed our procedure and we do review the well applications now and verify if they're in or out of the zone. And if they're in the zone, we refer them to P&D to work on a cultural development permit before we'll issue that well permit. So we felt like that one was addressed and in that case the letter was dragging up some old issues that were still being cleaned up in the permitting process.

2:17 – 2:2315 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:17:31 · ≈ 11:17 AM

We have some questions up here before you get to your second point Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:17:38 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Thank you Madam Chair I wanted to go up to the hydrogen sulfide piece. Was the original permit for 3000 feet?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:17:52 · ≈ 11:17 AM

I'm fine if I may. Supervisor Wolf would charge to see if my staff folks remember what the original application said. I was pretty much involved with this after the fact so I know how deep they went. I don't know how deep they intended to get. I'm going to ask David Brumman to be replaced. In this case, it sounds like they actually drilled deeper than the well application had indicated. But in fairness that's not necessarily unusual when people give us an application. The application shows what they plan to do but the proof is in the pudding when you start drilling. You know, you go where you get the water and what I can say is 3,000 feet for a water well is very unusual.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:18:36 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Well let me just say that it would seem that if someone is asking for a permit for particular depth and what I'm hearing you say is that really doesn't mean too much because they could drill further until they find the water. And that concerns me as far as us being a regulatory, or you being a regulatory agency. That there's no kind of, they wouldn't come back to you and say we would like to even amend our permit?

Because it's just surprising to me. Basically what you're saying is that they submit a permit to drill to a certain depth but they could go further until they find water and they don't have to come back and let you know that.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:19:30 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Supervisor will through the chair, that's correct. The applicant generally will submit the application they'll identify the diameter of the well what kind of construction materials are going to use how it's going to be finished But until you drill, you don't really know where the water is going to be. So they give us what they anticipate. So if I were looking just using this as an example of our looking to modify our code, what I would probably want to put in there is something that Isn't any well that is drilled to a depth deeper than shows on the application? I wouldn't want to force somebody to each and every time they report to us, or every well's going to be indicated it's going to go to 2,000 feet. And then I know I'm going to get water and finish at 800 feet.

But it would be something if they're encountering a situation is very unusual that results in a significant change to what they had submitted to us that they Come back. But again, it's a ministerial permit So even if they came back and said oh we're not drilling to a thousand feet. We've gone 2,000 feet It's still okay You would know they're going there but it wouldn't really change the outcome

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:20:41 · ≈ 11:20 AM

so it sounds like you you are suggesting that maybe I A change in our ordinance would be an order. It's just how do we go about doing it and getting the correct language? Is that correct?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:20:57 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Supervisor Will through the chair, it's interesting when we have these conversations because we have a few ideas and this is not one that we presented but it's certainly something that we can take away.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:21:07 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Okay thank you. Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:21:09 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Well can you explain because I know you know how to drill a well and because you watch so many people do them. Can you explain what happens if you stop in the middle of drilling a well?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:21:30 · ≈ 11:21 AM

I would say it depends on the formation you're working in. If you're working in the mountains and you were working in granite, it probably wouldn't matter.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:21:38 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Well

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:21:38 · ≈ 11:21 AM

certainly we're not really talking about those. We're drilling in material that's going to tend to collapse on you if you stop drilling. The hole may just collapse and you're going to start over again anyway. So it's not something you can shut down easily and then go back to a day or two later. You might in some cases but in a lot of cases you may have lost everything you just did. Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:22:01 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Levenita. And I was just curious this is a question for you more than what would what's an operation like that cost? I mean if we're talking about you know I think yeah for 3,000 foot well You'd

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:22:18 · ≈ 11:22 AM

have to be a billionaire. Supervisor Lavanita to the Chair, we were looking at an application yesterday that is The application indicated 1,700 feet. It's a little bit of a complicated construction process that they are looking at because I think in part because they recognize this hydrogen sulfide issue so they're using some kind of advanced drilling techniques but we're estimating that 1,700 foot well is probably a half million dollars or more

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:22:51 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Yeah. And what I was really going to ask you is how many of the how many water wells have you seen that have exceeded a thousand feet?

2:23 – 2:3013 turns

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:23:06 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Supervisor Adam to chair a thousand feet is not terribly unusual depending on where you are. I think Yama a thousand feet is not way unusual well exceeded a thousand but I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:23:18 · ≈ 11:23 AM

mean that's the basement on as I understand it

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:23:21 · ≈ 11:23 AM

that's pretty much the basement on Koyama And I don't know that they've gone down much more than that, but it's not unusual to see things in a thousand feet range. But I'd have to go through our well reports and see where they're actually finished to give a good answer to that. Yeah, but I would say while not unheard of it's not typical either

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:23:42 · ≈ 11:23 AM

And is there a place that people stop drilling normally in various geologies? I know Santa Maria Valley very intimately. I probably supervise the drilling of probably at least 30 ag wells and you always stop at the Blue Clay. So is there is there other types of members like that? You know unless you and I'm looking at Ed Holt back there unless you drill through the blue clay, and then you get a bad well Which cost us two hundred and twenty five thousand dollars, and we don't use anymore so

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:24:29 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair. I Think The typical practice for an experienced driller that knows the areas, they pretty much know the formations they're going to run through and they know when they've gone through the water bearing formation it's time to stop. But having worked in a number of different areas and worked with a number of different drillers and also heard a lot of groundwater lore, it seemed like everywhere there is a mysterious and magical deep aquifer if you just drilled deep enough you would find it And there are people that go hunt for that one.

So it's hard to say. I say that somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I've seen some pretty unusual situations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:25:15 · ≈ 11:25 AM

And you know there are a lot of places that are being farmed today that were not farmed in this area when I was a kid because people thought there wasn't any water out there and people went out drilled wells and they found that there was water there. And so that's, I think that describes a lot of our grape ground. You know nobody knew that there was water underneath it until somebody went out and checked And you know they took a chance and found it, so it made previously unfarmable farmable.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:25:52 · ≈ 11:25 AM

Moving

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:25:53 · ≈ 11:25 AM

on. Thank you Madam Chair. The second part of the Coastal Commission letter really dealt with Well outside the coastal zone. But concerns that the Coastal Commission expressed about the impacts of groundwater withdrawals in areas nearby and up gradient hydrologically from the coastal zone and the potential impact those withdrawals could have on seawater intrusion into the coastal zone and they pointed to what they saw as Should I say inconsistencies that they felt between our permitting practice and land use policy? Specifically with respect to allowing wells to be drilled in municipal areas where there's a municipal water supplier who could otherwise provide service to the property owner.

And as I said, of course all of this discussion about water wells and groundwater usage needs to be discussed in the context of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. My understanding is we now have four GMAs either formed or very soon to be formed in the county, Santa Ynez Valley. Actually there may be multiple GMAs for the Santa Ynez Valley Santa Maria, Fringe, San Antonio and Akiyama. And there's some activity around Galeta and potentially Montecito to form GMAs there as well. And those agencies would once formed would undertake the planning and policy work for future extractions and management of the groundwater in those basins.

So having gone through that kind of brief summary, we had three policy options that we thought we would present to the board for discussion and guidance as to whether we should pursue. The first policy option is in response to the hydrogen sulfide release and That would be a direction for staff to work on amendments to 34A. That's our well construction ordinance that identifies actions that would need to be taken in the event of a hydrogen sulfide release or other similar kind of release largely aimed around appropriate notification as well as quick action to mitigate a release.

The second policy option and ties to future The plans that will be developed by the GMAs is whether it's time to begin talking about installing, requiring the installation of water meters on wells as they're drilled these days. And the third policy option is one we actually discussed in 2015, is whether we should begin to look at some categories of wells as discretionary as opposed to ministerial. And begin to set some kind of conditions on what that would look like. Stanislaus County has had an ordinance in place for a couple of years now, that prohibits the unsustainable extraction of groundwater and has some middle requirements for wells that are reviewed and decision made about whether the well will actually be permitted.

So those are the three policy options that we have And with the addition of the one we talked about previously on well depth.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:29:48 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Supervisor Adam and then Labanino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:29:51 · ≈ 11:29 AM

I just want to know how many times we've seen a hydrogen sulfide release like that one in a water well?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:29:59 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair sorry. Yeah, we get confused all the time. I can see that. Hydrogen sulfide is not unusual you'd often get kind of a nuisance odor or it's there to detect but something like what occurred last September was really exceptional. It's the only one of that magnitude that any of my staff and me have experienced. OK

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:30:25 · ≈ 11:30 AM

well all right I'm going to.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:30:28 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Could I just follow on before Supervisor Lavinino could you describe what are the impacts of hydrogen sulfide and what happened in those in that case to those who were drilling the well?

2:30 – 2:3719 turns

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:30:41 · ≈ 11:30 AM

Well, hydrogen sulfide is nasty stuff. I mean it'll kill you. It's heavier than air. It will settle in the low pockets. I mean it's something to be concerned about. It's more typically something we encounter in the oil fields than in the water well world. In this case The driller, I believe they had hydrogen sulfide sensors on hand and they actually exceeded the numeric limit for worker exposure.

But it was not of a duration that caused them to be well, I don't want to get too much into they had high levels that they detected with the detectors whether or not their workers were exposed to unsafe levels is A matter of question. But yeah,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:31:35 · ≈ 11:31 AM

it's bad

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:31:36 · ≈ 11:31 AM

stuff.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:31:37 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Supervisor Lavanino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.882:31:39 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. So you mentioned Stanislaus County is there any other county that's doing discretionary water well permits right now?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:31:49 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Supervisor Lavanino through the chair. That's the only one, Stanislaus is the only one I'm aware of that has something like that in place. And was Stanislas, that was probably created before Sigma? Kind of in talking to the folks there it was kind of with Sigma in mind. A lot of what they're doing with their ordinance is taking advantage of their review and data acquisition now to feed these groundwater management plans as those agencies get up and going.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:32:22 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair. So Mr. Pan I'm just not clear, so you laid out the recommendations plus the well depth but what about the Coastal Commission letter where they say that we shouldn't permit private water wells on parcels that already receive municipal water service?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:32:49 · ≈ 11:32 AM

Supervisor will for the chair. We in reviewing the recommendation from the Coastal Commission I include that in the presentation primarily so that the board is aware of the communication with the Coastal Commission. I noticed on the letters that nobody from the Board of Supervisors was copied, I think from the county. Dr. Russell and I were the only two people who were copied on that letter.

I think we didn't feel at this point that we wanted to make or wanted to respond to those specific recommendations of the Coastal Commission in terms of a policy recommendation. I think we have it pretty well covered in our land use.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:33:41 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Dr. Russell.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed2:33:43 · ≈ 11:33 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, let me give you a little background that I think might make that request by the Coastal Commission a little clearer. We have policies right now that if someone proposes new development and you're in a water district that serves you whether you're in the coastal or inland area you have to hook up. That's what we require so what the Coastal Commission was talking about was they were talking about The kinds of wells like agricultural irrigation wells that are ministerial. And so they were saying, we think that those wells also should not be allowed in a circumstance where there is a water district that is serving the parcel. So that was sort of and also they were making that statement about areas inland Where they don't have any regulatory authority because they were concerned about how that might affect the areas in the coastal zone where they do have regulatory authority and are concerned about saltwater intrusion.

But, they were specifically talking about the ministerial wells that are currently just ministerial for irrigation if it was A new development, a house we require and it's in a district that serves it. We require that they hook up right now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:35:03 · ≈ 11:35 AM

So you require it but environmental health if you get an application from a homeowner asking for a well let's just assume that they want it for landscaping purposes Would you know that they are already hooked up to a municipal service water agency or are you just looking specifically at the well application? Do you ask that question?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:35:38 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair. I'd have to look at our application form to see if we have a checkbox to indicate whether you are otherwise served by municipal water. It is on the form so we know that they're getting water from municipal supplier for domestic purposes And if the well came in indicating domestic supply, and I know we've had at least one instance where somebody wanted not only to drill a well for domestic supply in an urban area but they also wanted variances on siting requirements for that well.

And that was a case where we denied it both from the siting standpoint and the fact that they had water available to them for domestic purposes from the municipal supplier. But if that application comes in and indicates irrigation, we would know they're in a service area and that they have water service that's on the form but it would not be a basis for us to deny the permit to drill the irrigation well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:36:31 · ≈ 11:36 AM

It wouldn't be a basis to deny but Coastal Commission is suggesting that it should be.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:36:36 · ≈ 11:36 AM

That is

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:36:37 · ≈ 11:36 AM

correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:36:38 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Supervisor Williams.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:36:41 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:36:42 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Wolf just made my point.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:36:44 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Okay I would like, I'm concerned about the data that we gather as you began your presentation you discussed that we have a lot of paper records and were getting interns and were getting that up online so that would be more easily accessible it is by parcel however not by GPS. And then I think you said in addition to the permit application when we go after the well is drilled, we go out again and look at how deep and whether the seal was correct. But I'm wondering if that is a place to start? To look at the forms that people submit and make sure that we're getting the best information that we can. I think this could be very helpful So I'm just wondering if, I'd just like to put that out there as a thought. That we look more at the data that we get through the processes that are already in place and can we hone that and use that data for purposes related to Sigma?

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:38 – 2:4512 turns

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:38:01 · ≈ 11:38 AM

And Madam Chair when we came to the board in 2015 that was the end result. We actually put together an updated application form with a lot more data points to it and actually had a supplemental data sheet included that we brought back to the Board of Supervisors for buy off before we actually implemented use of that form.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:38:18 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Now is just in 2015 so your sense is that's already been done and it looks pretty good? Do we get it by I mean you said we get parcel data but it could be a fairly large parcel

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:38:30 · ≈ 11:38 AM

Madam Chair, we do have a feature in our database and this is a matter of working with staff. It's kind of a drag-and-drop feature so once the well has been inspected and the inspector who's updating that record The well location is shown by the applicant information. So it's kind of odd if the applicant information is the same address that the well is being drilled on, it'll show a well location there but in the case of the Elwood Canyon Well, the applicant had a Goleta address so when we just opened up the database it showed the well in downtown Goleta But once we open it up, you can then drag that well over to the location and looking at Google Earth and plunk it.

It's not precise but it's probably sure a darn sight better than anything we've had in the past. And it's probably good enough for most of our planning purposes but I need to consistently have staff who have been out to inspect the well due to the final positioning because normally that well would be just sitting on the road outside the parcel. So it's on the back corner of the parcel let's put it back there.

And save that change. Over time, that information will build as we get more and more wells in that database.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:39:43 · ≈ 11:39 AM

And just one follow-on question. We have digital... These well data are digitized from what date forward?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:39:54 · ≈ 11:39 AM

We have in the database probably 15 years of well information but it's very, very limited. We have applicant and parcel information so part of what we're doing now is pulling up the finished paper documents looking at the actual well report that was submitted by the driller and updating the specific information about that well and when we can actually get a location adding that.

Yeah, we're just improving the and expanding the amount of data that we have in a database that will allow some of these kind of searchable queries to take place.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:40:37 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Thank you. I don't see any more lights up here so I think it's time to go to public comment and I thank everyone who has been waiting so patiently. I think we have 18, let me ask is there anyone who would like to go for just one minute? They could go first otherwise my inclination is to allow people the three minutes. I see no takers so we'll just go with three minutes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:41:10 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board will get started. We're going to go with Renee O'Neill here in Santa Maria followed by Andy Caldwell.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:41:19 · ≈ 11:41 AM

And please get right ready so we don't waste a lot of time as people walk up to the podium.

CommentRenee O'NeillProposedself-stated2:41:29 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Hi I'm Renee O'Neill, good morning Madam Chair and Board. I really don't have anything to speak to on this yet because I was hoping to go later but one of my concerns in Tepeskaya Canyon with existing wells is if this issue is going to be talking about metering those kinds of wells and The concerns of new wells that are going in some of which I don't believe have any permits at all and our finite water supply.

I'm less than a minute.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:42:07 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Mr. Caldwell to be followed by Claire Wineman.

PresenterAndy CaldwellColabProposedself-stated2:42:10 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Madam Chair members of the board Andy Caldwell representing Colab Supervisor Williams we know that you've been dancing around this issue for a long time having to do with Montecito and we agree there is a problem with what I call the Montecito double dippers except, except for those people that are double dipping because of ACK. They're double dipping for a landscape. We're on the same page as you but we're asking you use a fly swatter maybe a gold plated fly swatter to deal with Montecito don't use a shotgun or an atom bomb to deal with all the rest of ag and the rest of the county and why is that? Well because we believe that's already been dropped in the form of Sigma.

And you'd be hard pressed to find those fringe areas. You've got Quiama, the San Dines Valley, Lompoc and Los Alamos under Sigma and you've got Santa Maria Valley in Goleta under adjudicated basin so we honestly can't think of a single reason or a single objective To either flow meters or a discretionary permit. Because it doesn't add anything to the mix. The adjudication and SGMA are going to be the ultimate authority on the beneficial use and the balance of water use in all of the rest of the county except maybe Montecito. Then plus you have elected officials who are in charge of overseeing water resources in jurisdictions, we think you need to have a collaborative approach with them versus trying to find a hook This is a hook, but we don't think it's going to solve anything.

We think it's going to create all sorts of problems. You know the bottom line here is farmers and people that live on a well that don't have the ability to hook up nature controls their fate if they don't conserve they run out of water because they can't afford like Montecito to pay somebody to truck in water from carpentry or something like They can't afford it. So nature controls overuse and waste in 99 times out of 100 cases they run out of water, they just lost the value their property or the lot of the value of their farm so you don't need this action we don't care if you put a warning about H2S but we don't believe as Supervisor Adam pointed out flow meters don't tell you nothing finally you have groundwater monitoring every year you get a groundwater management report Do you already have a seat at the table so to speak into looking at the status of groundwater basins throughout the county.

So we don't think flow meters are going to tell you anything and discretionary permit process is only going to make things worse. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:45:13 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Clare Wineman be followed by Lisa Bedrogi.

2:45 – 2:559 turns

PresenterClaire Weinman I'mGrower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo countiesProposedself-stated2:45:19 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Good morning my name is Claire Weinman I'm the president of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The association represents over 170 growers, shippers, farm labor contractors and supporting agribusinesses. Our members grow diverse field and nursery crops such as broccoli strawberries and wine grapes These crops and the families they support rely predominantly on irrigation from groundwater wells, and we are committed to the responsible stewardship of water resources.

Our members are very concerned about the ramifications of the potential policy options in the lasting countywide impacts on agriculture in our rural communities. The letters from the Agricultural Advisory Committee raise important points on the impacts of the policy options would have on the county's agricultural community, and we ask you to heed their advice.

On behalf of our members, we further urge you not preemptively take countywide action and instead, we ask you to defer to the imminent role of SGMA's Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to address issues locally by developing and implementing groundwater sustainability plans. These GSPs are better able to thoughtfully and comprehensively determine how to manage each basin's groundwater resources.

We ask you to refrain from developing permanent additional regulations in County Code 34A based on an isolated incident such as the anomaly of the hydrogen sulfide release, We understand from the Agricultural Advisory Committee that it was actually an out-of-state oil driller who drilled that well, so we don't see that as being a common occurrence. Finally, we ask that any outstanding specific needs in other areas of the county be addressed on a local basis if needed. For example, if needed we encourage you to work with the Montecito Water District regarding water wells on parcels that are to receive municipal water service.

This question is already on the current Environmental Health Services water well permit application Most importantly, we adamantly oppose indiscriminately requiring flow meters and discretionary well permits throughout the county. The need for flow meters should not be a foregone conclusion. The courts have consistently accepted methods for estimating water use for the purposes of basin adjudication and SGMA explicitly allows discretion on monitoring groundwater extractions including any reasonable methodology instead of direct measurements.

This is actually happening right now in this adjudication of the Santa Maria Valley. Mandating flow meters and discretionary permitting for new wells would absolutely create additional compliance costs, delays in uncertainty and administrative burden that would further inhibit the economic viability of our agricultural community. We urge you to defer to SGMA's GSAs and other local mechanisms to address specific needs and not take countywide action in response to an isolated incident. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:48:28 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Lisa Bedrogi to be followed by George Adam

CommentLisa BedrogiProposedself-stated2:48:34 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Morning Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Lisa Bedrogi and I've been serving farmers and ranchers on the Central Coast since 1997 as an agricultural land use planner. Most of my career has been spent in last in land use but I spent about three and a half years embroiled in the Paso Robles groundwater basin pre Sigma dealing with water rights and water issues. I'm here this morning to talk about water rights and make it clear That an overlying user in the rural area has the rights to that water so long as they can get it. That's that's the key. Those are their rights. Their rights are premium and over and above property owners in water district areas who have given up their rights to the water district. Water districts actually have secondary rights but property owners in the rural areas have that right to that water And to require them to go through unnecessary permitting, particularly at a discretionary level when in fact you really don't have discretion is questionable.

I work with a lot of discretionary cases and a lot of really good people in the farming community and I can tell you It is heartbreaking, the fees associated with discretionary permitting these days. Just a few months ago you increased fees to $226 for a staff planner to review any kind of application regardless of the level of experience they have. So adding a discretionary view process would just kill them. It's not reasonable, it's not fair, it's not justified.

You've talked a lot about individual problems, particularly in the Montecito area. One incident in hydrogen sulfide don't put a blanket ordinance requirement over the entire county when you have isolated incidents and cases that can be addressed. Sounds like they already are addressed. Also I'm going to point something else out that farmers and ranchers What we're talking about is their water usage, which is somewhat proprietary information.

Where their wells are located, that's personal information and the more that we request of them to document that information making it public knowledge and publicly accessible It exposes them to greater risk of rural crime, rural terrorism. That's their water source that is the water source of our groundwater basins so be careful in what you ask for or require of others that don't develop unintended consequences that could impact us all greatly thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:51:20 · ≈ 11:51 AM

George Adam followed by Randy Scherer

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:51:25 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Good morning Chairman Hartman and board. I thank you for the opportunity and God for this ability to be able to speak here this morning. Anyway a lot of this has already been said, I'm just going to go over it real quick so I confirm that. Shouldn't really be in this at all because they've already gone through all the expense of a lawsuit and all that. And I don't believe it may be legal, so we need to test the legality of that.

The Sigma Basins as well, that's already been said, they're already being managed to that extent. In Santa Maria, we're not in overdraft so a lot of those things really don't apply. I'm going to talk about the quality needs as far as the needs for wells. Dawson especially, you need to understand the dynamics of a lot of the things that are needed in agriculture.

You have nitrate options. Sometimes you have crops that need nitrates and sometimes they don't. You have quality needs so you need to have a variety of wells to be able to pull from and generally that doesn't mean that you're going to be extracting more water. You have efficiency needs as pumping levels go up and down. You're going to have, if you're drawing more at faster capacities, you're going to have a likelihood of more sands being pulled through perforations. So that's another reason during a drought You have those economic influences where you might be eating up bowls from sand in the water. That happens at times, or sand separators that are needed so if you have more wells then you don't have that issue. Reducing the cost from the time of use for efficiencies and cost efficiencies on having multiple wells.

You have food safety issues so that you're not in reservoirs like as used to be. So you have all those issues where we need more wells And it does not translate to more water, in most cases in agriculture. So if you burden that, you're going to have less wells by increasing those costs. There was the out-of-state deal with the drilling. I think that was kind of out of line to not mention that as part of that H2S problem. So that's my personal opinion on that because that's a whole different ballgame when you're bringing in someone from outside the state.

Because we have, you know everyone here who has is licensed and does business in the state understands environmentally what's going on a lot better. Solar panels that discussion is a big one on cost and how You have to realize when you make it onerous to permit and to meter the cost of installation All is bad for the environment because that's that much more cost and that much more time that we're taking away. We're taking our eyes off the ball, and we're not able to do our jobs where we're implementing all of those in those advanced practices. We need to stop taking money out of our economy for things that don't produce.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:54:37 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:54:39 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Mr. Fake, just to confirm this guy had a permit to operate in the state of California right? And he got a permit from you to drill the well.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:54:51 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair yeah in the drought When the peak of the drought, California relaxed some of the contracting standards and allowed a lot of out-of-state folks to come in for a period of time because there was such a demand for well drilling activities. So we did see people that we were not accustomed to seeing and in this case the driller was from New Mexico and it was authorized I believe.

Just to verify want to make sure that He was authorized to drill in California.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:55:27 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Yeah, because you have to I mean, I know that you have to have a license in California to operate here and so I just want to make sure that that was the case because otherwise then that's a whole different can of worms.

2:55 – 3:0415 turns

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated2:55:44 · ≈ 11:55 AM

They kind of made it easier for folks to work here than they would have under more normal conditions because of the huge demand for drilling. And so people did show up that probably I don't know if we'll see this person ever again, kind of hope not.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:55:57 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Well he might hope not too.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:56:05 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Randy Sherry followed by a chip over it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:56:09 · ≈ 11:56 AM

Good morning, Randy Sheriff Santa Maria farm here in town I'm also the chair of the TMA which is the court adjudication board set up by the court to manage the adjudication I'm glad I followed George talking about our annual report. We just, in this room, just presented our ninth annual report for the Santa Barbara Basin that shows that after these dry years Santa Barbara Basin is still not below other than a few isolated wells below historic norms so we've come through some dry periods as we have before but we're still within the historic norms And that we've got 70,000 acre feet waiting the other side of the reservoir to help recharge us.

There are better ways to control and to monitor the basins. I also am chair of the recently formed GSA for the San Antonio Basin so I chair two of the four areas We'll be looking at this and I appreciate the fact that you all want to take a peek at this. But my advice would be on all of this is SICMA was set up by the state and the State Board to allow local jurisdictions of these basins, to set them on a sustainable path over the next 20 years.

If you really want to help in this, allow these GSAs that have been formed that are just up and running. Let them get into their groundwater plans and then come back in discussions with the GSAs and say is there any way we can help? You five can help as far as this sustainability as far as Santa Barbara County. I appreciate Supervisor Williams' concern for Montecito but Santa Maria Extracted we extracted 128,000 acre-feet. Santa Maria is the largest extracted basin in the area in the county and we seem to be doing just fine the way we're doing now working with the San Antonio Basin knowing what they're doing in Quiam and knowing what they're doing in Santa Ynez. They're all different but they all per sigma are set to be on a sustainable path over the next few years so The H2S, you've discussed it.

That was a concern and it was some idiot drilling an oil well calling it a water well. Meters on new wells all that will give you is a very finite number that will only be confusing in the mass of all of the numbers that are coming at you. And again SIGMA with the groundwater plans will come up with it there's no reason to jump on this now. And the third discretionary Guadalupe is floating in water I'm concerned that eventually someone from staff will say well we have too many well permits taken out in the county this year, we're going to stop and deny this one. Guadalupe's static levels have not changed for 800 years within you know a few feet so you may be exposing yourself to possible difficulties that you don't need to at this time. SICMA will handle this thank you.

Chip

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:59:22 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Wolbrant to be followed by Bruce Wales

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:59:25 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Madam Chair, members of the board. I've been practicing water law and land use law here in Santa Barbara County for 28 years and I consistently find that farmers often say it better than I do so I'll just try to be quick because Randy I think laid it out for you. The H2S problem sounds like it was because of relaxed standards. If those relaxed standards are still relaxed, you may want to do something about that. I would urge you to make it very objective and direct it only at the kinds of wells that might have that problem.

As to the Coastal Commission, I think your staff has told you that their comments have been addressed. They're supposed to only work in the coastal zone. I know there are some Montecito issues. I think the Montecito issues actually largely arise from requests by a general manager who is no longer the general manager there and I think they've been fully addressed.

On all the other stuff, it all has to do with what the GSAs are supposed to do. You know I've been in front of you commenting about three of the GSAs that have been set up. Give them a chance. Jumping in right now makes no sense. You spent months and months talking about how the GSAs were going to work, how they were gonna be formed. People have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. You've got people who are committed to working. Please give them a chance and let them work. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:00:53 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Bruce Wales, to be followed by Tom Skivins.

PresenterBruce WalesSanta Nez River Water Conservation District a little later I'm going to addressProposedself-stated3:00:59 · ≈ 12:00 PM

I'm Adam Chair Supervisor Bruce Wales representing San Andes River Water Conservation District. The district represents the residents and landowners in the San Andes Valley roughly West of Highway 154 all the way to the coast. We have a population of 80,000 and as you well know our economy is driven by agriculture and tourism. I'm also it's important to say that we are at a coordinating agency for the three GSAs that were recently formed in the valley A lot of good work went into that. I remember two years ago in a conversation with then Supervisor Farr requesting the county's support when the district took the lead to form the GSAs, the county did do that they provided support and in the end we worked together to get three GSAs in Santa Ana's Valley I'm here today to request for you not to pursue the various options that are listed in your board letter, specifically making well permits discretionary requiring flow devices and requiring H2S plans for all water well applications.

We didn't submit a letter today because we were largely closed the first half of July. However, we seriously reviewed the County Agricultural Advisory Committee letter as well as the grower shippers letter and the other information in the board package as well as heard all the previous speakers and I think I could expedite my conversation by saying we agree with all those comments.

Moreover there's one constituency of yours that's not represented here today and that is mutual water companies, of which there happen to be five in the Santa Ana's groundwater upwind basin. Those mutual water companies produce as much water or use as much water as the city of Solvang or the city of Buolton imposing these restrictions Including making water well permits discretion, we already have flow devices.

But all of us from time to time have old wells, have wells that wear out and have wells that need to be replaced or we need a new well for people who have paid charges for years for the right to use our water. And I think we would add 50% to the cost of drilling a well by the time we get involved with discretionary permits in SGMA. Moreover, although we didn't provide a letter on this occasion, we did provide a letter two years ago

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed3:03:46 · ≈ 12:03 PM

when this came up relative to Montecito. And so here's six copies that we distributed to the board and the clerk.

PresenterBruce WalesSanta Nez River Water Conservation District a little later I'm going to addressProposedself-stated3:03:56 · ≈ 12:03 PM

And the gist of that letter was basically there are problems in Montecito they were worse before than they are now and the letter describes the problems in Montecito and the non-problems in the San Ynez Valley

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:04:10 · ≈ 12:04 PM

That is your time.

PresenterBruce WalesSanta Nez River Water Conservation District a little later I'm going to addressProposedself-stated3:04:11 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Yes right so in the end what it comes down to is one size doesn't fit all because there is a problem in Montecito doesn't mean there are any problems in the San Inez Valley we're requesting that the county step aside and let the GSA's do their job

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:04:30 · ≈ 12:04 PM

thank you

PresenterBruce WalesSanta Nez River Water Conservation District a little later I'm going to addressProposedself-stated3:04:31 · ≈ 12:04 PM

thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:04:32 · ≈ 12:04 PM

T Gibbons to be followed by CJ Jackson

3:04 – 3:125 turns

PresenterTom GibbonsSanta Maria Valley Water Conservation DistrictProposedself-stated3:04:54 · ≈ 12:04 PM

Madam Chair, Board, my name is Tom Gibbons. I'm a district director with the Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District. I represent Division 7 which is the east end of the valley. I do Twitchell operations. I'm also a licensed dam tender. Around the 90s, our district was wrestling with 218 and getting ready to produce ID-1 and some things became evident about well users.

There's water wells and there's water well users The state told us and informed us that people that use water wells for a primary domestic water use are treated differently than other wells. I'm going to let you trip over that one by yourself. That's going to be a tough one to climb over but we lived through 81 went through at sunset and were past it all the people that live out By me, they're in my district except for the Sisquawk area have correlative water rights.

And those that don't know their rights probably deserve to use and lose them. We hold the water license for Twitchell Dam every year we empty the reservoir it goes in the ground. We were told that we cannot measure the level of service by using meters Maybe I can share that with Council and it will help you a little bit. But we had five consecutive licenses, our last license was issued in 1973 totally unrestricted.

I wish all of us could have worked a little on this before you came to the public with it. It's better to be forewarned and forearm before you get into the middle of things, but big things that are happening now our basins adjudicated all that water is given to specific parties. No one can transport water out of the basin When people start taking water trucks and taking water from ag wells and delivering it to uses outside the basin, some of these people are finding out they're not purveyors.

So there's a lot of cleaning up that needs to be done in-house all of us together and maybe all of us can kind of get together and work successfully with the TMA and others I mean to show you if you saw the list of everyone that samples water wells in our basin, you'd wonder why we're stealing water just taking samples home. Thank you very much when you need some help give us a call.

UnidentifiedSheriff BrownProposed · by introduction3:07:55 · ≈ 12:07 PM

Okay I'm going to try and curry favor with Mr. Williams here, I have my remarks on my phone from solar energy so I didn't put any paper in them. So I am going to read them however let me give you one insight here. I'm here on behalf of the Alice L Ranch and your announcement and agendizing of this meeting required that an attorney generate two billable hours to help me prepare these remarks because of the concern.

There's my first cost. Let me read here, we oppose further groundwater regulation in the county in light of the new comprehensive groundwater legislation, the SGMA. Requiring monitoring of wells and imposing discretionary review on new water wells would have the following impacts. A material negative impact on agricultural businesses by increasing the cost to drill a new well, requiring landowners to apply for and wait potentially months to obtain new permits. Provide additional technical data and install expensive flow meters on each well And create a tremendous uncertainty over the continued access to the groundwater. The livelihood of agricultural operations, placing numerous jobs in jeopardy potentially impacting tax revenue and business viability throughout the county.

A one size fits all approach to well regulation does not make sense. The county is not equipped to receive groundwater production information from every landowner. This should be left to the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies. There will be no orderly implementation of new well drilling ordinances because of litigation over the ordinance and its threat to everyone's groundwater rights. If the county chooses to regulate well drilling, the county could be exposed to rulings To takings lawsuits and the associated damages as the result of the loss of very vested real property rights to groundwater. The reduction in value of agricultural lands and economic loss from the inability to produce agricultural crops, it's for these reasons that we oppose it on a somewhat grand level.

I told you that we incurred a cost of billable hours to have an attorney help me with those very fine remarks that I paid good money for. As an agriculturalist with multiple wells, we farm, we have cattle, we have irrigated pastures and we have recreation. All of those require water and we have been involved in reporting to the water boards for well nigh on 30 years.

But just to give you one insight when the new rules changed I was told to seek out new monitoring to give new data to that. The first bid I received to monitor my existing wealth $66,000 let me put that in perspective. That's 1 FTE right there one job and we haven't even started yet. I have three more bids to wade through. So I don't know what value added adding the county to this regulatory scheme to this process to this involvement. What value added we get for this? So I would ask you to put this aside. I'm also deeply concerned that you had one outlier that had two negative issues with it that was not reflective of the total picture. Thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:11:11 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Douglas Ziegler And then we're going to go to Santa Barbara for the balance of the speaker starting with Landon Stapleford.

CommentDoug ZieglerProposedself-stated3:11:20 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Madam Chairman, I'm Doug Ziegler. I live in Los Alamos. I'm a cattle rancher and I'm opposed to the issuance of water meters and any fluid devices but I'd like to speak and second all the other remarks that have been made. I'll second all those remarks so I'm not going to repeat them all. I would maybe try to get you to change your attention or focus to the issue of saving water as opposed to limiting water The issue of water retention basins.

We've just gone through this horrendous drought and see Kachuma down to basically grazing pasture again, and yet nobody said let's take the bottom out of Kachuma and make it deeper and get rid of the silt. Gibraltar is almost completely full of silt and basically does not function as a dam at all anymore. I would say that a lot of water could be saved and retained if you would endorse the idea of creating more groundwater retention basins on ranches.

When I want to put a groundwater retention or cattle pond on my ranch, I have to go through a whole permitting process and get an engineer and lawyer. And the bottom line is you don't do it. So start thinking on the positive side about how we can save water, how can we retain water, and stop trying to limit the use of water. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:12:52 · ≈ 12:12 PM

To Santa Barbara for Landon Stableford to be followed by Paul Van Leer

3:12 – 3:198 turns

CommentLandon StablefordProposedself-stated3:12:59 · ≈ 12:12 PM

Good afternoon Chairman Wolf, members of the board. My name is Landon Stableford and for four decades I have spent tens of thousands of dollars drilling dry holes and I can attest to how notoriously difficult it is to locate reliable water sources in coastal geology as El Capitan State Campground has recently experienced their wells run dry The Chevron plant at Gaviota had to install a desal plant in order to provide water.

Mark Twain once said that, in the West, whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting over it. I think you're going to get into a big can of worms here as you proceed with some of these recommendations. I consider my right to develop and use water as a sovereign property right just as mineral rights are principal and intrinsic to ownership. I consider the location of water-bearing geological formations on my property as proprietary information. Thank you, Lisa for bringing that up and I have paid dearly for it.

The prospect of county personnel accessing my property to read meters on my wells and map those locations and to view any other potential zoning issues is a fishing expedition violates my constitutional protection against unwarranted search and seizure. Also to point out, well drillers are licensed contractors. You can lose that license if they circumvent regulation. OSHA is the oversight agency for that.

I would remind you that California winemakers contribute over a billion dollars to our economy as does other agriculture and I would suggest if you want to manage Water you might begin with better managing Kachuma Dam and Lake. Thank you for your consideration.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:14:50 · ≈ 12:14 PM

Paul Van Leer to be followed by Ken Doty.

PresenterPaul Van LeerCounty Agriculture Advisory CommitteeProposedself-stated3:14:55 · ≈ 12:14 PM

Good afternoon Madam Chair, fellow Supervisors. My name is Paul Van Leer and I am speaking on behalf of the County Agriculture Advisory Committee. I would ask you to review our previous letter dated May 15th and the current letter dated July 12th. They both spell out our concerns regarding this issue. As stated before, with the Sustainable Grandwater Management Act affecting three major basins in the county and the water districts that monitor ag well use we do not see any necessity for further oversight.

Again as already stated before it is a misnomer to assume that a trend of higher than average new well permits correlates to higher use there are numerous reasons already stated today why farmers or ranchers are putting in new wells Now Environmental Health has approached us in the past asking if we would be willing to work with them on committees prior to any changes to County Code Chapter 34.

And we greatly appreciated that in the past. We would ask you before you decide any changes let us work with environmental health again to resolve any issues there may be. Thank you for consideration.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:16:05 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Ken Tony followed by Caitlin McNally

CommentKen DotyProposedself-stated3:16:12 · ≈ 12:16 PM

Good morning Chairwoman Hartman, Supervisors. I am Ken Doty. My family has owned and operated Elwood Ranch in Goleta for 97 years now. I'm speaking mostly in opposition to the proposals. In light of SGMA and the several water basins already subject to state law regarding water extraction, I think that additional water regulation or metering is unnecessary. A landowner has the right to beneficial use of groundwater.

To require a discretionary permit for access to that water is an erosion of that very basic property right. In regard to hydrogen sulfide hazards, I have a little bit of knowledge. I am in Elwood Canyon adjacent to the problem well I would suggest that County Health at most require a certified hydrologist to prepare a drilling plan and well-designed that is sufficient to mitigate any public health hazards in that area or in the area of drilling, or at depths where it might be reasonable to expect encountering gas. That particular area where that was drilled My family owned that piece years and years ago, and there was gas there. It was known that there was gas in the area. In fact we actually captured natural gas off of an adjacent well and used it to run a boiler at the old dairy.

So I think there's enough known about the geology of the area be reasonably suspicious or reasonably even confident that certain areas and certain depths might be hazardous, and that can be mitigated ahead of time with a blow-off preventer or drilling techniques that would mitigate the hazard. And still do that as a ministerial permit. Water is the lifeblood of agriculture.

And agriculture is the production of food, we all need it. During the last drought in the late 80's, it became obvious that the public agencies were not going to be able to supply a sufficient volume of affordable water for irrigation so I deliberately began to develop my own water resources. So please don't take action that interferes with my life blood And continued food production.

Getting back, I'm kind of off script here but getting back to the H2S, Mr. Fay a few minutes ago cited well application which is mine going to 1700 feet and having been forewarned and aware of the problems with that adjacent well We are very, very careful to get a qualified hydrologist on the job and sufficient design and contract terms with the driller to be prepared for what we think in our case is not going to have a gas hazard. But nevertheless... That is your time

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:19:37 · ≈ 12:19 PM

so finish up.

CommentKen DotyProposedself-stated3:19:41 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Okay I'm done

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:19:43 · ≈ 12:19 PM

All right, Caitlin McNally to be followed by Susan Petrovich.

3:19 – 3:254 turns

PresenterCaitlin McNallySanta Barbara County Air Pollution Control DistrictProposedself-stated3:19:53 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Good afternoon Chair Hartman and members of the board. My name is Caitlin McNally and I'm representing the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. First I wanted to answer your question from earlier Chair Hartman about the health effects of hydrogen sulfide It is a flammable gas that in low concentrations can irritate eyes, nose and cause tearing, coughing, breathing difficulties. At moderate concentrations it can cause headaches, nausea and dizziness. And then at high concentrations it can cause death.

The two properties that make it especially dangerous are that it is heavier than air, so it sinks down and hangs around in the low areas and doesn't easily disperse. And then also, it causes olfactory fatigue which is the loss of the ability of you to sense that smell of that gas. So you don't even know you're breathing in the gas because you don't smell it any longer at certain concentrations and above.

So now getting back to my comment, the Air Pollution Control District is in support of the proposed policy option to amend Chapter 34A of the County Code to add conditions regarding required actions if an H2S leak occurs during well drilling in the future. We agree that this will help minimize the potential harmful impacts of H2S, that I just mentioned. That is emitted into the air to the people and the environment in our county. And we believe this will help avoid an H2 S release event like the one that occurred in October 2016 So we look forward, or we are happy to help however we can with EHS and we look forward to the interagency coordination between the Air Pollution Control District, Environmental Health Services and Planning and Development.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:21:55 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Susan Petrovich has left the room so we're going to go with Robert Feinberg and then Bonnie Raisen.

CommentRobert FeinbergProposedself-stated3:22:07 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Chairman Hartman and the board thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Robert Feinberg as a standing as property owner and 20 plus year Valley resident today I'm speaking out against the proposed changes to the regulations currently under consideration by the board pertaining to water well permitting as an individual who is merely a property owner not a commercial enterprise not a developer and not representing any organization, I've had the unfortunate experience of having to search for and develop water sources on my property on multiple occasions.

Within 15 years we were forced to develop three replacement wells when the original well operating since the 1950s silted up and eventually failed. For the most part that original well was our sole source of water for household and agricultural use. Any way you look at it, but particularly for a homeowner, exploring and drilling for water is not cheap. After months working with a geologist to locate a site, go through the permitting process and to identify and engage a competent drilling crew that was already backlogged for months our first attempt eventually delivered a small but productive well.

This served us for about 10 years however drawing from the same aquifer as Lake Kachuma Once the drought hit, there was no way it could hold up as enormous amounts of water left the valley to supply Santa Barbara and the rest of the coastal communities. Our tiny sole source of water eventually went dry and we had to look elsewhere. During this time, we were forced at great expense to purchase and truck in water just to maintain our modest household usage which included minimal landscaping.

We implemented a number of conservation methods, but still we lost a dozen or more century-old trees as well as much of our landscaping. A second well lasted merely two years while the third well carried us through the drought until now. Even though we went through a total of four wells it was not expansionary. I'd venture a guess that were using less water now than when the first well was drilled back in the 1950's Although the location of the water sources has changed, our water consumption has if anything decreased.

To add layer upon layer of regulations on top of what is already an extremely significant expense to a homeowner plus backup plans for hydrogen sulfide release including equipment and supplies for something that occurs under much different conditions plus metering equipment for a homeowner seems unnecessary and unwarranted. Please consider these remarks before making any changes to the current regulations. Thank you for your consideration.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:24:55 · ≈ 12:24 PM

Bonnie Raisin, and then Hilary Stenberg is our final speaker.

3:25 – 3:304 turns

CommentBonnie RaisinProposedself-stated3:25:04 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Good morning Madam Chair and Board of Supervisors my name is Bonnie Raisin thank you for the opportunity to share a little bit of history With you regarding private property rights and by the way I can remember when Mike Stoker was sitting where Supervisor Adams is, we had two members of the air pollution control district. My things have changed anyway that is beside the point.

Arguments over property rights and who gets what and when is ancient but in more recent times in the 18th century John Locke In his wisdom, based his philosophy on labor and a natural result of that labor improving nature and thus dependent on his labor. The laborer is entitled to produce on his land and to reap the rewards thereof. Adam Smith in the 18th century agreed that government should safeguard these rights, safeguard and protect them then Karl Marx came along and who Knows what happened to those, that philosophy because it became blurred.

And subsequently given the monarchs no offense more control John Smith had the right idea and unfortunately the rights he believed in that is that the labor should be able to benefit from his labor Have gone away I urge you to protect private property rights of the individuals who own these wells. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:27:04 · ≈ 12:27 PM

Hillary Steinberg

PresenterHillary Steenburgwide variety and range of agricultural interests todayProposedself-stated3:27:10 · ≈ 12:27 PM

Hi, my name is Hillary Steenburg. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today and provide comments. I'm speaking on behalf of a wide variety and range of agricultural interests today. And the policy directives at issue today could cause substantial impacts that agricultural operations in the county We have two main concerns with the policy direction discussed today. The first is with the direction to research options for discretionary permits for these wells.

This is a significant roadblock to very necessary wells within the county, as I'm sure you're aware this adds substantial staff time and more cost every permit that's processed It also introduces CEQA into the process, which is a considerable hurdle to accomplishing wells both in terms of time and money. You know it takes months even years to get discretionary permits accomplished in this county and it can cost thousands if not tens of thousands of dollars to go through the CEQA process.

This also introduces the ability for appeals by any third party who wish to cause delays to important projects So an example is a recent well I've been working on that took over eight months. It's a coastal well, so it went through a discretionary permit process. Took over eight months to get approved and that didn't even include an appeal to the Board of Supervisors. And then the well was ultimately approved at the Coastal Commission as well adding additional time.

The second concern we have is with the direction to amend the code to add meters to the wells for monitoring purposes. It's not clear from the discussion today or the materials provided what the county intends to do with this data. And it's also not clear how much time will be required in terms of county staff resources to process this data. There is already a deficit with county funds and not enough staff time, so it's unclear where the resources will come from to process the data from the county.

Currently GSAs are charged with managing groundwater health in the county and GSAs have the budget to do this That concludes my comments and I appreciate your careful consideration of these points.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:29:55 · ≈ 12:29 PM

Okay I close the public comment portion of this hearing and we bring it back to staff. Are there any comments you'd like to make in response to some of the discussion we've heard so far?

3:30 – 3:3510 turns

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:30:08 · ≈ 12:30 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. Most of the speakers I think pointed to the SGMA process that's underway and that will cover most of the county. Those areas that may not be covered are adjudicated, Goleta, Santa Maria And I think the question that we have on policy direction is whether the timing of the plan development, the implementation of those plans warrants consideration of an interim action that might sunset as a plan went into place. And that's where we're talking about the meters and Discretionary permits, but I understand full well that there's a state process that envisions how over the long run groundwater is to be managed sustainably and Would expect that once those agencies are active plans were in place. They're implementing that there would not be significant need for a County intervention those will be managed at a basin level

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:31:17 · ≈ 12:31 PM

Do any board members have any questions before we go to deliberations? I did have a couple of questions. The first regarding the hydrogen sulfide, what is the least burdensome way of addressing that and how does that compare to what currently is in place?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:31:41 · ≈ 12:31 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. I've given quite a bit of thought to what we might do that would not have an impact on wells in the parts of the county where hydrogen sulfide is just not the kind of issue it is and I can think of two approaches. Amending our ordinance to essentially include in the ordinance that prop 65 reporting requirements that are already in place. So we'd reinforce Prop 65 by including in the well ordinance the notification requirement that a driller would have if they were to encounter a release of hydrogen sulfide or any other material that would be covered on that proposition.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:32:23 · ≈ 12:32 PM

Could you also hand something out when people come in for their ministerial permit just so they're noticed? Or is that burdensome?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:32:34 · ≈ 12:32 PM

No, in fact we did following the hydrogen sulfide release prepared some information for distribution that we actually sent out to the drillers to make them aware of the issue and something to be thinking about and reminding them of the notification requirements. So handing material out or attaching it to the well application or the well permit when it's issued is not a significant burden.

What people do with that information is always up to them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:33:06 · ≈ 12:33 PM

And what's in place now. It's just a nuisance under common law or

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:33:13 · ≈ 12:33 PM

the Madam Chair the action we took with that release We use the enforcement provisions that currently exist in our well construction ordinance. One of the options we have is to declare a nuisance, not specific in the ordinance and in this case the release of gas we determined was a public nuisance and that was the basis for the cease-and-desist order to stop drilling and then our ability to order the driller to abate that nuisance which ultimately resulted in them plugging and abandoning that well So we felt like once the release occurred and once we knew where it was coming from, we had effective tools in place.

But again the big issue here was the lack of notification and the time that was spent trying to find the source before we could actually step in and take action.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:34:04 · ≈ 12:34 PM

And I had one or maybe two more questions. The other is about out of basin transfers, is that regulated in any way currently? We had a few people mention it but not in any detail.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:34:24 · ≈ 12:34 PM

Basically if you want to truck water for the purpose of sale whether that is going out of the basin or even within a basin You need it is not allowed in many many zone districts and where it is allowed basically water sales of the person who owns the well who would be selling the water and perhaps they're selling it to a company that trucks it but the person who owns the well would have to obtain a major conditional use permit.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:34:55 · ≈ 12:34 PM

So that's well regulated? Literally. And the last question I have has to do with the Coastal Commission, I gather they wanted to address issues in aquifers adjacent to the coastal zone by their suggestion or your suggestion that we not allow permits for people already served in municipal by municipal water companies. Is that correct? Is that the fix?

3:35 – 3:447 turns

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:35:37 · ≈ 12:35 PM

Madam Chair, I believe that was the intent of the recommendation by the Coastal Commission is understanding that there are impacts from withdrawals that may occur adjacent to but not specifically within the coastal zone. You could still see what intrusion occurring and they felt like well maybe I shouldn't interpret for them but yeah their recommendation was not to allow wells where there's otherwise a municipal service available

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:36:07 · ≈ 12:36 PM

And Mr. Gazzone had something to add.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:36:09 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, we spent a fair amount of time looking at the Coastal Commission's letter. And it's not clear to me that the Coastal Commission is actually asserting from that sentence that's on page four of their letter, that they're asserting that the county should be regulating the effects in the coastal zone of a well outside the coastal zone. Their statement is a request that the county halt issuance of new private well permits for residential properties and designated urban areas with existing municipal water District service connections but it's not clear to me that they are really looking outside of their own appeal jurisdiction on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:36:45 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Okay those are my questions Supervisor Williams you have your light on.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:36:50 · ≈ 12:36 PM

Well I agree with the vast, well first of all on the hydrogen sulfide issue. I would really want to defer to Supervisor Wolf and Supervisor Hartman because it is particularly an issue in your area. It happened in your area and its you know really about the safety of your constituents, so I think I just want to say I'm with taking action however reasonable but defer to you.

On the more controversial end which is the question of the metering and discretionary process, I agree with the vast majority of the public comment that we received today You know AG is different. We we haven't had historically the problem with AG and that puts me of course in a oh by the way you know I love John Locke too. In fact My even my 23 month old daughter. She just loves John Locke you know I have this little thing of the social contract with human and Rousseau it and she far prefers that to Das Kapital.

So I wonder what that says may have to do with brevity So maybe that's one of the reasons why we are operating under the paradigm of those philosophers and not Karl Marxists, that they were able to express their ideas quicker. But it does put me in a quandary because I have a very real issue In my district of, you know, 1500 straws put into and most of which are put into the municipal water supply. And that just is, is, you know, endangers a public water supply. That's it. That's a big issue. And it has though there's supposed to be rules in water transfers what it's created as a weird Wild West where they're There's so much demand that it not only endangers the public water supply in Montecito, but people are willing to pay so much money for illegally trucked water that it endangers the public water supply in Carpinteria and thereby also endangers ag in Carpinteria.

So because many of our Carpinteria farmers are also on the municipal water supply. So I've been trying to figure out how do we You know get the fly swatter instead of the shotgun. And because I agree with the idea that one size does not fit all and I actually think that the Coastal Commission may have stumbled upon the right approach which is that I would advocate That we apply the options that are articulated by staff today on metering and the discretionary process to non-ag water well permits in areas served by a water district.

This directly addresses the suggestion by the Coastal Commission. It's generally a bad idea to be permitting wells that feed off of an existing municipal system There are some areas where that's needed for ag, and so that's why I would probably advocate that it be non-ag water well permits. And probably just to make it completely bulletproof not have it apply to adjudicated basins. That would be my suggested approach of a fly swatter and not a shotgun.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:41:07 · ≈ 12:41 PM

Supervisor Lavanita.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:41:09 · ≈ 12:41 PM

Well I have a different opinion believe it or not. I think your cure for the fly swatter is for you to advocate for a seat on the Montecito GSA and that way you would have the input that you're looking for in your district that is similar to what both of us sit on, or my representative sits on the Koyama GSA and that's where we provide that input for local control.

You know I went through the staff report And I was really trying to figure out how we got the flow meters and permit, discretionary permitting. Basically we saw a chart that said there was an increase of activity during a drought where people were drilling more wells which is common sense to me. Now we've seen that dissipate and it's down to almost historical average.

And then we had one, what was determined to be an exceptional H2S release. All the way to discretionary permits and flow meters. No one talked about it all during this whole hearing, about who would install them? Who would calibrate them? Who would come out and monitor them? Would they be self-reporting? Would a county employee need to come out and inspect?

And what would we do with the information? It just seems like you know we are jumping into an area that Which is surprising to me, because usually we're very process oriented. And the process is the state through Sigma set up GSA's that are supposed to deal with this and so they're up and running. And the idea to come up with an interim plan in between now and when the GSA's come up with their water management plans, I think is putting a huge burden on the private property owner.

To begin purchasing flow meters and installing and doing all these things that for an interim process it just seems like overkill to me. I think there are things that we found out today that can really help us down the road and one is maybe tweaking our forms, making getting better data and maybe better reporting. But you know I wasn't I guess it just didn't Rise to the level of the concern that I don't think gets out of the realm of us having to jump in and try to save something that the state has determined that these GSAs are built to do. So, especially the fact that here in the whole Santa Maria Valley it's adjudicated. It's a done deal so I'm not really sure what problem we're trying to solve.

So that's my input.

3:44 – 3:5519 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:44:24 · ≈ 12:44 PM

Supervisor Williams your light is on.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed3:44:26 · ≈ 12:44 PM

Well I would just say the reason is you may be used to because you have your representative as you know in the Kiyama Basin, Kiyama Basin is a high priority so it's going to be a matter of months before they have to determine Thank you. The, you know we might luck out and have plenty of rainy years but we might not. And to me our job is to prepare for the worst possible scenario and the worst possible scenario is we have a couple dry years and we see a bunch of people You know, essentially circumventing whatever the rules are for that water district by drilling wells for landscaping. And I just don't think that's of the same moral quality than what these folks, I think very understandably have said here today, that we don't need to be messing with adjudicated basins and with ag.

I agree with that but you know I do want to make sure that there's water for my constituents, and I'm trying to slice this as thin as I can to meet that interest.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:46:02 · ≈ 12:46 PM

And let me, I am eager to hear Supervisor Lavanino because I'm struggling with this issue. In my neighborhood we have CCNRs and we have a private water company but we have wealthy people coming in putting down their own straws. We hope to deal with it through our CCNRS but I have a great deal of empathy for Supervisor Williams so how is his brush too broad?

How is the wrong approach?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:46:33 · ≈ 12:46 PM

Well, I'll let Supervisor Adam detail more of that for me. The other thing here that and I just wanted to respond to Supervisor Williams is if you think that there would there's a rush now, if you want to go in and say OK, new wells are going to be requiring next year or a year from now because you can do it just right now. I mean, there would be a massive run on on new wells, and I really don't understand.

You know the comment about how it's moral, immoral. It comes down to private property rights if the person owns the property you own the water underneath it And I don't know if that's moral or immoral but I think it would be also highly immoral to allow somebody to buy a piece of property and then at some point, I'm sure this isn't Mr. Gazzone's wheelhouse but I don't think we're up here to decide what's moral or immoral but to me it's more immoral to take away somebody's private property right? It's been after they've made their investment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:47:42 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair there's so many issues to deal with. So I guess what what I would like to do is maybe start off with the easiest thing for me and that is to actually look at the ordinance that we have as one of our attachments And there is a list of requirements that an individual has to complete in order to get their permit. So I know like some people have talked about that they don't want people to know where their wells are and so forth but actually in the permit application they do have to, to some degree indicate where the well is going to be by property line and so forth.

I do think, and there are a lot of requirements including the depth of the well. So I want to just return to that issue. So within a permit they have to indicate the depth of the well so I guess I would suggest that one of the things we do as Mr. Fay I think you suggested is if there is a substantial or change in the permit That we have something written in our ordinance that says that they have to come back.

I don't want, I don't know what the language would be but that would be a direction if if I was to give staff direction it would be that if there is a change in their application that they need to come back and reapply or let staff know. I think that just makes sense as a permitting agency

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:49:36 · ≈ 12:49 PM

Supervisor Wolf may I just follow up on that because I want to make sure I understand. They have, it's a ministerial permit it says a certain depth if they go beneath lower than that you would have them come back just to report that but as I understand it we've got people who go out and actually inspect the well itself so we would get that information so I'm just trying to understand what your proposing how that adds to Our

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:50:05 · ≈ 12:50 PM

okay well that's fair enough I'm not are you. I didn't realize that after a well has been permitted and built that we have an inspector go out and verify

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:50:18 · ≈ 12:50 PM

if I may Madam Chair Supervisor Wolff we do an inspection of the surface seal so when the well is started we go out and verified 50 foot seal has been properly placed that the grout is completed and at that point The driller proceeds with the drilling, going down deep to find water. We don't do subsequent inspections. We may come back in to verify that they've centered the production casing well within the conductor casing and seals are intact.

We rely on the final report from the driller to specify how deep they actually went with the construction of the well. Measuring the well to verify how deep it is.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:51:01 · ≈ 12:51 PM

So we only go out at the start of construction?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:51:04 · ≈ 12:51 PM

At the start of construction, correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:51:07 · ≈ 12:51 PM

What I would say is and I don't want to get into the weeds but I would say when you come back is to provide us with language that's appropriate that if they have gone past what they estimated that they at least notify you so that you have a record of what they've done that's different from the permit Supervisor Will, oh

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:51:31 · ≈ 12:51 PM

I'm sorry finish that point but then Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:51:34 · ≈ 12:51 PM

Adam wanted to follow on before you go to your next point. So that's one the other one is seems also easy to me and that has to do with the coastal commission request about The permits that we should not permit a well for a parcel that's already been serviced by a municipal water agency. And that would just be in the coastal zone. Regarding the H2S Mr. Fay you talked about some language having to do with Prop 65 reporting requirements can you elaborate on that a little bit?

Because I think what you were saying as a recommendation is that someone who owns the well needs to have a plan in place which may be too onerous for a lot of people where that's not even going to be an issue. So is there So two questions. One is the Prop 65 and the other is, is there a way that you can identify where these areas are? We know it would be somewhere around Elwood and I don't know if there's other places but that there is a requirement based on the geography of the well.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:53:03 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair, we actually had a couple of thoughts. One was the latter approach that you talked about is we've got and we can work with hydrogeologists in the area and pretty well identify those places where there are known. The known presence of hydrogen sulfide and there's a probability possibility of encountering and do kind of a map or use the planning vernacular overlay zone or something and that's okay if you're going to build in these areas You need to have in place a plan and we could go so far as to develop a generic plan that would post on the website. And you know not only do you have to have a plan but here's a plan for you if you want to build something else great, but that can be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:53:48 · ≈ 12:53 PM

fairly

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:53:48 · ≈ 12:53 PM

simple.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:53:49 · ≈ 12:53 PM

You know we haven't heard Supervisor Williams talked about Constituents we and we haven't heard from the people who were impacted From that, and I would like. I would I think what you just said would be An excellent proposal so that we're not We're not this so that we have an overlay And it sounds like you have the expertise in your department to do that so So for me madam chair. I'm not going to Touch the metering right now but my three suggestions are is to modify the ordinance to include what happens if they don't follow what they've written in their permit. The second one would be the coastal commission for as I described and the third would be the overlay for the H2S and I just have not come to a decision on the flow meter piece.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:54:47 · ≈ 12:54 PM

And let me chime in, we haven't heard from them today but Supervisor Wolf and I heard a great deal as I think everybody in the county did when the hydrogen sulfide releases were occurring and people didn't know where these were happening close to Elwood school. All of that. So I think we heard Supervisor Williams say he would go along and I go along with supervisor what she's proposed there so I think we have at least three of us that want to do something about the hydrogen sulfide in the least burdensome way we can do it.

And Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:55:26 · ≈ 12:55 PM

Yeah and I think that's fine you know and we keep saying releases

3:55 – 4:0019 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.883:55:34 · ≈ 12:55 PM

This is in the Goleta area, correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:55:42 · ≈ 12:55 PM

We keep you can't control supervisors. I told you that we keep saying releases but that's not it's not plural. It's one this just happened one time and then you know it takes a multibillionaire to drill a well like this nobody else nobody in this room today that I'm aware of is situated to drill the well like this You know it's never been done before. I confirmed with Mr. Fay this has never been done before and it probably will never happen again.

Am I about right? Let's let Mr. Fay answer that.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:56:25 · ≈ 12:56 PM

Supervisor Adam through the chair, I can tell you we haven't experienced a release like the one last fall prior to that I don't know what people might do in the future, but I would hope that there's enough awareness about the issue and the problems it would create. take steps to mitigate beforehand. And we've seen that with one of the speakers speaking to the well I referred to earlier, they are designing that well with the idea that they could encounter hydrogen sulfide in mine and it's a more complex drilling procedure than a more routine well but I wouldn't want to sit here and say it'll never happen again.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:57:12 · ≈ 12:57 PM

Well, I mean the likelihood is extremely small. So you know go back to the fly swatter why couldn't you just put something on the well application that says if you get over you know have somebody put a sniffer out there at their well drilling site and you can really do that even countywide because that would be very simple Those are those are not expensive monitors and if they get over certain parts per million ambient air H2S then they have to call you.

Would that not work?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:57:53 · ≈ 12:57 PM

I think that's a question directed at me. That's actually the other approach I was thinking of if we were to amend the code is be explicit about the potential for hydrogen sulfide release, the idea about having a meter or monitor in place and being clear in our ordinance that it's not only a state reporting requirement but a reporting requirement of the well drilling ordinance and couple that with some of the kind of information pass out and then what we would provide to drillers through the kinds of outreach we do with them from time to time.

All of those things kind of woven together into a more preventative approach to it. And yet... Why

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:58:33 · ≈ 12:58 PM

can't we just do that instead? I mean, not the least onerous thing is to just tell everybody look if you run in because they didn't just hit this thing They drilled through it right? I mean this wasn't, they didn't just nick it on the top and then it just went berserk. They just continued to drill through it like they had good sense but they didn't and it started artesian-ing and gave them the water that was entrained with this material And then it was going down the creek and it was off gassing. And that's how you get that many parts per million in the air correct without going into don't give me a 10 cent. Don't tell me how to build a watch. Just just tell me what time it is.

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated3:59:27 · ≈ 12:59 PM

I think it's about Supervisor Adam to try that I think is fair characterization of what happened. All right thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:59:34 · ≈ 12:59 PM

you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:59:35 · ≈ 12:59 PM

So I know. Sorry

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:59:37 · ≈ 12:59 PM

no good.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:59:39 · ≈ 12:59 PM

You know that's fine but I also thought we were trying to not make it so onerous and we're trying to you know just focus on a particular area which is what I understood is that it's not countywide. If if it is expansive and you want every well owner to have one of these devices, I'm OK with that. And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:00:01 · ≈ 1:00 PM

as long as there's- It's not the well owner it's the driller

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:00:04 · ≈ 1:00 PM

or the driller.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:00:05 · ≈ 1:00 PM

So the driller can use it from site to site

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:00:09 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Oh

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:00:10 · ≈ 1:00 PM

so it's just a piece of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:00:11 · ≈ 1:00 PM

equipment. So it would happen just during the drilling? Is that the only time you would have a release is during the drilling?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated4:00:22 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Yeah, of course. That would be the time if you were going to encounter it particularly at levels that needed to be addressed it would happen during the drilling and if you exceeded the concentration there'd be notification requirement. So the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:00:33 · ≈ 1:00 PM

driller is responsible not the property owner?

4:00 – 4:0718 turns

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated4:00:39 · ≈ 1:00 PM

I mean. There's probably some joint responsibility that goes there, but

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:00:43 · ≈ 1:00 PM

either that's fine,

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated4:00:45 · ≈ 1:00 PM

but if I may. I think that what I'm beginning to hear is is some direction to work on some code option around hydrogen sulfide. That addresses the problem we've had with release, but is minimally Invasive in the normal practice of drilling a well. And I could hear that as both a code amendment and some coupling with a systematic distribution of information and education outreach. Is that kind of a reasonable interpretation of what I'm hearing? And it could be specific to an area. If I can

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:01:26 · ≈ 1:01 PM

just speak for myself, I think that's reasonable but the part that's missing is that the whole essence of this is public health Right. So whatever whatever you do in the ordinance it has to include immediate response and you know what is the what is the plan that every one of these drillers has to follow?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:01:52 · ≈ 1:01 PM

So that's enough to go on for you Mr. Fay did you have more on this point hydrogen sulfide?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:01:57 · ≈ 1:01 PM

Yeah I mean see this is a I apologize if I sound Insulting or anything but you know this all stems from the fact that you guys just don't know how to drill a well. And I do and I'm telling you that This is this is a problem that's easily solved by getting the drillers to just carry an H2S sniffer. You know it's nothing that anybody in the oil fields doesn't have you know these are these are things out there and it's the only guy who's ever going to do anything about it is the driller and the property owner may or may not be on site So the driller's got to be the one who reports himself if he runs into that problem. And again, which we do frequently, we are fighting the last war.

The next time this happens it may not even be right there. It may be somewhere else in the county. We have sulfur water in Santa Maria, there are those wells around Santa Maria. If somebody drilled 3,000 feet deep on the east side of Santa Maria I'll bet they'd get a well just like that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:03:12 · ≈ 1:03 PM

Well Supervisor Atom I think we are going along with your suggestion but my sense is the driller knew there was hydrogen sulfide, the neighbors knew. But failed to report and so that's why a plan or what follows from it and I think that's what Mr. Faye is suggesting.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:03:32 · ≈ 1:03 PM

Well then I think we should go after the guy's contractor's license in the state of California. If that's what if he's done something like this is it's not grossly irresponsible then we need to go after that. I think can I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:03:46 · ≈ 1:03 PM

just because I think

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed4:03:48 · ≈ 1:03 PM

through this.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:03:49 · ≈ 1:03 PM

I think you guys are talking by each other but everybody's agreeing on the same thing. Is that is that the driller would have to have a sniffer? The question is if he finds something, if he has something what's his reporting requirement at that point and that's what he's saying he's going to come back with.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:04:04 · ≈ 1:04 PM

It would be in an ordinance it's not a big deal. It would be canned for everybody. Yeah

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:04:09 · ≈ 1:04 PM

it's part of the application part of the conditions of drilling the well okay So the other stuff is you know CC&Rs can work at your Supervisor Hartman, your situation. CC&RS could be enacted to prevent people from- It's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:04:29 · ≈ 1:04 PM

burdensome but yes you're right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:04:32 · ≈ 1:04 PM

You know I mean it's burdensome for everybody else if you don't do it at your house. So you know that's that's what and you know I got to say deja vu all over again. You know, I got involved with county government back in the early 90s when we were fighting about these these water and people wanted to put meters on the wells. And you know just doesn't do anybody any good.

It's something that you don't need to fight over. You really need to know how much water is in the ground And some of these basins like Montecito for instance are very difficult to tell. Those are not just straightforward lakes underground you know like Santa Maria is, it's pretty easy to tell and we still don't know what's under Santa Maria exactly. We just don't. There are people out there that say the water comes from the Sierras to Santa Maria. I don't know whether that's the case or not, neither does anybody else and that's why the courts always use water elevations To talk about whether or not there's an overdraft. They don't ever use a net base and balance calculation those things are really nice to talk about but they just don't pan out in reality.

And I explained to my colleagues a little bit on the Quiama study that came from USGS, I got blown off but USGS' study out there in Quiama is very very flawed Their own lines don't match what actually happened. And it's weird that they displayed the information in that way because it displays the fact that it doesn't matter their prediction doesn't match actual performance in the past but anyway I'll get down to the stuff here. The H2S we've done, the meters I disagree with

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:06:22 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Could we just stop there and could I ask for a sense of the board is there anybody who is promoting flow meters for new wells?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:06:31 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Well, I would not make it part of a unified motion yet but I would just say that flow meters for non-ag wells in areas that are served by a public water system would be a good idea because We want to know how much is being taken out of the public aquifer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:06:54 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Okay so could we say we agree no flow meters on new wells in agricultural land at least and then Supervisor Wolf?

4:07 – 4:1319 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:07:05 · ≈ 1:07 PM

What did you say about that are covered within a municipal water agency?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:07:10 · ≈ 1:07 PM

So to the Coastal Commission's recommendation, essentially the Coastal Commission saying look that you're permitting. It's kind of ambiguous about the boundaries of what they're talking about but they're saying you're in. You're endangering the public water supply by granting well permits to people that could hook up to the public water supply because they're digging wells into the public water supply.

And my suggestion would be that we make those both discretionary and when we do grant them, that we meter non-ag wells in areas like the Coastal Commission's suggestion that is served by a public water system.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:08:00 · ≈ 1:08 PM

And Mr. Gazzone had something and then Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:08:04 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Chairman and supervisors, if I was understanding the comment by Supervisor Williams, just note that our coastal zoning ordinance already states that the county may require applicants to install meters on private wells in the coastal zone. A Coastal Development Permit or other discretionary permit is already required for a private water well Right this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:08:24 · ≈ 1:08 PM

would be in the not outside of the coastal zone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:08:27 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Oh

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:08:27 · ≈ 1:08 PM

outside of the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:08:29 · ≈ 1:08 PM

coastal area yeah. And it might also help I would suggest that it might help the board to hear from the planning director just on the incidents that the Coastal Commission has commented on my understanding is that in each of those cases the planning and development recommendation was against a discretionary permit was a denial recommendation but I recommend you hear from planning on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:08:51 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Chair Hartman, Supervisors this will be a comment both on Supervisor Wolf's option two that you laid out as well as Supervisor Williams most recent comments. It is true in the coastal zone Thank you. I do not see the need in the coastal zone for any additional prohibition of non-ag or non-potable water wells because I think the permitting framework there is very protective and very robust. So that speaks to your second comment.

As far as Supervisor Williams most recent comments, the problem We currently do not permit, I think what you're referring to is wells used for landscaping as opposed to wells used for agriculture or wells used as a potable water source which go through a review by the environmental health although it is not discretionary. So my comment is really... Is really a question are you referring to wells inland that are being used for the purpose of- watering landscaping.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:10:25 · ≈ 1:10 PM

That is that is my interest

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:10:27 · ≈ 1:10 PM

yes okay and we do not we do not regulate those now. Those are those are strictly ministerial permits unlike the coastal zone where there is as I say a fairly robust permitting structure already.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:10:45 · ≈ 1:10 PM

Supervisor Wolf and then Supervisor Adams. You were marching down a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:10:50 · ≈ 1:10 PM

series of issues. Have you ever permitted, you just said that there were times where you didn't permit a well in the coastal zone that was served by municipal agency have you ever permitted one?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:11:04 · ≈ 1:11 PM

Supervisor Wolf yes we have the circumstances that resulted in our recommendation of denial were permits for wells that were going to be used for Watering landscaping in Montecito during a drought. And the reason that they wanted those wells is that the Montecito water district... What were the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:11:24 · ≈ 1:11 PM

ones you did permit?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed4:11:26 · ≈ 1:11 PM

Over the years there have been a number. Agricultural wells, potable water wells in some of the ranches. It is very common for us to permit water wells in the coastal zone. The ones that we denied, we did not think were warranted because they were just going to be used Thank you.

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:11:59 · ≈ 1:11 PM

That within the coastal zone we should go along with what the Coastal Commission is suggesting. And that is if you've got an applicant who wants to drill a well but they're already connected to a municipal water agency that we won't accept, I don't know, we'll deny the permit. That's what's being asked of us. I would be in favor of that, I don't know if anyone else is. If I could just say one more thing just to Supervisor Adams comment about the well drilling contractor and I had said it should actually be the owner of the property. Well when I'm wrong actually because when I read the ordinance it says an applicant could be the property owner or the drill operator. So the drill operator does bear the responsibility as well. So anyway I was glad to see that in the ordinance and I didn't realize that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:12:59 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Thanks for your patience Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:13:02 · ≈ 1:13 PM

Hutto. I think the main problem here with this idea that you're going to talk about places that are served by municipal is say Montecito for instance. They get water from the desal plant or they want it, well they're in communications Let's say they do. And they get water from Kachuma. So you're not necessarily, and nobody knows where the water comes from and goes to, you're assuming, you're making the assumption that it is all interconnected underground. I don't know if anybody can prove that. You are inviting litigation If you make those assumptions require a permit and then deny it.

So you know I'm not going to be supporting that. And so you guys go do what you want.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

4:13 – 4:2012 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:13:59 · ≈ 1:13 PM

Sure. Go ahead Mr. Guzman.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:14:07 · ≈ 1:14 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I would just mention for the framework we've been talking mostly about County Code Chapter 34A, the well drilling that's controlled by EHS. And then we've also talked about our coastal zoning ordinance and local coastal plan policies concerning wells. So if we were going to change the discretionary standard for a coastal development permit that would be a different framework and it would be a little bit slower or a lot slower if we are talking about amending the coastal zoning ordinance as to wells.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:14:44 · ≈ 1:14 PM

I don't think we are really talking about that because as was noted by staff, we already have discretionary approval process within the coastal

PresenterPaul Van LeerCounty Agriculture Advisory CommitteeProposedself-stated4:14:54 · ≈ 1:14 PM

zone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:14:55 · ≈ 1:14 PM

I think what we're really talking about is outside the coastal zone in, but the confusing part is as recommended by the Coastal Commission because they're worried about too many wells being drilled outside the coastal zone that's going to impact coastal resources. So their recommendation so you know my issue Is to say that oh, they're going to get hooked to desal. That those negotiations fell apart. Maybe it'll come back? I don't know.

To say they they have other options is only true on wet years. State water deliveries are minuscule as you know sometimes and Kachuma resources also were dwindling very fast so during a time of drought. The Montecito Water District is largely dependent on that groundwater basin, so you're talking about the largest supply of water. And, you know, we should act with care with how much we interfere with private property rights. But we also have the human concept of human right to water. If you run dry Because your straw isn't deep enough, because someone else is sinking one deeper and you're all hooked up to the same basin at least according to the geologists that have advised the district on the GSA then that should be a problem and we should head it off while we can.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:16:54 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Chairman going back to the difference between something that's being amended in zoning code or chapter 34 a presently Chapter 34 A has as an appeal procedure that it stops at the director of environmental health and safety. Normally for land use decision involving potential takings risk the appeal path goes to the board or the Coastal Commission so if the board is thinking of amending 34A to make that a discretionary permit Supervisor Adam and then Wolf.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:17:34 · ≈ 1:17 PM

Well all I'm going to say is that you know this is a problem created by ourselves because we deal with this this or we plan and beget this. Scarcity mentality you know to quote Joe Armendariz who doesn't seem to be here today. You know we keep trying to make things scarce and then try to have the power to dole them out instead of creating more molecules for people to use at a cheaper price and let people have more stuff if you want to regulate the number of people here do that You know we can have a vote on whether or not a subdivision gets made. But you know, we're taking the water away from the people who are here now and actively engaged in agriculture and even in landscaping they have some of those places down in Montecito which paid ginormous property taxes which we appreciate right?

Tremendous investments in landscaping. And you know for us to say something like their immoral use of water is just ridiculous. You know let's go make some more molecules, let's stop trying to dole out the ones that are here and grab a hold of the control of everything all the time and build another desal plant and build another dam. I know it's not popular to do but anyway there

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:19:21 · ≈ 1:19 PM

I'm with you on stormwater capture. Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:19:27 · ≈ 1:19 PM

Madam Chair is it, are you okay if we take some of these separately? Sure I think getting a sense of the board and doing that would be a great idea. So I will make a motion that we direct staff to add conditions to County Code 34A. Stating that actions must be taken if a hydrogen sulfide leak occurs during water well drilling which may include but not limited to mitigation plan or a An H2S detector going to leave it to staff to come back to us with with your recommendation.

So that's a motion

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:20:14 · ≈ 1:20 PM

and I'll

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:20:14 · ≈ 1:20 PM

second

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:20:15 · ≈ 1:20 PM

all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed. OK so we've got that formally agreed to

4:20 – 4:2634 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:20:25 · ≈ 1:20 PM

Can I ask Supervisor Wolf a question about this? On the coastal zone, the one you're talking about with discretionary. Is that all wells or non-ag wells when you're talking about? Non-ag. Served by municipality. Okay. I'm still opposed but I just wanted to make sure that was on the record because I think like Supervisor Adams said some of those estates have got a lot of money invested

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:20:55 · ≈ 1:20 PM

I would just indicate that we're talking about new well applications. We're not talking about existing wells, we can't affect those.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:21:03 · ≈ 1:21 PM

But guys, just because he's putting in a new well doesn't mean it's because he's using more water. His old well fails or something happens and he goes to put in a new well all of the sudden we say wait a second, we don't want you to have a well. It's discretionary. I know what happens with discretionary permits in Santa Barbara County they don't seem to run so smooth.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:21:30 · ≈ 1:21 PM

Supervisor, let me go back to Supervisor Wolf. So I'm not sure which list you are running down in terms of recommendations after the hydrogen sulfide? Well the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:21:41 · ≈ 1:21 PM

next one is a flow meter but I am willing rather let someone else make a motion on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:21:50 · ≈ 1:21 PM

Well I would come forward and say that no flow meters and no discretionary permits for agricultural

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:22:02 · ≈ 1:22 PM

I'm okay with that. Can you add adjudicated basins or sigma and consolidated rock aquifers? Because it doesn't make any sense at all, you might as well just exempt consolidated rock because if you're drilling through the rock to get a crack with water in it, you're not in a basin, you're just looking for a random crack with water in And that's what all of them are up on San Marcos Pass, Tepeskee lots and lots of that. You know various different places in the county you got to look at what you're drilling into it's not just a big lake underneath the county.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:22:48 · ≈ 1:22 PM

I understand that but what I don't understand would you like to make a motion? I mean I what I don't understand what your set. OK let me ask Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:23:01 · ≈ 1:23 PM

This is for

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:23:02 · ≈ 1:23 PM

agricultural discretionary. If you would start with what we were having difficulty with inland municipal areas but if we can rule out agriculture

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:23:14 · ≈ 1:23 PM

let's let's rule out these these four things AG zoning consolidated rock aquifers basins under management and litigated basins

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:23:33 · ≈ 1:23 PM

I'll second that, that makes sense.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:23:36 · ≈ 1:23 PM

And let me just Mr. Fay or Ms. Topliff does that make sense?

PresenterCarrie TopliffPublic Health DepartmentProposedself-stated4:23:40 · ≈ 1:23 PM

Yes we understand that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:23:42 · ≈ 1:23 PM

I'm going to just speak against that. That basically exempts everything and you're making equivalent the sigma process in a high priority basin versus a low priority basin. A low priority basin

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:23:54 · ≈ 1:23 PM

is going to be years and years. Can you get that basin reprioritized?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:23:58 · ≈ 1:23 PM

Yeah but it's a difficult

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:24:00 · ≈ 1:24 PM

process. Well you know there is a lot of difficulty, we're shoving difficulty on everybody else for one spot in the county.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:24:08 · ≈ 1:24 PM

I'm curious why it was… No we don't have to shove it on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:24:10 · ≈ 1:24 PM

everybody else. Okay Supervisor Lavanino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:24:15 · ≈ 1:24 PM

Was it deemed a low priority if we've got all these drastic situations going on? Some

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:24:22 · ≈ 1:24 PM

of the information is dated. I mean there's a concern in the amount of draw down as unknown which is why they're going forward with the process even though they're not yet mandated to but it's still gonna take years before the completion of the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:24:37 · ≈ 1:24 PM

plan.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:24:39 · ≈ 1:24 PM

Yeah, you know we have four of them in the county or three of them in the county correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:24:45 · ≈ 1:24 PM

All along the

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:24:45 · ≈ 1:24 PM

Saninez Valley. So those all were able to get to medium or high priority so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:24:52 · ≈ 1:24 PM

I'm OK with exempting that level of basins what I'm not okay with exempting is a low priority basin like Montecito that's where the problem exists.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:25:04 · ≈ 1:25 PM

Well it's not it's not under management I guess is it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed4:25:10 · ≈ 1:25 PM

Let me, go ahead. Supervisors I think Matt Young is in the audience if you could just step up and say one reason why some basins are priority sigma basins and others have not been deemed so?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:25:23 · ≈ 1:25 PM

Madam Chair, members of the board. The state went through the prioritization process and they looked at eight criteria and it's a common confusion that the prioritization reflects the level of impact to groundwater in the basin rather the prioritization is on how important groundwater is in that basin so for example Santa Maria Basin is a high priority basin because groundwater is very important however the basin is in rough balance and its managed fairly well through the adjudication Montecito is a very low-priority basin because groundwater is not a primary source of water to the majority of the basin. There's not a lot of irrigated acreage, and at the time the prioritization happened in 2006 there were not a large number of wells drilled.

So that is some of the reason for the discrepancy in the prioritization process. And then since that time a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:26:11 · ≈ 1:26 PM

ton of wells got drilled?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:26:14 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Let me just ask this, I think we don't want any change except for hydrogen sulfide so far and then there is the Montecito question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:26:25 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Except for we have a motion and a second on the floor which way I guess we could just.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:26:29 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Well, I'd make a substitute motion under Roberts you know if that's helpful to apply the discretionary process to non-ag water well permits in areas served by a Water District this is in compliance with the Coastal Commission's letter and advice

4:26 – 4:3330 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:26:58 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Any further discussion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:27:03 · ≈ 1:27 PM

Call the roll. Mr. Levin you know no Mr. Williams I miss Wolf. Mr Adam. No Miss Hartman I passes 3 to 2.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:27:16 · ≈ 1:27 PM

So those are our two changes then but for agriculture everything remains the same no metering, no discretionary permits. Any other final comments? Supervisor Atom you had your light on. Supervisor Wolf your

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:27:35 · ≈ 1:27 PM

light is on. So one of the things that I mentioned and Mr. Fay followed up on and I don't know if it needs a motion but that if there's significant changes to the permit application that they return to staff And and again letting staff come back to us with the exact wording. But if you all get the gist of what I'm saying, I just think it's important that if there are significant changes that they let staff know.

And I think Mr. Fay thought that was OK.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:28:13 · ≈ 1:28 PM

Does it have any effect given it's a ministerial permit? I mean what is the impact of this?

CommentLarry FayProposedself-stated4:28:21 · ≈ 1:28 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf. I think we could incorporate what would essentially be a notification requirement if there's a significant deviation from the application, but it's a ministerial permit so it really would be in the form of notification so that we know that change is occurring. And we'd have to be mindful in how we put it together because as we spoke earlier, it's not a simple matter I'm going to stop drilling until I have reached Larry on his phone to tell him I'm making a change. So we'd have to come up with an effective process for the notification to occur, but to enable the activity to continue in the field. Otherwise, we might be stopping a well while they're waiting to get a hold of somebody at the health department and say oh by the way, I've got to go another 200 feet.

And then jeopardize the work they've done up to that point so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:29:18 · ≈ 1:29 PM

And what do we get out of it is my question? What do we get out of it? Yeah, yeah what's the advantage of this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:29:24 · ≈ 1:29 PM

Well because I guess I'm looking at it as a policy issue when we issue permits it's based on the facts that we know at the time and if the facts change they should let the permitting agency know and again you know the purpose of this ordinance early on it talks about health and safety of the community So it seems that it doesn't have to be onerous, we must have this language in some of our other ordinances. It just seems common sense to me that if there is a significant change they have to let you know so that in your records you can keep track of whatever has changed.

Mr. Gazzone Director

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:30:09 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Blanford. Chair Hart, Minister of Supervisors probably the easiest example of discretionary versus ministerial we think of discretionary as building with two by eights instead of two by fours that's the one that gets bandied about the most so I can picture working with EHS if there was a depth issue whether it's 1500 feet or 2000 feet if you're trying to prevent these anomalies of drilling down to 3000 feet without knowing about it I can picture where we could defensively work with EHS on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:30:34 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Okay so that would be my motion is to ask EHS to work with County Council to come back with reasonable language for such an instance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:30:47 · ≈ 1:30 PM

Any discussion? I just think it's really important that it not be onerous or burdensome, you're hiring people and equipment out there working.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:30:56 · ≈ 1:30 PM

And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:30:56 · ≈ 1:30 PM

we are

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:30:56 · ≈ 1:30 PM

going to have a chance to look at it, it's going to come back to us so we'll have that opportunity

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:31:01 · ≈ 1:31 PM

What was the first thing we voted on that we went 5-0 on? I thought that was the same thing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:31:06 · ≈ 1:31 PM

That was H2S. And

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:31:07 · ≈ 1:31 PM

what are you talking about right now?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:31:08 · ≈ 1:31 PM

Now, I'm just talking about their permit application

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:31:11 · ≈ 1:31 PM

when

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:31:11 · ≈ 1:31 PM

they have all these

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:31:12 · ≈ 1:31 PM

lists of things. Oh, like

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:31:14 · ≈ 1:31 PM

death. Suffering from food

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:31:16 · ≈ 1:31 PM

deprivation. So just so y'all are aware. If I could just add here, you know we went through earlier how you can't stop in the middle. And that we also went through earlier how we always stop in this basin at Blue Clay. And if somebody reasonably thinks that they're going to go 500 feet which is normal and customary you know five six hundred feet somewhere around there.

I just drilled one that was 800 sorry 786 got the blue clay stopped. But if we had put 500 down and then we stop what's going to end up happening is I think you're going to end up having to buy somebody somebody's bid at least when they get it stuck when it caves in because

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:32:10 · ≈ 1:32 PM

I'm not I understand what you're saying Supervisor Adam but all I'm saying is as if someone has to go deeper than what the permit said, I'm not saying necessarily stop And you're right. I don't know how this all works. All I'm saying is when it let them know what they ultimately were they where they do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:32:30 · ≈ 1:32 PM

They do because they give him a well completion report which contains that piece of information specifically that well that we drilled the 786. It says the term 786 in that slot on the well completion report which they gave to Mr. Faye so you got that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:32:50 · ≈ 1:32 PM

And what if it's in a different location. I just picked

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:32:52 · ≈ 1:32 PM

no it's not a different location because they already came out and verified that the annular seal went in this spot.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:32:59 · ≈ 1:32 PM

I guess I don't know why this is such a big deal because all I'm saying they have all these things that they have to tell you and they already

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:33:06 · ≈ 1:33 PM

do.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:33:07 · ≈ 1:33 PM

And if it' s different they just have to notify you if they already are by giving them the slip of paper that's great but if there's other things that they haven't told you they should. that are part of the permit. That's all.

4:33 – 4:3733 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:33:23 · ≈ 1:33 PM

So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:33:23 · ≈ 1:33 PM

we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:33:23 · ≈ 1:33 PM

have a motion and a second. And what is the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:33:26 · ≈ 1:33 PM

motion again?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:33:28 · ≈ 1:33 PM

The motion is to ask staff to come back for what Mr. Gazzone said that if to put in language that if there's significant, if there's changes to the permit application based on code 34A that there is a mechanism to let staff know

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:33:49 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Correcting the application.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:33:55 · ≈ 1:33 PM

It's corrected in the well completion report but anyway so I'm going to oppose this just based on the fact that it is already being done.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:34:05 · ≈ 1:34 PM

Director Peters. And so we have a motion in the second we are discussing and I will probably support it only because it's coming back and we get another shot at it, I'm not sure we gain anything by it but I am willing to look at it. And Supervisor Wolf you still had, did you have more to say? No I just want to vote on it. Okay so roll call vote.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:34:31 · ≈ 1:34 PM

Mr. Levenino? No. Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Mr. Adams? No Ms. Hartman? Aye Passes 3-2. Chair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:34:40 · ≈ 1:34 PM

Hartman, unless there are more substantive I would just recommend a concluding motion since we've been focusing on the details and have not yet had the motion as to receive a report in the CEQA action so just a motion that would apply that to the other actions the board has taken today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:34:59 · ≈ 1:34 PM

Right and we may need somebody to state the motion when we're ready but I think Supervisor Williams had one other point he wanted to make.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:35:06 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Just wanted to clarify with a motion that for the wells that are permitted, the non-ag wells in areas served by a water district.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:35:20 · ≈ 1:35 PM

In a municipal area?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:35:22 · ≈ 1:35 PM

In an area served by that water district we would require a monitoring device. Per staff recommendations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:35:32 · ≈ 1:35 PM

And if I understand the motion then it's a discretionary permit but this would make it mandatory that there be monitoring

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:35:42 · ≈ 1:35 PM

of those wells, of those new wells that are then permitted. The ones that we say yes to would have monitoring.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:35:52 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Is there a second? He wants the flow meter rather than to have it be discretionary.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:36:04 · ≈ 1:36 PM

When I talked about it I talked about them together but I separated them in a motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:36:11 · ≈ 1:36 PM

Director Peters CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed4:36:13 · ≈ 1:36 PM

So just for clarity I believe staff believed but we can clarify that the original motion on this particular issue was to require discretionary permits and flow meter devices for the non AG wells served in the municipal water districts is that correct? That's fine I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:36:29 · ≈ 1:36 PM

don't have to do it over again. We didn't get the flow meter part. All right I think did we vote on this yet?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:36:37 · ≈ 1:36 PM

I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:36:38 · ≈ 1:36 PM

going

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:36:38 · ≈ 1:36 PM

to make a motion that we accept the report and do the CEQA exemption.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:36:44 · ≈ 1:36 PM

And is that all we need or do we need, okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:36:46 · ≈ 1:36 PM

And I understand that to apply to all of the board's prior actions on this matter today. Correct. Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:36:51 · ≈ 1:36 PM

All in favor say aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:36:53 · ≈ 1:36 PM

Aye.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:36:55 · ≈ 1:36 PM

This is just good. I am with you ma'am.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:37:03 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Okay call the roll vote. Call the roll vote.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.884:37:08 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Mr. Lavinino? I'm gonna stand with Supervisor Adam on this one, no.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:37:12 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Mr Williams? Aye. Ms Wolfe? Aye. Mr Adams? No. Ms Hartman? Aye 3-2

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:37:19 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Okay I think we're concluded with. We've completed item number two on our departmental agenda. I think it's time for going into closed session and Mr. Gazzone would you report what we're going to do and when will be back?

4:37 – 5:514 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:37:38 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today the board in closed session has agendized to consider four items I estimate that you could expect to return at about 2.30. The items are Young America's Foundation versus County of Santa Barbara second case Welland versus County of Santa Barbara and then two separate significant exposure to litigation cases which are conferences with legal counsel.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:38:01 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Okay and back at 2. 30? 2.

GuestPeter AdamProposed · by introduction4:38:10 · ≈ 1:38 PM

No, you don't.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:39:51 · ≈ 1:39 PM

You. You. You. Yeah. Okay. ♪ You. you Okay. And. you Hey. Bye! Okay. you you Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You. Yeah. You. Okay. Good morning. you Okay. you you you you

5:53 – 6:019 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:53:50 · ≈ 2:53 PM

Okay. Good afternoon we're reconvening the July 18 2017 Board of Supervisors meeting here in the Santa Maria hearing room. And Mr. Gazzone would you report out from closed session?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:54:53 · ≈ 2:54 PM

Chair Hartman and supervisors today the board in closed session considered four items existing litigation of Young America's Foundation versus County of Santa Barbara, second Welland versus County of Santa Barbara and then two separate significant exposure to litigation conferences with legal counsel there are no reportable actions

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:55:11 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Thank you and Mr. Allen would you read item number three into the record please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:55:16 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, item 3 is from planning and development it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding water and sewer service commitments for development in subdivisions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:55:26 · ≈ 2:55 PM

And Dr. Russell?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:55:28 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Good afternoon chair Hartman supervisors this will take less time than the last one and Alex Tuttle supervising planner will be making the presentation

PresenterAlex Tuttleboth planning and development and environmental health staffProposedself-stated5:55:39 · ≈ 2:55 PM

okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed5:55:42 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Good

PresenterAlex Tuttleboth planning and development and environmental health staffProposedself-stated5:55:42 · ≈ 2:55 PM

afternoon Madam Chair. Press the red button. Good afternoon Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Alex Tuttle and I will be presenting this item to you on behalf of both planning and development and environmental health staff. Similar to the item that you heard before lunch staff is seeking policy direction from your board as to how to proceed with respect to water and sewer service commitment letters from districts for development projects in residential subdivisions.

As a little background as your board may be aware we have county policies in place that require the demonstration of adequate services including water, sanitary access etc. That must be made prior to approving permits for development or residential subdivisions. What we have been experiencing recently is that districts throughout the county are increasingly providing temporary Conditional service letters that indicate current availability at the time of approval but offer no guarantee of service in the future.

This creates a potential policy conflict which has prompted our departments to bring this issue to your board for consideration. The unwillingness on the part of districts to provide firm long-term commitments to service at the time a project approval is due to a number of factors including often the delays between when the commitment to serve is provided and when actual connections to the district supply are established which can sometimes as you know be several years.

There's also reluctance to provide long-term commitments due to the desire of districts to provide service to their customers when they need it rather than reserving capacity for future customers. And lastly, the drought that we've been experiencing has increased a reluctance on the part of water districts given the lack of certainty regarding water supplies and increasing reluctance to offer long term commitments given the uncertainties there.

What we have seen over the years is that we, the county will receive intent to serve letters or you know every district sort of has their own terminology as to how they characterize what they provide but intent to serve letters that often will have an expiration date meaning that there are only valid for a one year period for example where they'll indicate that while service is currently available. There's no guarantee until connection fees are paid Typically what we see is a district's level of commitment will increase during the course of processing and approval of a project with increasing commitment occurring the closer you get to construction.

Your board letter includes in the background section an example of the sequence of such commitments provided by one water district, the Gleda Water District just for reference. What we do have is a process in place that prior to issuance of building permits for development. That formal commitment letters or can and will serve letters are obtained before construction can commence and building permits are issued.

There are implications to this approach, however. Time-limited service commitment letters at the time of initial project approval or at map recordation for a subdivision is problematic because it puts the county in position of acting on projects based on an assumption of adequate service under current conditions. However, it's quite possible that when those applicants seek connection permits from their respective district, service may not be available.

We've actually seen that over the years with older projects that have been approved, for example with current moratorium in Montecito issuing new water meters. For development projects such as new residential or commercial construction this simply means that the developer would be unable to obtain their final permits to construct a project absent the formal can and will serve letter.

For subdivisions, however creating new residential lots this results in lots being created without assurance that water or sanitary district will be available when development of the individual lots is sought. This is problematic because as you can imagine when new lots are created through a subdivision they're generally assumed to be developable and if that subdivision were for lot sales for example future buyers at the lots could be unaware of the potential lack of available service If a district later decides that it is unable to serve development on new lots, this could result in significant delay in the ability for landowners to build.

Alternately, long delays could also encourage landowners to process or attempt to process recorded map modifications. To request the use of private service such as wells or private septic systems which may or may not be successful depending on lot sizes and site constraints. Further, as we discussed in the last presentation on water wells, reliance on water wells or private systems within municipal service boundaries carries with it potential policy conflicts.

So given these conditions, staff has identified the following options moving forward for your board's consideration. With respect to development projects the two options staff have identified are relying on valid intent-to-serve letters that are based on current availability without guarantee of service to satisfy county policy requirements and findings at the time of initial land use permit approval or when requests are made for time extensions on valid permits.

The second option would be to require applicants to obtain water service guarantees in the form of more formal can and will serve letters that do not expire prior to land use permit approval.

6:01 – 6:083 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:01:50 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Mr. Tuttle, is then the first one what we're currently experiencing?

PresenterAlex Tuttleboth planning and development and environmental health staffProposedself-stated6:01:56 · ≈ 3:01 PM

More or less. For residential subdivisions the options include relying on valid intent to serve letters again based on current availability without any guarantee, to satisfy policy requirements at the time of approval and map recordation. And we would add to that including buyer beware notices onto maps so that at least future lot owners are aware that notice will get recorded with a deed so future owners are aware of the lack of guarantee.

A second option would be requiring again more formal canon well-served letters constituting an irrevocable commitment prior to recordation of the maps and the creation of new lots. A third sort of complimentary approach or option would be requiring county staff to independently investigate the availability of water resources for projects Rather than simply relying on water service letters that was done by staff.

Years ago, when before we had state water and sort of a more solid reliable service of water supply. So before state water there was much less reliance on service letters and much greater investigation into the actual impacts to the water supply in the availability of resources. Since the supply of state water and the reliance of the districts on state water, we tend to be deferential in terms of leaning on the water districts and sewer districts for determination of adequate services.

So moving on then to staff recommendations For development projects staff recommends that option A be continued which is again relying on valid intent to serve letters at the time of project approval. And that's appropriate given the fact that we have the ability, the safeguard in place that we would not issue building permits. Absent a more formal can and will serve letter.

This provides a safeguard to ensure that adequate services are in fact available and guaranteed before there's an irreversible entitlement granted to an applicant Option B requiring applicants to obtain the more formal cannon wheel service letter up front would require applicants to develop more engineered plans and go through significant expense including for example paying connection fees.

In advance of even obtaining their land use permit approval which may be a deterrent to many. And not only that in some cases applicants may be completely unable to obtain guarantees earlier in the process since some districts do not allow the payment of connection fees that early in the process prior to review building plans and the reason for that or one of the reasons for that is they not only The districts want those connection fees, but they also want to establish the ongoing payments from customers.

So for subdivisions staff also recommends option A. Again that's reliance on intent to serve letters that are valid based on current availability though they do not offer guarantees and again we would include with that the buyer beware options so at least future property owners are aware of the lack of a guarantee. So at least there'd be no surprises there.

And the reason for that is given what is again required to obtain those commitment service letters earlier in the process and their reluctance to provide guarantees. Option B requiring that guarantee or that irrevocable commitment earlier at the time of approval May be difficult if not impossible for many subdivisions to obtain especially those that are simply for lot sales and not accompanied or associated with the development proposal for that site.

This condition would be unlikely to change any time in the future until perhaps the county's water picture were much more stable than it is today and districts were less wary of making such long-term commitments. Option C, relying on staff or having staff do an independent investigation on the adequacy of service that raises several issues as well not only would be challenging for county staff to embark on those efforts since it's difficult to predict how districts are going to operate both in the short term and long term In terms of shoring up and augmenting their supplies.

And that would likely continue to be a shifting target. But there'd be obvious time and expense that would be passed along to the applicants for that work. And in the end, staff's determination regarding availability would not substitute for the requisite can-and-will serve letters or intent serve letters from the districts. So for those various reasons staff recommends option A That concludes staff's presentation and happy and available to answer any questions you may have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:07:42 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair. I have two questions the first one is why do you think the Agencies have changed their policy from issuing can and will serve letters to intent. Is it because as you said that they're wary of making long-term commitments?

6:08 – 6:1615 turns

PresenterAlex Tuttleboth planning and development and environmental health staffProposedself-stated6:08:05 · ≈ 3:08 PM

You know without speaking on behalf of the districts and speaking for them I think that's certainly a big factor. The reluctance to make these long-term commitments again because often there can be several years between when a project is approved and when it actually goes out to build. And as we've seen in the last several years, a lot of things can change in that period of time so that is a big factor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:08:32 · ≈ 3:08 PM

So given that my second question is. And I understand why you're making the recommendation. You are but we have to make a finding according to Our LUDP already is that prior to issuance of a development permit the county shall make the finding. Shall make a finding based on information provided by environmental documents staff analysis etc.. That adequate public or private services and resources which is water sewer roads are available to serve the proposed development.

So if the water agency, let's just take the water agency isn't able to basically make that finding. How are we? Are you suggesting we change our ordinance because how can we make that finding?

PresenterAlex Tuttleboth planning and development and environmental health staffProposedself-stated6:09:35 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. Staff's perspective is that we would still be able to make the finding based on the fact that the districts are still providing us with these service letters that are valid at the time we were taking action to approve the project. So the letters we receive and they come in various forms from the different districts but the letters essentially say that based on current availability and supply services are adequate. And we could serve your project and so staff has been operating that that In and of itself is sufficient in order to make that finding and would continue to do so based on that recommendation.

It does not provide a guarantee that five years down the road if the project hasn't been built, that service would still be available hence the safeguards that are in place before a project gets too far down the road.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:10:34 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Again my problem is that if the district isn't willing to provide the can-and-will serve letter Yet we're and we're willing to accept the intent to serve. How can we make the find? We're making a finding only based on an intent not even what is known at that particular time. I guess this is maybe a legal question to you Mr. Gazzone how it seems to me that it's a risk For the county to go down this path even though I again I understand why staff is suggesting this. I totally get it but what if there is no you know someone expect they spend a lot of money moving forward based on the intent to serve And then the district decides that there's no water or they can't provide sewer service.

And yet we also know that it's not a guarantee.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:11:39 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Chairman and Supervisor Wolf, staff's board agenda letter lays out a couple of points that would mitigate that. For example on some approvals the building permit still won't issue unless there is an actual connection so the county is protected from the construction of a dwelling that doesn't have water service. This is an area of the law where I think part of going beyond what Mr. Tuttle said as to why this shift by water districts, water districts have It's a much broader authority or broader authority than the county under water code sections. The 350 series gives them lots of powers during times of drought to curtail service or not provide new connections it's a pretty broad authority to ration water So I understand part of the background that they're looking at on this but I don't think that the county would be taking a legal risk to continue down this road.

It'd be more of a policy call for the county but there aren't a lot of options for a district that's just going to write a current intent to serve letter.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:12:45 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Thank you for that. So the buyer beware piece that you talked about, that's just for the subdivisions not for a development permit? And why is that? Why wouldn't we have it for both?

PresenterAlex Tuttleboth planning and development and environmental health staffProposedself-stated6:12:59 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, the proposal was to add it for maps again one of the issues with these subdivisions is when lots are created there is this presumption that you're creating buildable developable lots and What we would hate for to happen were to someone purchase this lot thinking that they could go ahead and construct their house only to find out later that's not possible or that they have to go through a significant delay. So the purpose of the buyer beware notice would be to avoid any surprises in that.

There's certainly an opportunity to include similar language it wouldn't necessarily be a buyer-beware notice but you know a condition of approval on land use permits for residential or commercial development. Yeah I think that indicates that you know prior to obtaining building permit, I mean it's already implied but make it explicit that that you shall obtain the final can and will serve prior to painting building permit issuance or something to that effect

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:14:05 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Yeah I think that would be a good idea. Supervisor Williams your light is on.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:14:11 · ≈ 3:14 PM

My questioning is a little bit along the lines of Supervisor Wolf trying to understand, I mean is there I understand how options B and C are maybe too strong an option but option A seems still kind of weak, you know that could we at least require that the cannon will serve letter B Not just current water availability but availability over a certain time span even if that's. A relatively predictable amount of time span instead of an indefinite period I mean that essentially be you're requiring it to be an indefinite period which I can understand how most water districts would be reluctant in this drought prone world to give you that Current availability is also sort of yeah this week we got it but next week we don't.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed6:15:20 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Supervisor Williams through the chair my experience negotiating with the Goleta water district, the very issue that you're talking about is a good example I tried everything I possibly could to get them to do that and they just absolutely refused So they

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:15:39 · ≈ 3:15 PM

won't give you a letter saying that we got this water for at least the next three years.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed6:15:43 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Nope

PresenterAlex Tuttleboth planning and development and environmental health staffProposedself-stated6:15:45 · ≈ 3:15 PM

I tried and I would just add to that you know every district operates slightly differently some different districts set a specific you know that this letter or this intent to serve is valid for one year others don't put a cap on it but just note that there's no guarantee until connection fees are paid So you know we're working with nearly a dozen close to a dozen water districts throughout the county so and then sewer districts have their own approaches as well.

It would be difficult to figure out a one size fits all that all the districts could get on board with.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:16:26 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:16:27 · ≈ 3:16 PM

And it's all because we deal with this stuff through scarcity

6:16 – 6:2322 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:16:40 · ≈ 3:16 PM

So seeing no more lights do we have any public speaker slips?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:16:45 · ≈ 3:16 PM

No request to speak.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:16:47 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Okay bring it back to the board, anymore questions anymore discussion? Do we have a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:16:57 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Supervisor Wolf? I reluctantly will go ahead and move this item. If you can also just change or add the disclaimers to the development project piece, I'll go ahead and move staff's recommendations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:17:20 · ≈ 3:17 PM

Option A? Yes. Okay. I'm lukewarm about it but I guess that's best we can do today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:17:30 · ≈ 3:17 PM

We have a motion and second any further discussion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:17:33 · ≈ 3:17 PM

Just one more thing on my own motion I just want to be clear that we can make the findings that that we need to make or the planning commission can because it says we shall make findings and with the intent to serve letter you feel confident that you can make those findings?

PresenterAlex Tuttleboth planning and development and environmental health staffProposedself-stated6:17:55 · ≈ 3:17 PM

Staff feels confident that we can continue to make that finding at the time of project approval which is the time in which the findings have to be made.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:18:03 · ≈ 3:18 PM

And

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:18:03 · ≈ 3:18 PM

would you call the vote? Mr. Labadino. Aye. Mr. Williams. Aye. Ms. Wolfe. Aye, Mr. Adam. Aye Ms. Hartman. Aye Passes 5-0.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:18:13 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Okay turning to item number four would you read that into the record Mr. Allen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:18:25 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Chair Hartman members of the board item 4 from the county executive office general services this is a hearing to consider recommendations during a response to the 2016 17 grand jury report entitled the Santa Maria main jail.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:18:41 · ≈ 3:18 PM

You've had a long day Miss Bell.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:18:44 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Yes in the interest of time I'm going to sit here and not over there so we'll do our best. So this is in response to the Santa Barbara County grand jury report titled Santa Barbara Main Jail and next slide. On May 18, 2017 the grand jury released a report titled Santa Barbara Main Jail where results of their review of the current conditions in the main jail and options for funding improvements were identified.

Today I will go through the findings and recommendations where the Board of Supervisors are named as the responders Finding one, the Sheriff's Department and General Services have not developed a prioritized list for repair projects at the main jail. The board disagrees partially with the finding. The county has completed two studies where repair and maintenance efforts have been identified and prioritized. Additionally in Americans with Disabilities Act ADA assessment is in process.

Recommendation one be that the Board of Supervisors directs the General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repair projects. The recommendation will be implemented. Cost estimates have been received from two, three actually independent reports and We are working now on an implementation plan which will further identify what the priorities are, the plan being that we make modifications or repairs to the jail complex once and not several times.

Finding number two, the Sheriff's Department and General Services have not developed a prioritized list for replacement projects at the main jail. The board disagrees partially with this finding. Again, the county has completed two studies where repair and maintenance efforts have been identified in priorities and additionally we've done ADA assessment but that report is still in process.

Recommendation to be that the Board of Supervisors directs general services department to provide cost estimates for these replacement projects. The recommendation will be implemented.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:21:24 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Ms. Pell may I interrupt? Supervisor Adam had a question.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:21:27 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Can we go back one, so what part did you agree with?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:21:38 · ≈ 3:21 PM

So we are in the process Identifying projects for replacement so maybe like replace a roof or you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:21:51 · ≈ 3:21 PM

know. But then you disagree with the finding, I don't understand the word partially there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:21:57 · ≈ 3:21 PM

So we've already begun identifying I mean we've done reports where we've identified where we need to repair replace and so that's been in process. So, so we partially agree because we have done some of that work but we don't have a final report. So we don't actually have a final implementation plan.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:22:21 · ≈ 3:22 PM

You know you don't think the Marks Akubo or the I mean the Jorgensen I would say is a walk around but I thought that Marks Akubo was really invasive and they took a much closer look at that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:22:42 · ≈ 3:22 PM

They took a closer look but it didn't address ADA concerns. Now we're trying to pull all three reports together and really prioritize what we need to do again that the ADA report has not been finalized

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:22:58 · ≈ 3:22 PM

today. That's just that's another whole can of worms right there you know when did when was 88 when did that become operative?

6:23 – 6:2916 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:23:12 · ≈ 3:23 PM

of the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:23:14 · ≈ 3:23 PM

94 earlier. Well I mean how have we escaped that for 20 years. Yeah right OK yeah all right thank you I'm sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:23:36 · ≈ 3:23 PM

So again so this report was really broken down into three areas repair, replace and repurpose. And so you're going to find a common theme here. So again we are looking at cost estimates were working on putting an implementation plan together based on the priorities and the cost estimates that we've that we're receiving. So finding number 3 is the sheriff's department and general services have not developed a priorities priority list for repurposing projects at the main jail.

And the board agrees with the finding. Recommendation 3 B that the Board of Supervisors direct General Services Department to provide cost estimates for these repurposing projects. The recommendation will be implemented once the sheriff identifies programs that will require space to be repurposed, general services will provide cost estimates. Major construction may have to be deferred until the Northern Branch Jail is open and can hold inmates for the main jail during construction. Funding has not been identified for repurposing projects.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:25:01 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Supervisor Wilk. Thank you Madam Chair, my only concern with this recommendation is that on the repurposing projects it says that the sheriff working with the expert consultants will need to identify programs so it's not projects it's talking about programs to be adjusted and space repurposed. I'm concerned that it's just the sheriff. That it is not in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors or general services you know this whole issue of repurposing the jail is a significant issue And you know part of the whole purpose of the North County Jail of pretrial release and lowering population is so that we can re- and we're going to have to repurpose the jail.

And so it's going to be in my opinion kind of like what we're doing with Juvenile Hall is looking at maybe what other departments need, what the sheriff doesn't need but it seems to me that it's going to be a full That's why I would say that the Board of Supervisors or General Services, that it shouldn't just be the Sheriff because the implications are greater than just his department when we're talking about repurposing. So that would be a suggested change.

Like the sheriff in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors or in conjunction with general services will be working with expert consultants.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:26:49 · ≈ 3:26 PM

And is that agreeable to other members on the board? Supervisor Lavanino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:26:58 · ≈ 3:26 PM

It's always agreeable until we don't have control over it. So I mean

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:27:04 · ≈ 3:27 PM

that we well

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.886:27:05 · ≈ 3:27 PM

policy wise do. I guess that's a pretty good question is do we get to say what happens to that jail or does the sheriff tell us what he needs for that jail? How does that all work? I don't want to take responsibility with the grand jury and then find out we can't do anything about it because the sheriff has determined he doesn't want to do X, Y or Z. So I just want to make sure before I accept responsibility I can do something about it.

Chair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:27:30 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Hartman and supervisors so this is an area that we've talked about before where the sheriff directs the operation of the jail, the board controls the budget And I'm thinking that maybe Supervisor Wolf's concern could be addressed by adding at the end of that second sentence comma before general services can make further recommendations to the Board of Supervisors.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:27:51 · ≈ 3:27 PM

That would be fine.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:27:55 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:27:57 · ≈ 3:27 PM

thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:27:58 · ≈ 3:27 PM

Was there anything else Supervisor Wolf? No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:28:03 · ≈ 3:28 PM

So finding number four, funding availability for main jail repair replacement and repurposing will be problematic based on the current budget forecast. The board agrees with this finding. Recommendation four... I have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:28:23 · ≈ 3:28 PM

a question yes sorry I know there are certain responses that we have to that we are allowed to make but. Aren't we seems to kind of beg the question why are we going through all this if if we're not looking toward opportunities to repurpose repair the jail. I know that was part of what we were looking at down the road with our you know possibilities of looking up a bond issuance.

Are we not talking about that anymore?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed6:28:59 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Supervisor Wolf I think that's answered in the next recommendation to some degree. So the next one is recommendation four. So

6:29 – 6:3613 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed6:29:11 · ≈ 3:29 PM

perhaps I just go on and then we will see if we answer your question? That would be great. Okay so recommendation number four is that the Board of Supervisors identify alternative funding sources for the main jail repair, replacement and repurposing The recommendation will be implemented. But once the implementation plan that we're working on with full estimates is known, the county will identify possible funding sources for high priority needs in the context of other capital and operating priorities. These funding sources may include those identified by the grand jury.

The identification of funding sources for priority capital and maintenance projects identified in the county's annual CIP process is incorporated in the budget development each year. In light of the county's current fiscal outlook, the ability to address the identified capital investment needed to repair replace and repurpose the main jail needs to be balanced With the need to maintain critical public services. So I think we're going to look at it in its totality along with other capital projects that have been identified.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:30:26 · ≈ 3:30 PM

So why wouldn't you say that the board partially disagrees because your next one. You're you do say these are the things yes it's problematic however we have all of these ideas in place. That's why I don't know maybe just finessing it but I guess it's OK. Or to say you know reference recommendation number four because that is pretty extensive. So to agree that it's problematic well how can it be that problematic if we have a plan?

CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed6:31:16 · ≈ 3:31 PM

So I understand what Supervisor Wolf is saying and I think that's actually how the grand jury worded it. They said it was problematic but then they said the county should identify sources so we're saying yes, it is problematic and yes, we will identify sources. I don't know if there's much more we can add to that. The board for finding four the board agrees with the findings see below on potential sources we're looking at. Can we do that? Okay so we'll add finding for the board agrees with the finding semi colon recommendation for addresses of the identification alternative funding sources.

That sounds perfect. Supervisor Atom.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:31:54 · ≈ 3:31 PM

You know I just love the last sentence in that recommendation for answer. It's like it's in light of the county's current fiscal constraints, the ability to address the identified capital investment needed repair replace or repurpose the Santa Maria main jail must be balanced with the need to maintain critical public services you know it's like a rhetorical comment.

You know we know we can't address these things. And this is a result, this is a direct result of running this county and failing to maintain this place for the last 40 years it's not this board or any particular boards problem. It's just it's all of our problem and it's a chronic failure to maintain the place and it threatens the very existence of the organization

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:32:49 · ≈ 3:32 PM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:32:51 · ≈ 3:32 PM

I guess my comments are coming from a similar viewpoint that I guess for purposes of future grand juries just in case anybody's listening to us today, I would say that recommendation four is kind of just saying come up with more money And you know what that's super not helpful. That's about the most unhelpful recommendation come up with more money. We either need to figure out ways to save some money and squirrel away stuff or they should be making more concrete suggestions for funding sources.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:33:36 · ≈ 3:33 PM

Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:33:37 · ≈ 3:33 PM

Well I don't you know it would be great if we could turn the Wayback Machine on and kind of travel backwards through time and just do a better job for 40 years managing the place but you can't, and so you know I have said this before and the eyes all rolled or many of the eyes rolled and you may get ready to roll your eyes now if you'd like but you know this is we are in a fiscal emergency We need to really, next year's budget is going to be a bloodbath and it needs to be a bloodbath. And we need to really buckle down and reprioritize and we're going to have to go after revenue And you know we just did something that didn't make it impossible to create a subdivision map. I mean that's one of the components of getting revenue in but there are other components of revenue and we absolutely have to go after revenue In a big way.

We've been shunning this stuff and you know these things that we were talking about this morning, we have to stop threatening agriculture. We got to stop threatening other kinds of businesses in this county and turn on the revenue Because we have to have it. And if we're not going to fail as an organization in a catastrophic way at some point, we're going to have to reprioritize and really get serious about maintenance in a big way. And that's going to cut into the social programs. There is no place else to get it.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:35:30 · ≈ 3:35 PM

Supervisor Wolk? I was just wondering if there are public speakers.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:35:37 · ≈ 3:35 PM

No requests.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:35:40 · ≈ 3:35 PM

So we bring it back to the board. Were there any other comments? May I have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:35:45 · ≈ 3:35 PM

a motion? Madam Chair, I'll make a motion that we accept staff's recommendation with the exception of adding the response that Mr. Gazzone suggested on recommendation 5B and then on finding 4 that we accept Ms. Miyasato's recommended change. I may have a second

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:36:11 · ≈ 3:36 PM

and all in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes so we adjourn today's meeting and meet next on Tuesday July 25th in the Santa Barbara hearing room

6:37 – 6:371 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:37:41 · ≈ 3:37 PM

Okay.