UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:042 turns
¶. ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ ¶.
¶¶ ¶ Good morning welcome. We're reconvening after our August recess for this August 22nd 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara hearing room would you call the roll Mr. Allen?
0:04 – 0:1214 turns
Ms. Wolfe, Mr. Adam, Mr Lavinino, Mr Williams, Ms Hartman.
And turning to the minutes, may I have a motion to approve the minutes of July 25th 2017? All in favor say aye. Aye. The minutes are approved turning to our CEO's report Ms. Miyasato.
Good morning supervisors so I to top off the beginning of our day and our return back from the break I'm pleased to welcome introduce our new public health director Dr. Von Do Reynoso and she as you know she Has managed county behavioral health and human service programs since 2004. Most recently as Madera County's Public Health Director for the past seven years, and even during her interim time there she also served as an Interim Director of their Behavioral Health Department for one year.
Sounds familiar to us. Vaughn is deeply committed to public health, public service and collaboration. She has extensive experience working at the state level and serves on the California Medical Services Program and the California Health Executives Association of California Executive Committees. She's one of the founding members and served as the chair The San Joaquin Valley Public Health Consortium, which engages public health leaders in strategic planning to improve the quality and responsiveness of pressing public health issues faced by the region. She is eager and well prepared to lead our community in achieving its public health goals with her extensive experience, go-getter attitude, and her collaborative style.
So before I ask Vaughn to come up and say a few words, I also want to take the opportunity to recognize and thank Carrie Topliff for her work and leadership over the past seven months. As you know, Carrie has been filling in as our interim director in public health following the departure of Dr. Wada in December. We are very appreciative of her efforts to improve processes and forge critical community relationships in her tenure there And Kerry now returns to her role as the director of the county's child support services. You'll be hearing more from Kerry later today, there's an item on D2 and Joni Baden who also stepped up and was the acting Child Support Services Director during this time as well. So for now I'd like to introduce Dr. Del Reynoso
Thank you CEO Miyasato, good morning Chairman and members of the board. It is an honor and a privilege for me to be here in Santa Barbara County so it's been a whirlwind of meets and greets these past three weeks but I have made a conclusion that In all my career of being in multiple counties, multiple settings Santa Barbara County is the best one yet. So I've been meeting with department staff, county departments as well as external community partners and really have come to the conclusion that We have the resources. We have the partnerships and we have the will, the commitment to work together to make even greater strides in our community. So with that thank you for your confidence and I am super excited to start my work. Thank you.
Thank you and
welcome.
And I believe Dr. Russell you had something to say about United Way was that correct?
So good morning Supervisors. I'm here to announce the charitable giving campaign. I am, hi Steve, I am the chair this year and Chief Peterson is the vice-chair we'll be working together it runs from September 5th to October 13th. It's an opportunity for people to give to their community, it's amazing what this campaign achieves. You'll see a lot of the Santa Barbara United Way of Santa Barbara but this campaign you can give to whatever charitable organization You want, you can give where you live.
It's really a wide open opportunity to contribute to your community. We annually raise over $200,000 for the community non-profits throughout the county. These are invested in the community of all sorts of educational financial health and veterans programs that truly make our communities stronger and a much better place to live. The goal this year we want to celebrate County employees who give their time And their funds to the community. We want to provide opportunities for employees to volunteer.
Our goal is to raise at least $204,000 from employee donations this year and I would like now to introduce Steve Ortiz President and CEO of United Way of Santa Barbara County.
Thank you.
And a new member of the first five board right?
I am, as of yesterday. Good morning and thank you for having me here today and Glenn we just want to say thank you for the support the county has had for our community. You know the county along with the many employees who participate raise critical funds needed for many programs in Santa Barbara County Without the support of the county and county employees, a lot of what we do would not be possible.
The greatest thing for you to know is that the county has been the top campaign for this county for 30 plus years. So it's not just an insignificant amount for community programs, it's actually the cornerstone of what we do in Santa Barbara County. But not only is it financial, a lot of your employees actually volunteer for our work as well. Just this past summer, couple weeks ago many of your employees volunteered for Fund the Sun helping children in their academics over the summer. We even had the county fire department out at Santa Ynez during the fires taking some time off volunteering with the students and that was a big piece for those students being able to participate with them. So overall I just want to say thank you again for your support and thank you for allowing us to do this every year.
Thank you and this kicks off September 5.
September 5 and there will be more coming information on the intranet for employees to see so this is just sort of a beginning kickoff.
Thank you. So turning next then to our administrative agenda we have two honorary resolutions to be presented today, A40 and A41 may I have a motion to approve? And a second. All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Would you read A40 into the record?
0:12 – 0:154 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board item A40 sponsored by Supervisor Hartman this is a resolution of commendation honoring Pam Niekau for her service initiative and tireless dedication to the saying as Valley senior citizens and if Pam could come on up to the podium right now that'd be great I will read the resolution into the record All right, whereas Pam Neacow through her work as director of the Pulton Senior Center has provided crucial and caring nutrition and social services for seniors in the San Ynez Valley.
And whereas during nine years, Pam has worked tirelessly to ensure that no resident of the San Ynez Valley goes hungry by providing a free farmer's market, free monthly community dinners, weekday lunches at the center, 1900 meals on wheels a year, and a free brown bag breakfast program for homebound seniors. And whereas the Buellton Senior Center also provides medical referrals, home repairs, assistant locating housing and spiritual support for homebound seniors. And whereas PAM in collaboration with the Presbyterian Church has provided housing assistance and covered medical legal and other costs to seniors in crisis. And whereas PAM is recognized by the Food Bank of Santa Barbara County, the San Ynez Valley Foundation, Meals on Wheels, the City of Buellton and the San Ynez Valley Elks for her work supporting seniors in the valley.
Now therefore it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors honors and commends Pam Niekow for her service, initiative, and tireless dedication to our community. Pass it adopted today.
I would just like to take this opportunity to say a few words because Pam is from my hometown of Buellton and she is a treasure in our community. She is a chef and the seniors and the school children, many people gather around the senior center where she works and through food has created a tremendous sense of community and thank you for all that you do for Buellton and the county.
Thank
you, Chair Hartman for this award. Thank you for the Board of Supervisors. I just want to say this is a wonderful award but these awards don't come because somebody does it. It's a lot of volunteers, it's a wonderful staff. It's all of the organizations that keep grants and the Board of Supervisors promoting those grants, and all of our community efforts. And the people who give and just love our seniors and keep taking care of them and letting us do what we do. We so appreciate it. Thank you for this honor.
I just can't, I have to add it does take everyone but it takes a magnet and that's what you've been. Turning to A41
0:15 – 0:196 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item 841 also sponsored this morning by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Angela Villalobos from the Planning and Development Department as the county's August 2017 Employee of the Month. If Angela would come on up and Dr. Russell as well and I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas, Angela Villalobos began her career with Planning and Development in 2003 as an office assistant. And due to her strong work ethic and conscientious nature she was promoted to Building Permit Technician 1 and subsequently to Building Permit Technician 2. And whereas Angela is an International Code Council certified building permit technician who also holds an accounting degree she brings an ideal combination of education and skill to implement the building codes and policies to protect the health safety and welfare of our communities And whereas Angela's a team player who goes out of her way to be helpful and provide excellent customer service to our colleagues and customers alike.
And whereas Angela is truly committed to assist customers through the sometimes complex permitting requirements, and patiently works with customers to help them navigate through the process to ensure their projects are successfully processed and ready for permit issuance. And whereas Angela is a positive force that brightens the atmosphere in the Santa Maria Permit Center with her cheerful attitude and dedication to improving the way things are done.
Now there is hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Angela Villalobos as our Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for August 2017.
So it's really a pleasure to present Angela with the Employee of the Month Award. Actually, this only comes around once every two years so for us she's employee of the year actually employee of two years! So it's an honor. She mentioned we already heard about her strong work ethic. She works in our Santa Maria Permit Center and what she does is she takes some permits I'm going to She takes the responsibility to the next level, and she works until the job is done. And that even means coming in on a Saturday sometimes in order to get things done. So I'm told she likes to cook. She takes care of her family members, has a lot of responsibility there, and loves the holiday decorations which we do in our office up there. So all-in-all, she's a great employee and a great person, and we're lucky to have her doing the important activity of managing the intake and issuance of building permits.
Congratulations Angela! You deserve it.
Like what Pam said is that. You know my job I'm just one person if I didn't have such a great team to work with, I wouldn't be able to do what they do so you know the whole department in my opinion deserves this thank you.
So we're turning now to the rest of our administrative agenda and no supervisor has informed me that he or she wants to pull any item. Do we have any public speaker slips to pull in any items?
No requests to speak on the administrative agenda.
Okay may I have a motion, oh we are withdrawing one item 821.
0:19 – 0:2610 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Yes we're going to honor the request by the Public Works Department that we withdraw item A-21 from the agenda this morning. This is regarding agreement for services of independent contractor with Imperial Electric. We did post an addendum also with corrected a Board of Supervisors appointment from Supervisor Adam on Item A-36. That's an appointment to the Arts Commission and not the Commission for Women And those are my only announcements on the administrative agenda.
Okay thank you, may I have a motion to approve the administrative agenda excluding item A21? So moved. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The administrative agenda stands approved. Now is the time for the public to comment on any item that is not on today's agenda.
Chair Hartman, members of the board we have two requests to speak this morning on public comment. We're going to start with Peter Marin. Peter come on up and then Barbara Close.
I was here a few weeks ago you may remember in drawing your attention to the fact that the jail ride program for mysterious reasons had six months ago ceased to exist In any case, it apparently began when the cab company that was providing rides from the jail went out of existence. And then apparently the jail could not find a substitute cab company and then six months passed we learned what had happened After I spoke to you, I went home. It took me two days and six phone calls to find two cab companies willing to take over the ride program.
This raises a lot of questions about What the jailers were doing, what they didn't do. I've been cautioned not to introduce acrimony into these proceedings so I won't but it's quite clear that up at the jail something went wrong or there weren't people there interested enough in the continuation of this program to proceed to find a solution to the problem Now as I say, I have my own ideas about what happened or didn't and I won't go into those. And things are now back on track to find a solution. DAS's office has been terrific especially his associate Cameron.
who's communicated with me and then translated this for the jail and kept after the jail to proceed with what's going on. Along the way we've hit several glitches, the jail said they couldn't do this couldn't do that again it fell to me to make a few phone calls in a day we could clear up all those difficulties. We're now on track to get this settled but Here's the problem from my point of view.
When all of this began, we came to the supervisors and said we can't raise money for this anymore. We can't handle it. I want to stop doing what I'm doing. You guys accepted responsibility for the program and then passed it on to the sheriff who was, I think somewhat reluctant to take it on but it became the jail's responsibility run this program but there was no oversight There was no way for anybody to check up on how the program was going or to see if the jailers were doing what they said they were doing.
When all of this happened six months ago there were two or three people associated with a program that were very disturbed that it had come to its end But apparently they couldn't think of where to come to raise a red flag or to make a complaint. It's quite possible, if DASA's office wants to take this over for them to become responsible for making sure the jailers are doing what they say they're doing.
But I think there's another solution, and that is C3H and Chuck Flax. I've talked to Chuck about this. He's a terrific guy. His organization was tasked with many things when it was first formed. Many of those tasks have sort of disappeared. I think it wouldn't be difficult to ask him and his group To just be fundamentally responsible for making sure these program go well and also to be there where if anything goes wrong for the jailers to go and say we can't fix this. Can you help us fix it?
But there has to be some second level of supervision here. My experience with the jail is some of them are terrific, and when you have a problem they solved it instantly. There's guy up there named Laz Salinas who was wonderful. I'm watching him. In any case, you're over time. Right okay so I'll go back to my solution one problem is we only get three minutes there I have an appointment with DAS in a month but it's very difficult to find a way to make these issues clear and to figure out a way to solve them thank you.
Thank you and I'd love to meet with you too
I'll
Barbara close
a lot. Just wanted to add to it that there is based on some of the leads that Mr. Marin gave us we contacted the owners of the cab company they provided us with an application Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think that's a good spot would be. I also want to tell you something that also went right between the when this was started and what it what it is now- thanks to efforts made by the sheriff and with encouragement from supervisor Wolf they have reduced the number of releases that happen late at night This is less of a problem from that perspective than it used to be.
But we that doesn't mean we don't still need the rides program for late night releases and we really appreciate Mr. Marin's vigilance on this and in helping us locate a vendor.
Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you madam chair and I just want to thank you Mister mayor for bringing this to our attention because after reading the article I saw in the newspaper. If you hadn't come to public comment, I don't think we would ever found out about this.
0:26 – 0:292 turns
Good morning, my name is Barbara Close and I'm from the Eastern Goleta Valley. And I decided to drop in this morning after I attended the City of Goleta's first public meeting on cannabis last night. I went because I was curious as to how they were going to involve the public. The workshop was to hear from the community about how they feel about all aspects of marijuana. It was a dialogue format that engaged the public. There were no speaker slips, people raised their hand and were given a microphone if they wanted to speak and questions were addressed openly on the spot by the two moderators and it truly felt like a town hall meeting.
In contrast I want to speak about how the county has disregarded and basically eliminated some of the public process. I believe the planning commissioners and the three supervisors are getting a very wrong impression about what the county is doing to include the public. It is being reported that there have been two town hall standing room only meetings. I attended the one meeting held in Santa Barbara which was really not actually a public hearing but it was a cannabis registry meeting.
It was only about the registry and we were told that no questions would be answered. So it was no surprise that it was 98% cannabis advocates because the general public was not noticed about the meeting. If this is what the county is calling a public meeting, then it's very insufficient. The second meeting, the scoping meeting fulfilled the county's requirement but it was really a waste of time which I will address later in written comment. The county has been working on cannabis regulations and ordinances for six months with an EIR about to be initiated. And there has been zero communication that has gone out to the residents of the unincorporated area.
Everyone on every email list should have received some notification about this project, and I'm wondering who made the decision not to notice us? I and many others have put in countless months and years working on land use issues in our community plan. Now when land use is a huge issue with significant impacts to our communities, we are completely left out of the conversation and marginalized because it's not efficient to include us.
The ad hoc committee has been private and there are no minutes and no way to know what is being discussed or who's saying what. There's no transparency, accountability or integrity in the process in my opinion. We have never done land use this way. This breeds a huge level of suspicion and mistrust among the citizens. Going forward I ask that the committee meetings be held in public or the committee is disbanded and the remainder of the process include all the supervisors. I feel that it's very important for all of you to hear exactly what is being talked about, who is being asked questions and to hear with your own ears and see with your own eyes what is being said because it is very different than just Seeing a PowerPoint report on that.
So this is something that we're going to be permanently impacted by and I just ask that you would take action on this. Thank you.
Okay we are turning to our departmental agenda and I just for anybody who is watching, we have an eight item agenda. The eighth item is Goleta Beach there will be a lot of interest in that item. We are unlikely to get to that until after our closed session probably 130 or 2 this afternoon And when people do comment those who put a one minute in their left-hand column on their speaker slip will be given preference at the front of the line.
So would you read number 1 into the record please Mr.
0:29 – 0:4220 turns
Allen? Chair Hartman, members of the board item number one is from planning and development this is to consider recommendations regarding the Olson Trust appeal of the Montecito Planning Commission's April 18, Teen Conditional De Novo Design Review Approval of the Olstein Trust Single-Family Dwelling Demo Rebuild New Detached Garage, Cabana and Pool. There's a request that this item be continued to our meeting on October 17th 2017 and I do have one request to speak on this item from Ms. Petrovich
Thank you Madam Chair, members of the board. I'm here representing two of the appellants Tom Sturgis and Mike Hare on behalf of the Olive Mill Trust and I have been authorized to consent to the continuation of this hearing I talked to Mr. Weston when I first heard about the proposal to continue it, and at that time he said he posed the date but the fact that he's not here indicates to me that I guess he's reconciled himself that October is the time for this hearing so thank you we do ask that you continue it.
So that closes the public comment on this item and may I have a motion to continue to October 17, 2017? I will move this item. And a second?
Second.
All in favor say aye.
Aye.
None opposed, motion passes. Item number two Mr. Allen.
Chair Hartman members of the board item two some child support services this is a hearing to receive and file a presentation from Child Support regarding the Child Support Awareness Month.
Ms. Topliff
Good morning, Chair Hartman. I'm very happy to be here to discuss child support with you. As you know we celebrate August as Child Support Awareness Month and like you I've had a lot of catching up to do since I've been away for awhile so I did want to acknowledge Joni Maiden who's been The other member of the executive team at Child Support, the entire 11 years that I've been there. So she and I have had a great partnership and she's done an absolutely outstanding job while I've been away. And I think that the kind of partnership we have at the top really has permeated the whole department And a lot of things that we accomplished, we could not do without teams. Also in the back of the room are a substantial portion of our management team, our supervising attorney Kelly McLaughlin, Maria Aguilar and our business manager Meta Richardson.
So I appreciate being back to all these wonderful people who are doing such great work in child support. As usual, we're trying to increase our efficiencies all the time. We have some changes with the courts this year. We have a brand new family court commissioner, Vaughn DeRoyan. She follows in a long line of commissioners who really pay attention to the very complex rules of our program and try and make decisions that are both pragmatic and heartfelt.
Recently, Denise Motter retired. Colleen Stern was a former commissioner and James Iwasco for a long time. This year we have started doing electronic filing with the courts and were thrilled about that. Although we're not too far distant from them, we have spent a lot of time printing documents, schlepping them over to the court waiting for them to be processed by the court Going back, getting the documents and then scanning them and getting them into our system. And that's all done electronically now so we've really saved a lot of time with that. We're very excited about it.
Additionally, we have gotten out of the cash handling business after all these decades Through contracts with Pay Near Me and MoneyGram, and now with cash kiosks in our offices customers can actually make their cash payments without having to interact with our staff. Even though I would have thought that nobody would prefer a stainless steel slot in a machine to a warm and friendly interaction with the child support staff, our customers have taken to it. Our total cash collections are up almost 40%, and we have totally gotten away from The contracts for the armored trucks, all the interactions with the auditor controller's office and then the cash actually gets to the customers a lot faster too. So we feel like that has been a super improvement during this time period.
Additionally, we are now doing lean filing with the clerk recorder assessor electronically. That's saving us a lot of time. We have a new online application for the 75 new customers a month who open cases with us and the way that helps us is that a lot of the information and data about their case goes directly into our electronic system and we don't have duplicate data entry.
We gave up some office space in Santa Maria to save us $3,000 a month and we're very pleased about that. In addition to all these efficiencies I just want you to know that we really do pay a lot of attention to our customers and their needs. We are advertising our compromise of arrears program now it's a way for I would like to begin by thanking the Board of Supervisors for this opportunity.
received during the period that they were not receiving child support. Well over half of our customers formerly received cash aid and thanks to the improvement in their financial conditions partially assisted by the regular collection of child support no longer need cash aid so this is a very good outcome from our program and the fact that we can also help Some of those people get out from some of those debilitating arrears through the Compromise of Arrears program makes us very proud.
We do have a lot of very difficult cases that we manage just recently homeless veteran who was selling blood plasma to make a $15 a month payment luckily he was able to get Thank you very much. Thank you. We also work with people who are in danger of losing their driver's licenses because they're delinquent in their child support. And we've been able to come up with payment plans for them so that they can keep those driver's licenses and they can keep their ability to earn a living.
We did quite a bit of outreach to employers this year to help them be more efficient in their management of the program, because a good two-thirds of the collections that we get do come through wage assignments. And a lot of those employers are also very committed to making sure that money gets to the families in a timely way. We had a very large collection during this time, something that we're seeing these days.
Inheritance that we collected on the children were long grown and emancipated but there was quite a considerable past due balance and from paying off that past due balance with the inheritance The mom was able to give each of her children sufficient funds for a down payment on a home. So these are all things that our staff participate in day after day, they are tender hearted problem solvers but they're also hard nose debt collectors and we're very proud of them for honoring Child Support Awareness Month They did a backpack drive and we got a bunch of school supplies that we donated to the families at the Good Samaritan homeless shelter in Santa Maria.
So we're keeping up the good work and we thank you for this time to tell you about it.
Thank you Ms. Topliff do any board members have any questions or comments? I
knew that. Supervisor Wolf. Thank you, thank you Madam Chair. Well first of all Carrie I just want to thank you for stepping up and helping the county as the interim public health director. As always you are just so committed to this county and you have an incredible work ethic. So thank you for that.
And can I tell you one thing about that too? Sure. As I left public health, I recruited my sister who is a nurse to go work at public health and yesterday was her first day. Oh
excellent!
An auspicious day. That's great. And I also want to thank you. You know it's kind of this small but mighty department that we don't really hear too much about except maybe during budget. I think what we had started was an opportunity to have a conversation with you in our district offices, which I've always appreciated. But I really do think that this is important for the public to know that the county has a service and you know I was struck by the report where it says That you have served almost 13000 families in this program and last year alone distributed twenty three million dollars to families in Santa Barbara County. I mean that's just remarkable. So again a small and mighty department that's really doing excellent work so thank you thanks to you and to your staff and to those who are still back in their offices doing the work.
Thank you. Thank you.
Supervisor Williams.
Just on a behalf of. I guess I grew up, I grew up with a single mom and we needed child support and so I very much understand the vital function that your staff performs and so I want to give them personal encouragement on behalf of folks who grew up like me and also I appreciate the kind of metrics that you outline. And I think it would be useful for the board if you can ever give us some of the numbers on that because that is just wonderful To hear the I think you said the 40% that came off cash assistance. That's a mind blowing number and I think should really be celebrated when that number of folks in our community thanks to your work and the parents' work are able to get off welfare, that is a great sign of progress And should be celebrated.
So those kind of metrics I think please give them to us and we don't have to wait once a year to get those. That's that's a wonderful metric to have in our budget documents as well. Thanks so much.
Thank you. Thank you. May I have may I have a motion to receive and file the report? So moved. And a second?
Second.
Any further discussion? Supervisor Wolk. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you Ms. Toplin. Turning to item number three would you read that into the agenda Mr. Allen.
0:42 – 0:583 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Item 3 is from the auditor controller and the county executive office it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding fiscal year 2016-17 financial status report.
Mr. Frapwell, will you start off or Mr. Filotti? Okay.
Good morning members of the board. Theo Filotti, Auditor-Controller and with me Jeff Frapwell, the Budget Director. I'm here to present to you the results of operations for fiscal year 16-17 our annual financial status report Items that we'll cover today, economic indicators, a review of the governmental funds and then also the general fund itself and then other major and non-major funds. And then some conclusions.
So overall theme for this last year was temperate growth. Basically the economy was referred to as boring and as a plow horse economy so there were not wild swings with stock market ups and downs it was pretty steady, it was just pretty much small and steady growth. And this kind of growth is necessary for us to fulfill the commitments of the board Unemployment rate continues to decline.
Also, the real estate market has remained positive and then there's a continued overall improvement in our discretionary revenues with property tax that last year increased by 4 1⁄2 percent. The sales tax, local sales tax increased by 20% and the transient occupancy tax improved by 11%. Now those numbers are inflated as a result of I'd like And then additionally the sales tax as a result of the triple flip being reversed back in the recession. The state had borrowed, had issued some economic recovery bonds and they diverted a quarter percent of the 1% sales tax to repay those bonds. Those bonds have been repaid and then the one percent has now been restored. And so that's the reason for the large increases The actual year-over-year increases are more in the four to four and a half percent range for those two sources of revenue.
In our governmental funds here we I'll leave this slide up basically what it shows is Across the top we have our general fund and then our major special revenue funds here, and then all our other funds. So these are the governmental funds pretty much all rolled up together. And then what you can see here is that total for the current year, the revenues grew 4.3% and they were $889 million above the $852 from the prior year.
And our expenditures grew 4.7% to 866 or $867 million. Then the revenue and the source of this revenue sources. It over that in the uses for all of the governmental funds increased by about 22 million dollars And the next slide, we can refer back to this in the future or as we go through it but the next slide basically goes over the information I just provided and then really some of the salary and benefit costs which are with salaries and benefits being 61% of our total expenditures.
The increase was 17 million or 3.4%. And the components of that really the regular salary increased by 6.7% 6. 7 million or 2.2% overall and then overtime regular overtime grew by 4.6 million or 21.5%. And that's mainly in the sheriff and fire departments health insurance costs increase $4.2 million and you don't see pension up here is a large increase because in this last fiscal year, the rate was actually pretty flat we're going to see the increases So in the general fund, the revenues and these numbers are also back on that prior slide too.
General fund revenues were $396 million, expenditures $344 million and then we had other financing sources and uses and these are mainly uses of $54 million. These are mainly the general fund contribution and transfers to other funds from the general fund. And so then you can see we had a net decrease of $2 million in the total fund balance of the general fund down to 113 million from 115 million.
And the changes in the components of fund balance in the general fund. You can see that our non-spendable fund balance went up 1.4 million dollars, that was mainly due to impounding some property tax appeal impounds so we pulled those aside and those are set up as a receivable and non-spendable. Our restricted fund balance went up $4 million and the majority of that is a result of a $12 million increase in the realignment, local realignment offset by some other releases. But there was a net increase in that component of fund balance and those are restricted funds.
Then we also have a reduction of seven and half million in our committed funds. Majority of that came from a transfer from the general fund to the northern branch jail construction fund, and then also transfers to the mental health funds or the be well funds. You can see our unassigned was down .3 million dollars and then our residual fund balance. Was also was up .3 million dollars you can see that in the current year it is 7 million dollars and then in the prior year 6.7 million dollars so that leaves a 2 million dollar net reduction In the general fund itself, this shows by department here. Department down the side and then their annual variance here and you can see in total that there was a $7 million positive variance for all the general fund departments combined.
And if you make a note of this 7 million dollars is about 1% of the 680 million dollar total appropriations budget so ended up to be very close within 1%. Generally the increases are due to increases in the general revenues and we'll go into those a bit later. And then the remainder is mostly savings in individual departments, and I think what we see here is the department's sort of mid-year knowing what kind of economic issues we're going to face in the future probably started to begin their cost cutting and saving measures, and that would be the reason for some of the ending balances that we have.
I will go into some specifics in general revenues there was a four point two million dollar increase in general revenues and two point two million of it was in the property tax area. And of that one point one was from secured escapes and these are property tax bills that had been issued as a result of either assessment appeals being settled. And we also had a reduction in our backlog We were able to reduce the backlog tremendously during the year. Additionally, then the TOT increased about $600,000 and then one of the big things was 1.4 million dollars in delinquent property tax penalties And basically that this has occurred as a result of when we have a good economy. Many of the prior delinquent penalties and property taxes get paid off, and then we see those increase during the recessionary time so as we have better times than we get the collection of delinquent property taxes and then also the penalties that are associated with those delinquent property taxes.
In the general County programs. $1.4 million positive variance and it was resulting from a little bit of revenue, a little bit of expenditure savings and then about 700,000 was not transferred to the be well Department and I think that was a it was a result of the Laurel's law would have been budgeted transfer and then it wasn't necessary during the fiscal year.
And the other controllers department basically had six hundred seven hundred twenty three thousand dollars in savings mostly due to unfilled positions. And county council had some increase in charges for service revenues and then also unfilled positions and salary savings In general services that in a positive and we're reviewing the variances over 500,000 basically here.
They had a $586,000 due to increases they had some positive miscellaneous revenue and charges for services for the work that they do. And then They also had some salary savings, $141,000. So $370,000 of salary savings and then that's offset by they had budgeted to draw down fund balance and they didn't need to draw down $408,000 of fund balance and that's a net of $586,000 In the clerk recorder assessor they ended with $515,000 positive variance due to salaries significant savings in services supplies and salaries and benefits. And this figure is after the set aside that was discussed at the last board meeting in June.
The sheriff had a negative net financial variance of 2.2 million dollars and basically that results of shortfall in revenue and then 1.3 million dollar appropriation increase for mostly for food, jail medical services and pharmaceutical costs and that was covered by a budgeted release of unassigned fund balance In our other funds, some of our major funds are road operations and capital maintenance had a $700,000 increase in fund balance with expenditures of $31 million. And the increase was basically revenues collected in year which will most likely be spent on projects in subsequent years.
In behavioral wellness, there was a $1.2 million increase and that was the combined three funds from behavioral wellness. They have their alcohol drug and mental health alcohol drug program fund also have their MHSA fund and then their regular behavioral wellness fund so this increase was in the more restricted of funds of alcohol drug and the MHSA where The regular be well fund basically broke even as a result of the transfers from the general plan that were necessary.
And affordable housing there was a half an hour increase in fund balance and that's current year revenue for few that will probably be spent on future projects. In the fire protection district, we had $7.4 million increase in fund balance with expenditures of $68 million and that's mostly a reimbursement from fire incidents and then the state contract. And then they also had some salary savings.
Capital projects had $11.1 million increase with mainly that being general fund transfers to the Northern Branch Jail Project Fund. IHSS had a reduction of half a million dollars and that was a planned use of fund balance during the fiscal year. Workers comp fund had a 2.3 million dollar increase and that's as a result of mainly of closing the older tail claims that we are continuing to try to work down and therefore that reduced the liability and increased the bottom line fund balance in vehicle ops there was a two million dollar increase and that was mostly from savings on the budgeted fuel costs so they spent about it was about half of the budgeted fuel cost So generally in conclusions we are full time equivalent employees average full-time equivalent employees increased by 34, 17 and community resources and public facilities 15 in public safety and 4 in general government support.
And then one in both policy executive and health and public assistance. Moody's upgraded the county's 2008 certificates of deposit from AA2 to AA3. And then continuing the general fund shift of property taxes to the fire district, the fire percentage ended at 16.03 of the 17% target and it's anticipated that that 17% target will be reached in the 19-20 fiscal year.
County continue make its contribution to the strategic reserve of 1.1 million dollars last year and the general fund had a good cash position it it produced one point 6% 89 million but again this year we have a sick sufficient cash position to not have to issue tax revenue anticipation note or a cash flow borrowing note as we've done in the past In our fund balances, basically $21.6 million increases across all the governmental funds, 23 million in the special revenue funds and then 2 million decrease in the general fund for the net at 21.
The general fund unassigned balance of 0.7 million and then the residual fund balance of 7 million gives us basically an unassigned fund balance of 7.7 that's how we ended. Strategic reserve was at 30.9 million and the new jail operations fund at $7.9 million. Looking forward a little bit we have Northern Branch Jail and Construction and Operations to deal with the Tejiguas Resource Recovery Project for financing and construction and operations.
Our pension costs with the assumed rate of 7% are increasing over the next five years. The SB CSRS portfolio did return 10.5 last year And then we have temperate growth in the discretionary revenues and basically we expect more of the same going into the future. With that it's end of my presentation if there are questions happy to entertain them.
0:58 – 1:055 turns
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, I have a couple questions. So what you said Mr. Filati is that we have $7 million in unassigned fund balance. I think what you said is one of the reasons that the departments had greater fund balances at the end than they anticipated. Yet in the third quarter when we had our report, I think it was estimated that there would be a projected fund balance of $750,000. So it just seems to be such an incredibly large gap between the 750 at the end of the third quarter to seven million dollars essentially at the end of the year so how would you explain that?
If you were to take a look at the $750,000 that was projected at the end of the third quarter. Those were each department's their projections and their best guess of how they would end. And so individually you will see differences between the departments And I would say that most of those departments with those variances they would need to you know basically reconcile that themselves. You can see that 4.2 million of that difference, that 7 million dollars is in the general revenues and you know those were items that came in very much at the end of the year When the final distributions of property taxes happened and so 2.2 million of that was property taxes and then 1.1 million of that was the delinquent penalties and interest which get distributed out of the special funds that they're in really right at the end
Okay well thank you for that. So I guess to CEO Miyasato and Mr. Frapp, while this just continues to be an issue when the board getting the best estimate of our revenues or expenditures when we are doing our budget And I understand that there is a bit of wiggle room but to have was it 4.5 million additional revenue and then an additional close to $3 million in fund balance We need to get better numbers next year when we're doing our budget.
You know we were trying to get those numbers from Mr. Holland but it seems like maybe it's more endemic to the county as a whole, to get us better numbers so it's just such a huge difference and I'm not saying that we're going to be here and spend that money Well you know the thing is that we made a lot of cuts this last year and departments took some hits and it would have just been better as a decision maker to have had the best information that we could get.
So to the extent that we could get that better information next year I think it would be very helpful. I also wanted to ask about, this is on your chart or page 11 oh there it is. You talked about the sheriff and so they are and I see under Sheriff Malek in here. So you so just so I understand this, so we we completed our budget the end of the year comes. We provided additional funds they made cuts Although that would be for this coming year But why is it then still that there are that they were two million dollars in the hole at? The end of the fiscal year
We're going to be talking a little bit about that. At the end of the year they required an additional 1.3 million dollars of appropriation to be able to cover all of the expenditures that they incurred and as we said most of those were in jail operations costs with medical pharmaceutical food and so a budget revision was prepared and approved by the board We're going to be looking at shortfalls in the sheriff's budget.
But the actual transfer of the money was not done to the between the 9.90 department and or the release of the fund balance component to the sheriff so that makes up the shortfall basically $800,000 a shortfall in revenue and then 1.3 million dollars of additional appropriation required. And so if as a result then that 1.3 was not released from unassigned fund balance but it was made it was netted against all of the other positives that are in that column and within the general fund. So that's how that 2.1 was covered
So just so I'm clear the 1.3 is inclusive of this 2.1 which would leave about 800,000? Yes. So how did that, we took care of the 1. 3 what was the additional $800,000 that was incurred? As, I mean you mentioned Prop 72. I'm just curious because that's a lot more than we had anticipated when we did the 990 or the transfer of funds so why was there that disconnect? Why didn't we know back then that they needed an additional $800,000?
1:05 – 1:1932 turns
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. I would probably defer to under Sheriff Mielecki on that but at the third quarter they were projected to be 1.3 million dollars, $1.4 million short and so the only thing we know it at the end they were actually short in revenue that was budgeted but didn't come in and so that contributed to the 800,000
OK and Mr. Malachian when you come forward, Mr. Filotti talked about the Prop 72 but you're not the only public safety agency that gets Prop 72 so how were your numbers off more than other public safety departments? If that was significant I don't even know what part that played in this whole $2 million.
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. The hang on just a second the prop 172 shortfall was about two hundred and fifty five thousand of the eight hundred thousand dollars. The other the other aspects of that were three hundred thousand shortfall in AB 1 0 9 funds 300000. That you didn't receive? Correct. And I don't have an explanation for exactly how that didn't happen.
I am checking on that as of yesterday and it's very possible that this has to do with improper coding of time cards related to compliance response team and I'm still trying to track that down they don't have an answer for you today for that
So in theory then the AB 109 budget should show an increase of 300000.
In theory
yes.
And then they then the final two hundred and ninety one thousand dollars was unexpended grant funds specifically in human trafficking the justice assistance grant and the Operation Stone Garden Grant. And that really just has to do with operational aspects and we simply didn't spend the money
Okay thank you for your explanation. Thank you Mr. Filati. Supervisor Williams.
The red flag that I saw in your report is the overtime amount and can you tell us what departments are experiencing that overtime? Whether those there have been directives to address that or not I mean it's one of the concerns that I would have is that as our organization shrinks. There is more incentive to do more over time and if We have more overtime because we have less staff than we don't actually save any costs so can you do you have any further detail on that.
Supervisor Williams to the chair mainly that those are in the two main public safety departments that is basically they're the ones that are having its sheriff's department and the fire. I'm sure you could explain that and on the fire. You know, we would probably need the chief to explain that.
Under sheriff you and I have talked about it before is it how it at least in your department we talked about it. And one of the reasons why I think this board prioritized your staff staffing levels particularly your patrol staffing levels to try to avoid some of the overtime can you tell us how that's going?
Supervisor Williams to the chair we as I've discussed in front of this board at each of the last quarterly or reviews. We have taken some significant steps towards overtime reductions. If you recall it the first quarter of last year, we were on track to be 10 million dollars over budget in staffing and overtime and we actually came in just under budget in our personnel costs so we felt pretty good about that. With regards to the funding that was approved by the board to mitigate lost time.
We're in the process of up staffing one of our stations to see if essentially we can eliminate overtime at that station and see what the net savings to the county is in terms of overtime versus FTEs The civilianization project continues. We anticipate basically having a series of recommendations for the sheriff's review within the next 60 to 90 days, that process is underway. We're also in negotiations with both the court and the University of California To deal with staffing costs both in the courts and at the Isla Vista foot patrol So those are just a few of the items that are underway to try to help Deal with this with this problem long term
And on the civilianization options, if the sheriff is going to see it in a couple months when would we be able to see that?
My intention is that we will sit down with the CEO's office and tell them what we are proposing and see how they want to bring that forward. Whether they want to bring that forward in advance of next year's budget process or as part of that process.
Well I appreciate it and in our conversations I've detected a sincere and concerted effort to address this issue from you and I really appreciate that.
Thank you we are as I have said to this board before, we are very committed to dealing with this budget issue within the Sheriff's Office.
Mr. Mielecki you mentioned one station where you're up staffing to see is that a pilot and can you tell us a little bit more about that?
It is a pilot, it's at Santa Maria Station. Santa Maria was selected because it is the only station that essentially has no contract cities and we're trying to get a pure measure of what the impact was going to be. We are moving four additional deputies to Santa Maria at the end of this month basically next Monday and an additional four deputies at the end of September.
I'm here to talk about the need for backfill overtime. I think it's important to note that the number of stations that are operating in the area and indirectly at central stations as a result of spillover should drop dramatically. And that if in fact that that bears bears out, I think then it will offer a way perhaps for up staffing other stations and lowering In reality it will start, be fully implemented by essentially October 1 the beginning of the second quarter.
And we'll run it really for the rest of the fiscal year but we'll see how it goes and make decisions accordingly.
Thank you. Supervisor Lavanino?
Thank you Madam Chair I don't have anything to undershare but I appreciate that information. The $7 million. So that equates to just a little over 1%. So although it's a big number relatively speaking, it's fairly close but how does that stack up historically and can we change that? Can we get closer without ever changing the property tax timeline? Because that seems like that's the that's the driver of this always is at the last minute.
And do other counties follow the same timeline that we do?
Supervisor Lavinia through the chair you can see here that that last year we ended with six point seven million dollars and so it's very close and in line. And as far as the property tax cycle it isn't necessarily I just want to make sure that we're getting all the information that we need. And so what that means is that some of the obligations forceful obligations of the other 6 redevelopment agencies.
Property tax or assessment valuation or the cycle with the exception that within our department. We were behind on distributions and then we were able to increase our collections on the backlog and a lot of that happened right at the end of the year to try to get as much in as we possibly could.
Supervisor Wolf and then supervisor Adams.
Thank you Madam Chair. Mr. Filotti for next year's budget do we have money allocated just if you could remind me in the pension stabilization fund? Supervisor
Wolf through the chair I do believe we had one point two five million dollars set aside in that fund so it is set aside and available for pension increases or other priorities that your board might have.
So we know that we're going to have a pension increase. Do you know what the amount is? What I'm trying to get at is I'm not sure where that seven million dollars is sitting right now. Would would you recommend that any part of that seven million go into pension stabilization for next year so we have a little bit more security in that fund
Supervisor Wolfe to the Chair, I think that first your question where does the $7 million reside? It resides in what they call residual fund balance. So it's not allocated to any specific set aside earmarked funds as your board currently has done as part of the adoption of the current year budget. This is something I think we can consider during any of the quarterly reviews for your board.
In the past, last year it remained in residual and was allocated out 6.7 all but 300,000 of it was allocated out midyear by your board to other priorities that came up unexpectedly. So
I just like whatever it would be good to have a recommendation from you if you think it should stay in residual. I understand that but I just wanted to throw out another option of putting it into pension stabilization. Thank
you. CEO Miyasato.
Supervisor Wolf for the chair, I appreciate that very much because we know we're going to have pension increases in any other year. I think that would be a great idea but as Mr. Frappell said last year we spent it all by midyear for unexpected costs and so my worry is that we won't really have a good handle until mid-year of what those unexpected costs might be.
Supervisor Adam?
Well if you wanted to recommend that we spend that on deferred maintenance that would be good too. Just saying. No my point was that we're really super close because if you're $300,000 off From last year, I mean you're going to have a residual anyway. That's why you have that whole line and so when you're going from 6.7 to 7.0 you know your $300,000 off which in a 1.1 billion dollar budget is nothing. So that's budget dust.
So I don't think we should act like it's seven million dollars that popped up. And you know somebody was wrong by $7 million. We were wrong infinitesimal amount at 300,000 and that was just the difference between last year and this year. I don't think you are going to come in any closer than that.
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair I think and I agree it's not that much different from last year 2016 to 2017 my point was is that when we did our budget if we were never even close to 7 million so I was just wondering how did we get to that amount which is good, I just didn't Know how that incredible jump from 350 in the third quarter went to 7 million a few months later.
1:19 – 1:2718 turns
CEO Miyasato.
Supervisors, I do want to add that I think something that Supervisor Lavagnino asked about what other counties do my experience in my former job was that it was the same process year-end doesn't come in until year end after the budget's been adopted by the board and typically that money is then is brought to the board in the fall and the board can make choices and we can certainly bring that up when we come back to you in the first quarter report to see where we are but typically the year-end funding Is used either in the next year which we've done so when we have urine savings. We haven't budgeted it. We haven't spent that. We haven't predicted what it is and then budgeted it I think the auditor wouldn't allow us to do that but we've actually held it and then for the next following year's budget we've had that available for one time expenses.
But having said that we will do our best job as we can of predicting what the urine savings will be
seeing no more lights. Do we have any public comment slips Mr. Allen?
We have one request to speak. We're going to go to Santa Maria for Mr. Caldwell.
Madam Chair, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing Colab. I thought this report was very good. We like the fact that your staff put information from how the private sector is doing As the backdrop, because that's where your money comes from. We were incredibly disturbed and I wish that this would be a point of discussion and debate on the board. There was a line in there at the beginning of the report that government overtook real estate as the largest industry in Santa Barbara County at 15% of the GDP.
I think that comment or observation merits some debate in terms of what does that mean. We also wish that every time a report like this would come to the board it would include the JAWS chart, in terms of both pensions and maintenance lest anybody get excited that county has quote unquote extra money Something I want to bring up to you, that I've had several discussions with nationally recognized experts on pensions.
And I'm kind of shocked to tell you the truth and maybe even a little bit offended that I learned this from the radio and not from the past 26 budget hearings I've gone to. And that's this. When your staff and the retirement board tells you that their target is 7%, that a 7% return on investment is what they're shooting for, what I've been informed is that 7% target is only the target when you're 100% funded. If you are not 100% funded and you hit 7%, you're still losing money.
And like I said, I don't understand why in all the budget hearings I've been through over the years that fact never came out. So I would imagine even though you got like 10% this year, I don't even know if you broke even and I think you need an explanation from your staff about that. Finally we would have liked to seen some information on the decreased amount of property taxes from Exxon and Veneco As well as the planes pipeline and all that means I think that detail should be broken out.
And finally on we're not happy that the North County jail is closed. And if if you do think you have any extra money we sure would like to see that thing get opened up because it is a public safety risk in the communities of
Okay I bring it back to the board, Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Madam Chair. One of the comments that was made by Mr. Caldwell had to do with the government sector and I went back to look at the UCSB economic forecast project and they talk about why Santa Barbara is higher and I thought it was interesting So I'll just point it out that they said that its 4.4 percentage points larger than California's and this is likely due to several public schools in the county that are among the largest individual employers and then they go on to talk about universities and city colleges
so forth. Thank you for that clarification are there any other comments. Supervisor Levin.
Thank you Madam Chair and well under Sheriff Mullikin is here I know he's also spearheading a drive among all of the interested parties at the North County Jail and I think they've actually come to a resolution that's going to be while it's not a perfect fix for us it's a it's a band-aid that Will work until our new jail is open. So I know you're working on that and I really do appreciate that as well so.
And I believe you've played a major leadership role I've heard from people.
I made a phone call that's all not taking credit for that one.
OK. So seeing no more lights may have a motion to receive and file this report?
I have one other question since I don't sit on the retirement board. That was an interesting statement that Mr. Caldwell made and I don't know what the answer is on that. At some point, I don't know if Mr. Frapwell can answer that or Theo but I know Mr. Levin's not here but if you want to weigh in that's great otherwise if somebody can bring that back at some point I'd appreciate it.
Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair, Mr. Caldwell is correct that every time that the investment return does not meet the assumed rate of return as an example the last two years prior to this one the returns were .08 or .8 and 1.3%. And what the actuary will do with those return those rates of return is calculate rates into the future and it increases the unfunded liability every time you don't meet your bogey of the now 7% if you're short.
The liability increases if you're over then the liability decreases and so there is the smoothing in for the rates but the actual liability does change as a result of either meeting exceeding or not meeting. The actual assumed rate return. So the
question that I have based on what he said was and let's say OK so this year we had 10 1 But from this point forward I think what he's saying is even if we hit 7% our unfunded liability would not be paid off. Is that correct or incorrect?
No, if we were to meet the seven percent each and every year exactly then the unfunded liability would be paid off based on the schedule that we're amortizing it at you know at the end of the 19 years. Yes.
Supervisor Adam.
I think what we're doing here is getting a little confused between the term expected rate of return versus target. And as a business proposition, you should probably have a higher target if you have a large amount of unfunded liability which I think is Mr. Caldwell's point. And expected rate of return being the term that the actuarial uses to calculate what our payment is, our contribution is and all that. So I think we are just kind of talking past each other here.
1:27 – 1:3922 turns
Okay ready for a motion?
Second.
All in favor say aye. Aye. No opposed. Motion passes.
Moving to item number four
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item number four is brought to the board from the County Executive Office Public Works and the Board of Directors of the Water Agency. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the response to the 2016-17 grand jury report managing regional water supplies.
And welcome back I heard you were on vacation.
Madam chair yes thank you very much and happy to be back. Madam Chair, members of the board. The grand jury released a report on June 13th 2017 Entitled Managing Regional Water Supplies, which contains the results of their view on the current management of regional water sources. In that report both your board as the Board of Supervisors and as the Board of Directors of the County Water Agency are required to respond to this report.
The Board of Supervisors required to respond for findings 1, 2 and 6 and recommendations 1,2b and 6 And as the water agency responder to findings one 5 6 and 9 as well as recommendations 1 5 6 and 9. So moving on to the the findings finding one the grand jury sites that no single entity has decision or enforcement power within Santa Barbara County regional planning And in terms of water planning and both the recommended responses, both the supervisors and the board of directors of the Water Agency agree with the finding.
As you know individual water purveyors have elected boards in most cases and then there are also various joint powers authorities that including Kachuma Operations Maintenance Board, Central Coastal Water Authority and the like. Recommendation one that The recommendation is that the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be designated as the permanent lead agency in terms of cooperating partners and grant enforcement power to ensure reliability water supply. Our recommended response is that the recommendation will not be implemented, and we note that the county water agency has no legal authority to assume that role without either legislation or without Finding 2 states that additional supply of sources such as desal, recycled water are available to local agencies but there's no concerted effort to develop them.
We recommend the Board of Supervisors agree with this finding. We do note that there have been several efforts to bring the various water purveyors together to talk about desalinization. Supervisor Adam and CEO Miyasato and others went down The Carlsbad desal plant. And then I would also note that individual water purveyors are also looking at recycled water, but a regional discussion we do not see happening on either of those sources.
Recommendation 2A that the County Board of Supervisors in conjunction with San Luis Obispo explore Diablo Canyon Desalinization Plant as a source of water. We recommend that the response be it has been implemented. We have had discussions with San Luis Obispo County on several levels. I would note that San Luis Obispo County actually was taking a lead in trying to develop The ability to export the cell water from- the Diablo Canyon facility. However since that time as you all know- PG&E has opted to decommission. Diablo Canyon but that still leaves the question of the- of the diesel plant in limbo and it's worth looking forward to as as a potential. A source that could be- delivered south through I would note that one of the critical things on a desal plant is its intake and its outfall, and Diablo Canyon has both.
And if we might interrupt Mr. Farrum? Yes. Supervisor Adam?
Do you recall, I know you were at that tour of the Diablo Canyon Desal Plant
when I went Madam Chair, Supervisor Adam I believe I was at a separate tour. I believe you toured that after. I had been there probably a year or so before that so I think I was not with you.
Well we organized a trip and went with a number of people. I don't recall how much water that thing produces actually, do you? Because it's not much. It's just enough for the plant out there
right? Madam Chair, Supervisor Adam, the actual amount of water they produce as you state is minimal. I don' recall the number. A permitted capacity of about 3000 acre feet a year which they were not even close to utilizing but they were able to produce that if they needed to. Which is where San Luis Obispo County was investigating then A pipeline to take that water out to the five cities areas and address their shortages there.
Okay well yeah see when I hear somebody talk about the D cell plant at Diablo Canyon, I'm thinking you're going to build something like the Poseidon facility that we went to go see up at or down at Carlsbad. I mean that little plant there, I don't know if it can get 3,000. If you're recalling that sounds good but from what I recall seeing there the plumbing just isn't big enough to get a whole lot through.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Adam, you're correct. The permitted capacity is 3,000 and would need some expansion.
Thank
you,
Madam Chair. I'm not really familiar too much with the Diablo decommissioning but who will PG&E retain like ownership of the facility?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavinino, my understanding is that I was at an event in Santa Maria last week Where PG&E discussed that and I believe that decommissioning is a very long process and ultimate ownership and maintenance of that facility will be ongoing. And I believe PG& E will still be involved in that.
And have they weighed in on whether or not they are interested in the desal plant?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavanino. I believe that's a discussion yet to be had. I think their position now is while they're going through decommissioning they're not necessarily eager to try to wrap that in but at some point in the future you know they could be approached on it Okay, moving on to finding five that critical pipeline infrastructure including redundancy has not been developed through Southern Santa Barbara County and we recommend the Water Agency Board agrees with the finding. I think particularly in terms of the South Coast Conduit which is part of the Kachuma Project and operated by COMB is a single facility that runs from the Tecolote Tunnel to Carpinteria. I would note that the upper end from Tecolote Tunnel down a minimal amount.
There is a secondary pipeline that was built with Irwin-Fumms, but for the balance of the reach we agree with that finding and also note that's a rather old piece of infrastructure now that was built in the 50s. Recommendation 5, that critical pipeline infrastructure including redundancies be developed through Santa Barbara County. From the county's point of view, our recommendation is it will not be implemented and we certainly want to state that we understand the recommendation of the grand jury. But again, the County Water Agency is not the entity to undertake this action. The Kachuma Operations and Maintenance Board, the joint powers agency of the South Coast Kachuma Purveyors operates that and would be the party to undertake that.
Finding six that funding under Propositions 50, 84 and 1E has not yet been granted to the County of Santa Barbara for the Cooperating Partners Integrated Management Prioritized List of Water Supply Projects. And we agree with that finding and while we have not received funding under these propositions for those list of new projects, we have been pursuing that with the state with the help of our OEM and has been included in as a prioritized list of projects but it has not been funded. That's not to say that other projects in the past We have not been funded because we have been funded under Prop 1584 and 1E, but the new list has not been funded.
Recommendation six that funding applied for by the County of Santa Barbara on behalf of the cooperating partners in Santa Barbara County Integrated Regional Water Management is actively pursued. Our response is it has been implemented as I mentioned Office of Emergency Management has conjunction with Senator Hanna-Beth Jackson been very engaged over the last year, a year and a half to get the water purveyors together and get a list of projects and submit that to the state. And so we have been doing that and today we have not had a response back from the state as to potential funding for those projects.
Finding nine, none of the Santa Barbara County South Coast water purveyors established a replacement account. And in this particular finding we recommend your board's response is that we do not have the information to agree or disagree with the finding and therefore pursuant to the section listed the board responds by partially agreeing and partially disagreeing because we do not oversee the accounting of those purveyors.
Recommendation nine that the Santa Barbara County South Coast water purveyors establish and fund a restricted capital replacement account. Again, for the county board understands and agrees but is not the water agency's position to undertake that action so similar to previously we lack the ability to do that. That's not to say that we don't agree that it's an important topic that the grand jury brought up with The powers of the water agency is not applicable.
So Madam Chair, our recommended actions as outlined in the staff report would complete your board's responses to the grand jury report both as your Board of Supervisors and the Board of Directors of the County Water Agency.
Thank you Mr. Fairam. Do we have any additional questions from up here? Mr. Allen?
Chair Hartman, members of the board on this item we have one request to speak and were going to go back to Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria.
1:39 – 1:464 turns
Madam Chair, members of the Board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. Whereas we agree with mostly all of your responses to the Grand Jury, we are glad that the Grand Jury tried to draw your attention to this because we do believe that the Board of Supervisors should be showing more concern and trying to exert more coordination In a regional way the bottom line what I've seen with the board over the years if you're not in control.
Not really willing to serve and I think that being willing to serve when you're not in control is what's needed and one of the things we try to draw your attention about 2 or 3 years ago, you had a hearing and in this hearing it said if the Chuma drop below 30% you would have to do any more water releases for the fish And I came back to you probably four or five times asking you why wasn't there follow-up? Why wasn't there another hearing once Kachuma dropped below 30%?
And I still, to this day don't have an answer to that. The other thing I wanted to bring to your attention that should again, this should be the subject of a board hearing is this thing called the California Water Fix. I wrote an op-ed about this. The state of California, Jerry Brown is suing basically the state of California asking for a court to validate his authority to float bonds for the twin tunnels without a vote of the legislature, without a vote of the people and in essence even without the concurrence of the rate payers, the people that pay for state water.
By conservative estimates, we think this is a $60 billion project and it doesn't deliver any more water. to the people buying state water. This is going to be a problem in a number of ways, especially for the farmers in the San Joaquin Valley but it also could affect us here in terms of whether or not state water will still be affordable overall especially for the South County and then the other thing is you have the biological opinion coming down from the feds that could Estimated that it could require more water being dropped out of Kachuma for the fish, meaning less water for the South County. And even though you don't have control over water we still think this is a policy issue and due to the fact that you have lobbyists in Sacramento and Washington DC Maybe you should put them to work on this because water is of course one of the most important assets we have and then of course the other issue is the siltation of these facilities and what could be done about it.
Thank you.
That concludes public comment.
Bringing it back to the board any more comments, questions? Supervisor Williams.
Well I think we need to do a little bit more than And chime in a little bit because I think it's important. What this report says even the those parts of the recommendations that we do not have the power to address I think the issues that are brought up by the report are extremely important and are extremely important to be taken seriously As Mr. Caldwell also chimes in and indicates, and I would note that I agree with most of his threats that he assigned finding it very disturbing how often I'm agreeing with some of his public comments.
The threats that we have, both the cost threats as indicated by this twin tunnels process that while I'm a big fan of Governor Brown. This is going to cost us potentially a lot more money and not give us any more water. While we have methods at our disposal regionally to provide us with more water, I guess I did a rival tour to the Diablo one by bringing a number of folks down to the recycled water facility in Oxnard which is a true regional facility in that it purveys recycled water.
to a number of agricultural customers across the Oxnard Plain and has a capacity that is cheaper than DeSalle and essentially could provide as much water as we're talking about from the Diablo Canyon. And, of course, I'm speaking of the need to build something like that here in the South Coast The difficulty of course is regional cooperation. That killed the double barrel project, which is the finding five, the redundancy.
We did have a project at COMB to address this. Three of the COMB member agencies while I was president of the board of COMB were in agreement that we should go forward on addressing the redundancy issue. But not all of the members agreed and it was necessary to finance it with the participation of all the members. And so this, the other part of this report that really is makes an important point is that The difficulty of addressing all this is that we have a number of different water agencies that all need to agree.
And I do think that while this board has very little formal power in forcing that agreement, we all can make our efforts With our mutual constituencies, the people who vote for us also vote for water board members and to try to facilitate that regional cooperation that could if not solve our regional water problems at least improve the outlook which right now in the long run looks a little grim.
1:46 – 2:037 turns
I would like to add to that. I participated on the drought emergency task force and thought that functioned very well. I would like to see that continue. I worked with Assemblymember Monique Lamone, and we sponsored a water pricing forum for the Corridor Water Managers and would like to look at that. I think the county does have a major role to play as a convener, as a place to bring some state of the art thinking to our county and to our water districts. And to capitalize on that role, I would like to work with Mr. Fairman and our staff to do that, continue on that. I know Senator Hanna-Beth Jackson is eager for us, Assembly Member Monique Lamone to further our project list that came out of that and it's my understanding that the Goleta Water District did have a project on that list and was actually invited to move forward in the application process in the Irwin.
So that it did result in something, it just hasn't fully evolved yet. And that Goleta is in fact working on direct or indirect reuse project so I'm just making a few points. The other is stormwater capture and our great county study that's underway and seems this is an opportunity perhaps to showcase that in recommendation 2 our response. So those were just my comments that we're actually doing quite a bit. I think we are to congratulate both Mr. Lewin and Mr. Farrum for the leadership they've shown and hope that we can continue doing that because the county does have a major role to play as convener where we do have the overarching umbrella and we do have at least flood water, flood control stormwater under our jurisdiction. Water is water.
I think we all appreciate the grand jury taking a look at this and their findings. And while there are certain limitations to implementation of this, I would note that your board recently directed us to start negotiation of a new Kachuma contract which is a very important centerpiece to the water supply for the San Dines Valley and the South Coast. So while we don't have direct control over many of these aspects, we have very strong leadership role in many of them. We've been the leader process for many years as well. So I just think it's important for the public to know that we're not sitting on the side and our involvement in water supply issues since 2011 when Cochuma last spilled has, our engagement has increased many fold over and we intend to keep it that way.
Thank you are we ready for a motion? Supervisor Williams
Approve the response.
A second? All in favor say aye.
Aye.
Any opposed? Motion passes there's been a request for a five-minute break so we'll reconvene at about 5 till 11. ♪ ♪ Yeah. Thank you. you We are reconvening the August 22, 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara hearing room and we are ready to turn to item number five in our departmental agenda. Would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?
2:03 – 2:0611 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, item five is from Public Works. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding prohibition of use of Painted Cave Road in a portion of San Marcos road by certain vehicles via amendment to the county code that's section 231311. Thank you
Mr. Smart are you making the presentation or Mr.
Snedd? Yeah I'll just kick it off. Chris Snedd in public works transportation and yes Gary Smart our traffic engineer will be presenting this item.
Good morning, madam chairman and members of the board. Today Public Works is requesting that you approve the recommendation of vehicle restrictions for oversized vehicles on San Marcos Road and Painted Cave Road San Marcos Road is a two-lane mountainous road just north of Cathedral. It's residential but turns into a mountainous road and has several severe turns in it with the sharp radius 30 feet, 35 feet radius and vertical curvature on it. We have a history of vehicles getting stuck large trucks coming down through there Being guided by GPS or other means and getting kind of high centered on the roadway.
On Painted Cave is a two-lane road, mostly there's a few one lane sections has a vertical clearance issue with overhanging rock about 1.5 miles north of 154. And then also has to severe horizontal and vertical curvatures that trucks have also been stuck on on that road with the one lane section. Also with one of those severe curves. Our recommendations are that you restrict trucks over 30 feet in length and also automobiles with trailers over 30 feet on Painted Cave and San Marcos, and then also on Painted Cave restrict any vehicle over 12 feet in height which is due to the rock clearance.
Exceptions would be emergency vehicles and vehicles that have no other mean to access sites within the restricted highway area. We would have recommendations on 154 for vehicles to use highway 154 as the alternate route to get to where they need to go.
And that concludes your presentation.
Yes. Short and sweet.
Do we have any questions or comments from the board? Any public comment?
No request to speak.
Supervisor Adams
Just move staff recommendations.
All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Item number six.
2:06 – 2:126 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board item 6 is from the Public Works Department and comes to the Board as the Board of the Water Agency it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Goleta Groundwater Basin Fringe groundwater sustainability agency formation this is in the second and third districts.
Chair Hartman, members of the board. We are here to talk about Groundwater Sustainability Agency formation in the Goleta Fringe areas and our Water Resource Program Manager Matt Young will make the presentation.
Madam Chair, members of the Board, good morning. This item is on the agenda to request Board approval to form a GSA for a portion of the Goleta groundwater basin. The majority of the water users in the basin have undergone the lengthy legal process of adjudication of their groundwater rights and are therefore not subject to most of the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act or SGMA.
However, the boundary of the adjudication does not completely match with the basin boundary as defined in the California Department of Water Resources bullet 118 leaving fringe areas that are not managed pursuant to the adjudication. These fringe areas are primarily located north of Cathedral Oaks Road and include larger areas west of the Goleta City limits and along San Antonio Creek north and east of Tucker's Grove County Park.
The fringe areas lie entirely within the boundary of the Goleta Water District, which is the only domestic and agricultural purveyor within the basin. For the past year, staff from the Goleta Water District communicated to water agency staff that their agency would pursue GSA formation. However on June 14th 2017, the Goleta Water District Board voted not to form a GSA.
The only other entity besides the water agency that is eligible to form a GSA is the City of Goleta which until today had expressed no interest in forming or being part of a GSA It's my understanding that your board did receive a letter this morning from the city of Goleta expressing that they have not yet taken a position on GSA participation. Staff is happy to continue to work with their staff, to determine what their interest in participation is and if needed come to your board with an MOU in the future to outline that participation.
Mr. Young on that point could you describe what outreach or previously what communications we've had with the City of Goleta on this or how they learned about this issue?
Madam Chair, so on July 20th we sent them an email to several of their departments since they don't have a designated water agency or water department and have had several communications both via email and phone with our staff. We let them know that we would be coming to your board today and if they did wish to participate that they needed to let us know in advance.
They I think are still figuring out what Sigma means. You know this is not something they typically participate in or deal with and so I think it's just taking some time to make it through their process again we're happy to work with them more in the future The intent in filing a GSA with DWR would be to avoid state intervention in these areas. If no GSA covers the fringe areas, groundwater users would be subject to the state's onerous fees and reporting requirements included as attachment B to your board letter.
As a sole entity forming a GSA, your board would act as the GSA Board. Staff would bring recommendations and requests for policy guidance to the board as needed. The fringe area represents a minimal portion of overall basin water use. It is unclear what meaningful management preparation of a groundwater sustainability plan would accomplish in these areas. Staff intends to work with landowners in these areas to better understand how they affect the adjudicated basin.
We will work with stakeholders to explore options for these areas, along with DWR and the State Board that may deviate from a standard groundwater sustainability plan. Based on our preliminary review of basin geology, a basin boundary revision to remove some of these areas from the DWR Bolton 118 Basin is unlikely to be successful. In summary, staff recommends that the Water Agency approve the resolution to form a GSA and determine that proposed action is not a project subject to CEQA. Thanks and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you Madam Chair and thank you staff for all of your work on this. You know we did have a meeting, were you at that meeting too when we met with staff on fringe areas? I can't remember. I've been to several. All right well bottom line is I think that this is A reasonable and necessary approach for the county to take. And that is to form this, make it part of our agency as a syringe area. I think now the little twist to this is a letter we got from Goleta And so maybe County Council can assist in this. Can we, and thank you Matt for what you said about later including them in an MOU should they decide to be part of it I'd like to just know from County Council in moving this item forward making a recommendation that we per staff's recommendation that we form this GSA With the understanding that should the city of Goleta decide to be part of it, that we would come back to the board.
2:12 – 2:1715 turns
Chair and Supervisor Wolff, that's correct you're facing at one end of this the state deadline to act which is really what's driving you today but you could act today and then if the City of Goleta decided they wanted to be an active participant in this comeback and revise any actions that were needed?
OK and do we need to have a deadline to the city of Goleta as to when they need to make a decision.
I'm going to ask Senior Deputy Hartley to address that because there's 90 day clock that's running out there.
So chair and supervisors whenever an entity elects to become a GSA they file that notice with DWR. And if no other party has filed a similar notice over the same area than in 90 days that entity is deemed exclusive GSA. So I believe in terms of timing we'd recommend that we receive response back in 90 days
from today.
Yes
OK.
All right are there any public comments?
Supervisor Adam had a comment. Did you have anything else like we give notice to the City of Goleta about this deadline and in your motion okay. Supervisor Adam.
I'm just wondering in order of magnitude, just relative size what's the fringe area relative to the known adjudicated basin?
Supervisor Adam through the chair in terms of acreage it's roughly 10% however I'll point out that in this adjudication which is created by the right judgment. It's a little bit of a patchwork and there's some, it's not a complete adjudication so there are some, the absolute acreage is a little bit iffy in terms of what parcels the adjudication covers But in terms of total water use, it's certainly far less than 10%. There is very, very minimal water use in these areas. And particularly on that western edge the water quality is known to be very poor, high in total dissolved solids and so there's very, very little water use.
Well you know putting together a GSA for this small of an area and volume of water supply really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And I really think we ought to at least take one more opportunity to ask DWR to let us off the hook on this one. And Santa Maria we probably should have done the same thing but I think I had to walk out of the room on that one.
You know it's, the good to be derived here versus the cost is negligible. It's just, you know this basin is going to get managed by the adjudication and the continuing jurisdiction of the court and whatever we all decide to do is really the tail trying to wag the dog with respect to GSA and I think we should take the opportunity to ask DWR to rethink this thing because Supervisor Adam through the chair.
Yes, if we were to prepare a GSP it would be an expensive proposition. However, it's our understanding through conversations with the State Board that there is some discretion to be applied to these fringe areas so our intent in filing this GSA today is only to avoid immediate state intervention on the water users in those areas. It does not commit us to preparing a GSP or expending any funding other than continued conversations with DWR and the State Board.
Staff does not intend to begin preparation of a GSB without coming back to your board for specific direction. In the near term again our only actions are to continue to lobby the state board for more reasonable requirements for these fringe areas.
Yeah and you know would it be more powerful if you had direction to do so from this board? Or if you're just out there by yourself asking them for some relief, you know?
Supervisor Adam to the chair it would certainly help. I know that there are other counties we're working with San Luis Obispo County in the Santa Maria Basin to do for through these same efforts. I know San Bernardino County and several Southern California counties are all dealing with these same issues and so there is a Somewhat powerful group of counties that are all working on this together to work with the state board and I will say that in unofficial conversations they have indicated that in basins such as this one where there is very little water use they do plan on exercising their discretion to loosen the requirements. They just haven't formally done that yet until the dust has settled from all the GSA formations.
2:18 – 2:2010 turns
Well I was just going to say that it seems like we're under, you'd like us to move forward so that we don't have the state move in but maybe inside the motion that we have some direction to staff that we continue pushing for some relief on these fringe areas.
Supervisor Wolk?
Okay thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate what you just said about the importance of forming a GSA and Supervisor Labagnino as well. A strong potential for it negatively impacting our constituents so we need to take care of that piece first and as you have also told me what you just said to the board and that is this is not just unique to Santa Barbara County. That is something other counties are experiencing and working to try and get some relief and furthermore a GSP may not even be needed.
So I am prepared to make a motion.
Let's go to ask if
there is
any
public comment first.
No request to speak.
All right. Okay so I'll go ahead and make a motion and that we approve staffs recommendation A and B as noted in our staff report And also include a recommendation directing staff to maintain contact with the city of Goleta and to notify them that they have to make a decision as to whether or not to become part of our GSA within the 90 day time frame. And furthermore direct staff To work with DWR and other counties asking for state clarification.
And with the intention that a GSP would not be needed for this fringe area.
So we have a motion in our county council is saying that's a good motion? A second? All in favor say aye. Aye. No opposed, motion passes. Turning to item number seven.
2:20 – 2:306 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board item 7 is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of the 2017 Santa Barbara County multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan.
Welcome Mr. Lewin
Madam Chair and members the board today we bring to you an update of the FEMA required hazard mitigation plan. The purpose of this plan is to evaluate and identify natural technological and human caused threats in the county and then to determine what mitigation efforts are possible to either eliminate or reduce those threats with me as a project lead for the county retired fire chief Mike Dyer and our consultant Andrew Petro.
This plan is an update from a plan approved by FEMA in September 2011 This is a multi-agency plan as it is inclusive of all the cities in the county and they are also moving forward on their local adoptions. The process of updating this plan goes back to April 2015 and includes an extensive local outreach process and consultation with departments. Updating this plan has been a prescribed requirement on what must take place to ensure that proper review has taken place, this includes Participation of both county agencies and jurisdictions on advisory committees.
A public outreach survey in July of 2015, two public workshops in July 2016. The plan was sent to the Board of Supervisors staff in August of 2016. The plan was posted on the website and social media asking for input in August of 2016. Finally, after a two-week public comment period it was sent to Cal OES for review in September 2016 and then January to FEMA for conditional approval which we finally received in June of this year.
And now it is before you for adoptions required by FEMA and Cal OES. Like all plans as soon as you complete them information changes that's the requirement they be updated every five years or as needed. We do however have the ability make factual changes before sending back to FEMA. It is a requirement of FEMA for local governments to have a current hazard mitigation plan in order to be eligible to receive post-disaster hazard mitigation grants, flood mitigation assistant grants and pre-disaster mitigation grants.
The last action we must now take is for the Board of Supervisors and the local jurisdictions to adopt by resolution the updated Santa Barbara County multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan. And now I would like to turn this over to the consultant Mr. Petro and Chief Dyer to give a brief presentation on that plan.
Good morning. So we just want to give you a quick overview of the hazard mitigation plans themselves. They're relatively new plans, they came into existence in 2000 after FEMA revised their CFR 44. The main point behind it was to identify shovel-ready projects. What was happening pre haz mitigation plans was that we were getting funds sent to the state, projects sent to the state that were not shovel ready. It was taking long delays and spending money so the purpose behind the plan was for the locals to identify projects that were shovel ready moving forward The main point, as was just mentioned is those plans to identify the projects ahead of time and that you needed those plans in place to receive funding eligibility.
Next slide. The plans are generated and adopted by the local government that's from the county down a local special districts as well as school districts as well. It's reviewed and approved by Cal OES and FEMA. They have separate reviews but they're very similar sometimes they do a joint review You receive a met, not met requirement grade from the hazard mitigation plan review. So basically there's a review tool that they say whether you've met the condition or you haven't met the condition.
Next slide.
As mentioned, they're updated every five years. The purpose behind that is just to make sure that there's progress being made towards mitigation. It's also to make sure that everything is factual kind of moving forward, that the hazards are still prioritized in a proper way. They want you to go through a comprehensive process. It it's about engaging the community as a whole bringing them together not building plans in a vacuum so it is bringing in departments different counties different cities to make sure they all have a say in the processes moving forward And what FEMA looks for and OES look for in the updates to the plans is to make sure there's advancements in the plan. So it's just not a matter of every five years you look, make sure the facts are straight move forward they want advancements to the plans.
Still looking for more information to be put in better understanding of hazards better understanding of projects as you move forward. A summary of the plan in Santa Barbara itself, as was mentioned there's one plan. It has nine different annexes. The first one is from the County of Santa Barbara, the unincorporated county. The other eight are for the incorporated cities. Each plan itself is a self-contained plan but it falls under the umbrella of the multi-jurisdictional hazard mitigation plan itself We used a MAC or Mitigation Advisory Committee to help us through the process. This was made up of different members from the community and that's who we engaged in the review process. The role of the MAC members was to validate our approach, our planning approach as we moved through.
It was also to provide information back to the team so we understood what was happening in different communities so we can take them into consideration and also to work with their local teams. So each one of our MAC members went back to their local teams, local cities and worked with their own planning teams at the local level moving forward. This is just a list of our update team. As you see, it was led by the county and these are some of the members that were on the MAC. So we had I think a total of seven different meetings that were brought on and we went through the different steps in the process as we move forward.
I mentioned a lot about the process. This is the mitigation process that we implemented moving forward. I won't go over in detail, but the first part of the plan preparation that is when we establish our team, we set our goals. We also set expectations and timelines so we understand what needs to be done when and why? The meat of the project is really step number two, which we break into three steps, which is really understanding your existing conditions. What's out there today? Understanding what the risk is to our community and then the third piece is really understanding our projects or identifying projects that could help reduce and or eliminate risk to hazards kind of moving forward.
A big thing down at the bottom is also that we encourage to leverage information. So this is not about necessarily inventing new information or developing new plans, but leveraging plans that are out there already. So climate action plans, general plans, capital improvement plans things along that line. We want to incorporate the information as we move forward.
I mentioned about the existing conditions. These are some of the elements that we consider talk about existing conditions. We're talking about climate physical features built environment. The big thing here is development trends with FEMA we like to see is whether the community is increasing or decreasing in what capacity are you getting more residential more industrial. They're trying to understand where the risk may be kind of moving forward. Look at roles and responsibility. These are really people who support mitigation actions so we look at different departments that are out there as far its capabilities Relevant governance, we're looking at plans programs codes policies that are out there as far as mitigation efforts. So we're looking to see what's out there as far as brush clearance and things along that line I was saying these are considerations programs that are currently in our community how do we leverage those moving forward?
The last piece probably most important is the critical facilities. We want to make sure through this process we understand what's critical in our communities and more critical to the emergency response portion. Are we using schools as shelters? You know how are the hospitals set up, police stations fire stations that things along that line. This is a list of the hazards that we looked at. It was mentioned earlier, we looked at both natural man-made and technological hazards. We looked at approximately 30 different hazards. We prioritized them and we identified which ones had a greater impact in the community and those are the ones we focused on in the plan but we did profile all of these hazards in our plan moving forward We talked about vulnerabilities.
There's three different ways that we look at vulnerabilities to hazards. One is when we look at a scientific loss estimation modeling that's been approved by FEMA, it's called HAZUS. It allows us to do that for flood and earthquake. It actually takes exposure and takes it to the next level and looks at losses both from an economic standpoint and social standpoint of what we may lose in buildings, how many displaced people we may have as far as shelter needs, and things along those dollar estimates as far as lost potential We also looked at analysis of critical facilities. I mentioned earlier we identified our critical facilities, we identified which ones were exposed to which footprint and we estimated the replacement cost of those buildings.
Again exposure doesn't mean vulnerability it just means exposure so because you're exposed to a flood or an earthquake doesn't necessarily mean you'll have damage. So it gives you a certain perspective but it does give you a full picture. And the last one is a qualitative estimate where we don't have a footprint like a drought Where we can just show you what's exposed in the community but without giving you any additional lost information.
Mitigation project this is kind of the meat as I mentioned earlier, the whole point of understanding existing conditions and hazards is really to start identifying where our risk or where our opportunities are to eliminate and or reduce risk. This is a list of the different types of projects that we've looked at The big thing here, I won't go into the list itself but we've identified different projects related to different hazards.
One thing about the plan I want to mention is that you're not committed to implementing all of these projects and plans this is a list of what you guys propose over the next five years that you want to pursue or look into If funding opportunities present themselves or not. You do not need to make progress necessarily on all of these projects or any of them, but they just want to see that this is your target moving forward as I mentioned when PDM and hazard mitigation grants become available they would like you to take projects out of your plan submit in for a grant application and get them funded that way so that's how you can make progress towards this as well as incorporating some of this into your capital improvement projects as well making sure that there's you know kind of sync with that And also to mention that we did go to the capital improvement projects when we identified these projects so there is a crossover currently between the two plans as well.
With that, that's a quick overview of the hazard mitigation plan itself.
2:30 – 2:3915 turns
Do we have any questions? Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Madam Chair, thank you to all of you who put this together. I just have a couple well actually just bear with me because I have a few questions and comments to make so at the beginning you talked about the schools how are they incorporated in this? Given that they're not obviously want the county in the city.
Supervisor Wolf to the chair schools are looked at as critical facilities so the critical facilities don't necessarily have to be owned by the jurisdiction it could be something that you rely on so it could even get into hospitals and maybe even supermarkets gas stations that you want to consider is critical during response so they incorporated where we make sure the asset is considered but we also reached out to special districts as well to have them have input into the plan.
Okay so then let me just start then with some of my questions. The county planning committee, we have the county office of emergency management but did we have anyone from the CEO's office who was present?
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. We didn't we didn't have anybody from the CEO's office involved in the county planning committee directly. CEO was involved through the Office of Emergency Management.
OK. Is that how it is usually done? It just seems like given the CEO's responsibility as whatever that title is they should be involved in this.
Supervisor Wilk to the chair, they haven't been involved in the past but certainly going forward we are going to look at each of these committees and we may grow them, we may eliminate some folks but going forward we can certainly grow the committee.
Excuse me Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. One thing to add is that the CEO's office of course is in charge of the operational area coordination with the city managers and through that process they the CEO herself was involved in a review of the projects as well as the city managers so there was a continuous information sharing between those entities
So that's why I think it might be good to actually delineate that when you have the list of people. I just think it is important. On in one of your pages you talked about and you mentioned in here about the public participation and submission of comments but there is nothing in the report that talks about what the comments were or what the response was. Can you just provide a little bit of enlightenment on that? Was the public actively engaged?
Supervisor Wilk through the chair yes they were. We have copies of the survey that we can, we didn't attach to the plan but we can certainly share those and we had comments very few during the public comment period I think one or two remembering back in August 2016 then we had the two workshops one in the North County in Solvang and one in Goleta we had two people show up in Solvang about 10-15 show up in Goleta a little bit more input there.
OK so not. That doesn't sound real real good but at least you got some input.
Supervisor Wolf through the chair we had a at the beginning to with the public survey we had 229 people respond to the survey.
Okay well there you go that's sounding a little bit better can I get a copy of that?
You
bet. Also there is about public outreach, there's a notation about evacuation training for schools and communities and one thing that I've heard, I have a lot of retirement communities in my district and one thing that I have heard from a couple is that having that kind of training evacuation training is important to them So I just wanted to highlight that and call them out as a specific target or group.
If you don't, I'm just throwing that out as a suggestion. Also I found it interesting in the Kind of the main section of our county capability assessment. When you talk about the three economic divisions of the county that you say, the North County, the South County and San Ynez Valley. And in other parts of this document, the distinctions aren't those distinctions. In fact there's another section in here that talks about the Quiama Valley And so when I saw that, I thought what you know that it's not really inclusive of a large portion of our county.
So I don't know why that is the case. I've never seen our division noted like that and then if you just say Santa Ynez well then you're leaving out Los Alitos. You know it's usually north central and south. So I bring that up as a comment. In that same section on the San Ynez Valley when you talk about vineyards this is on page 4-1 there's no mention of Kachuma Lake in that section which i think is extremely important and should be included there On page 4-2 employment it says the EDD department says the unemployment rate.
Is 6.8 and that's actually an outdated figure it's 4.8. And so I think we should. And then I think you should change that to reflect the current and have a footnote of I'm throwing out for point eight because that's the last number I remember it could be different but and I think there should be a footnote with. With an indicator of where that information is coming from.
On page 4 at 4 dash 17 on agricultural planning. Everything that we've talked that you've talked about in here has to do with natural hazards and man-made hazards but for some reason in that paragraph man made is left out so I just want to point that out to you. On page 5-33 one of the items that is needs It's a it's noted as a potential hazard is the cathedral oaks road at San Antonio Creek bridge. And I just wanted to let you know that that's actually already been repaired or reconstructed so that should be taken off the list in my so just check with staff on that.
Then on page 5 dash 64. This has to do with fracking and well stimulation and there is a statement in here. County planning and development has confirmed that to date no onshore oil operators have processed have proposed to use this method to extract oil I don't believe that that's accurate we have banned fracking in the county But we do have well stimulation so if you could check on that.
You also and I'm surprised I think we missed that boat.
2:39 – 2:4620 turns
In
relative terms. I think we should just save money and have you write it that would make so much more sense.
I totally agree by the way, we could've just let you guys go play golf and drink wine.
Then what would I do?
She's doing her job.
Supervisor Wolf let's go. Okay on page 7-1 in objective 2 point To period B mitigate vulnerability populations I think it should say mitigate vulnerable populations. And then finally, I think this section 7 which is at the end of the report is really the meat of why this whole thing is done and I think that part of it is Well I think it's all very good and comprehensive. I just have those suggestions to make sure it's up to date but this section 7 is really the meat of the report as I see it so I just want to end on a positive note and again thank you for all of the work to get us to this point and I think this is really important to have these strategic, to have these strategies in front of us so thank you Madam Chair
Madam Chair and Supervisor, well first of all thank you very much for your attention to the detail on it. We'll make those adjustments to the plan before we send it off to FEMA where we can without any kind of issues with FEMA. And I'd ask if you could, if I could photocopy your notes that would be helpful. And again thank you very much for doing that.
It's my pleasure. I can actually write them out or we can listen to the tape.
Okay I can do that. Thank you.
I had a couple of more conceptual questions. The first is, when was this last done? Was it five years ago or? It
was approved in September 2011 by FEMA so the process as you can tell from this one takes a couple of years to do so we will be beginning this again in about two and half three
And each new addition is to take into account advances. Could you highlight what some of those are between the last report and this one?
Madam Chair, some of the advances would be an example in the last plan we only had natural hazards so now we're more all risk. We have human caused and technological hazards it kind of mirrors The thyroid, the threat and hazard identification risk assessment that we completed. Another big one is last plan we didn't have drought as a hazard just five years ago.
We had it was called out as something that may be a future concern but it wasn't profiled as a hazard. So I think those are some highlights. I think the fact that we've we had to we expanded the plan, we grew the plan. We didn't just change the dates and times with that comes a lot more work But I believe it's more representative of where we are now. It's where we are 12 months ago and that's been the frustrating thing is it's taken a long time to, the approval process has taken a long time and so it's a snapshot in time once it goes to the state but we will make these changes to update it where we can and it'll be something that represents Santa Barbara County currently
And another question, I was trained and worked actually at Rancho Mobile Estates. They are the leader in my community because they are seniors as Supervisor Wolf mentioned and they take this very seriously and have kind of set the standard but it's critical in certain areas of our county in particular that people and towns be able to deal with emergencies themselves until help gets there Could you describe the county's role in helping individuals and cities get to that level?
In addition, what our CERT program looks like now and in addition what other kinds of trainings are available.
Thank you Madam Chair for the question. So the CERT program is alive and well here in Santa Barbara County, it is the city jurisdictions particularly as well as the university have programs that are ongoing and continuous they have great success with it our role as the Op Area Coordination is to support them in that effort we do We, you know, participate with them in training but also in outreach and we particularly do that through VOAD, the voluntary organizations for emergencies. And so while we don't have a specific jurisdiction as County OEM that we provide CERC training directly to, we support those entities that do and our fire department does that in the jurisdictions That they serve in the cities that they serve.
Thank you I guess that's all my questions, I just had one additional comment as local electeds I don't think there is anything more important than we do than anticipate and be prepared in emergencies. I think we all saw with Hurricane Katrina what happens when people look to government and it falls down at all levels. I really thank you for the attention that you have taken in doing this and I feel much more secure knowing that you've really worked so hard and pulled in so many partners because that's what it takes. So, thank you.
Let's see we need to go to public comment right?
We have no request to speak.
Okay
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair I'll go ahead and move staff's recommendations A through E with the addition that staff review the suggestions that I made and make any changes as appropriate as you feel that are appropriate.
Absolutely.
2:46 – 2:536 turns
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you again Mr. Ghisoni we're going to break now to closed session could you tell us what's on our plate there
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today in closed session the board is agendized to consider six matters. The first is one case conference with legal counsel for anticipated litigation then two matters of existing litigation. The first is bankruptcy action involving Veneco. The next is a complaint with the public employment relations board by service employment employees international union seven twenty one.
You're then noticed for conference of labor negotiators for service employees international union local seven two one and then you have to personnel matters the first is public employee performance evaluation for county executive officer and
Mr. Gazzone I think we will start closed session at noon, how long do you think it will take?
I think we had talked before about approximately one hour and a half.
Okay so we will reconvene here 130 or 2 give us a window and we'll come back and talk about Goleta Beach and if anybody is listening the people who will go for one minute and indicate that on the left hand of their speaker slip will go to the head of the line. Okay thank you. Hi.
♪ you Hi. Yeah. Hi.
2:54 – 2:591 turns
Yeah. you you ♪
2:59 – 4:341 turns
♪ ¶¶ Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. ♪ Thank you. you Hi. Yeah. Yeah. ♪ Thank you. Hi. You. you Good morning, everyone. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Thank you. ¶. ♪ Thank you. ♪ Okay. ¶. ♪ Music. ¶. ♪ ♪ Yeah. ♪ You. Hi. Yeah. you Yeah. you ♪ ♪ ♪ Thank you. You. Yeah. Good morning, everyone. you Hi. you Yeah. ♪ Thank you. You. Thank you. ♪ Thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ you ♪ ♪ ♪ ¶¶ ♪ Music playing ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Music playing ♪ Music you You.
You. you You.
4:35 – 4:431 turns
you you Yeah. you you ♪
4:43 – 5:061 turns
♪ ¶¶ ♪ You. Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Hi. you ♪ Hi, everyone. Thank you. Hi. You. you Thank you. Good morning, everyone. ♪ Thank you. ♪ ♪ ♪ You. Bye.
5:09 – 5:2411 turns
I may need it, yeah. Or you may have to do it as I'm pointing it so the people at home can see. Yeah.
Good afternoon. We're reconvening our August 22, 2017 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting here in the Santa Barbara hearing room after closed session and Mr. Ghisoni would you report out from our closed session?
Thank you. Thank you chair chairman and supervisors today in closed session the board considered six items first was conference with legal counsel for one case of anticipated litigation then conference with legal counsel for two existing litigation cases the first was the Veneco bankruptcy matter the second was a public employment relations board on fair practice charge by service employees international union local seven to one then And two personnel matters the first public employee performance evaluation for county executive officer. Second, public employee appointment slant reappointment of county executive officer there are no reportable actions.
Thank you we have one final matter on our departmental agenda number eight would you read that into the record Mr. Howland?
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item 8 is from community services it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Goleta Beach coastal development permit number 414-0687 this is an amendment for the Goleta Beach Park in the second district.
Before we go to our staff report I'd like first to say anybody who wants to have public comment if you're willing to go for one minute you'll get to the head of the line and could submit speaker slips otherwise will give three minutes for everyone And councilmember, Goleta Councilmember Bennett is here and has to leave before he can listen to the entire staff report so I invited him up to come and give his remarks now.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman for your consideration. I'll make it real quick. I support the recommendations of staff and I'd like to just make a real quick observation. I went to Goleta Beach at noontime and I wanted to see if there was anybody there because clearly the beach is practically non-existent and the water is up to the rocks And I was pleasantly surprised as I thought I wouldn't. Well, I didn't think I was going to be surprised and I wasn't.
It was full of people even though it wasn't a weekend and there were plenty of families there that were enjoying the beach park at the end of the day. That's what this is all about my constituents even though the city doesn't include the park That's the park that they go to. That's the beach location they go to enjoy that opportunity, the opportunity to barbecue, the opportunity to recreate and be with their families and enjoy themselves. And that's just my general takeaway in my observation today of looking at what was going on even though it is certainly not the best circumstance and we don't have a lot of sand out there Lower tide, there certainly is. I've been there when the low tide is and the kids and everybody they don't seem to be bothered by that.
They run around on the wet sand and enjoy themselves chasing each other and kicking balls around etc. So I think at the end of the day that's really what we're talking about as a regional park that's enjoyed by so many people and has been such a service to our community for so many years and I would just like to see that remain We certainly have been open to other opportunities for experiments. The permeable pier which unfortunately in my opinion the Coastal Commission shot down, which might have worked that was nine years ago we said it we're going to do it for 10 and would see but we never had that opportunity like a lot of other things to see if there's are other answers to solve some of these problems so thank you very much I know staffs worked incredibly hard on this there's no easy answers it's not inexpensive And I understand the process is very extensive.
So again thank you for your time.
Thank you for coming in person. Okay Mr. Chapman and Mr. Inez.
Thank you Chair Hardman, members of the board. First I'd like to introduce staff members that are involved in this project. Brian Yanez, the Deputy Parks Director. Jill Van Bui who's the Project Manager on this. I think Diane is back here, Diane Black who has been helping us with planning. Also would like to introduce the consultants that are on this team. Dan Giroff from AMEC and we have John Moore from the engineering firm Noble Engineering And we had Moffett Nichols as the engineer prior to this.
We did terminate that contract and engaged the service of noble engineers. I think there were some questions about some of the work Moffitt Nichols had done, so we did engage a new engineer. He has 45 years experience in the engineering field. He's been working up here in Santa Barbara and Ventura for about 30 years. And he has worked with Beacon. He's done two projects with Beacon, so he does come fully qualified to do this kind of work.
We're here today to get board direction regarding future protective measures if any for Goleta Beach because we're down to a deadline. We have to submit an application to the Coastal Commission by September 30th on whether or not we keep this revetment or we remove it As you know, we came to you in April this year with a full report on the emergency measures we've taken for Goleta Beach and the infrastructure. So I won't go through the entire thing. I just may recapsulate it a little bit.
I'll discuss different protective measures or options that were analyzed and considered by the engineers and the potential impacts of those options. And I'll present staff recommendations for Goleta Beach. Today, staff is asking the board to authorize staff to submit an application to the California Coastal Commission to amend the current CDP number 414-0687 for the Goleta Beach project to retain 948 foot revetment rock.
Inclusive of the 75-foot pier revetment reinforcement, pier repairs and additional rock revetment in front of Goleta Sanitary District's sewer unit vault and outfall. As part of this application I do want to say we would also like to address two conditions imposed by the Coastal Commission back in 2015 that we feel we would like to change just because of the cost of doing some of that work.
And I'll get to that. Or provide staff other direction regarding Goleta Beach. As you know, the county spent approximately $12 million since 1995 on protective measures for Goleta Beach including extensive coastal studies and permits Nine hundred fifty thousand dollars alone was spent in January and February of two thousand seventeen. Also the county's made significant investments at Goleta Beach over the last five years public works just finished a new access bridge at a cost of four million dollars.
The parks division renovated restrooms picnic areas and lift stations however emergency actions to protect Goleta Beach is taking up a large percentage of parks budget especially in 2017 The county has a long history of addressing shoreline management emergencies at Goleta Beach. As you know, in 2002 and 2005 1200 linear feet of rock was installed. In 2008 as Mr. Bennett stated there was a discussion about permeable pier that was denied by the Coastal Commission The county currently has one Coastal Commission permit for the 1200 feet of revetment at the West End, which was installed in 02 and 05. And we now have two recent emergency permits which require action by the county to either retain the rock revettement or remove it.
The revetment which we installed was a last measure for the county. County first considered soft measures to protect the beach. We installed sand berms, which were washed away. We also installed, which was an engineering recommendation, geotextile fabric with cobble base and that was washed away with several storms so even the geotextile fabric didn't work. So we also lost 25 feet of park just through that erosion. So as a last result, resort staff had to use robust emergency measures to protect the beach during the storms.
We had, as I stated we had three emergency situations at Goleta Beach in January and February of 2017. The first one was the February 14 storms and we put revetment in front of the restroom and parking lot 3. The second one, Goleta Sanitary District installed revetment to protect their major sewer vault and outfall. And that was important because they usually run 4 million gallons of sewage through that vault And then in February 22nd, we installed rock revetment geotextile fabric at the base to protect Goleta Beach, the entire area of Goleta Beach.
This is a picture of the Sanitary District sewer outfall vault and again this line discharges over 4 million gallons a day. The damage could have resulted in major sewage spill. And we came back afterwards and installed rock next to and close to proximity to that vault so that we wouldn't have further erosion of the park. The Coastal Commission staff has recommended that one application be submitted by the county incorporating the sanitary district's emergency permit along with ours This slide shows the extent of a new 870 foot revetment at the Central Park. The red is the new revetment and to the right and left which I'll go through in the next slide are permitted revetments This map shows the various revetments at Goleta Beach. This is a 1,200 foot revetment that was permitted in 2015 and this revetment here and this revetment to the east also were permitted so these have conditions with a permit these do not and the one in red is the new revetment that we installed in 2017 So throughout the process, the county's learned a number of lessons especially from past challenges and mistakes in order to correct activities that could potentially violate coastal permit conditions.
For example, equipment not being operated in the active surf zone and beach rack being removed at unapproved times we hired a full-time construction monitor to be on site during all construction activities and we properly trained staff on existing and emergency permit conditions On July 13 we had held a special park commission meeting to inform the public about our protective measures.
At that public meeting, we had about 30 or 40 people from the public majority that came up to speak support the revetment retention of the revettement. This cobble berm was installation was presented to the Commission by Surf Rider as an option There also was a group that came to talk about offshore artificial reef installation. I think you'll probably hear from them today, they're called the Fish Reef Project. They want this project to be included in this application.
At this point board members we don't feel it's the proper time and I know that there are some questions also and they'll probably address it The effectiveness of these, I know there's a Scripps Institute study that shows that kelp is not effective but this may be slightly different project than what the Scripps Institute looked at. Where one was to remove the existing 873 foot long emergency revetment. It's 948 feet total because there are 75 feet of revetment reinforcing the pier and that problem absolutely has to stay there because that really reinforced it structurally.
That was one, we looked at reducing the height of the 870 foot revetment. We looked at removing all the 73 feet and installing cobble. And we also looked at potentially a 200-foot section of revetment being replaced with cobble as a test to see if cobble was an option, a viable option. And we have the engineers that can answer any questions about that if you do have it at the time.
The first alternative as you can see would be, wouldn't prevent the park from being damaged. We would have further reduction in height and we would have damage to the park even reduction of the height with damage to the park with waves overtopping the revetment. This option is going to mean continued emergency permits to protect Goleta Beach if the board wants us to continue protected The immediate cost would be $850,000 to remove the revetment and future emergency costs could be between 500,000-1 million on an annual basis as we've seen in the past two years.
The cobble berm alternative, we did have the engineer look at that and there is an engineers report in your binder. This would mean replacing the 873 feet and installing 13 foot high by 115 to 140 foot wide by 873 long cobble. It's a large quantity of cobble for Goleta Beach. Apparently, cobble is not native to Goleta Beach from what the study said. Goleta Beach is different than El Cap or Surface Point Again, where Cobble is found over there.
Cobble is considered by the engineers experimental and costly and may not protect the park. And Cobble would likely occupy a much wider area of the beach than revetment because of large base required to build up to a certain height to protect the park. And there wouldn't be a guarantee that it would protect it. And it would change the nature of the beach from a sandy beach to a cobble beach This is a photo of surface point in Ventura. It's an example of beach protected by cobble.
Again, cobble is apparently natural here because it's deposited by the river, termination of the river there. However we should note that the city of Ventura has had challenges with the cobble protecting their infrastructure and recently they spent over $400,000 installing rock revetment to augment the cobble
And Supervisor Williams would like to ask a
question. It's more of a comment really, that project is 20-30 years old we've spent $17 million and they have spent $400,000 changing it so it's relatively minor change in a large successful project.
5:24 – 5:3627 turns
Sorry Supervisor Adam also has a comment or
question. You know back one slide you were saying that you anticipated well I guess it's two slides, you anticipated spending 500,000 to 1 million a year
If we were to take the cobble out, I mean the revetment out. I think we'd be in a situation like we were this past emergency where we didn't have any protection so we would either have to go in and protect it on a temporary basis again with emergency permits and take it out or depending on what the board wants to do maybe you just allow for natural erosion of the park
It
just depends on the direction we get from the board.
We've spent, well I don't know what the period was that we spent $17 million since 95 okay over my question was what I was prepared to say today because I asked you over 10 years it's been 1.2 so 12 million over that period of time. So you know it I think that's a lowball estimate right there for the history and that's with previous years dollars. That's not dollars today either.
So because of the potential negative impacts and costs for the other alternatives, staff would recommend applying for a permit with the Coastal Commission to keep the current 940 foot revetment. Again previous soft approaches didn't work and I'm not sure they're going to work again if we do take the revetment out. And we have spent a lot of money protecting the beach But to be clear, the application if approved, the Coastal Commission also requires a managed retreat plan and we do have that in attachment H in your packet.
And that would entail potentially taking out We're going to be looking at the west end of Goleta Beach, the parking lot and creating a beach there as well. Phase one would do that and phase two would take out parking lot six as well if the triggers are met. And the triggers would probably be the impact the revetment is having on the biological resources
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you madam chair. Mr. Chapman parking lot 7. It's about 57 spaces.
Yes ma'am. And what I will for the chair yes it's 57 spaces that we would have to remove
Remove and replace?
We could re-stripe the other parking lots to make up that number. However in the second phase I'm not sure we'd be able to make up the rest for parking lot 6. But
parking lot 7 you could re-stripe and regain those places.
So again this is the proposed amendment to the AMP elements. We would apply to keep it, to keep the revetment but we also do want to take a look at two existing conditions one is the requirement to cover revetment on the permanent revetment 1200 foot revetment when it's exposed for a certain period of time The Coastal Commission only allows us 1,000 cubic yards per incident.
I think the Army Corps of Engineers only allows us 3,000 cubic yards a year so that's really not a lot and as soon as we put the sand on the rocks it does get washed away so to us it financially doesn't make sense so we want to go back and address that with them. And there's also a condition that we provide access every 100 feet of that revetment, and I think that's a lot. I think we can ask for less than that so we'd like to go back and ask for that as well if the board agrees allows us to do that.
And again after long term monitoring- staff is recommending that the long term monitoring be ten years. In our application- in a potential phase retreat we'd be looking at pulling back on the far west this would mean putting back the revetment to where the bike path is and utilities and almost all the way to highway two seventeen on the west end of Goleta beach and Right.
So this is parking lot seven, so it would entail moving this back the bike path is right along here that would be the first phase and that would create more sand and more sandy beach. And the second phase would be another 10 years of monitoring and if they still found that the revetment is having an impact on biological resources or down coast sand then this would be taken out and it would create a beach all the way along here Again those have costs associated with it as well.
So of all the options obviously keeping the revetment is the least costly and to keep the revetment we would need $150,000 in permit applications and that's budgeted. $60,000-$160,000 in monitoring and the phased managed retreat and it isn't today's dollars Supervisor Adam would be between 2 million to 5 million in those phases as an estimate. So Jill, if you can go back. So next steps will be September 30 is our submittal of permanent application to the Coastal Commission and in spring we anticipate spring 2018 that this would be heard before the Coastal Commission at one of their Coastal Commission meetings.
And the action today if the board chooses to authorize staff to submit an application to the California Coastal Commission to keep the revetment inclusive of the 75-foot And what I'd like to add also is in that the application package would include the submittal of a proposal to amend the adaptive management plan as necessary so we can address those two areas that are costing us money.
And that concludes the presentation.
Thank you. Questions, comments from the board? Supervisor Adams?
Well I'm going to say is I think in 10 more years it could be really cheap to just spend 2 to 5 million right now. Do the whole dang thing And just be done with it if you could get away with a permit to just pull all the rocks out and everything. Go go to phase 2 right now. Just finish it and then not have any further expense that could be really cheap in 10 years.
Supervisor Wolf and then supervisor
I'm just
looking
for my cover. All right so So it's you're saying OK I'm trying to figure out you're saying take out all the rock. So all the new infrastructure and stuff we built in there would be eliminated but you think that's the cheaper way to go.
Well you know if the history is you spend, you know 1.2 or more per year and you just sign up to continue to do this because once you get a permit if you apply for a permit to go make this permanent then you're going to do all of the mitigation measures and all of the maintenance and when it does wash away if it does wash away again You know, there's a storm.
Correct me if I'm wrong. We have to nourish it between storms which costs a lot of money. I mean every time you dump a load of sand in there just disappears. So, you know, and that's why you wind up long on sand and some beaches And you know I'm all for maintaining the assets that we have but you know there's a point where you just can't maintain it and I think that we may have seen on this one.
That would've been helpful to know before we just put $5 million into the park. Well, I get that but nobody asked me. Right, I know. They just rolled out there and did that.
Supervisor Williams? So
if we, if you're proposing to have a trigger and the trigger is the revetments having a direct adverse impact on public coastal access beach habitats or downcast sands plot. They're already having that impact. So why wouldn't we go as a supervisor Adams indicated? Why wouldn't we just go to that right now, as opposed to say, oh, we're going to wait 10 years for monitoring information to reinforce what we already know is happening. That the beach is going away.
Why aren't we taking those actions to save the beach right now?
Supervisor Williams to the Chair, I'm not sure that they do know that's having an impact. I know that the drought over the last 6-7 years has had an impact on the beach, the amount of sand or sediment coming down the rivers and replenishing the beach In fact, I think the last time the flood control folks replenished a beach was in 2009 just because they haven't had any sand supplies at the slough. So this year because of the recent storms they now have sand supply that they're going to be placing back on to the beach and it's about 67,000 cubic yards so we lost about 100,000 cubic yards so there's plenty of sand right now. So I don't know that the revetment at this point is having an effect. I think we need some years To really assess it. I'm not sure one year or two years of storms really does it, I think it needs a longer period of time to do the assessment.
Well your shoreline assessment report that I assume you want us to prove today on page 18 says coastal armoring placed in an area of existing erosional stress will cause the beaches fronting And that coastal armoring is designed to protect the upland but does not protect erosion of the beach profile waterward of the armoring. Thus an eroding beach will continue to erode so I mean you'd so don't you believe that I mean it's in your it's in your coastal assessment
super I think there were women's protecting park at this point
yes my point is if Then we already are hitting the conditions that you're proposing to enter into. The retreat on parking lot 7 is the most westward one so I mean either you believe this or you don't if you don't I don't know why you're giving it to us as information if you do believe this then we're already hitting the conditions that you are saying would be the trigger for us taking those actions
I think that again all that is Dan draw who's our consultant maybe a touch on that but I think it's more than just our beach. It's also sand supply down further down in other beaches as well.
5:36 – 5:4919 turns
Supervisor Wolf did you have a question you wanted to
piggyback on? No I just want to clarify on page 17 and I assume supervisor Williams is looking at the noble consultants report. Is that what you're referring to?
Yeah the coastal assessment shoreline assessment.
So yeah so what it says is on page 17 in summary there is a list of potential impacts that are associated with armoring the coast. But then if you look down to the last paragraph, the Goleta Beach situation is typical of shoreline protection responses where the revetment has been built to address a pre-existing erosion condition. It follows that revetment may not be accelerating what naturally exists.
I think that's a different if you read the entire report. I think what they're saying, what Noble Consultants is saying is that there is conflicting scientific information on the revetments. And what they're saying as I read it is that the revetments are not necessarily and I think this is what Mister chapter and said causing the loss of sand. One of the major problems that has been seen there is the drought and also the strong winter storms that we've had because it was shown that from 2002 to 2014 With the 1200 feet of revetment in place, you didn't see the impact that we are seeing right now. So the question is why? Why now? And so according to the report, that's one of the reasons that we're seeing the elimination of some of the sand. But I don't think you can say with certainty that it's the revetments.
Well, I mean, the report says that's usually what happens
Madam Chair, Supervisor Williams. I think the report presents the disagreement among experts about the effect of revetments on active erosion. I think it's pretty clear to observers of Goleta Beach that the cause of the current condition of the beach is the March 2014 storm, the 2015-2016 El Nino and the utter lack of sediment input into the system. It stretches credibility to assert that a new 900 foot revetment is causing beach erosion when it has been there for five months. Now I'm talking about the old revetment. And the old revetment, as you read the report thoroughly you'll see there's strong disagreement on experts on the effect of active erosion of revetments in fact on the west coast the evidence is somewhat lacking for that to occur now passive erosion is a different matter and John Moore from Noble Consultants can speak to it but I do think it's important one thing I've been working on Guida Beach for a long time.
It's important to have a time perspective, the coast is a highly variable environment if you look at the last 20 years or 17 years the beach has been wide the majority of the time it's been narrow and terribly narrow for 1.5-2 years So your board is facing a policy decision on long-term coastal management and the question for you is do you base it on a current crisis that is the result of the strongest El Nino drought combination in the last hundred years or do you take a longer term perspective and monitor and see what the weather cycles will bring to the beach? That's a policy decision for your board based upon the information that you have before But it's pretty clear that the beach is responding to current extreme events and not to the revetments at this time.
That doesn't mean the revetments could not have an effect over the long term, but I think the only thing we would say to you is that a five-year period or a longer period where you see if the revetments themselves are causing the problem rather than the current extremely strong climactic events we've experienced. And I don't know if John has anything to add to that. He is the engineer.
I just ask specifically a question is that if the rock were not in place on the westward end, I think that's parking lots six and seven. Do you believe that there would be any migration of the beach inward or that we would have just as much erosion that we have right now?
I think what the current research shows, Supervisor Williams is that and particularly the research that's been done on the Monterey Coast and some other locations is that the thinking is that the revetment itself does not contribute to what's known as the active erosion or causing the beach to erode. What it does of course is it sets the line so where where the revetment is placed.
The eroding beach will continue to a road up to it and then of course stop and is not allowed to go in any further now what's been Offsetting that since 2000 well since 1994 when your county inaugurated the the Gleda Slough Beach nourishment program. So The data that the surveyors have shown who have been monitoring the beach regularly since that time is that your beach nourishment program has helped to keep pace with how Goleta Beach wants to erode. So, the beach accretes or erodes independently of whether the revetment is there or not The technical term is passive erosion.
Like I described earlier, if there were no additional nourishment and the beach were allowed to continue to erode then the revetment fixes that point that it can go no further inland but
So is what you're saying is that if the revetment were not there that the beach would migrate at least partially landward.
That's correct. And it would erode in response to how much is in the natural system. So like Mr. Giroir mentioned, we've been through a five-year drought that we're all aware of, the very serious drought that we've been under where the sediment on the coast has been very much depleted We are already in a probably sediment depletion situation anyway so the coastline is certainly stressed.
Whether or not there'll be sufficient natural recovery as we've seen a little bit in this summer. The beach has kind of come back a little bit and it's done some partial reburial of revetment so that's the natural process that I'm talking about that is really unaffected and that's what the research by Dr. Gary Griggs and some others have Shown that the beach tends to do what it wants to do regardless of whether the wall with the revetment is there or not.
What the revettement does in this case, I'm repeating myself and I apologize but it just fixes the line and says you won't go any further
And by fixing the line that means the beach is smaller potentially than it would be if it migrates land work right?
That's correct. Madam Chair, Supervisor Williams may want to look at page 23 of Mr. Moore's report shows a diagram of what benefit we might gain by pulling out parking lot 7 in the low sand year. We would get a small pocket cove in the summer so you would get some beach at the cost of removing 55 or 57 parking spaces And then in low sand years like this, and again remember the time element here. It's a low sand time you would get a small beach and that may be a policy decision that is worth it to your board to create a small beach in exchange for those spaces.
55 spaces that you also say we can replace?
Yes. That's a policy call for your board but yes we would gain a narrow incremental beach that would likely be I think John could correct my wrong better than what's there now but not a big wide sandy beach.
And Supervisor Adam you've been waiting patiently.
Yeah, you know the thing is for me is the beach is a dynamic environment and we are talking about how it responds badly to droughts and storms so either extreme it's not going to like and it's going to wash away the sand or it's going to expose the rocks or its going to do something And, you know the problem comes back to how much it costs us to maintain for me.
If the Coastal Commission saw that as a dynamic environment and didn't expect us to maintain it at some kind of picture perfect level Then that would be different you know if they're all willing to take the ride with us and see what kind of beach we end up with at the end of the 10 years. And don't cost this 1.2 a year to keep bringing sand back and covering up the rocks even between storms which is insane You know then I'd be willing to ride that out too but I'm not. I don't want to go apply for a permit that has conditions that says you got to maintain it in some kind of a postcard condition all the time and not be willing to take whatever nature gives us and say, you know this is the beach we've got You know we are happy with whatever, if it's a wide beach that is great and if it's a narrow beach that is great.
And if it is one thing sometimes and another thing another time then that is okay too but don't come back and tell us okay but it has got to be this wide and you can see the rocks and you have got to cover it up between storms and all kinds of unreasonable stuff like that. That I'm out on.
Supervisor
Wolk? Thank you, Madam Chair. You know Supervisor Adam I think in theory I agree with you. I think it would be great if we could do whatever we wanted to do but the fact is and this is a fact and that is that what we do were governed by the Coastal Commission. And so when our staff went out when there was these huge storm surges onto the beach that were impacting one storm impacted the restaurant The other storms that impacted the grassy areas, I wish we had some of those pictures where there were the big coves that were taking out park structures. So we had to get an emergency permit. We had no choice. We could have talked to Mr. Gazzone and he would have told us what the legal risks would've been.
So we had to get the permit. We got the permit And within the permit there are certain conditions that we have to meet and that's what staff is putting forward. So I think yes it would be great if we could do whatever we wanted but we can't and I really do believe that staff has looked at these options and you know I'll have a lot more to say but I think that the options that are before us are reasoned, they're thoughtful. They've looked at the history of Goleta Beach and we've had more consultants and more studies on this than anything else so I think we should take a responsible stance in looking at this which I think staff has done for us.
Supervisor Adam?
5:49 – 6:0327 turns
Issue a couple more heretical ideas here. I don't expect anybody to like them, but I'm going to say them anyway. Okay. That's right. Well see that's the thing there's all these other people it's not our problem let's we could give away this property. We don't even have to own this stuff we own A part of this and we lease a part of this from the state. You know if the Coastal Commission in the state think this is funny, let's just give it back to them and see what they do with it because it's all funny when you got to spend 1.2 a year but then you know if we can offer to give it back to him wouldn't be funny if they didn't want to take it?
You know let's put them on the horns of the dilemma and see what they say then. And you know that is not just word you are going to get over a million dollars a year.
Seeing no other lights on, let's go to public comment.
Chair Hartman and members of the board we have eight requests to speak on this item and we're going to begin with Ken Pally to be followed by Michael Rattray.
Madam Chair, members of the Board of Supervisors, just before I even go into my remarks, I'll probably run out of time. I never thought—and I respect all five of you—but this is—I'm shocked that on this one of the rare occasions when I am in complete agreement with Supervisor Adam, the guy sees through part of my language. B.S.
Hell may be frozen over.
Seriously, man! I owe you a cup of coffee and now I owe you a beer or whatever the hell you drink. So my name is Ken Pally. I'm on the Executive Committee of Surfrider. I am a very long time and frequent user of Goleta Beach. I have been for a long time. I love that place. You know doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result has been called the definition of insanity The Rock Revetment Galita Beach has been installed and it was removed, then expanded, then extended repeatedly. Each and every time the beach eroded the sand delivered a great expense got washed away sometimes in a matter of two or three days. Yet here we are with this huge ugly pile of rocks very dangerous to climb down greatly reduced almost non-existent beach along most of the park yet we have an expensive consultant suggesting we do the same thing Hmm, maybe it'll work this time.
I don't think so only now to propose that we pay a bundle to monitor it Monitoring is not actually a solution to the problem. It's merely avoiding having to solve the problem Others including our attorney Ellison Folk from Shoot Me Hanley Weinberg, Everett Lipman, our chapters vice chair and a brilliant UCSB faculty member in physics have submitted far more technical reasons why the rock revetment is and will be a failure.
And should be removed than I can possibly give you. What I'm urging is caution common sense and a small delay. I don't know how many of our distinguished board members have gone down to Galena Beach recently, as City Council Member Bennett has. But the beach is gone most of the time. He says well sometimes you can go there and the kids can play on it. Very rarely.
If you were to go down there at the western end where even at a modest tide, let alone high tide, there's zero beach. And the water laps up to an ugly and dangerous pile of rocks with by the way a small amount of naturally occurring cobble at the base. Meanwhile at the far eastern end if you go to the other side of the slough There is a naturally occurring cobble burn, lots of wide sandy beach and up against the bluff there's abundant vegetation which keeps the whole thing intact.
Now Dave Hubbard's a UCSB staff scientist recently gave a presentation at Surfer at a meeting about the use of sand-covered cobble planted with appropriately chosen vegetation down Ventura Center's surface point we call C Street surfer zoo And the results have been spectacular. The beach is wider, softer and vastly more user friendly. I would beseech every board member to go to Goleta Beach and view the wreckage there then head of Ventura and see the huge difference. Maybe talk to some of the board members of Ventura County. Please do this before committing to perpetuating what can only see as a very expensive failure. It's a boondoggle!
Thank you that is your time.
Our next speaker is Michael Ratway to be followed by David Bacon
Michael Rattray, Forensic Leda Beach. Boy I tell you it's going to be hard to have this conversation because it's so complex and I appreciate the gravity in this situation and the tough choices you're gonna have. There's 1100 miles of coastline in California, 10% of it is armored. That's 100 miles. A lot of it is in the first and second and third district in our county have a component to that. They get wet all the time just like the rocks that we have at Gleda Beach but this is the people's park and I know that yourselves And the history.
We protected that park since the 40s and I know I'm repeating ourselves but 1.4 million visitors go there they're not all just going to the Sandy Beach they're going as well. Mr Bennett said to the beach in the park and I'm hoping that we have some sensitivity that because these are folks that don't have any other access to recreational facilities other than this park because it's free and it's a beautiful facility with that with the bay We support what George and his staff has done, but that's hard for us to do because there is no backup plan to the ROCs that have worked to date.
Now I want to say something. We agree the ROCs cannot be the only solution and we hope that we can all aspire to an outcome without having negative consequences and penalties. And I hope we can better understand the marine technology and strategy planning forward They can bring an environment for both Beach Park and the Galena Bay. Many of the consultants in some of them here that county has retained consistently talk about the missing component for a better equilibrium which is a wider beach, and the ebb and flow of the beach. And we know this. We can go all the way back into the 20s with aerial pictures of the widths of the beach and the narrowing in the ebb and that flow.
An alternative approach that we can ignite, that we hope we can ignite the same desire for investigation and being a party to in asking you to be a party to in permitting is the potential of installing sand accretion reefs in the Galena Bay through the Fish Reef Project. They've been installing these over the world with great success and there'll be some gentlemen behind me that will talk about that. Lastly, we encourage the board to further review the benefits also The realization that the historic kelp beds that basically got lost in 1982, 83 El Nino storms be looked at through and it's evolving process through the pilot study they've done with Beacons.
But I don't stand here alone. We started a petition and I hope that you've had a chance to see that through Change.org with this solution set in mind, and we've got over 1,000 people that have signed. We need to save not only the beach but the park, and I hope you understand how many people 1,00 are. They really are not here today, but I'm representing them through the Change.org petition. It really is important, I think, that we look at both equations.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is David Bacon to be followed by Chris Goldblatt.
I'm here for the mustache contest. I don't know who wins. I'm Captain David Bacon, I'm a businessman at Goleta Beach County Park. I have the bait and tackle shop out on the pier so this matter is near and dear to my heart and my wallet. I also serve as president of the Fishery Project Advisory Board that we're putting together and I'll talk more about that in a moment.
First just a brief word on how a submerged sand accretion reef works. Picture this about my size and a bit larger around. As major winter storms hit these, these offset holes turn the energy of the wave against itself and break the back of the wave. But yet it's submerged so you still get the lapping waves on the beach. Sand moves through the holes and over the top, so you have sand moving onto the beach but without those major scouring waves, you don't have sand being removed from the beach. So you have sand accretion on the beach, the beach widens.
That's basically how that critter works. A bit about the advisory board that I'm putting together to discuss matters of environmental concerns and how to go about doing this. We're putting together a board consisting of E-NGOs, we have Surf Rider on board, Wild Coast, we have an offer out to channel keepers waiting to hear from them. Educational community academia K-12, K through 12 educator and special needs organization. Past public servant recreational fishing commercial fishing and dive community.
One of the functions of the fishery project advisory board will be to let out grants to commission science. Fishery project submerged sand accretion reefs I believe should be the next step after discussion of rocker revetments And so our ask is to please study our plan beginning with the feasibility study which we have currently in process. Thank you.
Supervisor Adam.
Can we see
that? Is that possible? Want me to leave
it there?
Sure. Mr. Bacon I've got a couple questions. Who, is your suggestion that Santa Barbara County would be engaging in this project?
As the permitting agency. The way this is planned and I have other speakers will cover this part in much more detail but but the nutshell answer is we have the cost covered Your function would be to go after the
permits. I can't see that, if you want to put a group together to go after that thing I think it's great but we're the wrong answer for that at this time in my opinion.
Okay I do invite you to listen to the other speakers because they do directly address some of your issues and concerns thanks.
We will indeed. Mr. Chaption could you address that question on jurisdiction?
I think it is state lands that's responsible for the waters and I believe the group can apply on their own but we certainly don't have authority right now unless the board authorizes us to serve as the lead applicant
Supervisor
Williams. So how far out are you proposing to put these? I'm sorry? How far out is it in the dry sand, wet sand, underwater?
Underwater it is a submerged sand reef so it is offshore possibly exposed only at extreme low tide otherwise submerged and with an Incredibly great biological potential because as you can pretty much tell by looking at it critters love it. Kelp loves growing on it, the biological benefits from it are pretty astounding but the answer is offshore. Exactly how far off shore is going to be a part of the feasibility study because that's a scientific question.
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Madam Chair. Captain I'm not going to talk about the reefs but since you are a concessionaire that provides a service to our constituents, you have in the past talked about the benefits of fishing on the pier that maybe some people don't know about and I think as we talk about the beach And the park. I think it's also important to talk about the pier, not just for what it does for UCSB but if you can talk about people that you service and work with who are fishing on the pier?
Yes. Actually thank you for that opportunity because it's something that's kind of become passionate to me and that is a lot of people fish on that pier, people from all walks of life and that's kind of a beautiful thing but one of the most important groups that is totally underrepresented is subsistence fishers And Goleta Beach County Park is like a magic place of all places up and down the coast because they can come there. There's no charge for parking on a pier you did not need a fishing license.
And so we are serving very well, a group that is very underserved And it is so important to them to go out and catch a mackerel today that it is the difference between having protein in tonight's meal or it being a bowl of rice or bowl of beans again. So yeah, that is very important. Thank you.
6:03 – 6:105 turns
Our next speaker is Chris Goldblatt to be followed by Mark Massara.
Good afternoon Supervisors. My name is Chris Goldblatt, I'm the Executive Director and the founder of The Fish Reef Project. We're a local grassroots nonprofit with a very clear mission to help ocean life thrive through the creation of artificial reefs and our primary instrument is reef balls. We exist because there's currently no state-sponsored artificial reef making program in California And sadly we're the only state in the union that has that issue so we fill in that gap.
And there's 700,000 reef balls and 70 nations with 100 peer reviewed studies and a good number of those are dedicated to being accretion reefs all over the Atlantic down in Brazil all over the Caribbean On the eastern and on the eastern seaboard. It's a very common time-tested technology to put reef balls in the water and about 10 feet of water mean low, low water somewhere between 250 and 350 feet offshore. The best California example is Santa Monica breakwater where you Essentially have the offshore breaks semi-submerged breakwater so you have a huge berm almost all the time regardless of the oceanic conditions.
And as Captain Bacon mentioned, at our expense we've commissioned an engineering study that I'll wrap up in the next few weeks and will provide that to yourself and hopefully that's a starting place for consideration looking if this is an option but let me get to the good part. This represents almost no tax consequence to the taxpayer. Once the county issues a statement saying that they would consider moving forward permitting this either unilaterally or as part of a larger mitigation strategy with the revetment, what that would do is our deeper pocket donors would put up the money to make it And the cost of it would be somewhere between three and five million dollars. That money would go into an escrow account, and it would be released to my organization once the final permits were issued by Coastal Commission State Lands and Army Corps.
And we would cover the costs of construction, the costs of deployment, five years of required monitoring, and if there's additional Army Corps compensatory mitigation After the fact your only cost an obligation would be permitting and you would recover that through having to dramatically reduce the amount of sand nourishment that would be required on the beach moving forward to cover their repentance so you see that money back. Man essentially manifold times.
So this is a permanent solution it's more of a permanent solution I keep going back to it It's scientifically proven, it's time-tested and with our advisory board we're able to cover all the different concerns and aspects that the community might have. So we hope that the supervisors will consider including this before they make a final decision about permits with the revetment moving forward. And I'd like to also separate from the fact of the comment earlier about that kelp is not Successful the study with scripts this had that has nothing to do with making an accretionary. That's a completely separate discipline.
Our next speaker is Mark Massara to be followed by Bob Keats.
Madam Chair, Honorable Supervisors. I'm Mark Massara and I have the honor of representing the Goleta Chamber of Commerce after reading through the board letter and all the various materials and having worked on Goleta Beach and related issues now at that park for going on two decades. I think I can say I share your frustration and to a certain extent your fatigue but I'm here to help And I can safely say that I think I agree with everything that everyone has said so far. And what I'd like to do with the balance of my time is address Supervisor Adams question about how I'm here to talk about how this fish reef project and reef balls fits into this permit item that you're discussing. I work up and down the state on behalf of NGOs, local government and private clients Facilitating regular coastal development permits after emergency work has been undertaken.
Specifically with respect to seawalls under section 30235, those emergency permits if they are allowed to remain are required to be mitigated Your staff is proposing that that mitigation in part involve perhaps a retreat in the westerly edge of the park, that would sacrifice these parking spaces. I tend to believe that coastal staff, in my experience, is going to want a whole lot more mitigation. I don't think they're going to let you walk away from continued nourishment and the expense associated with that or all of the other access proposals that are being discussed.
I'm here to tell you that the Reef Ball proposal is a perfect component of that mitigation package. And the fact that it comes to you at almost no expense whatsoever, except being part of the mitigation package for the regular permit of this project opens the door to a future of having to spend much less money or suffer much more catastrophic impacts at the park.
In conclusion, I would say that I hope that despite the failure of the pilings and the nourishment and the unsightly rocks and all of the other issues at the park. I think we're all here because we love the park and I would really encourage you not to walk away from this alternative While leases from state lands and other agencies will be involved in the process, I would at least say let's get this engineering study before you and determine the feasibility of this creative alternative. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Bob Keats to be followed by Matt Wallace
6:10 – 6:167 turns
My name is Bob Keats. According to a recent article from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, one inch of vertical sea level rise will inundate 100 feet of horizontal beach. This is exactly what has happened at Goleta Beach Park. According to the EIR, in 1975 the distance from the edge of the lawn at the park to the edge of the water was 400 feet.
Four decades later that distance at high tide is zero. That's an average loss of 100 feet of beach per decade. And we have been experiencing one inch of sea level rise per decade. It's an exact correlation. There is sand at Goleta Beach. We just had a very wet winter lots of sediment washed down our watersheds to the ocean but the sand is underwater. At the July County Parks Commission hearing at Goleta Beach The county's consultant said that it was likely the Coastal Commission would eventually require managed retreat at the park which is the only way to restore a sustainable beach.
In order to implement managed retreat, much of the revetment will eventually have to be removed. Given that the costs of construction tend to increase over time with every passing year, the cost of removing the revettement and implementing managed retreat will go up. In addition, the county will incur an annual cost for monitoring and managing the revetment.
If, for example, the contract from managing and monitoring the revetment is $100,000 per year that would amount to one million dollars over ten years to monitor and manage a structure that in all likelihood will eventually have to be removed. The county would save a considerable amount of money by implementing Managed Retreat Now. Not only would the county save money, but implementing Managed Retreat Now would also restore a sustainable beach as a recreational resource for the community.
Moreover, implementing Managed Retreat Now is a win-win solution. The county will save a lot of money And the community will regain a sustainable beach. We all want to continue to have a park on Goleta Bay. We also want to have a sustainable beach at the park and that can best be accomplished by implementing managed retreat now. Thank you
I
think you've kind of spelled out what we're all looking to do is have a nice speech in this how do you maintain the park through managed retreat. I mean how do you have a park with managed retreat.
I think the way to do it is to redesign the park so that it has a sustainable design. Lots of things that were designed in the 1940s have been improved considerably since then. I think we could have a new design for the park that would be better than the current design and would also allow us to simultaneously have a sustainable beach.
Our next speaker is Matt Wallace to be followed by Mike Thompson.
Good afternoon my name is Matt Wallace. I'm on the executive committee for the local chapter of the Surfrider Foundation and speaking on behalf of local beachgoers. I really want those rocks taken out, they've destroyed the beach there is no beach there when you talk about Goleta Beach Park you're talking about a strip of grass at this point. I've tried to go to the beach there a few times this summer, and it's just wet sand. There is no actual dry sand for beach. I think the grass strip has lost a lot of people using it because if they want to take their kids to the beach, there's a six foot rock wall that could fall and get injured in. There's no beach for the kids to play on.
If the rocks were taken out, cobble berm were installed like they did at Surfers Point in Ventura for a million dollars. It would save the beach. There's no grunion habitat there anymore. The water washes right up to the rocks. Grunion don't migrate and that's going to be a diminishing natural resource And it's really a long-term process to get this dealt with beyond maybe your terms in our lifetimes. We have to take out something that doesn't work, that consultants have not quite thought about and get some natural cobble berm in there and let the ocean take its process and restore the beach The restroom facility could be moved back, there could be reuse of parking spaces into a park.
A common number thrown around is 1.5 million visitors a year which is over 4,000 people a day Anybody that goes to the beach would tell you there's just not a lot of that might be at the restaurant But there's definitely not that many people. I think that's number another number that needs to be looked at so thank you, I hope you do consider taking out the rocks and You know bringing back the beach when I was a kid There's a couple hundred feet wide and it seemed to take forever to get to the ocean and now it's just Rocks in water, so thank you
Our next speaker is Mike Thompson to be followed by Keith Sandona.
6:17 – 6:224 turns
Honorable Chairman, Supervisors, Mike Thompson I am a South Coast resident for 63 years local businessman for 44 years and member of Friends of Gloucester Beach Park honorable supervisors thank you. You and all Santa Barbara County workers for your timely efforts this past winter. When minutes mattered, your team acted decisively placing rocks to shield the park and utilities beneath it.
Without these repairs Glee Beach Park would have been breached. The UCSB sewer line beneath it ruptured Highway 217 next door and the Santa Barbara Airport flooded. You prevented a disaster well done. We have a problem with the money. These measures cost county taxpayers big bucks. I believe that fairness dictates each stakeholder entity impacted here contribute to the costs incurred.
That means the utilities, sewer gas electricity and water providers. It also means the University of California Caltrans and the city of Santa Barbara with their airport. County taxpayers save their bacon they owe us a sandwich. Now staff have recommended, your consultant recommends retention of the rock revetment. I fully support that advice to those who advocate shield removal and utilities relocation I say this your assumption that the ocean will respect the new sewer line location when you look at number parking lot 7 there's no place to put the sewer line utilities without impairing them.
So you assume the ocean will respect the new sewer line location unprotected? You take the rocks out, that risks one quarter million gallons of raw sewage in Goleta Bay. That's the average daily waste streaming beneath our park from UCSB. That's why the revetment is there. It's nice to protect the grass but you gotta protect a sewer line Retaining the rock shield still leaves us with a severely eroded beach. We can no longer assume replacement sands will move along our coasts.
If we wish to have sandy beaches then we must do everything we can to preserve every grain of sand on this and all beaches. Now and in the stormy future, we must have more in-the-water protection. That means replanting the lush kelp forest. That means duplicating what served Carpinteria so well this past winter while other beaches were being severely eroded. Carp secret?
A barrier reef offshore similar to the coral reefs that have protected beaches and coastal assets for over 20 million years. In Goleta, think reef walls And actually the location that's proposed is within the perimeter of our park. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Keith Zandona to be followed by Robin Cederloff who is our final speaker.
Good afternoon chair and board my name is Keith Zandona Welcome to Goleta Beach County parking lot. Originally merely a mudflat which was filled with rubble for 25 years this park has had many problems always more arming armoring is the answer. I remember when I was working in Hope Ranch somewhere around 1990 9 or something, watching barge loads of sand being hauled to Goleta Beach from the harbor. How much did that cost?
This past year this same sand was trucked from the harbor back to Goleta Beach! There is no beach and there is no real access to the beach either. Where is the money coming from? I would say some of this money is coming from the $10 day use fees for a Halama Beach Park. That is not right. This is a dynamic environment with ebbs and flows, we need to adjust to the changes.
Relocate the parking and infrastructure off site and create a real park with habitat and sand dunes and a cobbled beach. A real beach we are never going to learn. You don't build in the floodplain and you don't build in the tidal zone. Thank you.
Our final speaker is Robin Cederlof.
6:22 – 6:2912 turns
Okay good afternoon. Thank you Madam Chair and commissioners for allowing me to speak my name is Robin Cederlof I'm a fifth generation from the Goleta Valley. I am a resident of the county not the city of Goleta. I have been using the park since I was basically an infant and so was my previous family members I one of the things I'm, I don't even know where to start. I understand the frustration of the costs involved. I would like to say to the costs involved that maybe there's a way to create a partnership between some of these foundations some of these other agencies. I would think the university would love to jump on some kind of a study in that area for these you know the fish balls and what not.
NOAA has been doing this kind of stuff in Florida for a long time. There's other foundations around, City of Goleta, City of Santa Barbara, oh my gosh the airport! The State of California maybe there is a way to work on some of the financial issues through that. The park itself is very important to the well-being of the community in the area. You have to pay to access the beach at the university. They pay for parking I think it's two bucks an hour, four hour minimum. The next closest public beach that we can go to is basically Haskell Beach.
This is, this beach is really really important and I don't. There's been a lot of talk about beach and sand and a lot of talk about park we need to look at the whole thing as a big picture. And I agree with Mr. Adams that you know who cares if there are rocks there? Eventually the sand will come back. Now as far as you know dumping sand there, well unfortunately because the city of Santa Barbara has a man-made harbor that fills up with sand probably coming from our location where the creeks all dump in.
They have to dredge that out and we're better place to put it than Goleta Beach because we need some now and then. But I think we have to look at this in a bigger picture. We need to fix the ocean, when I was a kid they used to be cutting kelp out there all the time and we had quiet beaches and we had lots of sand. We have no kelp out there anymore and some of these fishbowl things do help bring that Kelp back and I think that there's something to look at there but it takes time. So you know I'd like to support staff because they want to give us some time to look at some of these other alternatives and figure out some kind of a partnership to not just put sand on the beach, You know nourish the ocean as well to help in that process. And I really think the rocks need to stay because it does create that barrier.
Look at your history folks, that was a big bay there and the mountain was knocked down to put the airport in so lot of structures could go away.
Supervisor Wolf.
Thank you Madam Chair. I was going to ask staff if you had any comments but one of the speakers mentioned the count, the 1 million 5 and I recall asking you recently if that number still applies can you address that?
Supervisor Wolf through the chair. We have a counter at the gate and it counts vehicles going in approximately have about six hundred to seven hundred thousand vehicles and we multiply by the national average of two point five persons per vehicle. And that's how we get the number of visitors at Coleta Beach.
Supervisor Labanino.
Thank you Madam Chair. I pass by cars all the time on the freeway, and never see one with more than one person in it but I mean I'm on SPCAG and we're begging people to get into a car with somebody and nobody will get in a car with anybody except when we're talking about numbers that go onto the beach but I get it. I understand why you use that number but I would… You know what? To me, to be honest with you, it doesn't matter if I'm glad you clarified it. To me is is is irrelevant because whether it's a 1000 people that are going there or 4 million I had other questions too.
I thought Supervisor Wolf had a question of the speaker so we have no more speaker slips so with that I close public comment, I'd like to bring it back to staff if you have any comments on things you heard in public comment we would like to hear that now.
Chair Hartman and the board, just two things I think. One is the current revetment that was there was designed by the engineers and that engineer also had concurrence by the Coastal Commission staff engineer so the height, depth, that was engineered to protect the park. And no doubt about, I think what Supervisor Williams said is if you take some of that revetment out of the West End it will eventually just like it did in the other picture, it will erode and eliminate the parking lot and park as well. So the revetment is protecting the park. You take that out, it does, and it's really up to the board, it's the board's decision, it would erode the park even further and where do you stop would be the question?
And I had a question just follow on having to do with the revetment and the adaptive management. Do we assume that we would move the revetment back during phase one and phase two?
Yes, Chair Hartman, the assumption would be you move it back to at least protect the bike path and there's some utility lines over there as well so there's some sewer lines right in the back of that.
And one other additional question then. If we did set that experimental option that you had with the cobble where parking lot seven is, would you also keep the revetment move that back to?
Chair Hartman I think that may be a question we would ask the engineer if the revetment is needed or would cobble suffice for that and John would you mind feel comfortable doing that?
6:29 – 6:377 turns
Madam Chair, I tried to put in the staff memo for you all some comments on what we know about cobble berms to help you make your decision and where we should go from here. The bottom line is I'm sad to say we don't know a whole lot about how cobble berms work. There's a number of parameters that go into their function, how big should the material be? How porous should it be?
What slope should you put it on? How big should you make it? And we don't really have a good understanding simply because of the experience or the lack thereof what's been done elsewhere. Now the surface point project which is which is a good project I was involved in The conceptual design of that back in 2000. And the notion there was to attempt to mimic the Emma Woods State Beach Natural Formation, which is a very large cobble formation that's immediately up coast of the Surfers Point area.
And when we studied this and that as to how that formation works and tried to mimic that at surface point, we still came up with some questions. That are basically unanswered. And if you look at what's been done, at surface point to date, it kind of represents the dilemma and the state-of-the-art that we're in. So if you go to the immediate west end of that site, which is the area that we're all familiar with, which is the buried cobble burn with the sand dune, that appears to be functioning But the notion is scientifically that the research and some other investigations of other natural formations elsewhere indicated that it might not be a good idea to bury cobble.
Because if you put sand over the cobble, you fill the voids and evidence shows that may destabilize it. We just don't know. Then if you go down coast about several hundred feet, there's a little bit more protected area of shoreline. There was a pilot project that was done there that worked fairly well for maybe five to ten years before it all diminished and then if you went down coast another 500 feet to Surface Point Park itself That's the area that did not work at all, and there were two attempts to try to put cobble there. And ultimately as it mentions in the document, the city reverted to a last gasp of revetment to try to save the infrastructure. So the lesson learned there is that we're not sure how we need to design these things.
The materials in order to get In order to get the material to build them there's very limited sources of where that can come from. There's Ventura River, there's Santa Paula Creek and there's other commercial interests that have been also interested in that material and they've driven up the price of it when it does become available. And then as I mentioned the performance is kind of a question mark. So that's why we said that it's a it's a pioneering effort if you choose to go in that direction, it would have to be coined I think as an experiment. You would need to be prepared to go whichever way it needs to go to either put more resources into it if it's not functioning to performance or if it does happen to work That's all well and good.
And then the last thing I'll say is that there's really no precedent Anywhere that I know of in the world where a sandy beach has been converted into a cobble environment. Every beach has an actual basement, so when the beach lowers dramatically the gravel and the cobble becomes exposed which ultimately gets covered up again in the summer when the beach raises but to then go beyond that into a more massive A stabilization type of a structure. That's the uncertainty that we face and that's what we need to be mindful of if we go in that direction.
I think the question was, in our alternative remove a 200 foot section of the emergency revetment and replace with cobble berm would you move the revetment back or eliminate it all together? I guess that's my question.
My understanding is the revetment would be moved
So let me if I can address that. I think to protect the infrastructure it sounds like to me that we would need to move it back and potentially maybe a combination of OK.
Supervisor Adam
I'm going to offer the following for discussion purposes what I would recommend at this stage is to offer to quit claim to the state all property that the county owns at Goleta Beach And inform the state that the county will be invoking the termination clause of the lease. Ask the state if they want the premises restored including removal of the rock revetments or not and that will get them into a discussion and it's going to control ultimately our future expenditures even if the near-term expenditures are higher It'll save money in the end and then it will bring all these other entities to engage in protecting their assets because you know, you've got Caltrans with 217. You've got Goleta San. You've got UCSB for I thought it was just access but apparently there's a sewer easement that goes through there as well.
And then you got Edison and SoCal Gas with utilities in the airport. And none of these guys are participating and, you know, you throw that out there and you'll get everybody, bring them to a table someplace. And whether you're at that table in the end or not You know, all those entities have a huge interest in protecting at least 217 as a line. Even if that beach is unsustainable in and of itself there will have to be some kind of buffer up against 217 probably You know we like Supervisor Lavanino said something's got to change.
We can't continue to throw money. We're in a cycle now where we're not going to have the funds to be expending this on an annual basis and so I think we need to put some pressure on some outside entities to take some action and not just leave it in our lap
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, I have some remarks that I'd like to speak to but before I do I'm going to ask County Council just kind of getting us back to where we are that we have an emergency permit and were required by the Coastal Commission to respond by what date?
6:37 – 6:483 turns
I'm going to just give my remarks. Thank you Mr. chair and Sears-Wolf that would be September
30th okay. And to Mister chapter is that one of the reasons that you are bringing this to us today so that we can give you direction. So you could have a CDP ready to take to the coastal. As I have done many times over the past 10 years, I want to thank staff, the consultants and members of the public on all sides of the issue for the time, attention and passion that you've devoted to influencing the future of Goleta Beach County Park for the past decade.
I've been in office Since I've been in office and for the decade before that, the debate over what to do about Goleta Beach Park has consumed an inordinate amount of time, money, environmental studies, and peace of mind among many people over the past dozen years or more. Second District constituents and people throughout the county who consider Goleta Beach County Park among their favorite places have become increasingly concerned, confused and desirous of some certainty regarding their ability to continue to enjoy this amazing unique beach park.
I believe that with staff's recommended action that we can do that today. Throughout the terms of my office, the board and the county's commitment to the long-term viability of Goleta Beach has been demonstrated time and time again. In the past several years, and we talked about this already but I want to point out a few of the other amenities that we've accomplished maybe some wouldn't think of this as an amenity But we voted to allocate $600,000 to replace the 40-year old aging sewer lift station that services the restaurant and restrooms. And thus prevented public health or environmental disasters.
Similarly, the board approved the replacement of the Goleta Beach Park Bridge and the staff's successful securing of federal dollars for that project. That bridge was recently completed and I had the privilege of driving over it last night. Among other features, the new bridge allows safe passage for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as a turnout for a bus stop at some point in the future.
In the past few years restrooms and some picnic areas at the beach have been renovated. Goleta Beach Park provides critical public coastal access that is relied upon in our coastal and community plans because much of the remaining county coastline is largely inaccessible. I have yet to meet anyone who does not want The differences arise and how do we do that considering the new realities that we face today.
In March of 2014 when the board was faced with a decision over the retention of those infamous 1200 feet of west end revetment my goal was to attempt to bring some measure of closure to that phase of study and debate, a debate that went back to the 1990's and the Goleta Beach Working Group In 2014, the EIR informed us that retaining the revetment would be the preferred environmental choice compared to the loss of public access and recreation that would occur with its removal.
What was not anticipated really by anyone at the time or subsequently was the unprecedented and devastating impacts of the 2015 and 2016 winter storms. The damage brought by those storms when combined with the loss of sand supply caused by the drought brings us here today. And in the noble report, it says on page 10 and 11, the cumulative effects of the severe California drought of the 2015-16 El Nino winter season.
Continued exposure to winter storms and high tides, and overall reduction in fluvial sediment supply from the coastal watershed implies that the more recent observed erosion trend at Goleta Beach may persist for some time into the future. Natural recovery will require periods of heavy precipitation and benign winters with less energetic wave action. In many policy decisions and in particular on this one which I have been called upon over the last several years to make many times, I try to base my decisions on reality as well as an examination of prior decisions. And finally a realistic acceptance of financial realities.
60 or more years ago, decisions were made to create this beach park and to fill in areas around the slough to create the airport and ultimately the highway and UC campus. All of those decisions had impacts upon the beach. That is a reality that we cannot change. The Beach Park was created and in the six decades that followed, the park has become a vital part of our community and one that I cannot support abandoning.
The Noble Report makes it clear that the loss of sand supply combined with severe storms call into question whether the shoreline can sufficiently rebound and recover From the major erosional episode. That is another reality that we must all face. Revetment or not, the beach and park will change, is changing and we must adapt to that. The noble report as in our EIR in 2014 asserts that the existing revetment is not the direct or primary cause of a loss of Sandy Beach. Again reiterated on page 24 of the noble report. It says, the beach will still be dependent upon beach nourishment to maintain wide beach without the benefit of revetment exposure to severe storm events in El Nino winter seasons will likely result in episodes of accelerated erosion that will create steep faced erosion scarps that will make the beach access hazardous and difficult.
Just as a side note, today during our administrative agenda we approved the flood control district to bring in additional sand to Goleta Beach Park. Something that we have done in the past many times since I've been on this board. So where do we go from here when taking into account the 10 years of studies that have been done? Expensive experimental measures tried or studied, be it the permeable pier, the geotextile berms, or the sand berms.
It is my intent and I hope that my colleagues will continue to support that we submit an application to the Coastal Commission per staff's recommendation to keep these rocks in place And to move forward with the amended CDP application as presented so that we can move this process forward. If the concern is money, I totally understand that we talked about Goleta Beach Park during our budget hearings. I brought our little blue sheet that talked about Goleta Beach Coastal Commission compliance and permitting where we allocated over half a million dollars to compliance and permitting.
That was a one-time expenditure. If we do what staff is recommending, it won't cost that much. We're keeping the rocks in place. If we remove the rocks and we have another storm and we have the incredible erosion like we had on the last storms That will impact the park that could potentially impact the restaurant that could potentially impact the restrooms. It's going to be our board's choice, do we let it all go? Some of you may say yes, that's fine or do we have to get another emergency permit and drop the rocks back in place to protect our infrastructure? I say let's keep those rocks in place. Let's not take them out, spend more money to get another permit and put them back in. Let's go back to the Coastal Commission ask them to permit those rocks, those emergency permitted rocks along with a revised permit for Basically the entire coast of what we have as far as the revetments go.
So I really implore my colleagues to consider what our constituents have said. People love the beach, people love the park This is an exceptional area for our for our county so we cannot dismiss that. And so I just implore you to consider this option that I think is reasonable it's something that we have to get back to the Coastal Commission ASAP And whatever the Coastal Commission staff, along with our staff work out as far as trigger points. That will be something and you can correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Chapchin that that will come back to this board but for the time being I think that we can just in our minds simplify what we are trying to do today and what we are trying to do is get a respond to the Coastal Commission in a timely manner so that we're not fined And that we have a reasonable proposal before them.
Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you
Supervisor Lavanino. Supervisor Williams first.
6:48 – 6:567 turns
I'm definitely a no on the staff recommendation. Thank you very much. Thank you very much and- part of it is process- what the last time we talked about Goleta beach was a budget item and- at least three of us express dissatisfaction with- the direction that the parks department has taken in the past with this and we were promised options But this the department has continually over decades only given two options basically.
Armor or let it all go and that is a false choice that is fundamentally a rigged choice because if you add gives people an option between armoring and doing nothing- and letting But the biggest reason is, you know that there's a large number of users that love the beach. I grew up going to Goleta Beach all the time in the summers. Many people loved this beach. I still love it even though it hardly exists anymore and By armoring the entire Goleta Beach Park, you're basically sacrificing the beach to benefit and protect the park in some areas. And in some areas not even to benefit the park but to benefit a parking lot.
And I think the beach is more important than lots six and seven. Just fundamentally, I think the beach is the reason why people go to a beach park or at least why some people go to And I feel like the interests and those people have sort of been abandoned by this process. Some of those people are here today, and they've reminded us over the years that that's what we were doing is abandoning the beach.
They predicted that the beach was going to go away, and lo and behold, the beach went away. And I would not support any option that doesn't give a chance for the beach to have some room. I personally think that 55 parking spots that can be moved is not, would be a small price to pay for a beach to exist at Goleta Beach. I would add that the Westin parking lots are the least desirable for actual park users. People who want to use the park usually like to park next to the park, those Westin lots are most popular on weekdays when they're used by Single-use vehicles going to UCSB can roll up there any weekday and see where the majority of the people parking there are going. They're walking up to UCSB because it's an easy way to circumvent the parking fees at UCS B, which is simply to park at Goleta Beach parking lot.
I do not think it is worth the money Or works sacrificing the beach to armor a parking lot for the benefit of. People trying to circumvent the parking fees at UCSB that is not help The beach. I am open to a compromise, I'm open to allowing some of the armoring to stay in place to protect some of the vital parts of the park and infrastructure. I don't expect to get you know the beach at expense of everything else but I think part of Goleta Beach Park should have the priority of the beach The rare species that use it like grunion and the people who use it. I mean, I'm going to pull Peter Adam because I don't know everything about drilling wells or about farming or about irrigation techniques but I've been a surfer from Ventura to Goleta my whole life so I know a lot about beaches I know that when waves are three to four feet at Goli Beach, they're over ten feet at surface point.
Of course that is directed against surfers point also known as C. street. Is immense and that project is partially managed retreat partially cobbled berm in a small section of rock revetment If it can withstand in some El Nino years, 18 foot waves. Waves strong enough to damage that pier and exceeding the height of that pier. If that project can do that I wonder why we don't think that revetment, that cobble berm might play a role in protecting Goleta Beach I guess I would say that if we were going to allow the beach to take over parking lot 7, adding some cobble, there would be no downside. If it didn't work, it'd just take over the parking lot and if it did work, it would slow down taking over the parking lot.
So I'm going to know today, I'm open to a compromise in the long run but I don't think this is a compromise. This is just us continuing the same direction that hasn't worked to do anything except destroy the beach.
Supervisor Lavanita.
Thank you Madam Chair. So I have a few questions first. One of them was, so we have to respond by the 30th of next month but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a CDP application correct? What are we required to do as far as a response?
Supervisor Lavigna through the Chair, it is the application to amend the adaptive management plan for the ROC revetment. Of course we'll hear back from the Coastal Commission staff if they don't like anything in the application or they want changes. It's going to be kind of a give and take I think with coastal Commission staff at this point, but it is an application.
All right so that was the next question is. So Mark who spoke I know you do a lot of your history is is is gone for the Coastal Commission expects a whole lot more mitigation than what we're talking about even in your giving up 6 and 7 parking lot. What's your take on that and would we let's say we we submit the application and Coastal Commission comes back and says X Y Z. That comes back to the board or what at what point I mean even if it for gets to final approval does the board have another bite of the apple
absolutely we can bring it back to the board if they say take out parking lot 6 or 7 of course will come back to the board. Those are pretty substantial asks from the Coastal Commission
Okay and then I guess the next question I have is for Council and that is on supervisor Adams request about quick claiming the property who owns the property what
6:56 – 7:0310 turns
Thank you. Chair Hartman and Supervisor Levin, I think Park CSD has a slide on this or General Services has a slide on this but this is a combination of different estates in the area there's some that's owned in fee some owned in trust and some that subject to a lease. So the property goes back to 1949 with a series of different exchanges Maybe now they're ready to talk through with the pointer, Jeanette.
I don't have a pointer but perhaps I can sit next to you. So again this map is not to scale but this white area here is county-owned and we're leasing the bridge Here and this here and the pier from the state as well as this area right here where the revetment is.
And what's the terms of that lease? How long are we leasing it for? I
think it's 20 years, and it was approved in 2015.
It's excuse me it's 20 years except isn't there a. Convenience clause in that you can terminate that lease?
I'm not sure.
Chair and Supervisor Reddam the lease does state that the county may seek early termination and again this would be discretionary on behalf of the state also. Of course
OK thank you. Well probably would have been good to ask Mr. Bennett while he was here if if if he would like it so I visited the beach yesterday at a beach park and went over the beautiful new bridge which was open and somebody was talking about playing on the beach. You'd have to be a pretty skinny kid play play on that beach but You know the whole this whole thing just seems so Galita Beach always seemed to me to be so contrived. It's like putting rocks in taking rocks out got to protect this part of it and then to realize found out later which I probably should have known ahead of time was that it was manmade. I didn't realize that for a long time. So it's not surprising that you know we tried to do something and Mother Nature apparently doesn't like the location of that beach.
Very difficult for me when I'm preparing for things as I go on a radio show beforehand and to tell folks in Santa Maria that we have spent over the last 20 years $17 million dollars on a beach is a tough pill for folks to swallow up there. And then I started thinking what if it was another entity that had come before this board and applied for a permit to protect their property and wanted to add rock revetment That application would I'm sure be DOA.
Oh, and how about if they violated the Coastal Commission's conditions of approval too?
That would probably be prosecution but you know in the destruction we saw with the geotextile models material that was put out there. You know if anybody else had done that Hellfire would be raining down so We do find ourselves though for me in real quandary because the dilemma for me is you know supervisor Adam says to me the common sense. It does it does make sense to just say look we've spent too much money on this.
We can't continue to do the same thing that we're doing and the easiest thing for me would be to say take the rocks out and let nature take its course But we've also, I just drove over that bridge. We just put in new restrooms and there's the restaurants right there. And I guess the argument about now the restaurant that creates us revenue think we've spent 70 or 80 years worth of the revenue that comes from that restaurant so. The restaurant is great and it's a great place to eat, but you know it's killing us as far as protecting it.
So I don't really know what the options are though because the options just aren't there are there isn't a good out here. It's either Continue to spend an inordinate amount of money protecting the park and eliminating the beach, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Or taking out the rocks and wiping out a lot of the infrastructure that we've just put in there, which doesn't make sense.
So I'm kind of at a loss. You know calling somebody's bluff on this and like the. I'm sorry ma'am, I forgot your name but you know when you said hey UCSB should be at the table in the airport we should talk to these folks I'm sure we have nobody else likes to line up it's always your responsibility County you're here at the end of the line and so you can pick up the tab for this You know, I'm done spending money this kind of money on it. I know we've budgeted money for it this year but you know this is a 20-year problem and it's not going to go away if we don't do anything different and to be honest with you it doesn't sound like engineering wise no offense to the engineers that are here those are the folks or some engineers give us the geotextile model which totally didn't work And so it just seems like this is an area of science that, you know, it's a dynamic fluid situation and who knows what's going to happen out there.
So I don't know if these, you know, this new thing that showed up, that thing looks cool but, you know, there's no guarantee that's gonna work either. I'm stuck to be honest with you. I don't know really a good solution here so, you know, I'm going to open it up back to you folks but I like the idea of trying to wash our hands of this situation and I could see somebody else doing this to us as far as saying here you go County, I don't want this anymore and so you take it over.
And so I'm not sure why we wouldn't be able to do that to the state. You know I could see possibly getting rid of the revetment over on the West side protecting Protecting the infrastructure that's over there maybe try to cobble over there and if it works you could pull out the revetment all across and then use Kabul. But I'm I'm not sold that's going to work either so.
You got me on this one. Maybe that's why it's been a problem for 20 something years.
7:03 – 7:114 turns
I would like to say a few things about what I've heard and where I stand before Supervisor Wolf and Adam chime in. I queried rather carefully about the revetment, I'm the last person in the world who would argue for armoring our coast. But as I understand it, we even in as we would move back with phase 1 or phase 2 and what we call managed retreat. Or I prefer coastal resilience but we would be moving the revetment back And as I understood it from even if we did a pilot an experiment with the cobble where parking lot seven is, we would remove the revetment back there too. So it's not like we would cart it truck it out somewhere entirely different so were stuck with the revetment as I see it. It's just where we are going to place it.
So that's point number one. I am very much open to experimenting, it's hard because we've got 10 and 20 year time cycles so I don't know and then we've got on top of that sea level rise and so exactly what experiments tell us Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. But I am also sobered by the idea that cobble isn't readily available and how much we would need. And what would that do to the biological habitat and the access issues in slippery surface? So, that's a question for me.
I haven't heard anybody say anything about the fish balls. To me, that's a tremendously intriguing idea. I gather it's been used elsewhere in the country not so much on the west coast or in California although perhaps in Oregon but I think when we go to the Coastal Commission if we could explore whether they would be open to that it's at least something to explore long run that might be worthwhile you.
So I am prepared myself to support Supervisor Wolf's and staffs recommendation. I myself would like to see a five-year trigger for the phase one, I'd like to come back to this and again I'd like to look at the fish balls and also see if we could experiment after that five year period with the cobble. Supervisor Wolf.
Well Madam Chair thank you, thank you for your comments I just wanted to You know I think a lot of us that have gone to Goleta Beach we have anecdotal stories of what we see and what we do. And I've been going to Goleta Beach since I was at UCSB since the late 70s and raised my kids at Goleta Beach go periodically to Golita Beach, go to the restaurant, to the beach side there's so much to do there and I went yesterday as well and what Supervisor Williams said about the West End parking you know I've heard that.
That it's mostly students that use that parking lot and I think our Rangers have been instructed to monitor that but interestingly yesterday and again this is all anecdotal when I was there, there was a woman with her infant child. There was another man who was going out on his kayak. There was a man who was sitting in his car looking at the ocean UCSB is not in session but there were a number of cars there.
When I went out toward the pier, there was definitely sand over by the slew where people were sitting and bathing and kids were there but they were also on the other side of the pier So there was sand, there was activity. There were also kids playing there with people walking their dogs. There's a lot of activity going on and that's just on the beach in the West End parking lot not to mention the grassy area where we didn't even mention the kid's play area that I saw that was actively used yesterday.
I know that this is a difficult decision for my colleagues because you're probably tired of hearing about this. They are long and extensive board meetings, it does cost us a lot of money but I believe that what we have before us is the least costly. And it also does include Supervisor Hartman prefers to have the tenure window reduced to five years. Within that time frame, that's when we will look at the revetment option that Supervisor Williams has talked about.
So those are all things that are in the plan. Although I sit on Beacon and we do have, I think they're called reef balls out in Goleta Bay as an experiment. But those two items are not part of what staff is recommending but no doubt that when you go back to the Coastal Commission and you work with staff maybe those things will come back to us So what I would like is to stick with staff's recommendation. I'm fine with the five years, our noble report said between 5 and 10 years they preferred the ten years. But if five years will get us there, because I just think this is so important that we move this forward.
I will change my motion to modify that and then any other things would be looked at as Supervisor Hartman mentioned.
Supervisor Adam?
Well that's an interesting question. As you have modified the motion what would be the cumulative estimate on cost over the next five years?
7:11 – 7:188 turns
Supervisor Adam through the chair. The cost up on the screen is based on a recommendation it's $150,000 one time and that's budgeted and the ongoing is between 60 to 160 and that's budgeted so the phased approach if we take out parking lot 7 would be 2 million in 5 years or that would be adjusted you know based on what the value of the dollar back then? And phase 2 is also taking up 6 and 7. Phase one would be 2 million if after 5 years to determine take that out.
Well see I think we need to stop spending these kinds of monies now. This cobbled berm thing is just a really expensive experiment there isn't anybody that stood up here that we've paid money to today who's got any confidence in it doesn't sound like to me nobody's ready to guarantee it I just think the best option is to get some other people involved in this thing with us. And I think the only way you can do that is by cranking up the pressure, by trying to make some motions towards offering this property up to the state or somebody else and that's going to get somebody in because like Supervisor Lavagnino was talking about nobody comes and offers us money.
You know they're going to sit still, they are going to sit on their hands and they are going to see if we don't just decide to pay or comply and end up paying anyway. And you know they don't have any incentive to get in and figure out where the money is going to come from out of their pocket so. You know everybody is just sitting on their hands, notice that there isn't anybody here today except Councilman Bennett and you know we didn't get to ask him if he wanted to participate.
So I think that's the only way to do it so I wouldn't be supporting the motion.
Let me just ask, are there any ways short of the extreme measure that Supervisor Adam is suggesting to encourage or leverage and get others to participate in this? Because I certainly agree we can't continue to pay. We have to get grants or something else to even do the experiments.
Madam Chair, we've engaged with the utility companies on site and we've also notified them in regards to where we're headed and the possibilities of managed retreat. And them coming forward with paying the cost We also have one of the representatives from Goleta sanitary district who also part of your packet was a technical memorandum in regards to their relocation of their infrastructure and it estimated out do a project of such managed retreat and relocating their vault but we have been in contact with those utilities and we've sent them a notice as well in regards to where we're possibly headed.
Let me just ask Mr. Gazzone I mean how realistic is Supervisor Adams, can we do that?
Chair Hartman and supervisors focusing just on the idea of looking at easement holders. The county as possessing the land underneath these easements has, the general rule is has no duty to maintain or repair that so that puts us in a good discussion position with people who hold those easements Again, going back to one of the time constraints you have is that you have a need to take some action with the Coastal Commission in near term.
But it would not preclude you from going down a dual path and looking at this maybe in the longer term?
Supervisor Williams and then Wolf.
Well I would just say that if we think what's going to happen in the future is that the revetment will impede coastal access or at least as far as I'm concerned, I believe it's already impeding coastal access because In my experience the most dangerous thing in the ocean is rock revetment. I mean, I'll take my little girl kayaking but I wouldn't let her go on a beach that has rock revetment because Little kids are gonna hurt themselves can't get over that stuff very easily.
It's a huge wall so I mean to me if we're being intellectually honest we know that the impacts that would be in assessed in phase 2 are already there And. You know then if we know that then why are we just doing it now as part of the project it would definitely make permitting. The revet the emergency revetment more attractive to the coastal commission if we said we're going to rip out the revetment along.
Along along six and seven I would say And 6 we say hey unless the utility holders are going to maintain this. We're going to rip that out too. And so. To me that would be a balance and I mean I guess if I can't get that maybe I should support quick claiming the whole thing because I just don't see any other way for us to have each. I'll also add to Supervisor Wolf's point, Beacon has supported a project of kelp nourishment for many many years that we got started so I'm not sure about what the right design is but kelp there...I don't know if kelp will save the beach but it at least Was an indicator when there was a healthy beach that was also healthy kelp forest so.
Correlation doesn't imply causation but the worst there would be no downside to it besides their being more fish and more habitat out there so I it's something that I support 100%.
7:18 – 7:249 turns
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair. You know this whole issue about giving up Goleta Beach is just so troubling to me I guess it would, as I'm sitting here I'm trying to think well what could I compare it to and two weekends ago I went tent camping, you might not believe this but I did at Lake Kachuma And it would be to me like we would give that back to whatever the state or federal agency that works with us at Lake Kachuma. To me, that's an amazing place. I don't know how much we spend on maintenance.
It's an amazing it's an amazing place for our community. It's not just and thank you supervisor Hartman for You know watching over that that's in this in the third district But it benefits all of all of us in our county not to mention people who don't live in the county So that's how I feel about Goleta Beach. I feel so strongly about The County's role in protecting Goleta Beach and the park and Thank you.
I think that you know when we talk about intellectual honesty one of the things, and you know I understand what you are saying Supervisor Williams about taking your daughter down the rocks but there's also areas where there are areas just like I saw yesterday on the east side of the restaurant near the pier. Where you don't have to do that. So that's one piece but the other pieces is based on what the Noble report said and that is if you study Goleta Beach over time not just in one year or five years but you study it over time, it changes. And so that's why I just implore my colleagues not to make these rash decisions The revetment may in fact be removed but it will be looked at over a five-year period of time. I think that's reasonable. Let's not make that rash decision now and let's protect the beach and the park.
Supervisor Adam?
You know, I've always supported Goleta Beach before I think and I know you disagree that we have a financial crisis. You know I. I just can't sit here and sign up for a long term negative cash flow you know if Kachuma had the same negative cash flow that this thing does, I would be taking the exact same position. I would be trying to quit playing that thing back to Bureau of Reclamation.
But it doesn't you know that that's one of the few places that there's only 2 places the county makes money is to want to get him and one of them is a llama.
No I think you forgot Henry's Beach and you forgot beachside which makes over a quarter million dollars a year that was on one of your
slow. You're talking about gross not net.
You just you made a statement about the two places that make the most money. And what I'm saying is when I look at the numbers, that's not what I see and you should take into account those two beach parks.
Okay well we can this is a distraction anyway. You can ask Mr. Chaptian okay well Mr. Chaptian is there net profit at any place that you run besides those
two? Supervisor Adam through the chair, there is a net profit at Halama. There's a net profit at Royal Borough Beach. There is a slight net profit at Kachuma. We're trying to improve that as the water increases I think we get more and more people. Not so much at Goleta Beach but the others do. And Halama there's a concessionaire there also pays over $100. Not so much at Goleta Beach?
Well, I think the costs currently have offset the revenue at Goleta Beach. The beachside cafe does bring in $250,000 a year. Right
but that's not 1.2. That's what I'm talking about. This is the net, not the gross because it doesn't make any difference if you're actually coming out negative. It's negative cash flows bad everywhere you go even at the government trust me so especially given our current situation where we have major problems with our pensions and our deferred maintenance and all that so you know if If Kachuma, to retrace the steps here. If Kachuma had the same negative cash flow situation I would be trying to spin that off as well.
So you know this is a tough deal for me. I know it sounds like it's easy but it's not because we have, I recognize fully that we've spent a lot of money on that place. But you know at some point you've got to look down the road and see what you're going to spend in the future. And even abandoning, I mean it's a really difficult choice but it's the smart thing to do if you have to abandon a little bit to save a lot I mean in 20 years somebody's there's going to be a different panel of people up here.
Wondering why in the hell they went back through the last 20 years and they spent 30 million dollars out there, and they're looking at all the other things that they still need to do. And you know they're gonna be wondering why we spent that money and I think that you gotta You got to call a spade a spade at some point and just say this thing's a loser. And we need to just get out of it with the least cost going into the future.
7:24 – 7:3013 turns
Mr. Chaption?
Just to clarify Chair Hartman and Supervisor Adam, we have a public park system and like any park system you're not going to make money off of it and there are parks where you will make some money in and it's just part of the entire system and it is provides access to open space and green and ball fields and parks and beaches to people who may not normally be able pay for so It is part of the public park system. The county does provide general fund money for the park system in excess of what this is so just to kind of be fair we do have, we do make money and some of the other venues that's great but most of them we don't
I realize that but you know there is sort of an implicit value proposition at a park. You know we have to have something that's proportionate to the benefits, proportionate to the cost and this thing right here It's just grossly lopsided in cost versus I think benefit at this point, you know it given given the context of all the other things that we have to do as we. You know as I like to say run a company and over were charged with running the whole company here not just pieces of it and you know this is a part of a very large and long equation and for me I think I've reached the limit on what I can commit to spending long-term here.
And I'm not speaking for anybody else and I'm not making any motions here, because I think that there's kind of two schools of thought up here and I'm going to join the one that is least objectionable because it's probably not going to be exactly my idea.
Let me just jump in here because there are two points I want to make. The first is that I think leaving the revetment in place and following staff's recommendation is the cheapest thing we can do at this point I'd also like to, the second issue is that we have, yes we're not meeting the triggers now in terms of access and the revetment being covered. However it has been an extreme drought and an extreme storm so we need to give it a little time and the additional nourishment that's coming from Goleta Slough so it is at least potentially Something we could see in the future where the revetment would once again be covered and so we need to give it a little time. So those were the two points that I wanted to make and Supervisor Lavanino you've been waiting.
Thank You Madam Chair, I think we all have everybody's like probably much talked out but so on the managed retreat phase like Phase 1 of the 2 million would there also be monitoring costs on top of that or is at the cost? That's the whole cost
Well I think there could potentially be more monitoring costs. That's our estimate that we would know we've come back to you with some actuals
OK so I'm trying to get to the least cost possible here. So we have the one time cost which budgeted if we do the permit, we have ongoing annual costs for monitoring phase 1 could happen within five years I could live with A and B, C for me within five years. We've got to find other partners that are going to assist with that $2 million. But we wouldn't know that as we make that application, and we make that commitment.
But then like Supervisor Adams says, we're already on the hook for it so what's the hook to get anybody else in? But what I would like to see in a perfect world is okay, we've already budgeted for A and B. C, if we could bring partners to the table to assist in phase one of the managed retreat, that would be very helpful for me.
Supervisor Levin you're through the chair. I believe that also helps protect the sewer lift station for UCSB so we can bring them to the table and there's other utilities that run along there, so that's something
I mean it's got to cost them more to move it than it would to be to assist us in retreating.
Supervisor Williams then Adam and then Wolf
Well I think if you guys think that the Coastal Commission is going to approve this permit without extracting an additional pound of flesh, then you're kidding yourself. They're gonna put us on the hook for way more monitoring than that. They're gonna figure out some kind of either endangered species or coastal access thing that we need to do that's gonna cost us money You know,
so but it will come back to us before that.
Yeah, right. Okay. So if you want another 6 months to a year to pass and then not just spend even more money than then yeah, I mean on paper this the staff recommendation looks like it's the cheapest but that's
7:30 – 7:3615 turns
Mr. Chaption would
you
like to comment?
Yes Chair and Supervisor Williams the board would have to agree to the conditions set by the Coastal Commission so we would bring it back.
Supervisor Adams.
Well then if we don't accept them and pursue another track at that point then we'd be in violation right? Mr. Gazzone.
Chair Harmon and Supervisor Adam there's always the possibility of pursuing an extension while, and that's what I've talked before about just dual tracking do the permit application see what happens. If you don't like the terms that are offered back or the conditions that are offered back you could seek an extension meanwhile maybe pursuing some of the easement options as you go through so I don't think it's all or none On that. And we have talked before about pursuing extensions on permits with the Coastal Commission first you know short term extensions versus- you know multi year extensions which is what's
Okay well my first comment was that this is an excellent example of what's wrong with the Brown Act because we're sitting here trying to do something very, very complex and very, very important on the fly. And we can't talk outside of the dais and everybody kind of gets chased into their corner up here on the dais. When we come out and we haven't been able to discuss things and kind of bounce ideas off others, and let them ruminate and develop. And maybe turn into something even better.
But now we're trying to just make something work up here on the fly and it's not the best idea always but I think that I'm interested if anybody else is interested in the parallel track deal. Do you think
we could get a motion to accept staff recommendations and learn more about this?
And at the same time make an offer to the state to take their property back from the lease and our property back. And see what everybody has to say you know that will precipitate some discussions I'm thinking.
Let me just ask would you elaborate on what you mean as the dual options?
Chairman, maybe first I could say that if the board's direction today was to pursue real property transactions with the state and with the easement holders there is a closed session exception for real property negotiations. That you could be informed through that as your making decisions about those real property actions so that would be one part of a multi-track.
You do have a near end deadline to respond to the Coastal Commission. I think staff has agendized a package that would go to the Coastal Commission and no doubt be back and forth some time on that where you would have the ability to either accept or not accept those conditions, but you could in a dual track be pursuing these real property suggestions that Supervisor Adam and other supervisors have talked about today?
So just procedurally we could go with staff's recommendations and then at the same time set a closed session and discuss this option in more detail.
Chair and Supervisors the short answer is yes but I think that if there was going to be direction to pursue, to direct staff to pursue easement or quick claim discussions some unified direction from the board on that would be a signal to CEO and the departments to actually spend time on beginning the work. It will take some amount of time to go through I think we should bifurcate these issues as far as motions go.
So and I appreciate Supervisor Labagnino's comments about the phase one and getting the other utilities involved. And I certainly appreciate staffs response, and I think it was in one of your reports that you have been meeting with utility companies for the Phase 1. And I would encourage the UCSB piece as well. So anyway Supervisor La Tornina, I think that's a good point for me to include in the motion.
So I'm going to restate the motion that we are going to move forward with staffs recommendation including the proposed adaptive management plan reducing it to five years And encouraging staff or directing staff to engage with our partners who would be involved with the amended management plan, utility companies, city UCSB, City of Santa Barbara for the phase one and phase two eventualities.
That's my motion.
7:36 – 7:4519 turns
The next motion. I'm guessing will be my
I'm going to make a motion on this item. And I think if we're talking about money Mr. Ghazani talked about the amount of staff time that's going to take, legal time you know but again that's why I'd like to just bifurcate it because I think we need to move forward on this process.
I will second the motion. Let me ask Supervisor Lavanino if it were 10 years instead of five years that 2 million were out there would you be able to support the motion?
Madam Chair my main concern is that I don't want to be the lone donkey carrying a load here so I'm more interested in not exactly the amount of years but the You know the participation of everybody else in the process.
I think everyone up here agrees but I'm not sure that we can resolve that today or in time to get the application into the, well maybe Supervisor Williams does.
Well one thing I will say when I looked at the letter from the Goleta Sanitary District I recall them saying that it was going to cost them 1-3 million dollars to relocate and they didn't say they didn't want to do it or pay for it. What they did ask our board is if we would accept staff's recommendation so that they could do the engineering studies that might make that happen now of course that's not the west end, that's not phase one or phase two That's where the current rocks are. But I guess my point is that, I believe that the utility companies at least have said in the past when we were looking at the other Goleta Beach plan, that they understood their responsibility in the cost of relocation of their utilities.
So either they're going to let them just flush out with the water or they're going to move And I hope that answers your question. Mr. Labanino
chairman just again underlining that the short the short end deadline is with the Coastal Commission and there this no doubt will be an iterative process with the Coastal Commission if the board wanted to on one of the back and forths direct for their real property discussions there's an opportunity today or there's an opportunity in a future meeting to do that.
OK.
I have a suggestion
supervisor Adam
Hubbard You I am looking at you. How about you withdraw your motion? Okay, I'm just throwing out something and then I'll make a motion which My pass and then there could be another motion to do the exact same thing. And then we know we're not. We know where we're headed. We've got direction I'm going to make a motion to if you withdraw your motion I'm going to make emotion to or if your motion loses I'm gonna make a motion to engage in this real property activities that we've been talking about regarding quick claiming Our interest at Goleta Beach and terminating the lease for our interests in Goleta Beach.
And if that were to pass I could support then going off and getting us compliant In theory working with the Coastal Commission to see what they would say so that they bring that back to see if that was reasonable instead of getting sandbagged you know if we don't have that alternative out there functioning. So we really do have two tracks.
Okay so I have a question about that. This is what's weird about the Brown Act, this meeting looks totally disjointed and this proves we aren't talking to each other prior to a meeting. Apologize to the public but those are the rules. Okay so but that would be in place of an application? So you're saying.
No, you could have really two tracks here. You could if you instructed staff to go ahead and spend that time and pursue those ends you really have one track that's working out there. You are not just talking about it as a bluff And then you could actually go to the we could do staff recommendations after that which enables Park Staff to go and work with the Coastal Commission and see where that ends up. And then whatever they end up with, they got to bring back to us to approve. So by that time will know a lot more because we'll have some closed sessions about this. And we'll know a lot more about what our alternatives are with respect to divesting of the property
So I would thank you if I could. I just think we should just vote on my motion and make it clean and then if there is another motion about divestment from the Goleta Beach because With all due respect Supervisor Atom I don't know that I could support that and if you combine it as one motion, to me it seems so far-fetched. And I'm looking at Jeanette Pell and I would love to have you come up and talk about it but I don' t even want to go there. So I just wish we could just take a vote on this and then see where it goes.
And then we can have the other motion which still may pass Mr. Adam to look at it.
We have a motion in a second and the current motion is to change phase 1 to a five-year rather than a 10 year, is there discussion on the motion Supervisor Williams has been waiting for a long time and then Supervisor Lavanito.
Well I think you guys know the reasons why I oppose the motion, I guess I would suggest as an alternate that we respond to Goleta Sanitary District and say we'd be willing to pursue the emergency The permanent licensure of these emergency permits, if you're willing to provide us the capital costs or share in the capital costs of implementing phase one as mitigation for the permanent revetment that we just installed in 2017.
And that would be probably the cheapest of all the options that we've discussed. If they have a $3 million incurred cost, if we don't do that revetment well you know maybe if we ask them for a million or a million and a half to defray the costs of implementing phase Phase one we then thereby also avoid 10 years worth of monitoring costs because if we're actually implementing the mitigation instead of just monitoring to see if we have to do the mitigation in the future.
Then. We could at least save some of those monitoring costs that would be my suggestion if the motion fails.
If the motion fails OK. Supervisor Adam and then Wolfe and then Wolfe.
Well I don't see where that gets us because that's really only dealing with a little piece of Goleta Sandline. We still have this, this is ongoing we're going to deal with that in either case.
I would hope that other we could convince others to participate as well but at least Goleta Sand has a very you know simple cost equation either participate or potentially incur three million dollars worth relocation costs
7:45 – 7:5929 turns
We have a motion and a second and I guess a roll call vote. Ms. Wolfe?
Aye.
Mr. Adams? No. Mr. Lavinino? No, Ms. Williams? No Ms. Hartman?
Aye
Motion fails.
I'll move that we go to the utility users and ask for participation in the mitigation project for going to the Coastal Commission for the permanent permit for the emergency revetment. The mitigation project would be whatever we get Participation for phase one as soon as the money is available and. Phase 2 potentially in the future but whatever we get money and participation from from the utility users.
If I could just ask a clarifying question. So you, Mr. Williams are saying keep the rock revetment apply to the Coastal Commission to keep the rock revetment while at the same time talking to Goleta Sand to pay $1 million to implement phase one?
I'm saying that we would only pursue the permit with the Coastal Commission if there was participation by Goleta Sand And other affected utilities. Their participation would pay for the mitigation project that the Coastal Commission probably will require anyway I think we have
people
from
Goleta San here.
Mr. Gazzone did you want
to speak first or after?
After would be fine thank you.
So thank you chair and thank you members of the board. Jane Gray with DUDECC and Laura Romano from the Goleta Sanitary District, and so we are here representing Goleta Sanitary District. We have also two emergency permits that are separate from your permits. So we also obviously needed to move forward with emergency permits to protect We are working collectively and collaboratively with the county on the revetment. We also placed 75 feet of revetment along the coastline, and we're obviously working in concert to advance this to the Coastal Commission by the 30th deadline. We are working on an extension already. Emergency permits require 60 days, so we worked with the Coastal Commission to already get an extension that provides us with three months.
We are working collaboratively with your staff and we'd
Yeah Laura Romano with Glada Sanitary and we have been part of this process in partnering with the park folks since this emergency situation happened. So I would like to make sure everyone here understands that we are actively engaged, we have been this whole time and we continue to be and we are mindful of our constituents as a government agency. We are not a business but we provide sewer service to quite a few folks, over 80,000 folks and we're mindful that there would be impact to the beach park and to our constituents whose sewers we serve so thank you for your time.
Thank you.
And sorry just to follow up the Glee Sanitary District would Probably require about $3 million in relocation for 3.1 was yes the lower end so 3.5 to 5 million dollars for relocation of the facility, the sewer outfall and the facilities are pulling it all the way back. So that's a huge cost for our district as well. So it's not just county costs. Thank you.
I think, thank you for being here. I think that their response just reflects the cooperative working relationship with all the utilities. I know the gas company has also worked with staff on Goleta Beach. You know I know the other motion was voted down but as much as we talk about you know supporting our businesses and our community so we have the beach side restaurant. If you remove those rocks, you are going to impact the sewer vault. The sanitary vault that also serves the restaurant. It's going to impact the workers at the restaurant, not to mention we haven't even talked about our lease agreement with the restaurant. I would think that we have an obligation, although I haven't looked at the contract, it would seem that we have an obligation to protect that restaurant.
Not to mention what I believe that we have an obligation to our citizens to protect Goleta Beach Park. And it's beyond me that it's becoming, you know politicized isn't the right word but I think short sighted is. You know as we started off this conversation we said that we have invested so much money not just on the repairs but we've invested money in infrastructure which we talk about all the time to make that a great beautiful park and what I'm seeing before Thank you, Director Peters.
To ask the coastal commission to keep the rocks and by the way our staff has been working with the Coastal Commission over this issue for months, so it's not like they're going to be surprised by By these recommendations. I also want to say that some people Might have a certain opinion about the Coastal Commission But I think that they took a strong stance when they approved our last permit mainly because They're not fans of revetment. I think that's obvious, but I also think they weighed their discomfort with revetments with a positive piece of it providing access to our coastline That was overwhelming. I was at that hearing and that's what I heard, it was a unanimous vote by the Coastal Commissioners to keep those rocks in place. Yes we had conditions but the fact of the matter is that Coastal Commission approved us and allowed us to keep those revetments in place And again if we discount the benefit to our community for coastal access, we don't have it until you get into Leadbetter which is right on the border of the city of Santa Barbara and an unincorporated area.
It's all Hope Ranch, there is no access. And what is left at Haskell is almost non-existent so this is our piece of coastal access for our community so the notion that we are either going to let it fall into the ocean or sell it off is just ridiculous I just don't understand. If money is an issue we've got a great plan before us. So other than everyone is tired of hearing about Goleta Beach but you know it's in my district. I hear about it all the time so I should be the one complaining about hearing about Goleta Beach all the time, but I'm not because I know how important it is to my constituents and to our community. So I am going to keep fighting for Goleta Beach and I wish that I wish that I could hear that same passion among my colleagues and I know some of you do feel that passion and I appreciate it.
I don't know. I don't know what the results are, so you know that beautiful bridge that has a bike path and everything? So why did we get the money for that and go through coastal commission approvals for that and all the trouble that our public works department did to get that great bridge?
Well
Supervisor Adam go ahead.
I'll tell you why is because it comes one thing at a time and we approve these things not realizing the totality of the money and the time and all that, that were getting involved in these things and I think that everybody's finally come to the conclusion that its unsustainable and then we got to stop it so the question is how do we get out of it? And so I have two questions.
I have two questions for Mr. Williams regarding his motion, one is what is the time limitation on getting whoever's coming to the table? And the other is we have these other entities, the only one you mentioned specifically was Kalita Sand so obviously you just accidentally left out all of the others right?
Well I didn't accidentally, I just think that it's very clear that they have an interest in the emergency permit becoming permanent. I would argue that others do as well And I would hope that we could call us on essentially what I'm looking for is a place for the beach to live right. I mean, I'm just trying to make my interest clear. So I'm saying that look, we make it clear to the utilities that we're not going to pursue the permanent revetment unless they're willing to participate financially in the mitigation costs of that permanent revetment. Mitigation is what I feel is allowing a place for the beach along parking lot seven and You know the deadline would be September 30 if these agencies know that they need to act because we need to be able to act.
Okay so just to clarify maybe we can change the motion a little bit and I can support it. So let's deal with the entities. We got Caltrans, we got UCSB, we got Edison and so-called gas and we get the airport and we're going to see ideally for me would be the permitting entity and everybody else picks up the cost You know, we'll fly you by. That's the way it works where I come from.
So I think that that's kind of a starter thing and I don't know how you get that organized by September 30th I think you almost got to bring this item back again at some point. If you're not going to give dual track instruction to staff so that we can continue or start to research what our alternatives are in terms of divesting I don't know how you get everybody to the table. I'd be happy to
change my motion to ask staff to return to us with a option for permitting the emergency revetment that includes an immediate mitigation project at parking lot 7 and that includes at least some participation by The utilities. And we do that together and I honestly you know the Coastal Commission is we go past September 30th is not going to on October 1st it's not gonna be showing up there with bulldozers to remove that revetment
I wish they would.
So I think personally, I think the month of September is plenty of time for staff to bring us back at other options as we were, as we charged, as I would argue, we charged three months ago but if it takes longer than it takes longer.
Mr. Gazzone
Thank you. Chair Hartman and Supervisors again the present deadline is September 30th and I would caution that I actually respect that deadline and would not want to run past it what we have not heard from planning department who has experience in this area is the likelihood or the speed of getting an extension on our current permit and I did talk briefly
7:59 – 8:0626 turns
If you think she's ready to come share her thoughts with us.
Do you want me to just Madam Chair do you want me to just address whether I think the Coastal Commission will grant an extension or Yeah come up
with a
solution to
everything
right now Diane.
Any insights you would care to share with us but including the extension?
I'm not going to fix it because the five of you can't quite figure out how to maneuver this. So, I'm probably not going to come up with the best solution. I can tell you that the Coastal Commission staff and I can't tell you what the Coastal Commission itself is thinking but the Coastal Commission staff is extremely sympathetic to our position. And they understand that. They don't feel like they have enough information to tell us to pull out the rocks and I think they expect us to submit an application to keep them so I mean we've been in discussion with him for quite a long time and I think that's what they expect and I think they believe that's reasonable if we monitor and commit to taking certain actions if things don't improve With respect to an extension, I think they would understand if we asked for an extension.
But I think we should tell them why we need it. So if the board needs more time to consider options or whatever, I think they would be amenable to it and I am with County Council. If we're not going to meet the September 30th deadline, we should ask for and get an extension before then.
Do you think Diane that they would be, that they would think it's a good idea to get an extension as we approach another governmental agency and say we're not going to do something unless they give us $1 million? Do you think that would be something that they would think is a great thing and give us an extension for that?
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf I don't know that they are terrifically concerned about how we fund. The things that need to happen out there. I think they understand that there are a lot of entities that will benefit by addressing these issues and then it may take some time for us to get ourselves organized so that we can put together a package that we can feel comfortable with but I don't think it's just quite as straightforward as you stated
Then I'd be happy to make the motion that we apply for a 90-day extension in order to work out the details of the proper mitigation project for the permanent revetment.
Supervisor Adam and then Wolf?
Okay will you also direct staff to pursue divestiture per discussions we've previously had?
No but I'd direct staff to be asking all the utilities for financial participation in the mitigation project because we don't have Because I think what I felt from this board is that a lot of you are just done spending money unilaterally on this. And if that's what you want, I think that's very understandable.
Supervisor Wolf. So the difference between your motion and my motion is an extension for 90 days. With the anticipation or the hope that we will get other agencies able to pay for the removal of lot seven.
And that they would be helping to pay for the mitigation project That would facilitate Coastal Commission approval of our permanent permits.
So you're jumping ahead, you don't want to wait the five years? You just want parking lot seven removed immediately regardless of who paid
for it? It's
not going to be
removed immediately. Supervisor Wolff, you are using all the rhetoric that was used against you for years when you supported managed retreat so I would appreciate that you would characterize this I am not saying that it's, I want Goleta Beach Park to wash into the sea. I'm saying I want a part of, I want one-sixth of the Goleta Beach Park for the beach. That's what I'm saying.
Supervisor Williams, I understand that. What I am trying to understand is We had staff's recommendation to wait 10 years and then I said 5 years. And what you're saying is that you want it to be done now or within 90 days? Or whatever, say a year. So you don't want any monitoring?
The purpose of the monitoring would be to see whether there's impacts and that this would be mitigation for the impacts. I would think that paying for the capital improvements rather than someone sitting there to see if those future capital improvements would be needed, would be better in the Coastal Commission's eyes.
Supervisor Wolf is there any way you could support that motion?
No, I cannot support that motion because there's too many ambiguities in it. First of all its waiting to see if we have money from other utilities so its not even that we are going to take the responsibility and submit the application first of all were going to ask for an extension we don't know if we're going to get it, Second of all we are going to see if we can get other entities to pay for it. We may or we may not and thirdly, it's going to remove the parking lot which goes against what we have heard from our consultants that we've paid for when they have told us exactly the reason why we should wait and not remove that parking lot. So I can't support it because there's no scientific reason to do it. There is no documentation to do it, reason to do it.
It's purely speculative and I just don't think it serves our, it doesn't serve my constituents that's for sure and I don't think it serves our county very well as far as policy goes. Again I think our staff brought us a very well-reasoned recommendation and I cannot support this.
Supervisor Adam?
Okay well I'm gonna make another motion. Make a motion to follow staff's recommendations and see what they come back from the Coastal Commission with and at the same time Pursue divestiture per the previous discussions regarding quick claiming our interests and terminating the lease of all the parcels that we leased over there.
8:06 – 8:1124 turns
We have a motion and a second in discussion and I just wanted to note that Supervisor Williams' motion was never seconded so we are on to this. Supervisor
Wolf. Thank you Supervisor Adam, just to clarify what was the direction to staff it's just to look at this? Is that what it is?
We are clearing them to do the work that they need to do to identify all of our options and bring it back to closed
session.
You're taking a vote to give away Goleta Beach to the state?
To look at the options as I understand it and my question is, this could be an onerous task or this could be a light review. Before we get into it in full depth I wouldn't want to commit our staff to doing this if it's a huge workload
Chairman and supervisors I think it's a quick question for Ms. Pell but I think the legal work on this would not be heavy lift as framed right now we are basically looking at the feasibility of doing different things If this is not within the staffing capability of general services then a title review on some of these documents but we are going back to roughly nineteen forty nine so there might take some time. To tie all these together but that's something that General Services could address as to the staff workload.
Ms. Pell I know you're conferring with your staff can you give us a quick response or do we need a little break while
First of all I apologize, could you repeat the question?
Supervisor Adam wants a dual track where we come back to closed session to look at whether whether Goleta Beach could be quit claimed or given to another entity in the state most likely and were wondering what that would take from your
staff. So initially I think I'd like to get with the State Lands Commission. I believe that's the name of it. I've learned a lot in the last few days about all this and just see if they would be interested in even beginning a conversation and then go through and identify all the things that we would need to explore. I just know the little bit that I learned today A lot of this information hasn't been surveyed. We don't know what's county, what state necessarily so a lot of work would have to go into that.
So I think I would like to present some high-level information and then get further direction from the board based on what we initially find.
Is that agreeable to you Supervisor
Adams? That is agreeable.
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you I'd like to vote last on this as it's been done in the past.
I'll vote after Supervisor Wolf. I'm just kidding.
I
am second on this, I am in.
Madam Chair are we looking at a five year for the triggers For the phase one or is it back to just a clarification for staff so when we know
this is your. Your your. Staff recommendations.
Chairman and supervisors just working with the clerk of the board I just want to make sure that we all understood the motion. And I think Supervisor Adams' motion was staff's recommendations and to direct staff to begin work to pursue the feasibility of quick claim or termination for the involved parcels? Correct.
So we have a motion in a second, Supervisor Williams?
I just, it's amazing to me that taking a sixth of the beach park and allowing the beach to be there is considered more crazy of an idea than giving away the whole beach park to the state. That's just mind blowing to me. And we'll oppose the motion.
Supervisor Lavinino.
Well first off all we are doing is looking at an option. No one's saying we're going to give anything to anybody yet. Shoot there was a question before you said that but I forgot what it was now. Oh well.
8:11 – 8:1737 turns
Supervisor Wolk.
Oh, I know what it was. Senior moment. All right. Aren't we going to have anywhere in the motion that we're going to discuss anything with our partners about.
And
I would at least like staff to at least approach UCSB and the city of Goleta The airport Caltrans and
okay
that's that's
fine. Maybe I expect well see this is the thing I expect that that will happen as a natural consequence of the second part of the motion because that should get everybody's attention because if there were to happen It would probably be complicated and oversimplified bad for many parties out there. And I expect that will happen if you would like to put that in specifically that we go chase them around. That's fine but I think they'll be calling Ms. Manzato short order.
Supervisor the chair I would request that you just make it clear that direction that you would like as part of the motion. You'd like staff to reach out to the partners, you mentioned for financial contribution to the phase one or phase 2
so modified okay second is modified as well. Just for clarification that's all the ones we've talked about city of Goleta the airport Caltrans utilities in Goleta West
Thank you. Caltrans, UCSB, Edison, SoCal Gas Airport which is the city of Santa Barbara right?
Why don't you just say all because here's a map with all the…
All interested parties
on the
map.
Because there's also Verizon.
Yeah and there may be some other parties that contact us who may be actually interested in pursuing a purchase or takeover or whatever. So it could get interesting.
Chair Hartman and the board yeah we've already been talking to them so we'll continue that and follow your direction on that.
Supervisor Wolf. You know I can't I can't support the motion I appreciate what supervisor Adam is doing only because it's tied to the divestment of Goleta Beach. So but I love the other part of your motion and if you would split it I would vote for that but you're not. And so I'm hoping that we'll see what happens.
Well I can't do one without the other.
I know, I know you can and and I can't do one so maybe we should just vote and I'm fine to go first that's fine.
Let's call for the question.
Okay please call the vote. Ms. Wolfe?
No
Mr. Adam?
Aye.
Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Mr Williams? No. Ms Hartman?
No
Motion fails
Can we all go home now? Not even study, I mean just all we're asking for is just to study it. Just to get this thing moved forward and you could come into closed session and you guys could say this is ridiculous we're not doing it.
Supervisor Wolf can you put forward something that you could vote for that incorporates some of this?
Well this is what I don't understand. If you're okay with the staff recommendation right why can't we take that as a separate vote?
You know why, same reason why you can't take it for the other way. Why you just voted no because then we are going to ask because people are asking us why are you continuing to spend money doing the same thing over and over and were saying were not well my plan is to say I'm I'm moving this forward but we also have a backup plan. We're looking at so that we don't do the same thing over and over and over again, but that's going to get shot down. So then we're not going to be doing that and we're gonna be stuck voting for the same thing that we've been doing over and over and over again which I'm tired of doing You know if you
guys want to. How about enhancing management opportunities for Goleta Beach or can you help us Mr. Counselor Ms. Miyasato because we're stuck
and we need additional resources and some leverage
Chair Hartman and supervisors so I think the three portions we've heard so far is staff's recommendations. And really, I think maybe the consensus may be in how the next part is phrased because we left it with a pretty soft direct staff to begin work on pursuing feasibility of quick claim or termination which is really a research project doesn't commit the board to any action and begin discussion with easement holding partners for financial contributions Those are the three components and I think the objection was on the second component. So maybe however soft we could make that but really, we are committing staff to some amount of document review on that and nothing further. And I think if that was the understanding maybe they would help the board.
So I think a potential motion was move staff's recommendations with no it's part two would with note with no commitment to action direct staff to begin work to pursue feasibility of quick claim or termination of lease and direct staff to begin discussion with easement holders for financial contributions.
You know the problem I have is the feasibility of quick claim. It's like you know we want you to because we're interested in that and we want you just to look at the feasibility. I just have a I have a core problem with with that because I you know I think you had said research that is actually a little bit more palatable to me but to explore feasibility as not
How about this? Staff recommendations part 2 direct staff to begin title research on current parcel holdings. All you are doing is the research on that and direct staff to pursue discussions with current easement holders for financial contributions.
8:18 – 8:2532 turns
Supervisor Williams.
To try to do every option, I'll make a different motion which would be simply to approve staff's recommendation but that we would initiate phase one and either move or remove the boulders at parking lot seven within the next year. Staff's recommendation but not wait five years, not wait ten years. Let's just do it now and that would be my motion.
Supervisor Adams so that would be a more expensive option up front?
It would be more expensive upfront but less expensive in the long run because we would not have monitoring costs.
Mr. Gazzone can you just reframe what you said about the research, the easement piece?
Sure so the three potential pieces that I think I'm hearing towards consensus would be move staff's recommendations, direct staff to begin title research concerning the county's parcels at Goleta Beach and direct staff to begin financial discussions with easement holders towards contributions towards a project cost.
And who made that motion or you're suggesting it as a motion. OK I will move that. Is there a second? I'll second that any discussion. Supervisor Wolf do you have anything more to say? Supervisor Adam any more to say?
Repeat the motion.
I may not get this verbatim staff's recommendation direct staff to begin title research concerning the county's parcels at Goleta Beach, direct staff to begin discussions with easement holders towards potential financial contributions towards project cost
So we have a motion and a second. I see no more lights would you call the vote?
Ms. Wolfe
Aye
Mr. Adam I
hate to but no.
Mr. Lavinino
Oh God I want to go home.
It's what it takes.
Well let's see what let's see what everybody else says so I will say no.
Why don't you abstain? And then we can come back. Yeah we'll let you vote last would that be all right?
I will abstain.
Mr. Williams.
No.
Do something better.
Ms. Hartman.
I'll stay with no we'll figure out something better.
Motion fails.
CEO Miyasato.
Supervisors so a couple of things I just wanted and I spoke to Ms. Black very quickly when I said some of the hesitancy on the board is with this our adaptive management plan which has these two phases of the $2 million to remove parking lot seven and then the additional three five million dollars for the next phase to do parking lot six And we believe this so I asked the question of whether that needs to be part of our application.
They believe it strengthens our application because Coastal Commission would look more favorably upon keeping the rocks in and maybe something they require that we don't propose but that could be an option and we think it doesn't strengthen our application, it might hurt us not to put it in there but I'm putting that out there as an option if the board doesn't feel like they want to be the one imposing that. The second issue is you know I don't like spending a lot of money.
But what I fear is if we don't take action on the CDP and we keep delaying these decisions, what we're going to end up with is another situation we had this winter where we had a storm. We had one day to decide. We we had to see what available funds we had available. We couldn't get the board together and we had to make decisions quickly about keeping the park and protecting some of the park. That was I can't remember how much we spent.
What was it? $950,000 so I don't want to be in a situation where we continue to do that because we couldn't figure out a solution to this. So the $2 million I fully respect and I think it's a good strategy to ask others for funding for it. But we are in this time frame but I think that given what we spent today, two million dollars for that phase of it It's probably worth paying to avoid having us continually having this problem about the rocks and revetments and continually having to do these emergency expenditures that we've had. And I think that supervise, and it kills me to say that you know that.
But Supervisor Adams and what's the additional cost. And I think what we're saying is that we share the one time costs ongoing costs these other costs unless Mr. Chapman or Ms. Black want to tell me differently. The Coastal Commission could impose other monitoring costs on us that we haven't seen but as far as other costs that we think that we would have to be paying for these other emergency costs that We haven't paying.
We don't think that would be necessary with this plan. Is that correct?
I think Diane can probably answer this better. I believe they probably the monitoring probably will still be required even though we would take a phased approach, we'd still have to monitor anything but Diane.
You know it was well Ms. Black's making her way up you know we just talked about how much sand there is that Public Works is going to bring in and you know that's kind of one of my major concerns here is We're on the hook, no matter how much sand washes away from that deal for replacing it. And even though we have a whole bunch of sand that's I want to say the word free because it's nothing free but we don't have to buy it. We just have to move it from one place to the other.
It's only 67,000 yards and you got 100,000 yards. You said that that's been removed so so we're going to have to go by sand or trucking in from some play. I mean it's going to be more expensive to get the balance of that right
Supervisor Adam through the chair we wouldn't I think that 67,000 would be adequate right now. We don't have to backfill or cover that sand right now.
Well alright but don't say right now ever. I'm talking about ever down the road and I see Mr. Girard behind you nodding his head up and down at some point that's going to be the case right?
8:25 – 8:3021 turns
It's a black would you like to say something here.
So the condition is to cover the revetment if it's exposed for certain period of time I think we're coming to juncture where we're going to review that with the Coastal Commission again because at that time is quickly coming upon us and I think it's 24 months can commute. And so that's something I think we're going to have to talk to the commission about potentially changing because the cost of covering and washing away, I'm not sure it's realistic during storms. And maybe we change that to just spring covering.
Exactly why in my motion I said you go pursue your recommended course of action and then at the same time to apply some pressure, create some leverage we start talking about pursuing divestiture.
Can I make a suggestion.
I'm saying this so I'm giving up my my leverage probably but by saying it that way but I can't get anybody to play along. So I'm at Wood's end here.
Well I kind of like, thank you CEO Miyasato because if we are worried about cost basically what we are asking for is for the Coastal Commission to amend the project to retain the 948 foot emergency rock revetment inclusive of the 75 foot pier revetment reinforcement. So all we are asking at this time is to amend the application. Right? And then you will enter into discussions with coastal commission staff and come back to us.
And if I might add no more money. No more money
except the permit.
So. Madam Chair and board members we already have a monitoring plan requirement with the Coastal Commission and I think that's what you saw on the slide with the cost is the 80 to 150,000 so it was 60 to 250,000 I think we expect monitoring costs. And I don't think the coastal commission is going to increase them to be about 100 thousand dollars a year We've had discussions with the coastal commission. Maybe a little bit less as time goes on but I don't expect those to be more I don't know what else they might ask for when we've had just it's like predicting what your board would do on a particular issue I cannot predict and there
in lies the road
and theirs is bigger but I can tell you that our discussions with And I think the commission staff. Well, I expect that they will recommend to their. Commission approval of a modified permit with reasonable monitoring and triggers now what will those triggers be I don't know I think the reasonable monitoring will be something And that I can't predict. So we either can recommend something or we can not and see what they come up with and we would come back to the board either before the commission takes action if you want us to, we can ask them to hold their hearing or we can come after and your board can decide whether or not to accept the permit conditions.
Every lie they hear is up. Supervisor Williams and then Lavanino.
What I heard from our CEO is that we should try to get this done with and the $2 million would actually be a bargain for getting it done with so I just propose staff recommendation with the removal of Phase two, the removal of ongoing monitoring as part of it but initiation of phase one within one year. So essentially we would not be offering the Coastal Commission to do phase two at all. We'd be offering the Coastal Commission to do phase one but within a year of approval of the permit.
So madam chair if I could just make a comment whether it's helpful or not you can decide. I don't think there's a way in the world the Coastal Commission will approve a modified permit without ongoing monitoring no matter what we remove up front or not so
then they then they can tell us what
it's already and
it's going to be
acceptable
it's
already in the permit but remember we're modifying an existing permit so it's already in the permit We'd have to actually take it
out. Okay then just the removal of phase 2 but the initiation of phase 1 within a year.
8:30 – 8:3618 turns
Supervisor Lovanino?
My question is for Ms. Black. So I know that we, you know you've said many times that we can't predict what they're going But you're saying that staff's kind of leaning our way. But if I remember right in Goleta Beach was at 1.0, I think we had staff recommendation from the CCC, from the Coastal Commission and then we lost 9 to one on the board. On the
permeable pier?
On the permeable pier. So what... I mean, I would not vote for anything if after we saw what the conditions were Then we could vote for something but not beforehand. So I don't know how you guys want to craft a motion around that but
can we authorize staff to submit the application to maintain the revetments and direct staff to continue to work with the Coastal Commission on future conditions and bring it back to the board for approval?
I think that's what I'm suggesting but with with I know ours is different
and madam chair you want to you want to remove parking lot 7 right away, I'm saying. Let's not do that right away let's just apply for the permit which is what we have to do and then let the coastal Commission in our step up their staff and our staff work together on devising conditions
Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf before the commission acts on the request.
Correct. Supervisor Adam.
Well my problem is who's all going to pay for that? You know I'd go for it maybe if I knew I had partners But see this is the problem. You're going to go say you're going to do this and then it's two in five million out of your pocket and everybody's gonna sit on their hands still.
No it's only the ongoing and it's only the monitoring we're not doing phase one or phase 2 were not agreeing
to anything and they'll come back and then we decide and in the meantime we can look for partners. We're just trying to get a short term action that meets our permit requirements
Right. I realize that but how are you loading in incentive for people to come to the table in that
because when when the Coastal Commission comes back to us we will have another discussion and and I think at that time is when we bring in our partners dependent on on the cost and what they're asking us to do
right. So Madam Chair the permit is not really effective until you accept it So once you know what the conditions are you could reach out to partners and get people to commit or don't accept the permit. You could do that.
Oh yeah that's a good idea because then what's going to end up happening is you're going to come in and tell us we've got to accept the permit because there isn't any choice. If we reject the permit what the heck are we going to do? And that's why I want to load in the discussion of what other alternatives there are.
Okay so. You don't like the term that we look for a quick claim or we look to divest ourselves of it. But you are open to what are the other alternatives correct? So couldn't we just say in closed session, couldn't we make it as broad as possible to our council that we move forward with staff recommendation. We don't come back. We tell staff that we don't want to move forward with the permit until we see the permit requirements But at the same time to track Council provides us with other options without naming what those options are so you don't have to say that way.
How can we get there without saying what Supervisor Wolfe doesn't want us to say?
Chair Hartman and Supervisor Levin, you know the council part of this is actually very easy. My only concern is that in looking at options for real property transactions there will be some potential title search and even potentially some survey work. That's out there and CEO can either absorb that or or clarify what she needs on that but I don't need a whole lot of direction to go to closed session real property items like just receive them. So if you wanted to move staffs recommendation I fully understand the you want to receive some options on I don't need a motion on that. And I will just clarify, I was talking sidebar with Ms. Black again as she said the permit is not effective until the board accepts it so you do have a safety on that.
8:36 – 8:4119 turns
I have a question do we want staff recommendation or just to keep existing monitoring and the existing revetment in place?
Supervisor Wolf. I think let's keep everything in place and then that also then goes to the options piece options for how we're going to pay for what are our options for paying for phase one and phase two?
So basically what we're doing is punting this. But if you
don't want to if you don't want include phase one and phase two if you feel more comfortable just doing the two top ones that's fine with me too.
We have to I mean we have to do something right in it
If what we're doing is punting this, then I'll join the motion.
Well that's what it sounds like. We're just punting it until we come back from the Coastal Commission. We're going to do a...
Well that is what we're... That's what... I think I said that from the beginning all we're asking for is for them to approve the permanency of the rocks and then they will come back to us staff and Coastal Commission staff will come back to us with the conditions So it could that's.
So if I may also in the beginning we did ask for the ability to amend the adaptive management plan as well as necessary so if we can add that language and because we do have coverage issues and when that would trigger.
Supervisors I'm not sure where you last left off, but what I can understand is that the staff would submit to the Coastal Commission its application to maintain the revetment. And that means for us we would have the one-time costs and that we would assume that we'd have these continuing ongoing annual costs And that we would change the existing adaptive management monitoring plan because there are things that we want to change. We would not submit to them our proposal on this adaptive management plan phased managed retreat of phase 1 and phase 2 that you see before your board.
They may add that in but that would be not part of our submission at this point. We go to the Coastal Commission and as Mr. Gazzone said we could see what their conditions are, return to your board a permit is not valid until you accept it so it'd be more time for the board to have that discussion. So that's the part of the project.
Okay I'm gonna try again and make that as my motion.
And I would second Supervisor Adams
I was going to make another motion. That we just make an application. My. I think we should just move this off. I think it's too late. I think we should trail it or continue this item to the next meeting. We've got a meeting next week right? I think we should continue it
Mr. Lavagnino can you formulate a motion? I think you are getting close.
Well, I was except I have a sticking point that I need something to change or at least study a change have something out there that's tied to this it says let's look at other options and if that's not there then I can't really just move forward without a different option
So is it to look at other options to sell off the property or to look at other options to get financial assistance?
Both. Not to sell off the property, I'm not talking about selling off the property but I want to know what are the options. Who might be interested in taking back the lease or at least I think you know this is what stinks also about doing this all an open session. You know the reason why you would do something like that is to motivate the other people to come to the table
So how about if we say that's kind of research other options to. To provide financial assistance for any conditions that may be required per the Coastal Commission. Well tell me where you want to go because we can't. OK Mr. Gazzone.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors just translating some head gestures between the CEO and I think we're understanding what the board's goal is here. And I think it might be at this point as easy as move staffs recommendation with whatever modifications you want on that plus return with potential funding options if we need a closed session on that I'll schedule one.
8:41 – 8:4322 turns
See funding options is like we are just going to pay for it. I mean are we going to put it on our credit card or are we going to write a check? And you're telling me-
Do you want to say management options?
Yeah, I could say management options.
So we had previously suggested three parts, maybe two parts move staff's recommendation and direct staff to explore financial participation by easement holders.
Okay we did have another motion in a second would you want to withdraw that motion and accept this motion?
I don't even remember what I said. What motion are we accepting?
I would just ask you to consider move staff's recommendations and direct staff to engage easement holders for potential financial participation in project costs.
That's fine.
And report back in closed session property related yes
that's fine
second
We have a motion and a second. Would you call? Can I just
wait, hold
on.
More discussion. This is accepting staff's recommendation. Is that what you said? Okay, good. I'm a yes.
Okay, I don't see any further lights. Call the roll.
Ms. Wolfe?
Aye.
Mr. Adams?
Aye.
Mr Lavinino? Aye! Mr Williams? No. Ms Hartman? Aye Motion passes 4 to 1
So this meeting is hereby adjourned and we meet next in Santa Maria on August 29. Adjourned Music playing
8:44 – 8:441 turns
¶¶ ♪