BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 February 5, 2019

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:022 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:04 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Music playing . Very nice. You don't want to get it,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:41 · ≈ 9:01 AM

you don't want to get it Joan. You don't want to play that game all right I would like to call oh there's Peter In case people didn't know, today's annual gray suit day. So welcome. You guys didn't get the memo but that's okay. All right I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors for February 5th 2019 Mr. Allen can you call the roll please?

0:02 – 0:1214 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:35 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Ms. Hartman? Here! Mr. Adam? Here. Mr. Williams? Here Mr. Hart?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:41 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:41 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Mr Lavinino?

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈22s recited, not transcribed
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:42 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Here Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.893:07 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of our last meeting? Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Okay, passes unanimously. At this time we're going to take up public comment for items not on today's agenda. Mr. Allen do we have any speakers?

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

Chair Lavinino, we have one request to speak. Mr. Kowalski?

CommentPeter InProposed3:43 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Also in the five year period nobody has explained to me how our second story is solely over the garage when it's over the garage, the kitchen, the dining room part of the living room. You know, I was going to start this off with saying here that this is the Democratic Republic of Santa Barbara just like the North Koreans call themselves the Democratic Republic of North Korea and we know the differences.

By the way Alex Pujo who's a chairman down there I believe is a contractor he is not an employee of the county directly he has contracted if that's correct. I was going to run through some of the things here that, you know, there basically been three big items. One was when we went down there, Alex did have 15 violations of the law. If he doesn't understand the law, he should be booted out anyways. The other item was that when I almost got my head bashed in some of the members were upset that the guard came up and pulled his knife stick on me Fortunately, I got up fast enough so he didn't slam me across the back of the head.

And it was iffy. So we had a special meeting and basically it came about that if I submitted any changes, I would be approved and we'd be done with this whole mess. Well Anne and Alex let me know that no, that isn't going to happen. We'll only approve if you take and move it back over to the living room so I have a view of your neighbor's backyards. And that was from day one, we were not going to do that. That was the first stipulation that we had. We were not going to do that. So in the third item my architect had the crazy idea of going down there and talking to Alex and Aaron which I certainly would not want him to do.

So they came up with their own idea, and their own idea was that first of all they wanted basically $1,000. So my architect did nothing on the drawings and sent me a bill for 1,300 for him and 1,000 for the Board of Architectural Review. The deal was here that I had told my architect to move the stairs back, put two or three windows along the north wall. So we come in there and my architect says nothing because the agreement was he would not say anything.

And so they decided well they're going to push the north wall in so you cannot put your staircase in the way you wanted it and that where you were going to put your two or three windows will put closets over On the North Face. It kind of killed it and I told my architect you just sabotaged the project, just like that done what are we going to do? We're going to go back again and plead with Alex to you know now that the dictator is gone that our supervisor has left we're going to plead with him to give us one more chance well what's our chance gonna be we can't do anything That's going to be make it look nice.

It just hopeless

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:00 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Mister class kids are your time's up. Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:03 · ≈ 9:07 AM

sure let me know members of the board we have one additional request to speak when you go to Santa Maria from Andy Caldwell this recall will.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:12 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Chairman Lavanino members of the board and he called well on. This is the second time in a row I know you guys have other priorities, this is the 2nd time in a row The public portion of the meeting is getting postponed for hours while you go into closed session. And for somebody like me that's supposed to be here commenting, it makes it pretty darn hard to copy the schedule including the admin calendar.

And I don't know why you guys can't schedule your closed session if it's going to be three hour marathons on either another day or at the end of the day so that the public knows when to show up between a three hour closed session lunch and whatever else. You know, last week the agenda in both times is not exactly clear that public comment would come first and that the admin wouldn't. In any way with regard to my general public comments today we're chagrined that even though your staff has done a heroic effort In terms of digging out all the debris that occurred in the rivers, streams and creeks and throughout the community of Montecito. That a full year's gone by and there hasn't been a heck of a lot of proactive work done to make further progress.

And for example we were told a year ago that Gibraltar and some of these other reservoirs would need to be dredged when they were full to get rid of the sediment because trucking wasn't possible, but we're not set up for it. If we were to get a Miracle March and Kachuma would overflow, we're not set up for that dredging. On your admin calendar today you have an issue about Montecito Nets. Why is the private sector in effect doing a community bake sale to protect But the board is not putting forth any efforts in terms of like for instance, the debris basin in Montecito. We've heard about that there's going to be another one built but why isn't it taking a full year?

I know that you've got a lot on your closed session agenda, but I've never in 28 years seen the board do this once let alone twice in two weeks in a row. Thank you. I just feel like I end up wasting my day both times coming down here and then other people don't know when to show up either. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed10:00 · ≈ 9:10 AM

That concludes public comment.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8910:01 · ≈ 9:10 AM

All right thank you. It was on last week's agenda that the board meeting would not start until 1.30, and I know we did some outreach this week to let folks know the same thing. That's why I don't see anybody in this boardroom. We did also hold a second public comment when we came back from closed session last week, and our intention is to do that as well. But in case somebody showed up and wanted to put in their public comment before we went into closed session, As open as possible with that policy as well.

So I understand it's difficult scheduling and no matter how we do it, if we do it at the end of the day, it's also difficult on other folks that we have coming in to report to our closed session. So there's really no easy way around it. I think this is probably the last time that we'll have this particular setup so We'll go back to business as usual. So again today, if we come out of closed session, We will provide public comment, we will afford them that opportunity as well.

I believe that we'll be going into closed session. Can we get a report of what we'll be hearing? Oh, I'm sorry Mr. Williams.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentChris DahlstromProposed11:20 · ≈ 9:11 AM

I was just gonna answer the other concern or the public speaker just that there are a host of proactive projects that Public Works and General Services has they are of course trying to balance that with the fact that cleaning out the debris basins each time after the storm is enormously Expensive and time-consuming process. But most of those projects can be looked at through the FEMA applications.

At this board's direction, one of the projects isn't waiting for the FEMA application which is the Randall Road Basin where we have a plan A and a plan B. And from my perspective, the general services staff and public works staff have been working tirelessly And much faster than this institution ever moves to get that done and make that a realistic possibility. And I think we'll have something on next week's agenda about it in closed session.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8912:22 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Okay, very good. Mr. Gazzone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed12:26 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Chair and Supervisors, today in closed session the board has agendized to consider four matters. The first is public employee appointment concerning Planning and Development Director. Next is Public Employee Appointment Human Resources Director followed by two existing litigation items, Homar versus State of California and County of Santa Barbara versus Plains Pipeline. The estimate for closed session is about three-and-a-half

0:12 – 4:262 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8912:49 · ≈ 9:12 AM

hours. Okay so we will come back here at 130 So if somehow we get done before that, we'll go ahead and wait till 1.30 so that the public and our staff know what time to get back. We'll start the agenda at 1. 30.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed13:32 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Thank you. Hello. Music you Okay. you ♪ You. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Good morning. Music playing ♪ Music Music Music. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. you You. Good morning. Hi. Thank you. you Okay. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hello. Hello. ♪ Hello, everyone. You. Good morning. Good morning. Good morning. You. Yeah. Thank you. Hello.

Hi. Hi. Music you ♪ Good morning. Hi, everyone. Good morning. Music . . Hello. . . Yeah. You. You. Hi. Hi, everyone. you you you Yeah. Hello. you you Okay. You. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hello. Music playing Hello. ♪ Hello, everyone. You. You. Hi. Good morning. you Good morning. Good morning. Hello. Thank you. ♪ Yeah. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hello. Music playing Hello everyone.

♪ Hello, everyone. You. Good morning. You. Good morning. you Thank you. Good morning. you Hello. Music You. Music you ♪ ♪ Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Music . . . Hello. . . Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Yeah. Good morning. Music You. Yeah. Good morning. You. Good morning. Thank you. Music You. ♪ You. Hi, everyone. Hello. Hello. Music playing Hello.

Music Music Music Yeah. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning. you Good morning. Music You. Good morning. Music Yeah. ♪ Hi. Hello everyone. Hello. Hello. ♪ Hello. Music Music . . Yeah. You. Good morning. Hi, everyone. you Hi. Yeah. Hi. Good morning. Good morning. Music you ♪ Hi. Hi, everyone. Hello. Good morning. The Hello. ♪ . . You. Thank you. Thank you. Hello.

you

4:30 – 4:366 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:30:50 · ≈ 1:30 PM

You. Good morning. All right, good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. We will reconvene this meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gazzone can you give a report out of closed session please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:32:12 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board considered four matters first public employee appointment concerning planning and development director next public employee appointment concerning human resources director and then two existing litigation items the first Homar versus State of California in the second county of Santa Barbara versus Plains pipeline there are no reportable actions

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:32:34 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Okay, very good. Do we have a CEO's report today? Ms. Miyasato?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:32:37 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Yes, we do. Supervisors, just briefly, a couple of things. Although we didn't agendize an item I just wanted to recognize all our staff and our partner agencies who worked over the last week and over this weekend during the latest storms and evacuation efforts. We'll bring more information at a future agenda but I just want to say thanks to the L.A. Oxnard Division of the National Weather Service they continue to work with us for the last couple weeks around the clock in the weekend Even despite the federal government shutdown. The storm risk team, which is our team locally who makes the decisions looking at conditions that's comprised of county sheriff and fire, Montecito Fire, City of Santa Barbara Police and Fire, Carp Semilon Fire, CHP and our flood control.

Also thanks to Cal OES and the National Guard. We had many pre-staged resources, thanks to the National Guard. And almost all your county departments were at the EOC this weekend. Auditor, Behavioral Wellness, Community Services Department, County Council, my office and obviously OEM, Risk Management General Services, Planning and Development, Public Health and Animal Services, Public Works particularly our incredible County Flood Control District Division in Transportation, Social Services and like I said County Fire and Sheriff. So we've been in continual response, preparedness and recovery since the Thomas fire. At the EOC was also our county emergency call center that had been activated and staffed by volunteers from the Community Wellness Center and Hope 805 among others.

So we continue to focus on protecting life property and infrastructure. And again, we'll bring a full report back to the board at a future date. Mr. McLaughlin here is also if you had any questions about some of the issues that you've seen about the heavy rains and some of the roads. My second announcement is I just wanted to take today to recognize Fire Chief Mike Dyer. Where's Mike?

Mike Dyer, why don't you come up for a second. So as you know Chief Dyer has been serving as our interim chief since November upon the retirement of Chief Eric Peterson who retired and Chief Dyer as you know had served with us previously before he retired in 2015 and Chief Dyer did not have to come back and help us out in these last few months but he did willingly and we kind of laughed seeing him around the halls it's like he didn't even leave So we just want to say thank you. Our next chief starts in two weeks, but this is one of our last opportunities to say thank you to Mike so we just wanted to say thank you Mike. We appreciate your service.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:35:21 · ≈ 1:35 PM

If I could say thank you, I might not get to work here again but I wanted to relay the conversation that we had when I was in the Baltics somewhere. I got a phone call and Mona said, you know why I'm calling? And she goes, you're my favorite retired fire chief. And I said, well, I'm the only retired fire chief that you know. She goes no, that's not true. You know it's not true.

So when she called me and asked me, I jumped at the chance to do it. I had a discussion with Vicki about it and really honored to have worked here for the county first time even more so the second time reconnecting with the department Reconnecting with the board, reconnecting with the other county department heads. And also wanted to recognize the area fire chiefs who are here. I mean a great group of fire service professionals going forward. The county really has a bright future in a number of ways and with these new faces here working closely together there's great things ahead as we prepare for the next disasters that we're gonna have which were certainly gonna have so With that, thank you so much for your support. And we'll roll off into retirement again and be around here or there because we can't retire.

We don't really do a good job at it but thank you so much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:36:43 · ≈ 1:36 PM

Thank you Chief.

4:36 – 4:3910 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:36:50 · ≈ 1:36 PM

I think all of us want to say a few words. I just wanted to say you came back and didn't just warm the seat, you really took advantage of being a transitional figure to do a facilities assessment, get us a new helicopter, helping in the transition and I'm especially grateful for the forum you helped to organize in Burton Mesa it was just first rate we're getting lots of compliments so Thanks for being so energetic and a leader even in a transitional difficult position.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:37:21 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Thank you

CommentChris DahlstromProposed4:37:23 · ≈ 1:37 PM

Yes, Supervisor Williams. I also want to thank you for getting us looking at facilities again but mainly I just wanted to kind of say that I haven't known you very long but the time that I've known you makes me doubt whether you're really going to stay retired when you start fires on your own. That's usually considered a warning sign in the profession. So, I don't know we might need to have you come back at some Advisory volunteer capacity because you have a passion for this and I don' think you're done man Thank You

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction4:37:56 · ≈ 1:37 PM

supervisor Adam well We talked about the charcuterie wine shop. And I really think you should pursue that because there's nothing more fun than pork fat and wine

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:38:11 · ≈ 1:38 PM

And I just want to say we didn't overlap very long, but I really appreciate the work that you've done for the county. And even before that when I was on the city council, the collaboration and the cooperation between all the different agencies is really a testament to your commitment to the profession. Thank you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:38:25 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Chief, thank you. I don't think it's that hard to sell to get Mike Dyer back to wine country in Santa Barbara. It was probably a battle between that and some Napa opening so we really appreciate you and your wife's sacrifice for you to be able to come back. So thank you very much and our citizens are better off because of it. So thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:38:44 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:38:54 · ≈ 1:38 PM

All right, that takes us to our resolutions. Can I get a motion to approve Resolutions A1 through 3 please? So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:39:00 · ≈ 1:39 PM

moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:39:01 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? They pass unanimously. Let's go to A1 Mr. Allen

4:39 – 4:443 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:39:08 · ≈ 1:39 PM

Chair Lovenino, members of the board. Item A1 is sponsored by Supervisors Williams and Adam. This is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of February 2019 as Black History Month in Santa Barbara County. And we have an eminent group here at the podium. And we also have a couple of individuals, Mary Hutchinson and maybe DeAndre Wiley in Santa Maria to receive this. Maybe we can get that up on the screens as well if we can go to Santa Maria so we can see those folks.

And I will read the resolution into the record. Whereas Dr. Carter Goodwin-Woodson, the distinguished African American author, editor, publisher and historian who is known as the father of black history founded Negro History Week in 1926. This became Black History Month in 1976 intended to encourage further research and publishing regarding the untold stories of African American heritage. And whereas the history of African-Americans here in the United States as well as throughout the ages is indeed unique and vibrant, and it's appropriate to celebrate this history during the month of February 2019 which has been proclaimed as Black History Month. And whereas we celebrated at the contributions of African Americans that migrated from southern states between 1900 and 1960 to find more opportunity to establish new communities these contributions to our nation birthed the Harlem Renaissance of music and culture and changed the demographic of our country And whereas we honor the contributions of african-americans that came to Santa Barbara County between 1900 in the 1970s They established businesses and became leaders and community leaders and teachers and added to the development of the county Now therefore be it here ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares February 2019 as Black History Month It calls on all residents to celebrate with appropriate ceremonies and activities passed and adopted today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:41:03 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Chair Levineau and members of the board, we're especially grateful to Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Adam for sponsoring this today. As Executive Director of the Office of Arts and Culture, and the first five executive director Wendy Sims-Moten is here with me today. We're really proud to be here with our three recipients. We also have some represented.

Chris is over there in Santa Maria. We can see you if you can see us! Hi! And Alvin Wallace here and then DeAndre Wiley who is actually working today as a County Fire Chief Battalion Sergeant. Anyway, we're really excited to be here and to commemorate diversity in our community. Black History Month is recognized by the White House and Congress and local governments at the beginning of every February In the words of Congress, through this honorary resolution we recognize the significance of Black History Month as an important time to acknowledge and celebrate the contributions of African Americans in the nation's history. And that the ethnic and racial diversity of the United States enriches and strengthens the nation. We encourage the continued celebration of this month to provide an opportunity of all people in the United States to learn more about our past and better understand the experiences that have shaped the nation, encouraging states to include in their year-round educational curriculum the history and contributions of African Americans.

Today there will be three members of the county community receiving this honorary resolution and Wendy Sims-Moden will share a little bit more about each of their extraordinary achievements in the county.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:42:49 · ≈ 1:42 PM

Chair Lavanino and members of the board, it is an absolute honor to be here to actually just share a little bit about these three recipients who are contributing greatly in our county. And I've been doing this in terms of the Black History Month probably about 14 other years that I've been here. And each time I learn something new. It also relays the importance of us celebrating our diverse cultures and how they strengthen us as a community as we continue to get to know each other. So I'll go forth with Mr. Alvin Wallace who is with us here today.

He's a native of Montego Bay, Jamaica. Alvin immigrated to the United States to complete his education and business after graduating high school. He started his own small business Wallace Cleaning Company and then began Wallace Properties. In 1983 he moved to Santa Barbara and started a family. Alvin served in many capacities in leadership and volunteer work with the local community organizations At the Santa Barbara Kawinans Club, he has been recognized as a three-time distinguished president, super distinguished lieutenant governor. He served on the board of directors of the Boys and Girls Club of Santa Barbara, Red Cross of America, Child Evangelism, and YMCA. He's a current trustee of Santa Barbara Elks 613, and a proud member of the Greater Hope Missionary Baptist Church.

Mr. Allen Wattles.

4:44 – 4:476 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed4:44:09 · ≈ 1:44 PM

Thank you, Board of Supervisors. I didn't know I was going to speak today but it's an honor and it's a privilege for me to get this award thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:44:23 · ≈ 1:44 PM

So you've got to be ready for anything. You're a super lieutenant, so... In Santa Maria we recognize Chris Hutchinson. Mary was born in 1933 in Huntsville, Texas. She received her undergraduate degree and childhood education in 1954 followed by a master's degree in the same field. She married her college sweetheart Ernest Hutchinson and they had two children. The Hutchinsons worked for the military in Washington, D.C., and Japan before Mr. Hutchinson accepted a position at the federal prison in Lompoc where the family moved. Mary then began a 30-year career as a teacher in Lompoc Unified School District. At the time of her hire she was the only African American teacher in the district. She attributes her success at the school to her mother, her principal, her family, Grace Temple Missionary Baptist Church where she's been a congregation member for many years.

So Ms. Hutchinson would you like something to say?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed4:45:20 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Thank you so very much. I would like to thank the supervisors and everyone that chose me to be a representative for Black History Month, and for the things that I have done in the community. And I am so proud to be honored at this particular time. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:45:47 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Also, we're recognizing D'Andre Wiley. D'Andre was born in Wichita, Kansas in 1974 and his family moved to Lompoc in 1986 when his father was transferred to Vandenberg Air Force Base. He attended Vandenberg Middle School, Cabrillo High School before receiving his associate's degree from Allan Hancock College. He married Andrea, his high school sweetheart, and they have four children. In 1993 he successfully completed the Allan Hancock Fire and Medical Service Academies In 1994, DeAndre accepted a position as the first black firefighter in the city of Lompoc's history.

In 1999 he transferred to the work for the Santa Barbara County Fire Department where he serves as a firefighter, fire engineer and company officer. In 2013, DeAndre was promoted to fire battalion chief. He has numerous certificates in all aspects of firefighting and advanced leadership and is respected as a chief officer throughout the region. And his mother is accepting on his behalf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed4:46:45 · ≈ 1:46 PM

Good afternoon. On behalf of my son, DeAndre Wiley, he sends his heartfelt thanks to you all. May God bless you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:47:01 · ≈ 1:47 PM

So that concludes this resolution and we'd like to thank Alvin, Mary, and DeAndre for their contributions to the community. Thank you.

4:47 – 4:515 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:47:15 · ≈ 1:47 PM

A2.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:47:17 · ≈ 1:47 PM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board item a two is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman this is a resolution proclaiming the month of February 2019 as National Children's Dental Health Month in Santa Barbara County and we have group to receive this including Susan Lyles and Meredith Nashels from our Public Health Department Marilyn Reese from the Education Office and Dr. Dominic Clorey here from the Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics and I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record Whereas dental decay is the most common chronic disease among children that can be prevented through regular screening, early identification, preventative education and treatment. And whereas oral health is critical to overall health affecting nutrition, social development, growth and function, academic performance and quality of life.

And whereas untreated dental disease has been linked to adverse health outcomes associated with preterm and low birth weight deliveries, heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and bacterial pneumonia. And whereas tooth decay is preventable through fluoride use, good eating and feeding habits, good oral health habits, and regular dental visits. And whereas the Public Health Department's Women Infants and Children and Maternal Child and Adolescent Health Programs offered preventative oral health education to over 11,000 children in 2018 in the Santa Barbara County Office of Education's Health Linkages Program offered oral health education to 3,000 families with preschool children. So now therefore be hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County just hereby observe the month of February 2019 as National Children's Oral Health Awareness Month to facilitate increased awareness education prevention and treatment of childhood oral health disease throughout our county pass it adopted today

PresenterMeredith NasholtzCounty Public Health DepartmentProposedself-stated4:49:01 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Good afternoon. Thank you, Board of Supervisors. My name is Meredith Nasholtz. I'm the Oral Health Program Coordinator with the County Public Health Department. With me here today is Susan Lyles, Director of Nutrition Services and WIC at the Public Health Department. Mary Ellen Recy, Program Coordinator for Health Languages with the County Office of Education.

And our guest today is Sol Beard-Armbruster who is here to talk about children's oral health.

CommentSol Beard ArmbrusterProposedself-stated4:49:27 · ≈ 1:49 PM

Thank you. Good afternoon Board of Supervisors. My name is Sol Beard Armbruster, I am 13 years old and I go to La Colina Junior High School. Thank you very much for this important proclamation declaring February as the National Oral Health Month. I have received special permission to be here today to discuss the importance of having healthy teeth. I recently had my braces off last week and it has been an exciting journey learning about oral health.

What I've learned is that if you don't have healthy teeth Then your academic performance and quality of life will not be as great. If I don't take care of my teeth by brushing and flossing in regular checkups, it can affect the quality of that too. I recently completed a no soda challenge with my brother. We took this challenge on for six months. As we completed the challenge on our own, our mom gave us each $50 as a reward.

As she is a dietician and lactation consultant, she approved of our challenge. I have also learned that if you don't floss every day, you will end up getting cavities which are not good because the process of going through them is not very fun at all. I am very lucky because there are some people in the county that do not have access to a dentist or know about dental health like I do.

It would be great for everyone in Santa Barbara County to have access to the same education and help with dental health as I did. So thank you again for supporting children's oral health.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:51:04 · ≈ 1:51 PM

A three.

4:51 – 4:562 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:51:07 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Sure, let me know members of the board item a three sponsored by our chair supervisor Lavanino this is a resolution of commendation honoring the district attorney's domestic violence investigations training team as the Santa Barbara County February twenty nineteen employees of the month and so if we could have uh the team come up this is uh Megan Chanda, Debbie Fox, Lourdes Negrete, Anne Knudson, Marissa Tenore, and Lyle Wagonick And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.

Whereas Megan, Debbie, Lourdes, Marissa and Lyle Wagenknecht of the Public Works Department have been selected to share the February 2019 Employee of the Month honors for their outstanding work as a District Attorney's Domestic Violence Investigations Training Team Whereas domestic violence cases are the most common type of violent crime and are among the most predictable and preventable homicides that we encounter. They're difficult to investigate and prosecute, and after seeing multiple domestic violent deaths in 2017 our goal was to create an education program for law enforcement agencies that would drastically reduce the number and support the tireless efforts to reduce domestic violence throughout Santa Barbara County. And whereas training and education play tremendous roles in our ability to hold perpetrators of domestic violence accountable, and have been especially effective due to the extraordinary efforts of Megan, Debbie, Lourdes Ann, Marissa, and Lyle, all of whom worked thoughtfully and passionately to create a comprehensive 15 minute, pardon me, Domestic Violence Investigations Training Video that's already helped save lives in our community.

In fact there were no domestic violence deaths reported in 2018. And whereas this effort would not have been possible without the commitment from our law enforcement agencies to utilize this training video, nor would it have been possible without Lyle Wagenknecht of the Public Works Department who educated himself on the complexities of domestic violence investigations so he could produce this invaluable training resource that will be used for years to come.

And whereas Megan, Debbie, Lourdes, Ann, Marissa and Lyle are all exemplary role models who demonstrate unwavering dedication to the importance of training and education, and their collaborative efforts have made a deeply meaningful difference to domestic violent victims, their families, and our entire community. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors commends and recognizes Megan Chanda, Debbie Fox, Lourdes Negrete, Ann Knudson, Marissa Tonari, and Lyle Wagenknecht as the February 2019 County of Santa Barbara Employees of the Month for their exceptional contributions and outstanding service to the County of Santa Barbara. Passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed4:53:56 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Thank you. Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. As you all know domestic violence or intimate partner violence is the most violent crime that we have in Santa Barbara County. In 2017 we lost four victims to intimate partner violence. Tragically in all four of the cases we and law enforcement had previous contact with either the victim, the perpetrator or both We in the DA's office made it our priority and our goal for 2018 to have no intimate partner homicides in Santa Barbara County, where we had previous contact with either the victim or the perpetrator.

That goal was not only met but exceeded because in 2018, we had no intimate partner homicides in Santa Barbara County whatsoever. That was due to the hard work from all of our partners, including law enforcement, social services, domestic violence solutions, our media and our educational institutions. I've always believed that education is the best form of crime prevention and the people behind me proved me right.

They not only investigated, prosecuted and offered support to our victims they also created a video which I'm told has or will be shown to every law enforcement officer in Santa Barbara County. Additionally DDA Ann Knudson who is here today with her family, personally offered multiple training sessions on this heinous crime. In addition to being so very proud of our own district attorney staff I am deeply honored to put forth the name of a non-DA employee Lyle Wagonette.

Lyle who is also joined here today by his parents was very generously loaned to us by Scott McLaughlin in Public Works Lyle also spent hours and hours of his own time producing, directing and creating this training video. And he did it simply because he shares our goal of wanting to keep Santa Barbara safe and just. I'm told that this is the first time someone was chosen as Employee of the Month by a department head when in fact they worked for another department.

But then we all know that Lyle is extraordinary. He's extraordinarily motivated, generous, talented and kind. Finally I'd like to thank all of you for creating this opportunity for me to acknowledge a group of Santa Barbara County employees who I believe are true lifesavers. Thank you.

4:57 – 5:016 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:57:03 · ≈ 1:57 PM

Congratulations and Lyle if they don't treat you right in public works I think you got a place out in the DA's office so yeah all right thank you very much. That takes us to the balance of our A agenda is there any items that the public has wished to pull from the administrative agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:57:25 · ≈ 1:57 PM

Chair Labnino, members of the board we have requests to speak on item A9 from the public.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:57:35 · ≈ 1:57 PM

And we also have from the board, Supervisor Adam would like to pull A15. So why don't we let's go to A9 first and read that one in and we'll hear that item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:57:46 · ≈ 1:57 PM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item A-9 is from Planning and Development. The recommendations here are regarding the Montecito Debris Flow Protection Plan Emergency Permit for 11 debris nets. This is in the Montecito community area in the 1st District and we're going to go to Santa Maria to begin with for Mr. Caldwell then back here for Luis Andaloro. Mr. Caldwell?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:58:18 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria? Okay, why don't we take our Santa Barbara speaker and if he shows up we'll listen to Mr. Caldwell.

CommentLuis AndoloroProposedself-stated4:58:42 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Good afternoon, Chairman Lavagnino and members of the board. My name is Luis Andoloro and I'm on the Board of Directors of the Urban Creeks Council which is a very small local environmental non-profit group which advocates for watershed protection and clean water and creek cleanups in public education. I just wanted to mention that there is another side of the story to the ring neck controversy that's facing us.

And I'd like to begin by acknowledging that the Partnership for Resilient Communities has conducted the most effective public relations campaign I've ever seen and witnessed. There have been dozens of stories in the media from the Santa Barbara News Press, Los Angeles Times, Montecito Journal, Santa Barbara Independent, KCLU Radio and News Hawk, Ed Hat. And every single story was extremely one-sided and did not present the other side of the story.

I interviewed with Nick Welsh and Keith Hamm, the independent for several hours each. And they chose to give me a one-sentence quote in the seven articles that they wrote about the issue. Send an opinion piece to the independent which I sent in at the very beginning of November and they waited six weeks to publish it. It was published on November 24th online, it was called Adverse Reactions to Ringnets, and I'd really appreciate if all of you would read it.

I also want to tell you that I talked extensively with Santa Barbara city staff, Santa Barbara county staff. Santa Barbara City Water Commission, multiple county departments, the Forest Service, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and USGS. And none of those people or their agencies was willing to put any Comments publicly, they spoke to me privately and they all expressed serious concerns. I also talked to a multitude of UCSB professors who also had very strong concerns and a number of certified engineers. So I just want to convey to you that nobody I talked to was in favor of this proposal.

We understand that it's a very emotional proposal, but we also feel that it was an end run of the entire regulatory process which is really important to conduct. In closing I just would like to say that the next challenge that this project faces is with the Forest Service and several Forest Service personnel have expressed to me that they were very concerned about this process also so thank you for listening to these comments

5:01 – 5:054 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:01:41 · ≈ 2:01 PM

Thank you very much for being here today. We have a late request on A-10, I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:01:45 · ≈ 2:01 PM

believe? That's correct, Chair Lavagnino. Mr. Sciatello, Item 8-10 is from Planning and Development to consider recommendations regarding the California Coastal Commission's conditional certification of an amendment to the LCP Highway 101 HOV. This is Carpentry to Senator Barbara in the First District.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:02:03 · ≈ 2:02 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair, allowing me to speak on this item. I am here on behalf of a number of different groups that are involved in alternative transportation on the South Coast including residents Balancing projects or the mitigation projects that were inherent within the local coastal plan amendment That the Coastal Commission approved last month and you're being asked to approve here, and I just wanted to call to your attention The goals that some of these community groups have and the interests that are out there we raise these issues before the Coastal Commission and the chair asked our Director Black to respond and she assured that these issues would be given consideration in the county's permitting process as it went forward, as it moved forward for the individual projects that are of concern here.

But seeing on the agenda I thought it'd be useful to bring it to your attention too uh... advise staff of the significance and support for these issues they're principally involving the first district of course because that's where this project is but these balancing projects, the alternative transportation projects are essential in order to make the findings of consistency with the coastal plan and the Coastal Act uh... there are principally two sets of projects that were concerned about the bike and pedestrian coastal trail uh... and two individual segments of concern one of them is at the Rincon parking lot in the Santa Barbara County parking lot. The trail has been aligned, and this is a project that is proceeding but as we've seen with Santa Claus Lane and other specific sections of the coastal trail as we're trying to find the right alignment working with parks and transportation and other folks within the county and the cities.

The alignment of the bike trail that's being proposed through the Santa Barbara County portion of the Rincon Park puts the bike lane behind parked cars. And at Rincon Park you need to then back out So you create a conflict that gives us considerable concern, and there's a number of folks in the alternative transportation community that are pretty concerned about this. And so we want to bring this to your attention and encourage the county to help us find a solution where we can get that bike and pedestrian trail out of the same path as vehicles. And then the second area of concern is around the community of Summerlin.

And really that is what brought us to the Coastal Commission hearing last month And that's a more complicated problem of trying to find the right location for the coastal trail as it goes on the east side of Summerlin and connects up to the Padero Lane bike path. And I just want to call it to your attention, the folks in Summerlin have been unhappy with the solutions that have been proposed so far And they're eager to work with you, to work with your staff and Coastal Commission staff and to find a solution. So I just wanted to bring those issues to your attention. Thank you for that.

And I hope that we'll be able to find a way that we can get these important segments of the path installed and achieve the coastal act compliance that we all want to see. Thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:05:07 · ≈ 2:05 PM

you. All right. Thank you very much. That takes us to Supervisor Adam with A15. Can you read that in please?

5:05 – 5:0711 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:05:14 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item A-15 is from the Sheriff. It's to consider recommendations regarding the donation of a Winnebago hostage negotiation response vehicle to the sheriff's office.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:05:24 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Supervisor Adam? Yeah, I'm just wondering maybe a former undersheriff can come up and talk about this. He seemed to have straightened this out for me but it's still unclear from the documentation that we're not buying this thing rather than getting it donated so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:05:50 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Supervisor Adam to your chair. Thank you The short answer is that yes, this is a straight donation There was some confusion because of the attachment that appeared to put forward a sales contract That document was placed in there simply to Affirm the value of the donation and lieutenant Centron and sergeant Soto from the sheriff's officer here If you want some more background on that

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:06:16 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Well, the only question I have at this point is just housekeeping. Why do we have a sales contract that looks like it's been purchased by the sheriff? I mean, I understand, I've been told and I get that that's not what it is but that's exactly what I'm looking at so it's just a weird way to package the item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:06:48 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Supervisor Adam, that attachment that you see is actually just a quote that was initially given to us to give us a price of what we're looking at. Unfortunately the company did add the financing and all that but that was never the deal, the idea it was merely to get a number of what the vehicle would cost.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:07:08 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Right. Well, it looks for all the world though like you've Signed up to buy this thing because it's signed at the bottom by somebody with a badge Number body number or something and then up at the top It says it's being purchased by Santa Barbara County Sheriff so You know

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed5:07:28 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Unfortunately, the company required something for us to say that is what we agree upon but it was never a contract that we intended to finance in any way shape or

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:07:39 · ≈ 2:07 PM

form. Okay. Well thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:07:43 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Thanks a lot.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:07:45 · ≈ 2:07 PM

I don't need a separate vote.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:07:46 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Okay. You need a separate vote? No. All right then can I get a motion for all the balance of administrative agenda please?

5:07 – 5:2219 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:07:53 · ≈ 2:07 PM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:07:54 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Second. Moved and seconded, the balance of the administrative agenda? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Very good

we will move on to item D1.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:08:08 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, Item 1 is from Public Works and to the Board as the Board of Directors of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the Board of Directors of the Water Agency. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the State Water Project Contract and Kachuma Project water service contract renewal.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:08:43 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Okay Mr. Chair members of the board We are here in front of you both as the Board of Directors of the Flood Control District and the Water Agency for an update on two separate water Related issues with one specific request from the Central Coast Water Authority regarding the state water project The State Water Contract was initially entered into by the flood control district in 1963 for state water deliveries to Santa Barbara County and In 1991, the county and CCWA, the Central Coast Water Authority entered into a Transfer of Financial Responsibility Act that would allocate the financial responsibility of all state water costs to CCWA and its member agencies.

In 2015, well I will say in 1991 one of the elements that prevented assignment of the state water contract was the taxing authority that CCWA did not have at the time. And I believe Mr. Stokes will go into that more detail in the future. In 2015, the state revised code for joint powers authority taxing which would then allow a joint powers authority to inherit the taxing authority of its individual member agencies. So therefore CCWA has requested the assignment of the State Water Contract to CCWA from the County Flood Control District.

Also on the water side your board directed us to also renew the Kachuma Project That project was originally entered into by the Water Agency, not the Flood Control District with the Bureau of Reclamation in 1949. That was updated in 1995 to a 25-year term and as your board may recall that term now nearing the end of its term and we are working with the Bureau on the member units to renew that contract. There are five member units, San Ynez, Goleta, Santa Barbara, Montecito and Carpinteria That action for your board directed us to take that action was done on May 2nd, 2017. And the contract issues one of the main contract issues are the yield of the project considering the demands on the project that perhaps we define a new critical drought period although I'm very pleased to report Kachuma has risen over 20 feet since it's low in December this year finally and then also the contract term of what the new contract would look like At this point, I'd like to ask Ray Stokes from the Central Coast Water Authority and he is going to give you a presentation.

As I mentioned we received a letter from CCWA requesting this action to be taken and so therefore we are here for you to give us direction on that. And I'll switch over to Mr. Stokes.

PresenterRay Stokesthe Central Coast Water AuthorityProposedself-stated5:11:27 · ≈ 2:11 PM

Good afternoon Chair Labanino, members of the board. I'm Ray Stokes, Executive Director of the Central Coast Water Authority. I am going to provide some information regarding our request to you today which is basically to allow your staff to continue working with us on pursuing assignment of the State Water Project contract from Santa Barbara County Flood Control and our Conservation District to CCWA.

This is an effort that we've been working on for the past two years. There's been a lot of work that's gone into it to get it to this point, which includes working with our member agencies as well as the State of California Department of Water Resources. So just a little bit of background. Tom Fairam went into some of this but in 1963, the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District entered into a contract with the Department of Water Resources For a contract amount of state water at that point in time it was 57,700 acre feet. But there were no facilities at that point in time to bring state water into Santa Barbara County. Then in 1978 there was a countywide ballot that was defeated which would have provided facilities to bring state water but again it was defeated.

So after that was defeated in 1978, in 1979 the supervisors of the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requested from the various water payers in Santa Barbara County to pay all of the costs that were being passed along by the state of California. And that occurred through what was referred to as water supply retention agreements So that contract was entered into with all of the various water supply agencies, including cities and water districts within Santa Barbara County.

In 1981 to 1987, as I mentioned those water supply retention agreements were executed and at that point it was for 45,486 acre feet. The difference between the original contract amount of 57,700 and 4,546 was set aside by the state of California suspended. The agreements all shifted the financial obligations to the water purveyors. So at that point in time, all of the water purveyors began picking up all the costs of the state water project that were originally being paid by Santa Barbara County. Then in 1991 there was various votes within 14 jurisdictions within Santa Barbara County to approve a ballot measure which would allow the construction of facilities to bring state water in 11 of those jurisdictions approved the ballot measure. That includes nine public entities, which are cities and water districts.

One mutual water company, which is LaCoumer Mutual Water Company. One PUC regulated company, which is Golden State Water. But Lompoc, Mission Hills, Vandenberg Village did not vote to participate in state water and they do not receive state water today. Then in 1991, CCWA was formed as a Joint Powers Authority or commonly a JPA. CCWA is granted authority to construct and operate facilities to bring state water into Santa Barbara County And then the rights that were held by the various water purveyors under the Water Supply Retention Agreements were then passed along to CCWA when CCWA was formed in 1991. And in September 1991, CCWA and Santa Barbara County entered into what's referred to as a Transfer of Financial Responsibility Agreement. I'm sorry, I'm getting ahead of myself there.

Since 1991, I'm sorry, CCWA and the county jointly proposed to DWR that the 1963 contract be assigned from the county to CCWA and that the county be released. But DWR denied that request because CCWA did not have the ability to levy a property tax which is one of the forms of security for DWR's outstanding revenue bonds. In November 1991, we entered into the Transfer Financial Responsibility Agreement with the county whereby all of the financial obligations and responsibility for operations of state water within Santa Barbara County were passed along to CCWA.

And the Transfer Financial Responsibility Agreement intended specifically that the contract be assigned to CCWA at some point in the future. Then in 1992 to 1997, the local facilities were financed and constructed and water deliveries began in August of 1997. So why pursue this contract assignment now? For 39 years, county policy has sought to shift the state water financial obligations, the authority to cities and water districts. The policy's been stated and reiterated in 1979, then from 1982-87, and then again in 1991. So there's been a consistent theme that the county has wanted to be relieved of the financial obligations of the State Water Project.

And then in 2015, there was an enactment of a government code 6502 which changed the unauthorized joint powers agencies like CCWA and gave JPAs the ability to levy property taxes. So CCWA is already responsible for the financial operational aspects of state water in Santa Barbara County So assignment would allow CCWA to make the decisions directly, and assignment brings decision-making closer to the county residents who pay for and receive the state water. Those who pay for it we believe should have a direct say in how its operated.

What's involved in the contract assignment? Essentially CCWA would just step into the shoes of the county with the state of California. No other changes are necessary. The CCWA members, all of our public member agencies have unanimously approved the assignment so they are all on record wanting the assignment of a contract to CCWA. The benefit of the contract assignment, it aligns State Water Project decision-making authority with the financial responsibility currently held by CCWA. It makes CCWA fully responsible for the state water contract and it relieves the county of all liability and obligations under the state water contract. The county would be fully relieved of all State Water Project obligations.

And then it relieves the cities and communities such as Lompoc not receiving state water any financial risk because in the event of a payment default, the ultimate form of security is levying a property tax on all the property within Santa Barbara County to collect funds to cure a payment default. And then those funds are passed along to the State of California. So, those entities that don't participate in state water could potentially be on the hook if a property tax levy were required in the event of a payment default.

It improves decision making at the local level, so it allows local elected water boards a greater level and direct say in water planning and management. Each CCWA member agency has direct accountability to the voters and rate payers of their district or in their city, and increases opportunities for innovation and water planning. So the required approval, CCWA member agencies were required to approve it and that occurred in October of 1997. Each one of our eight public member agencies approved the assignment request.

DWR has agreed to allow assignment from the county to CCWA and we received that notification in September of 2018. So then the next steps would be the county approves and executes the assignment of the contract to CCWA and then CCWA approves and executes the assignment of the contract from the county. So again, what we're asking for you today is to allow the staff to continue engaging and working with CCWA staff to develop the assignment agreement. And then we would bring this back to you at some point in the future.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:19:47 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Thank you very much. Mr. Stokes, are there any questions for Mr. Stokes at this point from the board?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:19:51 · ≈ 2:19 PM

I have a question.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:19:52 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Supervisor Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:19:53 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Yes, Mr. Stokes, could you tell me more about the status of the Table A negotiations?

PresenterRay Stokesthe Central Coast Water AuthorityProposedself-stated5:19:59 · ≈ 2:19 PM

At this, and I believe you're referring to the 12,000 acre feet of water that was suspended. That water is still suspended and it is with the state of California DWR has agreed that that water can come back into Santa Barbara County, that we still retain the right to reacquire that. And that's currently being evaluated by our member agencies.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:20:21 · ≈ 2:20 PM

And how far has that proceeded, that discussion amongst the CCWA members?

PresenterRay Stokesthe Central Coast Water AuthorityProposedself-stated5:20:26 · ≈ 2:20 PM

There has been quite a bit of discussion on it. At this point I think there's some discussion about how that would be financed because the costs associated with that have built up since the point in time at which it was suspended would have to be repaid and so those types of discussions are still ongoing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:20:47 · ≈ 2:20 PM

So those negotiations haven't been concluded, they're still ongoing. Correct. Okay thank you. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:20:54 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair. Mr. Stokes could you talk a little bit about the voting structure of the JPA? Your assertion assignment brings decision making closer to the county residents who pay for and receive state water. Could you elaborate on that?

PresenterRay Stokesthe Central Coast Water AuthorityProposedself-stated5:21:09 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Yes, we have a weighted voting on our board of directors. We have eight public member agencies that represent the CCWA Board of Directors. It is weighted roughly in proportion to their contract amount but not exactly. The largest member that has the largest percentage is the city of Santa Maria. City of Santa Maria has a 43% vote on the CCWA Board of Directors.

That is lower than what it would have been had they, if it was based on their table, their contract amount. And the city of Santa Maria voluntarily elected to suppress their voting percentage so that they didn't have a majority of the vote. So, but they do it is in proportion to again for the most part the rest of them and proportion to their contract amount. Again with City of Santa Maria having the largest portion.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:22:04 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Okay very good any other questions? Okay thank you very much Mr. Stokes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:22:10 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Mr. Farrer. So Mr. Chair our recommended actions today are to receive this report and direct staff one of two ways either received comments from the board regarding the transfer And return to the board with an analysis of this issue with county council and public works staff and CEO, to return your board or take no action on the assignment. And simply direct us to continue as we have.

And then also receive the report on the Kachuma project which is not much to report on that front at this point. And then of course determine that none of these actions are a project under CEQA. That concludes my report, and I believe you have public comment and staffs available for questions. Thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:22:52 · ≈ 2:22 PM

you. Supervisor Hartman?

5:22 – 5:3010 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:22:53 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Thank you. Mr. Fahyram, I had a question of you, and that has to do with recently Kachuma was about 40%, I guess full, and there was some discussion about how the water over what period of time and what principles should guide releases of the water. Could you describe that for me please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:23:18 · ≈ 2:23 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, I believe what you're referring to is that each year there has to be a request made at the Bureau of Reclamation for water delivered from the Kachuma Project. Earlier in the spring this year heading into the water year which starts October 1st of this past year, there's an evaluation done as to how much water is available for that next year and of course When the lake gets down to its levels that it was at, there's a number of elements that have to be factored into that. Evaporation being one of the key elements, accounts that are held for downstream water rights and then also for fish passage requirements.

At that time, there was an analysis done by the Water Agency as to depending on which number of years you look forward to count for evaporation. Would there be water available for delivery? If you took a three-year horizon which we originally took then that would suggest that there really wasn't any water assuming that we could last three more years without getting any rainfall.

The member units suggested a two-year horizon, and we ended up agreeing with that. And then looked at a 40% allocation but felt that determining on the number of factors that there may or may not be sufficient water so we took the approach to say 20% certainly is due and now with...and then after a review of the winner, the second part could be then delivered and I think it's safe to say now that there's no question that can be added to the allocation if not more Depending on where the lake ends up coming up to.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:24:58 · ≈ 2:24 PM

And if we hadn't had a lot of rain and the full amount had been delivered, then what happens to the remaining water in the lake? Are there any difficulties there?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:25:10 · ≈ 2:25 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, so you basically cause shortages somewhere in the lake and downstream water rights water is directed by state law, so you can't tap into that Evaporation, you can't control. It happens. It's a part of nature and that leaves the minimum pool which would be the only part of the lake that could absorb that evaporation and then that would end up with potentially a very low lake level that would inhibit delivery of state water. Would certainly cause some environmental impacts on the microclimate that's up there And so therefore, having been in that situation and I believe it was in 2015 or 2016 where we estimated the evaporation wrong and we had an over allocated lake, felt it would be prudent not to fall into that problem again.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:26:08 · ≈ 2:26 PM

And just, I think this is really important at least for my decision making what were those problems with over allocation in terms of water quality and in terms of being able to pump water out?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:26:20 · ≈ 2:26 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, well one of the problems is that state water comes into the lake at the dam and the Kachuma Operations and Maintenance Board had a pump barge that was sitting originally up by the Tecolote Tunnel and then ultimately moved down just off the point of the park And at a low enough elevation, water quality degrades and then the member units were actually contemplating building a separate pipeline to connect CCWA water, state water from the dam to the location of the pump barge which would have been another pipeline that would have had to be built in the lake.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:26:58 · ≈ 2:26 PM

Okay very good if there's no further questions we'll go to public comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:27:02 · ≈ 2:27 PM

Chair Lavenino, members of the board we have seven requests to speak. Start with Tobe Plow and be followed by Carolee Krieger

PresenterTope PloughMontecito Water DistrictProposedself-stated5:27:21 · ≈ 2:27 PM

Members of the Board, I'm Tope Plough. I'm representing Montecito Water District. Wanted to give you a little bit of an insight as to how we at the Montecito Water District have survived and what we're doing to plan and how state water plays into that. We're looking to diversify our supply to 85% of the water coming from this side of the mountain rather than the other. And we've seen that the vagaries of rainfall and state water, because we've only been receiving about 42% of our state water over the last five to 10 years has made that a supply that we absolutely needed. That's what we lived on but it's not always dependable.

So we've gotten ourselves involved with water banking over in the Central Valley, and State Water plays a portion of that because that allows us to take water that we either purchase from other entities or take our state water allotment and put that underground. And so we bought a share in a water bank up to 1,500 acre feet can be taken out but we can store 4,500 acre feet so that we can make our water supplies much more reliable.

We've got a collegial relationship with the rest of the districts and through CCWA. And in fact, Santa Maria during times of drought has supplied us with water in Montecito. We've taken shares of their state water and brought that through Kachuma to us for our use during the drought. Basically, my feeling is the best government is a government that's closest to the people that it serves. And so in this respect we're very different from the county and that the county doesn't have any water customers and we do but nevertheless we're dealing with a lot of other issues within our water district.

We're looking at recycling You probably read about some of our discussions about that in the news. We have, in fact, a state grant to look at water recycling and essentially take our wastewater and either put it in the ground for indirect potable. And at such time as the state regulations allow we would be considering doing direct potable reuse. We're also faced with SGMA looking at our groundwater allotment and what we can do to preserve the ground water that we have in our district because we also are pumping water that we supply to our customers. That's something we still need to tackle, we've got our SGMA certification but we have not gone through and done an evaluation to all four of our underground aquifers.

So what I'm asking you to do is is honor the direction that was started in 1991 and complete this agreement We think that we and CCWA we being the purveyors can be the best judge of how water is used but yet now that you have an insight as to what we're looking at as far as other sources we don't see that as being our only source and we're looking to diversify our source but we want to use state water in the future is one of the components that's available to us I thank you very much for listening

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:30:45 · ≈ 2:30 PM

Carolee Krieger then we'll hear from Bill Rosen

5:30 – 5:374 turns

PresenterCarolee KriegerCalifornia Water Impact NetworkProposedself-stated5:30:54 · ≈ 2:30 PM

Good afternoon and thank you for letting me speak today. My name is Carolee Krieger, and I represent the California Water Impact Network, a non-profit organization located here in Santa Barbara that's been tracking state water project issues since the mid 80s, 1980s. And I'm here today to tell you that it is not a certainty that the county is off the hook for the property tax base.

Our attorney who was the one who prevailed in the Monterey amendments against the CCWA in 1995, we prevailed in 2000 says very clearly that it is not certain that the county is off the hook. And that could be devastating for the county. If you reassign the contract to CCWA, they are on the record as saying that they like the twin tunnels and they want to extend the contract of this state water project from its current expiration date of 2038 to 2085.

In my view and our organization's view with a lot of background to this, that's like writing DWR a blank check. Because if the tunnels are part of our bills that we have to pay for it is just not going to be good for our community. We believe that rather than assign the contract to a JPA that is looking to just bring in more and more control over the state water project, it's much wiser for our property tax base, our rate payers here in Santa Barbara, to keep the State Water Project with the county of Santa Barbara. The Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District There are solutions to this.

The CCWA has said that, to the water agencies, if they don't extend the contract they would get their water cut off or cut back. That is not true. In the current contract there's something called the Evergreen Clause and if you invoke the Evergreen Clause now which is what I would advocate for You can assure that the County of Santa Barbara, the citizens of Santa Barbara would keep their current State Water Project allocations and the state is committed to deliver as it always has. And it would protect our county from the cost of the Twin Tunnels and anything else that DWR might want to put on us. So in conclusion, I would ask that you consider invoking the Evergreen Clause at some point and protect our county property tax base. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:33:52 · ≈ 2:33 PM

Thank you Bill Rosen Be followed by Shad Springer

PresenterBill RosenGoleta Water District and a former director of the Central Coast Water AuthorityProposedself-stated5:34:03 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Okay, excuse me. Mr. Chair and members of the board I'm Bill Rosen a director of the Goleta Water District and a former director of the Central Coast Water Authority. I was one of three persons who voted against the assignment of state water contract because I thought it was just bad public policy To the average person, the assignment might seem like a very small thing. It was adopted almost unanimously by 10 state and local agencies with little publicity and little public input. And after a long period of time it's now before this board for consideration.

State water policy and who controls it however is a big deal for this county. In 2016 when I ran for re-election I thought water was the only issue that people would talk about. The assignment of the county's interest in a state water contract will transfer control over the state water to CCWA and with it will go power to make policy for state water, amend the contract and take other actions that may be adverse to many agencies and tens of thousands of citizens.

CCWA is an eight-member agency whose board members are appointed Power is determined by the amount of water allocated to a particular agency. When organized, the city of Santa Maria got the most water and overwhelming control of CCWA. And with the help of a small agency ID1 they have a total majority control. Of the other six agencies, two have no power and that is their share of water. It's so small that their vote is technically meaningless. The four South Coast agencies have only about 20% of the total voting power of CCWA. The combined vote of the six agencies cannot affect any action that Santa Maria or ID1 might take. And indeed CCWA adopted a budget with only the votes of Santa Maria and ID1.

Now the appointed members of CCWA represent their share of water. But when we're talking about water policy, the interests that must be represented are the people's interests and that's where the Board of Supervisors comes in. Supervisers represent people and the peoples' interest in water. Supervisors are directly accountable to the voters And in terms of population, Santa Maria and ID-1 represent about 112,000 people. And the other six members of CCAWA represent 220,000 people.

And currently the county is the middle man and its consent is required before significant changes can be made to state water policy. That's what this meeting is all about. So control of water policy is much too important to leave to an agency that is dominated by two appointed officials. And I would request that you reject the assignment, thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:37:01 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Shad Springer be followed by Mark Shatillo.

5:37 – 5:4311 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:37:15 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Good afternoon honorable chair and supervisors I'm here on behalf of the city of Santa Maria. There was a letter submitted by the city of Santa Maria a couple weeks ago, I didn't notice it in the packet signed by Mayor Patino from the city and she apologizes she couldn't make it today. I simply wanted to be here representing the city recommending that you take action to allow staff to continue to work with us on this

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:37:36 · ≈ 2:37 PM

item. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:37:40 · ≈ 2:37 PM

you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:37:40 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Good.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed5:37:46 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board. I'm Mark Sciatillo. And I'm going to go ahead and keep talking about Mike if you would reset the clock because I don't want Santa Maria's time on my conscience. I am here on behalf of the Committees for Land, Air, Water, and Species and a number of other organizations and individuals that are intimately concerned with respect to this state water project in these contract issues. I was involved in these issues back in the late 80s and 1990s During the campaign, while in the city of Santa Barbara we argued that the State Water Project shouldn't be adopted as a water supply for the South Coast. We put forth the DeSAL project as an alternative. The voters voted for both of them and then it started to rain.

And Kachuma rained for 30 days, Kachuma filled up, spilled, and now we have both of them. The environmental community, of course, opposed state water for a number of different reasons. And the primary proponents were led by the attorneys at Hatch and Parent who represented what was to me an obscure client. At that time, the Senate has improvement district number one.

And they have had an outsized impact on this whole process. And that is one of the reasons why we think it's so important that the county stay engaged in this contract process. I was researching this issue and I saw that the grand jury wrote a report in 2017 managing regional water supplies. And their primary, their number one recommendation is that the Santa Barbara County Water Agency be designated as the permanent lead agency of the Santa Barbara County Cooperative, cooperating partners and have plenary authority to address and manage our water supply to address a number of concerns The reason for this recommendation was that the Grand Jury felt there needed to be an independent and impartial forward-thinking body that's not a water purveyor to address the key objectives that I'll summarize of assisting with accomplishing state and federal grants, to manage Lake Kachuma water supplies, and to set management priorities for all water supplies throughout the county.

The grand jury report noted that there was problems with individual purveyors, and in particular Improvement District No. 1 has been an agency that has not been non-cooperative with recognizing a number of the important environmental issues associated with the management of the San Ynez River, Cochuma Project, and state water. They refused to participate in the fish management program and, in fact, were pulled out of COMB in order to not engage in that. And then later on as mentioned there was the barge incident where they accused the South County jurisdictions of stealing water and refused to move the barge.

The grand jury reports that this was undertaken with questionable legal authority but it's the same lawyer that now represents not only ID number one, but also represents the CCWA. So as you move forward and look at this issue I would recommend that you don't approve it once we just stop it at this point. But should your board decide that it wants to consider hearing a report on this issue I think it's important that your board ask staff to evaluate the independence of CCWA in order its ability to protect all of the interests of water users throughout Santa Barbara County. With Santa Maria having a majority role and not participating in Kachuma whatsoever, we have an imbalance and that's going to have a significant impact. So thank you very much for your concern about this issue.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:41:27 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Our next speaker is Joshua Hagsmark be followed by Chris Dahlstrom who's our final speaker

PresenterJoshua HagmarkCity Council representing over 90Proposedself-stated5:41:34 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Honorable Chair, Supervisors. My name is Joshua Hagmark. I'm the Water Resources Manager for the City of Santa Barbara. I am here today on behalf of the City Council representing over 90,000 residents in Santa Barbara County who voted unanimously in support of moving state water contract to CCWA. We strongly support the recommendation before you today to direct staff to analyze this issue and bring the matter back for further discussion.

The water contracts you are discussing today are critically important to the city's water supplies, since the city's customers rely both on the state water and Kachuma water. They're both important parts of our diverse water supply portfolio which also include DESAL, groundwater, Gibraltar Reservoir, recycled water and the extraordinary conservation achieved by our community.

As a retail water supplier to over 90,000 people. The city is responsible for writing safe and reliable water to its customers guided by its team of water supply professionals and Water Commission the City Council's adopted and regularly updates long-term water supply plan urban water management plan to assure that long term water supply reliability and plan for drought and emergency conditions Both the state water and Kachuma water supplies are critical components of our long-term water supply portfolio.

In closing, we urge the board to direct staff to analyze this issue and keep this important discussion moving forward. The city supports the long plan for assignment of the contract to CCWA because it places decision making authority with the agencies responsible for delivery of safe and reliable water to its customers who pay for it. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:43:12 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Thank you. Supervisor Williams has a question.

PresenterJoshua HagmarkCity Council representing over 90Proposedself-stated5:43:15 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Josh what when was that vote taken. We recently revisited council that was to take it about a year ago when we thought this is getting gone and we were we're wanting to approach DWR and so yeah it's about a year ago that the council voted on that and then we recently went back and in your packet today you should have a letter from the mayor in support of moving forward with reassignment.

CommentChris DahlstromProposed5:43:38 · ≈ 2:43 PM

So was it unanimous both times?

PresenterJoshua HagmarkCity Council representing over 90Proposedself-stated5:43:40 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Yes.

5:43 – 5:5910 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:43:45 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Krista Holstrom.

CommentChris DahlstromProposedself-stated5:43:51 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Good afternoon Chairman Lavinino and Board of Supervisors, my name is Chris Dahlstrom. I'm the general manager of San Diego's Riverwater Conservation District ID number one and also an alternate board member on CCWA. Well here's a little bit of background. ID 1 has about 10.31 percent of the Kachuma project yield under the contract and is also about seven-and-a-half percent of the vote Under CCWA so I didn't realize that we had such a big stick in decision-making here and And I would actually spend more than my three minutes of allocated time to set the record straight for this board about the Accusations that were just made so rather than do that. I would just like to represent The ID one Board of Trustees who voted in favor of the contract assignment And to ask the Board of Supervisors to allow that contract to be reassigned to Central Coast Water Authority from the county, to better represent ID1's customers.

Since ID1s customers pay the full freight, that includes the City of Solvang which is solving subcontracts to ID1 for its share. We are the contract holder to CCWA. I wanted to convey that information, that response back from the ID 1 Board of Trustees. Also in your board packet you will find a letter from the ID 1 Board of Trustees. I believe it is dated December 18th or 16th, something in Of that assignment now that I have a little more than a minute.

I'd like to shift gears on the Kachuma project What we are intending we are a contractor of course for a subcontractor the Kachuma project The contract is between the Bureau of Reclamation and Santa Barbara County Water Agency We hold member unit contract for ten point three one percent of the share of the Kachuma project I had the opportunity and the honor back in 1993 to 1996 to work on that Kachuma project contract renewal in its entirety.

And those terms in that time has changed since then, including having the listed steelhead that occurred in 1997 which has changed the way water is managed in the lake. Just a quick note there's more water that has been released For fish since the last spill in 2011 then a one-year allocation to the Kachuma member units Just a quick note. So for the Kachuma project what we're what we'd like to see is an inclusive Negotiations including the member units and have a contract that's not a single source contract, but a multiple party contract We have requested that and if the board would ask that that to be considered by our The staff and and also inclusive be all-inclusive in that contract. I'm out of time Thank you very much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:46:59 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:47:00 · ≈ 2:47 PM

All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:47:02 · ≈ 2:47 PM

right, I'll bring it back as staff do have any other comments on public comment No comments, mr. Chair. Okay, let's bring it back to the board But he wants to supervise our heart

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:47:13 · ≈ 2:47 PM

I just want to correct one little misstatement. Mr. Hagmark mentioned that the vote at the council was unanimous, but I actually voted no when it was in front of the council. But I'm sitting here in a different place and seeing this issue a little differently. I personally think that ultimately the best government is the most local government and I think that the local water agencies have done an incredible job of delivering water to the customers in the most difficult period, water hit period in our history.

The conservation from local residents in all the different water districts has been extraordinary. The diversification strategies that the local water agencies have pursued has been the right course for managing water resources during this drought and also going forward to provide more redundancy and more flexibility going ahead. I'm open personally to looking at this agreement and continuing these discussions. There's a lot of additional information that needs to come forward in that process. I'd like to see the suspended state water negotiations advance further, I think that that's a critical element of uncertainty in this contract assignment that I'd like to see resolved before it comes back to the board.

I also think that it's worth considering the CCWA partners thinking about modifying the voting structure to provide more protections to the post-Kachuma customers. That might address some of the issues that folks have concerns about, keeping the board in this contract as a way to protect some of those interests in a different way. So I think it'd be from my perspective. I think there's a challenge to see some CCWA to step up to some of these issues and Consider these items in that context and continue negotiations forward

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:48:59 · ≈ 2:48 PM

supervisor Williams

CommentChris DahlstromProposed5:49:01 · ≈ 2:49 PM

well, um, I Want to remain open especially when I am asked by you know obviously multiple parties that represent water districts that are also our constituents I do have significant concerns. However, you know, I tend to be leery of voting structures that does not take into account the principle of one person one vote that I think is a pretty important one when we're talking about Matters of this import of this importance And so I don't feel like I would be adequately representing the people of Summerlin Carpinteria Montecito Santa Barbara and even Kuyama if we talk about a Giving CCWA all the authority that the County Water Agency has now, when the water districts in the south that represent my constituents don't have voting percentages that really they could determine their own destiny with.

And I noticed that there was discussion of this a little bit at the last, and I was very happy to see this at the last board of directors or December 18th Board of Directors meeting at Montecito Water District. I was hoping also to hear because it looked to me like your motion was pretty tied between the question of voting percentages and reassignment of the contract. I might be misreading The action items, but to me that would be addressing it as if CCWA was willing to talk about really whether that voting percentage makes sense in this day and age.

Because I do have concerns that one agency, and it's not just the scenario under which Santa Maria teams up with ID1. There could be multiple scenarios where it really only takes two agencies Determine the direction of CCWA for the whole county. And I would, I just have concerns of any two agency determining the direction for the whole county. So I guess I'd have to see some changes to support it but I think obviously we should get analysis from our staff including the question Evergreen clause and the question of whether there are any lingering because this is kind of he said she said I talked to one side of this debate they say all your liabilities gone if you reassign the contract and then other folks a known not really.

I would like have our own analysis for that because I think that's a significant part of this equation too. If it we if we truly have no liability then the case for reassignment is a little bit stronger. But if we do have lingering liability, to me it shatters the case for assignment of the contract. The other is just our relationship issue. I mean almost two years ago we now first talked about suspended Table A.

The board maturity at the time put some concerns on the table, wanted to get a reaction from CCWA as If they wanted to move forward with the suspended Table A. And then nothing for two years almost, right? And then the next move is well we actually don't want to talk to you about suspended Table A. We want you to just give us the contract. That's kind of weird if we're going to come together and through our relationships relinquish a decent amount of control I want to know those relationships are solid and I want to know that my concerns are addressed.

So, I want to keep the door open but those are kind of my concerns and or conditions.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:53:48 · ≈ 2:53 PM

You know, I appreciate that. I'm glad you're going to keep your mind open but when you talk about the voting structure It's not based on population. It's based on Santa Maria pays a hell of a lot more money than everybody else for it, okay? So back in the day somebody in the North County had the foresight that they thought that state water was a good idea and I understand why folks in the South didn't. A lot of them thought that it's growth inducing and so you didn't want to stay water.

The problem is when there's a drought, we found out that not only is water growth inducing but it's also life saving. And when you don't have water everybody starts clamoring so the insinuation, it's almost like there's an insinuation that somehow it's unfair that Santa Maria has 43% of the voting power and I think like we heard they've actually suppressed their voting.

set up so that it's one person, one vote either. There are situations exist when it's not one person, one vote. So while Santa Maria may very well decide in the long term that you know in order to make a deal that they might give up something but I personally think that one of the things that I've seen happen and by the way first off for those folks that were against state water from the very beginning I still see that you're still opposed to It kind of saved everybody. I think, I would hope even the most anti-State Water person would have to admit that we weren't going to make it. I still see people shaking their heads. Well apparently there's never going to, it's like religion you're never gonna change but I just think that You know, it was a savior for us during the drought.

The other thing I think that's very confusing for constituents and we saw this for those of us that were up here when the drought was in its heyday or its low day was that people were confused. Constituents came to us and they thought we were the water purveyors, and they're coming to us with questions about why are you allowing Montecito to continue to water their properties? And how come you're not allocating this or you're not doing this? We don't control that. And so I think it's just cleaner, it's more transparent that you have a Central Coast Water Agency that handles all of these items.

Yes, like Dawn said, I definitely want You know, plug in our own county council's office to come back with a very clean opinion on. And I know they've done work on this in the past but when we come back with our future report to really lay out what that liability is for us. But I would hope that we continue to at least move forward and continue looking at this and so that would be my hope.

Supervisor Hartman is next.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:57:01 · ≈ 2:57 PM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first thing is I've been talked to by a lot of different people on this issue and people on all different sides and people who have tremendous amount of knowledge and people who I respect although many of them have, there's no consensus obviously. I think in part how you position yourself on this issue does depend on where you sit.

And I think the County Board of Supervisors is the overarching entity that is visible, that is transparent. I have been involved with a number of special districts and they aren't terribly transparent. They go by the Brown Act, but many of the meetings are not well publicized. Many people don't attend. People don't understand. are not often contested seats. It's very technical, it's very difficult and it takes really dedicated people to take on those jobs but transparent I wouldn't call it.

And the CCWA being a JPA that's one step removed. I think that's even less transparent. That's not where you go if you want You know, to hold your elected person responsible. And I think the weighted voting is an issue and here's why for me water is more than simply a commodity. Water is more than something you just sell to people. It really is a public trust resource and has been back to Roman law. So it has many different purposes, and in the Kachuma context we need to keep the lake levels up. I understand there's a counterweight of evaporation but we need to keep the lake levels up enough so that we can pump the water out. We need to keep the lake levels up so we don't have tremendous turbidity that we've got to somehow invest in a lot of water Water quality treatment so that the water is in fact drinkable, so I have some real concerns about Assigning this because I do believe that every one of us up here on this board has to think about the county as a whole has to think about how these I'm not persuaded that that we should assign this contract.

So I'm willing to look at it more. I am eager to learn more about the Evergreen Clause. I am eager to learn more about how Table A water interacts here, but those are my concerns.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:59 – 6:078 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.895:59:58 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Supervisor Adam. Thank you

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:00:01 · ≈ 3:00 PM

Well, I just I want to make absolutely certain that the document from DWR actually says that we're off the hook because I'm not sure that unless you have a different opinion, I'm not sure that some of the stuff that I'm looking at in here like an email from DWR that says that they're willing to accept a full assignment I'm not sure that that's saying that they're gonna release us from financial obligations So in the final document, I don't know whether we really need to go into it right now But if we move on down the road That's got to be actually in the final document where there's a release to us from DWR. That makes certain that that's the case

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:00:57 · ≈ 3:00 PM

Mr. Guzzone

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:01:00 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Chair and supervisors, this is an area where really the two halves are either a mere assignment of rights or an express assumption in release of all liabilities. So it's actually very possible to have an express release. The draft documents that we've discussed with CCWA include Express release of liabilities and would be signed by DWR, but that's something that we could bring back to you with that assurance. The case law actually allows in an assignment starting off with just assigning something does not necessarily include a release. But an express assumption and release, in this case signed by DWI could get you there.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:01:44 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Thank you. Okay, so it sounds like I mean from what I heard from everybody whether pro or Had some reservations is that we we do probably want to look at it deeper correct? All right So why don't we get a motion To that effect supervisor Hart

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:02:02 · ≈ 3:02 PM

I'll make a motion to continue discussions and negotiations

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:02:05 · ≈ 3:02 PM

Okay, so we would receive the report We would direct staff Receive comments from the board We would ask staff to come back with analysis of the issues and receive a transportation CCWA. And also determine it's not a project under CEQA, correct? Okay, so we have a motion. A second? Supervisor Adam, all those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? All right, passes unanimously. We're going to take a five minute break before we get set up for our next item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:02:50 · ≈ 3:02 PM

you Good morning. Good morning. Music you

6:11 – 6:2616 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:11:17 · ≈ 3:11 PM

All right we're going to reconvene this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. We're going to item D2, Mr. Allen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:11:26 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Chair Lavignino, members of the board. Item 2 is from planning and development it's a hearing to consider recommendation during options for appeal case number 18 APL 19 followed by Matt Turrentine the project applicant of the county Planning Commission September 12 2018 determination that the proposed final mitigative negative deck That was 16 NGD 4 prepared for the North Fork Ranch frost ponds project.

This is case number 16 CUP 5 located at 7400 Highway 166 about 9 miles west of Quiama in the fifth district

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:11:58 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Mr. Gazzani would ex parte be applicable here? Okay, so I don't know who's ready with their ex parte but let's go with Supervisor Williams

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentChris DahlstromProposed6:12:09 · ≈ 3:12 PM

So I have met with both the applicant and appellant No, both the the applicant and appellant is the same person but the Strange first first appealed to the Planning Commission as well I've Probably had it come up in conversations with constituents and Kuyama, but I guess Remember the date beyond the meeting that I've had with Robbie and Steve Okay,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:12:45 · ≈ 3:12 PM

supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:12:46 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Uh, I met with the project proponents, but I can't remember it was in my Solomon office I don't remember the date.

CommentChris DahlstromProposed6:12:52 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Oh And the time I met with North Fork was one of the two times I met with North Fork was in the office and one was at their at their vineyard

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:13:01 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Okay, very good. Supervisor Hart I met yesterday with the applicants and the opponents and talked through the issues and heard both points of view Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:13:10 · ≈ 3:13 PM

supervisor Adam.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:13:12 · ≈ 3:13 PM

I met yesterday with applicants and Have had Several conversations with some of the applicants agents or partners or I'm not sure who Who they all are? Over the last year.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:13:35 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Okay, so probably if I read off some of these names you're going to be good with them too. So I've met with on the appellant applicant slash side from North Fork side. I've met with Ray Shady, James Ontiveros, David Swank, Neil Curry, Matt Newhall and my staff has met with Matt Turrentine. And then on the project appellant side, I've met with Robbie Jaffe and Steve Gleisman. And it was basically a general conversation about what both of them thought about the project. So we're going to follow a planning appeal hearing schedule and we'll start off with a staff presentation.

CommentDeAndre WileyProposed · by introduction6:14:19 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Mr. Chair, before I introduce the staff presenter, I just wanted to point out to the board this is an unusual appeal. This isn't an appeal of a project decision. It's an appeal of the planning commission's determination that EIR should be prepared for the projects so Point this out. Not only is it a an Applicant appeal which is interesting, but it's also an appeal not of a final decision but a decision in process John Scholz who is our Relatively new supervising planner in the Santa Maria office will be making the staff presentation Thank you

CommentChris DahlstromProposed6:14:57 · ≈ 3:14 PM

Most of us already know him

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed6:15:06 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Thank you Diane and Chair Lavinino, members of the board it's my pleasure to be here and present this project to you. So I'm going to walk you through just give you a little context on the project, the appeal issues, the planning commission action and we've laid out outlined some potential options for your consideration today. The North Fork Ranch Frost Protection Ponds Project is a request for a minor use A minor conditional use permit that would allow the construction and operation of three water storage reservoirs to provide water for frost protection, and would serve approximately 1,000 acres of vineyards in the Quiama Valley.

The three proposed reservoirs would be located on a approximately 6500 acre parcel located south of Highway 166 as shown on the screen here, approximately nine miles west of the community of New Quiama. The project site is zoned Ag-2 with a 100 acre lot size minimum. Reservoir 1 would be adjacent to Schoolhouse Canyon Road approximately 3,000 feet south of 166, reservoir number 2.

Would be approximately 1200 feet south of 166 and then Reservoir 3 would be about three quarters of a mile east of Cottonwood Canyon Road in about 1500 feet south of statewide 166. Each reservoir would occupy an area of approximately 5 acres and store up to 49 acre-feet of water. Approximately 80,000 to 90,000 cubic yards of grading would be required to construct each reservoir and grading would be balanced at the site. An impermeable liner to prevent water infiltration would also be part of the ponds. The operation of these reservoirs would be used to store water for frost protection in the months of February, March and April. And then after that season they would maintain a minimum about three feet for the remainder of the year. The water to be stored in these reservoirs would come from existing agricultural wells located north of Highway 166.

The wells and pipelines that bring water to this site were installed in 2014 and 2015 and the vineyards were planted in early 2016. This is just some photos looking southward from the proposed sites for the reservoirs. As you can see here, the reservoirs would in fact be in the foreground and the relatively flat areas and you can see from top to bottom one two and three So as we talked about earlier, this item was originally approved by the zoning administrator of the project itself.

By the zoning administrator in September of 2017 that item was appealed to the planning commission in September of 2018. The planning commission took this item up and had significant discussion on the mitigated neg declaration as well as the project itself. And after receiving input from the public reviewing the staff reports, the commission determined that the mitigating neg deck was not adequate and that an ER should be prepared. The commission also felt that the ER should focus on water use impacts, biological resources, and flooding impacts to State Highway 166.

So there were three appeal issues of the Planning Commission's discussion on the EIR. The first appeal issue in this, this was from the appellant. The appellant asserts that the cultivated agriculture is exempt from county permits and CEQA and that the proposed project's final mitigated negative declaration adequately evaluated project-related water impacts. There was quite a bit of discussion at that meeting on this particular appeal issue.

The proposed reservoirs require the approval of a minor CUP, as I had mentioned earlier, which is a discretionary permit and it's subject to CEQA. The reservoirs would serve vineyards planted in early 2016 and the agricultural uses such as vineyards do not require approval of any permits from the county and it's exempt from CEQAs. So based on these requirements, the analysis of the projects Water use impacts evaluated the evaporative losses from the proposed reservoirs because water lost evaporation would not be used to support the cultivated agriculture. This approach is consistent with the analysis methodology that has been used to evaluate other frost protection reservoir projects in the county.

The analysis of the project's water use impacts determined that the evaporative losses from the reservoirs will be approximately 26 acre feet per year, which is below the 31 acre feet per year water use threshold of significance adopted for the Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin. Now as I said, there were significant comments made at that Planning Commission meeting.

The commission was presented with comments that dealt with the issue of subsequent use of water stored in reservoirs should be evaluated as an impact of the project but it also says specifically that the evaporative losses of water resulting from the use of the vineyards frost protection spray irrigation beyond the reservoir, the spray irrigation should also be looked at As part of the impact analysis, the commission decided that the evaporative water loss is resulting from the use of vineyards. Existing spray irrigation systems should be considered in the impact of the proposed project. What's before your board today on this particular item? The board should determine if a fair argument supported by substantial evidence in the record exists to require that an ER be prepared to evaluate the proposed water use impacts.

The appeal issue number two dealt with the issue of biological resources, and the appellant asserts that the mitigated negative declaration prepared for the proposed project adequately evaluates the project's potential impacts to biological resources. There were numerous plant surveys conducted on North Fork Ranch and the proposed project sites in April, May, June, July, September and October of 2015 as well as in January and the spring of 2016. And those concluded that there would be a low potential for a project to impact sensitive plants due to the ranch property being used for grazing cattle for many years and the reservoir sites were dominated by non-native weeds. As depicted in the photos I showed you earlier The sites were devoid of basically vegetation at the time that the environmental review was initiated.

Based on the results of the project site plant surveys and the conditions that existed, at the time the MND concluded that it would not create a significant impact on sensitive plants. Now during the Planning Commission meeting, there was significant discussion in which comments presented to the commission asserted that the prolonged drought condition may have adversely influenced the validity of the rare plant surveys conducted for the proposed project. This assertion was based in fact on recent floristic surveys conducted in the Carrizo Plain area.

The Planning Commission requested an additional analysis of the project's potential impacts to the biological resources being included in the ERR because rainfall conditions will influence plant growth on the site. Again, the board is asked to determine if a fair argument can be made on this particular issue item. The final appeal issue that was raised by the appellant and the applicant in this case, the MND prepared for the project concluded that it would not result in a potential significant flooding impact to Highway 166 because the reservoir's water containment berms would comply with county grading ordinance requirements which would ensure that the reservoirs be structurally adequate to contain sewered water.

The reservoirs would have an impermeable liner that would prevent water from saturating the berms. The exterior slopes would be vegetated, which would minimize erosion and water infiltration. And runoff from areas upslope would be diverted around the reservoirs, which would also reduce the potential for erosion-related impacts. A comment letter on the draft MND was submitted to Caltrans which stated that a catastrophic failure of a reservoir burn could impact Highway 166 and they recommended a mitigation measure be included in the environmental document to require review and approval of the burns by the California Department of Water Resources, in particular Division of safety of dams. In response to this comment, it was noted that the MND was sent to Department of Water Resources and no comments from the department were received.

Therefore, the conclusion of the draft MND that proposed reservoirs would not result in potential flooding to 166 was not revised. The Planning Commission after considering all the information redirected staff to determine if an evaluation of potential reservoir failure impacts to Highway 166 should be included in a project EIR. So what I want to reiterate for everyone is that the board's action is on the PC's decision to require an ER only, not the total project.

As I had said earlier, the board should determine if substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument and that the proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment, and an ER is required to analyze those effects in accordance with CEQA. Staff has identified two options for your consideration today. Option one would be to conceptually determine that the mitigated negative declaration is inadequate and that an E.R. is required because there's substantial evidence in the record supporting that fair argument, that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. B, conceptually deny the appeal thereby affirming the Planning Commission's action.

C would be to conceptually direct staff to prepare an EIR focused on the potential impacts that I've outlined in this presentation. And then D would be to continue this hearing in order to adopt findings, in order for staff to bring you back some findings for your adoption that an EIR is required to evaluate the environmental impact of the proposed project.

The second option that has been identified is that you conceptually determine that an ER is not required because the current evidence in the record does not support that there is substantial evidence of a fair argument as analyzed in a mitigated negative declaration. Also that you conceptually approve the appeal, thereby reversing the County Planning Commission's action.

C would be to conceptually direct staff to bring back this project to the County Planning Commission for full consideration of the project and then finally continue the hearing to adopt findings that an ER is not required at this time. That concludes the staff presentation and at this point we are available to answer any of your questions. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:26:08 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Okay, very good. What we'll do is does anybody have any questions of staff first or can we go right into the hearing schedule? Supervisor

CommentChris DahlstromProposed6:26:16 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Williams. Just I'm asking the question now in case it takes a little bit to get an answer so I don't necessarily need the answer immediately. Is this a normal size application in terms of acre feet meaning are the typical frost protection Applications that we get Smaller than this bigger than this about the size That's something that occurred to me as I reviewed the materials

6:26 – 6:357 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:26:49 · ≈ 3:26 PM

Okay, so you're gonna dig that up for later okay, so I'm sorry supervisor Adam would you like a professional opinion

CommentChris DahlstromProposed6:27:01 · ≈ 3:27 PM

You know, I always love hearing from you Peter. So

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:27:03 · ≈ 3:27 PM

absolutely. It's small to me. By my calculations that's going to result in being able to irrigate for 10 hours maybe two or three nights.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:27:20 · ≈ 3:27 PM

All right let's get into our... That's probably the best thing to do. Too short. Yeah. I probably should have just gone straight into it. Let's get testimony first and then we'll go into our discussions So first up will be the appellant slash applicant, which is Matt Turrentine, North Fork and David Swank from Urban Planning Concepts. And you'll have ten minutes.

CommentRay ShadyProposedself-stated6:28:27 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Quick points. And with that, I could summarize it in two. First and foremost...

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:28:36 · ≈ 3:28 PM

You know what Ray? I'm sorry. That was my mistake. I didn't have your microphone on so we're going to reset the ten minutes because it's a hearing Dry run. I don't want, I don't want this to come back on the fact that I had your mic turned off so but now that I know it's a strategy I will do this more often. So let's go ahead and restart. I'm sorry

CommentRay ShadyProposedself-stated6:28:55 · ≈ 3:28 PM

switch no problem Chair Lavinino, members of the board. My name is Ray Shady and I'm from Grapevine Capital. I'll be standing in for Matt Turrentine. I also have with me Steve Hiram from Hiram Crabtree. Steve has extensive experience in CEQA, 40 years. Has appeared at the State Supreme Court, US Supreme Court and was given the 2004 Environmental Land Use Attorney.

The objective with going through my key points with you guys today, there's five slides but I can summarize this into two main things. We are an agricultural investment management company which means we identify opportunities, develop them and then manage them for the long term. That means that we are inherently focused on long-term viability of our projects Part of that means sustainable use of groundwater, sustainable use of natural resources and no undue effects on our environment.

So with that you know that we're actively engaged in the SGMA process. We are actively taking measures to monitor how much water we use. The vineyard itself was designed for sustainable use of the available groundwater on the property. But that's not the issue. The issue to discuss today is the original permit that was applied for frost ponds, these are a standard part of agricultural use.

And we in applying for the permit did everything that's required by the county in order to receive a permit to construct the reservoirs. The Planning Commission's decision while it was well intended responds to opinions and an emotional appeal. Having been there, I would describe it as a response to take action for the sake of action in response to that emotional appeal.

But at best, it duplicates efforts that have already been done as required and followed by us, required by the county. And at worst, it's an overreach on the Planning Commission's role. The colors didn't quite show up on the slide, but this is an overall timeline of the property. We initially were reviewing it in 2013 and purchased at the beginning of 2014. You can see that the biological surveys for Plant sensitive plant varieties and wildlife started in 2015. So that was spring, summer and fall as well as winter and spring for 2016 looking for specific sensitive species according to the procedures as they're required by the county and state.

Those procedures were followed, submitted and part of why the mitigated negative declaration was provided or in the permit granted. Everything that went into the original mitigated negative declaration is essentially duplicative of an EIR for what an EIR can be applied to. And for everything that we've done here, we followed what the county asked us. The use of reservoirs for frost protection and irrigation in Santa Barbara County is widespread across vineyards. So this is a map of the county specifically looking at legal parcels that are identified as having vineyards by the county, and with those vineyards, the little yellow dots there are registered reservoirs. So those were constructed under permit. There's roughly 163 reservoirs, 22,500 acres of vineyard.

For reference on the map, our parcel is this piece on the Cuyama River at west end of the basin. As part of the permit process We did do biological surveys for animals and plants, looking at not just the reservoir sites that were eventually part of this permit but also on the construction of the vineyard itself. The details of what species were identified is detailed to extensive length in the original permit.

The construction of the reservoir as follows everything that the county requires. From a county grading ordinance, that's how you define an engineering process and what the end product is going to look like to avoid potential risks that would come from these sorts of construction permits. So the situation of the three reservoirs, Reservoir 1, 2, and 3 are across the south end of the vineyard.

They're in line with existing drainages that pass under the 166 through Caltrans constructed culverts The distances of those reservoirs from the 166 as was brought up earlier is significant. And again, this was professionally designed. system. And finally that Sigma process that overarches everything that has to do with California agriculture is meaningful, meaningful to us and something that we're actively engaged in both applying our data providing resources. We've donated one of our Early wells that goes down a thousand feet, it's on the east end of the property.

That'll be significantly useful in groundwater management for this end of the basin which previously had been largely unexplored and unstudied So again, our neighbor's concerns regarding water consumption or groundwater dependent ecosystems. These are all things that are already being addressed in a state mandated process of SGMA and I'll pass it over to Steve.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:35 – 6:4410 turns

CommentSteve HaramProposedself-stated6:35:14 · ≈ 3:35 PM

Mr Chairman members of the board. My name is Steve Haram. Our firm has represented this company for over 20 years. They have two points I'd like to make to you. Number one is to point out to you that three recent appellate court cases give us a methodology of how to look at the question posed today. And in each of those cases was a case where an opponent challenged a project claiming it had an element of discretion and therefore an EIR was required, and in each instance the court said no, it's not enough to show that discretion is involved, you must show that the impacts that you're concerned about relate to that discretion, and in each instance The court said that the project opponents did not go far enough to show that the impacts they were concerned about related to the discretion.

The same is true here. The objections raised by the neighbors relate to the use of water. Water is not regulated in Santa Barbara County and as a court in those cases pointed out, an EIR would in their words be meaningless in that case because there would be no independent authority of the agency to impose mitigation measures. That is of course because CEQA is not an independent statute itself. It's procedural. It doesn't give power. The same is true here. Inasmuch as you've not adopted a regulation for water, you don't have the right to impose those mitigation measures which makes the EIR a meaningless act in this particular case because the mitigation measures can't be imposed.

We just don't do EIRs for the fun of it. The example I would give you would be let's assume a community allows three-story buildings in the commercial zone but they have discretion on the landscaping. The project gets approved, the neighbors oppose it and say it's going to cause traffic and parking problems. And in fact the staff looked at the landscaping didn't like it and changed the landscaping.

Well those opponents can't ask for an EIR because their problems, traffic and parking don't relate to the type or density of the landscaping. It deals with the building. The building is allowed as a matter of right And under the Court of Appeal cases, that means you can't reach the EIR because no meaningful mitigation measures can be imposed on the building because the building is approved as a matter of right. The same situation is here.

So I would ask this board to consider that methodology with these courts have approved quite recently in three cases 2015 through 2017 And simply indicate that there is a lack of authority to impose mitigation on the permitted part of this project, the use of the water. And therefore an EIR would be meaningless in that case and that's what the Court of Appeals have unanimously said.

I would like to add in the remaining time that there's one other option that hasn't been discussed. Well, prior to going to law school I worked in the state legislature and saw laws being made. In fact, I worked for Gary Hart who served as your Assemblyman and State Senator for many years. And if the county wants to get involved in regulating water which is what these opponents are asking you to do today is to be involved in the regulation of water it should be done through the ordinary process of notice and public hearings to allow all of the stakeholders and the people who are interested and all the experts to appear before you And give you their thoughts and their testimonies so you can come out with the best regulation. We all know when you do policy simply on the run, when you simply do it on an ad hoc basis, it's bad policy.

If you want a policy where you're going to deal with water then I would urge you to go through the proper process, set public hearings, give everyone an opportunity to comment and do it. It shouldn't be done on an ad hoc basis that leads to bad policy. So simply in conclusion number one I simply ask you to follow the methodology used in the recent courts that indicate if it's a permitted use, you don't do an EIR because there is no authority to mitigate. And number two, if this is an area that you wish to regulate then it should go through the normal fashion of public hearings and the opportunity be heard. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:39:18 · ≈ 3:39 PM

Thank you. Okay. So just note they were 20 seconds over so we will give 10-20 to the opposite side. Okay, so that takes us to the project appellants which would be March Tillo for Robbie Jaffe and Steven Gleisman.

CommentDeAndre WileyProposed · by introduction6:39:38 · ≈ 3:39 PM

Mr. Chair just to clarify they actually aren't appellants they are in this instance they're just a very interested party sorry I think we misled you. I was going to say I'm only going by what the paperwork that you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:39:52 · ≈ 3:39 PM

gave me. I apologize. So this would be the applicant is the appellant?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:39:57 · ≈ 3:39 PM

Just for clarification, we were the appellants below to the Planning Commission that was successful. So I'm going to start out by introducing Steve Gleisman and Roberta Jaffe to kick us

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed6:40:09 · ≈ 3:40 PM

off. Good afternoon Chair Lavagnino and honorable supervisors. We want to thank you for giving us this opportunity. I'm sorry Robbie just hold on a

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:40:22 · ≈ 3:40 PM

second let's hold the time

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed6:40:24 · ≈ 3:40 PM

So, Mr. Chair just again we have the applicant is the appellant and I think what planning was saying Is that the next people you'll be hearing from are actually appearing as speak as public speakers

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:40:33 · ≈ 3:40 PM

Okay, but I have discussed with P&D ahead of time that because this is a very Unique circumstance that we would allow them the full 10 minutes And their side the full ten minutes and in this case ten minutes and 20 seconds Okay, so just so you know that once you do your 10 minutes and 20 seconds, you cannot come back then at public comment. And then also take another three minutes of public comments. So this is- Even if we put disguises on it? Yeah no, no disguises.

All right let's start. Thank You Mr. Guzzone

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed6:41:10 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Lavagnino and members of the Board of Supervisors. We want to thank you for the opportunity to present our reasons for asking for an EIR regarding the Reservoir Frost Protection System applied for by Harvard University's Endowment Fund. I'm Roberta Jaffe and together with my husband Steve Gleasman we've been dry farming... We're going to see if we can get that...

Can we move forward? Okay, we've been dry farming grapes and olives for 25 years in Cottonwood Canyon area. There we go. Okay technology fix adjacent to the area where North Fork Vineyards is located. This is in the western part of the Cuyama Valley which is part of District 5 Everyone and everything is 100% dependent on groundwater in the entire Cuyama Valley, from agriculture and ranches to the towns and rural residents to habitats for plants and animals. There is widespread concern throughout the valley about the depletion of our ground water, and we live in a part of the valley where a large proportion of the residents are in opposition to these proposed reservoirs.

In 2014, California passed its first groundwater legislation on the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Department of Water Resources designated the Cuyama Valley as one of 21 critically overdrafted basins in the state. By law we are responsible for developing a groundwater sustainability plan which needs to be submitted to DWR by 2020 and with the goal of having the valley have sustainable groundwater management by 2040.

The plan's being developed locally, and I especially want to acknowledge the county specifically districts one and five and the Santa Barbara Water Agency for their leadership role in the development of this Groundwater Sustainability Plan The county is putting time and resources behind this long-term effort. I'm currently volunteering as chair of the GSA Standing Advisory Committee, representing the community's voice in this process.

Historically, the western Cuyama has always been and much of it continues to be non-irrigated rangeland. In 2012, Harvard purchased 8700 acres of this non-irrigated rangeland to invest in a large vineyard. Currently they've transformed that dry rangeland into almost 1000 acres of water intensive wine grapes and all of the ag wells were drilled and the grapes planted after the initiation of SGMA.

After the wells and vineyards were installed, as you've heard this staff report, they then applied to construct 147 acre feet of reservoirs covering 15 acres of land. Our question is what is the impact of the reservoirs on the groundwater resources?

6:44 – 6:514 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:44:16 · ≈ 3:44 PM

The concern we have about this project goes way beyond just our operation as a farm, our presence in the community. We're really looking at how this purchase of this land is leading potentially to damaging effects that we feel an EIR needs to look at. We have from the GSA data demonstration just in the first two years thanks to Santa Barbara County's efforts to taking water measurements now in the area Harvard's wells as well as our wells, we're seeing a drop already. This represents from a 20-foot level down to as much as an 80-foot level below ground level in just two years. Is that going to continue?

And in our own well, we are seeing a drop in two years of almost four feet. We're worried. We can't say for sure that this is due to Harvard, but there certainly is a strong correlation. And finally as wine grape growers also we ask the question about alternatives to frost protection using water and the industry is moving in that direction. There are lots of alternatives that we think should also be included in the analysis of water use in the EIR. None of these options have been examined and we really need Further review, they need to be further reviewed in EIR and that the reservoirs don't make the situation worse.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed6:45:41 · ≈ 3:45 PM

Thank you So the key question before you today is negative declaration or EIR. And I'll be talking about CEQA quickly, but first I want to look at other agricultural reservoirs recently permitted in Santa Barbara County. There's four that have been permitted in the last two years. They're all considerably smaller. Harvard's is four times the amount of stored water. It is nearly four times the amount of grading So there's an important distinction here and it's located, this particular project is located in that purple basin there. That's the critically overdrafted groundwater basin whereas the other ones are in the yellow basin which are not critically overdrafted groundwater basins. So there's substantial issues or differences between what Harvard is proposing in the Cuyama Basin versus the other ag reservoirs that we've seen.

Now quick surf through CEQA If there's substantial evidence supporting a fair argument, it's a slam dunk. You've got to do an EIR. Even though there may be evidence that says you don't have a significant impact, your obligation is just to look at whether our side has presented evidence, any substantial evidence supporting a fair argument which is very low standard that there may be a significant impact and when there is, the courts say that you should err on the side of doing environmental review in preparing it. Preparing an EIR. Substantial evidence is facts, including expert opinion supported by facts. We've submitted the expert opinion of one of the hydrologists that's worked in the Cuyama Groundwater Basin for more than 20 years and he's established that there are significant evidence of a potentially significant impact.

Now the project that you look at is defined under CEQA broadly. Harvard has argued that The scope of the county's jurisdiction, the discretion is very narrow. I contest that but once the door is opened and there is discretion as there is under the conditional use permit that's required here then you have to look at the whole of the action and that is the entire frost protection system. It's not the irrigation that was established ahead of time that is conducted as an ongoing use that is not subject to CEQA it's the frost protection system so it's the operation of the ponds And the operation of the frost protection system. The Moorpark case, you can't chop a project up into little components. You've got to look at the whole of an action and not piecemeal it.

And here the permit is for the reservoirs and the water lines. And the project for CEQA review is this frost protection system. Now that's a discretionary conditional use permit. Mr. Haram contends These three other cases indicate that the county doesn't have jurisdiction. I'm not sure he actually looked at the zoning ordinance because this, our zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit and by state law that gives the county the jurisdiction to be able to impose conditions so you have the discretion under the zoning ordinance to impose conditions. He's argued that a case that involved an erosion control permit or a landscaping plan or a building permit are such that there's not adequate jurisdiction. Well, those cases were rightly decided but those aren't this case.

This case involves a conditional use permit and the county does have the jurisdiction and indeed the duty under CEQA to consider all of the components of the impacts from this discretionary action of approving the frost protection system. That includes a consideration of the consumptive use associated with the operation of the frost protection system, not just the evaporation from the ponds which we contend the county underestimated at 26 acre feet per year. But you also have to consider the evaporation from the frost protection system which actually It comes very close to 400 acre feet of water that is consumed as a result of just the frost protection activities for operation at this project. So the threshold, the impacts to groundwater established clearly both by three separate CEQA tests here and you can see on the right the total consumptive use of 399 acre feet even if the threshold was At 31 and there was only 26 acre feet of water, not the case here.

But you can't apply that mechanically. Dennis Gibbs, that professional hydrologist with 20 years of experience in the Cuyama Valley including working for the USGS for eight years calls the 31 acre feet severely out-of-date and in fact our general plan says that you should be recalculating that and there's his opinion that there would be potentially significant impact Further, our groundwater element of the Groundwater Resources section of the Conservation Element says specifically that you have to adopt and use a prudent margin of safety. And inconsistency of this project with those policies also represents a significant impact. And then of course there's Caltrans that had some concerns with respect to the inundation. You've heard from Dr.

Gleisman he talked about the biological resource impacts Um, we looked at that, uh, at in substantial depth at the planning commission and they ruled that in fact. Uh, there was going to be a potentially significant impact. So in closing re-request that you denial deny Harvard's appeal based on this substantial evidence supporting a fair argument and direct the expeditious preparation of a focused EIR on groundwater biological resources and the inundation impacts. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:51:16 · ≈ 3:51 PM

All right, thank you very much. So we will now go to public comment. Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:51:23 · ≈ 3:51 PM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, we have six requests to speak. We'll start in Santa Maria with John Jones and Pamela Doran.

6:51 – 6:588 turns

CommentJohn JonesProposedself-stated6:51:50 · ≈ 3:51 PM

Good afternoon. I'm John Jones, I live on the Cottonwood my family's been there for over 100 years and Our major concern with this whole project is, this is a real estate deal masquerading as an agricultural project. And we're afraid that the next round of discussions we're going to have before the board is how they're going to split this property up and subdivide it off into little ranchettes so that none of us have any water And if you have any doubts about what this company does and how they operate, I'd refer you to recent articles in Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal.

This thing is just a real estate deal. And I think that environmental impact review on all of this should be handled in the way of what you would do with any other real estate project instead of trying to hide it as a agricultural venture. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:52:54 · ≈ 3:52 PM

Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:52:56 · ≈ 3:52 PM

Pamela Duran Pamela in Santa Maria to come back to center bar after that for Richard Doty Pamela go ahead and turn on the mic there

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.896:53:12 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Here's a button. There you go.

CommentPamela DoranProposedself-stated6:53:14 · ≈ 3:53 PM

There we go, now can you hear me? Thank you. My name is Pamela Doran and I am a rancher and owner of the Spanish Ranch in the Cuyama Valley. Our ranch dates back to 1843 and was part of the original land grant belonging to Maria Antonia de la Guerra y Latoya de Arena. When Judge John T. Ricard was a boy, he could stand in the Cuyama River bed here on the ranch and the riverbanks were hardly higher than his head. Now we have 40-foot cliffs and deep erosion. He believed it was due to changing land use in the valley. The intensification of agriculture in the Cuyama Valley is not only changing the water table but also the local habitat. I recently met with a researcher from the Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management from the University of California at Berkeley.

As they told him, the intersection of water management and land management stewardship is large and complicated. The repercussions of injudicious use of one resource has long-lasting effects on the other. From Santa Barbara County reports, we know that since 1979 the Cuyama Valley has been in overdraft. In the early 1980s the county declared it in serious overdraft and more recently Cuyama Valley was awarded the title of most critically overdrafted aquifer in California.

However, we continue water utilization beyond capacity I've already had two wells silt in the past few years, and while I cannot definitively state that it was due to changes in the water table, subsidence or related activity, I'm alarmed at the continued unrestricted use of our most precious resource – our water. For the East Coast-based Harvard Investment Group, the three proposed 49 acre foot evaporation ponds total a one time fill of 47,900,160 gallons of water. That is 72 and 1⁄2 Olympic size swimming pools.

To approve their request will be the same as approving 72 1⁄2 Olympic-sized swimming pools in Santa Maria, in Santa Ynez or other location in Santa Barbara County. At a conservative 15% annual refill rate, you could add an additional 7,185,000 gallons or another 11 Olympic-sized swimming pools. You probably wouldn't have approved those pools in other parts of the county and I ask that you deny this request in the Cuyama Valley. Not only the town site but everyone in the watershed including our own over 200 species of wildlife Rely on our water quality and quantity. And by the way, we'd like to know where the bobcats and the kit foxes have gone. Thank you.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:56:06 · ≈ 3:56 PM

Back to Senator Barbara for Richard Doty to be followed by Kevin Merrill

CommentRussell DotyProposedself-stated6:56:17 · ≈ 3:56 PM

Good afternoon, my name is Russell Doty. I came to speak for two reasons really the first one being that Reservoirs are important tool for agriculture We my family Built one about five years ago and it has made our ranch in our irrigation much more efficient in fact When we used to irrigate, it took us six days to get through a cycle. Now it's four, four and a half. So right there because we're more efficient, we are not using as much water and we're not using our wells. We're not pumping out of the groundwater.

It concerns me that people are pushing to get an EIR on something that has always been allowed That you've set up a system on how to get this done and following the steps, you should be able to do that. And that's what I believe North Fork has done. They've gone through the steps, checked all the boxes and are now ready to build their reservoirs. So those are my two things is the efficiency that it gives us in irrigation Putting in an additional step on this is setting a precedence that's going to be difficult for farmers in the future.

And number two, the efficiency that reservoirs can give you when you're in terms of irrigation. So that's all I have. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:58:04 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Kevin Merrill to be followed by Rebecca August.

6:58 – 7:033 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed6:58:14 · ≈ 3:58 PM

Good afternoon, Chairman and fellow supervisors. I'm really here to answer any questions today we've came on spoke with you all One question that Supervisor Williams had is how big are these reservoirs usually? I can tell you I've been in farming for over 45 years Of all the vineyards and I planted tens of thousands of acres of vineyards I've never put in a reservoir less than 49 acre feet For the very reason that Supervisor Adam brought up, when you get a cold event it takes some water to do that.

We don't build smaller reservoirs than that. The example that Mr. Sciatello gave you, I don't know how big those vineyards are. A lot of it depends on how many acres of vines you have. If you have 20 acres of vine you're going to need a smaller reservoir. So he didn't have up there how many acres each one of those reservoirs were going to support. So I think that's really important to remember, but more important than all of that is like I said been in agriculture a long time And I think you have to be very careful that you don't put an ERR restriction on using water for agriculture. You're talking about strawberries who sprinkle, you're talking about broccoli farmers in Santa Maria, you're talking about fan jet sprinklers for avocados and oranges down in this part of the county.

To put that restriction on agriculture It's just one more burden we bear and it's very, very difficult to make a living farming today as Supervisor Adam will let you know. These folks are in it for the long term. I work for Mesa Vineyard Management. We put the vineyard in. We had the irrigation system designed. It was designed to utilize those reservoirs not only for frost but to fill them up partially and use them for irrigation which Mr. Doty just said makes our job much easier getting that water around the vineyard So we've done everything you asked us to do out there.

The county went over, I believe did more than they needed to on the negative deck. We had guys out there looking at the plants. We've had the Chumash out there looking for archeological things. We've had the biologists looking for certain species of animals that were supposed to be out there and they didn't come up with a lot I don't know if you all have been out there, but that's kind of like a high desert area. And if there are some concerns about a kit fox or a badger we will take care of those. Those are in the mitigated declaration on how to deal with those.

But in all the reservoirs I've ever put in, I have never had trouble with a wild animal getting in because we fence them off and we've done mitigated measures to make sure that doesn't happen. So I think you've got a couple letters there from not only the County Farm Bureau, but the State Farm Bureau as well They raised the concerns about an EIR for water use That has never been on the table before and I don't think we want to go down that road. So thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:01:26 · ≈ 4:01 PM

Rebecca August followed by Lynn Carlisle who's our final speaker?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed7:01:35 · ≈ 4:01 PM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, I'm here to read a letter on behalf of Jeff Kuyper. He's the executive director for Los Padres Forest Watch. Los Padres Forest Watch is a community supported non-profit organization working to protect the Los Padres National Forest, the Carriza Plain National Monument and other public lands throughout the Central Coast region.

The Kiama Valley is nestled between these two iconic landscapes and is intricately connected to them from an economic, ecological, and hydrological standpoint. The proposed project construction of three water storage reservoirs and associated development would vastly transform this arid region. It would also result in the consumption of massive amounts of water from an aquifer that the Department of Water Resources has declared to be in critical overdraft.

An adequate analysis and in full environmental impact report is necessary to ensure that the project does not contribute to further overdraft of the aquifer. And also, to ensure the project's water extraction and consumption does not affect the amount and water end levels. of surface and groundwater in the nearby Los Padres National Forest and Carriza Plain National Monuments, both of which are very near the project area.

Extracting ground water could negatively impact water-dependent vegetation and wildlife uphill from the project where these important public lands are located. For this reason and reasons outlined by your planning commission we urge your board to deny the appeal and direct staff to prepare a full environmental impact report for this project Given the scarcity of water in the Kiama Valley and values at risk from continued water extraction and consumption, we strongly believe that the project and community at large would benefit from a focused environmental impact report. That fully evaluates water use impacts other consumptive uses on the property and potential impacts to biological resources in the area.

The Kiama Valley is a gem of Santa Barbara County. There's truly no other place like it. Yet, dwindling water supplies leave its fate hanging in the balance. We urge your board to deny the appeal and for staff to prepare the environmental impact report. Thank you for taking this important step to secure the future of the Kiama Valley and public lands that together comprise this key landscape of Santa Barbara County. Thank you.

7:04 – 7:093 turns

PresenterLynn Carlislethe Cuyama Valley Family Resource CenterProposedself-stated7:04:02 · ≈ 4:04 PM

Good afternoon. Supervisors, Chair Lavagnino, my name is Lynn Carlisle and I'm the Executive Director of the Cuyama Valley Family Resource Center. As part of our work we've been involved with the study and implementation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act known as SGMA in the Cuyama Valley for the past four and a half years. As has already been mentioned, the Cuyama Basin has the unfortunate distinction of being one of only 21 out of 515 basins statewide that is considered a high-priority basin in critical overdraft. In other words, Cuyama's aquifer is one of the most threatened and most depleted in all of California.

As has also been mentioned, the SGMA legislation tasks local communities and agencies to develop a groundwater sustainability plan to ensure that there will be enough water in that basin for everyone. For growers, landowners and residents for generations to come. The Groundwater Sustainability Agency, on which the county is represented by Districts 1 and 5, is working with a professional consulting group to develop the groundwater sustainability plan.

I mention this process to emphasize an important factor that has emerged after more than a year of study in this SGMA process by some of the most experienced hydrologists in the state. And that is we need more information. We need more data in order to make good decisions about how to best manage this aquifer. It's a complex basin and we have an incomplete picture of how it works. For example, we don't have enough data to know how pumping in one area of the valley affects wells in another area. We don't know how the critical overdraft has affected crucial habitat known as groundwater dependent ecosystems And we don't know why some wells are doing okay and why others are going dry. It's becoming clear that to develop a responsible, effective groundwater sustainability plan that achieves the goal of preserving ground water for all stakeholders, we need more information which brings us to the decision before you today.

Since Sigma went into law, but before it could be implemented in the Cuyama Valley. Harvard has planted about 1,000 acres of grapes. They've drilled 13 wells mostly along the nearly dry Cuyama River. Now they're proposing to build three large reservoirs together covering 147 acres and all this remember in one of the most stressed basins in the state. In September, based on a thorough review of the information available, your Planning Commission voted to require an EIR for this project. In their decision they cited that the project's potential impact on biological resources, on potential flooding of Highway 166 and on the Cuyama Groundwater Basin.

It's a critical time in the Cuiyama Valley. So many resources including significant county resources are now focused on responsibly managing groundwater in Cuyama Yet we have hydrologists telling us we need more information. Biologists are telling us we need more information. Heck, even the growers are telling us they need more information to get this right and the Planning Commission has determined that we absolutely need more information about this project's potential impact on groundwater in Cuyama.

For this reason I urge the board to approve option one before you today, uphold the planning commission's decision and require a full EIR for this project. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:07:17 · ≈ 4:07 PM

All right, thank you. So that takes us back now to Mr. Gazzone. Oh no it takes okay see without my glasses I thought you were moving for your microphone there all right going for the computer all right so that takes us now back to rebuttal we're gonna have five minutes aside so we'll start back with Mr. Shady would you like to

CommentRay ShadyProposedself-stated7:07:44 · ≈ 4:07 PM

Thank you, Chair Lavinino. Members of the board certainly heard a resounding chorus of concern for sustainable use of groundwater in the Quiama Basin which is why we're all engaged with SGMA and expect that to not only through its process define appropriate use but also define how ground water will be managed going into the future out to 2040 and beyond. We fully expect to comply with that.

If that means that sustainable use of water can't hold the 839 acres of planted vineyard that we have, then we will comply. But in that scenario or the existing scenario that we have, we will still need reservoirs for frost protection As a function of the mechanism of applying water for frost protection Steve brought up the point of alternate methods for frost protection Believe me we went through an extensive analysis prior to Developing out this vineyard of what are going to be all of the risk mitigation factors that are in place That's required of us for doing any sort of a development For a vineyard. So with wind as an alternate option That was found to not be effective that water is going to be your most effective means of frost protection so with that then we're Going to be using that as our method.

So with reservoirs or without Reservoirs are going to be more efficient And the total use of water for any farm in the Quiama Basin will be managed with Sigma Steve, do you have anything to add to that?

7:09 – 7:154 turns

CommentSteve HaramProposedself-stated7:09:42 · ≈ 4:09 PM

Again I would just emphasize to the board that number one uh... this the issues raised, environmental issues raised as you listen to it all dealt with water and water concerns. And that is not regulated in Santa Barbara County. To that extent if an EIR was done as the appellate courts have pointed out that would be a meaningless act because any mitigation measures proposed in that EIR This is a backdoor way to get the county into the business of regulating water. That may be a good idea, it may be a bad idea.

Ms. Carlisle said we need more information. No one is saying that's not right. The question is whether this is the right vehicle at this time to do that. And I would urge this board to keep in mind that policy is better made by following the constitutional requirements of hearings and a notice to be heard, rather than get into the water business through the back door with this application. Which you know everyone is now going to come to you at the next one and say it's precedent. You've got to follow what you did the last time, and you've created de facto policy. The correct method in this case is if you think water should be regulated by the Board of Supervisors, ag water should be regulated by the Board of Supervisors, then go through the hearing process.

Come out with draft regulations. Have that out in the public. Have it vetted. Have the experts check it out. Have the citizens check it out. Have the interested farmers check it out. Go through the hearing process and that is a correct way to do it, but to backdoor it so then it's precedent and every time someone comes before you they're going to ask for a little bit more That's bad policy, we all know that doesn't work and we urge you not to take that step in this particular case. Because at the end of the day, that's what the testimony you heard today, it was all about the use of water, information on the use of water. Those issues are legitimate and they're valid but they don't apply to this application at this time. It's the wrong form, it's the wrong vehicle.

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:11:45 · ≈ 4:11 PM

All right, thank you very much. Mr. Schill, five minutes? Let's wait. Let's, well let's go to Mr. Sciatello do your five minutes and then we'll go back to questions from the board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed7:12:01 · ≈ 4:12 PM

Mr. Chair, members of the board, Mark Shatillo for appellants below. We're going to hear in a minute from Dr. Gleisman about biological impacts but I want to address just a couple of the legal issues, the argument that there should be a policy hearing about this. Is...Mr. Hirons late to the party? The board adopted a zoning ordinance that said when you do 50,000 square feet of development it requires a minor conditional use permit. So that matter is resolved the policy is resolved you have discretionary authority over this project And when you have that authority, CEQA requires that you look at all of the impacts associated with it. Now it might be that there are some impacts that you don't, and I'm not agreeing with Mr. Haram on this but just for benefit of your analysis and the recognition that an EIR is just going to give you information.

He's correct. It doesn't necessarily give you additional authority, but you have the authority that you do under your police powers and under the conditional under the zoning ordinance. And if there are significant impacts that are identified in the EIR but you lack the authority to be able to Mitigate them, you make statements of overriding consideration saying that you lack the legal authority. CEQA provides for that. So CEQA is intended to be an informational statute to be able to guide your decision making and give you information.

And when there is it's clear when there are these legal standards that have been met, substantial evidence supporting a fair argument. You don't have the ability to say well we don't want that authority or that discretion. You have it and you have to employ it. Now, I'm going to introduce or ask Dr. Gleisman to come up and speak a little bit about the biological impacts and the sensitivity of this site.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed7:13:57 · ≈ 4:13 PM

We heard that we can't control water use by agriculture. And the impacts that we're worried about is based on water use. So I'm talking about the plants and animals out there that are gonna be Displaced by the 15 acres of pond construction. By all of the roadways, the construction, the movement and everything else that goes along with that which will make the impact much greater than 15 acres. And the fact that there are at least 25 species of threatened or endangered plants common to this area we know at least 8 of those have been collected in that very site and probably more are there.

And the data they have from their surveys were 15 and 16 years, the 15 years of rainfall which were dry years. There was an average rainfall in the 16 but it all came early in January and February and then it was hot and dry after that. It was basically a drought year and those areas were empty of species. They need to take advantage, you saw the rainbow at the end of our little slide presentation. That was taken yesterday. We're really happy about the rainfall that's occurring and the fact that we're going to see the plants and animals that we normally don't see. And that's why it's an ideal time now to do that EIR for the impact of construction of these facilities.

7:15 – 7:2210 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed7:15:14 · ≈ 4:15 PM

The Planning Commission had the benefit of hearing Dr. Gleisman's credentials and his work in 40 years as a field biologist, that material is all on the record before you but he made a convincing case and it was one that Planning Commissioner Park who is also very familiar with this area from his equestrian travels through the area This is the old Russell Ranch. And he observed that back in the day, there used to be an incredible explosion of wildflowers and of plants that were of biological significance. He relied on his own expertise and his experience going out there and recognizing that this loss of the 15 acres from the footprint of the frost ponds plus the roads and that sort of thing represented a potentially significant impact. And again, the EIR is here to inform the decision-making process.

To determine are there ways to avoid those impacts when there is a significant impact? That's the fundamental difference between an EIR and a negative declaration. Once you have a potentially significant impact CEQA says you need to disclose it and if there's a way to avoid it or mitigate it, you should. So the CEQA document, the EIR has a materially different function in the context of this land use planning process. It may well be that this project proceeds as proposed because all of those impacts will be disclosed and will be mitigated appropriately but It's for the CEQA process in order to provide that information and guide decision makers. That's what your planning commission determined was necessary for this project after hearing extensive testimony, and we hope that you'll uphold their decision.

Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:16:57 · ≈ 4:16 PM

Okay, thank you very much. So does staff have any comments at this point?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed7:17:07 · ≈ 4:17 PM

Chair members of the commission, we don't have any additional comments. We're here to be able to answer your questions. Okay. Supervisor Williams.

CommentChris DahlstromProposed7:17:14 · ≈ 4:17 PM

So my, I guess my first question is of the applicant, which is just that so you do not deny that if the evaporation was more than 31 acre feet and an EIR would be called for?

CommentRay ShadyProposedself-stated7:17:35 · ≈ 4:17 PM

So if I understand your question correctly, the evaporative loss from the reservoirs which was calculated at 26 acre feet. If that was calculated at 31, I think that would have had a different outcome in the mitigated negative declaration and EIR through process would cover the same analysis that we would have or did do with the mitigated neck neck deck and I would find the 31 acre feet as a result of the air.

CommentChris DahlstromProposed7:18:10 · ≈ 4:18 PM

That's responsive my question so that the real difference of opinion here seems to be whether the evaporation only from the Reservoirs surface should count or the evaporation from the entire system of the Frost system. That's the fundamental Substantive that seems to be where the rubber is meeting the road Yeah, and so I guess that's then my question is for staff Is that a plausible number and and in I mean You know I've been through enough appeals and enough training in planning to you know think of myself as an amateur expert which is always dangerous.

You know CEQA says we're not supposed to piecemeal or look at things in isolation if we're looking at the impact, Is it fair to only look at the evaporation from the reservoir surface or should we be looking at evaporation from the whole system? And I don't really know the answer to that. So, that's why I'm asking the question.

CommentDeAndre WileyProposed · by introduction7:19:38 · ≈ 4:19 PM

Mr. Chair and Supervisor Williams, I think that really is the central issue involved in this appeal. And I think your board needs to exercise discretion in determining whether a fair argument has been made.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:19:54 · ≈ 4:19 PM

Supervisor Adams. Well, I just want us all to think about the ramifications of deciding to go out Beyond the project that you're talking about because if that's what the new rules are That just opens every crop field up To being. You know included in a in a bathroom addition. You know I'm saying, I mean this is it's just ridiculous you can't you can't do that.

And I and I think it's it's patently unfair. I mean this this vineyard exists You know some people don't like it some people like it You know, it's it's there it's getting irrigated and it has an evaporation It's exempt from permitting because Society has decided that there's a good there of cultivating land and you know in this case making wine grapes And there may not always be wine grapes. Maybe it turns into coffee someday or some other crop, or maybe it gets taken out if these wells all go dry. It gets taken out and it's no longer present.

But I think opening this thing up to where you're going back into Other operations, I mean here's a question for Mr. Gazzone if these guys could drill enough wells to where they did not need to have Reservoirs to deliver as much water as they needed delivered for price protection purposes They wouldn't need a permit for that right? I mean they'd need permits to drill the wells which are ministerial and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed7:21:55 · ≈ 4:21 PM

Chair and supervisor Adam. Yes, the the distinction on this one is the CUP that's involved

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:22:03 · ≈ 4:22 PM

You know I understand that but I'm just Cautioning that if you go beyond The scope of the project as it currently exists and say well what else do you have on them on the property? That's that's open in a can of worms. It's just outrageous in my opinion

7:22 – 7:378 turns

CommentChris DahlstromProposed7:22:30 · ≈ 4:22 PM

Well, I have thought a lot about that because I do think that That That we should not go lightly into a route like that But I do also believe that this is Site and area is a little different. I mean, we don't have critically overdraft basins all over the county. We only have one of the 21 most critically overdrafted basin happens to be in Mitchell Avenue on my district.

And this is, in my view, a real tough call because of that and Maybe the cumulative scale right? I mean, you know these are three reservoirs as opposed to two one that add up to you know Decent size number at least in the context of all applications in the last five years. You know the I Believe me supervise a lot of news whose district this is in and and His office and my own have been wrestling with issues around the GSA and North Fork for now, for two years.

We've made some progress or at least what probably North Fork considers progress and neighborhood doesn't necessarily consider progress but we haven't reached a conclusion partially because You know, it's dueling experts on the connectivity of the sub-basin. And you know while the GSA has determined that we would be... That we would have some restrictions on pump or at least on what constitutes an overdrafted well in this sub basin.

It is far more permissive than than the rest of the Cuyama Basin. Meaning, the discretion that we gave North Fork on pumping is exactly maybe part of the fact that there aren't protections just through the GSA. We gave them more allowances on pumping than we are giving throughout the rest of the basin because We're not, because the well data is a little bit better here and because we're not completely sure that it's completely connected with the rest of the basin.

So my viewpoint is that it is hard to tell who's right here and that's the moment in CEQA that you look at Whether there's a substantial evidence test, right? And I don't know if I agree with Mr. Chatillo and his clients but I do think that there is substantial evidence been presented. And the substantial evidence test in CEQA, my understanding of CEQAs than an EIR is warranted so to me the safest route for And the precautionary principle is to do an EIR, but make clear that this is a unique set of circumstances that warrant that level of analysis.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:26:27 · ≈ 4:26 PM

Supervisor Adam? Let me talk just for a minute about frost protection because I don't know if everybody understands what goes on with that. The reason these guys have these what appear to be large reservoirs, which in my opinion are not given the fact there's 800 or a thousand acres of grapes here. You know you have to have things sized proportionally for the investment that you're making and if you had 150 acre feet of storage and 100 acres of grapes, that would be way excessive.

But without going through all the math, I think that there's about two nights of 10 hours on that whole place and you'd probably like to have at least five or maybe seven nights of protection in that environment because it gets cold out there a lot and if you don't run the sprinklers... And what happens when you frost protect is you're running the sprinklers so that you have a little case of ice around each berry. Because if you have bud break, anytime you have bud break, you have to be running the water if it freezes. Well, it gets cold out there and a lot of times it doesn't freeze but then sometimes it does and if you have bud break you have the tender buds or worse yet you have the little immature clusters as flowers those things die and your crop is gone So that's the purpose behind having this water available and in the bag, so to speak above ground.

So that you can run that out over the sprinklers during the night and get that fruit covered up. And if you don't have that water in the bag, let's say the power goes off then you can't run them, you lose the crop. So it's the far preferred alternative and that's why you saw that map of how many vineyards have reservoirs because if you don't have adequate water to put on in the Santa Maria area, the standard is about five nights.

I would say that these guys would probably rather have seven But it looks to me like they've got 2 maybe 3 and you know, that's that's a lot of risk. So

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:28:59 · ≈ 4:28 PM

I'm going so this been a hard one for me too because of course, you know we are in a critically overdrafted basin but first off I want to say you know it's interesting Blame for everything short of cancer because you know we're going all the way back to 79 and showing overdraft. And as far as I know, he planted the vineyards in 2017 so I mean we had problems out there before they came and maybe this is exacerbating but the reality to me is I'm sitting here and I'm like OK what It's almost a moot point of how many acres you've planted and a moot point of how many wells you've drilled, because we have moved forward through SGMA.

And there is going to be a plan out that I believe that the draft is coming out this summer that everybody's diligently working on that will provide an allocation. And the reality is, I don't think they're going to get enough water to have 800 acres of vineyards out there. cut back some of that. But that's a decision that is already going to be made so whether or not he decides to use that water to have less acres and more frost protection or instead of frost protection, he's going to use the water for irrigation only going to get X amount and at that point it is what it is.

So in EIR for me is I don't think it's the right tool because You're going to talk about, most of it's going to be talking about water usage. And the reality is by the time EIR gets done you're already going to have a plan that's going to tell you how the water is going to be used in the Cuyama Basin. The other side of it is, the second part of it is talking about the biological resources is something this is one of those things that I continue to talk about in planning that kind of drives me a little bit nuts is that now we say OK, the applicants gone through the procedures and he's checked all the boxes and he did his studies. But you know what? He did him at the wrong time because we were in the middle of a drought and now we've had rain so we should go back and see what other kind of animals are there.

So when was this guy supposed to do this study? You know can't wait around for the project while we're in the middle of a drought. So basically you're telling him hey, you can't do it now. You gotta wait 4 or 5 years until it starts raining. You know, the biological resources. The other thing is you're putting in a 15 acre frost pond next to an 800 acre vineyard.

I think if anything was impacted it was impacted when the 800 acres were put in not when the 15 acres of frost ponds is going in but for me that the main thing comes down to it's just If we do this regardless of what I'm hearing from anybody in the audience. This is precedent setting And from what I heard or read in a staff report, I think we have over 160 frost ponds in Santa Barbara County. Probably a heck of a lot more than that.

And I don't think one of them has required an EIR and this would be the first. And I can promise you with the way that we are in Santa Barbara County The next person that comes in with a frost pond is gonna be required, or there's gonna be a significant push to require an EIR. So for me it's something that... It's not that I don't think that the water usage is super important in the Cuyama Valley because I do but I think we already have the tool that's much better than an EIR and that tool is gonna provide us With a road map, and it's going to be coming out here in just a few months. So with that I'll go to Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Hart.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:33:09 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Thank you Mr. Chair, we are in a period of transition and it makes it more difficult for me though that this is a critically overdrafted basin and so I think we need to look at it with much more care and the legal case I think under CEQA is pretty clear that if there is substantial evidence of a potential impact And I think there is both hydrologically, biologically in the Caltrans. Then I think we have to go forward and have a full EIR of the system not just the evaporation.

And that's pretty cut and dried so that's where I stand.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:33:53 · ≈ 4:33 PM

Can I ask just this simple question? For me, and I'm not trying to argue what I'm trying to find out is what do we look at when we say we need to look at it more That's what the GSA is doing and I think, I'm not really sure what we're going to study. We study what the usage is of the water or the amount of water because what's been stated is if let's say we said well you don't get the frost pond.

All right he can shoot the water straight up in the air if he wants to. I mean at some point you're gonna get an allocation. You can use the water as you see fit so I don't know what an EIR gets us. I understand the legal argument that it's a low hurdle and I get all that, but I'm not really sure what we would even tell someone to go out and do for an EIR. Supervisor Williams?

CommentChris DahlstromProposed7:34:46 · ≈ 4:34 PM

Well, I think I have an answer for that because I don' think the precedent in this case would be that a full EIR is required. Precedent would be that a project of this case Has evaporation that goes beyond just the pond. It's the whole system in Which case it should be addressed by the MND wouldn't be a full EIR for other projects Even if we decided to hold every project to this same standard, it would have been as mr Shady Just articulated they would have addressed it as part of the MND The fact is because they were treating only the pond as the evaporation That's why it was missed in the viewpoint of Mister to tell. But you know it so the worst case scenario here is with the precedent that it would have to be addressed through the MND not a full year.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed7:35:42 · ≈ 4:35 PM

Okay, Supervisor Hart? Well I agree that the site specific issues here require focused additional environmental review. And that's, I don't think we're talking about large precedence, we're talking about the circumstances on this specific project. What is the definition of the water use in the system versus the ponds? I think that's a broader discussion than is in MND.

Similarly, it is a different moment for evaluation of the biological resources. It's just the timing of how this has all worked out. Like you were talking about, the Sigma process is imminent and right around the corner. That's a choice for the applicant to look at too as you could wait to look at that product and see what that means for the project. And that might make you change what you want to propose and might change the standard for environmental review. But right now today looking at these facts as we have them, This is the choice we have to make, and I think that the issues that Caltrans raised in their comment letter to their investigation. My understanding is that these ponds are designed at a level to just be below the threshold that the Division of Water Resources looks at for dam safety.

Well, that's not an accident. That's clearly the point of designing them to be this size. And that's right on the edge, and I think we should look very carefully because this is a state highway. It's a critical connection to this community and it bears site-specific environmental review. To me, this is that simple level of analysis not the big complicated how does this operate? What does this mean for agriculture in the county? It's this project in this moment in this way.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:37:20 · ≈ 4:37 PM

Supervisor Adam, well if I could ask Mr. Shady went when he when do you anticipate needing? the water In that are you anticipating having to protect growth tips this coming year Or you are you gonna have fruit or you know, what's your timing? Oh

7:37 – 7:4220 turns

CommentRay ShadyProposedself-stated7:37:43 · ≈ 4:37 PM

So, right now we're entering into the frost window for the Quiama Valley. This season we will be at risk just like we were at risk last year. We had to replant a block after frost damage and for this coming season Taking risk mitigation measures, there's a limited number of windmills available for rent. Those can be placed at key areas we will frost protect with water as can be supplied out of the existing wells which is not the entire vineyard and then we'll supplement the remainder with helicopters.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:38:26 · ≈ 4:38 PM

Is there a thermal climb that you could pull down from?

CommentRay ShadyProposedself-stated7:38:29 · ≈ 4:38 PM

No, so we followed recommendations from the UC Extension for how to study that. There were 35-foot poles placed out on the property in multiple locations to look for a thermal climb. There was a one and a half to two degree difference between ground surface and thirty five feet in the air.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:38:53 · ≈ 4:38 PM

Twelve, that's not going to work.

CommentRay ShadyProposedself-stated7:38:54 · ≈ 4:38 PM

Correct, so they're kind of a last ditch effort to avoid damage. But that's the tools that we have in our tool kit for this season and ideally we will get through this process with the county to have appropriate frost protection for next frost season.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction7:39:17 · ≈ 4:39 PM

Okay, thank you. Well My point is we got to turn this thing around for these guys otherwise he's gonna lose lose crop and you know We love when when you plant those things because I don't know what we're charging You now over what we used to charge you for property taxes, but I suggest it's probably significant So I think we have a duty to these guys to turn this around in a timely fashion so they don't lose tremendous amounts of investment while they're paying us the taxes for the improvements.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:39:59 · ≈ 4:39 PM

OK, so helicopters, GHGs. All right, just tossing that in there. It all adds up. All right, so what's the pleasure of the board? I don't see any lights on. All right, Supervisor Williams.

CommentChris DahlstromProposed7:40:25 · ≈ 4:40 PM

I move option one which is to deny the appeal and to move forward on the fuller environmental review.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:40:37 · ≈ 4:40 PM

I second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:40:39 · ≈ 4:40 PM

Motion has been moved and seconded to deny the appeal and require EIR.

CommentDeAndre WileyProposed · by introduction7:40:45 · ≈ 4:40 PM

Mr. Chair, if I can clarify, I think that's a conceptual motion because we do need to come back with findings if that motion passes.

CommentChris DahlstromProposed7:40:54 · ≈ 4:40 PM

That's responsive to my wishes as maker of the motion.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:41:01 · ≈ 4:41 PM

Okay let's do a roll call please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:41:04 · ≈ 4:41 PM

Miss Hartman. Aye. Mr. Adam? No. Mr. Williams? Aye. Mr Harte? Aye. Ms. Lavinino? No Motion passes 3-2. So,

CommentDeAndre WileyProposed · by introduction7:41:14 · ≈ 4:41 PM

Mr. Chair, if we could continue it to a date specific I think that would be helpful so we don't have to renotice and I would suggest March 5th.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:41:24 · ≈ 4:41 PM

March 5th Do you want to check with both parties to see if March 5 works Mr. Shatillo, March 5th is good? Mr. Shady, March 5th? OK. We'll leave that. Let's tentatively schedule it for March 5. We'll hear back and find out if that works or doesn't work.

CommentDeAndre WileyProposed · by introduction7:41:59 · ≈ 4:41 PM

So so mr. Chair, why don't we continue it to March 5th? And if we need two week, we will

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:42:04 · ≈ 4:42 PM

okay

CommentDeAndre WileyProposed · by introduction7:42:04 · ≈ 4:42 PM

adjust that

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:42:04 · ≈ 4:42 PM

do we need a motion for that? Mr. Ghazani I Would request one please. Okay Second move by supervisor Hartman seconded by Supervisor Williams so do we do we need a roll call on just No continuing it. Okay all in favor. Aye Opposed no none. Okay Okay. We are moving on to D3.

7:42 – 7:5511 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:42:43 · ≈ 4:42 PM

Chair Lavanino, members of the Board. M3 is from General Services is hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Public Safety Radio System Replacement Project.

CommentJeanette PellProposedself-stated7:43:01 · ≈ 4:43 PM

Good afternoon. Are we ready? I'm Jeanette Pell, General Services Director and today we have a presentation on the public safety radio system replacement. And Tom Grisham who's an assistant director with general services over the information technology and communications group will be giving the presentation We also have federal engineering here and sea consulting should there be questions that we can't answer, but I think we feel pretty confident. So with that, I turn this over to Tom.

GuestHartProposed · by introduction7:43:40 · ≈ 4:43 PM

Thank you Jeanette. Chair Livinito, members of the board, I would like to take this moment to thank you for the opportunity to present this report. So back in December 12, 2017 the Board of Supervisors approved a professional services agreement with Federal Engineering Incorporated to assess the current radio communications environment and develop the requirements to replace the public safety radio system.

So as an overview, this is the current state of our system as it stands. We have a very diverse communications environment and this consists of an amalgamation of multiple vendors with equipment at various stages of its life cycle. Some of which were installed in 1994 and many of those are no longer supported by the manufacturer. There is also an identified lack of redundancy in terms of our communication. Meaning, communication has certain failure points that if these failure points occurred, that communication would be severely degraded for our field services. That would be sheriff, fire, EMS and other services.

And there was also the lack of a backup dispatch location, meaning the consoles that our dispatchers use to communicate with the field only reside currently in one location that's fully online and fully connected. So what we want to do is look to upgrade this. This would consist of upgrading not only our land mobile radio system, but also the microwave system which provides that backbone conduit between the towers back to our dispatch center.

So what this would do is this would improve our voice communication services and reliability within the field. It would improve coverage throughout the county and provide A robust radio communications infrastructure that could be maintained 10 to 20 years into the future. So what this entails is replacing our current legacy systems with newer technology and capabilities which would add digital mobile radio communications, meaning we're going to adopt standards like P25.

We're going to replace old analog UHF radios Add the ability to transfer data as well as voice communication. And allow for interoperability with other radio systems, meaning we could actually do joint communications with other municipalities and counties such as San Luis Obispo and Ventura. So within the RFP, there are different phases. Phase one is the assessment followed by phase two which is the recommendations. Those have been completed and what we are recommending today is to proceed with phase three and four which is the technical design, the architectural design of what the replacement system would look like, and at the same time staff will begin investigating funding options on how to fund this operation moving forward. And then we will be returning to the board with those options followed by phase five where we'll be coming back to the board to actually do the procurement and implementation of these selected technology and vendor.

So this is a list of the current county users, the different departments within that county. We have the first two are fairly heavy users of this system. We have fire and sheriff but we also have EMS services under public health as well as public works probation parks general services district attorney in courts so this radio infrastructure not only supports our first responders and law enforcement but it also supports a lot of general services throughout the county So the report examines three key areas. So to break this down, we have land mobile communication or land mobile radio systems which are the handheld systems or the mobile systems that the field units use as well as a dispatch consoles.

We also have the radio backbone system. This is the microwave system whereby that voice communication is relayed from tower to tower Down to our communication center to dispatch. And then we have the actual dispatch center itself, where we have the radio consoles and where the dispatchers interface with the various field units. So this right here is a depiction of the current infrastructure as it stands today.

So I'd like to focus on some specific elements, so if you look at the overall diagram you notice that it's a star formation meaning the individual peaks, the radio towers communicate one way to our comm center And many of these other sites are tethered off of other towers, meaning if Harris Grade for some reason suffered a communications break that would leave Solomon unable to provide communications. He would have degraded signal at that point.

Also we have our single dispatch center Here, meaning that if that dispatch center suffered some sort of an operational degradation that dispatchers would be unable to communicate with the field. So this is the recommended approach to mitigating these findings. What we'd like to do is upgrade the system to a countywide shared digital system. It makes better use of the airwaves, allows for more simultaneous communications to take place.

We would provide two additional channels to Sheriff. Fire will remain on their traditional analog VHF system and the reason for that is that they need to be able to communicate with mutual aid partners, such as federal and state entities who have not yet made that leap from the analog VHS technology to UHF so that Technology is being retained for interoperability with those mutual aid partners.

But the equipment, the actual hardware itself that supports that technology will be replaced with more modern equipment. The radio backbone will be increased for coverage, so we're looking at adding six additional sites as well as redundancy which I'll describe in a slide later where we have multiple paths of connection. So that if we suffer some sort of degradation at one site there will be an alternate path by which that communication can still take place.

And finally, dispatch. We're looking to upgrade the existing communications equipment in dispatch as well as look for a backup site where if the primary dispatch center suffers some degradation we'll have an alternate center which can be operational fairly quickly. So this is a depiction, conceptual model of what a future system would look like. So it consists of multiple rings where you have interconnectivity between sites meaning that if one site lost connection between the towers, you would have an alternate path by which you could get back to dispatch.

So this is what the target architecture looks like in the recommended approach. And now I'm moving on to the estimated cost. So, the total cost is $48.68 million. The LMR portion is 28.15 and this includes the subscriber equipment which would be used in the field meaning the handhelds, the mobiles and the other radios The radio backbone comes in at 17.68, and this portion also includes the acquisition of additional sites where we would stand up towers to improve coverage.

And then finally the dispatch center, the upgrade and the additional center were coming in at 2.85 million. So what are the next steps? What we'd like to do is to finalize a design and develop a request for proposal process We will begin investigating funding options to meet these estimates. We would like to return to the Board of Supervisors for procurement and begin the phased implementation of the public safety radio replacement.

So at this time, these are the recommendations before the board today. We're asking the board to receive and file the federal engineering report, approve and authorize the agreement with federal engineering for the next phases, phases three and four Select a design, a technical design and to identify associated costs and determine that the project is not under CEQA.

And at this time this concludes the presentation by staff. I'd like to take any questions you may have.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:53:14 · ≈ 4:53 PM

All right Mr. Allen do we have any public comment?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:53:16 · ≈ 4:53 PM

No request to speak.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.897:53:18 · ≈ 4:53 PM

Do we have any questions from the board? Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:53:28 · ≈ 4:53 PM

The fire, so we have to upgrade to really what is an archaic system just for interoperability and there's no way that somewhere down the road then we're just going to have to invest more when that gets upgraded.

GuestHartProposed · by introduction7:53:46 · ≈ 4:53 PM

Supervisor Hartman through the chair. That is correct because the federal and state entities, our mutual aid partners have not made that move to the new technology we need to maintain interoperability. However, we are looking at investing in technologies such as a subscriber equipment that would allow us to communicate with not only VHF but UHF and the other technologies were incorporating. So at a later date, should our mutual aid partners move on to a new standard we could take a look at potentially upgrading that equipment.

CommentJeanette PellProposedself-stated7:54:25 · ≈ 4:54 PM

Supervisor Hartman for the chair. It might be 20 years before the state and some of these other agencies

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:54:35 · ≈ 4:54 PM

Could you just I mean 50 million dollars is a lot of money and You're asking to go forward with this What are the how would we get that money? What are the funding approaches?

CommentJeanette PellProposedself-stated7:54:50 · ≈ 4:54 PM

So we'll be developing different options and I will actually be bringing that back as part of the budget workshop. As an ad issue item so that we can have further conversation about that.

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Gregg Hart · Seconded by Joan Hartmann approve and move forward? Second
Show transcript
So Bank of Unicorns and Rainbows is closed? Okay, all right. Well that's obviously I appreciate you bringing the item obviously that's the 48 million dollar question so we all know it needs to be done It's just a matter of where how do we fund it? Okay. Thank you very much. Can we get a motion to approve and move forward? Second moved by Supervisor Hart second by Supervisor Hartman all those in favor aye None opposed passes unanimously. Thank you very much Once again proves my theory, always be the last one in the room. That's good. All right with that we will adjourn todays meeting and we will re let's see when is our next meeting? February 12th in Santa Maria. Thank you all right.