Board of Supervisors — 2023-02-28

Good morning. I will call to order the February 28th, 2023 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Move approval.

Is there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye.

Is

there a CEO report?

Good morning chair and board members just a quick announcement of an event coming up in the spring and this has to do with infant and child care seat safety from our fire department Santa Barbara County Fire Department recently partnered with Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital to host a free infant and child care inspection and installation event at fire station 11 in Goleta. 37 vehicles have their car seats inspected, the trained car seat technicians found that 100% of the car seats were installed incorrectly. Each car seat was incorrectly reinstalled and two car seats were replaced when being expired. The fire department is planning another event for this spring. You can also schedule an appointment for a car seat check by calling the Santa Barbara County Fire Department Car Seat Technician who's closest to you and you can reach that person by getting information from visiting the Santa Barbara County Fire website or by calling 805-681-5500, 6815500.

And that concludes my reports. Thank you Madam CEO.

Car seats are not a no-brainer. They're very technical these days. Get help from professionals. I did it at Montecito Fire Station, they were very nice chief. Okay Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?

Chair Williams and members of the Board, I do have a few quick announcements this morning. We received a request to clarify that the term ending date should be 12-31-2027 for Administrative Item 43 and that Administrative Item 47 is the appointment of an alternate. We posted an addendum on Friday, February 24th amending today's administrative agenda and departmental agenda.

The addendum included the following. An amendment to Administrative Item 37 from the Social Services Department regarding state funding for Farmworker Resource Center The addition of administrative items 50 through 54 as follows. Administrative item 50 from the County Executive Office regarding an amendment to the 2023 Board of Supervisors schedule. Administrative item 51 from the County Executive Office regarding a LAFCO appointment.

Administrative item 52 from the County Executive Office regarding the reratification of a proclamation of local emergency caused by the January 2023 storm. Administrative item 53 from the Public Health Department regarding an amendment to the maximum health care staffing agreement. And administrative item 54 from the Public Works Department regarding the construction and maintenance agreement with Union Pacific for Lookout Park. These changes can be added to the balance of the administrative agenda.

Departmental item number 2 has been amended to hear the second reading on March 14, 2023. And the addition of departmental item number four from the General Services Department regarding the establishment of Dignity Hopes Move Village program. Administrative item 16 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the appointment of the County of Santa Barbara General Services Director. Government Code section 45953 subdivision C-3 of the Brown Act requires that a legislative body orally report the summary of a recommendation for a final action on salary, salary schedule, or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits Of any local agency executive as defined in the government code section 3511.1 subdivision D during an open meeting in which the final action is taken.

During administrative item number 16, the board has agendized to consider the appointment of the general services director with a biweekly pay rate of approximately 8600 plus other benefits consistent with those received by the Santa Barbara County Department heads effective March 6 2023. For the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda, please see page 2 of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment virtually may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two.

If you are using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at 805-568-2240. That concludes my announcements for today.

I have pulled by the board a nine and pulled by the public a 3836 and 837 is there any items further items that the board wishes to pull. A one. A one okay let's start with a one First, in case there's someone waiting for another item can I get a motion on the balance of the agenda? Just in case people are wondering why I do that is it's because we have a lot of County staff top level staff that that's that sit here and want them to get be able to get back to their tasks.

If there items were not pulled.

I'm going to pull a 22 as well

okay can they get a motion on the balance of the agenda which means everything except a one a 9, 8, 20 to a 3836 and a 37 Supervisor Lavin you don't move those items.

That's there's those corrections from the clerk

That's right,

it's all second good

good good catch pop There's a motion in second all those in favor please say aye aye Opposed okay a one

Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item one is from the auditor controller's office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the county of Santa Barbara's annual comprehensive financial report and pop and popular annual financial report for fiscal years for fiscal year ended June 30th 2022. Yeah,

I only pulled this item to congratulate the auditor controller's office. This It says the popular financial highlights. I think it is very popular, it's one of my favorite things that comes out every year and again just a huge congratulations to that office for putting this together. It's something that I use when I go to public speaking if I'm talking to a service group or something in town gives us a lot of really cool facts and factoids It kind of looks like a USA Today with all the colorful charts and very easy to read detailed descriptions of what actually the county does. So I just wanted to thank Betsy and her whole crew, another outstanding job. Looks great.

You don't need a separate vote on this however. Great. Thank you. Is there any public comment on A1?

Chair Williams. I had a comment. Sure. That is are we getting a hard copy this year? I haven't seen it yet

We will inquire the auditors she usually does print some hard copies

right we all rely on it And so I hope we're getting it Thank You

Okay.

Chair Williams, I'm sorry to interrupt. I just want to make sure I pulled a nine. Yes. Okay all set thank you.

That's next so great let's hear A9.

Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item 9 is from the Community Services Department it is to consider recommendations regarding professional services contract for Goleta Pier for Goleta Beach Pier structural inspection this item is located within the second district

Supervisor Kaps.

So much interest a Glita Beach is sacred ground here and the fact that the pier is being structurally Examined is important, but I also just thought mr Lingren if he could give an update on the entire restoration of Glita Pier given the storms recently in the intense and Appreciated community interest in it. Thank You. Mr. Lingren for coming

Chair Williams, Supervisor Caps. Good morning supervisors. Just real quickly the January storms did wreak some havoc on Goleta Beach including changes to the sand, the revetment and the Goleta Pier. So following the storms we have had the pier assessed. We have noticed that there are a couple of things missing A couple of the pilings and a couple of the crossmembers. So we'll be completing that assessment here pretty soon. We should have an engineering report from Bengal Engineering in the middle of the month, towards the end of the month.

And after that, we will begin reparations for the pier. I brought Jill Van Wee, our Capital and Grants Manager with me today because she has in-depth knowledge on the projects we're going to be working on to help restore a lot of Goleta Beach. So I'll have her share a little bit of that with you this morning.

Good morning Supervisor Capsley, Chair. Nice to see everybody. What's interesting is from previous storms we had some restorations planned mainly for the lawn area but we were waiting for SoCal Gas to remove an old abandoned They completed that phase in December 2022. So while we were planning on starting in March essentially to do the lawn restoration area, that was a little bit put on hold so as soon as the work is done out there will start On the lawn restoration, it might impact the summer a little bit.

But we will try to do what we can to make sure people have access to a play area whether it's temporary but we will get those restorations going. The pier, we will assess if we can open it to foot traffic before we make some repairs but those should be able to be completed by before summertime and then there's parking lots that we have to deal with but we will incrementally restore those as well so hopefully within I would say a year, year and a half aggressively we should be able to restore a lot of the damage to Goleta Beach that's happened over the last five or six years.

And I do want to mention that as far as adaptive planning, we have done some things along the way so for example SoCal Gas has removed their abandoned gas line. We're trying to analyze the major utilities and infrastructure So it's not so impacted by climate change essentially or sea level rise. So we were able to, with the restaurant, remove one of the lift stations and actually make a hard sewer line connection which will help. We're just trying to do what we can with infrastructure to make it easier for us in the future. And the restaurant did receive some substantial damage, so that might not open until the summertime as well.

We're on

it, yeah. Thanks for the update Ms. Kennedy. So just on the structural assessment and potential for pedestrian that will be done in the next? Few

weeks.

If we can

open it to pedestrians we will cordon off I know there are some piles that were missing you can definitely see them in some cross bracing so we'll protect what we can in place and cone those sections off if we can and then once we start construction we might have to close up here off temporarily while we replace those piles and some cross bracings but

Thank you and thanks to you both in your department for being so responsive. We have received many, my office has received many questions about this and you've answered them very thoroughly and I appreciate that because people really want to know timelines and want to know when they can enjoy that beach again. Absolutely thank you.

Thank you for highlighting that Goleta Beach continues to be beloved by many people even those that no longer live in Goleta. We have a 30 and you don't need that for separate vote do you? A30 or a 22.

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item 22 is from the Human Resources Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding policies affecting terms and conditions of employment.

So sorry for late poll on this one but I have couple questions about the hybrid remote work policy. Do we have anybody from HR? Yes, so I'm a fan of hybrid work options. But at the same time, I also want to make sure that the accountability pieces are in place. Are we providing training for supervisors of those people that are on hybrid work assignments specifically? Because I want to make sure that we're giving not only the employees the tools necessary to be successful in a hybrid work environment but also the supervision side because it's not easy to supervise people that are on a hybrid So I just want to better understand what we're doing. And if there's more we can do, make sure that we're keeping accountability on top of things.

Supervisor Nielsen through the chair. The policy came for revision today primarily concerning the presence of out-of-state employees. I can speak to this somewhat, but I know there are trainings as part of the policy for those who will be working remotely, ergonomics and things like that. I do believe my colleague June Mahdi in organizational talent and development has training developed in how to supervise a hybrid workforce. I can't speak to the details of it really. It's a little outside my area of expertise and you know, my role in staffing the issue is primarily around the out-of state issue and the labor issues involved in that.

So I'd be really interested in making that a mandatory requirement. If you're going to have supervised employees on hybrid work model, but that's something that we looked at as something to make sure that that's doing done appropriately. The other concern that I hear from the public often is, you know, employees that have an outward facing relationship with customers that they're not easily to be found when they're on a hybrid work environment and what are we doing to make sure that they are accountable and present for their interactions with The public that they serve.

Supervisor Nielsen, through the Chair, understood staff who work remotely also need to be accessible to the public we understand.

Well again, I don't think you need a separate vote. I'm okay. I know this is our third or second revision on a policy that goes back to 2011 but I guess it's more of just a conversation and making sure that we're looking at this maybe for potentially new revisions in the future as we look at this policy. It's obviously a work in progress has technology changes as well. I just want to make sure that we're staying ahead of the curve. Thank you.

Thank You Supervisor.

And just as a matter of practice, if folks didn't ask for a separate vote. I think if your item was discussed but not asked for a separate vote, I think you can go.

Chair Williams and members of the board. Administrative item 30 is from the Public Works Department Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is to consider recommendations regarding Buena Vista Debris Basin Final Mitigation Negative Declaration. This project is located within the first district. And via Zoom we have Debbie and Peter Moore.

Debbie? Can you hear us? Debbie Moore.

Hello, can you hear me?

We sure can. Please proceed.

Hello, I'm not sure if I'm being heard.

We can hear you.

Just raise my hand.

Please proceed Debbie we can hear you

can you

Hi, if you can hear me.

Wave your hand, make sure that I'm being heard. Sorry we're in Barcelona. This is Debbie Moore Peter and I are the homeowners of 915 Park Lane where the proposed Buena Vista debris basin that is on the agenda today that we're discussing and we just wanted to make our comments as we did. In the earlier meeting in October about the work that's being proposed for the area, we purchased our home a little over 2 years ago.

We understand that the FEMA application and this project has been in process of some sort for probably about a little over 4 years now. And we purchased the home unknowing that the proposal for the basin was on our property. We understand that's not the county's issue, however, we are very anxious to get resolution and a decision on the outcome of whether or not this basin is going to take place. And if so how our property is going Handled or administered in this process, so we're here my husband and I just to ask the honorable board of supervisors to give us a very swift decision on how this will. Move forward because we have proposed that we've got plans for a remodel that we've been working on and have invested in, um, that we can't move forward with until.

We know what's happening with this debris basin as well as from what I understand this is sort of an unprecedented amount of time to kind of make a decision on 1. sort of constituents property here in Montecito. The debris basin is going to take up nearly a half an acre of property with what is happening above ground as well as subterranean and that will have a big impact on the property value, and so for us to get a swift resolution on what is happening and how our property will be handled Thank you, Ms. Moore.

If if staff wishes to say anything they can come on up But I'll just say that I've been involved with staff on this and they have from my perspective Taken the suggestions that you've had very seriously some of which can be thought about at this juncture and some would require This next step in order to fully entertain I'm seeing nodding heads that I'm describing the situation accurately from our flood control staff.

We appreciate your engagement, we think it's very unfortunate that the seller of the property did not disclose to you that this was going on there, and I would be just as shocked as you are if I bought a house and realized there was gonna be a debris basin on my property. But this is something that the community desperately needs and has needed for some time. And after the tragedy of the one-nine debris flow we resolved to make progress in this area for the protection of your neighbors.

Don't need a separate vote for that. So let's go on to A-36.

Chair Williams, we do have one additional request to speak I believe. On A-30? Yes. Great. Anne Sherdile.

Anne? Hi, I apologize. I'm with Ecore Consulting. We prepare the MND for the project and I was just on in case there was any questions. Thank you so much.

Any questions, comments from the board? A36.

Chair Williams and members of the Board, Administrative Item 36 is from the Public Works Department, Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District. It is to consider recommendations regarding Village Square subdivision. This project is located within the fourth district. And we will begin via Zoom with Emily Meyers. Ms. Meyers, you've been unmuted on our end.

Sorry, technical difficulties. Yeah, I'm just here to speak on the Village Square project and just our concerns on it. So far at least, I live on Main Street in Los Alamos directly across from where the village square is gonna be going in. And just from day one on the project has just been very clear to us from Village Square that Their preparations for this project that seemed to happen over well over a decade ago have not been really looked at again or their care in the project hasn't been hasn't been Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the public. I just want to say thank you to the city of Los Alamos for this project. It's been reviewed again and it seems like something they are looking to push forward without really taking into account how it will affect Los Alamos as a whole.

And not only speaking for, I know I'm very directly affected by because across the street from my property but the entire town is going to be Having been addressing those past the point of saying that they have the permits in place, dismissing our arguments is missing our cases and dismissing our worries about it. And at meetings that we've had in the past.

That's pretty much what I've got to say.

Next via zoom we have Kim Treiner.

Can you hear me now?

Yes we can. Thank you, yes I would. This is Kim Schreiner. We actually are kind of at ground zero. We own a home at 390 Dent Street, the convergence of Dent Street and Shaw Street so the Village Square project is right smack in front of us. My father is a native of Santa Maria and we've had the home there for over 50 years. It is, I echo Emily's concern about This is being pushed through there was an initial environmental study. I believe it was done in 2005, which is at that time was there were some ecological issues with some of the endangered species that inhabit that part of the area but that was the last report that we know of and so I think that And when you want to go on a project where there's an environmental impact study that was done many, many years ago especially in light of the significant climate changes that we're now seeing.

That I think it would be prudent to probably pursue at the very minimum another environmental study in terms of flooding, water drainage, environmental impact and so forth in this area. And I understand that we need to have housing for folks And that's an important consideration for all counties. But I would encourage the board to consider the flood risk that there would be in building a large number of homes in this area, at least for right now. It seems like this is an opportunity to look at these things prospectively rather than retrospectively when we've had significant damage in addition to the impact that this would have on the town itself. Thank you very much.

Seth Steiner to be followed by Heather Peck.

Yes, good morning Chair and Board can I be heard?

Yes Mr.

Steiner. Yes I can. Since the EIR of 2005, conditions have changed materially. A supplemental EIR is needed before the Village Square project may properly proceed. Environmental impacts are likely to be significant I would like to begin by saying that environmental impacts have not yet been made public or mitigated. 18 years ago when the report was first written. Mr

Steiner, can you maybe speak up? There is something very strange about your sound. We can barely hear it. So please proceed. A bit just maybe take it slow so we can understand what you're saying.

All right, thank you. I'll start at the top. I don't have a lot to say since the EIR of 2005 conditions have changed materially Environmental impacts are likely to be significant and some have not yet been made public or mitigated. 18 years ago when the report was written, the phrase atmospheric rivers was not in our vocabulary. Now Montecito and many county roads have seen the destructive effects of this phenomenon And these results are likely to become more frequent and widespread over time.

The prospects of flood damage due to the Village Square proposal, and the ensuing loss of life and property in succeeding decades now were not accounted for in the original EIR. Public safety is in your hands and I ask you to avoid county responsibility for mudflow damage by voting no on this issue. Further, the matter of dwindling water resources and lengthy periods of drought ought to be addressed in the current context.

Lastly, CEQA requires that water supply be analyzed for the whole project, not on a home by home basis as is now planned by our CSD. This crucial matter should also take into account the prospect of 69 more homes in a Price Ranch development Please consider these issues and those additional ones set out in the CBC&M lawyers report. And vote no, and for another EIR.

Thank you for bearing with this microphone issue.

Heather Peck to be followed by Doug Carstens

Hi, my name is Heather Peck-Soderquist. My husband and I live on Perkins and St. Joseph. We're a block and a half from this proposed development. And actually, I don't have anything else additional to add. I think the speakers before me have covered it pretty accurately. The biggest concern we have is the environmental impact report. The hillside sits above this thing and no studies have been done over 18 years of drought and then one rainstorm was not a drought cure. So we just would like them to do a little more due diligence. We're not against the development totally, we just would like to make sure that all the I's are dotted and T's are crossed and we're not going back on why didn't they and why didn't they?

That's it thank you.

Doug Carstens will be followed by Jim Albertson

Good morning, honorable board members. This is Douglas Carstens of Chattanooga Carstensen here on behalf of Save Los Alamos. We've submitted 2 letters February 24 and February 2nd about this project objecting to the approval and pointing out that additional environmental review is necessary before it may be approved. The first point we'd like to address is that this approval is discretionary. You have been presented with a letter from the project applicant's attorney that contends that it is not discretionary, therefore not requiring additional CEQA review. This view is incorrect Our most recent letter sent last Friday details what a discretionary project is. The definition in the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines is, quote, A discretionary project means a project which requires the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity As distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations or other fixed standards.

The key question is whether the public agency can use its subjective judgment to decide whether and how to carry out or approve a project that's in California Code of Regulations section 15357 Plainly in deciding how and if the Flood Control and Water Conservation District will enter into a detailed agreement for construction and dedication of flood control improvements, you may exercise serious judgment or deliberation. And use your subjective judgment to decide whether and how to carry out or approve this project. This most certainly is a discretionary project. Our letter also points out that you must make findings if you attempt to approve this on the basis of a statement of overriding considerations. CEQA guideline section 15093 sets forth the procedure when a project has significant impacts that an agency wants to override and approve the project nonetheless.

As our Friday letter pointed out, the environmental impact report stated the following impacts would be significant and unavoidable. They were aesthetics visual, they were biological resources, they were public facilities, police protection and water resources. That particular one said the proposed project would result in a net water demand drawn from the San Antonio groundwater basin exceeding 22 acre feet per year that was in the EIR on page ES-5.

So staff has prepared findings under section 15091 of the guidelines. Those are in attachment B, but there are no findings to explain why this project's benefits would outweigh the impacts and why additional mitigation measures or better alternatives cannot be required as required by 15093. We ask that you refrain from approving the proposed agreement and to prepare adequate environmental review and findings to support the approval if you do choose to approve it after due deliberations Thank you for your consideration and I'd be available for any questions. Thank you.

Jim Albertson to be followed by Francis Romero

Good morning, one of the talking points that you're going to hear is that this is a regional benefit This is a triumph of man over nature. We are going to take all the water from this development and we're going to put it into a 72 inch outflow. It goes away. Well, that's 72 inch outflow 6 foot tall water wall of water is going to be dumped into San Antonio Creek.

This is a natural creek. It is not awash. It goes through 10 miles of farmland west of here I don't think if we were talking about adding a six foot pipe. That any of us would be even thinking about this. But we aren't. We're talking about poor farmers, we're not talking about Oprah Winfrey. If you live west of here and are farming, this is not a regional benefit.

This is a regional nightmare. Thank you for your time.

Francis Romero to be followed by Thomas Woodrow.

Good morning Chair Williams, Director, staff and members of the public. My apologies for not being there in person today I was exposed to COVID on Friday. The matter before you today is quite straightforward as the Flood Control District Board of Directors to approve an agreement not a project. The agreement is on your administrative agenda due to its very nature It allows the implementation of conditions of approval that have already been approved through a prior discretionary process. CEQA is intended to disclose impacts of a project on the environment, not the environment on the project. If you believe in community plans, that we need to build more homes in our county. That your departments and the LACSD can use $2 million dollars in fees and that the west side of Los Alamos needs a 2.4 million dollar drainage solution that costs each existing resident nothing then voting yes on this cooperative agreement will implement these positive impacts on Los Alamos While public comment is part of the process, the recent organized campaign that calls itself Save Los Alamos and Stop Village Square continues to mischaracterize, misquote, partially quote and mislead your board.

As decision makers you must constantly measure comments oftentimes emotionally charged against fact in science. I will trust that you have reviewed the letters submitted by me and our team that outline the facts and the case law pertaining to village square. It includes all of the recent permit activities, including all of the biological permits that have been obtained. I am aware of community members that have reached out to Supervisor Nelson in support of their community plan and Village Square. I want to thank the Santa Barbara County taxpayers for pointing out the hypocrisy of moving to an area and then seeking to slam the door behind them to others. I've been here nearly 30 years and I have never given a second thought to saying no one else should come to the Central Coast.

In addition to the licensed professionals employed on my team, county staff has a similar team and so did the EIR consultant. This is a question as whether or not you trust your staff and licensed professionals are the false equivalence about the tragic Montecito debris flow. Your own staff has stated that the village square is a is building a regional drainage infrastructure on the west side of Los Alamos. Even though the approved project only needs 15% of its capacity, the balance of the water is already going to the creek. This project will pay another $2 million in development impact fees that will go toward infrastructure that this town needs. We hope you will vote for this agreement so that another neighborhood envisioned in the Los Alamos community plan gets built I'm available should you have any questions.

We have our civil engineer here today as well. Thank you for your consideration.

Good morning Chair Williams, Supervisors and members of the public.

I'm Executive Director of the Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association. I want to echo a little bit of what Francis just said, but this project was approved back in 2006. It's not really what you're discussing today. Staff at the time did its job. The supervisors including my former boss Brooks Firestone approved it. They did it judiciously responsibly legally and thoughtfully And I just want to say that you 5 supervisors, you're diverse in your thoughts. You're fair minded and I just don't believe for a moment that you'll capitulate to what is a tiny minorities desire to retroactively squash.

A duly approved housing project, a project that was included in both the 1994 and the 2011 community plans. For the people of Los Alamos is a community that's fantastic and they stand to benefit from the addition not only of 59 new good neighbors, but they're going to get $2.4 million worth of desperately needed flood control infrastructure. They'll get another 1.1 million in connection fees to the Los Alamos Community Services District They'll get another $1,000,000 in school fees and finally another $373,000 in fees to the County Fire Department and the Parks and Transportation Divisions.

Overall perhaps most important I hope you supervisors will vote 5-0 Uh in favor of moving this forward because you send a message that we have a development approval process in Santa Barbara County that has integrity and it can easily withstand those who just don't have a regard for how we do business here in Santa Barbara County. Thank you very much.

Buddy Hain to be followed by Brian Adams

Chair Williams, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Buddy Hain and I'm a civil engineer with Stantec working on the Legacy Estates also known as Village Square Project. There has been discussion in the community about the adequacy of the approved designs for the stormwater improvements which will be constructed as part of this project.

Specifically, I have heard concerns related to the existing historical risk in the area Not being adequately addressed and the addition of on-site hardscape will exacerbate the issue. I am here today to emphasize that the plans were developed to meet all county design standards for all aspects of the project, including most notably flood control standards meant to address local drainage conditions and stormwater management. A great deal of effort was expended to make sure all runoff would potentially impact our site would be routed around the project for the safety of all homes. Infrastructure is being constructed to mitigate peak storm flows so as not to exceed pre-project flows for the two through 100 year events in compliance with flood control requirements.

The project calls for installation of a pipe to convey flows around the neighborhood instead of through it, as it currently does. The project also provides design, a properly designed channel called the Dent Street Ditch that helps remedy the flooding that has been historically experienced on Dent Street even as recently as last month. Additionally, the channel and others Included in the project will allow for the infiltration of stormwater runoff and ensure the project meets the applicable water quality requirements.

The improvements I just referenced are just some of the features included in our project in order to meet the Santa Barbara County design standards, which the project does. I want to stress the stormwater improvements benefit our project and the neighboring community and homes which are already affected by local flooding during large rain events. As Tom Fairam, formerly of Santa Barbara County Flood Control said this project will improve the flooding conditions currently experienced not make them worse. There has been a great deal of thoughtful engineering that went into the design and the project brings many benefits to the community. I want to thank staff for their efforts on these improvements and thank you for your time today. I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Just wanna, I do have a question because I think a lot of it just boils down to level of mitigation impact. And so you and the applicant contend that it is, that the stormwater improvements in the project not only mitigate its impacts but over-mitigate meaning take care of a certain percentage of existing conditions? Chair Williams, yes that's

correct. There is roughly of the tributary area for that space it's 85%-ish is the existing conditions and we're at the added 15% that would be going to the 72 inch pipe that was referenced. So the larger diameter pipe that we're speaking about is actually for the diversion of the water around the development and through the neighborhood Whereas the basins and items that are being constructed for those are helped to mitigate the hardscape impacts. So replacing what's native dirt with hardscape, the basins help mitigate and decrease the amount of flow to pre-project conditions.

Thank you.

Any

other questions?

Thanks.

Brian Adams to be followed by Christine Adams.

Hello there, my name is Brian Adams. I live in Los Alamos, California. I think you all know that CEQA requires additional environmental analysis to account for changes to the project, its circumstances and changes in the availability of mitigation and alternatives that have occurred in the nearly 18 years that have passed since 2005 that create new impacts and render already identified impacts more severe than previously identified.

A central point in the debate over whether to require legacy estates to conduct a subsequent EIR, which we feel like is an extremely reasonable request, is whether there was new information that could not be known in 2005. The Santa Barbara County's own Santa Barbara County Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment dated November 2021 happened to use Los Alamos as a case study The report shows, your own report shows that climate stressors are predicted to dramatically increase.

Inland flooding will increase because of the increasing frequency intensity of rainstorms. Infrastructure including road bridges and flood control infrastructure will be highly vulnerable to various hazards including inland flooding landslide and debris flow while the Legacy Estates recent February 2023 correspondence claims the original EIR did not even address climate change. That was not required in 2005, but the issue was addressed in the 2011 LACP EIR.

While the community plan EIR did discuss climate change, it only discussed it in its connection with greenhouse gases and not in reference to the increased risk of flooding and mudslides caused by climate change. Additionally, and most importantly, the EIR made no mention of the risk of atmospheric rivers causing increased danger. Climate expert Katrina Gonzalez points out in Scientific America, atmospheric rivers are becoming more intense with climate change because they're holding more moisture. We have to make huge investments in green infrastructure which uses nature to absorb runoff.

This could not have been known in 2005 or 2011. Additional evidence that new flooding and mudflow threats are presented today are described by Kelly Hubbard in a recent article and video presentation that you all witnessed. You heard about the threat of an arc storm personally from her in December, and we have submitted the scientific study for which it was based for your review.

Both the Flood Control District and the county must require Legacy Estates conduct a subsequent EIR to study the increased impacts and severity of impacts associated with climate change, including flooding, drought, and wildfires. The Flood Control District and the county must come up with ways to mitigate these increased risks. I'll just point out that you'll see pictures from the hills Mentioned in the EIR as not being susceptible to mud flow and you can see because of our recent rainstorms That's clearly not the case Thank you

Christine Adams be followed by Krishna Flores

Good morning. I'm Christine Adams, full-time resident of Los Alamos. I am asking you to vote no on item A36 and call for a subsequent EIR for the Legacy Estates Projects. The 2005 EIR is misleading. It states that the project is not near steep slopes subject to mudflow, which is in complete contradiction to the county's findings that the flood hazard must be addressed from a public safety perspective within the urban areas. So I do think it is important to ask are you listening to your So I'm wondering will you go along with this lie of omission?