Board of Supervisors — 2023-03-07

You're supposed to be starting right now. But they're not here yet.

Good morning. I will call to order the March 7th, 2023 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk please call the roll.

I can barely hear you though so

Supervisor Hartman here chair Williams here I would like to note for the record that supervisor caps is absent and that supervisor Labanino is participating remotely from Santa Maria

The next item of business is the approval of the minutes from February 28th, 2023. So moved. Second? We will need a roll call because of remote participation so roll call vote please.

Motion passes unanimously

CEO's report

No report this morning

And I will make some announcements. The Community Services Department has planned to place an item on the board calendar to approve a federally funded tenant-based rental assistance program, to be administered by the City of Santa Maria. 30 day public notice was published in the Santa Maria Times advising the public that they could speak on this item during our meeting. The item has been moved to the March 21st Board of Supervisors meeting And public notice has been extended to March 21st when the board considers approval of the program.

For more information, you can call 805-568-3521. Madam Clerk is there any other announcements or changes to the agenda?

Chair Williams and members of the Board, I do have a few quick announcements. We posted an addendum on Friday March 3rd. The addendum includes the addition of Administrative Item 1 from the Public Works Department regarding the Central Coast Water Authority exchange request 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 available with the link available on page 2 of the agenda. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at 805-568-2240. That concludes my announcements for today.

Would anyone like to pull the Loan Administrative Item? Well that pleases me. Okay, can I get a motion on the administrative

chair Williams and members of the board we do have one request to speak from

a member of the public.

We begin with Matthew Kostra via zoom.

Hi, can you hear me? We sure

can.

Hi, my name is Matt Kostura. I am a local teacher. I've been here for 20 years. I teach in a private school and I am concerned about the rezoning of ag land for high density housing. My concern is

environmental. That is not what the agenda item is. The agenda item is about a water transfer.

I feel like if we don't push this through soon, we're going to be in trouble. So I feel like we need to look at the environmental risks associated with this type of density housing, we need to look at the impact on infrastructure water schools, and this is being pushed through much too quickly and not looking at the impacts on our community, and as a longtime educator I see the school strapped I see the infrastructure system straps, sir.

In the future, you can do public comment during general public comment but we appreciate your making a comment.

Okay thank you for including me. Thank you.

Next we have Mike Reeves Mr. Reeves is your comment pertaining to administrative item one or do you have a general public comment? Mr. Reeves, can you hear us?

Is there anyone else that is actually on line for public comment.

Chair Williams and members of the board we have no request to speak no further requests to speak for any administrative items

okay can I get a motion on a one

move approval

second then we will do roll call

motion passes unanimously

And then is the now is the time for Public comment for items not on today's agenda, is there any further requests for public comment

Chair Williams and members of the board, we do have requests to speak for general public comment. We will begin with George Alvarez in Santa Maria.

Mr. Alvarez?

Good morning can you hear me?

Yes we can.

Okay good morning I have come here on two special issues number one is We're working towards prevention of any train hazard might occur in our area. I live in Guadalupe, we have the San Mario Railroad, Union Pacific that has rail lines there. San Mario Railroad is one of the most important aspect of my comment. They have a long standing history of parking tankers or whatever's in these tankers.

And with the thing that occurred in Ohio, it'd be prudent that we as a community staff members and whatnot look strictly on prevention. Before the accident, we had basically a bunch of these oils wrapped around La Pasadena housing unit. They've been moved smart move on the railroad part but we have to have the responsibility In making sure we have the equipment, the expertise in dealing if it happens. If an accident or one of these tankers get on fire. So I'm asking the collaboration with the city of Santa Maria, Santa Maria Railroad, Guadalupe Police Fire Department, Santa Barbara Fire Department in dealing with these issues now not when it happens just a suggestion. Well other issue is the importance of media.

Media for the long time has been protected for the purpose of educating the general public, for areas of importance and safety. I brought to your attention the life of police officers in Guadalupe. I approached one of the local TV stations never got back to me, never got to our police chief to discuss if it's fact or not. And that's sad. We don't have transparency that we have here I'm talking because of transparency. We have a television network that reaches out to County Santa Barbara and educates the general public to all the topics that we discuss here.

Unfortunately, Guadalupe does not. And because of that our citizens don't know what's going on there. And it's sad. It's your responsibility in media to let the people know what's going on interview and get the word out. That's basically what I want to talk about With that, later on I still haven't let the levy go. I'm doing some homework on that. Have a good day.

Thanks. Thank you Mr. Alvarez.

We will now come to Santa Barbara with Crystal Smith

Hello, good morning. My name is Crystal Smith I'm a District 2 resident and I'm here to comment on the county's draft element proposal It was not until very recently about a week or two ago that individuals in our neighborhood became aware of the county's proposal to meet the RHNA state mandate As you know, to reach the mandate the county agreed to add 5,664 units to unincorporated areas in the county. We were shocked at the inequitable distribution of units particularly placing the bulk of the burden of lower and moderate housing 3,237 units within about two square miles from the 217 to Juvenile Hall off Hollister Road This represents two-thirds of all the South County's proposal with densities often ranging between 20 to 30 units per acre, exceeding even the RHNA 20 unit per acre standard for dense and low income.

Why is the county functionally promoting segregation and not encouraging diversity equity or inclusion into the greater community in the greater county? To put this proposed sprawl in perspective these densities are about 2 to 3 times greater than that of San Francisco For further reference, Isla Vista is about 4.2 units per acre so exponentially more dense than one of our most populous regions.

Adding this up with the above moderate income there's a total of 5,000 new units in that two square miles. We're looking at tens of thousands of more people living in a single neighborhood And as you know, accommodating this high-density housing is being done by rezoning Ag 110 and Ag 15 land. This is land that feeds our community. My husband and I have enjoyed being CSA members of the CARED2 farm appreciating that the produce was grown in our neighborhood and didn't require a huge carbon footprint to reach our kitchen. This proposal feels rushed and has not had the review and understanding of the community. Many of our community members were not aware of this until very recently, and even the numbers in the news got it wrong in terms of what the county is proposing.

We need more time for the community engagement before this proposal is submitted to the state. We need to be extremely careful because you're changing the future of these neighborhoods and our community forever And we're now just becoming aware. After looking at the numbers further, it was quite confusing as a housing element states that the unincorporated land both North and South County needs to provide an additional 5664 units but 5000 were proposed in one neighborhood something there just doesn't add up. And it's something all the news articles missed and got incorrect. When adding up the numbers in the element you have proposed, you're adding an additional 13,663 units to the unincorporated county land. Why such a huge departure from the allocation?

Why are you proposing an additional 8000 units than required? Additionally, the community should know that of the 13,663 units on unincorporated county land 5904 units are for above-moderate income. One might think great this will mean more opportunity for our community to purchase But it should be realized Santa Barbara does not have a supply problem We have a demand problem adding supply to help lower prices can work if demand is elastic but and actually reacts to the price change. But demand for a place to live that is desirable as Santa Barbara is inelastic, as evidenced by continuously increasing and sustained home prices throughout the pandemic. More people have the option to live here when they were able to work remotely so if they had the means they did.

We have neighbors who bought their homes sight unseen and moved from out of state.

You're 30 seconds over can you finish this sentence?

Yeah, adding to this populace will only exacerbate our workforce housing problem require more health care workers educators and service workers to support this unnecessary population explosion. I ask that we take more time before submitting our proposal to the state and I asked that we call an emergency County hearing so that the community can be more engaged Thank you.

Thank you without responding to it. I do want to make sure that there's certain things that are that are known about the process first of all the County Board of Supervisors has not debated nor agreed to the proposed rezones yet. That requires environmental review, and so nothing is being rushed. There will be debate on this until February of next year. So there's a quite long process.

What is being submitted to the state in my understanding, I'm happy to be corrected by staff, is the policies that are necessary before rezones. That's sort of a second part of the process. The policies were debated and if you want to take a look at those policies, they're publicly available. They were debated at the last Santa Maria meeting last month and they were widely supported by differing viewpoints in the community. So that's what would be submitted now and of course the analysis, environmental analysis On the sites that have been identified.

There is more sites and units identified than there's necessary, but it is not 8000. But nor is the majority of the sites in the Goleta area. The city of Santa Barbara has 8000 units required of them which is by far the largest portion. I hope that clarifies the process. There's still much time to go and the Board of Supervisors has not made a determination on the reasons.

Okay. Any other public comment?

Chair Williams and members of the board, we have no further requests to speak for general public comment.

And then is there a public... Is there public comment on closed session? Maybe you could say the closed session items. Thank you.

Chair Williams and members of the board, we do have one request to speak for closed session. Excuse me. We have Thomas Woodrow via Zoom

Chair Williams, Supervisors, Tom Widrow. On behalf of the Santa Maria Public Airport we ask you to join us and the City of Santa Maria in sending a letter to Jane Gray. She's chair of Region 3 Central Coast Water Quality Control Board. The letter would request a pause in enforcement action against three non-polluters The airport, the city of San Maria and the county of Santa Barbara. During this pause we commit to working together with region 3 and our state representatives assembly member Greg Hart State Senator Monique Lamone in acquiring cleanup and abatement funds from our governor set aside for this exact purpose. In so doing, we would strike a win for environmental justice in the underprivileged community of Santa Maria and avoid a potentially catastrophic blow to the budgets of the airport Santa Maria and the county.

Failing to take action and instead receiving an order from the Water Board means taking the power out of your hands our elected leaders and decision makers and instead putting it in the hands of lawyers As each of the three entities is forced to defend itself, the prospect of years of litigation becomes a harsh reality at the cost of what could be millions and millions of dollars. However more important than that while the battle is being fought in the courtrooms the plume of groundwater contamination will continue to spread and grow Please keep in mind that the Santa Maria Public Airport has only a budget of $4 million. A staff of 11, they fix hangars and runways. The City of Santa Maria also has no money set aside for cleanup and abatement of groundwater contamination.

And I believe the county has its share of commitments to public safety social programs roads and infrastructure Make no mistake that there is no cost estimate from the Water Board, as they have not yet done a study of a 42-year problem and the money required to fix this could swell into the tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars all at the expense of those who can least afford it. So let us not blame the bureaucracy for a broken system that has allowed this contamination to spread for over 42 years. Instead let us partner up, let's be problem solvers, let's be difference makers once again please join us in sending a letter to Chair Gray of Goleta requesting that we come together rise to the occasion and show the 500 000 people of Santa Barbara County and the people of the state of California that our regulatory cleanup efforts can and should work for a better tomorrow thank you so much

Thank you Mr Woodrow. Any other public comment?

Chair Williams and members of the board, we have no request to speak.

So we're about to recess to close session. County Council can you give us a preview of the items?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. We have two items for closed session. The first is one case of anticipated litigation and deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. And the second is also anticipated litigation but significant exposure to civil litigation. One case based on the facts and circumstances listed in the agenda. The time estimate is 45 minutes to an hour probably 45 minutes.

Then we will return, let's just say at 1030. Say 1015. We are reconvening the meeting of March 7th. Will County Council please report out from closed session?

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. The board met in closed session on one case of anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate civil litigation and the second was a significant exposure to civil litigation based on the facts and circumstances listed in the agenda. The board took no reportable action.

And we are adjourned to Tuesday, March 14th in Santa Maria. Correct? Thank you.