UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:00 – 0:052 turns
There is only one thing that will save somebody's life and that is Naloxone nasal spray. Get 911 on the phone, get the emergency responses there on their way.
Welcome to Santa Barbara County where extraordinary people shine brightly. One of us when we celebrate our sun beings who represent the spirit of generosity and dedication. From tireless volunteers to dedicated public servants, these extraordinary individuals inspire all of us. My name is Nechon Trickler and I'm on the search and rescue team of Santa Barbara County. I've been with the team since 1982, more than 40 years now. Still on the trails doing everything I can to provide help for the search and rescue services in the county.
Durante nuestros turnos nos encontramos con una variedad de incidentes a los que tenemos que responder. Uno de los más típicos es alguien que está en la caminata, tiene algún tipo de emergencia médica en los senderos. Nosotros respondemos accediendo a esa persona tratando de estabilizar y luego trabajamos en su transporte usualmente también trabajamos en otras agencias de primeros auxilios en orden de que el paciente sea tratado y vuelva a la ambulancia o llevarlo en helicóptero Around 40% of the calls we receive are from people who have lost their lives. We also have older people with dementia.
The county called us, Project Salvador de Vidas, and this organization provides tracking devices that people can use on their wrists or ankles when someone disappears They call the county office center and our special teams basically locate the device. It is 100% effective, it's a very strong and successful program. The Thomas fire, the avalanche of mudflats and some major incidents that stand out in the years I've been doing this deal with evacuations and their responses It expands to the west and then over the city. For the Tomas fire, which at that time I think was the biggest fire in California history, we were very involved several days before it crossed the limits of the county and came to Carpinteria from the Ohio area. That also led to the evacuation and anticipation of a potential storm coming on January 9th.
We stayed that night until the storm passed. When the avalanches of mud began to occur, we immediately started working from the Pacho area. We carried out thousands of rescues of people in their homes, multiple searches for people who were reported missing and participated in the recovery of bodies. Since I joined the team more than five years ago, Nelson has been one of the main figures. His characteristics and the main character that I met when I joined. What Nelson brings us is a lot of professional experience and life. I have traveled around the world, he brings this experience to the team that on many occasions we have not had those experiences. And he's a passionate rescuer. He is one of our technical rescuers in Agua Dulce and one of our coaches.
Nelson has the confidence you can see In everything he does and that is well practiced, well done, well trained. When we go out into the real world and chaos in dynamic and changing environments, having someone like Nelson who is quick to analyze information, support the team members in this decision-making process and keep us all calm so that we can act in a superior way. This has been a great experience.
The search and rescue team of Santa Barbara County is 100% voluntary. We have thousands and thousands of hours a year making this team efficient, the intensity it brings is incredible. And they are doing it because they want to do it, because they want to solve that mystery, find that person and bring them safely. We have about 50 members, we are all professionals from various industries and that brings a lot of experience, criteria and patience to what we do. It gives us a better ability to work collectively as a group and learn one on one day by day. People like Nelson who have built what I call lifelong friendships and in addition to that, companionship of the team members. We work as a family and as a unit.
If we do the work well, it is a wonderful feeling. I am very proud of our teams over the years and the type of people who join us, who commit themselves, who give us their time and service, and who care for others who are in unplanned, unfortunate circumstances. We are professional volunteers in search and rescue, and our reward is helping people.
0:05 – 0:1014 turns
I don't think that many kids in my son's school even do it.
He makes fun of his friend who vapes. He would never try it.
She's into soft. She's on the honor roll, she's just
not the type. No way! My kid would never vape. Get your head out of the cloud. Today nearly 8000 kids will start vaping. Maybe even yours. Learn about the dangers at TalkAboutVaping.org
I think it's just vapor with flavor.
It won't hurt my kid like cigarettes, right?
Vaping is safer than smoking, isn't it?
There's really not even that much nicotine in them, right?
My kid knows it's dangerous.
Get your head out of the cloud today nearly 8000 kids will start vaping maybe even yours learn about the dangers at talkaboutvaping.org
Life doesn't always give you time to change the outcome. Prediabetes does. One in every three adults has prediabetes, and you could be one of them. Usually, prediabetes has no symptoms. So it's important to understand your risk Con un diagnóstico temprano, puedes revertir la prediabetes y cambiar tu resultado. Toma la evaluación de riesgo de un minuto hoy. Visita PodríaTenerPrediabetes.org
It takes less than one minute to find out if you may have prediabetes. You can do it here, but you probably won't. You're busy, kids, work, show coming back in 48 seconds so let's do this now. Hold up one finger if you're a man, women zero. Three more fingers if you're over 60, two over 50, one over 40. If you're not sure, keep in mind you're sitting on a couch right now. So one more finger if you're not very active.
One finger if yes, zero if no. One yes, zero no. Next, find the body type that looks most like you and hold up that many fingers while I look around awkwardly. And that's it! If you are holding up five fingers or more, you probably have prediabetes. Sorry to be so blunt, but hey you're busy. Just go to the site.
I'm engineer Sam Ferguson this Saturday April 22nd from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m County Fire and Cottage Hospital will be doing a joint car seat installation and inspection event at station 11 in Goleta At our last event we found over 95% of the car seats brought to us were installed incorrectly. Hope to see you there!
I'm an actor in an ad that was given 12 seconds to remind you that if you're high, just don't drive. Because if you feel different, you drive different. It's illegal to drive high everywhere anyway.
0:27 – 0:3315 turns
Good morning, I'd like to call to order the October 10th 2023 meeting of Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order. Madam Clerk please call the roll.
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
The next item business is the approval of the minutes from the October 3rd meeting so moved
second
all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? The CEO's report.
Good morning, Chair Williams and board members. I have a few announcements this morning. First, given the importance of housing and reducing homelessness in our county, I want to take a few moments this morning and welcome a new employee who will be leading our team in that area for the Community Services Department, and who replaces Deputy Director Dinah Lockhart, who retired a few months ago. So the county is pleased to welcome Joseph Dzvanek as a Deputy Director for Housing and Community Development. Mr. Dzvanek comes with extensive leadership positions in the U.S. Armed Forces. Most recently, he designed and built San Luis County's first homeless services affordable housing division from conception to implementation. He will work directly under CSD director George Chaptian who is here today to tell us more about Mr.
Dzwanek and formally introduce him to the board.
Good morning Chair Williams, members of the board. It's a pleasure for me to be here to introduce Joe. Mona did give some background and I'll let Joe speak as well. And I think the intent before I retire from the county is to leave you in good hands with good leadership, great leadership. And for me interviewing the candidates, Joe by far to me is a great leader.
He's got track record of leadership. He understands people. I think he'll continue with the team, the good team and build a better team. So I'm really confident in what Joe is going to bring to the county and as Mona said it's an important issue. It's a complex issue housing homelessness and I think we'll do well with Joe here in the county.
Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board, CEO Miyasato. Thank you for having me today and I look forward to coming here and serving your constituents, the citizens of Santa Barbara County and working with the talented and hardworking staff of the county as well to try to alleviate some of the issues we're having in these areas of homelessness and affordable housing so very glad to be here and thank you for the introduction.
Welcome Joe
My next announcement is another Your County, Your Heroes video. So this morning I'm pleased to share with you another video in our video series. It features unsung heroes throughout the county who embody the spirit of selflessness and dedication. The videos in this series are played on channel 20 throughout the week and are highlighted in our monthly county newsletter.
On the CSB TV YouTube page and on our social media in both English and Spanish. So this morning we are honored, we're honoring Alex Doran from the county's Public Works Department. And I also want to thank Kelsey Butita, our PIO and communications manager for creating these excellent videos. So why don't we go ahead and play?
Welcome to Santa Barbara County, where extraordinary individuals shine bright. Join us as we celebrate the unsung heroes who embody the spirit of selflessness and dedication from tireless volunteers to dedicated public service these remarkable individuals inspire us all
We have a lot of really outstanding employees here in Public Works. Alex Dorn checks all the boxes on what you want in an employee because he has a really unique skill set. Not only does he manage our hydrology website, we have over 100 rainfall gauges, stream flow gauges throughout the county that he maintains. He's a welder so he actually builds a lot of the equipment that we need.
My main role is to build out, monitor and maintain the flood warning system From Kuyama out to Guadalupe and out to Point Conception, and down to Carpinteria and everywhere in between. We also have gauges out on the Channel Islands for monitoring giving us lead time for storms approaching the mainland. And so it's a constant effort to keep everything operating and reporting accurately as the rains occurring is reporting into our office and publishing to the website in near real-time. And along with the stream gauges we have the camera system so you can verify
The website he manages is the most heavily visited webpage we have in the county. People depend on that to make decisions about their life and property in some cases. They can instantaneously determine what the rainfall is at their location, they can see what the river flow is or creek flow is next to them.
During storms we do 24-hour monitoring of the system. The data is the key component, ultimately all this data gets pushed in real time to the public, to agencies we cooperate with and the National Weather Service In February of 2019, we had a big storm. So we were monitoring the San Ysidro Debris Basin and noted the peak rainfall intensity in the upper watershed. Our office contacted the EOC who got ahold of the CHP and eventually closed Highway 101 just minutes before it flooded so that was a good example that we had the equipment in the right location and made the right response Preparing is the big part of my job and having everything ready to go every winter, regardless of what the forecasts are. We prepare in flood control the same way every year and make sure everything's operational and reporting accurately.
Allard Storm really is a hero to the Public Works Department because he cares about the work he does and how that work impacts his co-workers and how that work impacts this community.
0:34 – 0:367 turns
Alex is in the audience today. If we would please give him a round of applause and thank That concludes my report, but it looks like you have some members who may want to speak
supervisor Harper
Yes, well I first wanted just to thank Kelsey and the CEO's office for doing these. A lot comes that I didn't know about so I'm learning about the county as is the general public and then to Alex what an amazing job you're doing for all of us protecting and overseeing our health and safety. Thank you so much
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you Chair Williams Thank You Alex. I mean, I know your work this last winter was very impactful on most of my district We obviously have flooding in the Santa Maria River and sending as river in the lump oak and Santa Maria Valleys And I know I handed out links to your website to every farmer that I came across The clicks on that website are probably about 100 a day from me alone.
But it was really important because you could actually track flows coming through and you knew when you're going to hit the high spot in our county, and it really is kind of the best of what we can do in public works. I mean this is the cutting edge of actually being able to make predictive models so that farmers and businesses and homeowners can react accordingly knowing something's coming.
And so it's a lot of value for our tax dollars. So I really liked the return on investment for us there, so thank you for all that work. Also the data that he collected is the data we're using now to talk about the Santa Maria River and the improvements we're making there and improvements we might make in the San Ynez River. So when we're working with regulators on the national and state level, we're able to input the data that we've got from Alex into that. And it really is making a huge difference in our county and I'm really appreciative of you and your team for all the work you guys are doing.
Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you and Alex, I just want to give you a personal thank you because you keep my dad really busy Because he is also a big clicker on that and I think it's important that we continue to make our websites Where they are? You know You can easily navigate them. It took me just a few minutes to explain to him where to look for what information he was looking for, and I've given out that web page probably more than any other website I've given out in the county so people are it's excellent information like you said it's instantaneous so you know exactly what's going on every minute and we did use it a lot when we were looking at flows coming into this Santa Maria River last year so really appreciate all the work you do thank
0:37 – 0:484 turns
Madam Clerk, are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
Chair Williams, members of the board I do have one announcement this morning. For the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the boards agenda please see page two of the agenda. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment may do so via zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page 2. If you have any questions contact the clerk of the board's office at 805-568-2240 That concludes my announcements for today
And I'd just like to take the prerogative to ask for a moment of silence for all of those that have perished in the violence in Israel as an expression of our humanity. Even though these events happen on the other side of the world, they're terrifying and we should take a moment to feel some of that pain and terror. Thank you so much. I have A7, A9 and A8 polled.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
Are there any other requests to pull items from the administrative agenda? Can I get a motion on the balance of the administrative agenda?
So moved.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye.
Chair Williams and members of the Board, Administrative Item 7 is from the General Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Kachuma Lake Recreational Vehicle Site Renewal, General Service Project number 20033. This project is located in the 3rd District and requires a forfeits vote.
Supervisor
Labineau. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well I pulled this item because I just wanted to highlight it. I think this is exactly what this department and this board in this county should be doing. We're basically doing two things at once. We're improving recreational opportunities for our community and Creating revenue, which is awesome. So I know we've got items later on today where we're talking about possible tax increases and I think this is the first step that we should be doing is continuing to look for areas where we think outside the box or we improve.
Kachuma's just a great gem. And the more we can do to improve it as we have been doing and investing in that, I think we're going to reap the dividends. So really looking forward to this. I'm really glad it's off and running. And got a lot of people that are really interested in going there and camping and parking their RVs so really appreciate the upgrade and want to give a big shout out to General Services and all they've done to make this happen.
Let's, can
we get a motion? I'll move A7.
Second.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Let's take up A8.
Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item 8 is from the public health department it is to consider recommendations regarding Lawrence J Bynes MD professional corporation agreement termination fiscal years 2023 through 2024 board contract number 23126 And joining us via Zoom, we have Lawrence Bynes.
Good morning.
Good morning. We can hear you.
Great, my name is Lawrence Bynes and I've had the honor of being your lead OBGYN physician at the Santa Barbara Healthcare Center, Lompoc Healthcare Center, Franklin Healthcare Center and Carpinteria Healthcare Center for the last 24 years. In that period, I'm proud to report that our clinic and hospital OB programs have met or exceeded the community standard of care year after year We've had enthusiastic support from our colleagues in the community, great maternal and fetal outcomes, and fortunately no lawsuits.
I feel the need to inform you that I was abruptly removed from my clinic duties in Santa Barbara on August 24th by Dana Gamble, the Deputy Director of Primary Care and Family Health, and Dr. Maya Anthony, the supervising physician in primary care at SBHCC. They stated that this was an HR decision resulting from a complaint lodged against me earlier that day.
Mr. Henry Ventura, the Equal Employment Opportunity Manager for the County of Santa Barbara Human Resources has since told me that this was actually the decision of the Public Health Department and not HR. Regardless, the HR department has been looking into the issue for some eight weeks during which I have remained on suspension from my duties in Santa Barbara.
The decision has resulted in the dissolution of our OB hospital call group and a lack of adequate physician coverage in our OB clinics. I'm sorry to say that it has also tarnished the reputation of the Public Health Department in the eyes of the Cottage Hospital OB department, Cottage Administration, Cottage Labor and Delivery nursing staff and our community physician partners.
But most importantly there's a community-wide concern that OB patient care has become compromised. The contract that you are being asked to terminate for convenience because of shifting business needs was just renewed on July 1st of this year There was no mention of shifting business needs during my contract talks with Dana Gamble and his assistant deputy director Paula Hurtado in late June.
In fact, they actually gave me a 2% cost of living raise. So I'm not sure why Dr. Hamami, the Director of the Public Health Department and his team are asking- Dr. Bynes?
Yeah. I'm sorry that is your time.
Dr. Hamami do you wish to speak to it?
Thank you, good morning Mr. Chair yes I will not talk about the investigation since it's an HR problem, HR matter but we are very appreciative for the service that Dr. Bynes have provided over the years however when we looked at the contract itself it's over a million dollars and as operational and business decisions I was looking at this the minute I walked in and there are other ways of providing those services in fact Just to correct some of the things that have been said, we have ample coverage. We have three providers currently that are providing women health at all of our clinics. We have two entities that are competing to do our inpatient both the OB group at Cottage as well as Sansum that we are in negotiations with. The coverage for all our patients that are referred for C-sections or emergencies and all that is happening as we speak.
And our immediate initial financial analysis have shown that we are going to save close to $250,000-$300,000. So while we appreciate the history, we appreciate all the services that have been done by Dr. Bynes regardless of whatever that investigation that just wrapped up. We made that decision based on purely the efficiency and cost effectiveness and how we want to operate our clinics.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, I just for discussion. I think the public speaker brings up some concerns that I don't feel like I have enough information and before with the item personally so I may in the future ceremony but that is concerning to me if some of that information is accurate then I really want to make sure I bet that out personally before I'm ready to move forward the item does waiting an additional week cause any additional problems here with this termination?
I don't see that as an issue. We have a 30-day notice as part of the contract and this is what we informed Dr. Bynes he was, he is still providing or expected to provide services at Lompoc. The only administrative restriction that we had was in Santa Barbara because this is where the incident happened But he is expected to continue until I think mid-November based on his contract to provide services elsewhere. And in the meantime, we have enough coverage in Santa Barbara as well as Santa Maria and we have currently a provider group that are providing on call services at Cottage Hospital and we are engaging with Sansum as well in terms of whether they can pitch in as well.
I will admit ignorance to much of what's going on with that level of service, and I know you're the expert there. But I'm being asked right now to terminate a contract, and I'm hearing from some member of the public that is one of our employees that there might be some concerns out there in our OBGYN services are very important to our community. And I would like personally to feel more comfortable than just a brief discussion in a public hearing about it for me. I don't know about my colleagues but I would be in favor of moving this another week just so I can feel more comfortable with approving it personally.
Sure. Any other comments or questions? I want to make sure that I understand the logic of this item is simply the cost savings of providing it for quarter of a million to $300,000 less than the current state of affairs.
In addition to diversifying our options we again have had this specific contract for Long, long time where we are limiting our options into one entity and one provider. And it was not a secret that Dr. Bynes was hinting that he is going to retire soon so we wanted to make sure that once this happens or if anything happens God forbids for Dr. Bynes then we have other options right now we have three providers instead of one.
Supervisor Hartman?
I'm willing to postpone this a week, but I believe that we hired a public health director to make these decisions and it's micromanaging his operations. And I don't feel comfortable doing that But if it's just information so that the board could satisfy itself then indeed This is being met. I could go along with that, but I don' think it's our role to Unless something egregious would happen, so I have faith in Dr. Hamami.
I'm also willing to wait a week, but I have this similar sentiment.
Our oversight is over department heads and the county CEO. Their job is to run their departments and to make personnel decisions for their departments. And if one can make in this It's hard to argue with it. So can I get a motion then for, to table? The term is- Can we continue the item? Continuance. A continuance to next week's meeting.
0:49 – 0:5720 turns
So moved. Is
there a second? Supervisor Lavagnino seconds, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? And then A9 on better news
Chair Williams and members of the board, Administrative Item 9 is from the Public Health Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County Animal Services annual report for fiscal year 2022 through 2023. Supervisor Caps?
Thank you, Chair Williams. I pulled this item because our animal services is something that we provide in the county that a lot of people I don't believe understand the breadth of these services and there is such good news especially in this report this year. I am someone who's personally benefited my mental health, my family from rescue animals and from fostering and I just wanted to highlight The amazing work that you're doing, the numbers that stood out to me is we have over 5,000 animals in the shelter and nearly 4,000 of those were strays.
And in particular I just want to highlight the program that you started this last year which I think is brilliant and I've advertised it wherever I go especially dog parks that people can foster for a day or even a few hours and help those animals get a break from their I just want to give you the opportunity to keep spreading the word about the good work that's happening in our shelters.
Thank you so much Supervisor Capps. To Chair Williams and the Board, thank you for all of your support and recognition of the work that we're doing in animal services as you mentioned we have seen a significant increase in the number of animals entering the shelter system which is not unique to Santa Barbara County but is nationwide phenomenon that everyone is struggling with and here in Santa Barbara County where we're lucky to have such a pet loving and supportive community that's enabling us to maintain high quality of care while keeping public safety in the forefront and the well-being of animals.
So thank you
I just want to introduce you to Cinnamon, because Cinnamon here is a Santa Maria shelter dog. And I have attempted to offer to adopt her but I didn't quite meet the standards of my lifestyle. The busyness of my lifestyle didn't meet the standards of the foster mother. But she came into the Santa Maria Animal Center in the spring of 2019 and She was a little bit older so people don't always look past that to her sweet personality.
I mean she kind of checks all the boxes, she's amazingly potty trained, great with kids which is really good because my kids are not the type that will like restrain themselves and lovable around the house. Her only bad habit is she really likes treats a lot At a time when the cost of vet care is so high and breeders are charging thousands of dollars for backyard bred mixed breeds, adopting from the Santa Barbara County Animal Services shelters is a great way to get a wonderful companion at a bargain and helping to save and improve their lives as well.
She's also great with cats. Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, well I just wanted to say that this report reveals the exceptional leadership that we have in our animal services program and we've struggled and so we're delighted to have you And you've accomplished all of this with, post COVID we lost a lot of employees. Our volunteer program given some of the previous leadership has not been what it's been in the past so these numbers are extraordinary under the circumstances that you faced and just want you to know that you have support up here. Santa Barbara County Public Health It used to be the goal was just to protect the public health from rabies, but the mission is much broader today. And in Santa Barbara County we expect far more for our treatment of our non-human companions and so you understand that.
You understand how to work with volunteers and it's not always easy because volunteers have different ideas about how things should be run but you've just been exceptional and we're so grateful thank you
Thank you so much. It's truly one of our core values that people are the solution to the challenges that we're facing and the only way to engage them is to open doors, welcome them be transparent and be appreciative of the human element to the work that we do
That raises a question for me. I know we probably don't have this now, but someone who can train dogs and help train the family to make sure that it's a good match and that if there are issues and questions that they have some expert. Is that something that you have in your vision for the future?
Yeah, our staff currently does adoption counseling to the best of their ability and to the best of what we know about the pets in our care. We do have a position that should be opening relatively soon. That's like a case manager position to help identify how to move pets through the shelter system and into homes We have really great partnerships with several nonprofits, including Shadows Fund which has a Keep Me Home and a Get Me Home program that are both aimed at helping to address any concerns that adopters have or pet owners. And whether it's fencing or housing or behavioral issues as well.
So you're working with nonprofits to help fill that role at least for now? Absolutely. Because living in a shelter is a traumatic experience and the way the dogs behave isn't necessarily the way they really are, and it takes a while to recover from that. Absolutely. Thank you I know you take dogs home to foster I've seen that.
Part of part of the love of the job.
Thank you so much. Supervisor
Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Williams. I just have to acknowledge that we're also in our office fostering the dog. Lee Collier in our office has a one year old Great Dane, Cleo and she is needing a home as well. She's going to have surgery on November 1st but could use some help before and after that. So she wouldn't quite fit on my lap up here. So
she's at home today. Not quite sure Cinnamon completely fits on the lap.
I just wanted to thank the Collier family and the work of our animal services for their work to get the word out there on advocacy for these dogs. Thank you.
Supervisor
Caput? Yeah, I just wanted to end with a question that I meant to ask how does one volunteer could you use this opportunity please
We, there's a on our website we have online application that you can fill out. We have in-person orientations that are events on our social media and it's really easy. We have volunteer needs everything from what you would expect of coming in and hanging out with puppies and kittens but there's a lot of other tasks that we need assistance with pretty much any skill set that a community member thinks they have Okay, can I get a motion? I'll move it.
0:57 – 1:014 turns
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Let's go to resolutions to be presented and start with administrative item number 14. You know what I'm going to take the prerogative and let's do 15 first since we just talked about it.
Chair Williams and members of the board, Administrative Item 15 is sponsored by Supervisor Capps and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2023 as Adopt-a-Shelter Dog Month in Santa Barbara County. Joining us here in person we have Sarah Aguilar. Please make your way to the podium and I will read the resolution into the record.
Whereas every year countless dogs find themselves in shelters in need of loving home and care. And whereas shelter dogs come from various backgrounds and circumstances, and they deserve the chance to experience life filled with compassion and companionship. And whereas adopting a shelter dog not only provides a forever home for these animals but also strengthens the bond between humans and their four-legged friends.
And whereas, promoting National Adopt-a-Shelter Dog Month in October raises awareness about the importance of adoption and encourages individuals and families to consider shelter dogs when welcoming a new pet into their lives. And whereas, celebrating October as National Adopt-a Shelter Dog Month underscores our commitment to supporting animal welfare and reducing the number of homeless dogs by advocating for adoption and responsible pet ownership.
Whereas locally Santa Barbara County Animal Services or partner agencies have dogs ready to be fostered and or adopted into forever homes. Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors officially recognizes the month of October as National Adopt-a-Shelter Dog Month and encourages our community to join in the noble cause by considering adoption as a first choice when adding a new member to their family thus providing a loving home to a shelter dog in need passed and adopted today
Thank you Chair Williams and Board. Today we've brought in addition to several dogs that are sitting up on the dais, we have Agatha who recently came into our shelter as a stray at just nine weeks old and then Draco here who is one of our longest stay residents. We have An inordinate amount of huskies in our care and they're wonderful, beautiful pets. And they have so much personality.
So thank you for this resolution. We encourage everyone to please come out support your local shelter whether it's us or one of the other shelters in your community to adopt a pet or just foster. So thank you so much.
Thank you Okay, it's going to be tough to follow that. Let's go to administrative item number 14.
1:01 – 1:055 turns
Chair Williams and members of the board administrative item number 14 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of October 2023 as National Cybersecurity Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County. Joining us here in person we have Chris Schoen, Gary Coverdale, Andre Montastori, Greg Milligan, members of the Information Technology Department, EITC Policy Committee and Department Information Security Officers. Please make your way to the podium, and I will read the resolution into the record.
Whereas Santa Barbara County recognizes the vital role that the internet and information technology play in our daily lives in county staff and residents, and that the internet users and nation's information infrastructure face an increasing threat of malicious cyber attack, loss of privacy from malware, and significant financial and personal privacy losses due to identity theft and fraud. Whereas during the past year, the county has been maturing and strengthening its cyber security posture through additional policies and updated systems. On September 21st 2021, the Board of Supervisors adopted 20 detailed National Institute of Standards and Technology based technical cybersecurity policies. Cybersecurity policies are utilized in the governance risk and compliance system for all departments to manage their adherence to the policies and controls.
Whereas the County Cybersecurity Program has expanded countywide with annual cybersecurity training for all county users required for continued use of county technology resources. The yearly required training launches every October and the county has recently added a training And certification path for all department security officers. And whereas the roadmap for increasing the county's cybersecurity for this coming year includes partnering with the Department of Homeland Security through our association with multi-state information sharing and analyst center. Deploying additional tools to reduce the likelihood of malicious cyber activity and an aggressive awareness program that reinforces county staff with a culture of security. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby observe the month of October 2023 as National Cybersecurity Awareness Month, to recognize the importance of cybersecurity and encourage citizens to engage in safe cyber practices in their homes schools workplace and businesses past and adopted today
Well good morning Chair Williams and members of the board. Since 2004, the President of the United States and Congress have declared the month of October to be Cybersecurity Awareness Month, a month dedicated to raise awareness about the importance of cybersecurity. Our county takes cybersecurity seriously and we are constantly elevating our stance and posture to improve how we protect our data, network, and our operational capabilities.
An example of this is the requirement for all county staff to take cyber security awareness training this month in order to better educate our workforce on cyber threats. The county's Chief Information Security Officer, Gary Coverdale could not attend this morning but asked that I specifically thank the Board of Supervisors our County Executive Office and Department Directors for their ongoing support towards prioritizing the county cybersecurity.
Thank you for adopting this resolution we appreciate your support and recognition of the importance of cybersecurity for our county.
Supervisor Hart?
I just wanted to thank for the cyber security classes that we take online. I've learned a lot and it's taken me a little while to pass.
Okay, yes, I know their protocols work because I get locked out of my laptop all the time. So okay, administrative item number 16.
1:05 – 1:112 turns
Chair Williams and members of the Board, Administrative Item 16 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of October 8th through October 14th 2023 as Fire Prevention Week in Santa Barbara County. Joining us here in person we have Santa Barbara County Fire Department Chief Fire Marshal Rob Hazard. Please make your way to the podium and I'll read the resolution into the record.
Whereas fires pose a significant risk to the safety and well-being of our communities, causes loss of life, property damage and environmental harm. And whereas Fire Prevention Week observed annually during the week of October 9th marks the anniversary of the Great Chicago Fire that serves as a reminder of the importance of fire safety and prevention And whereas Fire Prevention Week provides an opportunity to educate our citizens, particularly our youth about fire safety practices, emergency preparedness and the importance of smoke alarms and fire escape plans.
And whereas the theme for Fire Prevention Week 2023 is prevent kitchen fires cook with caution emphasizes the importance of safe cooking practices and reducing the risk of kitchen fires which are the leading cause of home fires and related deaths And whereas by officially recognizing October 8th through the 14th, 2023 as Fire Prevention Week we reaffirm our commitment to fire safety emergency preparedness and the protection of our communities.
And whereas by officially recognizing the theme of prevent kitchen fires cook with caution we encourage the use and maintenance of smoke detectors, the use of timers, and the constant monitoring of foods with long cook times kid and compostable free cooking zones and other safe cooking practices. Now therefore be it hereby order resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares the week of October 8th through the 14th, 2023 as Fire Prevention Week in our community and urges all residents to participate in fire safety activities learn more about fire prevention and take steps to ensure the safety of their homes and families passed and adopted today
Thank you members of the board and Santa Barbara County appreciates sponsoring and supporting this resolution. Usually I'm up here to talk about wildland fire, and the things we do to prevent that type of event but as we move into the fall and winter months, we start to shift our focus to structure fires and how to maintain fire safety in our homes. Santa Barbara County Fire Department is committed to ensuring safety and security of all those living and visiting our county.
Fire is a serious public safety concern, both locally and nationally. And homes are the locations statistically where people are at greatest risk from fire. So this year's Fire Prevention Week theme, Prevent Kitchen Fires, Cook with Caution effectively serves to remind us to stay alert, use caution when cooking to reduce the risk of kitchen fires. The statistics nationally are grim and really shows the importance of following these basic measures on fire prevention. So in 2021 alone, more than 2,800 people lost their lives in structure fires.
And across the nation that year, fire departments collectively responded to over 338,000 home fires. Statistically cause of fire cooking is the leading source of ignitions in homes that results in structure fires. So some basic measures that Santa Barbara County residents and visitors can use to prevent fires in their kitchens. First and foremost, turning pot handles to the back of the stove seems like a simple thing but you'd be surprised how many times pots are tipped over as somebody walks past their stove resulting in hot grease starting a fire at the stove.
Always keep a lid nearby if you need to put out a fire that's occurred inside of one of your pots or pans. And this is a really important thing that people should do, is create a kid-free zone around your stove, your oven or any hot appliances within the home. And have that discussion with your kids about why you're doing this and what the reason is. On a personal note I grew up in a house that had a wood stove for heating and I had a horrible occurrence where one of my little toddlers touched the wood stove.
So it's so important to teach our children proper fire prevention measures. When you're cooking, always be attentive. Never leave your pots and pans on the stove unattended. And set a timer to remind you when to turn the heat off on your stove. So we urge all residents of Santa Barbara County to check their kitchens for fire hazards. Use these safe cooking practices and educate yourself, your family members, and most importantly, your children in home fire prevention.
Above all, the most important fire safety practice in your home is installing smoke alarms on every level of your home inside your bedrooms and outside sleeping areas. You should test those smoke alarms every month if they're not working change the batteries or replace the unit more and more we're seeing these 10 year battery smoke alarms and I can tell you from personal experience they usually don't last ten years so it's very important to test those units every month develop a fire escape plan with your family Drill with your children what they need to do when there's a fire, when they hear that smoke alarm go off. What is the thing they should do when they are woken up in the middle of the night to those alarms ringing?
And practice that escape plan. If a fire occurs in your home, leave immediately. Do not go back inside to retrieve any items. All of us have an essential role in protecting ourselves, our loved ones and our community from home fires. I urge all residents of Santa Barbara County to take life-saving steps to stay educated, informed and prepared in all aspects of fire prevention.
As always the Fire Department both Santa Barbara County Fire and all of the operational area fire departments we stand ready to assist in any way we can to help provide critical fire prevention education to our community. Thank you
1:11 – 1:1310 turns
Supervisor Hartman.
Yes, I had a question Chief Hazard. Fire extinguishers. I bought a fire extinguisher from Costco it sits in my kitchen it's been there for about seven years. It's
long expired.
Okay so will you talk about that?
Yes, so there's basically two kinds of fire extinguishers that you can buy. You can purchase more expensive units that require maintenance so annually they're inspected and they are serviced to make sure that the propellant is charged and that the powder inside will come out without clogging You can also buy the disposable versions typically purchased at a place like Home Depot.
But they definitely have an expiration date and so make sure that you check those expiration dates when they're expired, they're no longer guaranteed to function. And the last thing you want 10 years after you purchase the unit is to pull it out and try to suppress a fire only to find out that the nozzle's clogged or it no longer has a charge. So very important If you have fire extinguishers in your home and highly recommend that homeowners do that, make sure that's part of when you inspect your smoke alarms. Check your fire extinguishers.
How do you check them?
You want to check the date so if it's a disposable unit you want to look at the expiration date and you also want to check there's a gauge on your extinguisher that will tell you if it has a full charge
And if you have a kitchen fire, is it okay to use the fire extinguisher? Are there some kinds of fires you shouldn't?
You can use a fire extinguisher on a kitchen fire. Never use water on any type of grease fire or any kind of food that you're cooking typically has some kind of oil or grease base to it. So never use water on any of those types of fires. It's a common occurrence that people will take a burning frying pan and stick it in the sink and turn the faucet on. And typically that explodes hot grease all over them, generally spreads the fire faster. So that's why putting a lid over the pan is super important and if you have a fire extinguisher you can use those types of devices on a kitchen fire.
Thank you so much Chief. Item 17.
1:13 – 1:197 turns
Chair Williams and members of the board, Administrative Item 17 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the second Monday of October 2023 as Indigenous Peoples Day in Santa Barbara County. Joining us here in person we have Sam Cohen. Joining us via Zoom we have Gabriel Frosto, Matthew Vestuto, and Eleanor Fishburne. If you'll please make your way to the podium I will read the resolution into the record Whereas Indigenous Peoples Day is a holiday that celebrates and honors the diverse Native and Indigenous peoples of the Americas, commemorates their histories and cultures, emphasizes the fact that discovery does not mean ownership, and was first recognized by the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors in 2018.
And whereas the Chumash people have resided on the lands that span over 7000 square miles between Topanga, Ragged Point, San Luis Obispo, Fresno, Bakersfield and the Channel Islands for over 15,000 years with their population once numbered at over 20,000. Whereas the early Chumash were hunters gatherers and fishermen who utilized the abundant natural resources of the land for food clothing medicine and shelter causing the Chumash culture to be considered one of the most unique and advanced on the continent And whereas after the arrival of the Spanish settlers in 1769, five missions were established in Chumash territory and the Chumash population was greatly diminished. Due largely to the introduction of European diseases and enslavement dwindling to just 2,788 by 1831.
And whereas in 1824, the Chumash organized the largest resistance to occur during the Spanish and Mexican periods in California. Leading to a revolt at three missions in Santa Barbara County, San Ines, La Prisima and Santa Barbara against the long hours of forced labor and demanding equal treatment promised by both the Spanish and Mexican governments. And whereas all native and indigenous people in the Americas are extraordinarily resilient people who have successfully fought to keep their culture and traditions alive, whether they have been able to remain on their native lands or not. And locally we see this with the San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians, the Coastal Band of Chumesh Nation, the Barbareño-Venturno Band of Mission Indians The Barbareño-Chumash Tribal Council, the Barbareño Band of Chumash Indians and many other Chumash bands, clans, their families who live on yet are restricted access to their lands.
And all other native and indigenous peoples who have been forced off their native land and now live in Santa Barbara County. And whereas the County of Santa Barbara recognizes the past and ongoing contributions of all Native and Indigenous peoples of the Americas, the Chumash people in our county, and values the Chumash Nation and people as partners in governance, and encourages the education of all residents in the rich culture that has existed on these lands for time immemorial. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors hereby adopt the resolution to recognize the second Monday of October as Indigenous Peoples Day in the County of Santa Barbara. Passed and adopted today.
Chair Williams, may I make a few remarks before our distinguished colleagues in Santa Barbara? This is Chair Kahn. Since his regrets he could not be here today. He hopes all of you enjoyed the Chumash Pow Wow at the end of September, early October. It was very well received and we hope to do it every year going forward. As you also know November is Native American month.
And we'll also be doing Native American dancing on some Chumash property during the month of November. And then if your social schedule is still a little slow, in the first quarter of 2024 we hope to provide you with a beautiful Tumash Museum and Cultural Center for use by students and everyone in the San Ynez Valley, and the entire county of Santa Barbara. So thank you for this proclamation.
Supervisor Harmon or do we have two other
speakers? I'll go after them.
Madam Clerk, are there two more speakers?
Eleanor we have you unmuted on our end. Did you want to make comment?
Yes I do. I want to thank Chairperson Williams and the council for this acknowledgement. It's a good start to a lot of work that needs to be done And I'm just grateful for the acknowledgement of the Barbaranio Band of Chumash Indians really appreciates that. The work that the county does with us indigenous folks and the support, it's great. Appreciate it. Thank you.
1:19 – 1:225 turns
And Gabriel, did you want to make comment as well?
Supervisors, he did write a chat and I don't know if he said that in his chat. Haku haku good morning. I am currently on location at a prehistoric site preservation project out on the coast and I apologize that my service connection won't provide for good video or audio. My name is Gabrielle Frostow, chairman of the Coastal Band of the Chumash Nation. We appreciate the resolution and acknowledgement of our presence and efforts to protect our lands culture and traditions. Thank you for having us here today in attendance. I'm honored to represent the CBCN, our Chumash relatives and ancestors.
And he signs it, sorry if I pronounced that wrong. Thank you.
Supervisor Harbin?
Sure, I just wanted to add a couple of things. First of all over the last five years I've noticed that at events that I go to there's often a land acknowledgement and how much I appreciate that because it asks us all to think about our relationship to the land and the people, the indigenous people who preceded us And the traditional knowledge that they have and that we can find.
I know the Chumash in particular were very advanced in astronomy and navigation. The basket weaving was something that NASA looked to for developing the wheels on the rover And so and now tradition, we were talking about fire earlier. There's a lot of looking to indigenous people and Chumash people on this land and how they managed with the landscape with fire and we're trying Retrieve some of that knowledge to help us better manage today to live with fire So I'm really looking forward to the opening of the Chumash Museum because I think that that will enable all of us to have a greater appreciation when we have land acknowledgements and want to retrieve some of the knowledge that has been lost.
It's especially personal to be able to have the chance to be co-author for this resolution. My wife is Diné, Navajo and therefore my two little girls are and of course we believe that given that we do not live in the ancestral Lands of the Navajo that it's important to understand Chumash culture and practices. So we're particularly excited about the opening of the museum and you know a chance to Understand the culture in a deeper fashion How's the time for members of the public to speak on items that they're not on the agenda madam clerk Are there any requests to speak on general public comment
1:22 – 1:2820 turns
chair Williams and members of the board? We have no requests to speak for general public comment
And we will go to departmental item number one.
Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the planning and development department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the applicant's appeal case number 23 APL-00023 of the Planning Commission's denial of the North Fork Ranch Frost Ponds project case number 16 CUP-00005. This project was located within the first district excuse me. Before we proceed with today's appeal, I would like to note for the record that we received the following documents after the October 6 noon deadline. These items will need a separate vote from the board to be included with the record
And supervisor just for your knowledge our planning director is online as well as having her staff here
And could we just go through ex parte communications first? Anybody who's ready to go can go first. Mr. Nelson?
Yes, I met with Britta Jaffe and Steve Gleisman last week in my office. I met with James O'Nevaris and Ray Shady Yesterday over Zoom, I also as part of my ex parte is I reviewed the Oklahoma Basin North Fork Vineyard PowerPoint presentation that was presented by the Great Blind Capital Partners to the GSA back in 2018. So those are my ex parte.
Supervisor Caps?
Thank you, Chair Williams. I have similar. I met yesterday with Robbie Jaffe, Steve Gleisman, Lynn Carlisle, Casey Walsh and Anna Citron all together thanks.
Chair Williams if I can just interrupt for just a moment. Just so that we can read the late admitted documents into the record before we continue with the item.
Okay, that's fine.
We have a public comment letter that was submitted from Roberta Jaffe on Friday October 6th 2023 at 1201 p.m. A public comment letter from Bonnie Goler Monday October 9th 2023 p. m. excuse me 2023 at 3 23 p.
OK we will. Can I get a motion on entering those into the record?
So moved second.
All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? I will add the reminder that I sometimes do when people send in things on Monday afternoon or even sometimes Tuesday morning after the hearing has started that I really ask attorneys that represent folks to let people know because not everybody in the public understands That it doesn't automatically enter into the record.
And I just want to say, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of things being in the record that are so late that some members of the board might not be able to actually read them. So just please a reminder to let folks know when possible. So we motion to enter these in the record so there was a motion. Okay and let's continue with X party communications Supervisor Hartman
yes I met with David Swank and Brian Tetley over zoom and basically they were highlighting some of the items that they had already in their letter and then I've spoken with Anna Citron and Mark Shutillo and same thing
Supervisor Labunino.
Thank you I met with Robbie Jaffe and Steve Gleisman in my office kind of just went over the appeal and email from Anna Citron that would just had the presentation materials also, I don't even know if this needs to be said but My chief of staff also sits Cory Mantilla and sits on the Quiama GSA so he brought a lot more information than normal In the normal course of duty. So I did rely on a lot of what we've discussed
And for my part there has been numerous communications over the years, but I will including site visits to both the vineyard and to the nearby residences But at least since the last Matter was adjudicated by the board. I will say that this last week met with Ray Shady on Monday, the 2nd. Met with Ana Citrin, Rob Jaffe, Casey and on the 5th, Met with Ana Citrin and Mark Jatillo yesterday, and I had two conversations with Mr. Shady also yesterday.
Okay, staff presentation.
Good morning chair, members of the board. I'd like to take a moment to introduce the team that will be presenting on the Planning Commission's denial of the North Fork Frost Ponds. That's an appeal by the applicant with me today is Steve Rodriguez who'll be presenting and then we have Supervising Planner Joe Dargle who's at the controls and then also to my left is Deputy Director Travis Sewards and as stated previously wanted to recognize That was weird, sorry. I wanted to acknowledge that Director Plowman is available via Zoom so staff's ready to present on the item.
Please
proceed.
1:28 – 1:393 turns
The presentation today is on the North Fork Ranch Frost Ponds project. Okay, this figure shows the location of the project property in the Cuyama Valley. The project site is about nine miles west of the community of New Cuyama. Thank you The three reservoirs proposed by the project would be distributed across a parcel that's over 6,000 acres in size. And the reservoirs would be about 1,200 to 3,000 feet south of State Route 166 and the project site has Ag 2100 zoning.
A brief summary of the proposed project The project would construct and operate three water storage reservoirs that would store water that would be used primarily to provide frost protection for a vineyard also located on the project site, that's approximately 840 acres in size. Each of the reservoirs would have a footprint of approximately five acres and would store about 44 acre feet of water Water that would be stored in the reservoirs would be supplied by existing agricultural wells located on the project site.
Those wells are currently used to irrigate the existing vineyard. There's also an existing spray irrigation frost protection system that also operates in the vineyard. To construct the reservoirs would require over 100,000 cubic yards of cut and fill and grading would be balanced on the project site. A brief overview of the history of the project. The project was originally approved by the Zoning Administrator and appeals of that approval were heard by both the County Planning Commission and your board as a result of those appeals it was determined that an EIR was required for the project several versions of that EIR were prepared And a final EIR was prepared that includes responses to comments that were submitted on each of the draft EIRs.
On May 10th of this year, the Planning Commission denied the project because they could not make six of the seven findings that are required for the approval of a conditional use permit. The case today here is an appeal and the appellant, which is also the project applicant, asserts that the Planning Commission erred when they denied the project because the administrative record supports affirmative determinations for each of the conditional use permit findings required for project approval.
The appeal issues are generally focused on the project's use of groundwater and a mitigation measure that is required for impacts to a native grassland area that would be affected by one of the proposed reservoirs. The groundwater use issue is primarily related to the project's use of water that would be produced from the Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin, which has been designated as a critically overdrafted basin by the California Department of Water Resources.
In addition, recent well monitoring conducted at the project site shows the groundwater levels have declined more than 40 feet since the project site vineyard was planted in 2016. The native grassland issue focuses on the proposed mitigation measure that would require the preparation and implementation of a restoration plan for disturbed areas. In the next part of my presentation, I'm going to describe the six conditional use permit findings that the Planning Commission could not make in their consideration of the project.
Summarize why the appellant feels that the commission should have made an affirmative determination for those findings and present staff's response to those appeal issues. Appeal issue number one pertains to the conditional use permit finding number one. Number one is from the number in the Land Use Development Code and requires a determination that the project site is adequate to accommodate the proposed project The appellant asserts that this finding can be made, that the size of the reservoirs are appropriate for the project site and the reservoirs are necessary to serve the 840 acre reservoir.
The Planning Commission found that the project site's location and physical characteristics are not adequate due to the size of the project, the amount of water it could extract from the critically overdrafted groundwater basin. Appeal issue number two. pertains to the conditional use permit finding number two, which requires that the project's environmental impacts be reduced to the extent feasible.
The appellate asserts this finding can be made because the EIR prepared for the project determined that all of the projects environmental impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level. In response, the Planning Commission found that the proposed grassland impact mitigation measure does not reduce the project's impacts to the extent feasible because that impact, the impact of the grassland could be avoided and avoidance could occur by relocating the reservoir or eliminating the reservoir from the project.
Appeal issue number three pertains to CUP finding number three, which requires that there will be adequate services including water supply to serve the project. The appellant asserts that this finding can be made because adequate water supply is available to serve the project. In response, the Planning Commission found that the groundwater conditions at the project site are not adequate to serve the project because the project would extract water from the critically overdrafted Cuyahoga Groundwater Basin.
Appeal issue number four pertains to CUP finding number five which requires a determination that the project will not be detrimental to the project area The appellant asserts that this finding can be made because groundwater conditions at the project site are, quote, fairly stable. Unquote. In response, the Planning Commission found that the project's use of groundwater will contribute to existing declines in groundwater levels at the project site which will detrimentally affect the general welfare of the project area.
Appeal issue number five pertains to CUP finding number six, which requires a determination that the project is consistent with the policies of the comprehensive plan. The appellant asserts that this finding can be made because the project is consistent with the comprehensive plan. In response, the Planning Commission found that the project would not be consistent with land use conservation element and the agricultural element policies that are shown on the screen.
Inconsistencies with these policies generally result due to the project's use of water from the critically overdrafted groundwater basin, recent declines in groundwater levels at the project site. The size of the project and its use of groundwater from the basin and possible water supply related issues on other agricultural uses in the project region. Appeal issue number six pertains to CUP finding number seven, which requires a determination that the project will be compatible with the character of the project area The appellant asserts that this finding can be made because it would conflict with the Land Use Development Code and the agricultural element to conclude that the proposed project is not subordinate to the agricultural character of the project site.
In response, the Planning Commission found that the project's use of groundwater will contribute to existing declines in water levels which will detrimentally affect agriculture and the general welfare of the region. That concludes the overview of the appeal issues This slide has staffs recommended actions. Which include to make the required findings for denial of the project case number 16 CUP0005.
As specified in attachment one of the board agenda, a letter dated October 10th, 2023. Determined that denial of the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant As described in attachment to the board agenda letter dated October 10th this year. And finally denied the project case number 16 CUP 0 0 0 5 and that concludes staff presentation I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Questions from the board Ms Hartman
Could you remind us how much the groundwater levels have gone down in the wells?
1:40 – 1:4626 turns
These graphs are from the groundwater sustainability plan that has been prepared for the Cuyama Basin. They're hydrographs of two wells located on the project site. The graph on the left shows seasonal declines. The little blue line is kind of squiggly, it goes down in the summer and up in the winter but the general trend is downward and in that well since the vineyard was planted in 2016 groundwater levels have declined approximately 100 feet A similar situation in the graph on the right. Groundwater levels have declined approximately 40 feet.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you. A couple questions, staff originally recommended approval and I just want to understand now staff is recommending denial and I'm trying to understand that we recently had a project I think the pipeline where even though the Planning Commission recommended denial staff moved forward with conditions for approval can you explain the difference here on this project?
Board of Supervisors, thank you. I don't know if I have a good answer for that. I think we did initially come forward with the EIR. We felt that the mitigation was such that we could recommend approval to the BC as a CUP project. They have very wide discretion to make the findings that they did and we have chosen to put forward those findings to the board, as it's your decision also with why it's a CUP so there's just very broad discretion.
Okay going back to that graph there for a minute since we had that you can bring it So the ground levels went from what depth to the other depth? What's the change I can't see on that. Can you tell me that
difference? Are you looking for elevations? Yes In 2016 it would have been approximately the line at the top, the brown line. That's the ground surface elevation at 1761 and Far end of the blue line, the water levels are now at about 1661. So it's approximately 100 feet.
So there's still groundwater as little as a hundred feet? The
groundwater levels have declined approximately 100 feet.
But they were at 50 feet before I'm trying to
No that's 1,700 feet
deep.
Mr.
Chair and Supervisors. The wells aren't 1,700 feet deep. That's the elevation surface. The ground surface elevation. Correct. There is a surface. It's that brown line surface.
So the blue line just beneath the brown line right over in 2016 that that's about 20 feet below it looks like okay that that ground surface and so it's I would say just just eyeballing it from the graph it's probably dropped to 80 feet
Right so it's gone from 20 feet, water was accessible at 20 feet and now it's about 100 feet.
That that's correct.
Okay so if water is pretty close to the surface in this area compared to other wells throughout the
county? That is a question that it really groundwater varies widely depending on where you are and which aquifer how deep the well is so I wouldn't be able to answer that based on just this one well
All right I think Matt Young's on the line we could ask him and because this seems pretty close to the surface so I want to get some clarification on
that. We'll hold that until we can make sure that Matts here then let's let's why don't why don't we do that I mean, in comparison to the Central Basin where the largest restrictions are, yes some of the water is farther from the surface. The level of drop, however, is comparable with some of the areas where we're most concerned in the Central Basin.
So I guess a question for staff and maybe for Chairman Williams so this section here is not I guess it's under the GSA, is that right? But there are no restrictions.
There are no restrictions here yet.
And do we know what the area of sustainable yield is in this area? That's really important when we talk about groundwater. I mean because ground water should go down because you want to make sure you have the capacity for refill, right? So it's not declining numbers by themselves are not necessarily a bad thing it actually often means that there's more room for recharge if I understand groundwater correctly.
Do we have that category of sustainable yield for this area?
So Mr. Chair and Supervisors, I think what we'd have to defer that question the answer to that question to the applicant team so for groundwater wells there's a broad range of different sustainable yields that depend on the characteristics of the groundwater basin that is in the depth of the well There's a large amount of information We don't have that for these specific wells, and that analysis was not included for the specific wells in this case.
And I don't want to cut off this line of questioning. I just think it might be informed better by the opinion of Mr. Young if we can-
I'm looking forward to hearing from him as well but do we have any subsidence in this area?
1:46 – 1:5118 turns
Commissioner Nelson, not that I'm aware of. This is an agricultural area. I don't know if anybody's looking for it.
Well we've got a lot of US Geological Services does studies on these things and this thing to space and has been heavily studied. I think we should have that information
Mr. Chair and Supervisors, so I understand that the GSA and the GSP that was produced does review and analyze subsidence in this area. So that is something that Matt Young would probably have a better idea of. I don't know if he has it readily available but I understand that has been studied in the GSB.
Okay. Mr. Allison we still have some time. We can get answers to your questions. Other questions from the board that aren't for Mr. Young? Okay, then let's go to the applicant appellant.
I apologize Chair Williams. Water production on this site now because we're talking about 103 acre feet for this what kind of water usage is being used on the site now? I think it's important for us to understand
Commissioner Nelson are you talking for irrigation of the vineyard?
Yeah what's getting drawed from the groundwater system that's it kind of a crux of this this issue
is. I don't know but I'm sure the applicant could answer that question.
And do we know how, whether there's a reservoir or not impacts the farm operations of how much that they would use otherwise? I mean they potentially could still use 100 acre feet but through sprinklers right instead of through frost ponds. Are we looking at this in a net view or are we looking at this just
as a standalone? As I mentioned earlier, there is an existing spray irrigation system that operates. When it's time to turn that system on they have to rely on water that can be produced instantaneously from the existing wells which limits the capability of how much water can be applied to the vineyard The reservoirs would have a ready supply that they could run all night if they had to.
And that would probably be better for the groundwater system, right? Because it gives chance for it to recharge. I mean coming out of a reservoir instead of pulling hard on the groundwater basin. I mean those are different strategies of farming because if you're pulling out the amount of acreage out of the ground water doesn't give us as quick of a time to recover versus maybe a reservoir that's filled slowly. Were you guys able to evaluate that?
Supervisors, so I would not characterize the storage of water that's been pumped from a basin into a reservoir as being better for the basin. It's the total water in versus total water out that ultimately would impact the basin. So what's beneficial of the storage of the water in the reservoirs is for the project. The project needs that capacity, that volume of water available at ground surface, essentially so that they can pump it across the entire vineyard.
But it does not have any beneficial impact on the basin itself to pump that water and have it stored above ground.
Okay. Are you sure?
Yes I am sure.
Mr. Young is on the line so if you want to you can re-ask the questions that you did before Mr. Nelson.
Sure, questions were about the sustainable yield in this area. It looks like from the chart Mr Young that was provided that prior to this project being developed it was at groundwater levels for about 20 feet now we're somewhere around 80 or 100 feet I wanted to know access to water at that level is that's I guess the question was whether that is a pretty low depth as far as a well would be and throughout our county
Supervisor Nelson, through the Chair. Well depths vary pretty drastically depending on where you are in the county closer to streams they tend to be shallower farther out basins they tend to be deeper so there's quite a lot of variability throughout the base and I believe that applicants wells are on the order of 600 700 feet or so but There is no there's no set average for how deep a well might be.
So but where they're drawing water from, like in Santa Maria it's been drawn from 200 or 300 feet right? In most places?
1:51 – 2:0023 turns
Yes depending where you're on the basin yes
okay and here it's being drawn at about 100 feet between 20 and 100 feet That's correct. Okay and then I was in the question I had for Mr. Dargill was how a basin behaves when you're pulling water at a higher rate versus slowly pointing out of the basin is that good or is it better for basin potentially to be pulling water out at a slower rate and storing it versus trying to take a big charge on that basin all at once?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, in terms of So there's a couple things. So if you're pulling out at a higher rate, you might have more well interference impacts if there are nearby wells that are also pumping. But in terms of balancing the basin yield in the long term, as I believe Mr. Dargo said it is the total volume of water in and total volume water out that maintains that balance. Again, you might have well interference impacts from pulling a lot of water quickly if they're nearby wells.
Not an impact on the yield overall.
Okay, and then a question about subsidence?
Are you aware of subsidence
in this area?
There is subsidence in the Cuyama Valley as a whole as identified in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan however it's mainly centered in the central part of the basin what's called the Central Management Area closer to the town of New Cuyama.
Has any subsidence been identified in this western portion?
not significantly to my knowledge. Thank you.
Any other questions for P&D staff or for Mr. Young from the Water Agency? Okay then let's go on to the applicant appellants presentation. It's ten minutes if you go over it's fine it'll just come out of your rebuttal.
Thank you, Chair Williams. Before my clock starts I can answer Supervisor Nelson's questions?
I think that's agreeable as long as Mr. Nelson is asking it as a question of you.
So the question about water level for monitoring well 841, the chart that was shown went through 2022. So as of last month September so at the end of the irrigation season we were at 86.2 feet below ground surface whereas back in 2015 as the vineyard was being planted it was at 43.5
Mr. Shady, have you guys been taking some measurements on it since then?
Yes so all of the irrigation wells have transducers in them and flow meters and we report our extraction to the GSA last year to your other question about how much is this vineyard using our irrigation last year was 835 acre feet so a little bit less than one foot per acre for the vineyard
Okay and so you said that last measurement that a map was or that a chart was 2022.
In the chart up on the screen, yes.
Right so some of the more current numbers have we seen some recharge at all from our storms this last year?
Absolutely that was the reference to last month it brought us back to with the same water level going back about four and a half years ago.
Okay so it did recharge back to what was the four and a half years ago?
That's
right okay thank you
Chair Williams, members of the board my name is Ray Shady. We've met before I represent North Fork Vineyard. North Fork was our development back in 2015 like we've talked about it is a real business that is producing thousands of wine grapes that go into Santa Barbara wines that you'll recognize on the shelf We have 11 full-time employees, seasonally 75 employees that come onto the vineyard.
We have an annual spend of about five hundred five million dollars that goes out into the community through wages and materials and maintenance and equipment We've invested tens of millions of dollars into developing this vineyard. We've done it because we believe in Santa Barbara wines, we believe in the productivity of this particular property and its ability to be sustainable through the long term.
As I've discussed in previous presentations both to you and to the Planning Commission, water as a method of frost protection. Water applied through overhead spray using electric pumps is the most reliable and most protective method of frost protection down to the cold temperatures that you get in Quiama. And we need reservoirs in order to do that efficiently.
We take pride in ourselves, in our professionalism and our approach to designing and developing projects. Thinking about the long term and what is going to be sustainable goes into each of our designs. The last time that we met was after the appeal to our permit that we had back in 2017. And we've applied that same level of professionalism and diligence throughout the process since then.
Chair Williams, you asked us to perform an EIR back the last time we met in Santa Barbara. We went through that process. It was a very thorough EIR. I think that it explored a number of new unprecedented avenues that weren't even included in the original request but they were included We complied with that process and contributed all of the information that we've had and gathered on the property since owning it.
And when that EIR, with its recommendations of mitigation came back to The Planning Commission, it came back with a recommendation for constructing the reservoirs but with mitigation measures. And so those mitigation measures were to address any and all concerns that came up during the EIR. They weren't the design that we would have wanted but we still complied with it and said this is something that we could do.
I would have expected in the Planning Commission some sort of discussion around or debate around what designs would be acceptable or not and could you move forward if we needed to modify things one direction or another, but that simply didn't come up. So we appealed to you for this meeting to ask you to reconsider supporting ag And our ability to protect the vineyard. Water is the method that we need and if that means having limitations on how much frost water we can apply like the EIR recommended, that's a sacrifice that we would be willing to make but If you're asking us to simply not have any water for frost protection, you're basically saying I want you to take out hundreds of acres of vineyard.
And I'll pass it off to the next member of my team.
2:00 – 2:084 turns
Chairman, members of the board, my name is Steve Haram. I'm an attorney in Stockton, California. We represent the applicant. I briefly want to address the land use and CEQA matters. And by way of background, I've been doing that for 43 years. I like to say when I started, I looked like Robert Redford and was six foot eight, and that's what land use does to you.
A couple of major points. Number one, this is- I agree with it. Yes, very much to the disappointment of my wife. This is a mixed discretionary ministerial project and by that I mean the construction of the ponds is a discretionary act under your county code. But the farming operation is ministerial in the ag zone. And a recent Supreme Court case called Save Our Water, which I was involved with made that very, very clear and the point of it is in CEQA you look at this discretionary act parts of the project but not the ministerial part.
And that creates an oddity here, because much of the concern here dealt with the lack of water because of the farming operation through evaporation. Which is a ministerial part of the project and is outside the scope of CEQA. So I want to make it very clear, the EIR only should have looked at impacts flowing from constructing the ponds which is discretionary but not the use of the ponds agriculturally which is ministerial. And all of that is in the record and I won't go into any more detail. But the major point I want to make is how do we look at the significance of the lack of water because of the evaporation.
This board adopted a mandatory threshold of significance, what does that mean? CEQA authorizes and in fact encourages local agencies such as this county to adopt a threshold of significance for impacts. You did this on evaporation and according to the EIR, the evaporation from this project Is less than your threshold of significance. That's what the EIR concluded, and concluded that the loss of water from evaporation was less than significant because of the rule you as a Board of Supervisors adopted.
And what was shocking to me is that the Planning Commission, a majority of the members said we don't feel bound by a mandatory rule that the Board of Supervisors enacted and we think it's significant anyway. And that was a major reason for denial. And I would simply ask that you follow the rules, you apply your threshold of significance which indicates that the lack of water from evaporation is less than significant. To use a sports analogy it's unfair to this applicant to move the goal posts in the middle of the game and that's exactly what the planning commission did.
So our ask for you is very simply, we remind you that the planning department administratively approved this project with a NAG DEC and it was appealed up to you and an EIR was required. We did that EIR following all of the rules and your planning commission recommended approval of that project to the Planning Commission and gave them findings to approve it.
We merely ask you to adopt the findings your planning commission prepared to approve this project and approve it because it meets all of the rules, and we ask that the rule of law be followed in this case. Thank you.
Good morning Supervisors Gene Zalesi I'm an attorney Mr. Hamm is my partner And I've been a water attorney in California for 38 years, both agricultural and water. I began working on the North Fork project when the property was purchased by North Fork Vineyards because originally they were concerned with sustainability with water use so I was brought in to look at feasibility and It was being purchased about the same time that we were discussing Sigma, so those were all issues we needed to look at and wanted to be careful of. But I just want to bring to your attention today one issue that I think is very important that would allow you to do exactly what Mr. Heron was describing go back and Reconsider some of the findings that the Planning Commission made because something very significant in my view happened since the Planning Commission acted on May 10th of this year.
That addresses appeal issues one, three, four and six that address the issue of water use being what the planning commission called not sustainable and adversely impacting the project area. That conclusion directly contradicts DWR's action on May 25th of this year that concluded quite the opposite. And just to go back for two minutes of history, the original GSP that was submitted to DWR as you all know was rejected and sent back for some additional work to the GSAs. The original GSP submitted to DWR for Concluded that the management areas in the Central Basin and the Ventucopa region were the only two management areas needed because those were the two regions in which the model predicted long-term overdraft.
They did not predict any overdraft in any other portion of the basin, including the Northwest region that we're talking about today where the project is located. So at DW's request, this was looked at again. Because DWR said are you sure there are no other management areas in the basin that need to be looked at? We're not quite sure we believe you that there will not be overdraft in the other areas including the Northwest region.
I just want to let you know that you're over the ten minutes, but it's fine. You have five minutes for a bottle that you can use
now. Okay, I have about a minute left. I appreciate that Supervisor. So the GSA went back, re-studied and remodeled the Northwest region. And that they reached a conclusion from that modeling, looked at both the original modeling and the additional modeling. And it indicated that a balance between groundwater inflows and outflows in the region under all of the water budget scenarios that were simulated.
The conclusion was, and this is what was included in the GSP that was resubmitted. That pumping in the northwestern region is unlikely to impact adjacent regions. And the GSP included a monitoring program to confirm that other regions would not be affected by pumping in the northwestern region and that is built into the GSP. And the modeling indicated and the revised GSB concludes that the established minimum thresholds in the northwestern region will result in no negative impact sustainability in the basin.
So from that resubmitted plan on May 25th, 15 days after the planning commission reached a conclusion that it would adversely impact the surrounding areas DWR concluded That the implementation of the GSP will achieve the sustainability goal for the Kiyama Valley Basin. And the conclusion therefore can be completed that this project will have no adverse impact on the region because both the GSP, its modeling and DWR's conclusion confirm that that's the case.
So we feel very comfortable that the recommendation of the staff originally to the planning commission makes sense, should be upheld. And most importantly I think what everyone should keep in mind is that those minimum thresholds are built into the GSP so that regardless of whether or not this project is approved, regardless of whether it frost protects through ponds or Attempting to pump groundwater, what will protect the basin are those minimum thresholds and the GSP itself. The GSA will take action if there are any adverse impacts to the basin from the northwest region with or without the project. So thank you so much for your time, appreciate our overage.
2:08 – 2:1310 turns
You'll have two and a half minutes for rebuttal. Okay, are there questions from the board to the appellant applicant? I just wanted to make sure Mr. Shady was able to fully elaborate in terms of the possible scenarios that the EIR brings up or that you hoped would bring up. Were you able to cover that? Meaning the cap.
Yeah, thank
you. The option of how many frost bonds and
anything else? The review in the EIR covered a number of different pieces, but the main one that was focused on was evaporative loss of applied frost water in the days following application. Mitigation for that was seen as covering the reservoirs, that'll eliminate losing any sort of evaporative loss from the top of the reservoirs. And then examined in depth what sort of evaporation potential evaporation would happen in the days following a frost protection event.
In that analysis it actually included how much in our current soil profile, how much would actually be held in the surface tension between granules of the surface soil. What would be taken up by cover crop? We discussed with the consultants the prospect of planting more cover crop to make use of that applied water and not have it go to waste. We talked about having different I'm to follow and then to cut against. And that was how the 103 acre feet was arrived at, that the calculation of potential evaporative loss that kept you below the county's threshold of 31 acre feet for a project was 103 acre feet applied.
Outside of evaporative loss, the EIR also examined biological impacts and there was a couple hundred square yards of native grasses that were present on one of the reservoir footprints during the biological study. In the EIR, it offered different mitigation strategies for that. Our preference was of course for still building the reservoir and replanting those same grass species somewhere else We also discussed relocating the reservoir or not building the third reservoir depending on what the actual water budget was.
Our conversations with the consultants about removing that third reservoir was, that is a more painful route because The reservoir system has already been installed when the vineyard was planted and built out. And as you know, water delivered through pipes, the pipes get narrower and narrower the further away you go from the source. All of the existing structure was designed to have For what was going to be delivered from the third reservoir.
To have it come from it so we would have to reestablish plumbing but you could if you're limited 203 acre feet rebuild that delivery mechanism to still have the frost protection where needed
Thank you. Any other questions? Mr Nelson
actually have a question for staff, not Mr Shady.
OK thank you Mr Shady. Nelson
yes thank you Chair Williams. I'm still struggling with this being at our level making these decisions that this is coming to us in appeal. So I'm trying to understand what triggers this type of level permit at the county versus like a zoning clearance for. A Project
Supervisor Nelson, it's this the size of the reservoir 50,000 square feet. So if it's over 50,000 square feet, it requires a CUP if it was under that it would not require a CUP
The footprint So I know we permitted in 2020 with the zoning clearance one much larger in San Ynez. The ones right there south of the airport that was a over two acre surface there.
2:14 – 2:1813 turns
Supervisor Nielsen, Mr. Rodriguez was actually the planner on that and he says it was a CUP.
Okay. On the county website it has a zoning clearance. Okay all right CUP they went to the Planning Commission as
well? Thank you Joe. CUPs do have follow-up zoning clearances after that so that may be what.
I guess I want to make sure part of my understanding is verified by the water agency. You know, I think everything the appellant applicant said is true to my knowledge about the GSP however there is We are painfully close to minimum thresholds and potentially incurring of undesirable results, which is why Mr. Bantalon and I have argued for the initiation of the glide path i.e., the reductions in pumping in the Central Basin to take place earlier rather than later so that we have some hope of avoiding the undesirable results that would incur additional, that would necessitate additional management actions.
And there are at least a few board members of the GSA that have been pushing that those management actions would be restrictions outside of Central Basin. Mr. Bantalon and I have not been advocating for that. But that is where several of the board members have been going. So it's, you know I just want to give flesh that out a bit.
Mr. Nalapanio. Thank You Mr. Chair and I think it's a good time for me to kind of put a finer point on my ex parte. I've been instructed to make sure that I get this into the record that what I wanted to note, what I learned from talking to my Chief of Staff Corey Bantelana as you mentioned is on the GSA board is the differences of authority. Like you, I'm struggling why we're actually involved in this at this point.
GSA handles water usage, we handle land use it's Interesting dynamic that we're working on right now, so just wanted to There's really not much else that we discussed it was just helpful helpful for me to see what path glide path you're on and It's really difficult to make this decision in a vacuum without Understanding exactly what the GSA is doing at this point too. So that was my conversations with him
Mr. Nelson
Yes, thank you. So one of my questions about this and because I think we're having the same struggle is they could build these ponds but the GSA could eventually say you can't put water in them. Is that correct?
Supervisor Nielsen through the chair that is correct. There's an under there's a overlay of the GSA ability to regulate activities out there as well
right so in the future if there are these issues that people fear and I fear them too, I'm very sympathetic to the fears out there. There's a mechanism to address that through the GSA
Mr. Chair supervisor Nelson that's correct okay that'd be under the GSAs great
thank you
Let's go to public comment. We have, I'm pleased to say as the representative of Cuyama it's great to see so many Cuyama residents out but it will be 30 speakers. It's always a little strange when we have an applicant appellant because normally we would have a presentation by both the applicant and the appellant but in this case they're the same people So in lieu of granting them ten minutes, they have five speakers that will each do two minutes and then we'll go on to the rest of public comment.
I won't change the time because that will totally mess up their presentation. But normally once we reach this many speakers, we further trim public comments. So I'll just ask people that go after these first five to try to where it's duplicative, try to make yourself understood in less than two minutes.
Thank you Chair Williams. We will begin here in Santa Maria with Roberta Jaffe to be followed by Ana Citrin.
2:19 – 2:252 turns
Good morning. I think we're just trying to set up the slide presentation. Good morning, Chair Williams and Board of Supervisors. Thank you for hearing us today. I'm Roberta Jaffe, a farmer and 30-year resident of the western end of the Cuyama Basin. We're neighbors of North Fork Vineyard. I am leading off a presentation that will include five of us. Go back to the first slide, Mark.
One more, thank you. The proposed reservoirs would be some of the largest ag reservoirs in the county. They're located in the county's only critically overdrafted basin, as identified by the Department of Water Resources. And of the 21 critically overdrafted basins in the state of California, Cuyama is only one of two that completely only depends on groundwater. There's no other source of water for our homes, for our schools, for our farms and our ranches.
I also want to mention that yes, in May DWR did approve and we were all very glad they approved the Cuyama GSP. But they did give criteria, they recommended correctional steps and their number one correctional step and I'll quote it. is clarifying the rationale and methods of simulating impacts to beneficial uses and users in the northwestern region. So the DWR, in approval of the proposal, is still concerned about the impacts in the northwest region.
Next slide? Our own dry farm vineyard which is pictured here represents, is typical of the farming and ranching that goes on in the western end. Most of it is dependent on shallow wells and uses minimal pumping. We'll skip the next slide and onto the following one. Brodea Incorporated, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Harvard University's Management Corporation purchased 10,000 acres of dry rangeland in 2012 and began drilling deep ag wells and planting an 840 acre vineyard in 2015.
A year after SGMA was signed into law. Next slide. This graph which is also similar to the, it is from the OPTI number 41 that is located near the Cuyama River and was shown earlier. Is over the past seven years this groundwater level in North Fork Vineyard that historically has been stable has continued on a downward slope Whether in a dry or wet year with some recharge in between, but overall it's a downward slope. This reservoir project will create an even steeper decline. These reservoirs have the capacity to hold over 135 acre feet, 43 million gallons of our groundwater and potentially be refilled multiple times in a season.
This will eventually impact the shallow wells and existing agriculture in the northwestern area.
Thank you Chair Williams and Supervisors, Ana Citrin. You've heard and will hear from ranchers and farmers in the Cuyama Valley urging you to deny this permit. They've worked hard to conserve limited groundwater resources and understandably oppose a project that involves so much waste of this precious resource. There is also understandably some pushback from the AAC and Farm Bureau and others fearing that this denial would set a precedent for increased county meddling in agricultural water use issues However, the fact-specific CUP denial findings recommended by staff would not set a precedent. This proposal is different from the vast majority of other agricultural projects in the county which are either exempt or require at most a ministerial permit.
The North Fork project exceeds the LUDC's threshold for requiring a discretionary permit by 13 1⁄2 times. The denial findings for this project are also specific to the severely overdrafted Cuyama groundwater basin, and even more specific to the drastically declining well levels in the northwestern region observed since the applicant installed irrigated vineyard on this previously unirrigated rangeland. The denial findings are legally robust and supported with ample substantial evidence in the record. It's important to note that the applicant or others can submit substantial evidence that supports opposite conclusions, but courts will defer to the board.
By contrast, because of its discretionary nature a project approval would require compliance with CEQA. And to be clear if part of the project is discretionary the entire project must be evaluated in the EIR that is fundamental CEQA law and discussed at length in our written submittals. Due to various procedural errors and defects in the analysis, courts would not defer to the board on questions of CEQA compliance including whether the EIR properly analyzed the whole project or only an artificial subset limited to evaporative losses.
So I'll now turn it over to my colleague Catherine Anderson to discuss evaporative losses further. Thank you.
2:25 – 2:324 turns
Chair Williams and members of the board, thank you for this opportunity. The North Fork EIR seriously underestimates the quantities of water needed for frost protection and its corresponding evaporative losses. Based on its calculations of water use and evaporative loss, the Water Budget Technical Memorandum relied on air temperature below 32 degrees, which are the red arrows there, this small chunk. And this approach does not reflect how agricultural sprinklers are actually used in the field. Standard operating procedures recommend activating sprinklers well ahead of 32 degrees and are turned off only when the sun has risen enough to, and the ice is melting indicated by the black arrows on the screen.
Using air temperature alone has led to significant underestimation of the amount of water and evaporation for the time that it's running. This table shows that the applicants estimated use is, for say 32 hours for an average frost year should actually be 83. And next slide please. The EIR limits, the WAT limits 103.1 acre feet to be used on frost protection because of the enormous water use during sprinkler frost protection so it would automatically limit the number of acres that could be protected and you can see in a heavy frost year it would only 0.06% of the acreage could be protected under this. This fails to achieve the project objectives of protecting your grapevines from frost. Some of the mitigation measures that had been mentioned were Cover crops in the wintertime will actually increase your chance of frost.
This is why they're not used in many locations. In conclusion, both water use and evaporative losses will be much greater than anticipated by the EIR. So thank you.
Next we have Steve Gleasman to be followed by Mark Sciatillo.
Good morning. I'm Steve Glazeman, Robbie and I dry farm wine grapes and olives next door to Harvard's investment vineyard. We usually don't irrigate at all. I am also a UCSB PhD in botany and ecology and know our local ecosystems quite well. In this slide, I really appreciate how Catherine sort of set the scenario, the stage for evaporative loss during frost.
Do sprinklers take care of this is the question? We see burnt shoots in North Forks Vineyard in a sprinkler section after the frost in 22. Next slide. With wind turbines on a section of the vineyard most shoots were not harmed three days later. Next slide. Besides exceeding the county's 31 acre foot threshold, all the times it takes to fill and refill the reservoirs makes the Cuyama Valley overdraft even worse.
With all of the attention being paid to the overuse of groundwater around the world today, New York Times has been featuring some of this most recently. Cuyama stands out as a case study of this problem. It is time to do everything we can do to stop the overdraft. Next slide. We have asked North Fork many times to explore alternative frost control methods. They've not sufficiently done this.
Knowing how inversion layers hold in cold air below layers of warmer air above, mixing layers is the key. Wind turbines are just one of these options that we know works in the Cuyama Valley. Next slide. My background in our local ecology allows me to speak for the natural habitats in this area. The numbers of potential plants and animals are real for this area, based on studies by the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden, Nature Conservancy, Cal Fish & Game and others. I say potential because until this year's rains we've not had the conditions that would bring these species back We saw the Cottonwood Canyon threaten plants such as Kuyama Spineflower and saw signs of animals, such as the rare kit fox that have not been seen in the area due to the droughts for the last 10 years.
I bet they're back now in the areas proposed for the reservoirs. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the board, Mark Sciatillo to conclude this presentation. First I need to respond to a comment Mr. Haram made. You heard Ms. Citron note that he misstated the scope of CEQA review if it's a mixed project. You have to look at the whole of the project. He also inferred or stated that thresholds of significance are mandatory in the case of Magea versus City of LA The courts found to the opposite that you have to consider the substantial evidence. You can't rely on a simple road application as a finding of significance as being a mandatory, so that conclusion was incorrect. Turning to this issue, the Cuyama Basin, the Cuyama Valley is a special area. And the level of public involvement and interest in this case, in concern, reflects the sensitivity of that area and the importance of water to the survival of this area.
You can't wait till there's land subsidence to take action because you cannot undo land subsidence. So it's important to stay ahead of these issues and ensure that we don't cause those kinds of problems that cannot be fixed. You cannot recover capacity, storage capacity in a basin. This is, as Ms. Citrin indicated, this is a unique project in the Cuyama Valley. It's the only one in an extremely overdrafted groundwater basin and so the factual distinctions associated with the findings and the questions that are before you and the actions that the staff has recommended that you take are ones that are unique to Cuyama and they're directly resulting from the specific Project impacts and scale You've heard about the general plan consistency inconsistencies That the Planning Commission found five six out of seven And we underscore that those are critical to your evaluation and assessment of this project in conclusion We would ask that you deny the appeal.
You make the findings for denial of the project Determine its exempt and deny their project Thank you very much for the opportunity to present our thoughts about this so important of an issue to this community. Thank you.
2:32 – 2:3814 turns
We will now go to Dano Pangenkopf to be followed by Pamela Dwarren
Good afternoon, Supervisors. My name is Dan Opegenkopf. I'm a Santa Barbara homeowner and chemical engineer employed by UCSB and a land owner with property located four miles to the southwest of the Harvard Endowed Fund's grape farm. I strongly oppose the construction of Harvard's frost reservoirs. The following are my reasons for denying the construction of these megaponds.
First and foremost, this is a critically overdrafted groundwater basin. It says it all right there so they want to pump some more? Doesn't sound like a good idea. Number two the Harvard Endowment Fund managed by the Harvard Management Corporation was valued at 50.9 billion dollars in 2022 making Harvard the richest university in the world. This endowment fund has one purpose-to make profits They do not live or work here.
They will contribute, continue to suck down the basin until it is dry and no longer profitable. Why have we given carte blanche to a corporation that is not even a part of our community? Next these frost reservoirs have a flooding potential for the 166 highway in the event of a levee break or structural failure or equipment malfunction and there is a fault nearby the proposed area Number four, this part of the valley happens to be the only place where there are still wetlands and riparian vegetation in the Cuyama River.
Number five, sustained spray irrigation for frost mitigation does not work when winds are greater than 10 miles per hour. According to a report by University of Michigan if sprinkler frost mitigation is employed in conditions with greater than ten mile-per-hour winds it will destroy the crops My land that is four miles away consistently has winds greater than 10 mph. It is a known windy area.
If these reservoirs are built, is there a guarantee that they will not sell their groundwater to other entities? The carrot growers a few miles east really want more water. They've almost sucked that basin dry, we're in trouble over there. The hydrograph, we've talked a lot about that well number 841 and the trend of the drop in the groundwater and also that affects those of us that have property that is uphill from them. That means deeper wells are going to have to be drilled at a substantial cost to the people who live there.
Thank you for your consideration of this critical decision. I would really like to have water on my land for my family's future enjoyment There are families farmers and ranchers that will all be impacted by this We cannot put an out-of-state endowment fund over the environment and livelihood of our own local residents
Just gonna ask people to keep to the time limits
Sure, we have a quick question
Mr. Nelson? This is actually a matter that is being discussed by the GSA now, whether or not to restrict that in the future. People are not doing it between entities to our knowledge though there are entities, Bolthouse and Grimway, that are doing it between their properties. And so one of the questions in the future, and I actually had a meeting about yesterday is whether or not there would be a restriction of some kind in the future or studying that in the future.
But that would have to be something that the GSA permitted, am I correct? That's not something that can be done.
It is being done right now within the same entity So no, we are not restricting it to my knowledge right now. Is
that transporting water or is that? Yes, transporting water
between sites.
Okay so that would mean piping water from this project all the way into the Central Valley is what?
Yeah, that would be a more difficult thing to do than what Bolthouse and Grimway are doing right
now.
Pamela Dwarren to be followed by Jacob Firstenfield.
I'm very impressed you know how to say it. My name is Pamela Doran and I'm the owner of the Spanish Ranch, which we have operated for over 25 years. The 180-year-old ranch raises cattle and has also farmed alfalfa grain and other crops. Our valley's arid water is precious. During drought years, most years, we work with what little water we have by limiting irrigation, reducing herd numbers, and eliminating farming. In the past few years, we have used only one or two acre feet of water per year. Our groundwater is stable as documented through mandatory water monitoring by the Quiama Valley Groundwater Sustainable Agency but we have had two wells silted in.
Yet, by being good land stewards and not overdrafting our groundwater we are nonetheless in jeopardy of declining water levels by the Harvard Investment Group's practices. Frost ponds may be an accepted vineyard practice elsewhere but frost ponds in the Cuyama Valley are not a good practice. Harvard Investment also proposes that if 130 acre feet of frost pond water is not used it would be used for irrigation.
It doesn't sound like a lot of water but it converts to 42,360,630 gallons or enough to sustain over 250 families of four for a year. And that's one fill. Your approval of the Harvard Investment Frost Ponds would set a terrible precedent for the future of the Cuyama Valley with continuing declining water levels out of our control. Without water, Cuyama Valley landowners could lose both productivity and land value. It could put an additional burden on the county, townspeople, schools, merchants, farmers, and ranchers who are already experiencing overwhelming losses due to the current water adjudication battle with two other investment groups. Please vote no on the ponds.
2:38 – 2:468 turns
Jacob Furstenfeld to be followed by Andy Caldwell.
Good morning supervisors, my name is Jacob Furstenfeld I'm a member of the Standing Advisory Committee to the GSA in Cuyama. I've also lived in Cuyama for 33 years of my life. I raised my family out there as well. I'm also a cattle rancher on the West End. To move forward and allow this project to be approved would have devastating consequences on our valley's groundwater.
In the short time North Fork Vineyards has been pumping, the water table is already significantly dropped. They've drilled well after well, none of which to my knowledge produces hundreds of gallons of water. Yet that part of the basin is in decline. To allow them to pump a significant amount more isn't going to make matters better. There are other methods available and they themselves have proved that wind turbines work.
The ground that this vineyard sits on has been grazing land for centuries. It's been well known that part of the basin could only sustain a grazing sort of operation or dry farming. If it did have the supply and huge water supply, and could sustain an operation this size I would think that Grimwin Bolthouse may have purchased this land years ago. Some people try to say that this is an attack on agriculture. In Cuyama, we are agriculture. Some of us understand that this land and the water below our feet isn't just for us to abuse for a profit but to appreciate it and make it better for our future generations. Trust me, it's not all about our wallets. It's about making it sustainable for our children and grandchildren God willing.
Our lives, land, and water are far more important than anyone's profits. If you approve this project there is no going back. Thank you very much for your time.
Andy Caldwell to be followed by Denton Heider
I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. We have no sympathy for the carrot growers of Quiama, that who is before you is not the carrot growers of Quiama and I think that has to be made that distinction because I think they're the ones draining this basin, not this vineyard. And it's been pointed out, you have to separate the vineyard is already there. The vineyard is already going to be watered. You got to separate that out from how much water would be used for frost protection which is ubiquitous in grapes in vineyards. This project had no restriction from sigma.
Why? Why did DWR not put restrictions on this? And if they're not putting restrictions on it, why are you? Are they not the authority? The entire ag community, they're not here today but they wrote a letter. Every major ag organization plus your appointees unanimously signed the letter that what is happening here is wrong in terms of the expectations, rules and regulations that should be affecting agriculture. And secondly, they do fear for good reason this could be precedent setting. The Ag Element supports intensification.
So somebody can't say this doesn't work with the rural nature. The rural nature is ag zoned and the ag element says we will support intensification of agricultural lands. And you know, the bottom line here is for somebody to say these people are not local When somebody is going to put millions of dollars into a vineyard, they do one of two things. They either go get a loan or they get an investor. The people that got the investors are ninth generation Californians and long-term residents or pioneer families in this region.
So the fact that the investors are not is irrelevant. Thank you.
Denton Heider to be followed by John Jones
Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to address the council this morning. I'm Denton Heider, I'm the trustee of the Denton O. Heider estate out in the valley. Our place is more affectionately known as El Rancho Chaparral it's a small operation about 190 acres Our family has been in the valley for over 100 years. I've been involved, I'm 80 years old and I've been involved with the ranch for at least 70 years. Yes, I started with my father when I was 10 years old working on the ranch.
I'm very familiar with the area. I am very familiar with all those 70 years of experience out there with the conditions that exist in the valley and to me putting a 6,000 acres of grapes in the valley with restricting conditions that we have out there is just a boondoggle Okay, the reason I say that is we get frost in the valley at least five months out of the year where I'm at. And I'm just very – I'm in the west part, just very close to the vineyards.
You can count on frost in November and then you can count on it perhaps lasting until April. You can also, the other problem is the prolonged droughts that we get out there. Those of you who are familiar with the valley know that this one, this drought that we just came out of is not the first time it's happened. It happens year after year after year. I can remember many many years where we didn't get any rain at all hardly out there.
And if you put a vineyard where you need water, a lot of water that's being proposed here and in a place where there are prolonged droughts, you're just really gunning for trouble. The I of course recommend that you disapprove this appeal. I completely agree with the Planning Commission. I'm looking here at the document, your own document. It's attachment one, the findings to your previous action and I particularly encourage you to look back that your document at paragraphs 2.1.1 and 2.15 where you adequately and properly Documented the problems that exist in the valley with the amount of water that is being proposed. Now a lot has been said here about evaporation, I'm not concerned about evaporation, sure you're going to have evaporation but the problem is the pumping of water imagine A vineyard that's somewhere between six and 10,000 acres.
Imagine at midnight when the temperatures drop down close to 32 that 6,000 acres of sprinklers come on and then the pumps start and they last until somewhere around seven or eight o'clock the next morning when the temperatures go down. What was that?
That's your time.
My time, well thank you. Keep that picture in your mind all those sprinklers and those thousands of gallons of water being pumped out over grapes. Thank you for your time.
2:46 – 2:5413 turns
John Jones to be followed by Bernardino Garcia
Just give another reminder to keep under the two minute limit
My name's John Jones. My family has been on the Cottonwood Canyon Road since 1912, so that makes us newcomers. I have a little different take on this. I think this whole thing is a real estate venture parading itself as an agricultural thing And I think the goal here is to trap as much water any way you can so that you have it when you subdivide the land into little ranchettes or whatever you're going to do with it, or you sell it to your neighbors to grow carrots.
These people came in here and tried to run this down everybody's throat when they knew there was going to be these kind of restrictions on groundwater from the time they started. Take a look at the Harvard Corporation's history about the farming disasters that they've created, not only in this country but all over the developing world and you may get a little different outlook on what they're doing in the valley. Thank You.
Bernardino Garcia to be followed by Bretton Kelly
Good morning, everyone. My name is Bernardino Garcia. I represent a cannabis grower in New Cuyama. It is worth noting that the cannabis industry has shown commitment to responsible water usage practices and cultivation methods. Now this is in contrast to what we're talking about today. Big agriculture who's faced a lot of criticism for their unsustainable water practices. So these differences in approach highlight the importance of sustainable farming practices across all industries to safeguard our water.
For this reason I recommend that you go with the staff's recommendation. Thank you.
Brett and Kelly to be followed by Jay Thomas.
And Brent, I'm just going to tell you I'm picking my favorite Cuyama resident to disappear from for part of your testimony just because I don't want to make a bio break for the whole hearing so you go.
Thank you. Thank you, Williams and supervisors and staff for your efforts here and for the opportunity to make comment on this important item. My name is Brenton Kelly. I've lived and worked in the Cuyama Valley for over 20 years and I'm engaged stakeholder. I chair the standing advisory committee for the GSA and I facilitate the Cuyama Valley Community Association advocating for residents and small farmers in the valley.
I implore you to deny this appeal and exercise your discretion to protect the public trust for all beneficial users of groundwater, including the shallow-rooted groundwater dependent ecosystems in the vicinity of this project. This is a destructive and extractive endeavor Ill-conceived, I'll add. By out of state investment capital and it further threatens the already depleted groundwater resources that we all depend on.
So far, Williams, so far SGMA has failed to slow overdraft in the basin and this region in particular. Groundwater has dropped over 100 feet in less than 10 years at the local monitoring well I have a copy of that 841 well. It started at 20, it's dropped to the lowest at 120 and the unfortunate part is SGMA has drawn this sustainable minimum threshold down at 200 so inexcusable that amount of water could be given away in an overdrafted basin These proposed reservoirs will only accelerate the mining of groundwater under some of the last functional riparian wetlands along the Cuyama River and in order to just fill lake-sized evaporation pits.
Evaporation from surface storage of groundwater in our high desert is an unreasonable waste of a precious and rare resource that should be treasured and protected from the extraction by either private or corporate assetization. Please exercise your constitutional authority to prevent this theft of public trust, and please deny this appeal. Thank you.
Jay Thomas to be followed by Kevin Morrell
Good morning board and thank you for giving me some time to speak. This is my first rodeo, so excuse me. My name is Jay Thomas. My family has been in the Quiama area since the turn of the century and we know many of these other folks as well. Quiama Basin is a dry beautiful desolate and did I say dry valley? You mentioned recharge We don't talk, that is not in our vernacular. You know we don't have a reservoir, we don't have rivers you know, we count on rain. That is where we get our water and that is why we are one of the 21 most drawn-down aquifers in California. And California finally got around to realizing that water is a problem, the sigma unique no watering requirements in this state until 2012.
On another point I'd like to make, I drilled a well on our property very same time as North Fork was doing theirs and we had to go down 400 feet just for taste So it's hard to make those comparisons about 20 feet or 50 feet. We are neighbors, you know? I'm three miles away probably as the crow flies so I think obviously my family This should be denied on very practical, long periods of living and understanding the realities of the Cuyama Valley. We would look at this and just say this is incredibly unreasonable.
These folks knew what they were in for. They bought their land in 12, the middle of a drought and they understood the game and the game is once you have the water you don't have to relinquish it I mean that's why we're being sued by two large carrot organizations in the Central Valley Have the water and they really don't want to cut back. And so they're forcing us to account for our de minimis standard standards. We hire lawyers and we're caught up in this huge battle, but they definitely have high ground.
And so please I'm here to ask you To beg you to be champions of sustainability. We have nothing against ag, we have nothing against ag. We need sustainability in our aquifer. Thank you. In our environment.
Mr. Thomas that is your time.
Thank you very much for the opportunity. Bye.
Kevin Merrill to be followed by Ken Westall
2:54 – 3:006 turns
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Kevin Merrill I got several hats on today. One is I work for Mesa Vineyard Management who installed the vineyard and seems like forever long ago now. And I also represent both the County Farm Bureau and State Farm Bureau. I'm a county farm bureau board member, and have a state board member representing Ventura in Santa Barbara counties. I am also a seventh generation farmer here in Santa Barbara County.
I'm not going to go over all the stuff you've heard here today, other than to add a few comments that remember the vineyard is in place and we are irrigating it. It's my belief as a farmer that because we need those frost protection ponds that we're not going to use any more water than we are right now. We'll use it when we need to for frost. It's been brought up that you can use wind machines and other things to protect those crops out there. That is simply not true there, and we have found that over the last five years. There are times when there is an inversion layer that a wind machine might work. But there are more times that it's not.
It gets cold out there and when you have temperatures in 26 degrees with air above the vineyard, and the ground is like 23 degrees, you're mixing air that's 26 degrees with air that's 23 and it doesn't help you any. It gets cold enough out there that when you do turn the sprinklers on, they pointed out that some of the leaves are burned. That's true. When it gets down to 23 degrees down here and we have water on, it's going to burn them.
So it is our best chance at saving those grapes out there. That crop can be gone in one night off 800 acres of grapes not 6,000 acres of grapes like the one I talked about. And so we need those frost ponds to protect that crop that's out there. It doesn't use any more water than we're using right now and I'm going to end with a part of the letter that the State Farm Bureau attorney has sent to you guys it's in your packet and it states, We are aware the relevant groundwater basin is managed by Groundwater Sustainability Agency under SGMA The Cuyama Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency which was duly adopted a groundwater sustainability plan for the basin, which has been substantially approved by the Department of Water Resources.
This is the appropriate framework to address any ground water concerns related to the project As well as underway with adjudication for the rest of the basin, which we're not in. So I would just leave you to say it's very important that this, that you allow this to move forward. That the project was put into place with the idea of using those frost protection ponds to protect that crop and I can remember coming into Supervisor Lavadino's office when we first did this And his question was I have one question for you. Is there enough water out there? And my reply was yes, there was and there is. And so I will leave you with that. I would urge you to stay if you will in your lane.
Mr. Merrill, that is your time.
Do do your job and let Sigma do theirs. Thank you.
Ken Westall to be followed by Walking U Ranch LLC via Zoom
And I just want to make sure that we've closed further public comment. We still have a lot to go.
Thank you for the time to speak today, I'm going to echo many of the things that Mr. Merrill said but There's a bigger problem in this state where, I think when I was born the population was 15 to 18 million. We're now at 40 million. We're farming a lot more land than we used to farm. The only way out of this for this state is to begin high efficiency irrigation and high efficiency use of water in homes and recycling wastewater that's going into the ocean You know, one of the places that just bugs me to death is Silicon Valley because it's supposed to be this place where these there are these intelligent highly educated people. They're taking all their wastewater from their sewer treatment plants and dumping it in the bay and dumping in the ocean when it needs to be recovered put on the golf courses being used for farming and they are so far behind the curve on its pathetic you know I kind of wondered if these people finish college or take a high school biology class?
The bottom line is Water rights kind of echo what Mr. Merrill said, they do basically run with the land. Nobody wants to hear that but in the state of California the water rights run with the land and a farmer has a right to farmer's land. Now, we have to partner up and try to do massive efficiency on water not sending tailwater out to the ocean, not sending it into the San Francisco Bay.
We're fortunate here in this valley that if you pump water out at Rancho Siskiwock or Geary, it's probably gonna get reused multiple times. The quality is probably gonna degrade by the time it hits Guadalupe or the ocean But the bottom line, what I'm going to say at this point, this vineyard's in. It's planted. I don't know that these frost protection ponds are going to eat up any more water than they presently do but I'm gonna ask that people both urban and agriculture work on massive efficiency. If this state hits 50 million people And we don't work on efficiency, you're going to have problems on all sides. It's not going to be a one-size problem. I mean cities are going to be hosed. Some farmers are going to be in trouble as far as water when we get another drought year.
So look at the big picture please. Like I said, I really echo a lot of what Mr. Merrill is saying but I think there's a bigger problem there in this whole state, especially in urban areas just flushing water into the ocean that can be reused which would be reused in any other country. Thank you.
3:00 – 3:057 turns
We'll now move to Zoom with Walking U Ranch LLC to be followed by Scott Ugat
All right, I think I'm unmuted now. This is Attorney Kathleen March. Can you hear me?
We sure
can. Good. Our law firm represents Walking U Ranch. It's a 1,000-acre cattle ranch that's five miles west of Brodea North Fork. It uses less than two acre feet of water a year to run a thousand-acre cattle ranch. It has been cattle ranching for over 75 years Brodea can use wind turbines. It's not true that they can't. They didn't even do any studies, they just don't want to use wind turbines and since they can use wind turbines, they won't need to tear up more than 15 acres of native grassland Now in the water adjudication suit, my law firm examined, cross-examined Anthony Brown who is the hydrologist expert for Brodea. And he admitted that in Brodeas deep wells it takes thousands of years for recharge to reach the deep wells. In other words, they're pumping out fossil water.
Exhibit one to the letter that my law firm for Walking U Ranch submitted timely on October three, please look at exhibit one. It's a cross-examination and the exhibits where the expert for Bordea admitted this. In addition, the Santa Barbara County 2021 Groundwater Basin Survey Report states at page 18 and 19 that in the area of Brodea's Vineyard quote, the aquifer never fully recovers as a result of pumping. That's exactly what Brodeas expert admitted it takes thousands of years to recharge that means for water to reach the deep wells Shallow wells, when we get rain as we did the past winter, the groundwater level goes up in the shallow wells. But that is not true in these deep wells where it takes thousands of years for the water to reach the deep wells.
That violates SGMA. SGMA requires sustainability within 20 years. Several thousand years to recharge is not sustainability The Planning Commission was correct. It was correct to disapprove, to not approve this project and you should affirm the decision of your Planning Commission. Please look at Exhibit 1 to the October 3 Letter of Walking U Ranch Thank You
Scott Uga to be followed by M Johnson.
And before Scott begins, I just want to plea once again having time limits is meaningless unless people at least most people follow them and I can't even remember the last speaker that has so please keep to time limits.
Good morning Board of Supervisors, my name is Scott Allgate and I serve as the General Manager at Kiyama Buckhorn Boutique Hotel located in New Kiyama. I'm speaking today to express my deep concerns regarding the proposed reservoirs in the Kiyama Basin and their potential impact on our community. The western end of the Kiyma Basin has a rich history of rangeland and With very minimal irrigation, however in recent years we've observed a concerning decrease in the water table in the vicinity of our town. A trend exacerbated by just seven years of irrigation by Grimhaus-Bullhouse.
This phenomenon raises significant questions about the sustainability of the proposed reservoirs and the potential long term consequences for our region. Uh, Kiyama is home of numerous ranches and farms that play a crucial role in our local economy. The construction and operation of these reservoirs would undoubtedly have a detrimental impact on the agricultural, uh, and currently thrives on the western of the Kiyama Basin. Furthermore it's important to note the scale of these proposed reservoirs they are significantly larger than reservoirs currently present in Santa Barbara County which only amplifies the potential environmental and economic consequences In the light of these concerns, I would like to express my full support for the Planning Commission's decision to deny the permit of these reservoirs.
It is my belief that this decision is in the best interest of our community and the preservation of our natural resources. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I urge you to consider the long-term impacts of this project on Cuyama and its residents and continue to prioritize the sustainability and well-being of our region. Thank you.
3:05 – 3:116 turns
Good
afternoon, thank you for the time today. Just quickly my name is Em Johnson I've been working solely And I would like to encourage supervisors to support the Planning Commission's denial of this permit. As we think about the economic vitality of our region and the communities in the Quiama Valley, it's important to ensure the equity of both resources allocated in the Quiama Valley and the equity of resources used in the Quiama Valley. So specifically encouraging this overdrafted water basin to prioritize corporate water use in this one section while detriment to their neighbors in the western end of the basin.
This is not supportive of an economic future for our Cuyama Valley communities. Thank you so much for your time and your thoughtfulness to our communities in the Cuyama Valley.
Ella Boyajian, to be followed by Pamela Baksuk.
Good morning, Chair Williams and members of the Board. My name is Ella Boyajian. Like North Fork I'm newer to the Quiama Valley. My husband and I own a historically cattle grazing ranch neighboring them in the West End. And I suppose that like North Fork we were initially attracted to the area due to its cheap land and the idea that we could build something from nothing.
We had some dreams and those were interrupted shortly after closing when we were served in a water rights adjudication. That was my introduction to the groundwater crisis in the Koyama Valley, and it's been quite the education ever since. No farmer wants to be told what to do but sometimes nature dictates that. Our basin is in overdraft. It is a reality that three corporate entities in our valley are fighting against.
Grimway Farms and Bolthouse Farms have chosen to file a water rights lawsuit to relentlessly pursue their self-interest despite the financial and environmental impact on our low income community. Similarly, North Fork, to avoid pumping restrictions has taken the aggressive stance in that litigation that they are not even part of the same basin. They want to redefine the basin boundaries, an argument that is increasing all of our legal fees tremendously and if successful would make them not beholden to the GSA minimum thresholds. So we cannot ignore the fact that North Fork's actions today, appealing for the fourth time to construct these mega-reservoirs coincides with a larger water war at play in Quiama. North Fork's aggressive pursuit of our water resources threatens to exacerbate the challenges we already face Pushing us to the brink of an unsustainable future.
Right now, the world has eyes on Quiama, on Santa Barbara County because we are a microcosm of the water wars happening across America. Corporate entities must not be allowed to undermine the well-being and future prosperity of our community. I implore you to join Quiamans in opposing the construction of these reservoirs. Thank you.
Pamela Baxa to be followed by Lynn Carlisle
Thank you Chair Williams, Supervisors Lavinino, Hartman, Nelson and Katz for your careful consideration of this proposed project that would impact the Quiama Valley. You're all aware of the critically overdrafted groundwater in Quiama Valley and the fact that of 21 designated overdraft basins in California, Quiama is one of the most critical. Beginning in 2018 when Brode Incorporated proposed the construction of freeze ponds on the property, the proposal has been opposed by local residents, environmental professionals and experienced ranchers and farmers who have pointed out that this method of so-called prevention of frost to the vines is neither effective nor a responsible use of the water.
These three reservoirs proposed at five acres each would drain 43 million gallons of groundwater to be constantly replenished. Triple-digit Cuyama summers would contribute to a significant amount of evaporation, One needs only to notice the wastewater treatment pond evaporation on 166 in dry times. The most recent denial of this project was in March 2023 from the Santa Barbara Planning Commission. Congress Hill Vineyard owners Roberta Jaffe and Steve Gleasman showed photos of the north floor vineyards vines after a significant frost. The leaves on the vines, on which the water was used for frost protection were brown and dead.
Ones on the wind turbines were used were still green. Local farmers and ranchers in that hearing commented on how these ponds will further negatively impact the groundwater levels in the Western Basin. We heard from Harvard affiliates, staff, and alumni that Harvard is purchasing land in many regions, including in other countries with the intent of large financial returns from relatively low cost investment, exploiting the natural resources, and demonstrating little regard for the local inhabitants.
And I refer to two articles in the Harvard Crimson paper from March 30th of 2023 and from March 6 of 2019. These are in my written comments. I urge the Board of Supervisors to deny this appeal and reject Harvard's proposal project to protect the remaining groundwater in the Quiama Valley for current and future generations. Thank you for your concern.
3:11 – 3:1713 turns
Lynn Carlisle to be followed by Casey Walsh.
Good morning. Sorry, excuse me
good morning then we can hear you.
Good morning Chair Williams and Supervisors. My name is Lynn Carlisle, I'm the Executive Director of the Cuyama Valley Family Resource Center. I worked in the valley for the past 12 years so i guess that makes me a newcomer. For eight of those years I've worked to support equitable management of the valley's groundwater basin. I urge you to deny the North Fork Ranch's appeal for the project before you today on the basis of its negative impact on the basin's groundwater. The final EIR for the project includes mitigations that would purportedly avoid incurring More than 31 acre feet in evaporative loss of groundwater. This 31 acre foot threshold of significance was calculated based on the net groundwater overdraft condition of 28,525 acre feet an assessment made in 1992 Today we are far, far exceeding that overdraft and the 31 acre foot threshold is no longer consistent with the current overdraft.
Last year the overdraft was 35% higher. The year before that it was 60% higher. In eight of the past 10 years, the Quiama Basin has far exceeded the overdraft on which the threshold is based. Using such a metric determined 21 years ago is a flawed and inaccurate methodology when evaluating the impacts of the project before you today. Further, as you are likely aware the county has committed significant time and resources to developing a groundwater sustainability plan for Quiama. And we thank Districts 1 & 5 for taking the lead in this work.
To date the process has incurred expenses of nearly $10 million dollars Funded primarily through taxpayer dollars. Our community has participated in literally thousands of hours of meetings, workshops, document review and public comment to help create and strengthen a plan that is designed to reduce groundwater in the Cuyama Valley. After investing the past eight years and $10 million to create a plan to achieve a sustainable groundwater basin in the severely disadvantaged community, it makes no sense for this board to permit a project that will increase groundwater pumping at this or any scale as it runs directly counter to the county's years-long efforts to reduce pumping in the valley. We urge you to follow the guidance of your staff's recommendations and your Planning Commission's findings and deny this appeal.
Thank you.
Casey Walsh to be followed by Bonnie Goler.
Good morning Supervisors, thanks for the time and the opportunity to express my opinion that you should deny the appeal by North Fork. The system that they proposed to build, the frost protection system even by its own admission won't achieve its goals even in the best case scenarios of mitigation The project to put grapevines, intensely cultivated and irrigated grapevines in the Cuyama Valley is a bad idea to begin with.
It's a dream of investment capital from outside to make a quick buck. It was a bad idea to put the vineyard there in the first place and now we're seeing repercussions. It is Harvard's field of dreams. But if you approve these big damn projects, you certainly will see the outcome. If they build it, they will pump. Thank you for your time.
Bonnie Goler to be followed by Bonnie Thomas.
Hello? Can you hear me?
Yes we can.
Okay. Hi, Bonnie Goller 40 year resident of Cuyama Valley. I have property my property adjoins the Brodea Northern Boundary by about approximately one mile. I wrote an email yesterday. I'm sorry I was late. Thank you so much for accepting my comments and putting them into the record. I oppose the construction at the Frost Ponds The water has never been there. I went into the historical anecdotal information that I have, and the only reason that they are saying that the water is there now is because they can afford big pumps, big wells, and they have lots and lots of money. The rest of us are living by our annual rainfall means.
Thank
you!
And it looks like Bonnie Thomas is no longer available via zoom. So we'll move on to Nina Thomas to be followed by Rachel Carl. Nina, you've been unmuted on our end if you can unmute yourself on your end Nina, we'll try to come back to you. Let's move on to Rachel Carl.
3:17 – 3:236 turns
Good morning. My name is Rachel Carl and I am an alum of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government where I received my masters in public policy. I am also part of Stop Harvard Land Grabs which is a group of Harvard students alumni faculty and staff who have been monitoring Harvard's land investments and become increasingly concerned about their human rights abuses.
We are grateful to receive an education at Harvard, but we are concerned by what the Harvard Management Company is doing in our name. I am testifying in opposition of Harvard's requested plan to construct additional reservoirs in the Cuyama Valley. I echo the concerns that impacted farmers have already raised and I'm particularly concerned about how this demonstrates a pattern.
Harvard management companies natural resource investments around the world consistently harm the communities that they enter. For example, in Brazil Harvard illegally obtained land titles and violently displaced local communities contributed to large amounts of deforestation and contributed to an increase in cancer in the area from their pesticide pollution.
Harvard has demonstrated again and again that it is not a responsible manager nor a good neighbor Its request today should raise alarm bells for all of us. Harvard's proposal here would have negative impacts on water management, the environment and the local economy. These massive water wasting reservoirs would hold groundwater that would otherwise be enough to meet the needs of over 2000 households in an already critically overdrafted basin.
I'm thankful for the advocacy of Kiyama farmers who have spent years fighting this battle And know what is good for the land, for the economy and for the community. In conclusion I ask that you please vote in opposition of the permit application. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Next we have Nico Dominguez-Querero to be followed by Rush McNair
Good morning, members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. My name is Nico Dominguez-Carrero. I'm a junior at Harvard College studying environmental science and public policy focusing on environmental health. I am a coalition coordinator with the Massachusetts Fairness for Farm Workers Coalition and a published health equity researcher with the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Equity. Today, I speak as a member of Stop Harvard Land Grabs. I am testifying in opposition of Harvard requested plan to construct large reservoirs and the already critically overdrafted valley. I'm particularly concerned about the health equity implications of those project on the farmers, farm workers and other community members in my concern comes from one concerning reports on environmental health harms from forward.
Owned soy farms in Brazil and the impacts of similar projects on water access in other Californian communities. First, on page 18 in their report on Harvard Soy Farms, a network for social justice and human rights in Brazil described worker pesticide exposure and concerns for water contamination in local wildlife due to the agriculture activities on these farms. The report indicates an egregious lack of care on behalf of Harvard for the health of those living around and working on Harvard-owned land. Second, there have been other cases in California where large corporations have compromised local water. My best friend Anai Morales, Harvard Class of 2023 and a native of Delano, California described people driving from long distances to Delano to secure water after a large agricultural corporation overdrafted their water supply.
For weeks many people were unable to access drinking water, flush their toilets or shower in their homes. I'm particularly concerned that Harvard's project could cause a similar water crisis in Cuyama. Even if the GSA then takes action to correct this per their mandate, in the interim there are likely to be adverse environmental health impacts on all Cuyama residents and especially those most vulnerable with less capacity to adapt to water scarcity. I ask that you please vote in opposition of the permit application. It will only give control of water to a corporate entity at the expense of water rights and as a health equity researcher and advocate, I strongly believe it risks jeopardizing the health and livelihoods of farmers, farm workers, and the Cuyaman Basin community at large.
Thank you.
Chair Williams and members of the board Rush McNair has logged off of Zoom so that concludes public comment for this item.
So then it is to the applicant appellant for your two and a half minutes of rebuttal time and then to staff comments
Thank you for your patience, Gene Zalesi again from Harem Crabtree Suntag. Just two brief mentions and then I will turn it over to Mr. Shady. We appreciate all of the concern that has been shown here. You have very concerned residents, people who have lived here for decades and decades and that's not to be taken lightly. What we have to focus on though I believe is what the experts say about this area. And the experts would be your own GSA, the GSP that they developed, and DWR that reviewed that who concluded that there would not be an adverse impact to the surrounding area in the Northwest region. And Ms. Jaffe is correct, DWR said you need to focus on that region because we are concerned that there may be issues in the future there and that's why there is heightened monitoring of which North Fork is a serious part.
We have many of the wells in that area on the property and monitor it regularly. But focus seems to be on the land use versus GSA issues, and that's a new issue in California that everyone is seeing in many counties. And it's a serious issue. What we'd like you to focus on is what are the rules in Santa Barbara County which Mr. Haram asked you to focus on against?
You have discretion regarding construction of the ponds. That is what your planning area focuses you to. You don't have discretion over use of the ponds, that's traditionally an agricultural use and it has been historically unregulated. It is currently regulated by the GSA. It's a new process we're all getting used to in California, but it's very important. So you can authorize construction of the ponds, but only the GSA and only under the GSP regulations can the GSA authorize it to be filled and continually used. So we would ask you to focus on that. I'll turn it over to Mr. Shady.
3:23 – 3:3221 turns
Chair Williams, members of the board. Ray Shady again just a couple of quick points so if there were another better method like has been repeated by the Jaffe's and others we wouldn't have spent seven years trying to get this permit The 103 acre feet that was suggested in the EIR as a cap that would keep you under the county's threshold, that won't protect the whole vineyard. That won't solve our problem but it will give us something. It will give us a tool to use in the most at-risk, the most affected parts of the vineyard and with that we would ask you to consider the EIR's recommendation for the environmentally superior alternative design, which wasn't even in the staffs original recommendation.
But that involved building two reservoirs instead of three cover them to avoid evaporative surface loss Put flow meters on it to monitor how much frost water is applied. It was incredibly strict, but should address all of the concerns that everybody has brought up through this process.
Thank you staff comments. Is there anything, any representations that you wish to correct or nuance that you wish to elaborate on?
Board of Supervisors, I'm debating in my head here. I think it's important that we call out the difference between land use and what the GSA is doing. They're not a water company so we are required to do permits for land uses and as part of that we have to make sure there are services and what they're asking to do meets our regulations including looking at the CEQA impacts of a project And so CEQA does apply to a land use permit. In this case, it's CUP and we did use the thresholds manual. So I just wanted to clarify because I don't know if I agree with some of the comments that it's just two completely separate things.
That's not quite how we see that.
Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes I have a question for staff, thank you Chair Williams. Mr. Shady mentioned this environmentally superior project where does that fit in the discussion today because right now if we were to deny the if we were out there uphold the appeal and approve the project is that what we're looking at or is that another option maybe a compromise that the board might be able to take on this project? Let me ask staff first then Mr. Shadey if you want to add to it can see from there
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Nielsen, in the context of the environmental review there is a environmental superior alternative that was put forth and analyzed so that's in the environmental document and it was studied and there's findings for that in the environment document However as far as today, that isn't the project being proposed today. So the project being proposed is the three ponds for frost protection services. If the board wanted to explore that then staff would recommend that we be given direction to come back and prepare findings and motions to support that superior alternative option.
Because what needs to happen to approve the project in entirety is certify the EIR and take an action on the project. So that isn't what's before you today, it's a three pond so if we wanted to go that direction, we would ask for direction to go back and come and return with those findings for that superior alternative.
Okay, so we have that discretion here today? We always say broad authority and that'd be when things are on the table?
Mr. Chair, that is within the scope of the discretion before the board today.
Thank you for clarifying.
Other questions? Then we'll go to Board deliberation.
Mr. Chair and members of the board, if the board was interested in considering a revised project on the environmentally superior, I would recommend hearing from the applicant on that.
Mr. Nelson
yes I'd love to hear from the applicant if that was some sound like that was what was offered by mr. Shady but I want to get because what the council is asking us to confirm that they would be interested in that alternative if there wasn't support for the original project
Yes, so we've been at this for seven years and have kind of gone through everything that we've been asked to do. And feel like that is a compromise the most strict version of what came out of the EIR and would be something that we would be willing to move forward with despite it not matching What we want or need, it is better than simply being outright denied and sorry you can't have anything.
Mr. Shetty if I could that would in your estimation as a farmer would not still not be enough water to protect
Absolutely not. It is basically, it would be a tool to apply to a portion of the vineyard for those varieties and portions of the property that are going to be most at risk during the frost season but will still end up sustaining damage on other portions of the property throughout the season.
I don't think it was actually asked of you but over this last few years there has been damage because of frost?
That's correct. So as far as crop loss, that can be measured in the millions of dollars. As far as the replanting and reestablishment of lost vines it's in the hundreds of thousands And in order to continue to frost protect with those limited tools that we have, which obviously haven't worked based on those preceding numbers. We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on wind machines and helicopters in an attempt to just create something that would protect.
The satellite images that you get from the vineyard after frost events leave little concentric circles around the wind machines, which is the heat generated by the internal combustion engine where the vines are okay and then outside of that perimeter then you have frost damage. And the constant reference to this vineyard block five that was damaged after having water applied When you pump directly from a well going out into your frost system, you have a higher risk of potentially throwing out something that might plug your filter. That's exactly what happened on the lower half of Block 5 where which is closest to the road and therefore you can take photos of it our filter plugged in the middle of the night so we had already applied some water and then that water froze hard and the vines were hit that much worse But the same block uphill from the filter was not damaged and you can actually see that on satellite
image. So the frost ponds are typically more reliable for frost protection?
More reliable and the point is to have a volume that can be applied continuously throughout the night. It's a cleaner outflow at higher flow rate, but overall the quantity that's being applied would be capped according to the EIR. Okay
thank you Mr. Shady for the clarification on that.
3:32 – 3:392 turns
So I will just say that, first of all, I'm very impressed by the Cuyama residents. We have had many public meetings in Cuyama and this is as much public comment as we ever get in Cuyama. So this is, I guess, a testament to The difficulty of the decision. I think I've expressed in past policy opinions like well permitting and others that I think that the Kiyama Valley is different.
That the level of overdraft has been singled out throughout the state and the danger to the groundwater basin has been singled out throughout the state. And so, you know, the conclusions that I would Normally reach which is to defer in a tweener to the need of You know for AG in an ag zone to thrive Would normally be my you know default and reflects I think the policies stated policies of the county but I think at Kuyama it is different because I It is uncertain about how much those moves could threaten the viability of other farmers to be able to continue to live and thrive in the Cuyama Valley.
And I do want to acknowledge that there is some doubt, there has been many dueling opinions as to the connectivity between this sub-basin and the main basin. So I do not, I want to acknowledge that but I cannot imagine that it would be good for the county to make a discretionary decision to allow any one entity Let me rephrase that, to facilitate any one entity to pump more water through a discretionary land use decision when people throughout the basin are having to make sacrifices. Most of them are having to decrease their water usage significantly every year until it reaches over 60% reduction.
At the same time that we are facilitating or if we granted the appeal, facilitating an increase in pumping. Now I would love to re Visit this matter 10 years from now and learn that either the relationship between the sub-basin and the basin is less than we thought or that enough moves have been made in the main basin. The level of vigilance is not required here but I do not think what is at stake is the survival of the farm.
It is the choice normally that I wouldn't interfere with as to what varietals are farmed and I do not think that that is a more important consideration in the findings than the doubt of supply of water, both for this operation's continued use and their neighbors. So I think that the Planning Commission was correct in denying the application. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you Chair Williams and I'm sure it would be no surprise based on the maybe aggressiveness of some of my questions that I disagree. If we deny this project and move forward with the, or deny the appeal and therefore deny the project that's going to be a sad day in Santa Barbara County for agriculture. You know, we have a letter from our Ag Advisory Committee which is unanimous from all of our committee members. This is the organization that we rely upon, that we all make appointments to, that sees this as Precedent setting and a bad move for our county.
And you know that, for me this is a big concern. You know if this project was in the center of the valley where the geology supports some of the fears I do think this would be a different discussion But also I think it was the Center Valley. That's reason why this group of farmers did not farm there, was because there wasn't the water they actually went to where their water was at and they did their due diligence and purchase a property where there was ample supply of water we know there's ample supply of water because They're using it. I mean, this project's for 100 acre feet. They're using 800 to 900 acre feet a year right now so we know that water exists and it's still staying within a sustainable yield. It's still rebounding in the winter and we're seeing it rebound later on throughout after these rains.
There's no subsidence. Geology matters here and the geology is different in this section versus other places in the valley You're hearing testimony from people that are living three, four or five miles away or even further and it's just not the connectivity is not the same in geology. And I know that there's a lot of concern and fear out there. I appreciate that But we got to look at the science and you know, there's nobody more strict than DWR on these things in trying to hold us accountable.
And if I understand the testimony correct from the attorneys for the applicant it's their understanding in these documents that's unlikely to impact other places in the basin. We have something called the Russell Fault that we also believe that holds water in this section and that's why it was a very attractive location for the investment I don't like that some people have chosen this to demonize Harvard.
That's not what I see this project is, I see this as a local farming group Mr. Merrill seven generations, Mr. Onaveris nine generation you know I want to trust the farmers on making these farming decisions on how they're going to apply farming techniques that have been taking place for Frankly many, many years decades if not over a century of using reservoirs to potentially supply these ranches and farms.
And so you know it'd be my preference that the board supports an upholding the appeal and actually moving the project forward.
3:39 – 3:474 turns
Let's go to Supervisor Hartman, but if you could, could you also prepare to put up the finding number four in your slide presentation just for my purpose? Supervisor Hartman.
Yes, well let me start broad and then come down more narrowly. First of all I thank everybody who participated today. I know it's many of you are farmers and ranchers and had to take a lot of time away from your calling at home. I had an apple orchard on my property, but when the drought came it was very inappropriate to have an apple orchard to use all that water. So I let the apples die and that was kind of sad, but now I'm planting jujubes and things that use less water.
It seems to me that being a good steward of the land is matching what you're growing to what the sustainable capacity of the land itself is. really struck by how many of the local farmers and ranchers have done that for decades, and have adapted to the land rather than try to make the land adapt to whatever they want to do there. We had Farm Day here and it was kind of interesting because While they're local ranchers and farmers, it's national companies that are now decreeing how do they grow what they grow varieties. And so it's kind of sad to see that the local discretion is not so much there and I suspect that may be in this case as well More narrowly, I believe that the EIR is not certifiable.
I believe that it is not looking at the entire project as is required. It's looking only at the evaporation rate and that therefore makes it defective. I also heard very convincing testimony that the amount of water was underestimated And so I believe that because the EIR is defective, we could not approve that project even if we wanted to. It would have to be redone and we couldn't approve some kind of alternative proposal either.
I believe that in contrast to people who say we have no authority because the GSA has all authority whenever the word groundwater is mentioned, it's not correct. I believe that under our comprehensive plan we do have authority and I think the conservation element gives us authority and I think Clearly we heard that there's a detriment to the general welfare and safety. We heard that again and again from the people who live there So I believe we have strong grounds for denial, and those are mine
Supervisor Lavinia
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well I think whatever happens today this issue probably isn't over. Water is a finite resource and state laws continue to change so I think we're going to be dealing with a lot more of this in the future than we have in the past. I thought today was interesting because I think the cannabis industry has now come full circle it has gone mainstream because it is now opposing a project so I thought that was kind of interesting today But this is one of the more unique cases for me since I've been on the board.
What makes it so is that even though we have a threshold of significance to consider, the way I see it, the County Board of Supervisors has jurisdiction over land use but not overall water use whereas the GSA has jurisdiction over water use but not development. So given that The board could deny the frost ponds and the appellant could actually be allowed to use even more water than this project would allow.
They can irrigate more, they can add new crops. I think legally they could actually just open their valves have the world's largest slip-and-slide and we probably really don't have the legal authority to stop that. Conversely though, the board could approve the project today but the GSA could go on to implement allocations and reductions that would force the appellant to limit their water use to less than the current levels.
So I'm certainly not in favor of telling farmers how to farm and I don't want a denial this project to create the slippery slope that I see us going down where the board would start creeping into the regulation of agriculture And tell farmers which how to best protect their crops, what varietals we want them to grow. I appreciate Ms. Citron's comments on this issue but from what I've seen in the past once decisions like this are made they aren't easily forgotten it's very difficult to go back but at the same time I really value what Quiama farmers and ranchers and residents have told us, and the science tells us that we really don't want to exacerbate the situation in one of the state's most critically overdrafted basins.
So both sides have excellent arguments. I can't tell you for me how rare that is. Generally when I come in I hear one side to me makes a lot of sense and the other side is grasping at straws but in this one both are really relying on science Usually when that happens these types of issues end up before a judge And I for me would like to see us try to avoid that.
I don't see a perfect outcome here today But I think for me Generally, I see middle grounds trying to find the best option so for me and I know that there are there are issues with the EIR but It did when reviewing that come up with an environmentally superior alternative, which is a two pond project. I'm interested if this board is in trying to figure out a way to get to that position.
And I really want to thank not just the residents but Supervisor Williams and all those that serve on the GSA. Like I said, this issue isn't going away. This is going to be You know, Cuyama is kind of the center of this right now but as we continue to see continued longer droughts. I mean last year was a blessing for all of us but as these move on Although we have seen agriculture respond by, I mean if you look at their water usage compared to historical uses they've done an amazing job of using less water and creating higher yields. I think our residents think water usage is down at the residential level almost 25% since before the drought when the drought started so people are responding.
I'm just trying to figure out how to get to a case where We don't infringe on their right to farm, but at the same time do it in a manner that also respects those that are around them. And I think for me that's a reduced scope. You might have to reduce the footprint of the vineyard or you might figure out a different way to do it. But it was also good to hear that is on the table as far as the applicant goes. And that's the way I would be looking to do this.
3:47 – 3:5411 turns
Thank you much has been said and I'll just add my rationale. This, I just do want to acknowledge the applicants thoughtful arguments. I agree that there's been very constructive and detailed and scientific arguments on both sides for me it's just what I'm compelled by the fact that the groundwater basin is in critical state of overdraft One of a handful throughout the state and to me it's just too risky to not deny this.
I want to respect the work of the Planning Commission. in their findings. I want to respect the work that Supervisor Williams has done in his own district on this for much longer than just this hearing, and so I side with denial because of these factors of this overdraft and how critical it is we can't It's too risky for us to move forward with this project. I'm certainly open to some sort of compromise if that's appropriate at this point.
Supervisor Herman?
Well, I think this issue of precedent for agriculture is an important one to address and the scale of this is beyond anything we've seen in Santa Barbara County. And so I think it really distinguishes it as something different.
And Supervisor Nielsen?
Yes, I have a question about Supervisor Hartman's concern about the defective EIR. That's an EIR that the applicant paid for, right? But the planning selected an ER consultant and had them work on it. Right? So how do we get a defective EIR that comes before us? Can you help me with that because I'm concerned about that especially if that is one of the reasons for denial.
We go through this process. We don't let them select their EIR consultant because we want to make sure it's neutral and so it benefits the burden on the county to handle that, and so that's where it's concerning to me that we moved forward and came back with a defective EIR. So that's
Supervisor Nelson, members of the board. So what's before you are the findings for a conditional use permit? OK, so if you wanted to approve the project and make approval findings, then you would look at the adequacy of the EIR as part of that. Your board has a lot of discretion when it comes to an environmental document. And so part of what you're doing when you're looking at a project and reviewing the environmental review is determining if, if it's adequate or if you have concerns. So it really is a decision for the board as a whole. So one supervisor may have concerns about it. The majority may not.
And it would be within the discretion of the majority of the board.
But if we don't certify it, right? Because it's defective or inadequate. Again this is something that our staff is bringing forward to us, right? They've been working with an EIR consultant and so that's where I'm concerned about that work product you know because it would be good to not have a defective EIR because then maybe we could get support. So that's what I'm concerned about.
Supervisor Nelson It depends what action you take, right? So if the majority of the board is denying the project then you don't take any action on EIR. If the board would like to approve the project then you would not only be able to make the findings but you would be determining as a majority of the board that the EIR before you is
adequate. Is there any obligation for the county to bring forward an adequate EIR? as part of this process.
Supervisor Nelson, members of the board I'm not exactly sure what you're asking but I believe what you're saying is I mean the board gives direction to go and do an EIR, staff works with a consultant to develop that. And I think certainly the intent is that it comes forward to you as a defensible document but ultimately your board can't agree with that or disagree with that.
I just wanted to put this slide up just to make sure it's real sort of crystal clear. Our CUPs have findings that give us wide latitude, in this case water supply and I think there is also two slides ahead. The our own policies that sort of back that up so I just you know, I don't look while like I consider because of the Difficulty of making multinational investments without potentially hurting communities. I entertain the possibility that the larger critique of Harvard's investments is true, but I do not hold North Fork accountable to that. I think that they're a good local employer.
Not my purpose to destroy them. And if this happened four or five years from now and we were in a different situation, I would probably default towards approving the frost ponds. But I do not think that further Facilitating drawdown when we've seen this kind of reduction in our well levels Just in this sub basin Even more so obviously and the total basin, but just in the sub basin is enough of a cause for alarm for me to Want to deny the project and uphold the Planning Commission's approval Can I get a motion
3:54 – 3:576 turns
It's your district, will you make the motion and I will second?
Absolutely. I will move that we deny the appeal of North Fork for the frost ponds. I suppose we would want to not certify the EIR with some of the issues that have been raised.
So Mr. Chair just to clarify your motion, your motion is to follow the recommended action from staff which includes a CEQA exemption for denial?
That's right. To make that more clear my motion is for staff recommendations. Supervisor Caput.
And I will second again
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. That's 3-2. We will be taking a break before departmental item number two and three Okay, we are going to recess to closed session. Could you give us a preview of closed session?
3:57 – 7:092 turns
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board is scheduled to meet in closed session on one item of existing litigation, American Medical Response West versus the county which is the Santa Barbara County Superior Court case. One item of anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate litigation. One item of significant exposure to civil litigation. It's one case based on the facts and circumstances listed in the agenda, and public employee appointment for Director of Community Services Department.
And the time estimate is two hours but I would like to state that if we're done early, we will return early so I would say it's probably an hour and a half to two hours.
And my apologies to any folks who are waiting for departmental item number two, meaning mostly Brittany and Mona. Thank you. We're reconvening the meeting from closed session. Please report out of closed session.
7:09 – 7:145 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session on one item of existing litigation, American Medical Response West versus the county. One item of anticipated litigation of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. One item of significant exposure to civil litigation based on the facts and circumstances listed in the agenda.
And a public employee appointment for Director of Community Services Department. The board took one reportable action under government code 54957.1A2, it's required to report out approval given to council to seek appellate review and in concession the board conducted a conference with counsel on a decision whether to initiate litigation and for significant exposure to litigation based on facts and circumstances The California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Coast Region has named the county as a prior landowner for 2936 Industrial Parkway in Santa Maria, the former site of Simcoe Twist Drill & Tow Company.
In a cleanup and abatement order R3-2023 0070 The cleanup and abatement order requires the county to undertake certain investigation, monitoring and clean-up activities at the site. In closed session the board authorized County Council to seek appellate review of the Regional Water Quality Control Board's cleanup and abatement order by filing an appeal with the State Water Resources Control Board. The vote was unanimous with all supervisors being present.
Thank you. Departmental item number two
Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the resolution in the matter of the Board of Supervisors agenda policy and protocols for the conduct of meetings and amendments to the Santa Barbara County Code chapter 2 article 1 section 2.1 regarding when and where regular Board of Supervisors meetings are held.
Good afternoon Chair Williams, members of the board. Brittany Oderman, Deputy CEO and today I'm bringing to you a couple things. The first is a resolution that we have in place that guides the policies and protocol for the conduct of meetings. The last time we looked at this resolution was in 2009 and so we're just bringing you a redlined updated version and so we were proposing to rescind Resolution number oh nine three six eight and replace it with the copy that you have before you we're also Performing the first reading of an ordinance amendment to chapter two That sets out when and where they're The Board of Supervisors meetings are held So I put these out of order, so let me just skip. I'm going to do slide 4 and then go back to slide 3.
So as I mentioned resolution 09368 in Chapter 2 serve as our guiding documents for the conduct of your meetings for the Board of Supervisors and it is necessary to look at these periodically and the policies and provide the board with an opportunity Make the changes needed to be in line with how we are currently operating and enhance any policies based on changing environment of county government.
So the new resolution that you have in front of you, and it was included in the board packet Reflects current agenda and meeting protocols. It goes over the order of meeting business It makes adjustments to public comment to account for changes in technology mainly That our members of the public can now perform remote testimony and then other minor revisions In addition chapter 2 article 1 section 2.1 of the county code is being amended to reflect That the regular date and time of the board meetings is the first three Tuesday's of the month They start at 9 a.m And we want to set general annual dates for the summer recess that we have historically been taking which is the last two Around the last two weeks of July in the first two weeks of August and require that the location and dates of the board meetings be established by resolution of the board annually.
Oh, sorry about that so now next steps would be next week will have the second reading of the ordinance amendment and I highlighted just there that one of the things that were including in this ordinance amendment is again that the location and dates of the meeting shall be established and amended by resolution So that resolution will come to you for 2024 and set the meeting dates and locations on the November 28th meeting. And the delay is so that we have the 30 days where the Ordinance Amendment becomes operative, so we'll be back in November with the 2024 schedule.
That concludes my presentation and I will entertain any questions you might have about that resolution or the changes to the Chapter 2.
Questions from the board? Public comment?
7:14 – 7:337 turns
Chair Williams and members of the board, we have no request to speak.
Motion.
So moved. Second.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you Brittany. I understand you got one more. Departmental item number three.
Chair Williams and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding polling and potential tax measures.
Chair Williams and members of the board, good afternoon. This item is to provide an update on direction we received in April at the budget workshops to pursue polling for potential tax ballot measures for the November 2024 election. I would like to introduce Brittany Oderman, Deputy CEO who will be making a presentation and Rick Sklarz with FM3 who's available by Zoom for any questions after the presentation.
Thank you, Miss Anderson. All right, so today I'm bringing to you an update on potential tax measures and polling efforts. And I just wanted to go over our presentation overview today. I want to give you a little bit of background to just bring everybody up to speed on how we got here and the board direction that we received last spring. I'll go over that a little bit. We'll talk about the tax measure options that are being contemplated. There are three options.
general-purpose sales tax in the unincorporated County for general purposes a special countywide sales tax to fund libraries, a special countywide parcel tax to fund libraries and then we'll go over the process and timeline. And I'll get into the details of Special versus General for those who are unfamiliar with those terms a little later on in the presentation so As far as background, I just want to kind of set the stage a little bit. The county has some continued financial needs that continue to be an issue including facilities. As we all know, we have a big deferred maintenance backlog Operation of our Northern Branch Jail, it is now in operation and we need annual funding to continue to keep that going. And then fire safety improvements and also increased employee costs.
Our finances are stable and revenue is just keeping pace. So we're we are things are good We're stable, but for anything that we want to do above and beyond what we're already doing We're realizing that we need to look for potential new revenue because it's increasingly more expensive To operate and I think we all have seen this just in our daily lives That the county is not immune to those cost increases. And so We're continuing to see prices go up I wanted to include this graphic CEO Miyasato has shared before This map of the county. It's kind of hard to see but what I wanted What the takeaway from this is it demonstrates that there's limited areas really in the county to develop and grow Most of our County is owned by state is either in state or federal ownership, or Zoned as egg preserver agricultural for agricultural purposes.
So that's the green The yellow and the blue are state and federal Own land, and then the purple areas are urbanized areas our city air actually incorporated cities And then that little bit of orange that exists around those Cities are the unincorporated urbanized areas where we could actually have some potential growth and generate additional revenue through commercial uses, for example. But you can see it's very limited. We have a small amount. So just wanted to remind everybody sort of the geography that we're dealing with So during the April budget workshops, we presented a special issue related to tax revenue measures.
And at that time the board directed us to the staff to retain a polling firm and look at the viability of a new tax. And then we received further direction from the board at the May 9th hearing in support of the county library ad hoc committee made some recommendations related to funding libraries specifically At that time the board also at the workshops, the board also expressed interest in additional funding for flood control efforts and to review and potentially replace the cannabis tax revenue structure through a ballot measure.
I just want to highlight those last two bullets We talk about it quite a bit in the board letter, but a study of the flood control mitigation measures and Montecito and related funding needs is underway. But will not be ready in time for a 2024 ballot and so they'll continue to do that work. The flood control county flood control and we They'll come back at some point with some recommendations.
And then we staff continues to evaluate potential options for our new cannabis tax structure and will return in the first quarter of 2024 for discussion and direction. So I just want to get into these tax measure options that I mentioned. The first option is a general sales tax for general purposes, so this particular type of tax would be one that you can use for any purpose that the county funds.
It would require 4 5th vote of the board to place it on the ballot and it must be approved by a simple majority of the voters, so 50 plus one. And this would apply to just the unincorporated areas I list some of the things that are examples of things that could be funded with this tax and we will get into that at the end of the presentation as well. But you can see there's a multitude of things, everything from libraries to parks, veteran services. We can include flood control improvements, economic development and things of those nature.
Just to give you a little context, our general sales tax in Santa Barbara County is at seven and three quarters percent. That is the lowest in the county. Buellton is the only other jurisdiction that is at the same level as the unincorporated county. All of the unincorporated cities have Adopted or taken to the ballot and were successful in getting sales tax on to their role. And so Carpentry is at 9% and all the rest of the cities from Goleta to Solvang are at eight and three quarters Of that seven and three quarters, 6% is a state share. Some of that money comes back to the county but it's for very specific designated purposes.
Then there's a quarter cent for roads and transportation that the state gives back to us. And then there's the local roads and transportation tax, the half percent known as Measure A that SBK administers. So our share, the county that you all have control over and goes into our general fund is 1%. And that is estimated to be around $15.1 million in fiscal year 23-24.
This table I included to just highlight the amount of funding that we're looking at. So if we were to increase our sales tax by a quarter percent, it would generate 3.77 and then onward each quarter up to 15.1. For each quarter increase above 7.75%, we would generate an additional 3.77 million. So you can see if we increased our sales tax by a percentage, we'd be bringing in double that 15.1 million to close to 30.2 million would be the estimated sales tax that we would bring in.
Moving on to tax measure options two and three. So these options are special sales tax, and the reason they're called special is they are for a very specific purpose. I noticed—I apologize for the typo on there—they can only be used for a dedicated purpose They require, they also require at least the sales tax requires a four-fifths vote of the board to place on the ballot. But these tax measures must be approved by two thirds of the voters so more than 66% of our voting public would have to approve These measures for the parcel tax that requires a three-fifths vote of the board to place on the ballot. That's how it differs But it also must be approved by two thirds of the voters and again can only be used for that dedicated purpose of library So you would typically have a specific expenditure plan that would list out exactly what you're gonna Be doing with that money related to libraries Just to set a little bit of context for library funding, local governments are the primary funders of California libraries since the early 2010s.
Your board has provided discretionary general fund dollars to support a regional system across the whole county. But despite that, local libraries have faced chronic budget shortfalls for over a decade. And so the county's library ad hoc committee was created and formed to address these persistent budget challenges and we have representation on that committee from the county as well as the cities.
The countywide library system is a really complex partnership between the cities and the counties related to the funding. The cities of Santa Maria, Santa Barbara, Lompoc, Goleta and Carpinteria those we refer to as managing cities they each have municipal libraries that are funded and governed by their city councils And then the county contributes funding to these libraries, but also and then contracts with four of the five managing cities to manage libraries in the cities of Guadalupe, Buellton-Solvang and in the unincorporated communities of Orkut, Los Alamos, the Vandenberg Village, Cuyama and Montecito.
So this is going to be a little hard to read, but the purpose of this table and it is included in the board letter is just to show The total city and county contribution to each of the library branches for the current fiscal year. In addition, in the City of Goleta and the unincorporated Eastern Goleta Valley referred to as County Service Area CSA 3, they passed a measure and residents in those areas pay a tax for library roads and parks so that's that far column there.
But ultimately, this table is meant to show in simple terms the funding picture for libraries. I think it's pretty oversimplified of a very complex funding picture but ultimately the total funding going to libraries currently is around $14.7 million with the cities contributing roughly two-thirds, the county contributing a little more than a third and then some coming from the CSA3.
So speaking about a county-wide sales tax and or parcel tax for libraries, we just wanted to give you a sense of some revenue estimates. When the Library Ad Hoc Committee was looking at ways to generate funding and how much might be needed they were aiming for approximately 50% more so around eight million dollars was the goal when they were looking at all the needs related to libraries For programming and infrastructure.
So on the left, the table there is what an eighth cent. sales tax could generate in each of those areas. All of the unincorporated, the eight unincorporated city as well as the unincorporated county and then the second column would be the new tax rate in each of those jurisdictions so it would range from 7.875 for the county and Buellton all the way up to 9.125% in Carpinteria Something to note here is our jurisdictions are maxed out at 9.25%. That's the maximum sales tax rate that we can have without any further legislation at the state level.
And then the second table on the right there is a demonstration of what might be generated from a parcel tax. And so again, when we're aiming at that $8 million like the Library Ad Hoc Committee came up with a $60 per parcel number and you can see how that's distributed throughout the jurisdictions by the number of parcels and we got these numbers those are 2022 numbers haven't hasn't changed dramatically for 2023.
But that equates to about seven eight million dollars. OK so moving on to the process and timeline So we included in your board letter this chart as well, but hopefully you can see it here up on the screen. Back in the spring, we received some conceptual direction to proceed from from the board where look, we've developed some really high level tax proposals today. The red circle indicates where we are today. We just wanted to get your direction and confirm moving forward with the with the polling We plan to conduct public opinion polling, and then we would come back and refine tax proposals and draft an ordinance in the early part of 2024. And I'll get into the specifics of the timeline on the next slide.
We would introduce a new tax ordinance, adopt a new tax ordinance, provide public information and education that would go along with Trying to get something like this passed and then the election. And we're looking at the title of next slide is going to show you a timeline, and it's based on going to the ballot in November of 2024 so. I asterisked the items here that are board decision points in action. So again, today is October 10th we're looking for your direction on the proposed tax and then in November we propose to conduct the public opinion polling In December, that item is italicized. We have a couple items that are italicized and those indicate external coordination with cities and the Library Ad Hoc Committee.
We will we need to work closely with the cities on anything that we want to move forward with that would be countywide. We come back in January to refine the tax proposal and draft ordinance As needed and then January through April we'd be coordinating with city staff and councils on a countywide tax measure proposal. Introduce a new tax ordinance on May 7th is our goal, and then May 21st would be. We'd be looking for adoption and then.
We would work through the summer and early fall to provide public information education, and then the election is on November 7th of 2024. So we have retained a polling firm based on your earlier direction. We've started working with Fairbank, Maslin, Mullen, Metz and Associates Research, FM3 they refer to. And so we want to conduct survey research to examine voter attitudes toward various funding measures.
We would be pulling for the general sales tax with likely voters in the unincorporated county And that would indicate interest in paying an additional sales tax up to 1% and for which purposes. So we would use language related to, and again, we listed some examples. Purposes can be for anything the county funds including libraries and we mentioned the flood control but we also have on there public safety addressing homelessness climate change initiatives veteran services road maintenance and capital improvements economic development parks and trails so The whole the whole gamut and then polling for a special sales tax or parcel tax for libraries specifically with likely voters countywide will indicate the interest in paying various rates of additional sales tax up to 1 8th.
And actually, that's a little bit of a misnomer because it's we can only go in one eighth increment so and I don't we aren't planning to pull for anything higher than that. So we're looking at one eighth percent and then a flat parcel tax up And I did want to mention we did, the Community Services Department did reach out to the cities and about polling efforts. And each of the eight cities is contributing to that effort in order to also have access to that information. So we'll be able to disaggregate the information by city so that they can get some insight into what their residents are thinking but also they're very interested in funding libraries Or to see if their residents are interested in funding libraries in this way.
So our recommendations today are to receive an update on the efforts to develop a tax measure should be placed on our November 2024 general election ballot and then direct us to conduct the polling move forward with the polling next month for the potential sales taxes that we discussed them special for libraries countywide, a special tax parcel tax for libraries countywide or a general Sales tax in the unincorporated county and then provide other direction as appropriate.
And then we have our CEQA recommendation. And that is all I have today, and I'm happy to take questions.
7:33 – 7:4216 turns
Questions from the board? Supervisor Lavanya.
Thank you. So I know we're going out in polling. So what happens, I guess this is well let's start with this question when we poll generally when we pull we do polling for campaigns you're looking how to kind of What your message is going to be and what's important to people. But if I'm not mistaken, at some point once we get that information back the county will not be able to advocate correct?
Right. That's
correct.
So in that polling because there's gonna be some firm opposition I would imagine from taxpayer groups and folks so I just want it's interesting. Why'd you
look at me?
Hey, there'd be a sales tax on the ballot if it wasn't for me. So okay so unfortunately or fortunately which one way you look at it I mean for me I'm okay with doing the polling because I think it's gonna open everybody's eyes right like we're all either gonna know cuz right now we think some of us think yes It's a good idea as some of us think it is a bad idea this way We're gonna find out if people are have the appetite for it or not So what happens if we poll?
And it shows there is no appetite for it. What are we prepared to do at that point? I mean, when's the decision point when we say or is there a certain percentage where we're saying well we think with enough education and change some people's minds what are we going to do? At one point do we say okay this isn't gonna work or this isn't gonna work
Thank you, Supervisor Lavinio through the chair. In that process timeline we would be coming back to the board with a comprehensive polling results in early 2024 and at that time we would give you sort of the truth right about what and some of staff's recommendations related to what we're seeing in the polling as well as FM3 I mean that's part of why we hire a polling firm is not just to put the questionnaire together and to perform the poll, but also give us their read and breakdown on what's... Awesome.
That's what I was looking for because they did look at this organization and obviously they've done a million of these and this is right up their alley so I trust what I'm going to get back from them. So I just wanted to make sure that that was part of the contract is it we're not just gonna get a bunch of top lines and tell us 43% of people said this. It's like what does that actually mean? Because we're all gonna interpret it differently so okay perfect thank you Supervisor
Nielsen.
Yes, thank you chair Williams a point of clarification I'm trying to understand that 1 8th percentage deal so you're saying there's already a maximum sales tax that can be done in a municipal area without special legislation and Because carpentry is already at 9. Is that what's holding us back from going higher? I'm trying to understand What that court with that eighth?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair The eighth is based on generating somewhere between seven and eight million dollars, which is what? My understanding is which the library ad hoc committee felt like was the right amount of funding To be asking for in order to do to maintain what they're doing but actually do more for libraries, right? increase programming have extra hours fix things that have been deferred For a long time or build new things And so it was really based on the we kind of backed into the eighth based on the amount It's true that Currently all jurisdictions. We could go up to a quarter We would be We would need to work with the cities on this, right? Because we don't know all their intentions for how they want to increase their sales tax.
And it would be, you know, we'd be maxing at least one jurisdiction out and potentially others if they're looking at other sales tax measures.
That's important to help me because Many of the services in the slide on what we talked about the tax measure would go to would be general County programs, right? These would be things that would go to the serve Everybody in the county not specifically unincorporated residents. That's what we're looking at these revenues for those efforts At least that's what I took from the slide. Is that correct?
Supervisor yes and people general purposes
Right, and I think that's. You know, if you were going to go down this route which I'm not necessarily in favor of. It would make more sense that if we're providing general county services that we tax the general County for those services, not just people who are fortunate or unfortunate enough to live in uncorporated areas. So yeah, that's just I guess maybe just feedback going into this process it's think we do that already a lot with our undercover residents that we pay for things that are outside of those areas and I don't know A full service city for the undercorporate areas. That's one of the reasons why we were able to say that we don't provide as much services because you're not taxed the same way, but now we're going to tax them the same way as cities do.
But then they would continue to not see the same type of city programs. I think we already don't do enough in the undercorporate areas for the amount of taxes that they currently pay And this concerns me that that chasm would get even bigger. Because we're already thinking these are going to go for other programs that might not directly touch those residents and I just want to, you know maybe you might want to put it in your polling to look at that because I think that's going to be an impediment for unincorporated residents if they see this is just a tax to serve the entire county. I know it's a big block of residents that are my constituents that are not going to support that they already have this bias that they believe that revenue that's generated here is moved other workplaces in their County.
I think it's partly because they you know most of our unincorporated residents only have one representative and make so they don't get that you know necessarily aren't confident that decisions That are made based on the revenue that's created for their areas or spent, you know, on their district where city council they get to all five of them decide how to spend that in their jurisdiction. And so there's a little I guess maybe lack of trust that some unincorporated residents typically have with the county because they don't feel like they have full representation multiple representatives. So those are my concerns as we move forward the other concern I just want to reach out there with lots of libraries is libraries are evolving and they're different in every community and I'm concerned about a sales tax and maybe a JPA that might come after that to manage that because you know what Quay Island might need might be different than what Orchid might need, might be different than what Santa Barbara might need in the future as libraries evolve and I'm just not sure how that's going to work out.
You know, some of these are buildings that are owned by the county. Some of these are owned by cities. Some of them are rented and there just seems to be a lot of inequities out there and if we were gonna actually have a library district in a single funding source, that'd be something I'd be more sympathetic to but it's a hodgepodge now and you're gonna add another layer It doesn't quite make sense to me. Then moving forward with the parcel tax piece, I'm very interested in that fee study that moves forward.
For flood control that is. I know you guys are looking at Montecito. I think it should be something to look at countywide. We're seeing flooding issues all throughout the county and I think hardening those assets are really important. And I guess the last question I had or comment had to go back to the parcel tax that we looked at for libraries So with the proposal to be taxing even like agricultural land for libraries, I saw the 50,000 parcels.
Is that what would be?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair. My understanding is we would be required to tax every parcel equally and that's part of the that's there's precedent for that. And so yes, the short answer is yes.
So I support parcel taxes when they're things that are going to affect all the parcels you know and bring value there. You know it seems odd to me that you know that we would use a parcel tax to fund urban services And so that's something again, that would be a heartburn for me personally. So thank you
7:42 – 7:485 turns
Well, I just want to address a couple of those points. My question was first of all the same as Bob's which is why only an eighth? And you answered it but I guess I think that if it's going to have opposition anyway then it probably should be a fourth. Because for voters purposes, an eighth is very small. So I wouldn't say go big or go home, it'd be more like go medium instead of go tiny or go home.
If it's going to have opposition anyway there's no purpose in doing an eighth and so I think we should probably test that along with the... I don't mind testing both eighth and fourth, but they may have a good suggestion of how to do both. Because we do already spend that amount and I can tell you library this... I've been spending a lot of time in the last Seven years patching together our libraries and we are spending more than we were seven years ago. And we don't really, we only have slight increases of service. We have more individual autonomy for each one at the libraries.
So what that more money has bought is individual autonomy. It has not bought a revolutionary difference in service, and so if people want to have services at a certain level, and we did have a very extensive stakeholder process about what is minimum service levels in the library systems that are And compared it to other library systems in the state. My guess is this whole thing collapses as soon as we ever have a revenue shortfall, right?
Because this has been built upon the county paying more. Those stats are somewhat misleading about city-county share because the friends portion is rolled up in the city, and those stats. So some of those cities would go through a financial problem at the same time that we would. And then this falls apart. So I hope that we will consider doing stuff on libraries.
The reason why I feel strongly about general sales tax, though we might not get there because of support here or in polling. We'll see about pulling is because the bigger even biggest need On top of libraries is public safety. Our funding model for our public safety needs is not adequate. And that's going to create real problems and is the biggest, I think fiscal threat to the health of the county.
If we're going to have enough police officers and attract and retain those officers, we're going to need to do something different in the funding model. So Supervisor Hartman?
I just had a question about the general sales tax, trying to hear Supervisor Nelson. Could it be limited? It's general but to the urban services, I mean public safety parks roads.
So Supervisors, I believe the answer is if you limit it too much it could become a special tax. And so that's the question how much you limit it to? When we say it's a general purposes tax that's just because of what the law says about voter approval but obviously your board always has discretion like you do now on General Fund and how you want to spend that money but if you portray to the voters you want it on certain types of things I think we start getting into the territory of a special tax
So I mean, I would be interested if there's any way to thread that needle that the money generated would be for urban services for unincorporated areas. Library is a bit of an outlier because the county pays the city libraries to provide services for unincorporated so we could gather that up there. So I guess my question is can we thread a needle?
I think we can work with FM3 and ask them in the way they asked questions to see what we can get back from polling. I think that would be helpful, but just so that Brittany has clear information you're saying if there's a way to look at the polling such as urban services for unincorporated areas? Okay. And we can work with them more closely on how we define that in the questions.
7:48 – 7:5610 turns
Supervisor Caps.
Thank you I just have a couple questions related to timing as we all know timing is a big consideration when it comes to ballot measures and if you could put the slide back up please of the different cities and where they're at with their sales tax, I'm just curious well starting with our county how long have we been at 8.75? Maybe you said that already. I'm sorry 7.75 excuse me
Thank you. Supervisor Caps through the chair, we're at 7.75 and we the last time that tax rate change was when Measure A passed in 2010.
2010 okay I mean
so before that
we were
at seven and a quarter
And I don't expect you to know about the cities, but I just think it's important if we're going back to the voters with increases how what the sequence of that is. You know and how much? I think that could be part of this research with this firm is to make sure that this isn't something that's been on their ballot. We certainly did that with bond measures in school district. You don't want to keep going back to the trough right so but certainly 2010. It's been a long time. I would say and so with that Kind of related to the timing question, I just wanted to ask our CEO. My office reached out to you about this yesterday because to me it seems as though we're only even entertaining spending 80,000 whatever it is for polling because We feel as though we're at a stage where we're spending really efficiently And I would just hope, as someone new that you could speak to how we're spending officially and also like where's the last time we talked about our budget was $27 million surplus.
Where are we with that? Because again, I would only feel comfortable going to the voters To increase if we felt as though we are spending their taxpayer money very efficiently and that our surplus is not at maximum level, but yet that's been spent down to where we feel as though this is necessary.
Supervisors through the chair I'm going to have Nancy respond to that because we did prepare some information in case you or the rest of the board wanted to see it. But in general since the Great Recession the county because We didn't have The way we funded the plan was we take general fund away from other purposes and we've had a solid plan to do that so that we have enough funding. But because of that, we have been focusing on being more efficient with our staff time and our resources because we didn't have a lot of new revenue. So Ms. Anderson?
Yeah, thank you Supervisor Camps for that question. So we did prepare a few slides because this is a question that generally comes up relative to this topic so over the past five years the board has made a concerted effort towards efficiencies and cost savings that have helped with both budget development and budget balancing One of the biggest efforts that's well known throughout the county now is obviously renew 22 and one of the Big what we call big picture goals that the departments are all responsible for in their budget included a their Requirement to indicate how they will save or achieve 1% of their budget now Over on an annual basis, this operating target that we're looking for is about 10 million a year. So over the past five years with Renew 22 that totaled up to about $50 million and they did this in a multitude of ways.
They identified grant revenue That was a significant amount for several of the departments. Cost avoidance, they identified efficiency projects where they identified savings of staff time. So we gave them flexibility and able to do that but then they identified it through their budget process. Additionally as part of the renew effort, we had KPMG. They have been looking over and are coming to the near end Work with us, but they've done over will have done over about 20 Reviews for departments in and in other areas And some of those opportunities that they identified within the departments were are being captured within the renewed twenty to one percent savings and cost efficiencies In addition, out of Renew22 also came InnovateSBC. These are smaller projects that line staff are identifying and then quantifying and putting out on our website projects that have achieved either staff time savings, customer time savings in doing something either online or generally done within their work process.
And we've captured about 1.7 to date. It's 1. 7 million recorded in those savings Additionally one of the things that the board has done in the past six years and back in 2018-19 initiated a labor negotiation for pension cost sharing mostly with the legacy employees And that has generated about $7 million a year. So over the six-year period, about $30 million in savings for the county. So we're always proactively trying to identify ways that can be achieved. We are struggling as you've seen in the budget with all the cost increases and so I'll show you the next slide.
Where you'd asked about the 27.2 million dollars that we closed with this is of course one time funding and is a great carryover in opportunity for the county to have And it and the timing is excellent because we've had a lot of things that That is now being used towards so of that 27.2 million we your board has approved the Guadalupe River project of about 4.5 million.
We have, we have known that we've got 2023 disaster recovery costs coming out of public works. In CSD that was initially 14 million. It's up now another 9.4 So we're at about 25 million dollars worth of Recovery costs that are having to be used for that purpose. That'll be coming to your board next week We have some the Toro Canyon oil separator projects Kyrie al security contracts those types of things so now that remaining balance is about 10.9 million So other things that we're continuing to look at. We've got the northern branch jail pods, new construction projects costs sometimes the estimates that they've received are now increasing it's just the cost of doing business where Looking at implementing countywide plans, which is the Climate Action Plan and Parks Master Plan that will have significant project opportunity there.
We do know that we've got the debt-funded projects coming out of the COPs that requires cash flow. We've gotta front that cash for that. We've been talking about the ISD penalty assessment And our large financial payroll and human capital project of Workday has some more implementation costs, although we've been planning for that strategically. And then just future emergency costs, we're hearing about El Nino and other things, and it's just something that we continually have to prep for.
7:56 – 8:0115 turns
Thanks for this information. I hope we can get the slides because again, I just feel I know we look through the lens of cost savings when we go through budget requests here and I just think it's paramount that if we're even entertaining and polling and talking about increasing revenue that we talk about what we're doing to spend it wisely so thank you.
Let's go to public comment
Chair Williams and members of the board, we have one request to speak for this item. Chuck Williams?
Thank you. I am Chuck Williams and I'm a resident of Old Town Orchid and I'm here today representing myself as well as part of this for New California State which you guys will be enjoying here hopefully in the very near future. I'm going to leave out a lot of stuff that I have, partly about the jail. I'm going to leave part of the stuff off this that I wanted to talk about because it's been pretty well covered.
But you all spent $80,000 of our tax dollars to hire a consultant to study the population to see if y'all can afford...if y'all can raise our taxes Not just sales taxes, but property taxes. Taxes and want to put this on the ballot. Sales tax I am not a fan of. New California State is not a fan of. Property tax increases, New California State is not a fan of.
My property taxes right now are outrageous and you wanna raise them more. Responsible people may be guided by their tax person, accountant or financial advisor. Others do their own surveys looking at money in and money out and cut where it is necessary to get something special they need. Why can't highly paid county financial accountants and treasurer employees making two to $300,000 annually figure this out?
Do you really care about your taxpayers? If so, hire a consultant to help those on fixed incomes figure out how to increase their income every time you stick your hands in their pockets. Taxpayers know how to cut carelessness and waste. You have a long-range planning department making big bucks. Why don't you use them for this? Why don't you use long-range planning instead of hiring an $80,000 consultant to try to raise our taxes? And another question that I have is how much money a year does this county get from grant money for Agenda 21?
Do you even know what Agenda 21 is? Do any of you? No.
Our protocols do not allow for just
back and forth. That's fair. I'm assuming that you don't know, so you should probably look it up. I know at least one person here on this panel does. We're in Agenda 30 right now and our country is suffering because of all of this stuff that you guys get grant money for. Thank you.
To the board? That concludes public comment, correct? To the board, Supervisor Lavigna.
I just didn't know if there was going to be a discussion or are we just ready to make a motion? I've got one more
question.
Okay.
Actually two more questions. Will you be pulling this public information I assume at that point since it won't be protected information?
No it's not protected. It's public information.
Just curious and the other question I had was, and I might be just a little ignorant here, I know that there's some movement on ACA 1 and ACA 13 how would this potentially impact that or is that separate?
Thank you Supervisor Nelson through the chair ACA 1 did receive enough votes at the state legislature level to go on the ballot. It will be on the ballot in November 2024 and that would, it's asking the voters to lower the threshold for special taxes and bond measures for public infrastructure specifically So when we're talking about libraries, they are mentioned in the language of the bill but only related to the actual infrastructure library so it wouldn't cover programming and it's on the ballot November. So if we were to look at this at the same time I believe that It wouldn't cover the ballot measures that are on the ballot at the same time, right? It would have to become effective. And so it lowers the threshold to 55%, right?
So if that were to pass we could consider holding off and going forward but again it's just for infrastructure.
Just curious about that thank you
8:01 – 8:1010 turns
Other thoughts Supervisor Labnino.
Thank you, well for me it's really strange because as Supervisor Kapp said let's look at what's our strategic reserve and how are we doing? We want to do it when we're It just doesn't seem like there is ever a good time to meet because finances are stable, revenue is just keeping pace right now But so I'm always like, well if you don't need it, it's not the time to ask. But then we go into a crisis then people are like well this isn't the time for that. So I feel like right now people, I think this poll, I'm not going to support it but I think this poll will show that people feel like inflation right now is that extra added tax on them.
It's interesting because I'm sure there's pockets of this community, of this county where people look at it like well it's just another dollar or it's just another two dollars. It's no big deal and that's true for the most part but there are other pockets of our community in our county that over a week that adds up to something for them and it's meaningful so it'll be interesting.
I've resisted the sales tax. I just feel like maybe, maybe I'm in a cocoon or something but just the people I talked to, I went on a radio show and when I brought this up The host said, you're actually going to spend money to find out if people want to pay more taxes. And I was like well yeah that's the gist of this which in this neck of the woods is pretty much a no brainer so.
I'm okay with the person we're using. I don't think that there's anything nefarious in this. I think for almost $80,000 it's a good use to really get everybody on the same page and we're all talking about the same thing so that we are all looking at the same numbers. I would be shocked if it comes back with anything else than what I'm expecting, but I've been shocked before. So I won't be able to support it.
And I'm not going to say that we aren't looking at things like this of increasing revenue in other ways because I think we are today was a really good example. That's why I wanted to highlight it off the agenda of what we're doing at Kachuma. You know where we are improving services, and at the same time we're going to be able to increase revenue of people going in visiting our local parks. So I'd like to see more of those.
And I know our CEO's office is looking everywhere to make those things happen. You know Mona and I have gone back and forth on this issue many times because Mona says well, I say you know I'd like to increase revenue and she says so would I here's the options. They bring them to the board and we're like, nope. No more of this, no more that, no more that, no more that, no more that.
So it makes it really difficult but I do appreciate the fact that we all have learned that we can only spend what we do have. That's made things much easier and much better and we are much better prepared for the future but I won't be able to support this, sorry.
Supervisor Kaps?
Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I'm supportive of seeing where people are. I think going back to the beginning of this meeting about nearly eight hours ago when we honored the employee of the month whose job it is to monitor rainflow. I think that and that's the most popular website that we have. I just think that's an indicator of how people do really connect with their county especially given The storms and the crazy weather that we've had in the role of emergency services. Whenever I try to remind people our job as a county is to keep people safe, and I just think it'd be interesting to see how that has actually translated into their financial investment and understanding the value. And that's why you do polling but I do think this time is interesting and it's helpful information sales tax since 2010, 13 years ago which is quite a long time.
So I'm definitely supportive of polling and seeing where we are but my hunch is that people are now more connected to their government unfortunately because of the emergencies that we've all gone through together collectively and so we'll see but I am fully supportive and appreciate the work that's gone in
Supervisor
Hartman. Well, I'm supportive of the poll as well. I think it'll provide us useful information whether we go forward with a tax proposal or not just to know what the community priorities are so I'm supportive
And Supervisor Nielsen.
Yes, I think it'd be remiss not to make the case that I always believe that the best place to raise revenue is to create more business opportunities and be more friendly county towards those levels of development. You know unfortunately even our decision in D1 will educate other businesses on their investments here and so I would like to see us be looking at that further additional revenue even though that this sales tax by percentage hasn't gone up since 2010 our revenues have gone up because there has been growth And that's where I want to see us raise revenues, is through growth of the county. And that's really important for our constituents because these are creating businesses and job opportunities so that people can live here because one of the problems with our housing issues is it's so expensive And we don't have the jobs to support that.
So, we really need to be promoting that high-paying jobs and opportunities in our county so that companies can invest in our county and their employees instead of some of the regulatory burdens that we often put on them and some of the risks they have to engage in. I know it comes with no surprise that I can't support this but I'm going to be very curious what it says.
Well, I would just say that we're damaging our business opportunities by being fiscally constrained to the extent that we are. We just waited What, six years to do STRs in the ag zone because we didn't have enough money to spend on an additional long range planning team. And all the revenue that we could've had for six years of allowing people Farmstays, and so I just think that there are definite moves. And we wanted to do this Kachuma thing for years and years and years.
And yet we didn't, even though we knew it would make more money than it cost because we didn't have enough money to do anything with. So I just, the We do know that we have some fiscal dangers and we have fiscal opportunities and The former, and we're taking a long time to get to the latter because we don't have enough resources to make those investments. And so I think at least we should see if the voters are willing to make some of those investments.
You know, I hope that folks will keep an open mind at least to the general sales tax because it could be such a game-changer for public safety. Can I get a motion?
And Supervisors when you make the motion I just wanted to clarify or just make sure we're adding what Supervisor Hartman said about directing us to look at those urban services for unincorporated as part of the polling and what Supervisor Williams said which was our Chair Williams When we poll for libraries, we're looking at the 1% increase in sales tax but also up to a quarter percent.
8:10 – 8:105 turns
Is there a motion?
So I would move staff recommendation with those two additions.
Is there a second?
Second.
All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Looks like it's 3-2 So we will be adjourned to Tuesday, October 17th right here in Santa Maria.