Second Meeting for Montecito Flood Control Master Plan

In its second of three scheduled meetings with the residents and business owners in Montecito, the Santa Barbara County Flood Control (SBCFC) Project Team for the Montecito Flood Control Master Plan laid out their various plans to control debris and for flood management at Cold Spring School auditorium on Wednesday, November 29 from 5:30 – 7 pm. 

The SBCFC team present were Tom Fayram, retired SBC Deputy Public Works Director drought and flood plain specialist; Matt Griffin,Water Resources Deputy Director; Walter Rubalcava, Deputy Director Water Resources; and Linda Potter, engineer Certified Flood Plain Management. Also speaking wasFirst District Supervisor Das Williams. 

Attendees included reps from Montecito Fire Protection District and Montecito Water District; Donna Senauer, Montecito Planning Commission; Chris Sneddon,Deputy Director, Transportation Santa Barbara County; Pat McElroy,Executive Director of The Project for Resilient Communities; Wendy Motta representing the office of Congressman Salud Carbajal CA 24th District; Jordan Sweeney,General Manager of Birnam Wood Golf Club; Harry Rabin;Cold Spring School Superintendent and Principal Amy Alzina; Bob Hazard with his wife Victoria; and approximately 20 residents.

Williams opened the meeting by saying, “It is pleasing that you are here. The Master Plan requires community input; we need to hear from you. We believe it is possible to achieve 100-year flood control, to create a better flood control capacity, underground water conveyance, sediment basins, and clean out existing debris basins. The Master Plan is to have the best plan the community allows within the financial means. If you are worried about flooding from rains, watch the cameras during a storm, we want to be transparent to you.”

Griffin went over the slide presentation that outlined the Project Goals, Schedule, Challenges, Improvement Alternative, and Next Steps. The goals outlined were: 

Prepare a coordinated master plan for flood control and debris control, which they emphasized are two different systems; seek public input and implement it; facilitate grants; have a long-term plan; and have alternatives for a 100-year (1% annual chance) event floodplain reduced. 

The implementation date is TBD, as the Master Plan will be completed in April 2024. Challenges to the project include public vs. private property, cost, bridge replacements, environmental issues, access to debris basins, and creeks and the disposal of the debris. The improvement alternatives being considered are channels, underground drains, basins, sediment and debris control, bank stabilization, open space/flood corridors, roads and access and cleaning and maintenance. They showed an area map marked for areas to address. 

Questions From the Audience

Sweeney asked about debris control, the removal of the nets from the Buena Vista creek area, removal of the debris there, and the large expense Birnam Wood Golf Club has endured. 

Rubalcavareplied, “It’s my understanding that the Buena Vista creek nets were actually cleared, right? It was San Ysidro that actually had material in it. We have photos of that. Is that correct, Pat? [McElroy replied, ‘Yes, I don’t want this to be about the nets.’] This is not a nets versus debris basins. The SBC Flood District was supportive of the nets, we worked closely with Pat and his group through the whole process, and we had those there during the burned watershed period, and the watershed is cleared. They had their place, they provided a benefit. There was a permitting issue with the nets so it’s not cut and dry. County take it over – we have them.”

Sweeney retorted,“To clarify, we hiked up there and there are large boulders [of] about seven feet, trees, and other debris, so I wouldn’t say there isn’t debris there.” 

Williams said, “First of all, we did not take them down, I personally would like a Buena Vista net in place until the debris basin gets built. We made an offer, the partnership did not like that offer because it did not include all of the nets. But we are particularly interested in Buena Vista, and we still are in some dialog. I’d love to have one of those nets back because getting it permitted from the county standpoint is a little bit easier than what they had to go through – because we don’t have to issue a permit to ourselves. The challenge would be Fish and Wildlife, and the challenge would be whether it is an opportunity through an emergency permit or whether we would have to go through the normal process – which is a pain as Pat will tell you.”

They moved to other questions from the residents which included timely notifications of all plans – not just at a public meeting after the fact; the expense of the home owners to do remedial work on their properties; residents each doing their own work and having no guidance on efficacy for the whole plan; the massive permitting processes the residents have to go through to do the work on their properties; SBCFC informing the insurance companies of the remedial work to reduce the insurance rates of the property owners; and what the status of the 101 sound walls are.

Rubalcava said that the team is willing to review any of the residents’ contractors’ plans and provide feedback. Williams agreed the team will review the plans and provide commentary regarding if the plan will work without hurting neighbors, and for SBC to set up funding for an ombudsman to interface with residents countywide who are planning to do their own improvements. 

Griffin stated the obvious, “The reality is, it is going to take a long time for some of these projects to be implemented. So, if private property owners want to do work before that, we are happy to look at the plans.” 

Regarding insurance, Potter said: “FEMA is rating flood insurance rates differently now – it’s based on the distance from the flooding area. So when we submit the re-mapping after the work is done showing the control areas, rates should go down.”

Regarding the 101 freeway sound walls, Griffin stated: “Potentially there’s a solution that if all the improvements are built to a 100-year capacity, the flood plain will reduce and that might allow for feasible construction of the sound walls.”

The general Q&A was stopped, and the Project Team formed four breakout rooms in the auditorium for more one-on-one questions.

I reached out to Rubalcava with questions from the Montecito Journal editorial staff:

MJ: We want to know about the County’s plans now that the nets have been removed – how are they going to mitigate for future debris flows? Is there a chance the nets get put back up? Why did they not support continuing the nets program?

Walter Rubalcava: So the nets are out, and they are in New Mexico. The challenge: even if we did get them back, it would be extremely challenging to permit them – right? What’s important to know, and this isn’t a competition of debris basin versus net, but just as an example, the Randall Road Debris Basin, excavated out 90,000 cubic yards, the nets have a capacity of about 1,000 cubic yards. For us to remove the material it’s $25 to $50 per cubic yard, to not remove the material from the nets but to spread it – costs $1,200 a cubic yard. So as Supervisor Williams was mentioning, for us to put our resources to just clear the nets would wipe out our funds to do the Master Plan, would limit our opportunity to do debris basins.

We did try to negotiate with the group to see if we could come up with a compromise to help maintain some or all of the nets, there was a discussion about just the Buena Vista debris nets, and we just couldn’t come up with a compromise.

The challenges the County has beyond the finances [for the nets] are there’s no legal access to them, they’re on private property, there are no roads to them, the only access is by helicopter, and as you saw with the Randall Road Project last year, we were able to remove 15,000 cubic yards in 11 days working 24/7. The material behind the nets – it was very challenging. They had to hire a helicopter company to bring in the equipment to spread the material and they couldn’t even eliminate it because it’s a very challenging thing. With that said, while the watershed was burned, there was no one at SBC Flood Control who said it didn’t have value to it. But the watershed is now recovered, and we think that our resources right now are better focused on building debris basins and implementing this master plan. The debris basin has to factor in access, how quickly we can remove it, and cost to remove it. So, if you factor that into the nets, we don’t have access to it, we can’t clear it quickly, and it’s extremely expensive. So that’s why our focus is on the basins and master plan, it’s not because the debris nets are a bad idea.

Is there an interim safety net – so to speak – between now (since the nets are gone) and when the master plan will be completed?

We had interest in maintaining one or two of the nets on Buena Vista, but when that was communicated, they had already taken them out. Even if we were to maintain them, it is not a very high likelihood that the Department of Fish and Wildlife would say okay.

TPRC you don’t have to do it now but County you do. I don’t think the Department of Fish and Wildlife has shown any indication that it would be easy for us to permit or even keep them.

So there is no plan for debris flow?

The watershed has recovered.

Rubalcava went on to a breakout room, as meeting attendees were talking with other project team members. Many residents left. See the 411 for additional contact info to direct questions to the Project Team.

411: www.countyofsb.org/3824/Montecito-Flood-Control-Master-Plan
Phone: speak with a project membe at 805-568-3440 
Email: fccontact@countyofsb.orG