Board of Supervisors

Socially Equitable Cannabis Program

• The board addressed public concerns regarding environmental impacts, health risks, and the placement of facilities in unincorporated areas.
• Supervisors noted that second readings of ordinances typically proceed to the consent agenda as standard practice.
• The board voted to approve the ordinance, with two supervisors voting against the measure.

York Drive Senior Living Appeal

• Staff recommended denying the appeal to uphold the Planning Commission's approval of a 183-unit senior living community.
• Appellants argued that the proposed sewer alignment lacks sufficient engineering detail and that a viable alternative route exists.
• The Buena Sanitation District confirmed the proposed route is the most economical option and committed to minimizing construction impacts.
• The board unanimously denied the appeal and requested the sanitation district maintain communication with affected residents.

Water Authority Update

• A representative provided an update on a long-term agreement to sell excess water to the City of Burbank and other districts.
• The representative suggested including an evaluation of sludge-to-energy technologies in the Tijuana River treatment plant feasibility study.

Closed Session

• A report was provided for a closed session held on September 1, 2026.
• No reportable actions were taken during the closed session.

• Based on the provided transcript, here is the neutral, factual summary of the Board of Supervisors meeting, organized by agenda item.
• ### Consent Agenda

Item 1

• Discussion: No specific substantive discussion is recorded for this item in the provided text, other than procedural motions.
• Motion: A motion was made by Vice Chair Montgomery Stepp and seconded by Chair Pro Tem Aguirre.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously.

Item 2 (Socially Equitable Cannabis Program / Ordinance)

• Discussion:
• Public Comment: Numerous speakers addressed the board regarding this item. Opponents cited concerns about environmental impacts (odor, water usage, soil contamination), public health risks (psychosis, child poisoning, respiratory issues), traffic, and the placement of facilities in unincorporated areas. Several speakers argued that the program was placed on the consent calendar despite significant public opposition and that it did not align with land use policies or community interests. Some speakers referenced specific incidents, such as the Carpinteria cannabis farm complaints, and cited health alerts from the American Lung Association.
• Board Discussion: Supervisor Montgomery-Stepp noted that second readings of ordinances typically go to the consent agenda as a matter of practice, though she acknowledged the ability to pull items for fuller discussion. She clarified that this item had been discussed previously and was treated consistently with other ordinances.
• Procedural Note: Supervisor Desmond requested that the vote on this item be bifurcated from Item 1 to allow for separate voting.
• Motion: A motion was made by Vice Chair Montgomery Stepp and seconded by Chair Pro Tem Aguirre.
• Decision: The motion passed. Two supervisors voted "no," while all other present supervisors voted "aye."
• ### Agenda Item 3: Appeal of the York Drive Senior Living Major Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration

Project Overview (Staff Presentation)

• Staff Presentation: Sean Oberbauer of Planning & Development Services presented the appeal of the May 8, 2026, Planning Commission decision approving a major use permit for a 183-unit senior living community (62+) on a 4.27-acre site. The project includes a four-story building, amenities, and off-site sewer improvements.
• Key Issues: The appeal focuses on the off-site sewer improvements required by the Buena Sanitation District. The sewer line runs through an existing easement between residential properties along El Valle Opulento. The project involves upgrading an existing 8–10 inch sewer to an 18-inch sewer.
• Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval. Staff noted that the sewer improvements are part of the district’s master plan and would proceed regardless of this specific project. Staff stated that alternative routes were evaluated and found to be significantly more costly and impactful. Conditions of approval include a construction plan delineating limits of construction/staging and coordination with agencies like FEMA.

Public Comment

• Appellants (Affected Property Owners):
• Lauren Moss: Opposed the sewer alignment, stating it runs through her backyard and riparian habitat. She cited the presence of mature trees (black walnut, coast live oak) and wildlife (gnatcatchers). She argued that construction limits and staging areas are not yet defined, making it impossible to assess environmental impacts. She requested that the board require a full analysis of alternatives before approval.
• Kimery Wells: Represented three affected property owners. She argued the project is not sufficiently defined, as engineering surveys and construction plans are incomplete. She disputed that the existing easements authorize the increased burden of an 18-inch improvement and permanent vehicular access. She presented a specific alternative route (Santa Fe Robellini) using the district’s own GIS data, claiming it was only 65 feet longer than the proposed route but avoided residential impacts. She requested the appeal be granted to prevent committing to the current alignment before these issues are resolved.
• Fedor Moss: Highlighted that the project involves replacing a smaller pipe with a larger one, requiring excavation, shoring, and access. He noted that previous engineering information contemplated drivable access and removal of homeowner structures (retaining walls). He argued that missing details regarding equipment travel, staging, and restoration are critical and should be determined before approval.
• Steve Wells: Detailed the alternative route proposal, emphasizing that it was based on the district’s own infrastructure data. He stated the alternative was only slightly longer but avoided impacts on residential properties. He noted that the district had not provided the underlying engineering analysis for rejecting this alternative.
• Other Speakers: Several other residents expressed opposition, citing concerns about traffic, noise, odor, and the lack of transparency in the process. Some speakers raised unrelated issues regarding illegal cannabis cultivation, sexually violent predators, and county governance.
• Applicant/Supporters:
• Rod Bradley (BHA, Civil Engineer): Urged the board to deny the appeal and support the Planning Commission and staff recommendations.
• Joe Balbus (York Drive Active Senior Living Community): Stated the project was designed to care for seniors with Alzheimer’s and dementia. He requested support for the project.
• Arlene Tendick (Project Team): Described the community amenities and design modifications made in response to feedback. She reiterated that the sewer improvements are part of the district’s master plan and would occur regardless of the project. She requested the board affirm the Planning Commission’s approval.
• Steve Nowak (Buena Sanitation District, Principal Civil Engineer): Explained that the proposed alignment is the most economical and feasible option. He stated that alternative routes were evaluated and found to be 300–400% more costly or technically infeasible (e.g., trenching in major intersections). He confirmed the sewer and easement predate the current homes. He acknowledged the need for a 10-foot wide all-weather vehicular access path for maintenance and emergency response. He committed to working with neighbors to minimize impacts and negotiate any necessary additional easements for staging.

Board Discussion and Questions

• Supervisor Questions:
• A supervisor asked for clarification on whether the project is conditioned by the board or the sanitation district for the sewer improvements. Staff clarified that the improvements are required by the district’s master plan and are triggered by the project’s development.
• A supervisor asked the Buena Sanitation District representative to address neighbor concerns about construction details, such as the location of retaining walls and the extent of disruption. The representative confirmed that construction details are not yet finalized at the planning level and that the district would work with neighbors to minimize impacts and negotiate any necessary access.
• A supervisor asked if the district would need to go beyond the existing easement for construction staging. The representative stated that if additional easements are required, they would be negotiated with the property owners.
• A supervisor expressed sympathy for the neighbors and requested that the Buena Sanitation District engage with affected residents and keep them informed throughout the process.

Motion and Vote

• Motion: A motion was made to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the major use permit and mitigated negative declaration. The motion also included a request for the Buena Sanitation District to engage with affected residents and keep them notified throughout the process.
• Second: The motion was seconded by Supervisor Anderson.
• Decision: The motion passed unanimously. All supervisors present voted "aye."
• ### Other Matters
• Closed Session Report: A report was given for a closed session held on September 1, 2026, from 5:19 PM to 5:34 PM. No reportable actions were taken.
• Water Authority Update: A representative from the Water Authority provided an update on a long-term agreement to sell excess water to the City of Burbank and other districts. They also suggested that the feasibility study for the Tijuana River treatment plant include an evaluation of technologies to reuse sludge for energy generation.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned.