BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

♪ Music playing Hi, everyone. Good morning everyone and welcome to this regular meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors of September 11th, 2012. We will be commemorating 9-11 later this morning at 10 o'clock. The sheriff and the fire chief will be here and anybody else that wants to be a part of that memorial that we're going to do allow the board to make comments and we will have a moment of silence at that time.

So but right now we will go ahead and begin the first part of our meeting. Mr. Allen, would you call the roll please?

Mr. Carbajal Miss Wolfe miss gray. Mr Lavagnino miss far

here Would y'all

Thank You Madam Chair well it's my honor to Give this resolution proclaiming September 14th through the 20th, that's next week as Peace Week in the Santa Maria Valley. This is I believe the 15th year it was started in 1997 by Sister Janet Corcoran and Watching today, so I'll try not to screw this up. She is at I believe she's in Marion extended care So our thoughts and prayers go out to sister Janet This is a week that is for promoting non-violence Santa Maria like many other cities growing cities we've had our share of This is a resolution proclaiming September 14-20, 2012 as Peace Week in the Santa Maria Valley.

Marion Regional Medical Center People for Nonviolence Committee, founded in 1997 by Sister Janet Corcoran has sponsored this week-long event to promote peace and nonviolence in the Santa Maria Valley with the theme dedicated to Peace By Peace Building a Community of Peacemakers. And whereas we can create peaceful communities by focusing on how we interact with our families, our neighbors and our coworkers. We can lessen violence and separation when we work together for a common goal.

And whereas to promote peace and harmony, we must learn to respect ourselves and others. To forgive, to make amends, to change, and to ensure that we pass these values on to our younger generations as we strive to make the world safer for them. And whereas on Friday September 14th, the week begins with Peace in the Heart Day, a peace chair presentation at Mary Byrne Elementary School in Guadalupe sponsored by The Peace Chair Project and Peace Chair Artists from Los Prados Boys Camp.

And whereas Friday's events will be followed by Saturday, Message of Peace Day, Create Personal Wishes of Peace and Follow a Peace Kite in Parade at the Santa Maria Natural History Museum. Sunday, Respect for and Celebrating Cultural Diversity Day, Cultural Diversity Neighborhood Fiesta at the Boys and Girls Club of the Santa Maria Valley. On Monday, Peace Through the Eyes of Our Children Day, students will share thoughts on peace through writing and artwork projects at their schools. On Tuesday, Peacemaking Day from Bully to Peacemaker, a community effort for the whole family. On Wednesday, Respect for Mother Earth Day, community parks clean-up effort. And Thursday Peace in the Community Day and closing ceremony with a community luncheon and the presentation of the annual Peace Builder Award to an active community member.

Now therefore be it as ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara recognizes September 14 through 20, 2012 as Peace Week in the Santa Maria Valley passed and adopted today.

We have somebody in Santa Maria that wants to go ahead and speak? Go ahead.

Yes, thank you very much. I am Maggie White. I am one of the founding members of the People for Nonviolence Committee. I'm also with Santa Maria Bonita School District. This is JoLynn Lutz with the One Heart Organization and also with the People for Nonviolence Committee. We'd like to thank the supervisors for this proclamation and special designation for Peace Week. It is very important in our community and all communities to realize that we need to make a conscious effort to be peacemakers We need to do it within ourselves, within the organizations that we represent, within our communities and spread that message worldwide. And we are proud that Santa Maria has been at the forefront of trying to share that message with its residents, with the state, with the world.

That piece is important. We need to take time out of our days to consider it especially today being September 11th The best way to ensure the safety and longevity of our country is to become peacemakers. So thank you all very much, we appreciate this designation and we appreciate your time this morning.

Thank you for the work that you do. Supervisor Levin? I

just

wanted to

thank Maggie for those kind words. Great

job. Thank you very much. Thank you for being there. Alright, we will now take up the balance of our administrative agenda. Mr. Allen, do we have any changes?

Madam Chair, members of the board I have one quick note on item A-5 this is from general services. The request that the board consider recommendations regarding the San Ynez Valley Airport project number 8734 including federal aviation administration funding this is in the third district and on recommendation D The first phrase, which reads find that pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act CEQA section 15162. That phrase should be stricken from the recommendation it's not relevant to this action and we'll make sure that that's removed in the minutes.

Okay so the recommended actions are just A, B and C?

Actually D, just that one portion of D is to be stricken from that. There was a notice of exemption filed for this project and the section 15162 is not relevant to the notice of exemption.

Okay so if we were going to rewrite D does it start at no substantial changes are proposed?

That's correct.

All right, so when we approve the balance of the administrative agenda then we'll do it with that amendment as a part of it. Do we have any speakers on the A agenda?

Madam Chair, we have one request to speak on item A10. Item A10 is from Public Works. The request is that the board consider recommendations regarding an ordinance to amend the county code chapter 34B regarding domestic water systems and this is to adopt the ordinance on the second reading and we have Jeff Young to speak on that.

Okay. Madam Chair? Yes, just Mr. Clerk I think said public works and I think it's the public health. Yeah,

public

health.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Young. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. Good morning madam chair members of the board. I'm Jeff Young. I am chair of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and I wanted to clarify my opposition. It's not to the language that is in front of you I think that the language is fine as to incorporating the state's small water systems into the monitoring requirements. My opposition is to not including the private single and multi-parcel water systems into this ordinance.

My understanding from my meeting with staff, your staff last year was that there were a lot of potential old permits in this category and perhaps it was a staff resource constraint in trying to get them all together, get them into a database and do something with them. This is an important group because it probably surpasses in quantity many times The number of permits that you're going to see in the state small water systems.

Groundwater is an important resource in our Central Coast region for drinking water and other uses of water. And we really need to be protecting this resource. We have had a dearth of good monitoring data that the Water Board has discovered over the past few decades, and what we're finding is that there are many portions of our groundwater aquifers that are impacted from nitrate, from different sources but primarily from septic tanks that are not functioning properly also from ag use.

So my request to you is not to slow down the language in front of you to 34B I think that's fine but I would like the board to be engaged in a more broader, robust discussion with respect to why we shouldn't be including the private single and multi-parcel water systems into this ordinance going forward. Going forward could be all applications from here on out being included in it or going back in time and trying to get all of the permits that you have somewhere in your files brought up into a database So that is what my request is.

If the board does give staff direction to look into this, I would like to be at least involved in any kind of stakeholder process where this would get discussed and brought back to the board for some kind of decision. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Supervisor Carbajal?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Young thank you for coming this morning I know you have a busy schedule with your private life as well as your public life. Always a pleasure to be

here.

I wanted to ask you and maybe Dr. Wada traditionally throughout the state of California how many counties do we know of That incorporate the small systems. Is it some, all, none? Because I think that would be instructive in what we're trying to do here and maybe that's something that could come back to really give us perspective as to whether it's a mainstream thing to do. It's in the avant-garde. We would be the only ones because at the end of the day, I think we got an email from Dr. Wada expressing that this would be thousands And we really might be creating something that may cost a lot of money. I know when you're talking about public health, there needs to be the balance but yet you always gotta look at public health.

But I would rather that staff look into that a little bit more and come back to us because I think Dr. Wada's email was compelling. Your argument is compelling but How we fit in relation to other counties throughout the state, to better understand this issue. I'm not sure that I understand it as well as it relates to this issue and if you and Dr. Wada could answer that would be great.

Well I'll, Chair Farr, Supervisor Carbajal will give my best crack at it. I'm sure we would find if we looked at what other counties are doing, that most of them are not requiring ongoing testing of water

well

usage. These are private wells and state small systems. The reason is when these regs were set up originally, we figured if we just test once when the well was brought online should be indicative of what the future should hold. We did not anticipate that land use practices over these aquifers was going to impact groundwater aquifer's to the degree that we're now finding So, I don't think this is going too far out into the future or pushing the envelope with testing. We currently require it when a well is brought online.

It just makes sense to require additional testing into the future with some frequency just to ensure that the aquifer is still safe and not being impacted. The real challenge is once we get contamination in groundwater, it's hard to get it out. And it always becomes a lot more costly to get contamination out of an aquifer than it would be if we had taken some steps where the sources are to try and get them under control.

Supervisor Carbajal, there may be thousands. I don't really know what the true number is. I'd love to know that and to see what it would really take to try to get those into a database but separate from that going forward you're not going to have that many private single and multi-parcel applications coming to you on an annual basis so in terms of staff resources that should be minimal. I don't see why not going forward They wouldn't be folded into this regulation, this ordinance.

Thank you Mr. Young. You can go ahead and take your seat and then we'll have Dr. Waddick come forward. Dr. Waddick do you want to go ahead and speak to this?

Sure, Chair Farr, Supervisor Carbajal. When we started looking at this issue well over a year ago we actually did a benchmark study of similar counties and what they were currently doing for all their various public water systems including their small systems with one to four connections and of those benchmark counties A few required initial testing as we do, but none required ongoing testing or periodic testing beyond that initial test that's done upon construction or drilling.

Dr. Watto, but if it's required to be tested when it's first drilled that information does it come to public health and is stored in your database? So you do have a database on some individual wells at the time of their construction which you just don't have any ongoing information about those wells.

Madam Chair, that is correct. We do get those test results and so of all the probably thousands of tests that have been done upon initial construction we have I believe two or three that have come back with high levels of nitrates. And if you're granted many of these were done a long time ago. If you're looking at just the past three years, we've had one that has come back with high levels of nitrates. So it is an issue I think we share common goals with the Water Board in terms of protecting the water and protecting the public's health. And it is something that we do get some data on because of that initial test.

Okay,

I have some comments but I'll hear from the rest of the board. Supervisor Lavagnino and then Supervisor Carbajal?

Thank you Madam Chair. Well Dr. Wada, I guess it's in the email-

Why don't you go ahead and state-

I'm sorry, but just for the public's knowledge, how many illnesses have we had related to excessive nitrates in our water?

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino, we're not aware of any illnesses specific to high levels of nitrates at this

time. And then the cost of this would be borne by the homeowner. The homeowner

or owner

of the farm, correct?

All right, okay

thank

you.

Supervisor Carbajal then Supervisor Wolk.

I'm a little confused now because I think I understood Mr. Young's advocacy and if I understood it correctly he said that we already get those results so I'm just trying to understand And Mr. Young, forgive me so you might have to come up. I do understand what you said moving forward and did I understand you correctly in that we already get that data? So I'm just trying to understand what moving forward means because And what we already do, I'm not sure that I understand that.

Madam Chair, Supervisor Carbajal, we currently require an initial test upon construction of a well or drilling of the well and we get that data. I don't want to speak for Mr. Young but I believe he's recommending or suggesting that there be some type of ongoing periodic testing so either an annual testing requirement or every three years or something. To that nature so that there's ongoing monitoring besides that just initial test.

Okay, Supervisor Wolf? Go

ahead.

What I'm proposing is just the same frequency or an even more spread out frequency be applied to the private systems. And currently you have data, I'm not sure if it's all in a database because some of this goes back 20, 30, 40 years when a well was put in. I don't know if that is in a database and I'm sure it's on an application and you have the test results But it's in the going forward, it's to treat the private systems the same way that you're proposing to treat them with this ordinance language. Just identical just make it a little more broad so that for the private systems they would have to test for bacteria.

Every so many years, whatever frequency is appropriate and for nitrate every so many years. Currently what you're proposing I believe it's every three months for bacteria for the small state systems. I don't think that has to be that frequent going forward with the private systems. It could be once a year, once every couple of years and with nitrate I believe it's, is it once every five years? Once every three years. If cost is an issue, it could be every five years.

So I don't know if that Supervisor Carbajal kind of explains and Supervisor Lavagnino, I understand your concern and where you're coming from with your statement. Let me say this, if we wait until we have illness, we are waiting too long. And so we're trying to be proactive in terms of protecting a very important supply of water for this region. And so it's a very minimal expense to do some water testing, and it provides us invaluable information. So you're right. We may not find a lot of illnesses. I grant you that. But it's better that we keep it that way and try to keep ahead of the curve with proper monitoring than waiting till we have an aquifer that's contaminated And then we're trying to figure out where are we going to get the funds to pay for the cleanup and who's going to bear that cost.

Thank you.

Approximately, maybe three or four wells upon initial review had the nitrates. Is there any follow-up that your department does on those wells? Or are they just not allowed to be functioning? What happens when that finding occurs?

Sure. Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf, I may ask my technical staff but my understanding is that if it does come back with positive nitrates they are required to treat that so that is no longer a future problem.

So one thing that seems that just really jumps out at me is that certainly those wells, those private wells should be required to be monitored If nothing else, I mean that seems like we should have some requirement for that. Because what I understand about nitrates, and I think Mr. Young said that it's very difficult to remove them from a system although I would suspect that at some point early on that happens but we, it seems like we would need to have those wells certainly rechecked. Just in general on this whole issue You know we've got some, you know we've got outstanding departments in our county and Dr. Water your administration of the public health department is outstanding and I highly regard and respect what you do but when this came to the board last week I had expressed my concerns about The timing of, you know when these ordinances were sent to the water board for their review.

Even though it sounds like even from your email that there had been some contact but the final ordinance wasn't sent until late August and I think there was the testimony from last time that there may not have been time for them to look at it. I think in the future and I guess this is just a general comment especially when we get A letter from a state agency about some of the issues that we need to do to beef up some of our regulations. That before it comes back to us, that they should obviously be considered one of the stakeholders and so that we can have these discussions and things worked out before it comes to the board.

I am concerned about the private wells. You know, I voted for the ordinance last week understanding It may be an overburden for the private wells and it's not really done in other counties. Although now hearing the testimony from you today, I really do believe though that if we don't have a system for private wells across the board even for the new wells that come online that we certainly should have something in place that reviews those wells that have had problems when they first came online.

Thank you, Madam

Chair. Thank you. Supervisor Lavagnino and then we have had another request to speak from the public. Okay

thank you madam chair and Mr. Young no I totally agree with you that public health is one of those areas where we have to be proactive but at the same time we have to look at cost-benefit and I just got deluged with hundreds of emails from people that tell me, and I believe them, that they can't afford to pay a dollar or two dollars when they're visiting the beach for parking.

And so to go back to those people and tell them well now We're going to charge you $200 a year, or you say it might be every three years or five years. But I've been around government long enough to know if you're monitoring something even if we're not finding something at the three-year level then maybe we go down to a two-year level then it's a one-year level and it turns out to be an annual fee on somebody's house on their well that's costing them $200 to start in that number will continue to grow as the cost for people to go out there and do the testing increases So I just see this as a burden on a homeowner where there doesn't seem to be the correlation for what the benefit would be.

In a perfect world, where we had unlimited money, yeah, we'd like to test weekly but I just can't see in this economy going back to people on an issue where our public health director tells us that there have been no illnesses associated with this to go back and put an additional burden on folks at this present time.

Thank you. Supervisor Carpola, and then I do want to go to our other public speaker.

I tend to agree with Supervisor Lavinino but I also agree that if we get contaminated wells those should be put on a different schedule where they do have to come in for at least a cycle of what we make everybody else do to make sure that it just wasn't cured once It's being dealt with in an ongoing fashion. So I agree that that should be dealt with at the very least, that needs to be a program in place for contaminated wells.

But on the other hand, I do agree with Supervisor Lavanino.

Thank you. Can we

go to our public speakers? And I appreciate Mr. Young coming with his advocacy on this very important

issue. Let's hear from the public and then let's bring it back to the board again for more comments because I also have some comments.

We're going to go to Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria. Morning

Mr. Caldwell. Good morning and thank you for allowing me to send that slip in late, I had not planned to speak because this was a second reading and as you well know when you do a first and second reading there's issues of what I'm going to call a late hit Several of you referred to an email from Mr. Young, we don't have that email I just checked online it's not on your website so we're in the dark here was a second reading on an item and you're having a full-blown discussion on something that's not on the agenda pertaining to an email the public doesn't have There is the thing called the Brown Act, and I hate to be the one to remind you because I always wish county council would.

The fact of the matter is there were several hearings, and Dr. Wada, I agree with you Supervisor Wolfe as one of the best department heads you have. Their department worked with both from a health perspective but they also went to the ag advisory and carefully crafted this thing You know, serve everybody's interests and purposes. Nobody wants nitrate loading in their wells. Certainly nobody wants it in their drinking water well. And it's fine for us to have a hearing about this but let's notice the public.

We would like to get a copy of Mr. Young's email, we don't know if he is here as a private citizen. We don't know if he is here as a representative at the Regional Water Quality Control Board. We find it interesting that he wants to workshop with you and whoever else in developing this ordinance but when the public asks to workshop with his staff they say they can't because their quasi-judicial.

So Mr. Young needs to make up his mind as to whether or not he in this capacity is the chair of the regional board, can actually sit down with stakeholders and craft something that suits everybody's purposes and accomplishes the goal of public health or not. So we don't think you should be having this discussion. We want Young's email. We want a clarification of his ability to sit down with stakeholders and craft rules and regulations We'd like to know if he's here as a private citizen or regional board, whether they noticed that letter on their agendas. There's a lot of questions here and again we're not against public health but we are all for public notice. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Caldwell. Bring it back to the board then Supervisor Wolf, you had your light on? Okay well I just have a question for Dr. Wada if you come back to the podium. Dr. Wada we require that for septic systems that those be monitored, that you have a full database on those correct everybody who has a septic system?

Yes.

Okay, and every time a septic system is pumped that information automatically goes to your department to be added to that database correct? So that kind of varies depending on the septic system and the load and how often that happens but for an individual septic system would you say that happens no less than every five to ten years? Three to five

years.

Well, I think I said this before this item came up. I think I'm the only one up here that has both a septic system and a private well so So obviously, I look at this through the lens of a homeowner. And I think that when we bought the property, you do a property inspection or property sales and we asked specifically that the well water be tested because we wanted to make sure that it was OK and all that. Turned out everything was fine but we tested for all those things that Mr. Young talked about And I've been in the house for eight years now, thinking about doing it again. Just because I'm kind of curious and wanted to make sure because I do have a septic system and I'm in an area where we have private wells and septic systems.

So you know for right now I'm happy and I'm comfortable going forward with what we have But I do agree with other members of the board that if wells have had a history of this problem, that they need to have some more regular monitoring. You know, that there is a place to have some sort of results come through on the private wells periodically. What that is I'm not sure. I think certainly when a property is sold that might be an automatic time to do it.

It's not a big cost as far as you know other property inspections and things that you're doing. I think it's also good for The new owner to know what it is, and then that can be added to the county's database. So if somebody is interested in purchasing a property they know the last time and maybe that's something for them to know too like I might have known if I could've gone and found out that the well water had just been tested then I wouldn't have had to do it again.

And I think perhaps once a decade is probably not too often and too burdensome. So those are my thoughts, and something that we might consider going forward because I do think to have no record of what might be in well water over 30 or 40 year period is probably not where we want to be either. But I do think that every year or every three years or maybe even every five years there's I just wanted to check with County Council, because that was brought up. And when somebody brings up a Brown Act situation,

I just want to double-check where we are. Maybe we had misspoke, but it wasn't an email from Mr. Young. It was actually an email from Dr. Waddup to the board. But are we on firm ground here or where are we?

You're fine in the Brown Act. This item was noticed as a second hearing. Inherent in a second hearing is a protection that any changes your board makes would make to an ordinance in a second hearing whether it's on a D agenda or A agenda would necessarily have to return for first reading.

Madam Chair. Yes, I do council. I do think that since we've all addressed this dr Wada famous email Should it be put into the record?

It may be put in the record for historical purposes But it's not required. Okay, great

Thank You

supervisor wolf.

Thank you madam chair so if I can just kind of summarize and maybe Talk about at least three things that I heard. One is maybe amending this ordinance to reflect those water wells that have initially been shown to have nitrates and then to have a monitoring program for those wells, maybe every 3-5 years so that was one. The other two that I heard from Supervisor Farr had to do with The water wells being checked upon when there's a transfer of ownership. And then the third is maybe do it every decade.

So I guess what, because I don't know how we can move forward on those items that sounded like we had some consensus on the first one which was to you know and I think it needs to go back I think this ordinance needs to go back to Dr. Watershop, and I think after hearing what we've talked about and maybe in consultation with Mr. Young and other constituencies That you come back to us. I think we are all in agreement that we don't...

We feel that it, and I hate to even use the word onerous for the private well owners to have it done every three years. Personally if I would do If I knew that that's what was recommended, I would probably do it. So I think my recommendation would be to go back and reformulate this. One other thing I just want to state, and that goes to the fact of the good work that your department does, and that is the public outreach that you've done in the communities advising people that while it's not required of them to have their private well tested It's encouraged and to also be aware of some of the safety risks. And I think one of them is particularly to pregnant women, and so I saw that in one of your, one of the flyers that you sent out. So as a public health department, I think you are doing a great job in alerting the public to some of these potentials.

As a board, I think what we have to do is figure out what is the best regulatory means to get some of those things accomplished?

Okay, Supervisor Wolf. You know I just have to say for me even though I made those suggestions, I'm comfortable moving forward with what we have. I think that what we're talking about is giving some direction to Dr. Wada to look at the individual wells which actually is not even A10 it's A11 and And do some more stakeholder outreach and some analysis of what that means for staff time and for additional additions to the database that we have. But you know, I'm comfortable going forward with what we have now because I think that it's good. I think that it's fine. There's clearly more that we can do and perhaps should do but I think that that's kind of a separate process and I think the points that you listed are all really good and those are things they need to take back.

Supervisor Levin, you know?

Well, I agree with you Madam Chair and I'd like to put that in the form of a motion That we move forward with what we have right now. And I think there were some good things that were brought up. I'm not sure that there was consensus on all of those items, but obviously we need to be tracking the wells that had a past history. But I think Dr. Wada can leave here with direction that he's got a pretty firm grasp on what's required and what we're talking about. So I'd like to go ahead and move this forward.

And actually, I do think that the Ag Advisory Committee is a key stakeholder here. Absolutely. That would need to hear whatever additional changes because they were already part of the group that heard this and understood what was going to be coming forward to us. Supervisor Wolf?

Is there a second and then we'll just comment on the

Looks like he wants to speak. I think he has some information that may make your decision a little easier.

Sure, Chair Farr, Supervisor Wolff, for wells that have a history that tested positive the treatment that's required is not just a single point it's an ongoing treatment system that's required and we do monitor until it's brought back down to safe drinking standards or we require that they drill a new well so there are some there is some ongoing monitoring to ensure that that's not a continuing problem

And I appreciate that. What I would say, though, is that it was a problem at one point and while it's brought down to appropriate standards, that it may be worthwhile to check it again in three years to make sure that it remains so. And we're only talking, it sounds like about four or five wells. So I guess that would be my only, my suggestion to the maker of the motion to ask Dr. Wada to incorporate that. I don't imagine that the ag advisor committee or any of the stakeholders would object to that.

But if it's only four, Oh, I'm sorry. If it's only four or five wells, I don't think putting in the ordinances is the proper way to deal with it. I think the way we are dealing with and directing dark to water that I just don't think changing the ordinance at this point to handle five Wells Is the proper channel to do this and

that would be a new first reading anyway.

Go all the way back to the beginning again,

you know what? It's four or five wells now when we do ordinances there they take on on a longer period of time. You know I think it's setting policy about what's important if I'm not going to hold up moving forward with us on on that issue but I You know at some point in the future, Dr. Water when this comes back to us I do think that it should be incorporated.

And I also want to make the point once again about stakeholders. We've got an environmental community that was essentially left out of the stakeholder process and, again, the Water Board didn't get to weigh in on this and it could have eliminated or alleviated a lot of this discussion at this point. And absolutely the Ag Advisory Committee is important And they were active in this. So when we talk about stakeholders, I think it's that broad brush. You know who are the stakeholders? Certainly the people who may not be aware who have these wells on their property. They are the ultimate Stakeholders and so how do we reach them? And I think you have addressed it in some ways. Dr. Wada By doing what you're doing, but anyway, I'm not I'll go ahead and support this motion But let's not forget the issue that we have with these With these other wells, and I'm glad you're following up to the degree that you are

Thank you, and my thanks again to Mr. Young for coming and for generating I think a discussion that was really good to have. So we have a motion and a second to approve the balance of the administrative agenda. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. We're going to go to public comment.

Madam Chair, members of the board we have three requests to speak. We'll start in Santa Maria with Mr. Caldwell and we'll come back to Santa Barbara for Gail Elbeck.

Madam Chair, members of the board I'm Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. I don't hardly ever go to Planning Commission meetings maybe once a year but I've actually been to two this last year dealing with events ordinances or events on private property We firmly and completely understand and agree that when somebody has an event the size and magnitude of the Kardashian wedding, that it's a problem. We understand about the party house on Moore Mesa. We understand about the de facto event center on Figaro Mountain Road.

We don't know very many other people that seem to be making a full time living out of using their home or their parcel for events. So we agree that something needs to be done. However, we believe that your planning commission is on the verge if they haven't gone off the deep end but they're on the verge of going off the deep end Because some of the proposals they're considering have to do with banning any gathering if it's got enough people or it happens enough times on anybody's property, including for instance a block party on July 4th. It's just getting way too far afield. Your current ordinance is complaint driven and what does that really mean?