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 – 0:032 turns
Hi. you Are we live?
Good morning. Good morning and welcome to this April 4th, 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors here in our County of Santa Barbara hearing room. Mr. Allen will you call the roll please?
0:03 – 0:1016 turns
Mr. Lavinino? Here. Mr. Williams? Here. Ms. Wolfe? Ms. Hartman?
And next we have the minutes. May I have a motion to approve the Tuesday, March 21st?
So moved!
Is that a motion and may I have a second? Can you top that Supervisor Lavinino? I'll
second
All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes stand approved. CEO Miyasato, do we have a CEO's report today? Nothing to report this morning. Okay turning to our administrative agenda we have five honorary resolutions A24 through 28 may I have a motion to approve those please? So moved. Seconded. All in favor say aye. And Mr. Allen, would you read A24 into the record please?
Chair Hartman, members of the board, item A24 is sponsored by Supervisors Wolff and Hartman. This is a resolution proclaiming the week of April 2nd 2017 through April 8th 2017 as National Crime Victims Rights Week in Santa Barbara County and I think Joyce Dudley Is here and or Megan Reinschild Megan's here. OK, Megan is coming up and I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas over 3,500 individuals are directly harmed by crime each year in Santa Barbara County. And each crime affects many more family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers. And whereas crime leaves a lasting physical, emotional and financial impact on people of all ages and abilities and all economic racial and social backgrounds. And whereas the Santa Barbara County District Attorney Victim Witness Assistance Program is the primary provider to help and
Mr. Allen, we're not hearing it, it's all muffled. I wonder if we can deal with the sound system and then have you start again because this is a really important program.
We want to just take a five minute break and get this fixed? Okay thanks.
Carlos, Carlos. So that reverbs off this one and now it's still a little bad.
Testing 1 2 3.
Test test. It's still the reverb is still there.
Testing still now still needs to take it out more
123123. 123
Testing. It's getting worse again. One, two, three, four, five, six, 17. Yeah, I know. I wonder if it's connected with.
Testing. Testing. One. One. Is it getting better? Test. Testing 1, 2. Well now it's better. That's it? Okay. Testing 1-2-3. Let's see how that sounds. It's not very loud I don't think. Testing. We can up the volume. Now we'll get them back to normal. Testing.
0:10 – 0:145 turns
Okay we are once again back up and this time without the reverberation so Mr. Allen would you start again please on A24? Chair
Harman, members of the board I will start again Megan and Joyce Dudley. We delayed it just so that you could get here.
Well thank you I am delighted to be here.
So I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas over 3,500 individuals are directly harmed by crime each year in Santa Barbara County. And each crime affects many more family members, friends, neighbors and coworkers. And whereas crime leaves a lasting physical, emotional and financial impact on people of all ages and abilities in all economic racial and social backgrounds.
Whereas the Santa Barbara County District Attorney Victim Witness Assistance Program is the primary provider to help and support victims of violent crime. And provides such services as court support and advocacy, assistance in navigating the criminal justice system, and obtaining crime victim compensation in an attempt to mitigate the negative impacts of crime.
And whereas the National Crime Victims' Rights Week honors the extraordinary progress that's been made on behalf of millions of victims since the passage of the Victims of Crime Act in 1984. Whereas, the National Crime Victims Rights Week challenges our community and its victim service providers, criminal justice agencies and concerned citizens to promote victims rights initiatives and the need for effective and compassionate victim services as well as the financial and emotional support for all these affected by crime.
Now, therefore I hereby order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors declares the week of April 2 through 8 2017 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week in our county thereby affirming the county's commitment to respect and enforce victims rights and express our appreciation to all the victims of crime survivors who have turned personal tragedy into action in order to build a more just community. Passed and adopted today
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. All of us work for the people of Santa Barbara County. Your district attorney's office specifically works for those who look to us for public safety and justice. All too often, we work closely with crime victims because we failed them. We didn't keep them safe. Therefore it is incumbent upon us to bring them justice.
Every day your district attorney employees come into contact with people who've experienced possibly the worst or one of the worst moments of their lives. Everyone who works in our office, whether it's a victim advocate, investigator, prosecutor or support person are in the extraordinary position to help these members of our community move from victims to survivors.
From experiencing an injustice to knowing what justice feels like. We couldn't do this life-altering work without your unwavering support. On behalf of the members of your Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office, I want to offer you our deepest appreciation. Thank you.
0:14 – 0:162 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item 825 is a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Wolf. This is recognizing the contributions of the Service League volunteers to the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department and is Sarah Harris here? Sarah is here so come on up and I will read the resolution into the record. Whereas the Santa Barbara General Hospital Service League was formed in 1965 by spirited individuals to better serve the patients of Santa Barbara General Hospital.
And whereas, after the closure of the Santa Barbara General Hospital in 1979, the service league volunteers continued operating the gift shop which is located at the Cuyahoga Reale campus serving county patients, employees and visitors. And whereas the Service League, after more than 50 years of continuous service and thousands of volunteer hours has determined that they are no longer capable of supporting the operation of The Gift Shop and ceased operations in January 2017.
And whereas as their last donation to the county, the Service League donated a total of over $35,000 to the Public Health Department to be used to support medically necessary specialty care referrals for those patients who have an urgent medical need but no healthcare coverage. And whereas, Ann Aver, Lynn Bennett, Barbara Faulkner, Sarah Harris, Deanna Hunt, Roger Junk, Sheila Junk, Lynn Lowe, Evelyn Reinhart, Karen Taphorn and Sonia Todd were the Service League's active members serving the Cayo Real campus.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors commends and thanks all the volunteers of the Service League for their lifetime of dedication and contributions to Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Thank you. On behalf of all of the volunteers that worked at the gift shop through these 50 years, I want to thank you for this honor. We regret having to close it but we all just wore out. Thank you.
0:16 – 0:214 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item A-26. This resolution is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution of accommodation honoring Shawna Jorgensen as the April 2017 Employee of the Month for Santa Barbara County and Shawna and our CEO Mona Miyasato and I will go ahead and read the resolution Whereas in February 2012, Shawna Jorgensen began her career with Santa Barbara County. This was in the Public Works Department and she was an accountant three for three years. She then transitioned to the county executive office in January 2016 as a budget analyst. And whereas Shawna was quickly promoted to business manager fiscal and policy analyst for the CEO's office where she provides oversight for financial analysis and balanced budget for the department and its divisions of the clerk of the board, the Office of Emergency Management and Risk Management.
She also fulfills human resource needs for the department including recruitment, onboarding and training. And whereas Shauna has been generous with her time, skills and expertise by assisting new staff during the transition of the first and third supervisory districts while simultaneously onboarding a revamped Office of Emergency Management. And whereas Shauna provides a solid foundation for her team is more than happy to share her knowledge And persistently seeking ways to encourage and grow those around her with the goal of providing a path for everyone to succeed. And whereas, Shawna embodies the qualities and characteristics of a mentor who inspires others to give their very best. And when that doesn't work she brings in Anderson's apple strudel.
Now therefore I be hereby resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Shawna Jorgensen as our Santa Barbara County Employee of the Month for April 2017. Class dismissed.
Well I want to, I'm Mona Miyasato the County Executive Officer and it's my pleasure that I get to recognize Shauna today. So first of all there's two people I want to thank and that's actually Scott McGulpin believe it or not because like any good department in Santa Barbara County we've got our best employees from stealing from other departments Thank you Scott and I also want to thank Shauna's husband Wyeth for letting her work in our office in the long hours she puts in weekends and evenings so thank you Wyeth. And he also works at the auditor's office by the way. So just a few things about Shauna, she has a very complex job with the county. She is our business manager for our office and for the Board of Supervisors. She is also a policy analyst so she has a very difficult and complex job.
People have said she is a kinder, gentler more sentimental But as effective replacement for yet a Christianson many of you remember and know who retired from our office. But Shawn is much more than that, and we all know that she is the first to step up and offer help for anything big or small. She has an immense personal drive to always do the right thing for the county and her colleagues She has an insanely positive attitude and one of her statements, and I wrote it down was her favorite saying is to create your own sunshine every day.
And she's self-motivated to learn. She will figure something out on her own and she will try to learn it and understand it and then spread it to the rest of the office so it's my pleasure to recognize Shauna today. Thank you
Thank you. Mona at the Board of Supervisors, thank you from the bottom of my heart for this acknowledgement. I have had the honor of being a part of this team for the past 14 months and I am in awe of your commitment to this county, the individual employees and the community. It has been my privilege to observe your hard work, your sincerity, perseverance and diligence in action.
I want to thank my husband Wyeth, who is my rock. The FACS staff for mentoring me and Betsy Schaefer, Lynn Dybel and John Giason for their leadership. Most of all, I want to thank the executive team of the CEO office for your inspiration. Success can never be achieved unless leaders like you have the vision and desire to initiate it. Each of you motivate me to strive for more.
I have been asked what it is like working for the county executive office every day. I'm inspired and humbled by the passion and determination of our team. Thank you again with all my heart.
And A27.
0:21 – 0:244 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, item A27 also sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Melinda Houser from the Probation Department upon her retirement after 31 years of service to the County of Santa Barbara and it's Melinda here. Melinda come on up. After a crazy drive from Ventura, right?
Alright. And Bev come on up and I'll read the resolution into the record.
Whereas Melinda was born in Pasadena, California having graduated from Pasadena High School and attended Pasadena City College. She subsequently attended and graduated from UCSB with a Bachelor in Developmental Psychology and Anthropology. And whereas Melinda was employed by the Santa Barbara County School District working as a teacher's assistant in various classrooms including the Autism Project and the Alternative School. She subsequently was employed as a rehabilitation assistant at the Santa Barbara Rehabilitation Hospital before working as a healthcare assistant for the Santa Barbara County Healthcare Services.
And whereas Melinda began her career with the Probation Department in March of 1986, has held many assignments throughout her career including juvenile placement officer, juvenile and adult investigations officer, a juvenile court hearing officer, a supervision officer for both juvenile and adult offenders In addition, Melinda has been a trailblazer for the department. She was a member of the first team to implement the Substance Abuse Treatment Court which is among the first drug courts in the nation.
She's also served as New Vista's collaborative project in Santa Barbara County and whereas Melinda is commended for her faithful and dedicated service to the people of Santa Barbara County and for having previously received the H Thomas Geary Award in 1993 and 1997 as well as having been named the Deputy Probation Officer of the Year in 1990. And whereas Melinda's looking forward to traveling, spending more time in her beautiful home in San Buenaventura. Enjoying time with her friends, family and creative pursuits and finding new ways to be of service to the community. Now therefore I'd be hereby order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Melinda Jean Hauser for 31 years of dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County, the Probation Department, and extend her best wishes for a fulfilling, enjoyable and rewarding retirement.
Passed and adopted today.
Thank you so much for this acknowledgement. And I am proud to say that I've had a wonderful career, the most fulfilling that I could have possibly imagined. Looking back there's nothing that I would rather have done, nothing that would have utilized my skills and interests better and I've worked with the most brilliant team of people, probation officers They are sometimes, they're law enforcement peace officers. They are sometimes counselors or sometimes parents.
They wear many hats and they're mostly compassionate, brilliant team working people and I am so proud to have had this career. Thank you so much.
0:25 – 0:3010 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board, item A28. This is sponsored by Supervisor Wolff. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of April 2017 as DMV Donate Life Month in Santa Barbara County and is Blanca Cohen here? And any other friends you'd like to bring up? Thank you. I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas organ, tissue marrow and blood donation are life-giving acts recognized worldwide as expressions of compassion to those in need and the spirit of giving a decision to donate are not restricted by age or medical condition.
And whereas more than 118,000 individuals nationwide and more than 21,000 in California are currently on the national organ transplant waiting list and on average 22 people die each day while waiting due to the shortage of donated organs Thank you very much. And whereas a single individual's donation of the heart, lungs, liver, kidneys, pancreas and small intestine can save up to eight lives. Donation of tissue can save and heal the lives of up to 50 others. And a single blood donation can help three people in need.
And whereas over 13 million Californians have signed up with the state authorized Donate Life California donor registry to ensure their wishes to be an organ, eye and tissue donors are honored by signing up on the Donate Life California donor registry when applying for or renewing their driver's licenses or ID cards at the Department of Motor Vehicles. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that in recognition of the National Donate Life Month, the month of April 2017 is hereby proclaimed DMV Donate Life California Month in the County of Santa Barbara and in doing so we encourage all Californians to check yes when applying for or renewing their driver's license or ID card or by signing up at the website at the DMV which is www.donatelifecalifornia.org or at www.vidacaliforniaca.org.
Passed and adopted today.
Good morning, Board of Supervisors. We'd like to thank you for taking the time to honor us today. A special thanks to Supervisor Wolff for moving forward with this proclamation. I work at One Legacy which is the local procurement organization for Southern California. And we'd like to ensure that we are advocates for the 117,000 folks who are waiting to receive a life changing organ. We'd also like to recognize the over 13 million Californians who have signed up to say yes to donation whether that's done at the DMV at the registry or online at www.donatelifecalifornia.org. But aside from me who is involved in the paperwork back At the office, I'd like to introduce a one legacy ambassador who is a recipient of a life saving organ.
Hello and thank you today for announcing Santa Barbara County as Donate Life Month for April. It is extremely important, I am a five year liver transplant recipient and without receiving that organ I would not be here today. And my goal in life is to be able to share my story and share How important it is to be an organ, tissue or eye cornea transplant donor.
Without this a lot of us wouldn't be here and it's so extremely important. I'm extremely proud to be an ambassador for Legacy and I'm doing everything I can now that I have a new life to spread the word and I thank you once again.
So turning to the remainder of our administrative agenda, are there any items a supervisor would like to pull? Supervisor Lavanino and then Supervisor Adams.
Madam Chair I'd like to pull items 2, 5 and 9. I'd like 1,
2
and 9. And Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, I'd like to pull item 2.
And do we have any items from the public?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have requests to speak from the public on items A1 and item A17. And I have a quick correction to item A3 that I could read into the record if you'd like me to do that right now.
I would like to pull A3, so let's start first with A1 if we could. Would you read that into the record?
0:30 – 0:3614 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, item A1 is from the Auditor-Controller. This is to consider recommendations regarding the property assessed clean energy special assessments for the City of Lompoc.
Supervisor Adams?
I just want to put into the record that my office talked to the mayor and city manager of Lompoc, and they have been informed that adopting PACE could make every loan in their zip code pay higher rates and even cause other problems like getting people with their existing loans foreclosed. And they each understand that and they still want to use PACE. And so the Lompoc City Council adopted PACE, and so the county has no ability to refuse to collect on behalf of the city of Lompoc And so I'm going to vote for this, but only because I have no choice and I still oppose PACE. And I think it's a bad idea for the citizens of Lompoc and others in Santa Barbara County.
Supervisor Wolf?
Sorry Madam Chair, I was just waiting for item A2. I have no comment on this.
Mr. Allen do we have any public speakers on this item?
One request from Rain Stapleman.
Good morning Chair Hartman and Supervisors. My name is Raina Stapleman, past president and government relations chair for the Santa Barbara Association of Realtors. SBAOR supports energy efficiency for our housing stock but we should not be putting homeowners at risk with a program that has not been fully vetted to date. We have multiple concerns, which we have described in our letter that you received late yesterday evening. And our concerns include inadequate disclosures, transactional difficulties, transferability and subordination of the loans, high interest rates. No proof of benefit or value to the homeowner, lack of regulation and oversight of these programs. Alleged predatory lending and fraud has manifested in many class action lawsuits filed against PACE providers and local government agencies has been named in these lawsuits such as Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino.
The county has already adopted a resolution to not accept PACE applications until FHFA's concerns have been resolved, which they have not been to date. And just recently investors in PACE bonds are rethinking their portfolio and are divesting from residential PACE investments, HERIN, which just occurred this past month. We realize the city of Lompoc has completed the legal actions to participate in the HERO program, but we request that you deny the recommended actions until further investigation of these programs can occur.
In speaking with other association of realtors throughout California and the nation, we have good authority to be concerned about these PACE programs at this time. Thank you for taking these concerns under advisement.
And Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Williams.
If I could just get Mr. Guzzone to explain what our choices are in this regard, that'd be great.
Chair and Supervisors, Supervisor Adam described accurately that once the City of Lompoc passed this resolution the county essentially has a ministerial duty to put this onto the tax roll and collect. The package in front of you that we shaped in close cooperation with the Auditor's Office does provide indemnification for the county as we perform that duty.
And Supervisor Williams?
I want to address this in two forms. One is, I agree that we have the duty to collect the property taxes for any local jurisdiction. I also think that many of the things that are criticized for PACE are true of any program that alters homes, meaning there are always predatory people out there. You'll always need to have some help to check things out. I don't think that stops the mechanism from being valuable because most people cannot, don't have the disposable cash to buy energy efficiency or solar even though it may be in their financial interest to do so. Most people need to finance that in some way in order for them to see the material benefit. So it would be sad to not have programs of this type, because it would mean that only basically people with a lot of disposable income could pay for the capital expenses to save money in the long run.
And of course we want things like energy efficiency and solar to be accessible Homeowners and even, I would argue even more than just homeowners. But definitely all homeowners which I think is the, and commercial property owners which is the purpose of PACE. I do think that there are concerns and we hope to address those concerns in the long run but I think it addresses something that there's really no substitute for out there.
Thank you. Since it is a ministerial item, and thank you for asking about that Supervisor Adam, I won't call for a vote unless people would... Okay. Would you read A2 Mr. Allen?
0:36 – 0:4622 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the Board, Item A2 is from Behavioral Wellness. This is a recommendation regarding the Community Corrections Partnership Report on the Mental Health Rehabilitation Center Feasibility Study and an associated budget revision request. Four-fifths vote required on this.
A number of supervisors pulled this item but Supervisor Wolf would you like to go first?
Thank you Madam Chair. I appreciate that and I appreciate that I have two colleagues who also pulled this item, but I'd like to just give a little bit of context into this item. First of all, I had pulled this item because it's something that I'm very excited about and very hopeful. This has been in the making for a long time and I'll just give you a brief history on this facility that we have. That almost a decade ago as the Great Recession loomed, our then Chief Probation Officer Patty Stewart made a tough recommendation to close the South County Juvenile Hall on Hollister in the heart of the second district.
I and many community members were skeptical but Chief Stewart convinced us that the declining numbers of juveniles in detention combined with more modern facets of Santa Maria Juvenile Hall made it a wise decision. And it has proven to be so. Throughout that time many have joined me in brainstorming possible future uses of the old juvenile hall space, though we weren't quite ready to give up the certification with BSCC as a juvenile detention facility always just in case we needed it.
But last year conversations with and between the Probation Department, Behavioral Wellness, General Services and the CCP in the context of the evaluation of our CCP plan led to the decision to recommend exploration of the use of this site for a MHRC and possible other future uses. In doing so there was agreement that we no longer needed to keep the site as a juvenile detention facility.
The first step in what will be a thorough and deliberative process is the item that is before us today, it's a feasibility study to be managed by general services in consultation with behavioral wellness and probation. When the full CCP plan comes to the board sometime next month, we will have more information on this and other projects. But for now I want to take this opportunity to thank the staff at Behavioral Wellness, Alice Gleghorn in particular, our probation staff and certainly our general services folks for getting us started with this budget revision and for General Services to begin this very important study. Thank you Madam Chair.
And Supervisor Adam.
Yeah, my concern was that $50,000 is kind of light to do this kind of evaluation and I was wondering if I could get Ms. Pell to come up and tell us what she understands that she's going to be doing for $50k? Because while she's coming up, I just want to read one sentence out of this page three of the board letter. They designated the one time AB 109 funding amount of $50,000 to be transferred from probation to general services to cover the costs to perform the feasibility study. Are you prepared to say that you can do that study for $50 thousand at this time?
So I would like to clarify what the study actually entails. We have been involved conceptually to see if the juvenile hall can be used for a different program. And the $50,000 is to hire qualified consultant with expertise in detention facilities and state regulations. So once we bring that vendor on board they'll look at the existing condition of the facility which was built almost 70 years ago so It's an older building for sure.
This vendor is also going to meet with the staff from Behavioral Wellness and Probation to talk about the programming, and determine if that facility can be used for a different purpose and meet code. So that's what the vendor will do. If we get to yes, it can be used. Then what we'll do is a preliminary estimate to see if the $4 million is even in the ballpark. So that's what the $50,000 should get us to but then there will be more design and detailed design after that. So we're just trying to figure out if that facility will work or it won't and that's what $50 thousand is for.
And that's to be used 100% to go purchase that expertise to tell us that. It's not going to get done in your shop?
No,
we
don't
have the expertise.
Okay I just want to make sure everybody is clear on that.
Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you Madam Chair. Well this is, I appreciate you bringing this because this is one of the top priorities in this county right now. I just had some questions about I'm glad it's there, but this is from 2011. When do we ever get updated or is that just through your committee that determines where that's spent and how it's spent?
Supervisor Wolf? Thank you, and I'll answer but perhaps probation may want to answer this too. So we have that balance of $9 million. And if you recall the CEO's office and recommendations from my office was to get a consultant to look at how we were doing in the CCP process. And that consultant came back with a number of recommendations. Because we felt that after all of these years that we were moving forward, that it was time to evaluate our programs and so This opportunity should be explored further. And with that recommendation, that's when we looked at the Juvenile Hall as a possible site. So the CCP workgroup and the CCP has approved the $4 million as an allocation that will go toward that site in the eventuality that this study comes back positive.
There is also I think there's $3 million left in the CCP budget That's a carryover but I think the recommendation will be from the CCP working group that we're going to keep that money. We're not going to spend the $3 million that's remaining, in fact we're not spending the $4 million but we have allocated it in case this study does come to fruition.
CEO Miyasato. Supervisor Lavanina through the chair, so to answer your first question the CCP plan comes to the board every year around May prior to budget. So the board does approve that plan that talks about the spending that's been recommended by the CCP workgroup through the full CCP two-year board. So that will be coming next month this action is preceding that because we wanted to get general services started as soon as they could.
Okay so I'm fine with it I think it's a great idea The question I have is if we determine that, you know that building can't be repurposed could we look at the other possibility is if that $4 million is okay to because I don't know what strings are attached to that $4 million but would that 4 million dollars be could we allocate it to a new building instead of revamping the existing. It could be more expensive to actually fix this 70 year old building?
So Supervisor Lavigny and I think all those options would be on the table. I guess I should add that part of the money that's been allocated, that $4 million is for that entire site. So not only would it potentially benefit behavioral wellness but also provide more services for probation. But yes you're right if it comes back that it is not feasible then we'll have to reevaluate what our options are because we do have that money set aside.
So last question then. So the strings on it, because it's through the public safety realignment, probation has to be tied in somehow? Or can you just spend it on mental health?
Ms. Heitman is coming but again- So mental health is on the CCP.
Right.
Chair, Supervisors, AB 109 money can be spent in a variety of ways that have to do with public safety. It can be for prevention type services as well as intervention So we can look at diversion type programs such as this mental health sector.
0:46 – 0:488 turns
And do we have any public comment on this item Mr. Allen?
On A2, no.
Okay moving to Supervisor Williams.
Well I just wanted to note for folks out there that there are seats available and I know what some of you are here to watch or provide public comment on and it's going to be a little while so you might want to avail yourselves of some of the seats.
Thank you Supervisor Williams.
Moving to item A3, would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Item A3 is from Community Services. This is to consider recommendations regarding the approval and execution of the county loan documents to provide $300,000 in community development block grant funds to Isla Vista Youth Projects for building acquisition. This is in the 3rd district and I want Quickly reading a correction to Recommendation A, the word grant should be replaced with the word loan and so the recommendation would read approve a loan of $300,000 in CDBG funds to Iowa Vista Youth Projects Inc. for building acquisition and authorize the chair to execute the county's CDBG loan agreement A county CDBG loan promissory note, a county CDBG loan deed of trust and a county CDBG loan regulatory agreement.
Together the county CDBD loan documents and these are all between the County and Islanders to Youth Projects Inc., that is the corrected action on recommendation A.
Thank you and I just wanted to commend the Isla Vista Youth Projects. They've raised almost a million dollars for this acquisition. I visited the facilities and it's an amazing place that empowers children and their families with a whole range of programming, and I'd particularly like to acknowledge Lou Anne Miller and Arthur Kennedy who have worked decades on the Isla Vista Youth Projects And turning next then to A5.
0:48 – 0:5018 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board, item A5 is from County Council. This is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for professional legal services with outside counsel, Nielsen, Merksimer, Perrinello, Gross and Leone for consultation on tribal relations.
Supervisor Lavanito?
Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to, in case anybody in the public is watching this and paying attention to this piece that buried in the statement of work which I found, is that we are not authorizing participation in any litigation. This is strictly consultation. Okay so I'm fine with it.
Thank you. Okay item A9.
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item 89 is for planning and development. It's to consider recommendations regarding a proposed fee ordinance for the Planning Development Department and this is the adoption of the ordinance on the second reading.
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah I just wanted to make it clear that I'm going to be voting against this today but I would have voted for it had we gotten the process improvements installed ahead
And Supervisor Lavenino?
I'm just for a roll call. Roll call, yeah.
I'll move this item Madam Chair and may I have a second? And I just wanted to comment that I think it's a two-step process the fee analysis and determination is I think a distinct item from the process improvements but I share your interest and together we can follow up and make sure we get a report on that I have still three lights. Did anyone want to say anything more about this? I think we're ready
to vote.
Okay, would you call this vote Mr. Allen?
Mr. Adam? No. Mr. Lavinino? No Mr. Williams? Aye Ms. Wolfe?
Aye
Ms. Hartman?
Aye
Passes 3-2 And that brings us
to A14
0:50 – 0:526 turns
Item 814 is for public health. This is to consider recommendations regarding a memorandum of understanding and license agreement between partner organizations and animal services in the second district.
Thank you, and I pulled this item and the reason I did it because I just wanted to commend the work that ASAP is doing. It's the first municipal shelter in the U.S. to stop the killing of adoptable cats And their adoption rate leapt from 10% to 100%. And I'm on the waiting list for a couple of feral cats. I looked it up and there's ratings, this is a five star rating and a quote from somebody. They take wonderful care of the cats. It's a lovely place to visit. We got one of ours there and she's an angel so all those who work there and put in their time are angels and I just wanted to thank you for that.
Thank you for pulling this item. Angela is in the audience and I wanted to commend her and her team's work and the cooperative spirit that you've worked with our public health folks to get into this memorandum of understanding And as Supervisor Hartman said, you are truly angels in our community. I've been out to your facility. It's wonderful. It's beautiful and I thank you for all the work that you and your team have done. Thank you.
Supervisor Williams?
And I'd just like to echo those comments and also say that there's a small army of volunteers behind her. And there's just an enormous amount of work that wouldn't get done, and this wouldn't be possible in the financial arrangement without that volunteer strength. So want to especially thank the volunteers for doing their work.
And that brings us I believe to A17.
0:52 – 0:555 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board, item A17 brought to the board is the Board of Directors of the Flood Control and Water Conservation District in Public Works and this is a considered recommendation regarding the Marie Ignacio Creek Main Branch and East Branch Debris Basin Modifications Project. This is in the second district and we have a speaker Maria Ignacio Cole.
Mr. Cole.
Good morning Madam Chair and Supervisors. I have yet another water design for the county, this one involves Maria Ignacio Creek so I thought I'd come in briefly tell you about it. Talking about gathering water at Atascadero Creek at the Patterson Overcross my calculations show we could easily get a thousand acre feet per year out of this creek while only touching twenty percent of its outfall This water could be used, sent back up the stream to recharge groundwater. It would help the county get ahead of the groundwater requirements coming up each year by putting that thousand acre feet into local parks and even San Marcos High School and Tucker's Grove.
Thus we could not spend money on imported water and use this water so not only would it help the groundwater situation, but the county could save a million dollars a year because that's what 1,000 acre feet costs. I believe the project could be built by Lash Construction for under a million. So there's $10 million a decade savings. So I wanted to just say that and leave some paperwork here, and it's on my website. And I'd be happy to talk to staff when we have time.
Thank you very much. I share your interest in stormwater capture for dealing with our drought conditions. Mr. Phelan would you come up and respond to those comments? Tell us what you're doing with regard to stormwater capture?
Yes good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. As we discussed before we are moving forward with a stormwater capture grant process through the state and I would suggest with your approval that perhaps your Chief of Staff Mr. Linton and I meet with Mr. Cole and we can brief him on some of the things we're looking at. I have met with Mr. Cole before and we could follow up and meet with him again if that would work.
Thank you very much that sounds like a great idea and I might join you I think that is all of our administrative items for today. Do you have any others Mr. Allen? Okay, so may I have a motion to approve the balance of the agenda? So moved Madam Chair. A second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? It passes and now is the time for public comment on items that are not on today's agenda Mr. Allen.
0:55 – 0:595 turns
Chair Hardman, members of the board we have one request Ed Kolaski
Good morning How appropriate is this? This is National Crime Victims Rights Week That's me I went to the DA's office I wanted to wear a wire so that when I appeared before some of the members of SBAR, I could tape what the amount of the extortion would be. I found out from Gordon, I believe it was, that you cannot tape somebody unless you tell them that you are being taped which defeats the whole purpose of finding out what the extortion fee would be at any rate I titled my talk today Comrades and Supervisor Peter Adam because I've been coming here and getting absolutely no results. And the way that you run, the four members here, run this agenda it models a corrupt communist government society function.
It's the same thing You, we get a choice. Do we want to pop up or low rider for our model in our house? Now when I started that was not the case and we went through four meetings and that was not the case. The fifth meeting we come in, we get kicked out. We weren't there 15 seconds they never looked at our drawings. They never told us what happened why we were kicked out. We had to wait three weeks find out what happened. I go see Ryan who is in charge of writing a report on He didn't have our drawings. He was looking at our old drawings, he's sitting there at his desk writing a report on our house and he didn't even have the latest drawings.
So I wanted to mention here that my grandparents on both sides have come from Europe. They fled Nazism, they fled Communism, they didn't want to live under that repression, they wanted to be free. And here I am appearing now between four members Like a communist tribune, a corrupt communist tribune. This is just utterly disgusting. So who's in charge of dirty tricks at SBAR?
I mean obviously I don't think John and Dylan and Alex came up with this idea to kick us out. The reason they wanted to kick us out because they didn't want the other four members to hear what we have to say. They didn't want them to look at our drawings They kicked us out because we had a five to two vote in the previous meeting. So they just told them, we didn't put in any changes which was a total lie. So I listed down below here, I got like eight items where they either break the law or they break their own regulations.
Item 8 is one of their regulations that they break which No formal action will be taken when you're in the conceptual view review. We were not in the preliminary. Is my time up or what?
It is, yes.
I didn't get to show my pictures there. Can you flip through all four of them real fast? That's the first one. That's what they would approve That's the shows that they were lying in the last one. This shows our kitchen, we use the dining room table as a workbench because we don't have enough room. Thank you.
And we have no more public speaker slips Mr. Allen so that closes the public comment portion of this hearing and I have a request to declare a 10 minute break before we start on our departmental items
1:01 – 1:056 turns
you
Test 1, 2. I can't hear you. OK, hold on. Testing.
Yvonne, how does that sound? Does it sound okay, Yvonne? There's a lot of background noise but I can't hear you. What do you hear okay? Not real well but I can hear.
Yeah, I can hear you. There's a lot of noise in the background.
A lot.
I can't even hear myself. Let me check with Dante and see if it's okay. Hold on a second.
1:06 – 1:111 turns
Good, thank you. Music Hi, everyone. Oh
1:12 – 1:186 turns
Okay.
If you would please take your seats, we're ready to reconvene our April 4th 2017 Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting. Turning to the first item in our departmental agenda, would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Item 1 is for planning and development. This is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding interim urgency ordinance for non-medical marijuana.
Dr. Russell?
Good morning Chair Hartman and Supervisors. My name is Jessica Metzger, and I'll be doing the presentation today. The next item on your agenda is the Cannabis Registry Program, and that will be presented separately from this ordinance by Mr. Bovanich after my presentation. The Adult Use of Marijuana Act or AUMA was approved by voters in November of 2016. This act sets into place a system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacturing, distribution, testing and sale of non-medical cannabis.
The AUMA also provides a tax structure for the growing and retail sale of cannabis, and standards to allow for the growing of industrial hemp. Only adults 21 years or older are allowed to participate in the activities associated with the AUMA. This state anticipates having a licensing system in place in 2018. As part of this licensing, the applicant must first have an approval document from the county stating that the applicant meets local regulations.
The Board of Supervisors received a report on the AUMA on February 14th. From this report, staff was given multiple tasks working towards the creation of an ordinance to regulate all cannabis activities in the county. These tasks include the urgency ordinance before you now, as well as the formation of an ad hoc committee to assist in the creation of a permanent ordinance and the creation of a registry which will be the next item on your agenda.
The County is authorized to create an Urgency Ordinance by Government Code. This code speaks to the importance of urgency ordinances in protecting the public safety, health and welfare of county residences. Specifically this urgency ordinance temporarily prohibits activities associated with the AUMA and temporarily prohibits Prohibiting these activities will assist the county in avoiding risks associated with criminal activity, minimized odor control and noise pollution that could occur if these activities were allowed with regulation.
This urgency ordinance will give us time to analyze all of the issues associated with AUMA and create sound regulations for the multiple facets associated with the legislation. The ordinance before you temporarily prohibits activities related to the AUMA shown here, except those related to personal possession of and personal cultivation of cannabis which cannot be further regulated locally.
Finally, the government code authorizes this urgency ordinance to be effective for 45 days. Staff will be coming back to this board in May to extend the urgency ordinance to 22 months and 15 days so that new regulations can be created. In closing, staff requests that your board make the recommendations as called out in the Board letter on page 2 and shown here.
And we are here to answer any questions you may have in regards to the urgency ordinance. Thank you very much.
Thank You. Do any supervisors have any questions? Supervisor Williams?
1:18 – 1:2526 turns
One question on the proposal to extend. If we are trying to create a permanent ordinance by the early part of next year, why would we want to extend it for 22 months?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Williams. The way that the government code is written is there are three types of extension and that one best fits our needs. The other is actually too short to get us there so we are not recommending that.
And Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you madam chair. So just so I'm clear, and as it will relate to another item. By adopting this ordinance all outdoor cultivation for commercial uses or anything other than the personal six plants is banned and not legal?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolff, all cultivation for commercial marijuana is banned through this urgency ordinance.
So the alternative is the personal use of the six plants. That's the only thing that is still, or whatever that amount is, that is still allowed?
Through the Chair, Supervisor Wolf, the ordinance itself actually does not allow outdoor cultivation of the six plants. They can only be indoor during this ordinance. structure, what may happen in the future ordinance is still up in the air.
Got you so basically everything is all outdoor cultivation is banned?
Yes.
Thank you.
Mr.
Pizzoni?
Chair Herman and Supervisor Wolff I'd like to just clarify it's the status of medical marijuana We just like to clarify as to the status of medical marijuana where we had a pre-existing ordinance
Thank you, Chair and Supervisors. The Board previously approved an ordinance banning medical marijuana with two exceptions for personal cultivation and also for cultivation sites that were deemed legal non-conforming as of January 19th 2018 and those medical marijuana sites are not impacted by this proposed urgency ordinance.
Supervisor Williams?
I think it would also be useful for you to go over what is considered non-conforming and not, because there is a huge amount of confusion about that. So if County Council's office at some point in this discussion could educate the public about what is allowed under non-conforming like expanding, transferring location using new locations for existing non-conforming or other things that would be really I think helpful.
Mr. Gazzone would you like to do that now or wait till after public comment?
Chairman if we could have just a couple minutes, we'll go back to the medical marijuana ordinance and pull up a quick summary of that piece.
Okay. And Mr. Allen how many public comments do we have today?
We have six requests on this item.
Okay let's go ahead
So we're gonna start then with Kyle Wolf be followed by Roxanne Lapidus Is Kyle here?
Good morning Supervisors, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank the Ad Hoc Committee for their work that they've done with the registration and I also would like to express my support for the ban on all residential activity. I believe it should be kept away from children and thank you and appreciate the transparent process.
Our next speaker is Roxanne Lapidus To be followed by Anna Carrillo.
Good morning. I'm Roxanne Lapidus. Uh, I live in Carpinteria where my family has farmed for more than a hundred years. We are currently in avocados. I am here to support your urgency ordinance. The situation that we have now is so complicated that it's going to take a lot of time to work out the details. I just want to mention one example to demonstrate this complexity Clearly, everybody suddenly wants a piece of what they consider is now a new lucrative industry. And in the spirit of free enterprise, they feel entitled to try their luck at it.
But the reality is that in Santa Barbara County this isn't going to be possible. The big limiting factor is water. We are the only area in the state that is still in a drought, and marijuana is a water-intensive crop requiring reportedly six gallons per plant. Now householders have been scrimping on more water use for four years and are still encouraged to do so after our winter's rains.
If these people realize that a marijuana grower would say 500 plants is using 30,000 gallons of water a day. It isn't going to sit well and it's not just about public outrage it's about the availability of such amounts of water So here's some unanswered questions. Before the county can issue any growing permits, will it have to confer with the relevant water districts to discuss the amounts of water implied by the permits?
Is a permit for X number of plants in a guarantee of water for them? If a water district has X amount of water that it's willing to make available for marijuana growing, how is that amount going to be divided among the many applicants in that district? Is it first come first served? Is it an equal division among say the first 10 applicants and who decides. Will there be limits on new well drilling associated with marijuana growing? Will there be monitoring of existing wells associated with marijuana growing and which entity, county or water districts has the authority to say enough no more water for this use.
When the water becomes scarce, as it surely will if marijuana growing operations expand, priority will be given to crops that put food on the table which is the way it should be. And these are all difficult questions. If I were an outside investor, I wouldn't choose Santa Barbara County as a place to stake my claim. And
now's your time. Thank you.
1:25 – 1:316 turns
Anna Carrillo is followed by Mark Cordona.
Hello, I'm representing the Carpinteria Valley Association. I am a member of the Board of Directors and a letter was received or put in your packet this morning though there is a typographical error on the second page that should be of instead of or in the next to last paragraph. The Carpinteria Valley Association is a 50 year plus local environmental group and we would like to express our support for the adoption of non-medical marijuana interim urgency ordinance And I'm only going to read parts of the letter. We in the Carpinteria Valley have been suffering the odorous and allergic consequences of the Board of Supervisors decision on January 29, 2016 to approve medical marijuana regulation by not instituting some sort of compliance rules at this time neighbors suspect that many greenhouses have begun growing Medical marijuana who were not previously authorized to do so.
Before this date, we weren't aware of any neighbors complaints of the noxious skunky smell. Unregulated marijuana operations could result in displacement of existing agricultural production activities impacts to natural resources and land use conflicts. We agree that the county has a compelling interest to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its residents and businesses. And to preserve the peace and integrity of neighborhoods within the unincorporated area.
It is in the county's interest to avoid the risks of criminal activity including money laundering, avoid degradation of the natural environment Including the use of rodenticide and insecticide toxicants, protect the water supply and groundwater basins that are still in a state of drought. Minimize objectionable odors which can interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring properties by their occupants. Protect neighbors from noise pollution from electric generators and reduce the risk of indoor electrical fire hazards. and may result from unregulated indoor cultivation.
I met on September 29, 2016 with Supervisors Salud Carbajal, Glenn Russell from the Zoning Department, Brian Olmsted, the Sheriff of Narcotics Division and about 20 residents living Near Cravens Lane and Foothill Road in the unincorporated part of Santa Barbara County, complaining about what has been occurring in the Carpinteria Valley. It has been a very arduous process to only respond to complaints since letters are sent out ten days before inspectors come and zoning inspectors don't have to even be allowed on the property and fines are quite minimal. Citations are only based on complaints. No one seems to know how many greenhouses were legally permitted to grow medical marijuana before January 19, 2016 nor how many are growing it currently but the smell has been increasing.
The City of Carpinteria has already enacted urgency ordinances to prohibit cultivation. We
have reached our time.
Okay thank you very much.
Mark Cardona be followed by Brennan Kasicki
Good morning Madam Chair, Supervisors. I'm making comment today first off as a resident of Santa Barbara County that's number one interest is the responsible use and business of cannabis to come into our economy and to grow as an industry here in the correct way for our community. There's a couple of points that I just wanted to note. Thank you to the county staff for preparing The report on the adult use of marijuana act. There was a specific logic behind putting into place a temporary prohibition and while I agree that it's necessary to take time to make sure that this is well thought out and that the state and local jurisdictions regulations cover what needs to be done, I urge the board to consider I'm not.
Extending that that ban beyond the 45 days because I think that the rationale behind it, the opposite will be served. I understand that minimizing criminal activities and avoiding. The demand is there for this product and without the local county being right at the front of these responsible business operators, you'll end up fostering allowing the black market to persist and actually thrive.
The idea that these business owners, these business operators of legal cannabis businesses are criminal is incorrect. You're looking people that want this to be brought in a responsible way so that they can be transparent with the county and local government all the way up to the state. And having a ban beyond 45 days is actually going to increase and foster that black market. Thank you.
1:31 – 1:387 turns
Good morning, good morning board. Thank you and I would like to say that I represent a number of folks who are in the cannabis industry who are cultivators in this county and they're pleased and excited that you're going to hopefully adopt this urgency ordinance and get a fresh start because I think there was some earlier issues with what happened last year.
And I want to extend that support and also say that we're in support of the registry as well. I think it's very important, I think it is good for the county to know who's out here, who's wanting to do business in this new industry. And I think that information will be useful as you hopefully develop an ordinance in the future. One of the other things I would say is I think there is, the word urgency is appropriate because with this state, state licensing will come into effect January 1st 2018.
And I think the sooner that Santa Barbara County is able to have an ordinance in place and have licensing or permitting in place for people of the cannabis business industry will be beneficial to the county, but also important for this growing industry in Santa Barbara County. One of the earlier comments that was made about water use, cannabis growing like technology and other things does not use that kind of water.
Most people that are out here doing cultivation right now whether it's indoors or greenhouses or outdoors Don't use that kind of water. In fact, hydroponics has saved tremendous amounts of water. We actually use a lot less water than most people in agriculture. So I think we'll find that this industry will actually be an industry that uses a lot less water than most other row crops. Thank you.
Thank you. And before we go to Santa Maria I would ask anyone who wants to comment on item 2, the registry, to please get your speaker slips in now so we know how many people and how to allocate the time.
Okay in Santa Maria Renee O'Neill to be followed by Lillian Clary
Chair Hartman, honorable members of the board. I'd like to address and support the people who are concerned about the water usage in our communities, our whole entire state. In November of 2016 the San Luis Tribune addresses these articles, a number of issues regarding how the marijuana boom has changed the landscape of the California Valley. In fact some of the largest grows have been found to have over 18,000 plants Research by Scientific American translates that into 90,000 gallons of water a day for that size grow.
If you believe Scientific American in their July 3rd 2015 article California's 50,000 marijuana farms are quote sucking the rivers dry Stating that each plant takes at least five gallons of water per day. It's a huge amount of water that is being consumed by this crop and in our community alone we've had people, we already have a deficit of water some people have had their wells fail, have to purchase water to come in and so We would really appreciate your concern, your support in regard to keeping an eye on this issue and making sure that our whole entire state isn't affected by a crop that doesn't have the regulations and ordinances in place to monitor it. Thank you very much.
Lillian Clary.
Good morning board and staff, my name is Lill Clary I've been a resident of Santa Barbara County since 1980 for the past 20 years I've been a resident of the unincorporated county in Pepesque Canyon in the 5th district I'm here today to support adoption of the Emergency Ordinance and the extension for 22 months. There are several reasons for this. First, the Emergency Ordinance allows the county to research best practices looking throughout the state of California adjacent counties and the state of Colorado.
The county will have time to develop language that monitors, regulates and taxes marijuana for social benefit. My second reason for supporting the ordinance is because it brings a halt to the further expansion of these marijuana grows. There are serious environmental issues other speakers have referred to them What I want to talk about this morning is Tepeskaya Canyon in particular. Tepeskaya is a sensitive environmental zone.
It's a steep, brushy canyon with one access road in and out. For most of that access road it's barely one lane wide. One of my immediate concerns also is water in the canyon. California faces a long-term drought. The fact that it rained this winter is meaningless. I have seen neighbors' wells dry up and springs supplying their homes dry up within the last two years, I don't see that marijuana cultivation is compatible with the groundwater issues we face in Tepeskay Canyon.
I will tell you that several years ago, we pulled out the immediate landscaping at the house. Last summer, we pumped the shower water into the garden to keep the fruit trees growing and I don't see that kind of interest in supporting the environment as evident among the marijuana growers we're seeing in the canyon. Additionally, there are sensitive social environmental issues in Tepesque Canyon.
Increased traffic on that one lane road, noise pollution One of the marijuana grows that we can see from our home is about a mile away across the canyon. And for the first two years it was in operation, we could hear a big generator. I'm not talking about a small Honda generator that runs a handful of household appliances. I am talking about a big generator that runs multiple equipment and lights.
We could hear it night and day. More important to me personally is stress on members of the canyon
Thank you.
1:39 – 1:4722 turns
Chair Hartman, we had a question concerning medical marijuana cultivation. And the short answer on this is that the ordinance itself that the board had addressed as Ms. Hartley had commented had a limited exemption for legal non-conforming uses and Ms. Hartley can now talk you through the Land Use and Development Code which discusses the general prohibition on the expansion or extension of legal non-conforming uses.
So Chair and Supervisors, legal non-conforming uses under the county's various zoning codes provide different restrictions depending upon whether the non conforming use deals with using a structure or use simply on land. And for you simply on land it says that no existing non conforming use of land outside of structures or not involving structures shall be enlarged, extended or increased to occupy a greater area of land than was occupied at the time that the use became non-conforming. Or moved to any portion of the lot not currently occupied by the non-conforming use."
So our current county zoning ordinances do address that and they also include some provisions related to damage that allows for different Supervisor Williams, I think that was your question.
Because there's a lot of operators out here who want to be compliant with the law, I just want to make it really, really clear. So is what you're saying that someone who is a legal non-conforming medicinal marijuana grow endangers their legal non-conforming status by expanding either an outdoor or greenhouse operation. Is that what you're saying?
Chair Hartman and Supervisor Williams, the short answer is yes that if you operate beyond the legal non-conforming status you do jeopardize that status
And would that be true for an indoor operation as well?
Yes. We basically in the land use code, which is probably one of the better summaries, it bifurcates between structures and land as Ms. Hartley had just summarized, and if we have structures where the use has expanded or we're using new structures then those new structures or additional structures do not enjoy the same non-conforming protection.
And is there any exception to that? Meaning if one structure's about to fall down and they do the same amount of square footage, they can't move it even on site. And they definitely can't move it to another site.
So I think that this is an area where in legal nonconforming with structures, we make a distinction between some cataclysmic event like a fire or an earthquake versus something that just gets old and starts falling down. Repairs are okay but things that significantly expand the life of the structure might be a problem.
Okay so we've concluded the public comment portion and we are coming back to the board and Supervisor Lavanino. I have
a question Madam Chair about the length of the ban. So today all were doing is a 45 day ban correct? And you're going to come back in May to talk about the extension.
Through the Chair, Supervisor yes that is correct.
So question is you put the let's go 45 days I guess we could talk about this in May but I might as well get it out there right now so in may you come up and is there any other length of time that's available or just 22 to get you the maximum amount available?
Through the Chair and Supervisor, there is another length available but staff does not believe that that will give the ad hoc committee and staff ample time to go through the environmental review for that portion of the permanent ordinance.
Okay so by the time we do our environmental review, we get to where we need to be, we create an ordinance that would then supersede the emergency ordinance it doesn't mean it automatically is going to be 22 months just want to make that clear
Yes through the chair that is correct. The ordinance that will be permanent will have a retraction of this ordinance.
Okay very good thank you very much.
Are there any other questions? Any comments?
I'll move this item Madam Chair if there's no other comments to follow staff's recommendations A, B and C.
Okay may I have a second? Any further comments? Supervisor Williams.
You know, I'm going to support this because I do think it's part of the process to get to a permanent ordinance but I will indicate that This isn't going to forestall some of the enforcement issues that we have. The whole problem with the structure and the reason why I support doing a permanent ordinance is We have a situation where most people are not that clear on whether their operation is legal or not. They think it's legal, our staff thinks it's probably not legal and yet we don't have the resources to enforce. So the basic problem is there's not enough differentiation between people who are trying to be in compliance with the law and people who are loosey-goosey with the law.
It is our intention as the ad hoc committee to try to create a permitting process that does provide an avenue for those who want to be compliant with the law and want to be good neighbors versus those who are being loosey goosey in a nuisance. And to provide the resources for enforcement. So I just want to say that though, This ordinance and this action in order to set the expectations low so that there are not takings claims.
I disagree with the idea that this is going to forestall and eliminate the kind of conflicts that are out there, it's not because we don't have The enforcement capability yet until there's a permanent ordinance and permit revenue to fund enforcement. We don't have the capability to actually do what this ordinance says we're going to do, which is to try to force people to be good neighbors. We can't force people to be good neighbors until we have the enforcement staff to force people to be good neighbors.
Supervisor Adam?
Well that because I think this AUMA is an extremely poorly thought out law and it is what it is. We're all trying to make chicken soup out of something else. The bottom line here is this is a very difficult situation. I'm not a big fan of marijuana, anybody that's talked to me knows that but the people have spoken and this thing has become an agricultural commodity It's, I'm afraid that the experiment is here with us to stay for a while and so we're just going to have to respond to that. And I think that you know the 45 days is the first step and the two years total is a reasonable amount of time for some way to see if we can make this into something that we can work with and it will have some meaningful plan that we can all
1:47 – 1:5112 turns
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, I actually do have a question and this is probably for Dr. Russell. So we know we have cultivators out there right now so this ordinance then is to ban or prohibit any new cultivation
Supervisor Wolf, through the chair. I'll go back and expand briefly on the discussion that the county council gave you about medical marijuana. This ordinance is about non-medical marijuana for those who are currently growing the only way other than the limited personal grow. The only way that you can be legal is to be growing medical marijuana and be legal nonconforming.
Legal non-conforming means that as of January 19th, 2016 you were growing. But it doesn't mean that's all you have to prove to prove your legal non-conforming status. You would have to be both in conformance with all zoning regulations And also in conformance with all state regulations as they pertain to medical marijuana. So there are many people out there currently growing who feel that they are legal non-conforming, some probably are, some probably are not.
For example, we have so far adequate resources to do the enforcement that we've been doing. We operate on a complaint basis. We have had complaints of about 25 or so grows. We have investigated those. Some have closed, some have been in violation of the zoning ordinance, so therefore are not legal non-conforming. Some of those have been in violation of the state code, too close to a school things like that.
However we have not yet made any determinations of legal non-conforming status. We will be making those determinations in the context of code enforcement cases there are likely some We're still, we want to make sure that we are very careful in the way we make that determination. Because of the stakes or the value of the commodity and so forth. But also when there are licenses available from the state for medical marijuana because those will be coming as well.
Those who feel that they are legal non-conforming will come forward and ask us for a letter that they can take to the state that will allow them to get those licenses. So we very likely will have to face the determination of legal non-conforming status outside of a code enforcement circumstance, which is the only circumstance that we currently face that determination.
Supervisor Wolf? Thank you. So Dr. Russell I'm really clear on the medical marijuana piece. And so am I to assume that anyone who is cultivating now that's not medical marijuana would be in violation of our ordinance?
Supervisor Wolf, if you pass this ordinance today all that would be allowed would be personal use in your home and the growing of six plants indoors. Other than that yes you are correct.
Okay
thank you.
Thank you Madam
Chair. Okay, seeing no more lights we've had a motion and a second and Mr. Allen would you call the vote?
Mr. Allen? Aye. Mr. Labanino? Aye. Mr Williams? Aye Ms. Wolfe? Aye Mr. Hartman?
Aye
Passes 5-0
Mr. Allen would you read the second item into the record please
1:51 – 2:0110 turns
Mr. Hartman, members of the board, item 2 also from the county executive office is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding establishing non-personal cannabis cultivation related operations registry program.
And how many speaker slips do we have, Mr. Allen?
Approximately 24.
So I think we're going to be limiting comments to two minutes so get ready while we have the staff presentation and we're looking at the registry and we're eager to get comments about the registry. Mr. Bozanich.
Chair Hartman, members of the board I'm happy to present on this item of the registry today so a little bit of background to get us all on the same page. In January 2016 it was just being discussed in the questions around medical cannabis your board approved a ban on cultivation Of medical cannabis with just the two exceptions that have been just discussed on the previous item. One for limited qualified personal grows and then any state compliant grow sites in existence prior to the January 19th, 2016 adoption of that ban.
In February 2017, just a couple weeks ago your board directed our staff to return with an urgency ordinance prohibiting non-medical cannabis and you just adopted that. And in addition to that a registry system for past Current and intended future medical and non-medical cannabis operations. And at this point, I want to note that the staff worked together with the ad hoc subcommittee that you appointed at the February 14th 2017 meeting, Supervisors Lavagnino and Williams. And I want to recognize the staff who were involved with that. Dan Klenman who you just saw, Mindy Fogg, Jessica Metzger, Kathy Fisher our Ag Commissioner, Dr. Charity Dean from the Public Health Department, Larry Fay from Environmental Health Kevin Wickbrod from the District Attorney's Office, Brian Olmstead and Darren Farthingham from the Sheriff's Department.
And most critically Johanna Hartley from the County Council
And Dennis Buzanich from the CEO's office doing an outstanding job as well, Dennis. Thank you.
So the subcommittee in working with the staff and with the two members of the subcommittee identified these following goals for this registry program. First to collect data on cannabis cultivation or related operations in the unincorporated areas of the county. And to use that data to then inform studies, including CEQA analysis and economic impact analysis that will be of critical interest in formulating any regulations in the future.
And then also to establish a pool of registrants that may receive priority review for possible county cannabis license if the county adopts cannabis regulations in the future. So in implementation is, in our discussions about how to implement the registry. This is important to note that this is not for those individuals cultivating for personal use. This is intended for the larger commercial operations but not for individuals who are doing their personal grows.
It will be an online data storage system. I've worked with the IT department, they've done a great job to design a very simple online form and so it will not require a lot of storage or handling by staff. In designing the registry, we came up with two basic threshold questions that then guided the registrant through a series of other forms to complete. But the two threshold questions, the first being have you been cultivating or do you intend to engage in cultivation or related operations in the future?
If you approve this ordinance today, establishing this registry system for cannabis with some limited changes we ought to be able to have that registry application up by the end of the week or the first of next week. And we would allow it to stay open until June 30th of 2017. When an individual completes the online registration form, they'll receive a confirmation email with a unique registration ID number.
And just to make a note for the board, this is probably one of the least expensive things we've ever done, just the staff time. We already own the software to create these things and so it's less than $800 of staff time that will go into the creation of the registry program. So you, I have provided to you as the board and part of the agenda packet a sample of kind of the current state of the registration forms as attachment 2.
And this slide represents a summary of the various components of the survey and this shows the two pathways that you would go down if depending if you were already had an existing cannabis operation or if you intended to do some future operation, cannabis operation. There were just some additional questions but these are the general categories personal contact information as you can imagine what part of the unincorporated area are you in? The size of your operation is it indoor outdoor? What's the water utilization system that they're using?
What are the neighboring uses how close is it to neighborhoods and schools and other uses, land uses and then other additional environmental considerations things like exterior lighting and whatnot. For those going forward it's all of those same categories with you know a little bit of addition we do ask them for those who are considering future operations to register and identify the intended license types that they might be interested This will be valuable data both as the subcommittee continues to examine economic impacts, taxation opportunities.
As well as engaging with a consultant to look at fee structures that we might want to consider for recouping cost of staff time through the various licensing fees. It would be beneficial for us to have this data collected from those who would be interested in future license types. So to begin to wrap up a little bit here, so some options for your board today would be to accept the registration form and the ordinance establishing the registry program as presented. That's one option. Another one would be to amend the cannabis registry form or the ordinance that establishes the program including things like the goals implementation plan or the data being collected And then the other option that would be to either decide today or direct staff to return with a different type of cannabis registry program at a board meeting coming to you soon.
And the final slide is just to walk you through the recommended actions, to consider introduction first reading of the ordinance And wait for the reading and to set a hearing on the administrative agenda for April 11th, to consider the adoption of the ordinance establishing the registry program. Receive and provide comments on the registration form to implement that registry program and then the CEQA findings. With that I'm happy to answer any questions.
Supervisor Lavenino?
Thank you Madam Chair. First off I want to thank Dennis on behalf of Supervisor Williams and myself on the ad hoc. doing an outstanding job. This is, I don't know probably the most difficult thing that I've seen since I've been on the board of trying to create something from nothing and you know I think we're moving in the right direction but one of the things I think the folks need to know about also is because I've heard some talk about the environmental concerns we are the county is actually also pursuing an EIR so I think we need to talk about that as well before we get to public comment
So supervisor through the, Supervisor Lavanito through the chair. Going to go down the pathway of an EIR. And the general timeline takes us out into early 2018 and then with Coastal Commission consideration probably a little bit later into 2018, and if you would like more information about that we have staff from Planning & Development they've outlined the potential schedule.
At the direction of your subcommittee I'll note that you asked for as expedited a timeline As possible, I think I'm saying that nicely.
2:01 – 2:1416 turns
Supervisor Wolf? Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to express my appreciation to the ad hoc committee. I know that you guys have been meeting quite often and I also want to thank Dennis who's answered some of the questions that I've had but What I'm still not clear about, Dennis and maybe the ad hoc folks can help me understand this. Why would someone who currently is cultivating non-medicinal marijuana? So they're not part of that.
Why would someone after what we just heard from Dr. Russell want to register And say that they are cultivating right now, knowing that they would be in violation of the ordinance that we just passed.
Chair Hartman, Supervisor Wolff, I think there's a couple of reasons. One, if we go back to the goals of the registry program, we stated that it may give somebody the ability would give them some ability to access the licensing process. I just want to go back to that to make sure I use the exact words, but that may receive priority review for possible licensing in the future. That's one reason why and the other one just from my engagement with folks in the industry there does appear to be a desire on the part of the industry to do this right And so for them to participate in that survey and allow us to use that data both for the environmental review as well for the economic analysis, I think they're wanting to do this well.
And to do it intelligently and strategically. And the data will help us make those kinds of smart decisions and hopefully reduce the number of missteps or mistakes that might occur if we did not have that data. And my impression is that they want to participate in that level.
Okay well that brings up, if I could. That just brings up my second question which was exactly what you brought up which is that priority review. I think there was another county that when they did their final ordinance they allowed permits for only 100 grows and I don't know what Our county ordinance will be but let's say we have a finite amount which is it sounds like that's maybe.
where we're going. There's a sense in me that just is feeling like this isn't fair, that we're giving people until June of 2017 to fill out this form and then those are the folks that get priority review. What happens to someone in 20 months who decides that they want to do this? And maybe this is a legal question but Why do they get priority review? Why aren't they just all kind of put together and then once we develop an ordinance everyone is looked at equally and fairly to make sure that they meet the ordinance requirements. So that piece is troubling to me.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, as we go through this process you had the first agenda item and now we've got another agenda item on this. And this will be coming back to you frequently over the next year or so. One of the things that we had done in our office was to go out and survey other counties, talk with their county council office if you were doing this again what two things would do the same? What two things would you do differently?
And try to get a feel for what was functional without increasing legal risk And that's really why this is worded the way it is, that it does not foreclose the board's opportunity down the road to not provide priority status. It indicates that you may do so. It also does not create a monopoly at this point for whoever's first in line and there have been litigation in other jurisdictions on points like that.
So we thought talking with the subcommittee, with the CEO's office what tools did they want in place. We could do those tools without really increasing the county's legal risk or foreclosing options for the entire board leader.
Supervisor Williams?
I just thought I'd answer the questions from the perspective of the subcommittee and correct me if I'm wrong on any of those Supervisor Labagnino. We're trying to get at the issue that you brought up in the last hearing, which is that there is a huge number of operations out there that are some of which may be legal. Some of which may not be legal. They're not completely sure.
I mean, most of them think they're legal and in our staff probably if they went out there they would probably find that some of these are not legal so what we are trying to do is number one Establish what the universe is and bring this into the light. Because most of these folks, at least that are here today want to be in compliance with local and state regulations.
And they have an incentive to become compliant which is that they cannot receive a state permit without being compliant with local regulations. And so there's a lot of reasons why people would want to take part in the registry. Number one is, even with the ordinance that we just passed, there are a lot that are illegal out there. Any that were established as legal non-conforming by the date January 2016 Our legal nonconforming and therefore, there would be no impediment for them to sign up. We also have a check off box if you intend to grow so that we get some idea of what other folks there might be out there.
The other reason is that It facilitates the timeline of environmental review. If we don't know what's out there, it was more difficult to assess the environmental impacts and might take longer to do environmental review if we don t know what s out there. And then the other portion would be if we gave preference which I personally would be advocating for because I want to reward someone who's willing to come into the light, and I don't wanna reward someone who's gonna hide out until the ordinance is done.
So I would think that the prioritization ultimately would be a good idea so that these people have maximum incentive to come out into the light and that we don't reward anyone for staying out in the dark.
The only thing I'm going to say about that is just because somebody doesn't register today, maybe they don't know that they're gonna grow. So maybe in a year after all the rules become evident and you can actually make a decision whether that's good. I mean the people in this room have already made that decision and that's fine but just from my own perspective There isn't enough rules for me to be able to tell whether that's a good idea. In theory, I would never grow this stuff but somebody else could legitimately be waiting along the sidelines until the rules harden up and then I would like to that wants to do business, to come in and do that.
And at this time in their mind there's too much risk. So just because somebody doesn't come into the light doesn't mean they're not a legitimate person and are trying to hide.
Every light is on up here. I would ask that we confine our comments at this point to questions and then we'll come back and deliberate after we've heard public comments so.
I'm trying
to answer the question. Supervisor Williams and then Lavinino and then Wolf.
I mean, the logic is only that if I would encourage someone to sign up if they are considering it. I would argue that the amount of capital that's necessary in this Did not know that you might be doing this as of June 30th, then you probably don't need a permit in February. The people that would receive prioritization if this board decided to give that prioritization are the folks who are clamoring to get a permit early next year so that they can get in line with state. So if somebody still wants to consider it at some point in the future Then they could, you know barring whatever restrictions that we choose to put on it.
Supervisor Lavanino?
Well and I also just wanted to state that I did, Supervisor Wolf, I wanted to make it mandatory to fill this out to be able to move forward. I was counseled that's not a very good legal process to go down so I gave in to Mr. Gazzone. And the other side of it is I think, yeah he recovered me. But the other thing too is- Well I wanted to make it mandatory that if you're going to get a license you have to fill this out by June 30th okay? So that we have a pool and we know who's out there and what we're doing so that we kind of get the scope of how big or small this is going to be.
I also think that at some point, at least in my mind and we have to remember, we are so early in this. We've just started. The ad hoc committee is meeting weekly but in week-to-week-to week things change. There are roadblocks and hurdles and potholes and all kinds of things to try to maneuver around. Every time we come in there's another reason why this doesn't work or that doesn't work and it's difficult. But one of the things that's in my mind is that we would be capping it at some point Okay, so anytime you talk about a cap there's always going to be that person down the road that maybe doesn't live in Santa Barbara County right now or doesn't live in the state of California but wants to come out here and get in line at some point. But if you have a cap, there's always gonna be that person in the fairness issue of why didn't I?
How come I'm not in the mix? And I think it's just that it's the product that somehow in my mind we're gonna regulate enough that It's still gonna be small. Just to kind of put into perspective, I looked and there's I think 27,000 acres of broccoli out there right now in Santa Barbara County. 22,000 acres of vineyards. And in my mind we would be less than 1,000 acres of cannabis throughout the entire county. So at some point somebody is going to want to grow this and they're not going to be allowed to in Santa Barbara County because they won't be able to get in line for license. That's just the nature of the business.
So I think the incentive is why would somebody fill out the registry? Because they want to be one of those first people to get in line and be part of what's going to happen here.
OK, Supervisor Wolf. Yeah, I'm gonna just go ahead and listen to public comment.
OK thank you so public comment two minutes each and talking about the registry its purpose whether it's a good idea the implementation plan and particularly the data and the questions and whether we can improve on that. So Mr. Allen
Chair Harmon, members of the board. We're going to start with Willia Hapé to be followed by Leo Ilovitz
2:14 – 2:197 turns
Good morning My name is Willia Hapé and I've been a farmer in Carpinteria for almost 30 years I have stood at this time, at the same exact spot many times in these past 30 years always to defend my right to farm. On an interesting note, I want to mention really quick for your information. It takes five gallons of water to grow one head of broccoli and it takes 141 gallons of water to grow a pound of avocados just so you know.
On this occasion, I'd like to remind you that it was the County Planning Department and the Board of Supervisors who many, many years ago decided on an agriculture overlay zoning in the Carpinteria Valley. It has also been the county who decided in the past to give us farmers some protection under the Right to Farm Act. 100 years ago Lima beans and walnuts farms covered the Carpinteria Valley.
For economic reasons crop changes were made often, lemons, avocados then outdoor plants and trees then cut flowers and hydroponic vegetables and orchids. And now the time has come for cultivating cannabis. Supervisors, I applaud the four of you who represent agriculture operations in your district for the proactive stance you have taken these past 18 months on embracing this new agriculture crop.
I'd like to remind you of a few growing practices you might not necessarily be aware of. Water use. As farmers, we are citizens who are most aware of the precious value of water. Cannabis is grown mostly hydroponically and this requires minimum amounts of water. Use of pesticides and insecticides and other crops.
I'm sorry that is your time two minutes goes very quickly I know.
Leo Elevitz, come on up to the podium and then we'll hear from Michael Masterson-Smith after you.
Oh, Supervisor Lavinino.
Because I've already seen a little unrest that people don't feel like with two minutes they're getting to say what they want to say. I do want to say Dennis if you could talk about there is a forum coming up where you're going to be able to express yourself Dennis in the
future. Thank you supervisors. I had written it down because I thought we might need to go there so just this past week the Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Cannabis Policy decided to conduct a town hall meeting on April 25th From noon to two, here in this hearing room. And you'll be invited if whatever your interest would be on the cannabis either on the industry side or the neighbor's side we're going to invite you to attend that town hall meeting. It's intended to be the first of several throughout this ordinance development process and so there will be other opportunities for providing input to the subcommittee.
Yes thank you Supervisors, Madam Chair. Two recommendations to the registry form. There is no distinction right now under MCRSA or AUMA. Regarding the kind of cultivation or products that come out, specifically THC or CBD. Some states do such as in Colorado. I think it would behoove you to consider adding a checkbox on that whether Businesses are primarily concerned with growing one or the other.
As you know, THC is the psychoactive component. CBD is not psychoactive and shows efficacy in treating inflammation and seizures. If you would add it, I mean simple, you would get a larger picture on what is being produced now potential businesses are planning for the future and if you're interested in creating some diversification in an industry should you go forward with an ordinance, you might want to fold that into the regulations and permitting process.
Two, under the types of grows I noticed that what was missing and I don't know if the ad hoc committee intended to do this or not but type 1c specialty cottage is not in there. I'd request that you put it in there. It was added through amendment of bill 2516. And that's called out as a cultivator license for maximum of 2,500 square feet of canopy size for mixed light.
Outdoor cultivation for up to 25 plants on one premise. Outside of that I would just like to know when you receive all the data and compile it if any of that data is going to be available to the public?
2:19 – 2:278 turns
My name
is Dr. Michael Masterman-Smith, I'm a Cancer Biologist and Molecular Medical Pharmacologist. I work as the Chief Scientist and Interim Chief Medical Officer of several farms here working with William and her farm and I am a member of CA Union Cooperative. I consult medical patients specifically, my partners work specifically in the medical industry. We create medicine and then we consult patients directly. My patients are sick, they're dying.
I appreciate what you guys are doing. It's a tough issue. I appreciate you guys doing the deep dive on this because that's exactly what we're doing. I second the comments that were made previously with regards to recommendations to the registry. I do believe that some operators have been acting in perfect compliance, we've met with county Santa Barbara law enforcement and your regulatory staffs and what not.
And we felt as though we were doing the property thing and doing everything right. We're trying to do this, not only are we trying to do this right, we're trying to do it better than right because without the rules that are giving us the guidance to what we do I have to follow certain scientific practices and certain medical practices to do what I do. Doctors don't know what they're doing. So we are coming up with in terms of a case of improvisation, it's basically compassionate improvisation. We're all in this together and I just hope everything works out.
One last comment the registry as I said some folks have already been doing this for awhile and when we're trying to create medicine There's an incredibly complex supply chain that is monitored and controlled for, and that's how we operate. That's how I operate today. And so I think with those operators having already achieved some success and have already gone through the challenges and found resolution to some of those challenges, I think those are the guys you really want to talk to. Thank you.
Good
morning, Madam Chair and members of the Supervisors. My name is Patrick Lang. First I want to thank you for the long hours and hard work given to Medical Canvas Regulation I would like to add a medical perspective and frame the importance of thoughtful regulation. I have a 30 year career in cannabis, the past 10 focused on medical cannabis. Three years ago my focus specifically switched to cancer using CBD and THC to eliminate tumors Over the past two years, I've provided over a dozen patients with lab tested formulations.
Those patients have followed consistent dosing regimen in the form of capsules and oils and 50% of those patients have cancer free scans. I'm sharing this with you because I understand the skepticism about whether or not cannabis is truly a medicinal substance, and I can say that it truly is. And I have plenty that would support me with that statement. With that said, I imagine that a large percentage of medical producers will opt out of medical regulation in favor of recreational cannabis regulations. So the current regulations being decided upon will eventually apply to a much smaller number of operators.
I'm here to offer my experience and time to serve this process in any way that helps you to regulate this very important sector of the cannabis industry. Thank you.
Good morning Madam Chair and Board. Thank you for taking the time and ad hoc committee, thank you for all of your hard work and working on the registry. I have been in medical cannabis since 2003. I formed a first ever cannabis mapping website directly designed for safe access to patients so that people could find their medicine. I've continued that mission over the last decade of having safe access for patients, working with many UCLA doctorates, alumni and research scientists as well as family farmers and agriculturists on how to tie the industry together.
In this time with the regulations and complexities of everything, I just want to leave you guys with one note today. And that is the understanding that this is one of the safest substances on the planet and coming to you as a family farmer with little children who have been around many different crops including livestock and all the way to herbal medicines obviously getting locked off But I just want to let you know and instill that there is no LD50 for cannabis, and cannabis is among the safest substances on the planet. The water you're drinking in your cups has an LD50. The oxygen we're breathing, the children's Tylenol that is used by many parents in this room has an LD 50. Cannabis doesn't, and I want you guys to keep that in mind as we move forward With the regulating process, the most dangerous process or aspect of this industry is the prohibition on it and everything that comes from the lack of regulation.
So I totally support you guys in everything you do and regulating us and bringing a compliant sustainable industry to Santa Barbara in the future. Thank you.
Ms. Rogan to be followed by Alexander Lonspark
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Supervisors. Thank you so much for your time today. My name is Liz Rogan. I am here representing the Cannabis Business Council of Santa Barbara County. We are a group of advocates, growers, cultivators in all aspects of the industry and we have worked with you before. I'm sure you're familiar with us but want to first thank you very much for all your time. I know it's not the easiest thing to deal with obviously.
Specifically, we want to thank Supervisors Steve Lavagnino and Doss Williams for serving on the ad hoc committee. The cannabis industry does have the potential to provide significant benefits for Santa Barbara County including tax revenue and high paying jobs. We also look forward to working with the county and ask you to adopt this program today. It is important first step in the compliance, sorry it's important first step create a pathway for compliance in this industry.
We also encourage the ad hoc committee to continue to focus on developing regulations before the end of the year. As you know, the state also has prioritization for processing for those in existence prior to January 2016. So we really do look forward to working with the county to create fair, balanced tax structure that does support both the county and the industry.
So again thank you for your attention to this very important and timely issue. We really do appreciate it and we are also here to work with you in any way that we can through this process. Thanks again.
Alexander Longspock, before by Renee O'Neill in Santa Maria
2:27 – 2:338 turns
Hello, my name is Alexander Lonsbach. When I was eight years old, I developed an autoimmune disorder and I've had it for 23 years now making me one of the longest standing cases in the world. Over these years, I've been prescribed over 15 different medications and at some times have taken up to 35 pills a day. One day when I was 19, I found cannabis and it saved my life. I am no longer dependent on pharmaceuticals. I have been a patient in Santa Barbara Cannabis Activists for over 10 years. For eight of those years, I have been by your standards commercially cultivating cannabis. Today I'm hoping to give you a few of my viewpoints. The first issue that I would like to address is a standing publicize in the county of the Santa Barbara Planning and Development Long Range Planning Division website.
In this website, the question and answer section states that only land that is cultivated on or has been cultivated on is given a non-conforming status and not the collectives themselves. In the meeting that occurred last year on January 19, 2016 it was agreed that the people or organizations that is cultivated in a space larger than 100 square feet and provided medications to patients in this county would be deemed a commercial cultivator and be allowed to operate and given an illegal non-conforming status. As most of the collectives rent their land or farms because the price of land here is so high, it would open almost all of our collectives up to predatory landlords and rezoning problems potentially leading to the demise of our county's standing collectives.
This would affect the lives of many small farmers and their families' livelihood as well as some of the larger more established collectives in the area. This would lead to a greater influx of cannabis grown outside of our county. This leads to another one of the main problems that I currently see in our county's medical cannabis community, is the deliveries are now using more cannabis grown outside of Santa Barbara County. Because of the more lax regulations and other counties and lower overhead costs of our county has been flooded out with out-of-county grown cannabis. This puts out local farmers out of business and the economy and the ability to help patients in this county to other counties. I urge you to act with regulation but be flexible in your regulation so that our local collectives and patients will not suffer.
Thank you
We're going to go to Santa Maria for Renee O'Neil, to be followed by Lillian Clary.
Good morning again Supervisors, Madam Chair. First we'd really like to express our appreciation that you unanimously adopted the Urgency Ordinance. Thank you for that. But we in Tepeskaya community are still living with the daily negative impacts of large-scale marijuana growers. In regard to the registry form, this process presumes that all participants will answer honestly.
We urge you to impose strict consequences for dishonest information provided under this proposed registry. There are multiple reports and surveys from other California counties documenting environmental damage and increased criminal activities in areas that have this farming operation going. There are no other industries that would be allowed to spring up overnight, especially ones that have such negative impacts They would not be allowed to spring up overnight because there would be zoning regulations and ordinances already in place.
We urge you to protect us from this unwanted and unregulated industry, thank you.
Lillian Clary followed by Andy Caldwell
Thank you very much but I have no further comment to make
Mr. Caldwell?
Madam Chair, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing Colab. It wasn't our idea for the state to treat marijuana as an agricultural crop versus a pharmaceutical product be that as it may we are very concerned about the board opening up what we would consider a Pandora's box And to put it just to be blunt, to plant a crop in Santa Barbara County farmers do not need to pull permits simply for planting and watering.
Now we do know that they have to get a pesticide permit from the Ag Commissioner for some things and if they have hazardous chemicals in excess quantities they have to get one from public health but to simply plant and water they don't need a permit And we're worried about you opening this up for ag and whether or not you just single out marijuana for the rest of eternity, or this starts to raise questions about other crops as was raised today about how many gallons of water is going to be used per crop.
We think that we have a right to farm ordinance here and that has to be respected. And because the state is treating this as agriculture, we think you have to think along those lines. The other thing other than proximity to schools For pesticide use, we're not sure what is the reason to ask a question for how close they are to a public right-of-way or municipal boundary. Or the use of generators or their commute patterns of employees.
You don't ask this of other agricultural commodities, and again we don't know if you're going to treat marijuana uniquely in perpetuity or you're gonna open a door to begin asking this of other ag commodities which we would severely protest. Thank you.
We'll come back to Senate Member for Eddie Lerman be followed by John DeFrio
2:33 – 2:4314 turns
And with me is Liana Held, and she's ceding her time to me. Good morning. Thank you so much for all of the efforts that you've obviously taken in consideration of these issues and I can tell that you've spent a lot of time thinking about these issues. I'm an attorney, I practice predominantly in the field of medical cannabis and I've worked with a lot of different counties that have been in the midst of setting their regulations. And I commend you for a great job with respect to What is happening here and what your county is considering embarking on.
In the non-conforming registration or non conforming uses that are going to be registered, I'm extremely concerned about the properties themselves and the tie that is required in terms of prior cultivation improving prior cultivation. On the one hand, I want to make sure that you've considered AB 21 which clearly says that you are not supposed to start cultivating until you have the permit. And so while it is important to establish perhaps that the resident or individual or group had been cultivating cannabis in Santa Barbara By linking it to an actual piece of property and saying you had to have been cultivating on that piece of property. In my opinion, it runs contrary to both the purpose and effect of AB 21. And Mendocino County if you consider that I was and worked in great part in a lot of the meetings creating that registration.
And it was tied to the applicant not the property. And the reason for that was in great part because of AB 21. By stating that you want to keep the footprint, at least understand the footprint which is why you do the temporary ordinance and why we have this equal analysis ultimately. You wanna understand what's happening now. You want people to be forthright with that and I think it's important that you consider that. Thank you so much.
Supervisor Wolf
would like to ask you a question. Yes, thank you. You mentioned Mendocino and registry. Was the registry done after the ordinance had been completed or were they done in conjunction with one another? Or like in this case having the registry done before the ordinance? They had two
processes of registry. They're actually in the process of reopening the registration right now for a short period of time, but they had the registration originally on the emergency ordinance similar to what you are doing and then they opened the process up and passed the actual ordinance.
Okay all right thank you very much.
Sure after the CEQA analysis was done.
John DeFrio to be followed by Marilee Peebles
Hello Madam Chair and Board. My name is John Nafreel, I'm also a member of the Santa Barbara County Cannabis Business Council and I'm here today to speak in support of the registry. We thank you very much for the professional business friendly manner at which you guys are approaching this. And I'd also like to thank Supervisors Lavinino and Williams for their diligence in reaching out to the industry and ensuring that this is a well-rounded approach.
I'd like to just Continue with where I think Willia was going in her comments, in that with all of the regulations that the state has passed and are now implementing over the next year or so, cannabis will be the most heavily regulated agricultural crop. As Santa Barbara County, a lot of the Scientific American and those studies that have been referenced with six gallons of water per day. All those studies were looked at in Humboldt and Mendocino counties which do not have the rich agricultural tradition that we do here. It's much more of a timberland.
And so we have 30 plus years of developing recycling water systems, drip irrigation and utilizing the most advanced agricultural best practices from all other crops. That being said as well, all of the good operators here are registered with the County Ag Department and do pesticide spray reports. And if you are one of those people then you understand that on any pesticide the label is the law and those labels are federally regulated so there is no Pesticide with cannabis sativa on the label, so the amount of spraying and available options for us to spray are the most limited of any crop absolutely whatsoever period. So people's concerns about this being a conversion of cannabis from other crops being an increase in pesticide spraying actually the opposite will happen because we have less to spray and you'll have less pesticide spraying environment.
Thank you
Marilee Peebles, to be followed by Paul Roberts.
Thank you. I believe Paul Roberts had to go, can I have his two minutes? No? Okay. My concern is this draft does not specifically address some important points to regulate cannabis growth and allow for the residents of Carpinteria Valley to live in harmony with this new industry. I live in a subdivision of 40 homes above Foothill where every home has a minimum of one acre. I'm way at the top, over a quarter mile from Foothill and everyday I can smell the marijuana. It did not start January 2016 but it started after that and it continues to increase meaning medical marijuana is uncontrolled. It's still expanding I feel that the smell is more than annoying. If no one told us, I've been living there for over 30 years, that we were going to someday be living next to a factory that emits constant skunk-like odors from a for profit enterprise.
I'm for growing medical marijuana but This draft does not really address the concerns. I think that on page two, under section two, that the date of the growth should be added and most importantly the square footage so that you know what kind of medical marijuana you're dealing with at this point. We know from talking to Salud and the Sheriff's Department At this point it's pretty much a free-for-all.
On page 4 under part S, it's pretty vague about what kind of light regulations are going to be implemented under U. The scrubbing for odors, I mean that's a big issue around Carpinteria Valley as well as the lighting. That needs to be specific and something that has to be taken care of. And then the pesticides, I guess a lot of people have already spoken about that.
That is your time, I'm sorry. Okay, thank you.
Madam Chair, I'd like to just- Sure. Ma'am, I just wanted to express something. You're absolutely right that none of this in the registry addresses specifics and we're so early on in it. We haven't even got close to where we're going to determine what the regulations are. Believe me smell light are two things that we are really looking strongly at and will have very strict guidelines but the registry is just trying to get basic information on what people are doing out there these are not the regulations okay?
And
that would be the right forum for that would be the forum that the Ad Hoc Committee is doing on the 25th at noon to two. So please, we ask so this forum on the 25 does not take Longer than the allowed time that people really come in with their advice to us about what should be the permitting requirements in Santa Barbara County. We want to hear from the public on that, both the business license permitting requirements and the land use permitting requirements. That's how we're going to bifurcate the talk on the 25th. And it'd be also useful if some of you want to be overachievers to read Draft regulations or at least portion thereof, or a digest thereof because they are very long.
Because there are some restrictions in there already in state law such as buffers from schools and other types of facilities. But that would be the right moment and it won't be the only moment we will take public testimony on what the permit requirements should be.
2:43 – 2:498 turns
Our next speaker is Seamus Etheridge to be followed by Winfrid Van Vigerden.
Chair Hartman, Supervisors. My name is Seamus Etheridge. I've been cultivating medical cannabis in this county for over a decade. I am here to represent Eagle's Nest Farms which is a cultivating collective run by patients that provides two patients in the county. I'd like to thank you guys for the progressive route that you're taking And just hope that the regulations that we all are working toward can help everybody.
The registry system is a great idea for the start. Several things that I'd like to mention, one of which is the process for the registry system determining people who have been here cultivating properly for many years whether they have any type Whether they're ahead of someone who may not know whether they need to register or, sorry I'm a little bumbling right now.
But people who have been here I believe should be priority, not just the people who want to come in from other counties because their counties are not being progressive. The other thing is, like to see some sort of point of sale in the county unincorporated areas because as you've mentioned before that's something that we really need. Doss I appreciate your Explaining to the public about the non-conforming legal uses, I would urge you to give some more direction to the planning department and Dr. Russell in particular about how they are going to determine who are non-conforming legal uses because apparently there is no system for that in place.
Thank you. Supervisor
Adam? I would like to
suggest that you change the word progressive to libertarian.
Good morning Madam Chair, members of the board. My name is Winfred Van Wingerden and I've been here for 50 years now. We're celebrating 50 years here in Carpinteria growing flowers and we're very proud of that. You know we're from Holland originally where a lot of the technology comes from. I can't tell from your accent at all! Isn't that amazing? I came here as a 12 year old, you know. So it's been a long time coming here but we appreciate very much what both Supervisors Dust Williams and Supervisor Steve Lavinino have been doing for us in this open process. This has been extremely helpful and we really appreciate that. But as a grower, I really need to address the issues again and really stress those of water that we are Very modern growers.
We use drip irrigation, we use recycling. Every drop of water goes back into our plants and so our insects are controlled by beneficial insects. So we don't use any sprays. My spray bill growing from Gerberas, I still grow Gerbera's but in Gerberes I had to use a lot more insecticides in order to control my bugs With the cannabis, there's none. And so I've been able to save a tremendous amount of money there. We're able to pay our people a better wage. You know we're obviously going up to the $15 an hour minimum wage which is very important for our people. I fully support that but obviously there has to be a way to do that. The smell is something we're definitely going to address you know and that's very important to us. We are looking at many different ways of doing that new technology so that's very important We want to be compliant.
You know, we want to be fully compliant to the state. The state I know is wanting us to comply for this. Lastly, my sister suffered from cancer. She's used it and it's worked out really well for her. Thank you very much.
Thank you. David Van Vingerden is our next speaker, followed by Michael Guglielmo.
Good morning, Madam Chair and Board of Supervisors. My name is David Van Wingerden and my family has been farming in the Carpinteria Valley for 50 years as Winfred pointed out. We have been regulated over the years by local state and federal government and so this is something that we're very used to doing working with our local government to make sure that we comply.
As Winfred pointed out as well pesticide use Excuse me. The pesticide use in our industry has actually greatly declined over the years. We use more biological control, and so the transition into cannabis would be an easy transition. We have also always maintained good relationships with our neighbors, and that's something that we would like to continue to do. And so we really appreciate all of your professional work on this matter, and we ask you to support this registry. Thank you.
2:49 – 2:546 turns
Good morning. Thank you again for an opportunity to be in front of you. My name is Michael Grillo, I'm the owner of Elite Garden, an employer in this space. And I'd like to first thank Supervisors Williams and Lavagnino for their leadership on the ad hoc committee. I think we're all aware at this point, I think everyone in the room is aware of the economic opportunity that cannabis industry presents for Santa Barbara County. And I'm encouraged to see that the committee is prioritizing the issue and being so proactive in addressing the concerns of all the constituencies including the headaches that are gonna come with this.
I want to lend both mine and Elite's full support for the registry program as an important first step towards compliance locally. The registry will help the county collect the baseline data that we need to manage the industry locally, and start to make informed decisions about the longer term policies that will manage this market. We plan to participate in the registry, promote compliance and provide information about our current and planned operations.
In addition we're eager to implement best practices in technology that support 100% water reuse, the reduction of pesticides, renewable energy solutions, order control systems and the elimination of nitrate seepage which the Van Wingerdens have touched on as well as other people. I urge the board to continue To focus on this issue and adopt policy before the end of the year, the opportunity for cannabis to contribute to this economy in a community is immense. But it's important for our businesses and our community to have clarity regarding regulations and taxes as soon as possible. I look forward to working closely with the Ad Hoc Committee over the coming months. Thank you again for your
time.
Hi good morning my name is Graham Farrar. I'm here, I'd like to commend the board and the ad hoc committee and staff for the work that you guys have done to move this process forward in this industry. Without your work the citizens and businesses of Santa Barbara County would've been looking at a situation of being locked out of the entire California state regulated cannabis market so thank you for that and keeping us out of that position. I encourage the board to adopt a registry program. It's an important first step to building a consensus and collecting a baseline of information to develop a comprehensive ordinance. I would encourage the county to do everything that they can to encourage the community to feel safe about being transparent in providing that information so that the data we collect is good.
We've heard a number of valid questions here today around regulations where currently no standard exists, which I think highlights the need for that comprehensive regulation and around water efficiency, odor control, renewable energy permitted pesticides etc. As the ad hoc committee continues to do their work once again reiterate the importance of having a pathway for compliance by the January 1 2018 state application deadline So that we can have the required documentation that we need to apply and be compliant at the state level. We have a big opportunity before us here both from a community and from an economic point of view for the cannabis industry to be a part of the Santa Barbara County community, and we look forward to participating in the registry and working with the ad hoc committee and the board in the county to move that forward.
Thank you.
Anna Carrillo to be followed by Emma Bradley
Hello. My friend and I spent a lot of time yesterday going through the Section 2, Section 3. And so we've presented something. You should have it in your packet now. And I'm not going to go over all that because we went line by line on suggestions we made. I'm a retired teacher from the Carpinteria Unified School District. Three of the schools are in the vicinity of quite a few of the nurseries.
Oh, so one of the suggestions on this is that you have A through Z section 2 and then A through Y on section 3. Our suggestion is combine the two because A through D are the only ones that are different. So making it easier to follow. On the you know, the registry and you know our big thing is is the registry mandatory or voluntary for the current growers? The effective neighbors in the Carpentry Valley need to know the location and how many greenhouses which seems like it's already been You're looking at and once one fills out the registry How's it going to be tabulated and then who will verify how the form has been filled out And how will this be enforced and also lack of time to I mean, I only saw the staff report when it was issued on Thursday.
So trying to have everybody be interested in it and getting people to react was very short notice. And there was only a notice two weeks ago in the news press which I happened to see and two weeks ago in our local paper so I think there needs to be a better way of letting the public know when these important meetings are happening. Thank you very much.
Hi,
2:54 – 3:008 turns
my name is Anna Bradley and I'm a resident of Carpinteria above Foothill in La Mirada by the Growers. I am a parent. I have a daughter in 6th grade that's gone through public school. I'm looking down the pike or the channel where my daughter is going to be going to middle And frankly, every day I drive by the Carpinteria High School. And I have this sinking feeling about the smell that these students 600 a year go through that school and have to smell that on a daily basis while trying to focus on their learning and becoming adults and future leaders of our community. So what I ask him, I'm very much pro, Medical marijuana and solving people's problems. But I also want to take into consideration the future generation of our community when you're making decisions about how far these regulations need to be from not impacting our schools.
So I believe this is probably another place for discussion in your forum, but I think there's probably a large number of parents in our community that would like to speak on that as well. Thank you.
David Seaha to be followed by Hunter Myers who's our final speaker.
Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Board. Thank you for your time. My family has lived in Carpinteria for 40 years, we also farm there my clients I'm losing client base also over this situation. I sell Gerbers, I don't sell them Gerber's anymore. I've also farmed. We did baby's breath years ago, farming changes. We've now moved to avocados and I'm just working...I still owe money on the land. I don't own it free. It costs money to live here in San Barbara and farm here. I'm trying to pass it down to my kids to own the property. And I just want to be able to farm on agriculturally zoned property. Thank you.
I just want to say thank you guys for your support of the registry. I think it's a great idea. Time is of the essence, as you know this season is of the greatest importance right now because planting has to be done within a month or else the revenue potential is lost so As we've seen with Colorado, we were the first state to have it on our ballot. We kind of dragged our feet a little bit and they beat us to the punch. They're legal, they had hands off was a fair regulation. It was a wild west and they made billions of dollars. They donated back to the schools, the schools made billions of dollars.
The education was shot up and A mental health and education issue, not a black market issue. And with the discovery of the endocannabinoid system in mammalian DNA and most vertebrates it is completely safe for all organisms to be consuming cannabis. In any excessive amount there's no way to overdose on it, it's impossible. So as far as the smell for the kids there are ozone carbon filters all that stuff that can be regulated very easily but Actually, kids that have Dravet Syndrome and have 200 seizures a day would actually prefer to learn in school that their seizures can be cured by endocannabinoid stimulation of cannabinoids receptors in their mammalian DNA. And that is found within the cannabis plant and no other synthetic pharmaceuticals or Any other medicines can actually produce the same effects that nature can.
And that smell is actually a healing smell and a multi-million dollar stimulus, multi-billion dollar stimulus into the future for this state. I would urge you to please consider the fact The more laissez-faire hands off you guys are with the regulation and more lenient you are with people wanting to comply, just coming to give their tax tithing then they'll come and do it.
We're just trying to be in compliance and help the state out with our economy so with that saying, the endocannabinoid system has been available online for about since 1992 and we're still dealing with the legal. So that's all I'll say.
That concludes public comment.
Okay, Mr. Bozanich I'll bring it back to you to answer any questions. I just want to put a proposal out for how we can approach this and it's in Mr. Bozanich's outline that first we look at the goals on slide three and then we look at the implementation plan on slide four and then we discuss the specific information and data that is collected in the registry form itself. So with that, Mr Bozanich, any comments on public comment?
Chair Hartman, no comments.
Okay would you put up slide three please? And then Supervisor Wolf.
3:00 – 3:057 turns
Chair Hartman, what are you asking us to do? To ask questions based on this? Yes.
I'd like to split our discussion into three parts unless you have some general comments or questions and first we would look at the goals. Do these capture our goals and then the implementation plan and then we would focus on the specifics of the form itself and we've had a lot of suggestions so we'll have Think about how best to handle that efficiently. Okay,
well that sounds good So I guess the first one is the collection of data so Our school teacher from Carpinteria brought up a couple of points One is whether or not this is voluntary or not It is voluntary
Chair Hartman Supervisor Wolf yes
Okay and the second point is who will verify the information that's documented in this application?
Supervisor Wolf to the Chair, given the direction on February 14th from the board to create the registry. The board was rather specific in suggesting that we not have a validation by staff of any of the data that is provided here. That said, the data would be valuable as I've mentioned prior for both the economic analysis and environmental analysis baseline data.
And it may be of some value as we respond to complaints received in the planning department as a way to understand prior to arrival at a particular site or And let me just back up a half a step. One of the things in our compliance process that our staff and planning and development has noticed is that because we don't know where these sites are at all, they're often left saying there's an odor that's emanating from a specific block or two- or three-block area. Or in some weather conditions it's a rather widespread odor problem which creates difficulty for our staff to be able to respond to that resident's concern and complaint.
This data would give us some geographic information about where those sites are potentially based on this registration process, which would allow our staff in partnership with the Sheriff's Department to be able to make visits to those sites in a much more expeditious manner. So I would say those would be the general purposes of the data being collected. And I think as you probably heard from many of the speakers this morning, there seems to be a willingness to comply and participate in the registry because it's in their interest.
But I'm really not following that because how could it be in their interest if you're getting a complaint and you're using the registry as a means of following up on the complaint or locating a particular site. You don't have to answer that, that's just... You know when this came to the board and the whole issue of registry came about, the reason I voted against it was because it wasn't clear what this registry was supposed to accomplish.
And just from a policy perspective, and I'm not talking about the ordinance, I suspect that our county is going to come up with a very good ordinance when this is all said and done. But when it comes to this registry, I have to say that hearing everything And again from a policy perspective it is not making sense to me. We don't have any, I don't know actually what department is going to be getting this information. It is voluntary. The issue of Of it being a, that there's a push for priority status is still very even though it says may in this information that we have. There seems to be some statements from board members and from the public that there is a desire that filling out this form does give someone priority.
There is no, it's a pretty extensive form for someone to fill out. So what gives someone priority if we were to move in that direction? What if someone doesn't fill out this form completely? I feel that this going, that it just doesn't It's a lot of work for staff and although I believe it is a lot of work for staff, I know it is. And I don't know that it's going to be valuable in the long run.
3:05 – 3:1116 turns
Supervisor Adam and then Supervisor Lovanino he was first.
Well the first shall be last and the last shall be first. I read that somewhere but go ahead.
Hey if you have something to help me maybe, you know maybe I want to hear you. I don't know. I just have a couple of comments and I'm ready to move this thing. I'm not sure I like the non-personal. Is there a reason we use the term non-personal rather than commercial or nonmedical?
Mr. Buzanich. Chair Harmon, Supervisor Adam. One of the and counsel weigh in on this please but one of the kind of unusual things that I've learned in this process in the last couple weeks is that we actually don't have a legal description of what commercial is. And given that we don't have a rather specific one, it was suggested I think wisely that we use something that perhaps is less legal sounding like non-personal.
But it really comes
down to- Do you have a definition of non-personal? I'm serious because we do have a Black's Law Dictionary, I'm sure. Yeah. And commercial is probably pretty well defined in
there. So I'll look to council, we did work the language quite a bit in order to fit into something that seemed to make sense. But again this is an opportunity for your board to provide that kind of feedback and so happy to make whatever changes you suggest.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I think one of the things that we had done was to look at state law. And then within the definitions in this ordinance at subparagraph C, cultivation is broad and then accepts out personal cultivation of medical cannabis or personal cultivation of six or fewer plants. So that's the intent of that was to not create a new term and also to match as closely as possible existing state law.
The distinction
between indoor and outdoor
on the forms
I think that I would prefer to see separate
sections. And if you're going to do both indoor and outdoor then you should probably fill out both sections. But I thought it was a little bit confusing when you go through the form and there's one question about indoor followed by another question about outdoor.
Could could I ask what I'd like to do is talk about the goals be clear about that, go on to the implementation and then we'll look at the form itself. So could you hold that thought because I think that goes to the form itself? Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you Madam Chair, so just answering one question and then want to talk about this up here for validation and people kind of asked who's going to check on what the full what's on the form I just want the public to understand no supervisor Wolf gets it but I want the public to understand On the validation, this is not the permit application. So there will be a time when someone is going to go out and look and a team is gonna go out and look and make sure that security is there, that the odor control is in just like you would with anything else but it's not off of this form so there will be a further permit application.
And Dennis I just wanted to see if you could touch on the economic impact analysis and where we are on that because I think that's very key.
Supervisor Lavanino through the chair. So, the economic analysis we've begun to work with a firm HDL that has been working around the state. They are going to provide us three levels of economic analysis. One overall kind of impact analysis of the industry in general so taking into account what Part of what you heard today from some of the community. Mentioning higher wages, what does that mean? All of those kinds of general economic impacts kind of to our gross domestic product if you will.
That's at the highest level 30,000 feet coming down a lot closer to home. What are the options for taxation that would be available given the data that we would collect through the registry process? What are some of the options and examining that in light of what other jurisdictions are doing around taxation, including the state and our neighbors and all that. The third level of this gets really granular which is looking at the costs for our staff of doing the enforcement pieces. So earlier today you adopted a fee ordinance for planning and development, for example.
I'm anticipating that there would be a fee ordinance associated with any of the licensing types and the land use permitting activities depending again on what happens with the actual ordinance in Santa Barbara County. That analysis provided by the consultant would be informing those fees that we might charge industry.
Okay, and I don't know if we've even signed the contract with them. But what kind of time frame are we talking about to where we get all that information?
So we've asked them to, we have not signed the contract yet. We're in the process of doing the paperwork now it's a relatively low cost consulting contract under $25,000 and so what we're asking for is that data to come back in May-June time frame at least some preliminary data and perhaps some more refined data after the close of the registry period which would probably be more of a final report in let's say August
3:11 – 3:1714 turns
I had one comment and that has to do with collect data, but we want to collect as accurate data as possible. We did have a suggestion in the letter that although we don't have an enforcement other than by complaint That if an applicant was found giving false information, they would be excluded from the registry and that could be an incentive to take care and do this correctly. So I'd like to ask for comments about that or reactions to that proposal.
Supervisor Levenham? It did make sense
to me that somehow there's got to be some sort of But the fact that it's voluntary and I'm not sure, you know we don't have a staff to be able to go out and figure it out but if at some point we determine that somebody had falsified information and created something. I would be for some sort of penalty or a total denial. I would be supportive of that as well.
And I would and Supervisor Wolf?
Well you're not, this is not to get a permit right? So and there's no verification. I wouldn't expand this any more than it is right now and the way it's written right now is that there is no way to verify so Unless you put in something, under penalty of perjury everything has to be accurate. But staff is not taking the time to verify.
The verification could take place during the permitting process and
So
then you are using this. The consequences could also be during the permit process. But
see, I'm concerned that then what you're just saying is you are tying this to the permitting and I think that's a whole nother application for someone to go through. As I understand it, that's not what this registry is for.
So Chair Hardiman, Supervisor Wolf I would note on page 7 of the application there is a final statement right above the signature lines that has fairly common language about under penalty of perjury I certify. So there is a self-certification that occurs at the conclusion of the registry process.
So it seems like that should be enough. Chair Hartman if someone, if that's a concern I think that was good.
I'm willing, I would like it stronger but I'm willing to, Supervisor Williams.
Maybe we could have any advice from county council? Just so that you know, it is absolutely our intent to link this as much as possible with the permitting process because we want people to have an incentive to come into the light That is sort of the philosophical underpinning of this entire process from my perspective, is we want people to come into the light. We want them to have an incentive to come into the light and we want to punish people who don't comply with county regulations and don't come into the light.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, maybe I can look at the macro a little bit. As we understood the timeline from the ad hoc subcommittee and the entire board, we tried to bring something today working with CEO's office that you could complete the first reading of the ordinance, bring it back in a week for the second reading And as to the registration form it's set up to occur, some of those changes can occur outside the ordinance itself. So the board is agendized to receive and provide comments on that registration form so we had avoided making the registration form part of the ordinance So that in the event of changes recommended by the board today, we would not have to say can we bring it back in two weeks for a new first reading? So we tried to provide a little bit of agility for the board on this.
But I think that we've heard the comments and those are something that could be addressed into the changes that CEO's office can make into the form itself. I hear loud and clear on the penalty of perjury that's currently drafted in there right now but Basically provide the macro being the ordinance and then allow comments to be received on the form and allow that process to go forward without requiring a new first reading.
I'm just going to say that I think you're losing me. If you're making the assumption that everybody who is out there today is all the people you're ever going to deal with, well no but that's what I'm hearing when you say people should come into the light and if they don't come into the light Even if they don't know that they exist, then there may be some form of punishment down the road. So you're starting to lose me here.
3:17 – 3:2716 turns
That the people who are coming into the light before June 30th should have priority for a permit issued in February. That is our, that was definitely our intent because if someone just like you know wakes up one morning in December they're probably not going to be able to comply to get a permit by February right? And for I think the reasons of I guess what I'm saying is that if people are not willing to comply with state and local regulations, yeah we should enforce on them. That's the intent of having a differentiation. Right now it's just an amorphous group of people. It's very unclear who's complying with the law and who isn't. And we want to make it really clear to both growers and residents Who's complying with the law and who isn't. And the ones who aren't complying with the law, we should have an enforcement opportunity with.
I think what Supervisor Adams' concern is somebody down the road that now finds they want to get involved in a business Yeah, there's going to be an opportunity. Of course like I talked about that in my world and I want to stress again I think we're like on step B of about a 25-step process that so it's very hard to try to figure out what's gonna happen way down the road but you know I think the only thing that would stop somebody a year two years three years down the road from now getting involved in business if there's a cap involved of some sort and You know, the opportunity just isn't there at that point.
But you know then there's always the discretion of the board that the cap would be increased or decreased or whatever would happen but you know that's the way I see it playing out.
Okay so we have the goals of the program and I guess I'd just like a sense of the board if that is, if that's agreeable given the discussion and if we can move on to slide four which gets into the implementation. Some questions for Mr. Buzanich, this will come back on April 11th and I believe you said people could begin registering as early as Friday and then it says June 30th for the registration to go live so would you just walk forward the process as we understand it for implementation of the registry?
Happy to, Chair Harmon. So the idea you know what I was trying to say as we could go live Friday is just to say that the whole entire online form and the database behind it is already established in draft form based on the form that you have been reviewing today and receiving public comment on today. We can make a series of revisions very simply to that form adding additional categories whatever will of your board is, and we could still do that rather quickly. I guess I would overall probably recommend that we would wait until after the second reading next Tuesday and then we could launch immediately after that.
And then the closing date on the registry process though would be the June 30th 2017 date So if we were to start April 11th or April 12th and continuing on until June 30th. Okay,
are there any other questions about the implementation of the registry? Any suggestions changes? Okay that brings us to the substance and we've heard we have a letter that came in with many specific ideas And then we've heard a number of comments from people during public comment. Mr. Bozanich, I have a list. I'm just wondering how we should proceed with the specific suggestions that we heard?
So I think, Chair, I think I took some notes and then maybe if I start with mine and see if I've got it right. And then you can add to it and other members. So if we move on to page two of the form section two there was a suggestion that perhaps just A B C and D of The section two data is the only thing that's unique within section two and then the rest of that data is identical in section three.
And what I would like to do, and suggest I do, is go back and work with Steve in our IT shop to make sure that we can differentiate in the database between those who are Already cultivating and those who intend to, which is kind of that other question. So if I can do that and shorten up that number of questions and still keep the integrity of that data, I'm all for shortening this thing up pretty dramatically.
I don't see any heads shaking no
up here. There were some questions, I do want to point out in section 2 letter i of the form there was a question about the square footage of the canopy and we have that in there and I just wanted to point that out. So now I'm proceeding to section three. I had a couple of suggestions in 3A, one of the gentlemen, sorry don't recall your name but he suggested adding the type 1C license type and I'll go back, I don't know quite how I missed that but we'll go back and see if we can include that in there so that shouldn't be a problem to add to those check boxes There was another suggestion from another member of the community where we might want to stipulate whether the cultivation or have the registrants identify whether or not they're cultivating based on the THC or the CBDs.
And so that was another Category we could add and it would be perhaps valuable for our group to have that data. And those were the ones I got from public comment today.
Supervisor Wolfe? Thank you Madam Chair, Mr. Bozonich on page 7 its section 3B It says do you intend to continue cultivation at, and then it says your current or most recent site or new location. So that question implies for me that someone is currently cultivating right?
So I would say for Supervisor Wolf, do you intend to continue to cultivate? Yes. If they were to do the first response yes under that first question then they are admitting that they are currently cultivating. That's correct.
Okay so with that understanding if you go to the introduction page of the form And then you go down to where it says instructions to the applicant. And it says, the information you provide in this registry will be used to register you as a medical cannabis cultivator and or your intent to engage in non-medical cannabis operations. Well, it's not just intent because it would be someone who may currently be cultivating.
Right, just as we pointed out before. So I think that needs to be changed to include someone who is currently cultivating. And then the other question that I have or concern is that it says also in this section that by completing this registry you are registering as a medical cannabis cultivator and I guess I would ask, is Dr. Russell here? Anyone from P&D here?
So Dan, thank you for being here. So we already know, I mean we already have from our ordinance, we know who is a medical cannabis cultivator and we have the cutoff date that was that January 20th date.
We never had a registry.
I know we don't have a registry, but this is now a registry that is saying then that by completing this you are now registered as a medical cannabis cultivator. So doesn't that conflict with our ordinance that we currently have?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolfe. Yeah I think there's definitely some confusion going on here. Just to say that you're registered just means you participate in the registration process. That doesn't say anything with regard to whether or not your legal non-conforming with regard to the existing ordinance regulations.
So really it doesn't mean anything?
Well it means you completed the registry.
3:27 – 3:3210 turns
And therein for me again lies the problem. What is the purpose of this? Thank you Madam Chair.
I had one question seeing no other lights here. In the letter it said that since marijuana is a year-round crop, harvest time may not have the meaning that it does with perhaps other crops and so asking about the number of employees may not be as relevant. Do you have a thought about that Mr. Pisanich?
So Chair Hartman, one of the things you might notice when just prior to us asking the question about how many employees do you have during harvest and how many time do you have just during regular maintenance of the crop. Right prior to that we do ask how many harvests per year? And so there would be a bit of a way to do a multiplication of, you know, the additional staffing and perhaps additional traffic loads and those kinds of things that would come at either a once-a-year cycle for perhaps an outdoor cultivation site versus multiple cultivation or harvest periods for indoor mixed light cultivation. So I think that was what we were trying to kind of balance out the information around take into account multiple harvests.
Okay.
I don't see any more lights on up here about details having to do with the registry form itself. Mr. Buzanich, let me just ask you between now and next week what will happen with the registry form?
So it would be my belief that If you put it into a motion this morning to direct the staff to make the changes that I just outlined. Or any others that you might give me next. That I would take those and I would build those into the registry form, and then as County Councilor Gazzone mentioned, the ordinance is really the critical piece that is the component that your board would be acting so that we can be timely with the second reading next week.
And to whatever extent you would want me to validate or verify that I had made those changes to you, I'm happy to take that direction as well.
Supervisor Williams.
I'd be happy with that direction, I did want to take the opportunity because the letter was submitted by a couple of my constituents that there was a longer list of suggestions submitted by Ms. Creo and Ms. Lapidus. I think a lot of these some of them are addressed By other questions in the current draft, and some of them are very excellent suggestions. But ones that I would be arguing would be better in the permit process themselves.
And so I just didn't want to let the discussion go past without addressing that letter. I'm obviously supportive of the direction. I am a little frustrated because we are trying very hard to address what Supervisor Wolf expressed deep frustration in last time, which is that we do not know who the... We have no list of the non-conforming operations We have no knowledge beyond the 24 that P&D has had some enforcement actions with. And so While this registry is not perfect and may not capture all operations, it will definitely capture operations who want to have a legal permit.
And so its very intent is to address What Supervisor Wolf expressed such frustration in last night and I'm very, or last time and I'm also very frustrated with is that we cannot effectively grapple with a policy that we have no knowledge of how many operations and what's going on out there. And this will give us at least some knowledge of what is going on out there and I think it can be very advantageous for us moving forward.
Mr. Bosanich would you put the recommended actions on there for us and Supervisor Wolf?
Thank you, I just want to say what I'm frustrated with It's a little bit different than what I was frustrated with last time because last time I didn't know what a registry was. Now, I know what a registry is and it's frustrating to me because I see no purpose in it and I actually see some potential dangers in this registry. What I would prefer is that we focus our attention on doing the ordinance and doing it right and then having a strong permitting process So that is the essence of my frustration. I believe in very good policy making and I just am not seeing that in this, but I certainly appreciate the work that's gone into it. I just don't see the purpose. Thank you Madam
3:32 – 3:384 turns
Chair. Seeing no one who wants to, Supervisor Lavenino?
Well I'm ready to, are we ready to go into deliberation or talk about the recommended actions?
We're ready now to even make a motion.
Okay well I just want to respond to some of the public comment and the public concerns out there because Tippiscay is in my district and it has been a challenge I want to talk about there's a lot of unknowns out there right now, and that's kind of why we want to go on this listening tour because we don't know everything about what the industry is concerned about. We don't know what everything about with the neighborhoods are concerned about.
We don't know what the environmental impact is going to be cuz we haven't done the environmental impact review yet. We don't know what the economic study is gonna show us that might make me change my mind based on what I've heard out there. I'm interested but it might come back and be something totally different. We don't even know what the state regulations are going to be yet. We don't know if the people in this county will support a tax on cannabis, we don't know if the Coastal Commission is going to allow it in the coastal zone and approve it in Carpinteria and we don't know if we can get all of this done by January 2018 but the things that I do know is the current system we have right now isn't working and We have bans, and we have these ideas that if you weren't in play before this time.
But it all comes down to at some point the unenforceability of and the lack of enforcement is what I've seen, at least in my district, is that when you're trying to enforce a land use violation, I've been through a number of these and It's just a very difficult situation. You get a citizen complaint, P&D sends a letter and notice of violation, guys got 30 days to respond. He didn't get the letter, he sent the letter again, he doesn't respond, 30 more days so now we gotta send it registered mail.
And by the time you get there, the guy is done harvested, done his thing and he's out. So I think what we have right now isn't working. I've got a lot of frustrated neighbors. But basically we have all the impacts and none of the, or we're seeing no benefit from it. And so I would just want to move these recommended actions. I think it's a step in the right direction.
It's very limited staff time associated with the registry. What we get out of it, what we don't get out of it will see when we start receiving these. What I want to see in the future is just so folks are clear where I'm coming from, is a small very regulated cannabis industry. That is generating tax revenue that then can fund a very proactive enforcement team from this county that goes out and deals with the problems that we can't deal with right now. And so I'm not even talking about customer complaints or neighbor complaints, I'm talking about having a proactive team here in the county that is actively pursuing those people that are not following the rules.
Everybody that I've talked to in the industry so far is supportive of Because they basically want to follow the rules. Just lay them out, what are they and we'll figure out how best we can follow those and if people aren't following the rules they need to have the hammer dropped on them. So that's where I'm moving in seeing you know and I've gone out and talked about this in the public and I totally understand the woman who has got a sixth grader and talked about that. I've got kids as well.
And I was at California Women for Agriculture, and I got scolded a few times because I kept talking about the tax revenue portion of this. And somebody said all you're talking about is the money, you're not talking about the social impact. And I said okay, I get that. I was not elected to be the priest or pastor of Santa Barbara County. I'm the county supervisor. Some of that has to do with the tax revenue.
But on the social side of things too as I was getting beat up by the public, I finally said you know, I wasn't the one that imposed this on you. 61% we have to remind, 61% of the people voted for this. This is not the Board of Supervisors coming in and telling you guys what to do. The people of the state of California told us what to do And I had a conversation with the gentleman the other day, there was an elected official and he said we should just forget what they said because you guys are supposed to be making the rules.
It doesn't, I don't see things that way so I'm not totally convinced this thing's going to work out the way I see it but I think there's a possibility to make it happen. I do think we're going to struggle with getting to the January 1st deadline, just because of the way the time frame is set up. But I think we're going to be doing our best and I really want to thank all the staff that is working on this. Because at the end of the day, this isn't money that just comes into the county and sits in some bank account. This goes out takes care of people who are homeless It creates mental health services.
We're going through a hard time in our budget right now for a lot of different reasons and I think this could be something at the end of the day, at least it takes, at least we need to be doing the economic forecast to see an analysis to see how this will play out. So I'm ready to make a motion to move the recommended actions 1, 2, 3 and 4 however they are stated
3:38 – 3:427 turns
Supervisor Levinino, could I ask that the motion just include what's presently in 2A but with a few more words to make clear that the board has approved reading the title of the ordinance and waiving for the reading of the ordinance?
Sure. That will be included in my motion.
Supervisor Williams can you second and then discussion?
Sure, I'll second. I won't go over the points eloquently made by Supervisor Labadino. I agree with them wholeheartedly. I wanna just give a local angle. You can tell from public testimony today, I hope people on both sides. Both growers and neighborhood residents can see how high the stakes are in Carpinteria because we live in a very narrow coastal strip between town where residential neighborhoods were not intending to permit it at all to The mountains, that's a very narrow strip of land. And in that place residents and agriculture have coexisted for decades.
And the stakes are high to make sure that we can continue to coexist in that way because in my view carpentry won't exist without agriculture but we also need to make sure that we can be good neighbors. And so. That's why when I meet with residents, you'll tend to get me saying hey face reality it's here now and it's not working. We've got to figure out a process that works.
And when I talk with growers, you're going to hear from me saying hey we can't do this laissez faire. We have to have restrictions because there is no way for us to coexist without a combination There in the Carpinteria Valley and so. So that's why I wasn't planning on getting so deep into marijuana policy when I ran for supervisor. That was not like the thing that, you know, I woke up in the morning going oh, that's what I want to do. But it is something that I am delving deeply into precisely because I believe that if we get it wrong, it will have disastrous consequences for the Carpinteria Valley and if we do it right, it can have beneficial consequences for the Carpinteria Valley.
Supervisor Lavanino, did you have something additional? No thank you. Okay well I just wanted to say that I very much support the goals of this program which are to gather information and inform a possible CEQA analysis going forward so I'm prepared to vote for it and given that I think we could have a roll call vote
Mr. Adam? Aye. Mr. Lavendino? Aye. Mr. Williams? Aye Ms. Wolfe? No Ms. Hartman? Aye Passes 4-1
Okay let me get a sense of the board do we want to continue to item 3? All right, the majority up here is saying take a break. So we're going to close session and Mr. Gazzone would you report?
3:42 – 3:584 turns
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I estimate that closed session today will take about an hour and a half.
An hour and a half. Please let us just finish this report.
Today in closed session the board is agendized to consider two pieces of existing litigation, Morrison versus County of Santa Barbara as well as County of Santa Barbara versus Cobellans. You have a third item of significant exposure to litigation meeting with county council. You are also agendized to confer with labor negotiators. In your role as the board of the Santa Barbara County Public Authority for in-home supportive services. As well as a separate labor negotiator item for all bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives. And again my estimate is a little bit less than an hour and a half just for agenda planning.
Okay so we probably reconvene about 215, 230, is that? Between 2 and 215 we will reconvene. Thank you very much. you you Good morning, everyone. You. Oh, oh. Music playing. You. You. Yeah.
3:59 – 4:221 turns
Yeah. Hi. you You. . . Hi. Hi, everyone. Hi. Music. you
4:22 – 4:231 turns
Background music playing. Hi.
4:31 – 5:242 turns
You.
you Background music playing. Hello, everyone. Hello, everyone. Welcome back. you Hi, everyone. You. Music playing Hi, everyone. You. Hello. Hello. You. You. You. You. you . . Music Hi, everyone. Hi. Music. Hi.
5:25 – 5:261 turns
Background music playing. Hi.
5:34 – 5:561 turns
You. Hello, everyone. the board. Hello, everyone. Good morning, everyone. Hello, everyone. you Hi, everyone. You.
5:56 – 6:125 turns
Good afternoon, we're reconvening the Board of Supervisors meeting of April 4th 2017 and we thank you for your patience. We went a little longer than we had expected so would you read item number three into? Sorry, we need to report from Mr. Gazzone.
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today in closed session the Board considered two existing litigation cases, Morrison v. County of Santa Barbara and a second, County of Santa Barbara v. Cobellans. You also discussed with legal counsel significant exposure to litigation in the third case. You met as the board of the Santa Barbara County Public Authority for In-Home Supportive Services for our labor negotiation item. And you met separately as the county board of supervisors concerning all bargaining units on representative employees, managers, and executives. There are no reportable actions.
Thank you. Now Mr. Allen. Chair Hartman, members of the board, item number three is from Public Health. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a progress report on the implementation of the American Humane Association recommendations.
Good afternoon, Chair Hartman and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Carrie Topliff. I'm serving as the Interim Public Health Director and I'm here today with Susan Klein Rothschild, the Assistant Director, and Jan Glick our Animal Services Director. Today we'll be telling you about the progress we've made in implementing the American Humane Association recommendations.
Two years ago, we were presented with 464 recommendations An oversight team with community stakeholders has served as an advisory board to animal services through the implementation of the recommendations. The group began meeting in July of 2015 and is due to sunset in June of this year. We hope that we can welcome some new members to this group and continue meeting, as we want to continue to make progress on providing excellent animal welfare services to all of Santa Barbara County.
As a newcomer to the group I've been impressed by the dedication, passion and knowledge of the team members many of whom are in the audience today and who should be acknowledged. Angela Walters Rockwell of ASAP Animal Shelter Assistance Program Phil Seymour of BUNS Bunnies Urgently Needing Shelter Shirley Jansen of DAWG, Dog Adoption and Welfare Group. Janelle Ward of Canine Pals Placement and Assistance League. Linda Greco of the ACF Animal Care Foundation.
Jill Anderson-Rackley of Shadows Fund, veterinarian Dr. Darcy Barnes, volunteers at large Amy Black and Chris Erskine. Other participants who have not been recently active are Charlotte Alexander of the Santa Maria Valley Humane Society, Robbie Filcorn of CAPA Companion Animal Placement Assistance. So you can see besides having a big heart it's helpful to have a way with acronyms when you are in this business.
We are also appreciative of you, our Board of Supervisors for providing new resources to animal services this year and for championing our progress in making better partnerships and delivering better services. When public health comes to you at the budget workshops later this month, you'll see that we will be using some one-time funding to help make sure that Animal Services Budget stays stable for the next year so that we can continue to do the good work that has been started.
The oversight team members are unanimous in our belief that we should continue our work as a team of animal service advisors and that the group should be comprised of community members, representatives of community-based animal welfare organizations, a veterinarian, Humane Society representatives, a representative from Santa Barbara City Animal Control, as well as animal services and public health staff.
We see the group having 9 to 12 members, much like the current oversight team. We want meetings that are open to the public and agendas and minutes that continue to be published on the Public Health website. And we're hoping that the team will research and report on promising practices, evaluate and comment on volunteer recruitment and training programs, suggest opportunities for sharing resources and collaborating Solicit public input on controversial topics, offer feedback to animal services and report annually to your board about the programs and quality of our animal services.
In one area we have not reached a unanimous conclusion and you will be hearing from our speaker slip wielding colleagues today about the pros and cons of creating a formal Board of Supervisors appointed Animal Services Commission to continue the work that has begun. My own belief is that this work can continue in a nimble, collaborative way without the administrative burdens and costs that come with the creation of a Brown Act body.
For now let me turn over the presentation to Susan Klein Rothschild who would like to share with you the progress that's been made in implementing the AHA recommendations.
Good afternoon Chair Hartman and members of the board. Today we'll take a focus on the high level view of progress through the key findings that were from the executive summary of the American Humane Association assessment. Each of these key findings, I've made a few bullets to describe some of our achievements in that area. The first key finding is about presenting a model of governance and we've done a number of things in that arena. And when I say we, I mean the staff, the volunteers, the stakeholders working together as a joint group. We conducted research on various models. We came to the board in February of 2016 and the board gave us direction to further study the hybrid model, that is a model where the county actually administers some of the program and operates some of the program and some of our community partners operate other parts.
We perform community outreach and solicited input through a survey monkey online, and through meetings with our community subcommittee of oversight team. And we've created MOUs. And this morning you approved the fourth MOU with our shelter-based partner ASAP. That's the last of our four MOUs. Another one of the key findings was about a fractured culture and we've come a long way in that arena. Dr. Relly Nadler was a consultant who helped work with us and assisted us all in different groups, and I would say one of the most effective techniques we've used and strategies is forming subcommittees With members of the oversight team, members of the public, members of our staff who are working on specific issues and working together to make improvements.
We've done that with owner surrenders of animals, with adoption approaches and with volunteers as some examples. Another key finding was about the span of control of the Director of Animal Services, and the recommendation was that span of control is too large to be effective. I'm happy to say with your support we've hired an operations manager. That's Dory who is with us today who has done a remarkable job. And we have decreased the number of reports to our animal services director from 10 to 5.
Other key findings, one of the key findings was about our organization not having standardized operating procedures. I'm happy to report that the animal services The department has revised all policies and procedures, the entire policy manual has been revised. And there's a new process in place whenever there's a new policy to be written it's written internally and is a draft and its sent out to our stakeholders and given two weeks for response and for input and then that input is taken back and modifications are made before its finalized so all of our key partners are part of that process with new standard operating procedures and policies And we've begun training on those policies now, and that will be an ongoing process.
Another key finding was about our strategic plan. The American Humane Association noted that we did not have a clear strategic plan for our organization. In fact, we've used the American Humane Association report to be our plan and guide our work moving forward and it's become the foundation for organizational planning. The oversight team has served as a body for review and advice and we're developing key measures at this point in time to develop and implement those measures.
Another key finding was about our limited use of Chameleon. Chamelean is the software that we use in animal services and we have developed a new plan to dramatically increase our use of Chameleon, used by our volunteers and used by our staff. The better we use our technology the more efficient we will be. You'll hear hearing a little bit more about that this morning.
Additional key findings from the report. One of the key findings was about external community members exerting undue influence and I'm happy to say that we are working together openly and having good direct communication as staff, as stakeholders, and with our community partners. There's open discussion and collaboration about issues and we're working through them together.
We're working through the chains of command with our different organizations. And we are decreased dramatically in direct communication. That is, communication about someone or about a third party that's not direct. That's decreased tremendously. Another key finding is about the Pillsbury building. It's one of our buildings at our Santa Barbara shelter, the recommendations that we no longer house animals there and in fact we are no longer keeping animals in that facility. Now plan to move forward with demolition of that building and rebuilding, that's on our long term facility plan. I can tell you that there are no current resources for that so we're continuing not to use it for animals.
Another key finding is about passive population management. This has changed in addition to other things through the daily rounds at each shelter we have staff and volunteers who go look at the animals on a daily basis, what does this animal need? How can we help this animal get to a permanent home either back to his or her owner or to a new owner? And we now have an expectation that from the moment an animal comes to our shelter, we begin planning for the long term. The long-term care of that animal and that's changed.
Additional key findings, one of them was about the lack of sufficient medical oversight. Thanks to your support we have a Director of Veterinary Medicine and additional RVT registered veterinary technician both whom are working with animals on a daily basis and it's making a difference. Our partners see it and recognize it as do our staff and volunteers. There has been a significant increase in the medical care and outcomes of the animals.
Another key finding was about the lack of behavioral enrichment. We've been very fortunate to have a Behavioral Enrichment Coordinator, Andrea Bratt, who has expertise with different species of animals and she's been very, very helpful in helping assess our animals, helping develop behavioral plans for our animals, and helping train our staff and volunteers.
We're using a new method called SAFER. SAFER stands for Safety Assessment for Evaluating Rehoming, and this process is being used across our shelters more consistently and again we're getting better outcomes. We're working intensifying the individual behavior plans that she's helping draft and she's helping teach our staff and volunteers to draft to implement things that will change the animal's behavior and increase the chance that the animal go to an adoptive home.
Additional key finding is about the lack of central dispatch. We have hired a central dispatcher, and that dispatcher's there to help both with officer safety as well as efficiency for the animal control officers who are in the field. We're in the process now developing metrics to increase the efficiencies in that area. Another key finding was about a lack of standardized ongoing training.
I'm happy to say that two of our new positions are operations manager and director of veterinary services, are now providing training on an ongoing basis. And that is both the shelter and field staff. We are developing a training program for all staff again on many aspects of caring for and providing for animals. OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration that was concerned about compliance with OSHA regulations. That being a very important element. We have a department safety officer at public health, Mark Goldsmith who's assisted in the development and implementation of plans to make sure we are in compliance. And he has been at all three of our shelters and with many of our staff.
There were specific OSHA compliance issues in the report. We've addressed those individually. I just want to say, I've been involved with the oversight team and the implementation of the American Humane Association report since it began almost two years ago. And personally, I applaud the staff, the volunteers, the stakeholders who put in enormous number of hours and energy And they've made a huge difference. It is really a very, very different place. It was always a place where we had people who cared about and wanted what was best for animals. And I feel like with increased collaboration, resources and working together it's an even better place. And it's really made meaningful improvements.
As we move forward, here are some of the things we're looking at. We want to focus our resources on chameleon and implementation have the greatest impact. We have a computer software system that has a lot of capacity that we're not using. We want to make that change to use it to its fullest extent. That means having computers accessible for people who work in the kennels and volunteer in the kennels to enter information about the animals so everyone who works with those animals has all the information at their fingertips.
We're planning to redirect services and resources that we have within our public health department, to make that relaunch of chameleon a reality. We have plans to take steps to strengthen our hybrid model of animal services. That has strengthened both what we do as a county and what we ask of our partners and to collaborate together. This includes working with our humane associations, working with all of our partners. What can we do? And how can we better coordinate and strengthen our model?
As Kerry mentioned initially in the introduction, we did not have consensus as a group about an animal welfare commission. The Department of Public Health is proposing and has some initial plans for an Animal Services Advisory Committee. This advisory committee would begin with the people who are already on our oversight team who invested tremendous amount of time adding new people to that team including Humane Associations, Humane Societies and others in the community It would also be something where the public could come, could raise issues, be heard. That we make sure that there are avenues for continued communication and that we continue the collaboration.
There is a very very strong feeling on part of everyone. We've made great progress. We don't want to go backwards. So with that as a backdrop I present you the recommendations with the board. That you receive and refile this progress report. And with that I conclude my presentation and we are here to answer any questions you might have.
6:12 – 6:2010 turns
Thank you, do any supervisors have any questions? Supervisor Williams?
I'll just wait until public comment is done.
Okay, I just wanted to echo what has been said that there's been an enormous amount of work by the county departments and leadership as well as the stakeholders and the people who've served on the oversight committee. And I really appreciate that investment. I think we are on a new course of progress and so I just want to get that out there before we open public comments. So how many do we have Mr. Allen?
We have four requests to speak. We're going to start in Santa Maria with Linda Greco, and then come back to Santa Barbara for Phil Seymour. If we could go to Santa Maria please?
Madam Chair and members of the Board, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you remotely from Santa Maria. My name is Linda Greco. I am the President and Co-Founder of the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation. I'm also an active member of the AHA Oversight Team. As you know, the Oversight Team has been working diligently for the past almost two years to address the AHA recommendations. This solution based team of stakeholders has been working Together in a collaborative effort to identify a number of creative solutions to raise the bar for shelter operations in Santa Barbara County.
The recommendations and subsequent programs based out of these concepts are in the early stages of implementation. Because of this, I believe it is very important a permanent committee or commission of some type is formed to move forward once the current oversight team concludes this June. It is my wish that this permanent committee or commission is first and foremost solution-based It operates in an oversight capacity to monitor accountability, to ensure planning and active implementation to continue to move forward productively and new challenges are addressed promptly.
That it has a transparent perspective into the operations of Santa Barbara County Animal Services So it may have an informed understanding of the internal workings and challenges that Santa Barbara County Animal Services faces, as well as a voice in advocacy and advisory capacity. that it follows positive trends, but more importantly identifies and makes recommendations to actively address any negative trends within Santa Barbara County pertaining to the operation within Santa Barbara County Animal Services and overall animal treatment and care within our county as a whole.
That it serves as a collaborative capacity to work towards a common goal of raising the bar for strengthening Santa Barbara County animal services and animal treatment in Santa Barbara County. I do have a concern that this committee or commission is solution based with one common goal And does not get bogged down by the appointment of any politically leveraged individuals with alternative agendas that will act as obstacles to a group that has the potential to work together, to further potentially expand the work of the HA oversight team for the benefit of the whole of our county. I served on a past Santa Barbara County Board appointed stay mover task force and this committee for this reason is my concern The individuals that were appointed to this committee, some of them were placed to complicate the process.
And as a result caused a polarization and division. The meetings were a constant struggle- That is your time. Thank you.
Our next speaker is Phil Seymour to be followed by Lisa Kenyon
Hi I'm Phil Seymour. I have been the representative of BUNS, we call it BUNs on the oversight team since inception. I guess that was two years ago but it seems like ten. I think two things we've learned in that two year time is one it's going to be a very long process and we are still truly in the beginning stages. Second we've learned The fundamental goal of this process is to build partnership and cooperation between all the various entities and people and individuals that are involved in animal welfare in this county.
Animal services cannot do it alone with their staff and budget, and the rest of us cannot do it without animal services playing a central role. We certainly have not solved all the problems in the last two years. We haven't even gotten through all 464 recommendations in the AHA report, but we have in some areas laid the groundwork for solutions. There've been some great important policy changes at least on paper they're very promising There's been some program changes that are also very promising if they are fully implemented and carried out in the spirit with which they were intended to operate.
The next step will be to make sure that they do go forward, they're tested, vetted, implemented properly and in the right spirit and at this point I think the oversight team has done its job. We need to change direction a little bit here in the long run what we need is an animal commission as commissioned by this board reports to this board it operates independently and fully represents all elements of the public volunteers stakeholders The general public, and of course listens to and understands the staff's needs and limitations.
To go forward if we can't have that right away, and I understand there are some transitional issues. The critical thing we need in any interim body is that it be open and more inclusive than the body we've had in the past. The oversight team is somewhat of a closed system. It's hard to get complete confidence and trust of the rest of the animal community when they can't come to the meetings, and can't have any voice in what...can't listen and can't hear what's being said.
I understand staff is willing to open it up. That also means that the agenda will not be controlled strictly by Animal Services staff but is going to be influenced by the needs and priorities of the rest of the community Second thing we need to do is sharpen the focus on building partnerships and collaboration. This is a matter of attitude as much as anything else, and that is something that is still being slowly developed.
And that is your time. I just had a quick question. Do other counties have animal commissions? Have you looked into models elsewhere?
Yes there are a variety of different sort of advisory bodies, commissions in various cities and counties. No two are alike of the models I've seen.
Thank you. Our next speaker is Lisa Kenyon to be followed by Angela Walters Rockwell who's our final speaker.
6:20 – 6:253 turns
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the Board. My name is Lisa Canyon, I'm the Operations Supervisor at the Santa Barbara Shelter for Animal Services. The frontline staff of animal services is made up of animal control officers, animal welfare specialists, office professionals, veterinary care professionals, community outreach professionals, and animal control supervisors. And our goal is to maintain a strong focus on public safety and animal welfare as we do our jobs. We're thankful to the AHA report and the resulting oversight team, and the efforts to improve animal services.
Over the past few years there have been remarkable improvements in animal care, our volunteer program, and our staff and our volunteer culture. Some highlights to note include the addition of medical staff to help care for over 6,000 animals we receive annually. We've updated our adoption process to a conversational approach that is more client friendly and has helped more animals move through our shelters.
We've revamped our volunteer program and now partner staff with volunteers who improve and encourage teamwork and communication. We are excited about the new upcoming activities involving our chameleon program, That's our shelter management program which will improve efficiencies at locations and allow us to utilize electronic lost-and-found services and medical records.
We have strengthened our relationships with our incredible partners including ASAP, BUNS, Canine Pals, Shadows Fund and DOG. And we're also grateful for the amazing work that is done through the Santa Barbara County Animal Care Foundation and CAPA. So my good friends back here, I work with them on a very regular basis. I can't say enough to our teams that are represented here so thank you very much.
One important point I'd like to make is the culture shift that has occurred within animal services. Where once there was kind of three separate shelters working independently, we now have an effective team that meets regularly, communicates regularly, shares resources and most importantly supports each other in that important work that we do. We've developed core values that promote teamwork at all levels and we're seeing the benefits of that. I want to reiterate again some important key facts that were brought up in October. Our countywide live release rate for animal services in fiscal year 2015-16 was over 92%. An over 92% live release rate is one of the highest in the country.
for an open admission agency. This achievement came as a result of the tireless work and dedication of the staff, the volunteers, our partners both internal external, our rescue partners and the community as a whole. Finally on behalf of Animal Services Leadership Team I would like to personally thank each and every one of you, the Board of Supervisors for the much needed financial support you have given us. Staffing especially has been a huge concern It has a big impact on our ability to do the jobs we do and care for the animals we care for.
I know in the south part of the county here in Santa Barbara it's easy for people to forget that animal services is actually a county wide service operating three open admission shelters and providing animal control services seven days a week, 24 hours a day. We appreciate your support and we look forward to a bright future.
Angela Walters Rockwell
Madam Chair and Honorable Members of the Board. Today should be a day of celebration, a day to acknowledge the progress and hard work that has been accomplished as a result of the AHA report and the oversight team but instead we are bogged down in yet another debate in our animal community around the concept of an Animal Welfare Commission It's very easy to criticize, to point the finger and blame, to focus on shortcomings and failures. It is much harder to come to the table to work collaboratively and focus on solutions.
For the past 28 years ASAP has consistently chosen the harder road simultaneously working towards raising the standards of care within our county shelters but also recognizing the limitations of what our local government system can or even should do. We have built an organization that fills the gaps between what is practical and realistic for the county to provide, and the level of care that we as a non-profit want for the homeless cats and kittens in our community. Quite simply, ASAP has been part of the solution.
I've stood before you in this room, I've met with you individually, and you know that I've been a staunch critic of animal services when it's warranted, when it can create a focus and catalyst for needed change. But equally important is recognizing when negativity and criticism no longer serve a higher purpose, and have actually become detrimental to progress.
To that end ASAP supports the county's animal services staff proposal to establish an Animal Services Advisory Committee. And we are opposed to the establishment of an Animal Welfare Commission at this time. The commission concept is an unnecessary, labor-intensive and expensive layer of bureaucracy that could in fact undermine the positive progress over the last two years.
I urge you to rise above attempts to further politicize these issues and support the continuation of the positive work of the oversight team through the establishment of an advisory committee. Thank you.
6:25 – 6:367 turns
Okay so I bring it back to the staff. Are there any responses you have to the comments that you heard from the public? No, no responses. Okay and so Supervisor Wolf here's the first light on.
Thank You Madam Chair. I guess it's I flip my switch on quickly because I wanted to follow up on Angela's Talk to us. This has been a long road as you mentioned and I am so appreciative of you saying let's look at the positives, because so often we can focus on negative aspects that are happening with animal services or any of our other departments. And I will say that this board and prior boards took the issues that were occurring in animal services very seriously.
And I think through the AHA report it gave us a road map by which to handle some of the issues that arose. And we stepped up by providing additional If it was medical assistance, volunteer assistance. From our amazing staff that we already have Jan and Susan and Terry and Carrie working on policy manuals, working on issues that come up on a daily basis having front line staff like Lisa You're all making an incredible difference and I just, I really want to thank you for everything that you've done to get us to this point. I don't think this is the end though as was mentioned there are other issues that we have to deal with one of which is of course the capital needs at Animal Services and then Of course nothing could be done if it wasn't for the volunteers.
All of the volunteer individuals, the groups I mean I've come to really appreciate and And see the work that those of you who are here are doing and many people who aren't here are doing, working with our little animal friends. I think it's fantastic. You know I'm just looking at some of my notes in talking about the increase in staff, the operations manager, the outreach coordinator, veterinary staff, behavior enrichment coordinator, central dispatch.
Those are things that came from the AHA report and again funding from this board to Not just really pass the buck, but I think from the oversight committee really getting an understanding of what these positions mean and how it would help them in providing the services to the community and to the animals. So I think that's been a tremendous asset. I also think, as was mentioned, prioritizing the MOUs with our partners and today was our last one and you know I noticed in the MOU with ASAP The fact that there will be continuing meetings, that's part of the contract or the MOU. That we are assuring or confirming that staff will meet with our partners on a regular basis. Now I'm not sure if that is what you had in mind when you talked about the advisory committee but certainly that advisory committee would be a good vehicle to ensure that communication occurs.
I am not in favor of moving forward with a commission. As I was thinking about this, maybe a year or two ago we had a foster care task force. And after the task force was completed, among some of their recommendations was to develop a commission on foster youth. And that was a very hard discussion for me because I understood the need but I felt that our department was very much committed to focusing on foster youth and So I didn't support the coming together or the development of a commission, just as I won't support it for animal services.
I think that our staff and your recommendations to move forward in whatever format you talked a little bit about it's still not totally clear but to have a formal commission is something that I could not support And I think for me part of it, and I hate to bring finances into the picture but that is the reality. And whenever we set up a commission or another body there's going to not just be staff time that's involved but also a cost.
It's a financial cost and it's a cost to our community. And I'm not certain that we're going to see the benefit, especially when we've been seeing benefits of the formation of the oversight committee as it is right now. And, I think if staff is going to morph that into an advisory committee, that will also serve a purpose. So Madam Chair just in closing I want to thank everyone who's been here today, who's been at all of the other meetings when we've talked about this report and the volunteers. All of our partner agencies and our staff who just continue to amaze me and I'm really proud of what you have all accomplished in animal services. Thank You madam chair.
Supervisor
Williams
Well, I am someone who has supported the idea of a commission in the past. But I at least felt like this year that was out of reach for fiscal reasons but I would wonder why would a commission cost more than the advisory committee? And why does the advisory committee not have a cost and a commission does have a cost?
Supervisor Williams, through the Chair. One of the issues with a formal commission is that we have noticing requirements and minute requirements that are higher level and take more review so those kinds of things do add costs.
That makes sense. First of all I think it's also good to start on the amazing parts of this report. Number one I've seen this before with grand jury reports or other kinds of reports. Most of the time when any city or county department, or department at the state gets a report like this that their presentation Mainly has ones of we disagree with the conclusions of the report, right? Or we already solved that one. This one has gone step by step and said, we're actually going to address these issues. We admit that there are problems and we're addressing them. So I think that's already a better thing than most of the time I've seen this process work out with other departments at other places.
Second, I think it's also amazing to see that the various different players all of whom are extremely passionate about their advocacy agree on most of what we're talking about today. And I think that says a lot too and I do want to thank everyone on the oversight team both staff and community stakeholders for their work. So let's go to the part that's the portion of disagreement.
You know I might be satisfied with an advisory committee but only if I felt like that was overwhelming right in the community and otherwise I would kind of eventually once we whenever we do get out of our fiscal malaise, I would probably default to supporting a commission but What I'd really like is for this oversight committee turning into an advisory committee eventually to take a formal vote on it.
Maybe six months to a year down the line, people will go well we're handling all the things that we wanted to handle through a commission through the advisory committee. Or maybe people will say, hey we're not handling it and we need something else. So my request would be that though I know you guys take notes and you're going to make this open to the public, I would like a formal vote eventually to be taken on what route? And to me there's two votes.
Up or down do you support a commission? Up or down do you support the continuance of the advisory committee because though We're presented with this as the only two options. It's not necessarily that someone who doesn't support one supports the other or that there might be people who support either, I don't know. But I would just request that at some point we have an up or down vote on Either this group advises us to establish a commission or that they advise us to continue with the advisory committee format. To me, that would be the way of gathering the most input and because right now I kind of get different people's version of events.
Half these people I've known for decades and it's like Everybody sees the world through their viewpoint, and I'd much rather just know this many votes were on this side. This many votes were on this side and that's their position. That would make it easier for me than to make qualitative comparisons all from people who I know are enormously dedicated to the animals and all of whom I've known for a long time.
6:36 – 6:4512 turns
Supervisor Labanino and then Supervisor Adam.
Thank you Madam Chair, so we're really not deciding up here whether or not there's a committee or commission. Animal Services is going to make that determination correct?
Supervisor Labanino through the chair, Animal Services is going to proceed with an advisory committee. That's our recommendation, that's our plan to proceed.
First off, I just want to thank everybody that's been part of this because anytime you have a report that comes back with 450 plus recommendations it tells you there was a lot of room for improvement somewhere. So and for those that are kind of more in the idea of a formal commission, I just want to remind you how much change you brought about just in this process with the format that we've already had. I mean, I'm looking through all these changes that were made and it's drastic, you know? And it wouldn't happen without the volunteers. It wouldn't happen without county staff and some additional funding up here so You know, I don't think whether or not you're an advisory committee your formal commission you guys are all Committed to this cause, and I'm not really sure what the nuance difference is except one might cost a little bit more.
Believe me if the advisory committee gives me a recommendation it's not going to matter to me if you were a formal commissioner or you're an advisory committee. I'm gonna take what you guys say and that's obviously why we've been implementing a lot of these suggestions you've had along the way so just want to go there and let you know that I really appreciate all the work that's been done We are facing a financial crunch here and the last thing I want to see is us coming back and looking at ways to increase fees for adoptions or something to offset the cost of a commission. I don't think anybody wants something like that, so just want to congratulate you on all the great work that's been done and really appreciate even the bullet point that was put up there The realization that we aren't there yet and we're going to continue for continuous improvement.
So I really appreciate all the county staff on this as well.
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, just want to be a little bit more The reality over the remainder of my term, so the next four years is that we're going to be in ever increasing budget deficits and were never going to be looking to expand services. And I think we're just going to be relying more and more heavily on the private sector, so we're gonna have to at some point be reasonable about what we expect Both up here and out there.
And you guys are going to have to learn how to play nicely together, and I don't think you need to have commissions be that formal about it. Everybody that I've ever talked to that's involved in this at any level is really just concerned with the welfare of the animals. And I think that should be the common denominator and you guys all work together to get this done because we're going to have an increasingly difficult time funding this as time goes on. And I guess I just wanted to say that in a more direct, I mean everybody alluded to it but I just want to say in a more direct way so that we can control the expectations going on.
I think it's going to get really, really bad and this is going to be one of the areas that is going to have a lot of pressure to get cut. So go learn how to play nicely together.
So I would like to say a few things about this. First of all, I am a big supporter of public-private partnerships and particularly in this area where the Santa Barbara community has very high standards of care for our nonhuman companions and so I know it's not always easy to assimilate the various points of view that come in, but I really commend staff and I think this is well worth it because we get high quality volunteers and people who dedicate a great deal. And that works for the benefit of the animals.
If I understood Ms. Topliff, the advisory committee would have agendas, minutes, there would be research and reports, volunteer recruitment, looking at opportunities for collaboration and public input and feedback so that's how it would operate and I just want to make sure I understand that. And then I think you said additionally it would report annually to the board as well as to staff. Did I?
Okay What what I didn't hear is who will serve How many what are the qualifications? I've heard different things from The community some people think that the oversight team would continue some people feel like that's a Maybe this is the time to make a transition and we should think a little differently about the membership of the advisory committee. So I would like some additional information about that point.
Chair
Hartman, let me respond for you. Thinking about what we've begun as a draft for this Animal Services Advisory Committee, we're talking about a composition of up to 16 people including a veterinarian, representatives from each of our shelter-based partners ASAP, Animal Care Foundation, BUNS and CAPA. Representatives from our humane societies, members from the community at large. A representative from the Santa Barbara Animal Control.
Some animal services volunteer representatives, one from each of our shelters and one or two representatives from our local rescue organizations. We recognize there are people who've been on the oversight team who are tremendously committed and have been involved and may want to continue and that we may add to those individuals and then rotate in two year terms.
And may I follow with a question you, I believe it was you who said that the subcommittees of the oversight team functioned very well and I would encourage you to do that, to continue that. That is bring community people into subcommittee roles even if they aren't on the over, on the advisory committee itself.
Chair Hartman, that's an excellent idea. Since that's been one of the most successful methods of coming together with a good solution and in fact all of our partners together staff volunteers stakeholders others from the community coming together to bring up plans in these areas it's been so effective I certainly agree that would be a good way to move forward in the future
And just another suggestion, Dr. Barnes submitted a letter and on page 2 she has I think what the charge for the advisory committee would be. Building on what the oversight team did. But building communication skills and anyway, it goes on to say build upon and support animal services existing expertise act as an ongoing place for open dialogue and serve as a vehicle for self review examining new ideas and keeping pace with current trends in knowledge about animal welfare while maintaining an appropriate organizational style. So I just, you might consider as you have the mission or the charge or what this is about to think about what she had to say. I thought it was very It was very impressive to me. I guess I have two more points, the first is that in terms of moving forward you gave us a slide on that but it didn't get into a lot of detail other than the chameleon and strengthening the hybrid model And then implementing this advisory committee.
But I would very much, building on what Supervisor Williams said, like to hear back from you in six months about what you've done and where you're going and more about this advisory committee. Would that be agreeable?
Absolutely we'd be happy to return.
6:45 – 6:5410 turns
Okay that was pretty much all I had to say. Is there anything else that anybody else would like to say? Last chance
Supervisor Wolf. I was just going to make a motion. And thank you, Madam Chair. I will move staff's recommendation A and B and include that our staff working with animal services come back to the board in six months or provide the board with information or a status report on where you are in six months.
And all those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Thank you very much. So
moving on to item number four.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Item 4 is brought to the board by the Clerk Recorder Assessor. It's a hearing to receive and file a presentation prepared jointly by the county assessor and auditor controller discussing property tax administration in the current status of the 2017 assessment roll.
Chair Hartman and board members, I'm just going to give a little introduction as they're getting seated. Obviously our property tax assessment is a large part of our revenue base and we asked Mr. Holland, our assessor and his staff, and Mr. Filotti to come give the board a quick briefing before we get into budget workshops and answer any questions you might have.
Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Board. Theo Filotti, Auditor-Controller, Joe Holland, the Assessor, Keith Taylor, the Chief Appraiser and Ed Price our Chief Deputy Controller with and also a former Property Tax Manager. So we've been asked here today to provide you with a high level overview A little bit mainly for new board members and then sort of a refresher for the rest of the board members.
We'd like to give a high-level overview of the property tax cycle, and then also the development of the secured role, and then also a little bit on revenue estimates and the budgetary cycle. So what we have on the top of this slide here is what happens during the During the period of time from January through June of 2017, and then which is providing the funding for the fiscal year 17-18. This will show that interrelationship of the three departments of the independently elected Independently elected offices and their relationship in the property tax cycle. So initially, we have the property owner and any taxpayers with any parcel changes that information is provided to the assessor who does the assessment of the property and establishes the value of the property.
Provides that information to the otter controller who ultimately extends the role. In addition, the county cities special districts and schools provide their fixed charges and that information goes into the Otters office and the role is extended. That takes place typically between July 1 and September when the role is actually finally extended. From there, the information goes to the treasurer tax collector who prepares the bills. Sends the bills to the individual taxpayers and then the taxpayers pay.
Tax collector collects it, turns that money over back to the auditor controller and then we distribute it to all of the taxing entities, the cities, the counties and the schools. So that's a general overview of the property tax cycle and the interrelationship of the departments.
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, Mr. Filatti on this on the very first one the parcel ownership and changes specifically on the changes how does that how do you folks know when a change occurs on a property either a sale or an improvement say at a mall or something like that is it through P&D or you have another
Supervisor Wolf through the chair, Joe Holland County Assessor. As the recorder we record deeds so when a property sales or transfers we get that information directly from the recorder's office and that's real-time linked with our assessor property information system. So for sales and transfers, which is half of Prop 13. That's how that's handled. And then for new construction, which is the other half of Prop 13. So under Prop 13 there are two instances which you reassess.
One is a sale or transfer and the other is new construction. So for new construction, we get building permits from the county building department and then from each of the building departments in the eight cities throughout the county. The cities are required under the Revenue and Taxation Code to provide us with those permits on a timely basis. You're welcome.
Next slide. Here are just some major property tax events and the timing so January 1 of 2017 is the lien date, so the ownership of the property on that date is what establishes and typically the value on that date is what establishes the beginning of the working role. And then by June 30, the assessor will make adjustments during that six-month period of time. Make adjustments to the role for any knowledge or information or changes that becomes aware of and then he will hand that role over to the audit controller on June 30 of 2017 and you can see then at the beginning of fiscal year is July 1 and then By the time it gets to be August or September, that's when we're extending the roll. All the role adjustments and new information are in there and the bills are calculated and then sent to the treasurer.
And then in October is when we actually really find out what the final numbers are as of that January 1 lien date. And then that's when we can compare that to our budget estimates which we had prepared actually almost nine months prior to that. And then in November to June, the taxes are collected at a portion and then the year closes at June 30 of 2018. And any uncollected property taxes then roll over to the redemption role.
So the major types of property taxes, we've got the secured property taxes. These are land buildings anything that is affixed to the land and fences those kinds of things. We also have unitary which is the state assessed a property and typically those are properties that run through multiple counties You think of a railroad or you think of a utility company and their transmission lines. And they do the assessment of that, and then provide it to us in order to generate the bill.
We have supplementals, and those are typically on secured properties, and those would be changes that happen during the year. If a property after that January 1 lien date sells or changes hands, and then there would be a supplemental bill issued on that. And it could go up, could go down. And then additionally we have unsecured, and that's anything that's not fixed to the land. That'd be equipment, airplanes, racehorses those kinds of properties. So those are four main roles, and I'll turn it over to Joe now and give you a walkthrough of the assessment process.
6:54 – 7:0521 turns
Okay so one of the things that as the assessor we kind of like to keep our eye on is what's the market activity within the real estate community. And so one way of doing that is if you look at this slide, this is documenting well this representing the documentary transfer tax which is a $1.10 per thousand dollars of real estate transacted and they pay this when they record a deed and so along the bottom each of those bars represents the number of documents that were recorded with documentary transfer tax, and then the squiggly line is actually the amount of revenue that was collected in each one of those months. So what's nice about this chart, and this was just taken right off of my website so this is updated monthly and you can look at this if you'd like anytime you want.
And it's a snapshot of how the real estate community is doing and so you can see at the far left that's coming out of the boom And then we went into a recession and then we've slowly been coming back. And those high spikes there are oil company transactions so they kind of skew it a little. And at the end here you can see we're going down, I don't really believe we're going down anymore. I just had lunch with 20 realtors and the general consensus Is that the real estate market right now is very stable and strong. We're not seeing the defaults that we saw during that recession, and so this is just a good snapshot. And just FYI, the documentary transfer tax that they collect averages about $6 million a year, and that goes directly into the general fund completely unrestricted.
And Supervisor Adam had a question.
Well it's not really a question, more of a comment. That trend line doesn't look steady to me does it look steady to you?
It's going down at the end there and I think that's mostly skewed by those oil transactions that have kind of tend to make it higher than typical. But in looking at the recordings for defaults and trustees deeds, they've completely stabilized and have dropped down to a minimal level so what this shows me is a more or less stable real estate market We will keep an eye out though because with interest rates going up and mortgage rates going higher, there is some concern that there could be a slowdown as we move into the summer months.
Yeah and the other thing is I didn't get a, and I don't know whose fault this is but I didn't get any color charts. I got all black and white so it's kind of difficult unless those are all, is that the original that's all black and white?
We
all have black and white. There's two. Okay well if we've got
different...
They wouldn't want
to picket on you. No
I'm sure they were.
You can
ask Bob the problem is we have four different lines on there It's kind of you can't tell which one switch I Do love color. I love color
We know from your ties
So moving on here, here is the history of the assessed value for Santa Barbara County dating all the way back to the beginning of Prop 13. And just a note here over the last 14 years, the assessed value for Santa Barbara County this is the net secured role has doubled from $35 billion in 2002 to $71 billion in 2016. So even in spite of that recession that we went through and if we go to the next slide you can see that there were some periods of time during the recession where we had very low growth but for Santa Barbara County out of the whole state, we were fairly unique in that respect.
The assessed value Santa Barbara County never dropped. In many counties they would see their property tax revenue decrease from year to year. In Santa Barbara County we've always been on the positive side and that's more than likely due to the affluent residences that sell for multi-millions of dollars each. So as Supervisor Wolf alluded to new construction is a big part of the increase in the assessed value from year-to-year.
Part of the reason of course there was low growth during the recession is new construction pretty much subsided almost down to zero. But if you drive around the county now, you can see quite a bit of new construction. There's 1,052 new residential condos and parcels that have been created. Now those are under construction right now and so you can just see them being completed out in Goleta.
And across the county. Commercial new construction, the Hollister Village and the MARC which should be M-A-R-C is out by La Cumbra Plaza and so we're seeing a lot of Commercial new construction and then some incomplete commercial new construction would include quite a few new hotels including the Miramar, La Entrada in downtown Santa Barbara and the Hilton out by Costco.
So there's some completed new construction that we're going to polish off and issue supplemental bills on. And then any construction that was under construction as of lean date January 1, we term incomplete construction. We assess them for the amount of construction they have in place as of that lean date.
I have a question.
Supervisor Wolk, sorry.
Thank you. So Mr. Holland, the other part of the question that I had that I didn't hear the answer to is improvements. Isn't a property reappraised if they have significant improvements or remodels or anything like that?
Yes, so for new construction would include improvements. The way that it works is if you own a piece of land and you've had that land for a long time and it has a low assessment on it, you keep that low assessment and then we just assess the new construction that you build on the land.
I guess let me give you an example of a shopping center that goes through a major remodel. Is that shopping center reassessed because of the value increasing?
For remodels what we do is we look at whether or not it's a repair and replacement which is exempt under the Revenue and Taxation Code, or whether it's termed new construction. If it is new construction then we will assess that. For new construction it needs to be substantially the equivalent of new. So for many shopping centers they'll tear out the old and put in the new, and that is new construction. But we're careful to remove the old assessment on what they've demolished.
It takes a judgment call in every case. Then again Prop. 13 was passed in 1978 as a constitutional amendment and then in November, so Prop. 13 was passed in June and then in November 1978 they passed Proposition 8. And Proposition 8 said that the assessor shall assess property at its fair market value or it's base year value factored whichever is lower So your base year value factor is typically your sales price plus any CPI that would have been added over the years.
So during the recession, we went and identified all those properties that sold at the height of the market in 2005 through 2008 And we basically reappraised those and determined that if the fair market value was less than what they sold for plus the CPI, we would lower the assessment to the fair market values. So at its peak we had 24,000 properties that were lowered under Prop 8 which is section 51 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. And so you can see now we're down to $14,200 for this current year from a peak of $24,000. We're anticipating that we may go down to about $11,000 but for those of you who are familiar with With the real estate market, if you think of those homes for example in Santa Maria and Lompoc that were selling at $5.50-$6.50 when things were booming and now they went down to maybe $2.50 at the bottom of the recession and now they are more like $3.30-$3.50.
I don't know that we're ever going to be reinstating the base year value on those properties because their assessment plus that 2% per year for the last 10 years, that's a big number to ever get to. And these are folks who still own their properties that did not go through the foreclosure process and were able to hold onto their mortgage or maybe refinance.
So that's the Prop 8 Section 51s. Another area that I've reported to your board on in the past is the oil assessments. And here you can see that last year, the total value in millions for oil and gas assessments was $802 million. And that was when we were assessing the oil at $41 a barrel. That's down, that was 1.1% of the secured roll. That's down from 3.1%, in 2014 when the price of a barrel of oil for assessment purposes was $101.
So now for this year, the California Assessors Association has set the price of oil at $56 and we're just gonna have to see where we come in terms of the assessment.
7:05 – 7:2029 turns
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you, Madam Chair. When will that determination be made?
For oil and gas properties, they actually submit reports to us in May. And so we'll be working the oil and gas properties throughout May and into June. So like last budget year, we were polishing some of those up in the last week of the budget hearings. And so what I would anticipate is that we'll be able to come budget hearings and give you a reasonable estimate of what about where we are. And then as we complete the role throughout that week, probably by Thursday will be able to give you more finite number
Okay that, I mean I think you've heard the message. That you know get us those numbers during budget and particularly this one. And I know you will right?
We will. So if we go to the next slide this is a snapshot As of March 21st of where we are. If you look down at the right hand corner, you can see that it says 5.63%. So that was an increase as of March 21st. We ran this same report today and the percentage went down to 5.4%. I really have no confidence in either of those numbers. As we move through and complete the work through late June, that number will become more steady so to speak. So when we finally came to your board at the end of the budget hearings last June, that number settled on 4.25.
And it was wiggling around throughout the week. I'm reasonably optimistic that we're going to come in with some more robust numbers this year based on all the new construction, based on the fact that you've seen how much we've taken down oil because of the price of oil. So we're not taking it down any longer because of the price falling so dramatically. A lot of that downward pressure hopefully we're not experiencing this year compared to last year but we'll have to see.
We'll have to see.
If I could, so in the slide where you show the different percentages from 79-80 to 16-17, so 16- 17 was 4.3% which is pretty much what you just talked about. So we should expect 17-18 that number will increase to not 5.6 But
you
don't want to commit.
Supervisor Wolf, I'm sorry. I can't give you an estimate. Well
let me ask you this is it more than 4.3? Given the oil? Less than 4.9? Because you know this is really important. So we have 4. 3 and you've mentioned the oil is probably going to go up. You also mentioned the amount of Increased building activity. So it would seem, and I understand you can't give a number but it would seem that it would be higher than it was last year.
Maybe not, I'm just curious.
If I had to guess it might go a little higher than it was last year and you know keep your fingers crossed maybe it will go significantly higher. I just don't know right now. And I didn't say the oil assessments were going to go up because we've already taken them down that big downward pressure due to oil may It's not going to keep the percentage down. I don't
know
if there are
any
big sales
out
there that we still haven't enrolled?
All right,
so we'll switch now from assessments to property taxes. And so for 16-17 the net assessed value was $74 billion, almost $75 billion. That's 144 parcels and that's about 120 secured parcels and a remainder of the difference of unsecured parcel numbers. 543 tax rate areas and tax rate areas are basically sub-areas within a specific region or area that have the same governments taxing them for that area. And so that might be, any city will have a different tax rate area than another city or an unincorporated area and much of it depends on Independent special districts and whether there's a sewer charge in there, whether there's a lighting district charge. And so the ones that all have the parcels that have the light kind services provided and the entities taxing them will have a tax rate area.
And so there's 543 of those So the basic tax was $747 million and you can see that for this year, the county share. And again let me say this is the 1% secured and the unsecured taxes only none of the other tax rolls that we talked about earlier. 19 special districts, 8 cities, 30 independent special districts. 24 schools and community colleges and 6 property tax trust funds for the former redevelopment agencies.
Going to the next slide, this is where the property taxes go. Again this is 16-17 and you can see that the schools got the vast majority at 48% of the taxes. The general fund received about 24% of the taxes. Our dependent special districts got 8% of the taxes. Cities 9%, former RDA's 6%. And then independent special districts had 5%. Now you might ask yourself I thought the general fund got 19 or 20% and the difference here is that there's an educational ERAF fund, an Educational Revenue Enhancement Fund that some of the school's money gets shifted back over to the general fund money. And that accounts for that difference between the 24% and the roughly 19 or 20% that the general fund typically gets. And then the dependent special districts, the major one here is the fire district.
And we know that we're approaching 17% for them but again because here the fire district is not in all of the tax rate areas at the general fund ends and it only covers the unincorporated area and any cities that are within the fire district. And so that's the difference between the 8% of the total taxes versus the 15 or to 17% that they might get in an individual tax rate area.
So a little difference here between the budget cycle and the tax cycle. The budget cycle doesn't mesh well with the tax cycle. The tax cycle is an 18 month cycle which begins on the lien date, you can see that's 1-1-17 and it ends at 630 of 2018. And so that's 18 months, the budget cycle development cycle is seven months. It starts in December of 2016 and it's actually even before the lien date of the January 1st of 17.
And then that budget gets adopted in June of 2017 So as close as Joe can come up with that percentage at the budget hearings, there are still the other taxes that need to come into play and other calculations will bring in the state assessed property taxes. And those taxes are not actually calculated in total until September of 2017. And so we're actually one quarter into the fiscal year before we see how good our estimate was.
Next slide. And so we'll switch here, this is the AB growth and in essence how we come up with that 4.5% that we have used for the 17-18. You can see that we start with our local secured roll and again this is the 1% secured roll. We've got a Prop 13 inflation adjustment whereas the CPI is 2%. Only 73% of the roll are properties that nothing happens to. They just receive that 2%. In other words, there was no change in ownership or no new construction or anything like that. They just roll over and they get that 2%, but it's only 73% of the role.
Then we'll get property ownership changes and we have that as 1.74% of the growth, and about 80% of the prior year's growth is the figure that we're using to project into next year. New construction at half a million here or half a billion. And we're using 100% of the prior year's growth. So we're assuming that it is at least that, the prior year's growth in new construction and then the same on the non prop 13 values which are typically the ag preserves. And so we're going with 100% of their growth but then you can see an oil mineral gas that we have 0% for next year.
So that we're not expecting basically any growth on the oil and gas. And then the section 51 temporary declines, these are the reinstatements of those Prop 8 or Section 51. And so we're looking at 66% of the prior year's growth and the reason that's at 66%, is those are incrementally getting higher with the majority of it having already happened and then the remainder coming on a bit more slowly.
And so that's how we developed that 4.5% projection that we did on the assessed value, and then we'll switch that over to taxes in our estimate of secured taxes and how we generate that. So you can see there we take the roll, which here in this case includes the state assessed value. The prior slide did not. We project our four and a half percent growth. We come up with our $743 million. We take our roughly 19% for the general fund.
At 141 and then we subtract out shrinkage and then what needs to be contributed to the former RDAs. We take out about 10 million, we're at 131 for growth. We compare that to the prior year's revenue of 126, 5.8 million of growth on the secured which is 4.6%. We need to then take 25% of that and shift it over to fire, and that leaves us with 130 million in compared to our prior year 126. And in reality, it's a 3.4% growth in the property taxes Other factors that we will take into consideration in our projections will be the property transfer tax, which is an indicator.
And you saw that was going down or Joe believes it will remain flat and may not go down anymore. Then any supplemental taxes that come on board, we'll use that as a factor. Potential new construction. And then in the future if RDA debt goes away, then there should be increased increment coming back to the taxing entities. But they also have taken into consideration impounds so we're going to come back to you next month with a request to impound some taxes and that could be as high as 10 million dollars mostly in the area of Hotels and oil and gas, and then aerospace industry. All of those three industries have filed assessment appeals, and those are in appeal. And then we're going to impound some portion of the difference in their value between what the assessor has as a value and what they're requesting as a value.
And then also we look at historical trends. So we try to take all those factors into play when we come up with a projection for, in this case 17-18 tax secure property taxes and that's the calculation that we go through and all of the analysis that we do. And so with that were open for questions.
And Supervisor Labanino?
Thank
you,
Madam
Chair. So you mentioned assessment appeals. I remember at one time when we were going through the downturn a lot of people wanted their property reassessed and you had mentioned that and we had a huge backlog. Where do we stand right now with if somebody comes in to have their property reassessed? Is there a turnaround time or how long does that take or what's the process to do something like that?
I'll have Chief Deputy
Keith Taylor. Supervisor Lavinino to the chair. The assessment appeals right now, the number outstanding is about 740 that we're working on but most of those are Right now, residential properties that we're getting through pretty quick. We're talking to the taxpayers and handling it. The larger appeals are the ones that are taking some time in gathering the information from the applicants and trying to determine where our value stands with their opinion of value. And right now, we do have quite a few that are slated for what we call a status conference to move forward with the appeal right now.
Okay because we have some that are pretty significant correct? That's correct. And so how does that ever, is it just the assessment or all the negotiations contained in that or does it ever get to a judge or who makes final determination on
We have a three-panel appeals assessment board that will hear, and they have quite a few members. But three of those panel members will hear the appeal and then make a decision based on the evidence presented to them on where the value will lie.
And you can't, the taxpayer at that point is there an appeal process from the Assessment Appeals Board or is that final?
Well that is final from the assessment appeal board but then if either side doesn't agree with the determination they could take that to Superior Court. That's the final determination.
7:20 – 7:256 turns
And Supervisor Lavagnino through the chair, 95% of our cases are handled before they ever get to the appeals board.
I'm just curious about some really large ones that are out there that could move the needle a little bit.
Public comment? We have one request to speak, Dennis Allen.
Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Dennis Allen I'm a building contractor here in the county and then I was recently reviewing the County Energy and Climate Action Plan And some of the points that are made in that plan is to cut greenhouse gases, by 15% was the goal in the plan. And to also encourage goals and targets for energy efficiency in the county.
And to set up strategies to do this. You may know that just over half of the houses in the state of California were built prior to 1980. The first energy code in the state was passed in 78, so most of these homes unless they've had a remodel done since then haven't had no energy efficiencies done since we had no standards for increased energy efficiency. And it's probably an even bigger challenge in Santa Barbara because Santa Barbara is one of the older cities in the state.
The county set up, I think it was about 15 years ago, I've been a part of it since the beginning, a committee that was originally called the Innovative Building Review Committee and now it's called Smart Build 2. And what this program has done is it's a voluntary program that has tried to encourage projects that are seeking permits to come before this committee in the county, to look at ways to go beyond any of the current mandatory requirements to become greener projects and more energy efficient.
And we've never had a lot of projects come before this. I think the most we've had in some years ago now is maybe 4 or 5 percent of all the projects would come before this committee. Now it tends to be a trickle and the state has just upped the Title 24, the energy code requirements again they do it about every three years and it just went into effect January of this year And it's a rigorous set of requirements, especially for new construction. So our committee is looking at ways to go beyond what the requirements are and we're just about put together a program that we will bring before the board but is to ask for all projects to go 15% better than Title 24 On increased energy efficiency and to even look at and reward projects that will put renewable energy on to make these projects go all the way to zero net energy.
Zero net energy is going to be a requirement for all new residential construction in the state by the year 2020, so not that far down the road. So we think this program has a way to give us a head start in the county and The challenge for us all along the way though has been to find incentives to get the existing housing stock, owners of that, to come before the county to make energy improvements. The county has offered a few things like speeded up plan permits and waiving the energy fee Can you wrap up in just a few sentences? Yeah, so anyway what we're doing with some of the builders in the community and with this county is putting together a plan to present an incentive that would be a deferral especially for existing homes older homes.
A deferral on tax assessment right now if you do energy improvements on your home you get increased tax assessment This doesn't happen if you add solar but it does if you add energy, more insulation and so forth. So anyway this is just to really give you a heads up that we'll try to work with staff to bring together a program that we think would be getting some of these older homes on board with this. Thank you.
Are there any more questions? Comments?
Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair, I don't have a question but my comment is to express my appreciation to all of you for being here. It's a good primer for us to have and remind us from where our money is coming and where it's going so I appreciate your presentation and thank you very much.
7:25 – 7:2812 turns
And seeing no more, I'm very much intrigued by Mr. Allen's proposal that we look at deferring reassessment for remodels as an incentive to encourage people to upgrade energy efficiencies in their homes. Up to 50% of our carbon emissions and energy come from building, and this is an incentive. Someone analyze that or look at that and bring it back to us at some point possibly within the discussions of our budget.
In order to, you would have to have legislation to not assess those improvements. So there's current codes that exempt solar improvements but beyond that it would take legislation to have other improvements not assessed.
Even deferring for one year the
assessment would require
state legislation?
Correct, even deferring for one year. In many respects if someone replaces a floor heater with a forced air unit heater we're not reassessing that and if they are replacing windows with more efficient windows we're not reassessing that or if they are even putting in insulation But if they are going to tear the whole house down and put all that stuff in then we're going to reassess it at that point. For the most part a lot of the improvements that people do to better energize their house, we don't reassess. It's more repair and replacement. Peters
Supervisor Williams.
Maybe what would be great is just a one pager on what improvements trigger assessment and which ones don't? With an emphasis on energy related ones. That
would be easy to do. Sure we can get that for you.
Okay may I have a motion to receive and file? So moved.
Second.
All in favor, Supervisor Wolf did you have anything else? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We have received and filed that extensive report and thank you. So we're moving to, we have two more items on our agenda today. First is number five would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?
7:28 – 7:3311 turns
Chair Hartman members of the board item 5 from general services this is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance reauthorizing the county's public educational and government access fee on state video franchises.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the board. I believe you gave me five minutes for this. I'm going to try and do it in three. We're before you today to ask to reauthorize the public education and government fee, otherwise known as the PEG fee on state video franchise operating within the unincorporated areas of the county. This is the first reading of this ordinance and this particular PEG fee which is remitted to the county is 1% of each of the service providers gross revenues As a little bit of background, the California Legislature's passage of the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act of 2006 otherwise known as DVCA changed statewide how cable and video services are regulated.
DVCA transferred the cable and video television franchising authority from local governments to the California Public Utilities Commission. It also allowed local governments to continue to collect their franchise fees and begin collecting the PEG fees. The revenues from the PEG revenues are restricted as to their use, and can only be used for capital expenditures associated with PEG access facilities. Cameras, transmission equipment, microphones, microphones, microphones. Which we experienced this morning.
In April of 2011, Your board amended the county's cable television franchise and license ordinances and aligned the code with the DIVCA. The section of DIVCA that authorizes the county to establish those fees, the PEG fees also states that our ordinance expires upon expiration of the state franchise and may be reauthorized. The two franchises, the state video franchises were given 10 year terms and one of those expires in 2017 for Cox and the other in 2021 for Comcast. So our ordinance number 4785 enables us to collect the PEG fee and this action today before your board will reauthorize that to allow us to continue to collect that same fee. It does not however impact the separate 5% franchise fee.
As far as the fiscal impact, just real quickly since 2012 we've been collecting approximately $80,000 or so in PEG fees per year from Comcast and that's in addition to the roughly four to five hundred thousand dollars of the 5% annual franchise fee that we had been collecting. We expect to receive approximately $180,000 in PEG fees from Cox on an annual basis.
And that's also in addition to their around a million dollar annual franchise, that 5% fee that we collect from them as well. So basically our recommendation is to approve the introduction of this ordinance and then continue the hearing to April 11th for the second reading where we'll ask you to adopt the ordinance at that time.
Any questions of Mr. Gray from the board? Supervisor Lavanino?
How much did you
say our franchise fee is with Comcast?
Comcast varies but around $400,000 to $500,000 a year.
And I really appreciate you going for that microphone joke. That was good, that was good. You're reading the board well because we're at the end of the day. I knew that. That would have probably worked at 10 or 1030.
Any public comment slips?
No request to speak.
May I have a motion? Hello there is a request to speak. Number six.
Thank you.
7:33 – 7:409 turns
Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item 6 is from Public Works. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Measure A program of projects for fiscal year 2017-18.
Good afternoon Madam Chair and Board Members as Mr. Allen mentioned we're here today to present the Measure A program of projects for the next five years. We do a South County plan and a North County plan because that's required under the ordinance If this item is approved by your board today, we'll transmit it to SPCAG. They'll roll it up into the countywide plan and in your roles as SPCAG directors you'll consider the actual countywide plan. Measure A is one of our county's most reliable annual funding sources to help us address our transportation needs in Santa Barbara County and our presentation today will be given by Mr. Chris Sneddon, our Deputy Director in Transportation. Thank you.
Good afternoon I also have Brittany Heaton with me who does our budgeting and program management. Okay so as Scott said we are here for the five year Measure A program of projects. And today we're going to go over the ordinance a little bit and the requirements of the ordinance. We're fulfilling with this meeting, um, and some of the plan requirements then we'll look at the revenues and how they're distributed both by the ordinance and by county policy and look at it. And then we move on to looking at the state of our transportation network in the County here.
And then look at kind of distribution of the program of projects and finish with recommendations So these are the requirements of the ordinance. The county needs to adopt a five-year program of projects, we do that every year so we'll adopt five-year programs this year and then another one next year and so on. We also, the county needs to certify the annual maintenance of effort funding allocation so their intent to fulfill the MOE requirements.
And then we reaffirm the distribution formula and the priorities for the use of Measure A by board policy This is how the revenues look for this year and are projected for the next few years here or for the life of this five-year POP. And also on the left, this year's funding is in here. It's roughly $6.8 million this year, the 17-18 fiscal year and the MOE is about 1.5 million.
Something to note here is that you can see the Measure A trends up and then it kind of drops off and it takes a couple years to get back up. That's because the investment plan is anticipating bonding for the 101 HOV and named projects And unlike Measure D with Measure A, the debt service for bonding comes off the top before money is distributed to the local agencies. So that's where you see the debt service reflected here.
The MOE however is based on tax receipts of overall Measure A so it doesn't experience the same dip that the Measure A revenues do. And then this slide shows how the funding is distributed both by, as I said, by the ordinance and by your board's policy. By ordinance it gets split between the North and South County and then in both the North and the South County 10% minimum is required for alternative transportation Then once those funds are received by policy the board distributes it in the north 100% by lane mile and in the south it's distributed 50% by population, 50% by lane mile. And that's the distribution among the districts within those two areas.
Mr. Sim may I interrupt? When you talk about alternative transportation is that mass transit or bike lanes or both?
Chair Herman yeah that's everything including pedestrian facilities, bicycles, transit and anything else related to those other than the traditional vehicles or cars I guess. That so that you can see how the distributed this goes north. This goes south and then it's distributed by these formulas. There are about 1100 lane miles in the north, so it's getting spread out a little more up there or a lot more.
On the left hand side here you can see the priorities for maintenance and we have the fix it first philosophy here so we generally fund the maintenance needs before we try to build new stuff. We in the past have tried to split measure A and use about half of it for deferred maintenance and about half of it for corrective maintenance that was How we did it before the gas tax losses we experienced starting about three years ago, where we got about $3 million less since 14-15. So we've gone more to this model where most of Measure A has gone to cover operations and corrective maintenance and just a small portion is going to capital maintenance projects.
Predominantly for some preventive maintenance on pavement preservation, but also matches for HBP bridge replacement grants and things like that. Okay so that's all the funding is distributed. This is also the presentation where we lay out kind of the state of the transportation infrastructure that we have and we look at our backlog, our annual backlog of needs as well as the pavement condition index for the year.
This chart, these are the five major components we have.
Supervisor Adam has a question or comment.
I was just going to wait until the end of the slide but I recognize that picture right there and it makes me… I don't know is it in your district or is that mine? You can have it. Oh thank you! I finally got something here. That's fantastic, thank you. I recall because of that picture a discussion one time that we had a very in-depth discussion about what constitutes pavement and maintenance and all that stuff. And can you tell us what actually failed here to cause this ginormous hole which you can't even see 10% of right there? That thing is what 30 feet deep? I'm going to go ahead and ask you a couple of questions about the drainage structure that's down underneath that and it makes a giant hole underneath the entire road.
Can tell us how that happened.
Sure. And it is kind of a good illustration of how everything goes together. So we do tend Backlog there and we have about 4,000 drainage structures. And unfortunately a lot of them are Really at or well past the end of their life of when they're put in you know 50 60 plus years ago So they tend to kind of in this case rust out on the bottom or they'll dislocate They kind of lose their integrity and then You start to get erosion on that wherever the piping starts and it just kind of eats away and eats back into the hill so This has happened Here and a couple other locations as well around the county in the recent storms actually more than a couple of few different locations.
Thanks.
7:41 – 7:4910 turns
So these are these are the 55 components we look at Here you have what we had coming into this year, about 260 million. We're up about 284 or we are bad at 284 this year which is about a 10% increase as expected pavement is the majority of the backlog cost. It's also changing the fastest and that's why we end up talking about payment a lot when we talk about backlog of need because it deteriorates faster than a lot of these other things do.
That doesn't include the storm damage restoration work that's needed. It also is based on the inspections that were done in November and December, so we may see some of these numbers as we roll this number out next year there may be a bigger change than we've seen over the last years because of the dry weather Drilling down a little bit into the pavement because it's the majority of that backlog number.
If we look at the pavement condition index, so for those of you who haven't seen this on a scale of 0 to 100, zero being really bad and 100 being really good. The county's overall network if you take all our 1,650 lane miles and average it out, our condition index is about 58. The ideal state is about 84, or is 84. That's when you can maintain your whole system for the most efficiently at the least per unit cost.
The kind of standard practice is to try and be in this 70-75 range And for comparison, if you look at the county including all the cities here, Santa Barbara County overall is at about a 63. The statewide average is 66 so we're all together kind of hovering in this range That's this is kind of a snapshot. If you look at it, like I said in the based on inspections from November and December if we start looking into the future and kind of how that PCI projects out the two Kind of sideboards we set on it Is he looked at it? If there was zero funding to deferred maintenance for pavement And that's this line here so you can see the steady degradation of the condition index Then we also look at what it would take to hold it at this 58 and this year that would be about $13 million.
That number would probably or would go up, this 13 million would go up just to hold this line over time because over time even if you're holding a 58 your backlog is actually increasing so the cost of keeping everything at 58 becomes higher. This is another way, so this is moving on to looking at the program of projects itself. So you have that big spreadsheet with a lot of really small writing in it and it's hard to read but this kind of covers the four basic categories that are in the program of projects and this program of projects gets submitted by the county once its adopted to SBK and they roll it into their overall measure A program of project for the entire ordinance.
This kind of mirrors what we talked about earlier back in kind of our benchmark years. We put about 50% towards corrective maintenance and operations, and then the other 50 went to capital maintenance. So what's we've seen is this 34 percent slice of the pie has had to move over to cover operations and corrective maintenance, and then it's just leaving a little bit left for pavement preservation and the matches for grants and things like that.
And that brings us to our recommendations. I won't read them all to you but here they are and we're happy to answer any questions you have about any of them.
Do we have any questions from the supervisors? Do we have any public comment, Mr. Allen? No request
to speak.
Okay it turns out that we had a speaker in Santa Maria on the departmental item number five and I wonder if that person is still there and if we could hear that before we finish here. She's here okay
Hi thanks for taking my comments. Good afternoon I'm Jeanne Sparks, I'm a member of the Santa Maria Community Television Board of Directors I'd like to tell you a tale about two governmental agencies. On the one hand there's a local government, let's call it the City of Santa Maria. It provides a public television studio for local residents and non-profits to use free of charge to produce their own shows.
Some talk about the good works they are doing some about issues they are facing others provide instruction or inspiration. Let's call the station Santa Maria Community Television. SMC TV puts the shows on public channel number 25 for Comcast subscribers in Santa Maria and Orchid. The city uses PEG fees, Public Educational and Government Access fees collected from Comcast subscribers in the city to fund this operation.
On the other hand, there is a county that like the city receives PEG fees from Comcast. These fees are collected from subscribers in the unincorporated parts of the North County and are used to provide programs produced by the county. These are worthwhile programs including the airing right now of this meeting. However, the county does not provide a public television studio nor a channel for local residents and non-profits to use.
Of course you know this is a true tale, I'm telling about the City of Santa Maria and County of Santa Barbara. So here's the drama. The city of Santa Maria is facing funding shortfalls that threaten the future viability of the community station and channel. The station provides the opportunity to get important messages out to the thousands of viewers who turn to their big screen televisions for a myriad of programs every day It makes locally produced programs as available as anything else on cable.
We should not let this resource slip away, the good news is we can do something about it. The county could contribute some of its PEG funds to the station. This way the county would be doing a service for the residents it serves in the North County without having to start its own studio or channel here. Members of the public can go to the studio in Santa Maria to record their programs and put them on channel 25. It's available to anyone in Santa Barbara or San Luis Obispo counties. This message is for every person listening. On Thursday, the SMC-TV Board of Directors staff and producers are having a public meeting to discuss the future of the station. We're seeking increased participation from the public as we look at funding issues and make plans to live stream the programs.
We need more programming for the channel and more involvement to raise funds for equipment. Please come to our meeting this Thursday at 6 p.m. at the Media Center, 910 South Oakwood Drive in Santa Maria. It's a building behind the Muscle Center. For more information go to sbcan.org And I hope that you, the Board of Supervisors will consider supporting SNC-TV and we'll discuss giving some PEG funds to the city with the city. I hope the members of the public will come to our meeting on Thursday. Thank You. Thank you. Supervisor Adam?
Are we back on item 6 here now?
Yes sorry about that. We have no other speaker slips for this departmental item number six
Okay I just wanted to ask Mr. Sneddon a couple of questions, so the annual backlog I got on page 4 of the board letter, the annual backlog of deferred maintenance increased by $25 million this year right?
That's correct.
Did you have any of the rains this year involved in that calculation?
7:49 – 7:5412 turns
This was all based on most assessments that were done prior to the rainy
season. So when is that damage going to come on and how does that damage come onto the calculation?
Supervisor Adam through the chair. The spot, the point locations where the damage is if we had that if those damages and address before we do this process next year it would be incorporated into next year's backlog of needs
So you're going to take all of these kind of things or do we still do the deal that we looked at it a third at a time and so you wouldn't necessarily catch something like this until the third year depending upon where your rotation was in the evaluation?
I think you're referring to the pavement inspection that's done by a consultant and looks at a third of the roads each year. That would just go into the PCI, our asset management database for pavement These would be treated separately as projects essentially that need to be done. So for the drainage pieces, that would increase the drainage number if it's a drainage related thing and that's how it would be addressed. It would be independent of the pavement inspection for the pavement asset management database and these will be treated as individual projects
Okay so it would have to be something that just was a catastrophic failure like this to get included as a project.
Correct yeah if it's differentiated from something we're handling through corrective maintenance or in-house forces then it becomes into the project arena
Do you inspect individual culverts every year and see which ones rusted out so you can catch something like this before it happens or do you just kind of wait around until this happens?
Supervisor Adam through the chair that we do clean all of our facilities in the fall. They aren't necessarily inspecting in the sense that they're filling out a form for every single thing that they're cleaning but if they notice something in the process of doing that, they'll pass that on and then they also kind of have They have like kind of the sort of the top spots that they know work needs to be done and those are kind of like the first ones we would attack if we had funding to do that. And if we did that, and those got done then we would fall back in and get the next ones on the list.
Okay so even though your deferred maintenance increased by $25 million you're only asking for 13 this year?
Supervisor to the chair that 13 is the is the pavement need sort of smooth over a 10 lot and you're looking at your window. To keep it at the current condition.
Our public works staff are plugging a thousand dikes with not enough money. They're not waiting around for anything, so I hope that we put into context the task that they have in front of them and the problem is not You know, any one person the problem is our very society. Our very society thinks this stuff just like should magically show up right? They want all high pavement index they want infrastructure to be taken care of but they don't want to pay for it and we have to realize It just doesn't happen because we wish it to happen. It doesn't happen because it just magically appears, it happens if we invest in it and this is something I feel strongly about like you do.
Because I don't, I feel like civilizations are built on infrastructure. You can't have a civilization without a foundation of infrastructure and I don't want our civilization to scratch our heads and not take action and one day go got it. I wonder what things were like back then when we knew how to repair those things, or we knew how to build those things. That's the way other civilizations have gone in the past and that's not where we should go but I think the answer is we have to be honest with our constituents that if we want this stuff, we gotta pay for it.
7:54 – 7:566 turns
Thank you, Madam Chair. Well it's April what? Fourth? I know I just filled out my taxes and I think most people feel like hey California is getting their fair share time to spread the wealth a little bit with us. I think most people don't feel like it just magically shows up. I think they just feel like hey we are already paying for it you guys might not have the right priorities so yeah We can probably stay here. You know if we stay another six minutes, we get overtime.
We don't want to tax the taxpayers anymore. Are there any other comments? May I have a motion for the recommendations on the staff report?
Second.
And a roll call vote, Mr. Allen?
Mr. Adam? Aye. Mr. Labadino? Yes. Mr. Williams? Aye Ms. Wolfe? Aye Ms. Hartman? Aye Passes 5-0
Okay we finished our agenda and we reconvene a week from today in Santa Maria and we're hereby adjourned