BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 October 17, 2017

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.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:00 – 0:011 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:00 · ≈ 9:00 AM

♪ ♪ Music.

0:02 – 0:1813 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:56 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Good morning and welcome to this October 17, 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Barbara. Would you call the roll Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed3:07 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Mr. Lavagnino, Mr. Williams, Ms. Wolfe, Mr. Adam, Ms Hartman.

Pledge of Allegiance, led by Joan Hartmannceremonial · click to expand
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.653:14 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Here please stand for the pledge.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:20 · ≈ 9:03 AM

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.653:37 · ≈ 9:03 AM

And turning to the minutes of October 10, 2017 may I have a motion to approve? A second.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction3:44 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Second.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.653:45 · ≈ 9:03 AM

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes pass. Turning to our CEO's report Ms. Miyasato. Good morning

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:55 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Chair Hartman and board members. This morning we wanted to spend a little bit of time giving you an update regarding our emergency alerting system so I asked Rob Lewin, our director the Office of Emergency Services to speak a little about it given the events in Santa Rosa this past week and just to let you know there is information also on the website that we posted last weekend

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed4:18 · ≈ 9:04 AM

I thank you Miss Miyasato. Chair and Board, thank you for inviting us this morning to share some information. And with me today we have Chief McElroy from the City Fire Department. We have Fire Chief Eric Peterson and we have the Sheriff Chief Deputy Laniver as well as I have my staff with me Brian Ewell who's integral in the system as well as his partner Joe Ayala from Sheriff's Dispatch.

The tragedies in Northern California is something we in Santa Barbara understand. Our fire history is filled with fires that have caused great losses. We are similar in so many ways to both Sonoma, Napa and Mendocino counties. No question there's much to learn from their experiences just as California has learned much from our past fires. Most notably of course is the Painted Cave Fire which led to the creation of the standardized emergency management system, SEMS, which we utilize every day here in this state.

And I just want to applaud you, the Board of Supervisors for raising this question this week. The question being are we ready in Santa Barbara to alert our communities? And there are many ways to alert the public. A hundred plus years ago when there was a fire they rang church bells and firehouse bells and woke the town up during World War II air raid sirens were installed The technology now has allowed us to move forward on other multiple methods. The county was very forward thinking two years ago when it attained a grant funding for the Everbridge software program that we utilize, now the county is funding that system on behalf of all the jurisdictions and as you can see from the slide here that the methods that we use to notify the public are deep.

The door-to-door notification is still the most important part of the equation That method of sheriff's deputies and law enforcement officers from jurisdictions and firefighters on the scene, simply knocking on people's doors and waking people up and getting them out of harm's way. The other systems can all be done now fortunately through the Everbridge system. These include standardized media releases. Of course social media now has a huge ability to give information instantaneously directly to people as well as to the media With Aware and Prepare, when people sign up we can now send text messages, emails and we can also send voice recordings to their cell phones if they're signed up.

We are able to send voicemail to all landlines without even people being signed up as well as we can do something called WEA The wireless emergency alert system. This is the system that's been scrutinized now from the fires in Northern California, the ability to send something akin to an amber alert which all of us have experienced where your phone without any control no matter if it's muted or not will activate will put out a sound and will alert people We also have the emergency alert system which has been around for a long, long time. Which sends a message over radio and phone.

So how do we determine what to send? What of these different techniques, how should we send it and also how quickly can we get these messages out. So in the system of sending out alert the most important thing of course is alerting of the emergency. The public will call 911 there'll be a notification of the system other means can be that the National Weather Service could send out an alert of an incoming We're going to be talking about the storm. Of course, back east those oftentimes are tornadoes and in the south there can be hurricanes here they can be thunderstorms. Yes ma'am.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.658:06 · ≈ 9:08 AM

May I interrupt? Uh we don't all have copies of this up here. Are there any extras Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Wolf don't have them? Sorry to interrupt.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed8:28 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Not a problem chair thank you. The of course so the ability of the National Weather Service is also important to be able to send out and notify. So once we have notification our dispatch centers there's emergencies, of course the dispatch is done and resources are responding. And of course all of this takes time. The incident is occurring, our emergency responders are getting there, and then they need to be able to do what is often referred to as a size up or an understanding of the situation to gather up what is occurring. Of course, during the night this is more problematic and it's more difficult to get good situational awareness in the dark of night.

You're also confounded because you do not have the use generally of aircraft at night to be able to give you a good view of what's going on. And then of course that takes time and then of course then at some point our incident commanders make a decision that some kind of alerting needs to take place usually because of an evacuation They notify our dispatch center and the dispatch center in turn gathers that information and prepares an alert. And along this time, this process can take anywhere from 30 minutes to 40 minutes just from the time of the inception.

Fortunately in this county we have a forward leaning dispatch center and you can see in the second column there or field response that a dispatcher is able to jump the gun and send out a precautionary notice to the public and let them know but this is generally for people that are signed up for aware and prepare Not, we wouldn't generally use a WEA message because we wouldn't have proper intelligence for that.

So in order to remove some of the subjectivity of what our dispatchers and our OEM duty officers need to do when they're sending out alert, we've created a very comprehensive SOP. The SOP part of the table on the screen here demonstrates that when we identify what kind of an alert needs to go out, that's in the second column, we know that it's going to be either low urgency or high urgency. If it rises to what we refer to as a tier four, we're going to pull all stops and we're going to send out alert messaging in all the possible ways that we can do that. Everything from a simple Nixle text message all the way down to a WEA and an emergency alert system where it interrupts your programming on your radio and television.

But the system has problems. As we all may or may not have seen during the storms that we had this summer, we put out emergency alerts over our radio and television. And we found that some of the parts of the system have problems as you can see from the screen that the complexity of the emergency alert system in the United States is difficult to follow The messaging can come from the president or it can come from us locally.

The system is designed to do that. The problem is that we're relying on a volunteer program from our broadcasters and they are required, they need to have a certain kind of technology. We have to have a certain kind of technology and then FEMA has to have a certain kind if these systems are not compatible the system will fail in some degree as we noted during the storms where Our cable television provider having constant messagings that we're sending information and changing people's channels and not providing that data. So fortunately, we've convened a meeting in this county of all of our folks so we did several weeks ago and we're working through this problem and we're going to keep working on it until it's resolved.

Since the time that we have taken on the ability to put out wireless emergency alerts, which is a new system, new technology. And we can see that some of the counties in California are not there yet on being able to do it. We are and since the time that we've done it in January, we've put out nine wireless emergency alerts that have woken up people's cell phones and sent out these messages that you can see on the screen.

For example, we put out an alert to put an evacuation warning to people who lived in the Alamo burn area. The first time we did that, we didn't mention that it was east of Santa Maria. People don't know where the Alamo burn area is in all cases in the county because the WEA system will wake up phones across the county It caused a lot of 911 calls. The next time we had to do it, unfortunately, a week later, we were a little more careful. The limitation is that we're limited to 90 characters in those WEA alerts which makes trying to create a message that's usable difficult.

So some of the problems of course we have are listed in the memo that you received. Some of our community members are more vulnerable than others. There are people with access and functional needs whether that is due to a disability or non-English speakers, elderly and other things that mean that people aren't receiving it as well as others. We have to address this and we have begun that. We had a meeting couple weeks ago our first one called the whole community work group where we're trying to address how we can make sure that were able to alert all of our public. It's a tall order it requires a lot of effort by a lot of nonprofits as well as government agencies and we're going to try to do it but it's not going to be easy.

We are still have a population that doesn't have technology They are generally elderly folks that they're not, they don't have smartphones. They may not even have a cell phone and so they're not going to be alerted and we saw that in some of the fires up north and so we still have to be vigilant in our door-to-door method of notifying people and try to figure out how to touch these folks We in dispatch and OEM need to continuously train and perfect our alerting system in the same way a peace officer trains with their weapon or a firefighter trains on ladders.

Our tool is this program Everbridge through awareandprayer.org, and we have to continuously train on it because it requires skill, and we do, and we're going to continue to do it. And we may even do more. I believe that the state should be forming a working group, maybe a Blue Ribbon Commission to review the alerting systems within the counties of the state.

They need to provide the leadership to ensure that we are all prepared in this state for alerting to the degree at least what we do here in Santa Barbara County and maybe beyond. And of course folks are here with me if you have any questions for any of us were glad to take them.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6515:19 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Thank you Mr. Lewin. Any questions from members of the board? Supervisor Adam.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction15:27 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Yeah the only thing I would say is I heard you talk about having a countywide alert for a specific area place and I would hate to see you turn into the little boy that cried wolf and it's like those Proposition 65 warnings where everything Everybody has to say that you can get cancer if you enter here and now nobody pays any attention to those things because they are ubiquitous. So I think we've got to really try to pinpoint so you don't send people a bunch of too much stuff which isn't really relevant to them, and when they get one they can take it seriously because I'm afraid If people get in the habit of getting too many of these things, then they will tend to ignore them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed16:18 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Chair and Supervisor Adam, thank you. Yes those are wise words and we do our best to make sure that we're not over sending when we first got Everbridge we definitely oversent and we backed way off that was the creation of that table now we try to limit what we're sending out two things that are important in particular during evacuations it's all stops are pulled and we do everything we can to notify people one of the limitations is that the WEA system Although it was designed so that would only wake up the cell towers in the area that we've drawn a map around, we're finding that it's alerting everybody in the county.

And we're not sure exactly why and we're researching that with FEMA. This is a nationwide problem. There was an alert that went out in Riverside County and unfortunately notified all of LA County and they did not specifically say where the evacuation was. So essentially it said evacuate. The county. So we are trying to avoid that through good words and also through being very careful about when we send them out and also working with FEMA on a system that needs to be improved.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction17:26 · ≈ 9:17 AM

Yeah you know too many times, and I don't think it's a lot, I think that could be a two or three time thing and people will start ignoring it and that could really lead to some tragedy. You know if people are getting messages and they find that they're just, I don't want to say it this way but for lack of a better term just trash. That could really be embarrassing down the line someplace so you know I think you'd better pull some of the best minds you can find in and figure out why that's doing that because that could really lead to something tragic.

0:18 – 0:2817 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed18:08 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair. Mr. Lewin thank you very much for being here and providing this information and I know that I was one of the people during the week who had asked for information so this is obviously important for us to know. You know we as you know and I think most people know, we had lost our house in the Painted Cave fire and have been evacuated a couple of times in subsequent fires. So making sure that the public knows what's going on where to go when to evacuate understanding the nomenclature evacuation warnings mandatory evacuation is really important and I think Your team has done a really good job. We have our PIO in the back, Gina who's also done a tremendous job and it is much different than 1990. I didn't realize that's when Sims came into being was subsequent to that fire.

There's still a couple of issues that I just want to touch base on. One of the things that I've heard from my constituents on the fires is that we don't have a really good mapping system or GIS technology so that when things are broadcast people can actually see where the evacuation warning order is in the streets and you know we've talked about that and you actually talk about it in your memo to us And it sounds like that you don't have a GIS person as part of your staff and you depend on fire which recently hired a GIS technician.

I seem to recall so if you can just touch on that before because I really do think that having someone available in your team who and I thought maybe P&D also has GIS folks but can you touch on that a little bit? On what we can do to ensure that that information gets out to the public.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed20:21 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Well of course in the initial phase of an emergency it's going to be hard to get good mapping regardless of how many people we have because of the time that we're trying to get the information out. We have come up with some simple remedies because of the lack of GIS on the past fires and that was to make sure we're using any kind of mapping tools that we can and our folks have been trained in those simple ones. That said, Fire Chief and I have talked We've been working informally about trying to figure out how to solve this problem.

We're committed to working together on seeing how we can leverage our programs together to try to solve the GIS program. We've also put on a course most recently, maybe three weeks ago where we invited all the county GIS specialists both from jurisdictions and our own agencies to come for two day emergency mapping message. OEM sponsored that. From Cal Fire and the class was well received in just a matter of a week or two later. The fire, the Redker fire occurred in one of those folks in the class from Lompoc was successful in providing really good mapping based on that training so we're taking effort to try to work the problem through And maps, of course, are always difficult even when you have the best technology. We do have the ability to look at satellite imagery and satellite hotspots and we're using all of those technologies.

We're a little behind in this county but we're gonna try to fix that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed21:52 · ≈ 9:21 AM

OK and as we try and fix that C.E.M. maybe we can have a follow up to this discussion agendized maybe in six months so we can follow up on that. And I also just want to ask the question how does your information get to our PIO so that she can send it out through some of the county Facebook and Twitter and things like that? Is there do you have what is that relationship?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed22:19 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Well it's very good. I can assure you that Gina and I probably talk three or four times a week.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed22:25 · ≈ 9:22 AM

I didn't mean subjectively, is there like a linear?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed22:29 · ≈ 9:22 AM

I'm in an emergency situation where it's really tight. Our JIC stands up very quickly during an emergency That's fully supported by our executive office. They come running and send people quickly to the JIC, recognizing that public information is critical. Even during that initial phase, our staff is able to put together a quick map using simple tools and we're able to tweet it. Those tweets are retweeted by the fire department or they start them and we retweet them in the county on there starts doing it. We start building our program even when we're not in the facility at our EOC so It's pretty good. I don't know that we need to change much of how that is going it's really because we are all cooperating together, fire department, sheriff everybody.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed23:16 · ≈ 9:23 AM

So I would also if and when you come back let's just assume you're coming back in six months it would be good to have a flowchart of your department, sheriff, dispatch, our PIO so that we have a good understanding I also want to, Madam Chair if I could ask a couple more questions. Our relationship with our media partners in the past and I brought this with me you know we have MOUs I think in place with our radio stations Spanish speaking radio stations And I think that this is something that we probably should look to update because when people, you know we talk about the cranked phones or radios and people need to have those available. So if they have them available then what radio station do they go to? And so it would be good to have that updated information for us so we know.

Also, people oftentimes will go into their cars and listen on their car radio to get information if they can't get TV or their internet is out. So having the community know and understand who are our radio partners I think is also really important. Another thing I wanted to touch on was the cows that you mentioned in your report. You know that came up in the Sonoma fire.

And what is this, where are we on that in the county? And it's not milk, it's not cows that Supervisor Adam might think of. It's the other kind of

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed24:53 · ≈ 9:24 AM

cow. Of course our cellular providers are all chair and supervisor. Yeah it's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed24:58 · ≈ 9:24 AM

a cellular, what is it cellulars?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed25:00 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Cellulars on wheels.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed25:01 · ≈ 9:25 AM

On

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed25:01 · ≈ 9:25 AM

wheels. The cellular system that we have of course is private. And the private providers, we're relying on them both for our emergency responders as well as alerting the public. Same with the internet. It's all really relying on the helpfulness of these providers and for the most part they're pretty incredible. We've had fires where we've asked for them to bring the cellular on wheels the cows out and they will set up a cell site and create it in a canyon that has no cell coverage they'll correct that.

I think where we need to go now, what we've learned this week is we need to touch bases with those providers the major ones and see if we can make sure that we can even move that process of getting cows out to the scene quicker. Of course we're going to be competing with other counties for those resources so we also talking about how many they have. I think we probably should wait a couple weeks till they're done dealing with the fires up north but we intend to have that meeting

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed25:59 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Okay and just you know I talked about our you know radio. I touched on County TV who is responsible for reaching out to our other like Ed Hatt the independent news hawk who was frequently sending out Facebook posts and Twitters? Is that our PIO or is that you?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed26:26 · ≈ 9:26 AM

That would be our PIO for the most part. Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed26:30 · ≈ 9:26 AM

and I guess, and I've been in touch with Supervisor Zane up in Sonoma and of course the loss of life is the most tragic and people fleeing their homes in you know the worst conditions. So this the WEA response has been something that I've been interested in and I didn't realize that our county has that capability so that's obviously good to know. There was an article in the San Jose Mercury News or Times That did talk about the fact that you can localize the- the notices that go out. So I suspect that that is something that you you mentioned it and that will be something that you'll be working on because I do think that there's.

That notification early is so important and and I understand what supervisor Adam is saying about crying wolf but I also think I think we're not immune to this and we take it seriously so that when we hear something from you folks people really need to understand that it's important to act. And it's important to act right away, not when the flames are right in front of you. Or any other type of emergency. So I think that's just the message is don't wait to evacuate if there is a problem you just have to leave your house and so anyway those are my final words and before you leave if you can also just because I ask you this every time you come, is to restate how people can sign up for Aware and Prepare.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed28:13 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Yeah, and that's a simple aware and prepare one word.org awareandprepared.org it takes one minute click on the button that says alert and it's done. And that numbers have grown because of the fires up north they grow every time we have an incident. We have a number we have almost 13,000 people signed up for Aware and Prepare in this county. We need that number to be 100,000. We needed to be more and that is the best way for us deliver messages.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed28:42 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Thank you Mr. Lewin and to all of our first responders in our community for being responsive and taking this seriously.

0:28 – 0:3610 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6528:54 · ≈ 9:28 AM

I just want to let everyone know that we do have copies of this at the back of the room, the report that the board had that we saw up on the PowerPoint presentation. Supervisor Williams?

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction29:06 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Just wanted to thank you for also highlighting the limitations I just want to make a couple of comments about the importance of cell phone technology- not only for the reasons that you've enunciated but also for the falling location accuracy. In nine one one calls it I always think it's an important thing to highlight that. It is technology is not as reliable as we think it is we look at at you know maybe being able use a map at Yelp or our It's not something you want to stake your life on, so I personally counsel people to get landlines. I hadn't had a landline for 10 years and as soon as My baby was born, I got a landline.

And it's because location accuracy is actually getting worse for most cell providers. It's really not calling 911 from the cell is not really the best way to make sure that emergency responders know where you are and obviously it's easier for you to notify people in landlines particularly if their cell phone You know, how do you know that a cell phone is local?

I guess you have to use suffixes or hope that the cell towers are going to be pointed in the right direction. So I guess the only question I had is how many people do we have in the aware and prepare alerts because I definitely noticed that I get a lot of positive feedback from people when I basically take your information and just put it on my Facebook. That's where they're getting information. And I know that's a little scary, but at least I'm using all your information and putting it out so how many people have signed

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed31:02 · ≈ 9:31 AM

up? So we've supervisor we fortunately have 12,000 signed up almost 13,000 actually and that number is growing and we just we hope that all of you will reach out to your constituents and encourage them to sign up. And as well, I think it's terrific that all of you You know are using your social media accounts to reach your constituents to send them this vital information. That's the beauty of social media is we're all getting the information out. We do need to be very careful that that media, excuse me, that that information is accurate and it has to be quick so sometimes we lose a little bit accuracy with promptness but at the same time that's a good charge for all of you and we really appreciate that you

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6531:48 · ≈ 9:31 AM

I had a couple of things I would like to add, Mr. Lewin. I was driving last January down the 101 about 830 in the morning and suddenly my car started blaring and I thought oh what's wrong? Pulled over but it was part of the flood control flood warning at El Capitan so that was my introduction to the WEA system. It suggests to me that people need to Change their behavior perhaps and sleep with their cell phones near especially when it's red flag days. I think too, I'm wondering just whether home alarm systems and especially the elderly.

When my mother was old we kept her independent by having a thing around her neck that went to accompany so if she fell but maybe there's some relationship we could have with people like that and encourage I think it's important for older people in our area to do that because it is not high-tech. People are especially sensitive right now after what has happened in Napa Sonoma and wonder if a PSA campaign or something on Facebook about Aware and Prepare so we can really make a big bump in the numbers of people who are signed up?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed33:13 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Chair absolutely I'm sure that Gina and I can pull that together.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6533:18 · ≈ 9:33 AM

And while Chief Peterson is here could you tell us about county firefighters and what you know about what's happening in Napa Sonoma?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed33:29 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Chair Hartman we get regular updates from our people up there. We have about, we have a strike team of probably I think we have about 30 or 40 people up there right now. The OP area has about eight fire trucks up there in total. Pat McElroy from City Fires here how many people do you have up there right now? Okay. Generally speaking, things are calming down because the weather is cooperating to a certain extent up there. But what they're finding is that this is truly an unprecedented situation that they have up there.

If you've seen the pictures of the neighborhoods where it's just track houses that are down and There's really no vegetation to carry that fire, which is you know what we're used to around here is an urban interface a mixture of vegetation and structures. And what they have up there is Just. Mass quantities of homes that are on the ground and they haven't there's no there's no vegetation to carry that fire so it's really an interesting situation then obviously something we'd like to avoid here but they're making good progress other repopulating and they're feeling good about the progress up there.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6534:46 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Thank you supervisor Williams and then

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction34:49 · ≈ 9:34 AM

just a note somber on a somber note just want Give our condolences for the family and the agency of the firefighter that lost his life in the line of duty up there on a water truck as I understand. Thanks for that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed35:09 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair. Well I just since you're up at the podium, I want to convey the appreciation from Sonoma Supervisor Shirley Zane who made a point to ask me to thank all of the folks from the county and the cities who are out there helping. So thank you. If I can just ask Mr. Lewin another question? Mr. Lewin in your report you talked about sheriff and fire department are very experienced at evacuation and that there's a lot obviously a lot of manpower that's involved in that I recall during the Zaka fire we also use probation, probation staff as their law enforcement too so I don't know if you have reached out or if they're part of this you know your program in bringing everyone on board on evacuation And then the other, I think we have this because I think it was a Zaka fire or one of the other fires.

Maybe it was a Hesucita where we had almost 2,000 people that were evacuated and what the county had at that time was they had in their mapping they knew where specific vulnerable populations were located and is that up to date since then?

0:36 – 0:4314 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed36:40 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Chair and Supervisor, thank you for the question. So that the first question I'm going to lean take this one really could be the Chief Deputy but I think the simple answer is evacuation requires to be a law enforcement activity probation of course as law enforcement as well as all the other mutual aid agencies during an evacuation it is not unheard of to call on everybody that does that whether that's state parks law enforcement Thank you.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed37:21 · ≈ 9:37 AM

The vulnerable populations in the map.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed37:23 · ≈ 9:37 AM

So this is probably the thing that would keep me up at night is dealing with how we're going to take care of our vulnerable population during emergencies and yes, our folks at social services and public health keep good lists. A person can be okay today and tomorrow, now they're vulnerable. Now they're part of the access and functional need population. It happens that quick as we all know as we take care of our parents. Things happen and to be able to track that always is very difficult. It's a private thing for many people and so therein lies much of the problem. We all know that folks once they get older, they don't have the same hearing, they sleep differently They move differently, they may not drive anymore. These are all things that make them susceptible and as we can see from the fires up north the average age of the people that died were 75 years old and this is a pattern that we're seeing in wildfires last year near before.

Elderly people are very vulnerable during fast-moving wildfires and we've got to try to do our best. It may not be perfect but we have to do better in California

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed38:32 · ≈ 9:38 AM

So do you, I know you map like convalescent homes and things but how about people who are disabled or the elderly? Is there a way that, I know CERT does that and they're very effective in that. But is there any way that you know that or someone can let you know say an elderly person lives here and they don't drive

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed38:56 · ≈ 9:38 AM

I'll check with our social services folks and we'll get back to you on a specific answer on that and how that works.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed39:02 · ≈ 9:39 AM

I think Terry Ness has just been working with the departments on this so maybe Terry can say a few words about it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed39:06 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Okay, before Terry comes because I just want to say a final thank-you and also I can't let this whole conversation go without talking about the emergency operations center because I remember back in Zocco when we had the old emergency operation center I think it maybe took us at least a half hour just to get everything not we it took Staff. A long time a longer time to get everything set up the phone lines at computers everything ready to go and as we know time five minutes is is critical so having everything set up having you and your team ready to go and all of our county staff trained is so important and I'm very grateful for all of your work thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed39:50 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed39:52 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Ms Nesic Yes Chair Hartman and Supervisor Wolf. We do maintain through public health a list of all of the facilities that house vulnerable populations such as the senior citizen centers, group homes etc. Often times we have information that actually takes down to an individual person What type of assistance they may need. Do they need electricity to continue their oxygen? Do they need certain kinds of assistance to move? So the public health department does maintain that list and they do keep it up-to-date. I don't have the date when we last did a tabletop on that but I can get that.

Okay good thank you thanks

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6540:37 · ≈ 9:40 AM

very much. Thank you and I believe we have a public speaker slip on this item is that correct Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed40:44 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Chair Hartman members of the board, we have three requests to speak. We're going to start with Brian Rosen then hear from Elizabeth Williams and then Mark Sciatillo

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6540:56 · ≈ 9:40 AM

And that's on this item the emergency.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed40:59 · ≈ 9:40 AM

This item yes please. I just want to point out that It's really not healthy to sleep by cell phones, and I think it's healthier to sleep away from wires than electromagnetic. It certainly is healthier to sleep away from lights. That's being proven in cities like Ohio are adopting dark sky ordinances. I don't think that's a good idea. A lot of people don't have cell phones or they don't work or they're not charged up.

There are other solutions that aren't being considered. I live in a neighborhood on the edge of the dangerous fire zone and we have a fire station and maybe there should be some big bells. You know, like in Notre Dame, the church in Paris with a big bell would be quite loud. It rings constantly when there's an emergency. Probably the most important thing is just to set up a neighborhood network for neighbors helping neighbors looking out for older people. We're not watching TV, we're not in front of our computers, you know so I don't think we're gonna really with global warming going on it does seem to be going on with all the emissions things are just gonna get worse and worse. The oceans are heating up, the winds are gonna get more severe, things are gonna get drier and drier in Sonoma and those areas I want to All over the world, many more people than that are dying from wars and so forth.

I think we need to also grieve for them in Yemen and other areas. We need to – I guess that's all I have to say but thank you very much. Doss, you're making a difference. You bring your own cup. He is a real environmentalist. That's one thing I really am impressed. Thank

not transcribed≈24s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed43:12 · ≈ 9:43 AM

you. Elizabeth Williams and then Mark Shatillo.

0:43 – 0:485 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed43:22 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Good morning, I want to thank the Board of Supervisors and our fire department and police department. It's just wonderful that we have this protection but I want to bring up an item that might help. I live near the freeway and when there is something going on you can hear the sirens going on, the fire department, the police cars if you had somebody that was volunteering to do this in certain areas It's a little one, but thank you so much.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterMark Chitillotwo community organizationsProposedself-stated44:17 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the board, I'm Mark Chitillo. I'm here on behalf of two community organizations, the Friends of Mission Canyon and the San Antonio Creek Homeowners Association that have both been involved in land use issues involving fire prone communities that are at risk. And it is very helpful to hear this information and to know how prepared our county apparatus is to deal with these kinds of issues.

The one issue that I want to underscore to you, Supervisor Wolf, you touched on evacuation capacity. That's really kind of literally where the rubber hits the road when we have an emergency situation like this and as noted that task in our paradigm here falls to law enforcement. And one of our concerns when we're dealing with the Botanic Garden with Park Hills Estate subdivision and other development in the foothills is How many people can we get out under the amount of time that we expect it will have? You may remember back in the 1991 Berkeley Hills fire where a lot of people perished in their cars, and I think that's probably part of some of the scenarios which we are seeing happening up north currently.

What I would ask is that your board, direct staff, sheriff, the law enforcement community to make a similar presentation working with FIRE and OEM to explain and Demonstrate that the planning and the exercises have been done. All of our foothill communities rely on Highway 192, and if you take the San Antonio Creek neighborhood all of that traffic it almost all has to channel down through on San Antonio Creek Road and out through old San Marcos Pass road there are a series of stop signs and a stoplight on 192 that have the effect Thank you very much.

I think it's great that we were able to call probation and other law enforcement officers to come and assist in that effort. But what we were told as we looked at the Botanic Garden is, it's going to be just a deputy who's going to be down there at the bottom of the hill directing traffic. And if we can put some of the technological metrics to be able to know which way traffic is flowing and how to best evacuate people out of that 192 corridor Thank you.

not transcribed≈25s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6547:25 · ≈ 9:47 AM

And that's our last public comment on this item. Mr. Lewin you heard some ideas and when you come back next time maybe some of those will be ones you follow up on. Thank you, Ms. Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed47:36 · ≈ 9:47 AM

Just one more thing Supervisors that Mr. Lewin didn't get to say I know there has been some confusion about Nixle versus Aware and Prepare. So Nixle for those who don't know is our longstanding basically alert system we still support Nixle. Nixel for those who want texts we are encouraging and we still support that. But people can also sign up for Aware and Prepare in which you get email, text and landline alerts. So this is just a clarification when we'll work with Gina and her group to get that clarification out there and get more people signed up.

Thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6548:08 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Okay turning to our resolutions, our honorary resolutions, we have A19-A21 may I have a motion to approve? And a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Would you read A-20 into the record Mr. Allen?

0:48 – 0:534 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed48:29 · ≈ 9:48 AM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, item A- 20 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution proclaiming the week of October 21 through 28 2017 as Flood Preparedness Week in Santa Barbara County and our own Tom Fairam is here to receive the resolution and I'll read it into Whereas floods can occur in Santa Barbara County in any given year, regardless of perceived weather patterns or trends.

And whereas during the past two decades, Santa Barbara County has seen several above average rainfall years resulting in devastating flooding to portions of our community which should serve as a vivid reminder of the flooding threat we face and the need to prepare every year. And whereas even if after five years of severe drought conditions, droughts in California have historically been broken by extreme rain events and flooding.

And whereas the County Flood Control District prepares each winter, assuming significant flooding could result and each resident should do the same to protect their homes and businesses. And whereas the county makes available for public viewing the flood insurance rate maps that are developed and published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. And whereas because the counties has an ongoing participation in the National Flood Insurance Program residents are eligible to purchase the federal flood insurance as financial protection against flood losses which do occur.

And whereas of all the cities and counties in the state of California, residents of unincorporated Santa Barbara County represent one of the few such communities where residents are able to purchase flood insurance at a 20% discount rate due to the county's level 6 standing in the community rating system that credits the county for its maintenance programs, emergency response efforts and floodplain management program.

Now therefore I'm hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors along with the State of California proclaim the week of October 21 through 28, 2017 as Flood Preparedness Week and encourage Santa Barbara County residents to also be prepared for the winter. View the exhibits located in the lobbies at the Better Review Government Center in Santa Maria and the County Administration Building in Santa Barbara. Passed and adopted today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed50:31 · ≈ 9:50 AM

Thank you Madam Chair, members of the Board. And thank you for recognizing Flood Preparedness Week this year as we do each year. Flood Preparedness Week is a reminder to us all that flooding does occur regardless of perceived climate trends that we're in. It's also a reminder to our community that flood preparation is a shared responsibility. That while our flood control crews are out in the middle of preparing for the winter as we speak so should our residents and their own property.

I'd also like to announce that there will be a workshop next Thursday, October 26th right here in this room in the Santa Barbara South County Boardroom where the Federal Emergency Management Agency FEMA will be presenting some new flood insurance rate maps that'll affect coastal areas of Santa Barbara County. It's very important that residents that live on or near the ocean become aware of these new mapping changes and then thank you again and I'd like to again remind everybody That we are getting ready and are you so thank you very much.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6551:35 · ≈ 9:51 AM

And turning to 821 would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed51:39 · ≈ 9:51 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board item 821 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams this is a resolution proclaiming October 23 through 31 2017 as Red Ribbon Week in Santa Barbara County and we have a group of folks to come on up Ed Stonefell, Selina Rockwell, Adriana Almazon and Samantha Bierman I have down here. If there's anybody else you'd like to bring up, have them come on up.

And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas Red Ribbon Week is the oldest and largest nationwide campaign focusing on drug abuse prevention and education opportunities to promote a drug-free lifestyle with the ultimate goal of eliminating drug use and the associated impacts of addiction. And whereas the National Red Ribbon Campaign is an annual effort that takes place in the last week of October and offers residents the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to a drug-free lifestyle by promoting visible, unified prevention and education efforts with an estimated 80 million individuals participating nationwide.

And whereas the Red Ribbon Campaign was established by Congress in 1988 to encourage a drug-free lifestyle in honor of Enrique Kiki Camarena, a Drug Enforcement Administration agent murdered in the line of duty. And whereas government agencies, law enforcement, local businesses, religious institutions, service organizations, schools, families and youth will all demonstrate their commitment to healthy drug-free lifestyles by wearing and displaying red ribbons and wristbands during this week long campaign.

Now therefore it be hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors does proclaim October 23rd through 31, 2017 as Red Ribbon Week in Santa Barbara County and encourages all residents to support and participate in alcohol and other drug prevention activities. To celebrate this year's theme your future is key so stay drug-free. Passed and adopted today

0:53 – 0:556 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed53:33 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Madam Chair and the Board of Supervisors, thank you very much for recognizing the important work that our team behind me do in the schools with this important prevention work that we do in regards to substance abuse. And what I'd like to do now is have Adriana Almazan who runs our prevention program come up and say a few words. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed53:56 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Hello Madam Chair and members of the board. I would just like to inform you all that countywide you have 16 schools directly working with us in promoting Red Ribbon Week not just to their peers but to adults in our community to hopefully become partners and allies to help support the growth and youth development And so what you have in front of you is a band. So we hope that you will wear this wristband next week and to share this on your social media as we've been talking about, that it helps promote awareness and we'd like to invite you to take the pledge to support youth development in their efforts in maintaining a healthy lifestyle and choosing to become and remain abstain from alcohol and drugs and prescription drug abuse as well as marijuana.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed54:50 · ≈ 9:54 AM

And I'll just say a few more words too. So, I oversee the Youth Service Specialist Program so we have 16 full-time counselors that work in the schools and so Red Ribbon Week is one aspect of that and so we're doing continuous prevention work with teens counseling screening brief interventions so we really appreciate all the support that you do in all of our schools to help keep our teens free of drugs and also be healthy thank you so much.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6555:17 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Thank you for the good work that you Turning to our administrative agenda I have one item A8 that two supervisors would like to discuss. Any others? At the supervisors and do we have any public comments on any items in the administrative agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed55:40 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board one request to speak on the administrative agenda for Mr. Sciatello on A18.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6555:48 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Would you read A8 into the record?

0:55 – 1:0712 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed55:51 · ≈ 9:55 AM

Item 8 is from the county executive office this is to consider recommendations regarding resources for property tax assessment appeals.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.6555:59 · ≈ 9:55 AM

And Supervisor Adam.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction56:01 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Well I just have a number of questions on this thing and I think we should bring it back for a D item or as a D item maybe next week's probably enough but I haven't been able Get a clear vision of why we're developing this backlog. And I've been having some trouble getting the historic data it kind of comes to me in a lump from 2013 forward and I'm not sure If we are really developing a backlog or whether this is sort of just accumulated over the years and I would like to understand exactly what type of properties are having, he's probably good morning Mr. Holland I didn't see you in the room.

What type of properties are getting these appeals and how many of them are there, what years did they you know what's the historic appeals? Because what I see in the board letter is that we got 22 of them in 16 and 37 of them in I guess 17. And we're expecting 180 to 200 in the next 18 months. That's not making sense to me. And if those are the numbers, what type of properties are we getting these appeals on and have we started doing something unreasonable? Is that what is going on here or what?

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed58:02 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Supervisor Adam to the chair Joe Holland County clerk recorder assessor. The first of all assessment appeals if their appeal is not heard within two years, the applicant gets whatever value they put on their application. That has never happened in Santa Barbara County and it never will. We monitor the assessment appeals and we allocate resources as needed to make sure that they get heard.

In many cases, the clerk of the board will seek a waiver if a case happens to be taken or potentially will take longer than those two years. And we do have those cases. They're mostly the bigger cases, the over $30 million We have been seeing quite a number of. Cases over 30 million dollars and they're the ones that we don't really have a backlog. I know it says that in the board letter but I didn't write the board letter what we're seeing more is a surge in these high value cases and we saw this surge coming. We needed to focus resources last year on closing the assessment roll We did that and we are currently now reallocating resources within the assessor's department to handle these cases as they get scheduled. We have quite a number of cases scheduled over the next 18 months, and we anticipate we will fully resolve all those cases.

Either through a stipulation or actually go into hearing. We currently have, as you're aware, United Launch Alliance set up for multiple hearings at the end of November and December and hopefully those cases will be finished by the end of this calendar year in regards to your question about what types of cases are being filed it's the full gamut everything from We have a number of appeals that we're working on.

And managing that caseload. The applicants have put down that they would like to reduce that to 3.3 billion dollars so that's 7.2 billion dollars in assessed value that is at risk that our department is currently working through those cases. The difference here is that there are quite a number of large value I'm here to talk about the surge of high-value cases and that's the surge that we're seeing right now. We needed to get the role closed last June, and we were able to get that real close without any backlog are concerned now is it by reallocating those resources that work on day-to-day work to these to this surge I hope that answers your question.

not transcribed≈30s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:01:41 · ≈ 10:01 AM

No, not really because what I really need is a list of the cases and the values and when the appeals were filed and I want detail on what the magnitude of this problem is and the character of this problem is and that will help me to be able to fund Otherwise you know this is like you're asking me for $852,000 in order to do something which you just told me that you are doing. You are moving the first sentence you said was or the second sentence you said was that you were moving resources around within your office to get this done.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:02:31 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Supervisor Adam this is as you know, this is a board letter representing requests from 3 departments. The clerk of the board that hears the cases and it's attending to the actual hearings County Council which has requested 2 attorney time for the end of 2018-19 and the assessor so I've asked Mr. Gazzone if he could speak also to that question

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:02:52 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, this is essentially a four-legged table. We have appraisers in the assessor's office who process the cases, attorneys in my office who take the cases into litigation, do motion practice. We have the clerk of the board who actually staffs the hearings and then we've got the assessment appeals folks, the different panels who in our county hear these so you have resources on all four legs of that table.

I have already moved attorneys around to handle this high value portfolio. And again, this is where the money comes from. We have shut off other activities in my office to fund this. I have people working evenings and weekends to do this and we regularly host the assessor's office in our office on the weekends to do I think that when we look at the root cause of this, one of the work group items that we found was they were all working under a rather arcane set of procedural rules for assessment appeals that are of local creation.

Back in 2003, we have a trigger of $30 million for complex cases as they're defined. That was never scaled so somewhat like alternative minimum tax. 30 million today is not what it was in 2003. So we have a lot of oil and gas and hotel cases that make up the portfolio that we will end up litigating at and after the Assessment Appeals Board. We are, to some extent, victims of our own success. We fought hard to bring back ERG's portfolio which represents a large amount of disputed valuation that went to a bankruptcy court in Texas. We dragged it back here, and we're now filling the schedule with those cases.

And moving other cases behind that. Our other highest value cases are United Launch Alliance where we just received a finding the United Launch Alliance failed to properly disclose their property tax records to the county which is a significant victory in that case and sets that up for actually a penalty finding So I come to you today actually proud of the work that we're doing. I'm asking for additional resources so we can do that work and the other work that you've assigned, and I would ask you to take action on that as soon as possible. I have moved resources around and stopped work to triage and support the assessor on this portfolio where the county's funds come from.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:05:15 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Yeah and I have always supported funding your office. I think you're a great investment and you and your shop are great investment. And then I understand we've got to do these things that's fine. What I want to understand better is where all these cases are coming from. I mean look there's just not that many 30 million dollar people out there. I mean you can't come up with $230 million people. So at some point you've got to be down into the homeowners or either that, or we're being unreasonable on oil property valuations or something. There's some reason if these numbers are the lump that they appear to be in the board letter But if they're not what they appear to be, because I've gotten some conflicting information even this morning. Yesterday I asked for some information about the historic number of appeals board hearings and I didn't get it.

So you know I've gotten some this morning but it's not coming to me in a form that I can process It doesn't mean what I wanted to tell me. So, I can't really vote on this today personally. I'd like to have some more information before we vote on it and maybe we break it apart and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:06:43 · ≈ 10:06 AM

So I don't

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:06:44 · ≈ 10:06 AM

know.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:06:45 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair, the clerk of the board has a very sophisticated database and they can run you a report of over 30 million dollar cases fairly quickly. The over 30 million cases do run the whole gamut there are quite a number of single-family residence years in there for single family residences over 30 million that have appealed As Mr. Gazzone said also quite a number of hotels and commercial industrial properties.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:07:19 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Well as I said, I asked for that yesterday and I didn't get it so I don't know what to tell you.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:07 – 1:1611 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:07:31 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Thank you Madam Chair. I guess I come from this a little bit differently because we talked about this during budget and CEO Miyasato had provided me with some information about what we had just done last year, the restoration of a half of an FTE attorney to defend $7 billion of property tax assessment appeals and some other items. I don't believe that we received a request during budget for the clerk of the board.

And then the FTE for the appraiser and assessor, you know that's kind of gone back and forth but I guess my point is this is not new information. We talked about it during budget And here we are now you're asking for almost a million dollars for additional FTEs and I'm not doubting that this is obviously important and I agree with Supervisor Adam. We have acknowledged that, we funded some of those positions in looking at the overall budget but in our role Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair. I have brought up the issue many times about this fact that we've got all of these assessment appeals hanging out there and I would love to see them resolved. But to bring it back as a separate, as an A item, I agree with Supervisor Adam that if we're going to allocate, if we're going to kind of change our position On on these issues and allocation of money it should come back as a D item. I'm also interested in the number of appeal hearings that we've had and because I've also understood that there's been times when the appeals board hasn't met. And so I would really like to better understand how how that process works and if there's ways that we can make the process more efficient.

I am not saying that I'm not Possibly agreeing with this request, but I definitely need more information And I think for the good of it of the county we should before we spend an additional million dollars Some people would say well you spend a million dollars and you're gonna get your seven billion back. I get that But I also I As a responsible member of this board and I think we all are responsible, it's just really difficult to have gone through those brutal budget hearings and made those decisions. And now have this come back on an A agenda Basically rehashing everything that we talked about during budget. So before I would vote for this, I need more information similar to what Supervisor Adam talked about. I'd like to hear more from the clerk of the board because we never did hear about that before as I recall and why there is a request for two FTE county councils for this so thank

not transcribed≈30s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:11:30 · ≈ 10:11 AM

you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:11:30 · ≈ 10:11 AM

CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:11:32 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Supervisors we can certainly come back given your request for more information. I do want to just acknowledge that a couple of things and I think in the budget hearings we did talk about the need for county council assessor to work on assessment appeals. I think what was news to some of us was whether you call it a backlog or this surge of cases that have to be done in short order. Can you turn off Mike's phone please?

I think that was what was different from when we had the discussion starting in April through June. So, I think that's what is different. We can certainly provide more information to you. I just want to let you know I don't take these things lightly neither does Jeff Rappaport our budget director. We scrutinize all of this. And one of the ways we've tried to look at this more carefully is that the way we have a set up as the department's actually wouldn't be getting the funding until they've shown us on a reimbursement basis that they needed the funding so if Mister Holland says I can actually do within my existing resources. And the role doesn't suffer, then we would say great. And we would be looking at the end of the year and this money that you're setting aside is really to do that.

I just want to make sure I'm not misstating that Mr. Bradwell and same with county council. So that was one of the safeguards that we put in there to make sure the funding really is needed for those departments and for the clerk of the board but again we can certainly come back if that's your preference.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:12:56 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Supervisor Lavanina.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.821:12:58 · ≈ 10:12 AM

Thank you Madam Chair, well I guess I see it a little differently it's like yes we have a wounded victim right now and yes I want to do the investigation or a post-mortem and I want all the details to come out on why we're here but I don't know what waiting is going to do and postponing is going to do I mean we have to do the work, the work needs to get done You know obviously I expect our CEO and budget director have gone over this in an end with a fine tooth comb. So my preference would be and I obviously it takes for this vote but I'd rather see us move forward from the positions get moving on this.

This is the lifeblood of the county. This is how we pay our bills through our property tax and at the same time Request that the item to come back and let's find out how this happened why it happened. And you know, but I don't really think at the end of the day if we put it off for a week or 2 weeks or whatever our our outlook looks and we hear about this what are we going to say at the end I'm not happy about doing it but we've got you know what what what's our other choice so I mean understand hesitation.

But I'm not really sure were accomplishing much by pushing it off Because I think we all agree that we need a D item to come back and explain how we got there, what are the properties? Why are we overvaluating or overvaluing it's gotta be a lot of oil properties. To me there is some 30 million dollar residences but we've gotta be doing something different than we have done before and we've gotta get to the bottom of that but in the meantime I think we need to get the work done.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:14:38 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Supervisor Williams.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction1:14:40 · ≈ 10:14 AM

That also would be my preference. I really feel like every week delay is another week that we will not have money to protect vital county services, and I'm just hoping that my supervisors to my left That seemed to be talking about whether to agree to it right now. We'll agree to having this come back but move forward with the positions in the meantime that you guys deserve an answer, but the people that depend on the county services deserve the revenue and those services to continue.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:15:17 · ≈ 10:15 AM

And I would agree with Supervisors Williams and Lavanino, I think that it's imperative not to shorten the window anymore. We'll need to intensify the effort but I am curious to learn more about why we're in this position? Why was the surge and what is it about our local rules that are so arcane that get us in this position so how we can change this going forward? Supervisor Adam and then Wolf

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:15:45 · ≈ 10:15 AM

Yeah I just want to ask one question. We have seven billion roughly dollars of value here that translate to 70 million in taxes right? Correct and and that's all impounded at this point those taxes have been paid

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:16:07 · ≈ 10:16 AM

only a few a few the cases the big cases have been impounded and that's really a question for the auditor's office

1:16 – 1:2220 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:16:17 · ≈ 10:16 AM

So chair and supervisors the general rule in the state of California is you pay the tax and then you dispute the valuation. There are There are some exceptions to that rule. The large numbers that we're talking about, some have impounds, some are on an installment plan out there and the rough cut is 1% for the county in their fine distinctions depending on which school districts or special districts overlap that particular area. So it varies but we use 1% and 20% as a very rough cut for the county share of that 1%.

I'd like to also say that as we were going through this, we actually during the budget build checked in with the assessor's office in January, April and June before speaking to you during the budget hearings. And learned in August not a I'm going to talk a little bit about what we're doing. We've had some change in the number of evaluation but in the number of cases that would be requiring litigation assistance based on the complex rules so as we move forward, I think areas for improvement include.

A work group on updating these arcane procedural rules that you know as I said it offline in a work group. It's easier for me And scaled so that the 30 million trigger matches the realities of 15 years later. The other point we could do is to refine our gauges with the assessor's office, so we know not just the number of cases and the value of cases but exactly how many cases expect to go into litigation require attorney resources.

I brought this up in August. I assure you that we have been through a thorough review with the budget director and the CEO on this process, and my ask is for the funding so that we can do this job without shutting off other functions.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:18:18 · ≈ 10:18 AM

Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:18:22 · ≈ 10:18 AM

So my question was going to be what happened we did our budget in June. My question was what happened from July to October just a few months that caused this kind of enlightenment of this surge and Mr. Gazzone you said that you became aware of it in August and that was because Mr. Holland told you about it or how did

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:18:51 · ≈ 10:18 AM

It may be either an example of managing by walking around. I noticed that we had a lot of somewhat frantic conversations going on between our attorneys and Mr. Holland's appraisers on trying to schedule cases. It seemed like we were scheduling more complex cases than we would have expected off the volume of cases that we had, and we asked for a spreadsheet from the assessor and got that information and then worked forward from there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:19:15 · ≈ 10:19 AM

Okay thank you for that. CEO Miyasato how will it work in practical terms because we are allocating money for positions yet you said that it's going to kind of be, the money is going to be allocated periodically as they need it? I'm fully aware this is a four-fifths vote and I need to really understand how this money And we're going to be looking at how do we make sure that the money is being allocated to the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:19:43 · ≈ 10:19 AM

departments. Supervisor well for the chair it's a good question so right now no legal positions will be added the clerk of the Until the end of the year where we see where they are. So they have existing positions, vacant positions that they can use and for the deputy clerk of the board will be using extra help so that's how it would work. Jeff is there anything else you want to add on that?

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:20:17 · ≈ 10:20 AM

So is that extra help going to be as needed? I assume.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:20:21 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Extra help yeah for this period of time to get us through the hearings. And then we what we've said in the board letter this would be one time funding that were putting away for the rest of 1718 and 1819. And then my expectations is that once we get through these positions, the funding will go away and those positions that are funded would go away as well.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:20:44 · ≈ 10:20 AM

So it is possible then because as I said before I think it's important that we get more information about how this all happened, what is the information that Mr. Gazzone received to bring this to the board today and also how the assessment appeals board works and what changes need to be made and at that time to provide us with an update on the amount of money that has been expended so that we can keep We're going to be looking at a tally of that and also Move these outstanding cases and work on these search cases.

So you know I suppose I am going it sounds like we've got three supervisors, I don't know how Mr. Adams is going to vote. I will move forward with this as long as we have a report update in six months. And a follow-up on the budget, how we're spending this money and also the hearing on this whole process so that we can move forward.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:21:54 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Is that a motion Supervisor Poll?

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:21:57 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Okay. I will second it if we go six weeks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:22:03 · ≈ 10:22 AM

That's fine six

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:22:04 · ≈ 10:22 AM

weeks. A long, long time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:22:06 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Forget

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:22:06 · ≈ 10:22 AM

about it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:22:07 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Forget about it. That's fine. Six weeks. I'll move that so my motion will stand with the change to six weeks.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction1:22:17 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Second.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:22:19 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Okay any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:22:29 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Chair and supervisors thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:22:32 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Turning to item A18. Would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?

1:22 – 1:263 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:22:40 · ≈ 10:22 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board, Item A18 is from Public Works and Planning and Development. It's a hearing to consider we're actually setting this hearing for November 7th to consider the revised Tohigo Resource Recovery and Conference Plan Amendment to the Waste Disposal Facility Overlay. This is in the 3rd District.

PresenterMark Chitillotwo community organizationsProposedself-stated1:23:03 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Good morning again, members of the board. Madam Chair Mark Shatillo I'm here on behalf of the Gaviota Coast Conservancy at this set hearing request we would ask that your board direct two things one we believe that the date should be set further back and secondly there needs to be more disclosure of information about this project and its impact typically at your set hearing stage the staff report will be provided and the public will have an opportunity to look at the issues is a very complicated project as you know And there's a number of particular.

Issues that really need to be disclosed and brought to the public for. And so, that's our request to you. Defer this into next January and direct staff to make this information available. There was a 450-page CEQA addendum that was presented to the Planning Commission. We submitted 20 pages of comments. There have been no responses to any of those comments. There is no treatment in the staff analysis. So we really don't know where The county believes it stands on these issues, but you have substantial CEQA issues. You have California red-legged frog problems. You have coastal zone enforcement and compliance issues where by our estimates there's at least a few million cubic yards of solid waste that were disposed in the coastal zone without permits And without authority under the county's own zoning ordinance and general plan.

There are financial issues associated with the runaway project costs, ineffective oversight, skyrocketing rates and of course the failed Prop 218 compliance issues that all create some substantial questions that the public really needs to be able to understand in order to properly Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Uh, with respect to China's decision to erect a green fence that really renders the dirty MRF pointless. So it's a $50 million expenditure to separate recyclables out of our trash stream for which there is no market and the market that used to accept them has said they are barring entry under the World Trade Organization. And of course there's carbon farming which similarly renders the anaerobic digester Moot in terms of a global greenhouse gas and carbon sequestration strategy.

So it's our belief that the county should move forward with the one core alternative approach of enhancing its source separation, and even it will facilitate this project or any of the alternatives but in the meantime we believe that your proposal to put this on the hearing on November 7th is premature and we would ask that it be delayed And that all of the information be allowed out. Thank you.

not transcribed≈24s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:26:13 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Thank you. That is our final public speaker on the administrative agenda. Supervisor Lavanino a motion. I will move the

1:26 – 1:328 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.821:26:26 · ≈ 10:26 AM

balance of the A

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:26:27 · ≈ 10:26 AM

agenda. Thank you and a second? Second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Passes now is the time for a public comment on any items that are not on today's agenda and within the county's jurisdiction.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:26:43 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board we have five requests to speak. We're going to start in Santa Maria with Linda Pente to be followed by Elizabeth Williams here in Santa Barbara.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:27:00 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Dear supervisors In February 2010, Tri-Counties Regional Centre and my former husband Dr. Filippenti, who was not a servitor at this time, unlawfully placed my son William into a highly restrictive Level 4 group home for children with severe physical impairment and severely disruptive self injurious behaviour. Tri-counties had documentation to confirm the legal status of our divorce and also were aware that we shared joint custody. However, the placement was done secretly and without legally required due process. Although our divorce agreement states that not even a gymnastics class can be signed up for without consent of both parents, the placement was agreed upon and William has never been home since.

For the past seven years, Tri-Counties have vended group homes that have isolated William from me. Isolating a dependent adult is criminal abuse under California law. Tri-Counties have knowingly perpetrated abuse against a dependent adult under their control. This horrendous level four group home is defined by the DDS as the most restrictive environment and intended for the most severe of disabilities.

On one occasion I was witness to the most foolish of situations. A young male resident escaped outside, he was naked and covered with faeces. The young girls in charge were rather heavyset and unable to apprehend him. Neighbours managed to restrain him, hose him off in the garden and then return him into the residence. Tri-Counties acknowledged our custody agreement in William's IPP, then announced that William will be placed in Genesis Vicki Home with the supervision that Level 4i provides and that they will fund this placement at the contracted rate.

According to the Lanterman Act, this placement requires a written certification from a mental health professional stating that the child is emotionally disturbed and requires periods of containment in order to benefit and improve from such treatment. There is no record of such certification or professional review. Rather, Tri-Counties assessed William as overall self-sufficient.

William stated to the court investigator that he opposed the placement. For seven years, Tri-County's vendors Genesis and Novellis have isolated William from me. In a statement in May 2016 I wrote for the last three years three and a half years with one exception since December 2012 I have not seen my son I agreed to pay for supervised visitation because I wanted to see William, who at that point I had not seen for almost two years.

In 2016 Novellis required visitation to be supervised by their staff and then in 2017 initiated agreement against Judge Staffel's order for a third party professional supervisor. Then they perpetrated isolation abuse by denying visitation because they were no longer able to provide the supervisor that was not court ordered in this first place. Thank you very much.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:30:31 · ≈ 10:30 AM

I'm here because I'm supporting Linda, both Lindas, Linda Kincaid and Linda Indy. And as you all know, thank you Board of Supervisors what's going on with the conservatorships and the guardianships of loved ones when they don't have control of their loved ones are given to these conservators whom don't even go visit them. And I was the only one that visits Harry And they removed me from that.

And I'm sorry, I can't finish but thank you for your support and please look into all of this and that dear boy William needs his mother is ridiculous that these homes won't let us go see our loved ones. They threatened me. I'm back on it again already. They threatened me with the Sheriff's Department anytime I raised any issues And then they would get in touch with the conservatories, these homes. The nursing homes, assistant living, board and care. They're all in it together.

And until this is addressed nothing is going to happen. It's all about attorneys and the court system probate court I found out The probate court is not for someone that died, it's for mostly the living. They get conserved and then there's a big war, attorney fees which broke me. I spent all my money trying to save Harry but thank you very much for your support for us.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:32:06 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:32:07 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Williams?

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction1:32:08 · ≈ 10:32 AM

I just wanted to give a sort of word of encouragement. The last two speakers, while we are not the entity that because of separation powers, we can't overrule the courts. Your testimony has caused us to definitely have to look at those issues that you raise also in the context of the many other issues about conservatorships that we have been looking at in the last year and so I just want you to know Your your issues have not fallen on deaf ears while we don't have the power to overrule the courts. We do it has raised issues about the system in general that is helpful to us.

1:32 – 1:428 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:32:56 · ≈ 10:32 AM

And Kulaski followed by I the person.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:33:02 · ≈ 10:33 AM

I've been here trying to The second story put over our house and that's it there with the overlay the that's why I ruled that it's solely over the garage. It seems that we need an emergency system for our 2nd district. Don't even attempt to do this one of my neighbors did do that beforehand he said came up to me and said you know had you and I will both be dead before you ever get this approved well, I was going to prove him wrong We had a five to two vote in our favor going into after the fourth meeting. Going into the fifth meeting all we had to do was increase the size of our second story so it's not solely over the garage.

I got it, my architect is talking about hey we'll get it built before Halloween 2014. So we did that but they were prepared apparently they got orders from upstairs to not approve our project. So how are they going to do this? How did it come about? They had Dylan and John and Alex ready. They told the other members there were no changes made, and they put that in the minutes by the way. They wrote a whole minute for this fifth session when they kicked us out in 15 seconds They said there were no changes made.

That is solely over the garage, even though it's over the garage, kitchen and dining room, laundry room and part of the living room. Do you have to obey the laws of California or not? You are in charge. If you've got one bad supervisor, you should take charge! This should not go on and on and on as it has been. You know, they erased the first two hours of that tape for that meeting. The meeting was only 15 seconds. We never got to say a word. They had Dylan jump up and start screaming at us.

And then Alex goes, you're out of here—not to Dylan, to us! We couldn't say a single word! And I paid for the meeting? That is against the law. You know they didn't in the minutes they didn't put down that they kicked us out of the meeting. They had a whole series of things, including that we did not make any changes. We added 300 square feet to 400 square foot project. Do you interpret that?

As no changes. They're totally corrupt. This is a filthy dirty government. Can't you clean it up? I keep hearing this from my neighbors But if you've got somebody who's corrupt, you need to clean it up. Get on with it. This is four years going on four years. I hope in the next four years somebody takes charge up there. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:35:55 · ≈ 10:35 AM

you. I, the person to be followed by Brian Rosen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:36:09 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Chairman Hartman, Santa Barbara Board of Supervisors. I am I the person. When joined by others, I becomes we and when we the people embrace an idea whose time has come there is nothing more powerful in human form. And now is the time for government accountability. There is deep-seated and widespread school and government corruption In our county, in our country and the world.

Taxpayer paid lawyers elected politicians and administrative department heads and appointed Department and administrative heads collude, conspire and cover up wrongdoing. Retaliation against advocates activists victims and whistleblowers is rampant and severe Please Google legal abuse syndrome. Dr. Karen Huffer documents the incredible psychological, emotional, physical and financial damage caused by systemic and systematic corruption.

Injustice is nothing more than illegal Unethical, uncivil and immoral behavior by people who do not want to be exposed. There are books written about the corruption that has happened locally for elder abuse please get empty mansions For foreclosure fraud, get Chain of Title. For policing for profit, get the book Policing for Profit, The Abuse of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws.

I have been a victim of retaliation and abuse I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:39:00 · ≈ 10:39 AM

want

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:39:09 · ≈ 10:39 AM

to say that a society is judged on how it treats its weakest members. And what kind of society are we? We have terrible factory farms where millions of animals are herded through and slaughtered when they're still alive. The government ends up preying on the people if it becomes corrupt, the elderly are not allowed to live a retirement with dignity. They're isolated, medicated and their estates are taken and the attorneys make a whopping profit off of it.

The judge is kind of the queen of that whole network. She's putting I don't know 20 people maybe every week under conservatorship, there's no way she could possibly understand those cases. She doesn't only do probate law she does other kinds of law as well it's ridiculous. It takes what should be one judge and it should be a different kind of less legalistic network.

The family members are divided and conquered against each other, and they go broke Or the loved ones such as Elizabeth with the legal fees. Their testimony should be taken into the record, they shouldn't have to spend money. Elderly people should have the right to be televised in these hearings. They're pretty sad to go into the probate court and see the way they all gang up on an elderly person who is I believe is pretty competent often who wants their freedom. I got my mom out of this system it took me about five years and I remember the supervised visitations, I remember the attempts at saying she had Alzheimer's. I remember all of that stuff and it was pretty traumatizing.

My God she had to pay all this money for a supervised visitation and they would go back and forth amongst themselves and thank God she got in the hands of the public guardian and they finally set her free. It is a for-profit system. The attorneys get everything they want, the redistribution of wealth and more money from the middle class to the wealthy. It's just not a good system. We need it. It is a monster out of control.

If consciousness in metaphysical spirituality, consciousness is the cause, the inner causes the outer. Henry David Thoreau said for every thousand men who A hack at the branches of evil, only one digs at the root. Well, the root is consciousness. If we have a monster out there, if we have a Trump or we have the political parties, we have the court system and I guess we have ourselves to blame really And we have to it has something to do with faith. I think we're all one. We have to find that we have to get at the root. I don't know if we're going to be able to create a better system but I pray for good caring honest politicians and representatives and that we get better ones particularly on the top.

Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:26 · ≈ 10:42 AM

That concludes public comment

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:42:28 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Okay so we close that section of our hearing and just a few words about agenda management today. We have two items that are to be continued from our departmental excuse me, our departmental agenda will go to those then we'll take a short break then we'll come back to item number 2 and we probably won't get to item number 3 until after lunch. So would you read item 1 into the record Mr. Allen?

1:42 – 1:5111 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:42:53 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board. Item one is from planning and development. This is a hearing to consider the Olsen Trust appeal of the Montecito Planning Commission's April 18 2017 conditional de novo design review approval of the Olson Trust single family dwelling demo rebuild and the request is that this item be continued to your meeting on December 5th 2017 if we could get a motion to that effect.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:43:16 · ≈ 10:43 AM

And do we have any public comments who would like to speak on the continuance?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:43:21 · ≈ 10:43 AM

No requests to speak on this item.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.821:43:23 · ≈ 10:43 AM

I'll move continuance to the 5th of December.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:43:27 · ≈ 10:43 AM

All in favor say aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Would you read item number four into the agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:43:34 · ≈ 10:43 AM

Chair Hartman, members of the board, item 4 from Supervisor Williams and Hartman. This is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a memorandum of agreement between Santa Barbara County and the Sanchez Band of Chumash Indians regarding Camp Four and this subcommittee has requested a continuance of this item to your meeting on October 31st 2017 and we do have two members of the public that would like to speak on this continuance If you would like to hear them now we can go ahead with that.

Alex Jones followed by Karen Jones.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:44:08 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Hello Chairman Hartman and members of the Board of Supervisors I appreciate you letting me speak. The title of my comments today here is the herd of elephants in the room. There are a ton of elephants in the room in regards to this camp 4 proposed agreement that's going on between the Chumash and the board. First and foremost the very clear conflict of interest in appearance of impropriety by Doss Williams.

It's been gone over many many times by many people the amount of money that Doss has received from the Chumash and their affiliates including $18,000 he received after election this last cycle. So that's a big big deal. So you know I hate when people read you know prepared comments. You know I like to speak from the heart all

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:44:56 · ≈ 10:44 AM

the time

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:44:56 · ≈ 10:44 AM

but yeah but I understand it's very important is important to get things exactly correct and I got this off the state California website conflict of interest office of the attorney general. So when you scroll down you look on page 12 let's go ahead and go through these. Appearance of financial conflict of interest. Receipt of direct monetary gain or loss. And we can go through all these, but essentially what we're getting at is the appearance of impropriety for Doss Williams. It's clear there's tons of money so conflict of interest resulting from campaign contributions. Here's a checklist of things to look for.

So is there a proceeding involving a license permit or entitlement for use? I would say there is. Is there a proceeding being conducted by a board or a commission? Yeah, there definitely Were the board members appointed or rather than elected to the office? I would say these two ad hoc members voluntarily, am I correct, joined this ad hoc committee. And I think this one is really important. Has any board member received campaign contributions for more than $250 from the applicant or any other person who would be affected by the decision?

I would say they have. So there's a clear appearance of impropriety and I call on Das Williams to recuse himself from this process once again if he refuses to recuse himself then I call the district attorney at the County of Santa Barbara to investigate this and I would also like to thank the first responders that came up because fires are really dangerous And it's important to respond quickly to them.

And typically where there is smoke, there is fire and there is a lot of smoke here. So in closing as I have at the previous meetings I would like to speak to Joan Hartman our representative directly. I respect you Joan. I really really do. I personally like you. I want you to do the best that you can but please do not support this agreement. It's a bad agreement for the valley. It is a bad agreement for the county and it is not right.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:47:17 · ≈ 10:47 AM

Thank you. We received a slip from

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:47:31 · ≈ 10:47 AM

I also would like to speak about this issue and I'm happy that this has been postponed although I'm not sure that it was a favor to the people that want to slow the roll on this thing. It could just have been postponed so when you rubber stamp it we'll see pictures of kids trick-or-treating the next day. I don't know, I watch politics play out sometimes but when I think of this and the extra time we've got Supervisor Hartman I want to call you Joan sorry because I do like you a lot and I don't think you're a sociopath. And well, I don' think she's a career politician and you find a lot of sociopathic behavior because of the feelings of entitlement when people get a lot of political power they do abuse their power sometimes so for me Was it Rockefeller that was told by Cinderella that time is the money of love?

Well, we got some more time. And love is my currency. I love my family. I love my home. I love my lifestyle. I love my heritage. My husband Grandfather's grandfather was the first sheriff of this county, W.W. Twist. He married a woman who was part Chumash and this was part of my family's oral tradition. My mother-in-law Doris Mae Twist told me about her history of Santa Barbara and how Her grandfather's grandfather was the first sheriff. He was appointed sheriff and he was thrown out of office because depending which account you read, he would not allow a mob to lynch one or two convicted Chumash. He said they were found guilty but we will carry this out in the time and manner as prescribed by law. He was not a person that was into mob mentality.

He got the boot. He ran for election and won. He later died. His family had to leave the area. They made it back, my mother-in-law Doris May Twist married my father-in law Bud Jones after World War II. They made it back. Our ancestral burial grounds are in Ballard at the cemetery there. Go to the boys bathroom and just look to your right And you will see the twists and the Joneses. That's sacred ground to my family. And so if we're going to have a two-tiered justice system here based on lineage, let's slow this down because we have records now. We can collect data. We can see my ancestors, my children, my grandchildren's ancestors were married at the mission, were baptized at the mission, and we have DNA now. So I hope that the North County Supervisors Make the people who got elected on their own greenhouse gases.

Global warming climate change make these three people paid the valley don't vote with them and Joan join North County. Don't be with these other two people if they're going to vote to sell out because it is destroyed the beautiful Valley already in this is you can't undo it My house is in the tribal acquisition area and my house was built before the mission gave the shoe match that land and I'm not even allowed to fix my foundation.

1:51 – 1:584 turns

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction1:51:11 · ≈ 10:51 AM

I just wanted to address the comments that were addressed to me. If the speaker wanted to and did not want to be two-faced about it, he could always ask the question of me. He's always very friendly in person. The $18,000 in question I took a campaign contribution from the Chumash and if it's all a matter of public record you can see where that money went. It was transferred to be used on the Isla Vista Community Services District election because Love is also my currency. I care about Isla Vista, I don't want more kids getting hurt out there and what's been identified by the community and the UC Board of Trustees was that the way to reduce the amount of people being raped and dying out there is to establish a local government to be able to improve public safety resources so yes would I take contribution from Thank you.

We have to take contributions to run elections and we take contributions from people on the both sides of most of these debates. So is it an imperfect system? Sure, but I'm sure not going to say no to a contribution that would be helpful in establishing local government for Isla Vista.

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:53:00 · ≈ 10:53 AM

And I would like to make the motion to continue this to the special meeting of October 31, 2017 and I would like to acknowledge the tribal leadership for joining us in this continuance. May I have a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Mr. Gazzone there is also going to be a closed session item at this special hearing on the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:53:28 · ≈ 10:53 AM

Chair Hartman we're dealing in an area where when calling a special meeting the items that may be discussed at the special meeting are limited to those that are announced including to the media. In this case it would be this item and I'm asking for a closed session item for one case of significant exposure to litigation.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.651:53:45 · ≈ 10:53 AM

OK so we're going to take a 10 minute break and then come back to item number two on our departmental agenda. And as I mentioned before we won't get to item number three until after lunch. Hi. You. you Thank you. you

1:59 – 2:042 turns

CommentMark SciatilloProposed · by introduction1:59:03 · ≈ 10:59 AM

you ♪ ♪

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:03:52 · ≈ 11:03 AM

♪♪ ♪ Good morning.

2:05 – 2:1420 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:05:43 · ≈ 11:05 AM

You. To turn on there we go. Reconvening the October 17, 2017 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors turning to item number two in our departmental agenda would you read that into the record Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:06:34 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Chair Hartman members of the board item 2 is from general services this a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the arbitrators opinion and award revised on remand dated March 13 2017 as to awards 5 7 8 and 13 previously known as awards 4 6 7 & 12 in the matter of arbitration between the Nomad Village mobile home owners homeowners And the Nomad Village mobile home park pursuant to Rule 23 of the Mobile Home Rent Control Rules for hearings in Chapter 11A, Section A4 of the Santa Barbara County Code. This is in the second district.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:07:06 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Thank you. This is a hearing to review the arbitrator's March 13th 2017 opinion and award revised on remand in the matter of arbitration between Nomad Village mobile home owners and Nomad Village mobile home park. I will describe how this quasi-judicial proceeding will take place. But first, I'd like County Council to describe the legal framework under which the board's review will be conducted including why this item is now before the board, the standard of review and the amount of discretion that the board has as well as the county council's recommendation on how to handle public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:07:52 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Chair Hartman and supervisors, I know you've worked before with Deputy County Counsel Jenna Richardson who's with me today. We would like to spend a few minutes going over the legal framework that we recommend the board operate under today. I will ask Ms. Richardson to describe the legal framework and then when she's done with that, we'll address the recommended procedural motion that's on the screen behind me right now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:08:17 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Good morning Supervisors. After your board last took action on this item in February 2017 to affirm certain awards and remand several awards back to the arbitrator, the arbitrator held another hearing on remand and issued the opinion and award that is currently before your board. And this item is before your board because the homeowners filed a petition for review pursuant to the mobile home rent control rules for hearing.

As for the standard that your board is operating under today, it is the abuse of discretion standard. And this is not the de novo standard that your board normally operates under when you act as a land use appeal authority. So instead of reweighing the evidence under the abuse of discretion standard, your board may find that the arbitrator abused his discretion if First made a finding not supported by substantial evidence. Or made a decision not supported by the findings or failed to proceed in the manner required by law.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:09:16 · ≈ 11:09 AM

So Supervisors I think the point on abusive discretion is very significant in that you are constrained from the discretion that you normally enjoy where you essentially make the decision that you would make yourself. Here you're just looking for whether the arbitrator had substantial evidence. The board's consideration of this matter is further constrained by the mobile rent control rules, in particular Rules 13 and 23.

Rule 13 states that the record is restricted to evidence that was before the arbitrator However rule 23 allows the board to hear oral argument from the parties, their representatives or their attorneys. And of course the Brown Act also requires the board to receive public comment on this item so when we look at Rule 13 and Rule 23 in the Brown Act and try to harmonize those for you we end up with the procedural motion We have a motion on the screen. Shown behind me on the screen and we recommend that the board at this point make that procedural motion which in essence says that you will not consider any new evidence and it will receive comments today as public comment that focuses on evidence that is already can contained in the record rather than its new evidence of my recommendation

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:10:36 · ≈ 11:10 AM

And is there any discussion here among the board members about that procedural motion? Supervisor Williams.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction2:10:45 · ≈ 11:10 AM

None and I don't have an objection, I do want to bring up beforehand the one thing that will I guess would be outside of that scope is what is the notice of this particular meeting it was raised in a letter Can can we you know can we know about what the notice that we gave residents or didn't give residents. About that is that is that out of the scope? Or can we be informed of that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:11:16 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, I believe that General Services is prepared to address that notice and notices properly within your purview today.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:11:25 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Mr. Gray would you like to address that before we move forward?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:11:28 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Chair Hartman Supervisor Williams yes we notice for the arbitration hearing. For the actual board hearing the notice is the set hearing which was October 6th I believe so that's our notice we will send and we did send a notice to all residences in for the arbitration

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:11:54 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Was that a mailed notice or?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:11:57 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Mailed, yes.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:12:00 · ≈ 11:12 AM

All right so Supervisor Williams was that a motion then that you made for the to adopt the procedural motion here on the PowerPoint?

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction2:12:10 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Reluctantly yes.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:12:12 · ≈ 11:12 AM

And may I have a second? All in favor say aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:12:18 · ≈ 11:12 AM

And chair Hartman I believe that general services would like to just add to their comments on noticing. Yes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:12:24 · ≈ 11:12 AM

we did give, absolutely, we did give notice of the hearing to both the park owner and the homeowners on September 16th. Homeowners representative I should say.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:12:42 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Ms. Richards? Madam Chair, Supervisors and just to clarify the mobile home rent control rules for hearing make clear that the homeowner representative and the management representative are the designated representatives to be served and receive all notice on these matters.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:12:58 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Okay thank you now any ex parte disclosures have any board members met with or toured for a site visit? OK I have not. Okay and we will check with Supervisor Lovanino when he comes back. So this is a quasi-judicial proceeding and the way we will go forward is we will have first a presentation by staff then we'll have remarks by the park homeowners not to exceed 10 minutes, then by Park Management not to exceed 10 minutes, then there would be an opportunity for public comment, then staff will respond to public comment And then a rebuttal, any final remarks by the homeowners and finally by the management. And then the board will deliberate and make a decision on this.

So with no ex parte disclosures except we'll ask Supervisor Lavinino when he rejoins us Mr. Gray would you make the staff presentation?

2:14 – 2:216 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:14:11 · ≈ 11:14 AM

Certainly. Chair Hartman, members of the board, Skip Gray assistant director general services on February 7th 2017 your board held a hearing pursuant to a petition for review by the homeowners to review the arbitrator's opinion and award revised and remanded Dated August 28, 2016 as two awards 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. Keep in mind these were previously known as awards 4,5,6,7,8,11 and 12.

At that February 7th 2017 hearing your board affirmed awards six nine and twelve and at that same hearing your board found that the arbitrator abused his discretion and remanded Awards 5 7 8 and 13. On March 2nd 2017 the arbitrator held a hearing on remand and on March 13th executed the opinion and award revised on remand The arbitrator's opinion and award addressed among other things the board's previously affirmed awards 6, 9 and 12.

So the only awards remanded to the arbitrator were awards 5, 7, 8 and 13. Then on April 22nd 2017 the homeowners filed a petition for review of the arbitrator's opinion and reward revised on remand dated March 13th of 2017 and cited objections to awards 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11 and 12 which are as I mentioned previously now awards 5,6,7,8,9,12 and 13. Today's review of the arbitrator's opinion and award occurs pursuant to the mobile home rent control rules for hearing.

Chapter 11A of county code creates an arbitration process for rent control disputes in mobile home parks within the unincorporated area whenever a proposed rent increase exceeds 75 percent of the consumer price index as described in chapter 11 A. The parties today are the park management, for them Lazy Landing LLC and Waterhouse Management Inc. And for the homeowners, the residents of Nomad Village Mobile Home Park.

The rent control, mobile home rent control rules for hearings under rule 23 the board reviews the arbitrator's opinion and award under an abuse of discretion which is established only if the arbitrator failed to proceed in the manner required by law or made a finding not supported by substantial evidence or made a decision not supported by the findings. So the arbitrators awards and staff's recommendations are as follows.

For the four awards, number five which was previously award number four on remand all of the granted temporary increases are to be amortized at 9% for seven years. Staffs recommendation is defined that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm award number five Award number seven previously award number six on remand. The original request of fifty thousand nine hundred seventy three dollars in professional fees for payment by the homeowners is reduced to twenty five thousand which is a reasonable amount for services associated with the capital expenses and improvements.

Staff's recommendation is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm award number seven Award number 8, which was previously award number 7 on remand. The homeowners are to pay $40,000 for architectural and engineering fees associated with the capital improvements. Staff's recommendation, find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm award number eight.

And finally award number 13 which is previously number 12 on remand. The permanent increase is to be $25.59 and the temporary increase $39.44, and staff's recommendation is to find that the operator again did not abuse his discretion and affirm award number 13. The CEQA recommendation today has determined that the proposed action is an administrative activity of the county which will not result in a direct or indirect Physical changes in the environment and therefore is not a project as defined for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.

This is a matrix that just shows the four awards and the alternatives that the board has. Thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:18:53 · ≈ 11:18 AM

I conclude your presentation. And who is speaking on behalf of the park homeowners today?

CommentJennifer CaswellProposedself-stated2:19:02 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Please come up and just if you would and give us your name. Hi, I'm Jennifer Caswell from Nomad Park Village space number 13. And I just wanted to let you know usually we do get notices in the mail about and I did not receive any and I don't think anybody else did. I found out through our park association when we had a meeting a week or so ago they mentioned that they were meeting I'm not going to be able to I just wanted to call. People Deborah and to find out when this was going to be scheduled in the morning or afternoon and they said they didn't get any indication of when we were scheduled so I just called her and let her know that you know we were due up to I'm not a prepared person to give anything just what's been happening.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:20:40 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Thank you very much. Mr. Gazzone, how do you recommend we proceed in this circumstance?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:20:46 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Chair Hartman the board has some discretion here but you could always continue the item break for lunch and closed session. And just have it the first item up and I think you would want to hear from that, from the park ownership's representative but that would be a slight delay today would be well within the board's discretion but I would recommend you hear from the park owner's attorney.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:21:08 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Okay sir.

2:21 – 2:2311 turns

PresenterJames Ballantyne I'mPark Management in this matterProposedself-stated2:21:14 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Thank you Chair Hardman, members of the board. My name is James Ballantyne I'm an attorney and I represent Park Management in this matter. Whatever the board wants to do in terms of scheduling it I don't have any opposition. I will note that as staff indicated this was we're clearly noticed about this homeowners I think I was in a chain of emails along with the homeowner's representatives it's no mystery that this was happening today I'm not sure why they couldn't find out when it was gonna happen today I've been here all morning The only thing I would add, I don't have any opposition if the board would like to trail it until this afternoon. I did have a difficult-to-schedule medical appointment.

I'd like to not miss if that's possible.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:21:55 · ≈ 11:21 AM

What time is it?

PresenterJames Ballantyne I'mPark Management in this matterProposedself-stated2:21:56 · ≈ 11:21 AM

I probably need to check. I think it's at 2 or 2 30 so I would request something later in the afternoon if that's possible.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:22:04 · ≈ 11:22 AM

I think we would be if we broke now we have about an hour closed session so we would be back at 1230 and we could take this item then. Would that be all right with you?

PresenterJames Ballantyne I'mPark Management in this matterProposedself-stated2:22:19 · ≈ 11:22 AM

I actually have something at 1230 as well. At 12 to roughly 1 if you could take it up, I guess I can find out when my medical thing is. I guess I could be here. Well, I'll do whatever the board wants me to do. It would be better for me if we were at one but if you wanted to, 1230, I'll be here.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:22:38 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Thank you.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:22:51 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Chair Herman I think that would work and I know Supervisor Wolf wanted to comment but I may be thinking the same thing. And since this is quasi-judicial you might want to just have a motion to trail the item until that time's certain and then we'll work with general services to also reach out to the park residents.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:23:12 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed2:23:12 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Supervisor Wolf. Thank you Madam Chair so I will go ahead and make a motion that we return at 1 o'clock this afternoon to hear this item.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:23:23 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Thank you may I have a second? All in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes. So one o'clock certain time.

PresenterJames Ballantyne I'mPark Management in this matterProposedself-stated2:23:31 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Thank you for accommodating that.

2:23 – 2:453 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:23:40 · ≈ 11:23 AM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors, today in closed session the board is scheduled to consider a series of existing litigation cases. The first Santa Barbara Channel Keeper versus County of Santa Barbara then Whitson versus Santa Barbara County two related cases County of Santa Barbara versus Zinke and County of Santa Barbara versus Pacific Regional Director Bureau of Indian Affairs. You're also scheduled to meet with legal counsel concerning decision whether to initiate civil litigation in 13 cases. And you have one matter of significant exposure to civil litigation and we estimate a little bit over an hour.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.652:24:15 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Thank you so will come back here at 1 o'clock for item number two on our agenda and we anticipate starting at 2 o'clock for item number three on our agenda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:26:15 · ≈ 11:26 AM

you Music ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Music you Okay. You.

2:48 – 2:551 turns

CommentMark SciatilloProposed · by introduction2:48:11 · ≈ 11:48 AM

You. You. You. you you ♪ Good morning.

2:55 – 3:351 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:55:51 · ≈ 11:55 AM

♪♪ ♪ Good morning. You. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. you Yeah. Yeah. ♪ This is a test. Hi. You. You. You. ♪ Thank you. ♪ ¶¶ Yeah. You. ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ ¶. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Music you You.

3:38 – 3:471 turns

CommentMark SciatilloProposed · by introduction3:38:10 · ≈ 12:38 PM

. . ♪ you you ♪ ♪

3:47 – 4:101 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:47:56 · ≈ 12:47 PM

♪ Good morning. Yeah. You. ♪ ♪ Yeah. Yeah. You. you Yeah. ♪ This is a test. Hi. You. you You. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ you

4:13 – 4:188 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:13:15 · ≈ 1:13 PM

Good afternoon. We are reconvening the October 17, 2017 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara hearing room and we continued item number two and that was read into the record and we began but were going to go back And I'll just review the procedures because this is a quasi judicial action and then we'll do an abbreviated repeat of the staff report. But let me first ask are there any ex parte disclosures?

I have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:13:53 · ≈ 1:13 PM

none.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:13:56 · ≈ 1:13 PM

Okay and I have none so no ex parte or site visits. So the way we are going to proceed today in this quasi judicial proceeding is with a short staff presentation Then up to 10 minutes by the park homeowners, up to 10 minutes for a presentation by the park management. Then public comment then staff response to public comment then a rebuttal by the homeowners up to five minutes and the same by management up to five minutes and then we will close that portion of the hearing and come back to the board for deliberations. So Mr. Gray would you start with the abbreviated, oh Mr. Gazzone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:14:37 · ≈ 1:14 PM

Chair Hartman I think it would help and I realize this we already opened the hearing on this but I think it would help if general services could just show the slide of the procedural motion that the board already voted as a way to harmonize rule 13 rule 23 in the Brown Act on the fact that the board will be receiving any comments today as argument and not as new evidence.

And this was a motion that the board had already made and now I think.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:15:04 · ≈ 1:15 PM

And thanks for setting the context, Mr. Gray.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:15:07 · ≈ 1:15 PM

Thank you I will give an abbreviated version by just running through the awards and staff's recommendations real quick there were four awards that the arbitrator passed along award number five which was previously award number four on remand is that all of the seven Granted all of the granted temporary increases are to be amortized at 9% for seven years and staff's recommendation is to find the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm award number five. Award number seven which was previously number six on remand The original request of $50,973 in professional fees for payment by the homeowners is reduced to $25,000 which is a reasonable amount for services associated with the capital expenses and improvements.

Staff recommendations for award number seven is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm that award. Award number eight which is previously number seven on remand. The homeowners are to pay $40,000 for architectural and engineering fees associated with the capital improvements and staff's recommendation is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse this discretion and affirm award number eight And then finally, award number 13. Previously, award number 12 on remand, the permanent increase is to be $25.29 and the temporary increase $39.44 and staff's recommendation is to find that the arbitrator did not abuse his discretion and affirm award number 13.

And then finally, we did have the CEQA recommendation that this is not or this is an administrative activity of the county which will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is therefore not a project as defined for purposes of CEQA.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:16:52 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Thank you. And may we have the representative for the park homeowners please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed4:16:58 · ≈ 1:16 PM

Thank you Debra Hamrick here for homeowners representatives. We don't have a lot to add to this proceeding because it's just been going on for so long that we're not sure what the next best step is, we just want to highlight two things first of all we want to make it clear that the residual effect of the precedent being set here today is being felt throughout the county mobile home parks rent increases are being issued with future attorneys fees included So that should homeowners wish to exercise their right to arbitration, they feel like they're being held over a barrel because of these fees that haven't happened yet that are showing up as part of their rent increase. The other concern that homeowners have is they believe that county council's findings regarding the 2011 increase are at odds with the ordinance itself.

The findings and discussion of the Supreme Court. The homeowner's request for review specifically discusses the formula in the ordinance and that it is required to be followed. County Council's findings make no mention of the formula, nor do they burden themselves with a finding of fair return. The homeowners brought up the fact that the decision matrix created by county council provides no decision that would be in the homeowner's favor. The rules for hearing state the board shall affirm or reverse the arbitrator's decision in whole or in part and may remand the case to the arbitrator for reconsideration in light of the board's review. Thank you. And the representative for Park Management.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

4:18 – 4:2320 turns

PresenterJames Ballantyne I'mPark Management in this matterProposedself-stated4:18:39 · ≈ 1:18 PM

Thank you Chair Hartman, members of the Board. I similarly don't have a lot to add. I think you have a comprehensive board letter and a comprehensive set of findings that I would urge this board to adopt. I think they were well reasoned we've been here Many times this has been a long time coming. The park and the homeowners have followed the process under the county's rent control ordinance and the rules, and the appointed arbitrator appointed by the county under that process has found these very numbers repeatedly, has issued comprehensive findings to support those.

And I would just note as your resolution that you adopted says This review is limited to the record of the proceedings, not comments that and extraneous matters that the homeowners might argue about. They might have wanted a different result but that's not the function of this board so unless there's any questions I'll leave it at that.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:19:38 · ≈ 1:19 PM

Thank you.

PresenterJames Ballantyne I'mPark Management in this matterProposedself-stated4:19:38 · ≈ 1:19 PM

Thank you members.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:19:40 · ≈ 1:19 PM

So now it's open for public comment do we have any speaker slips Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:19:46 · ≈ 1:19 PM

I have no request to speak from the public.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:19:49 · ≈ 1:19 PM

Back to Mr. Gray do you have any comments on anything you've heard?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:19:54 · ≈ 1:19 PM

No comment.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:20:00 · ≈ 1:20 PM

Yeah would you would you like to ask questions of staff or OK go ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:20:07 · ≈ 1:20 PM

Thank you Madam Chair I'm looking at award number eight The $40,000 for A&E fees. And that was one that we had remanded to the arbitrator. Could you tell me what the arbitrator had decided before we remanded it back to him? Was it 40,000 at that time?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:20:33 · ≈ 1:20 PM

I believe it was closer to 50,000. Oh, I'm sorry. I'll let counsel answer because she knows the details on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:20:42 · ≈ 1:20 PM

Madam chair supervisor Wolf it was the same ultimate amount of forty fourty thousand.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:20:48 · ≈ 1:20 PM

Thank you thank you madam chair. Supervisor Williams.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:20:54 · ≈ 1:20 PM

Just to this is a question about the attorney's fees award. The my understanding is we remanded that we thought we found that they that the arbiter had abused his discretion and we remanded that but that That that has come back and forth several times and that Anderley has put in some input. Can we, do we by agreeing Do we by not remanding it again agree that it is within people's rights to include attorneys fees? I have severe questions about that in general and the reading of the ordinance. And, I guess what I am reluctant to do is take an action today that could be construed as agreeing that that is within the bounds of the game.

And so I guess that's my question here. Since it's gone back and forth several times, and we've disagreed with it several

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:22:12 · ≈ 1:22 PM

times,

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:22:15 · ≈ 1:22 PM

is it possible to affirm without reinforcing that principle? Is it possible to disagree but yet to affirm?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:22:24 · ≈ 1:22 PM

Chair and Supervisor Williams, Ms. Richardson is going to address the limited number of awards that are actually before you as this has been getting narrowed by going through the process but you're correct that in one of the earlier rulings by Judge Anderle he did rule at the Superior Court that legal fees may be under appropriate circumstances considered as operating expenses. That said there are more limited issues in front of you today for your action under the Substantial Evidence Test and Ms. Richardson will address those four

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:22:56 · ≈ 1:22 PM

Madam Chair Supervisor Williams the broader attorney fee award I believe was. Award number 11 previously was not remanded to the arbitrator on this past action in of the board in February so all that's before the board currently is the award about amortization, the award about

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:23:21 · ≈ 1:23 PM

Professional fees? I thought professional fees was also the attorney's fees.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:23:29 · ≈ 1:23 PM

That does include some attorney's fees.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:23:31 · ≈ 1:23 PM

So that is my question since that is in front of us today.

4:23 – 4:3217 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:23:40 · ≈ 1:23 PM

Chair and Supervisor Williams, I think probably the shortest answer I could give you is that it would not be legally precedental for future hearings. Judge Anderle, I think had a pretty crisp sentence that legal fees may be under appropriate circumstances considered as operating expenses. So sometimes yes and sometimes no.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:24:07 · ≈ 1:24 PM

I think I might like to address.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
PresenterJames Ballantyne I'mPark Management in this matterProposedself-stated4:24:26 · ≈ 1:24 PM

One of the comments, Chair Hartman, members of the board. Yes, the two questions that came up. One, the amount of the architects and engineering fees was $40,000 that was initially awarded in the arbitrators award in 2011 and that's the same number that was affirmed. It was remanded by your board in February back to the arbitrator to review that and make findings to support that which the arbitrator has done so the amount is the same, are more substantial this time around. As to the question about attorney's fees, the attorney's fees or professional fees were again the same thing remanded back to the arbitrator to make findings to support that award and identify specifically the fees on which he based his award if he did and he did do that I would note I think it's been litigated very clearly management's entitlement to attorneys' fees and in fact the homeowners expert witness who is an attorney himself Acknowledged that under California law the park is entitled to get those.

The question is the reasonableness of the amount so there are two comments about those relative to the board's questions. Thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:25:36 · ≈ 1:25 PM

Thank you. So we're bringing it back now to the Board for deliberations and Mr. Gazzone would you remind us one more time of the discretion that we have or don't have?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:25:50 · ≈ 1:25 PM

Chair and supervisors, you're constrained in two principal ways. First the standard that you're operating under today, the legal standard is the abuse of discretion standard which does not ask what would you decide if you were the decision maker below but was there substantial evidence before the arbitrator when he made his decision on these awards? And second just the procedural motion that you had voted which is that you're considering anything you hear today as argument and not as new evidence

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:26:18 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Supervisor

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction4:26:19 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Adam. So on these attorney fees they're getting stacked up and credited to the owners of the park, right? At some point that's going to get passed on to the residents?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:26:39 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Chair and Supervisor Adam yes the extent of that unknown at this time but to the extent that there are reasonable operating expenses that would be

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction4:26:48 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Right so the more often we make this come back and forth the more it costs the residents?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:26:54 · ≈ 1:26 PM

Yes at least in general maybe not dollar for dollar but in general

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction4:26:59 · ≈ 1:26 PM

yes. Right okay, so we're doing the residents a favor by getting rid of this thing so are you ready for a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:27:07 · ≈ 1:27 PM

Supervisor Wolf had her light on. Mr. Gazzani?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:27:16 · ≈ 1:27 PM

Aside from the and again I'm looking at number eight, aside from remanding the award to the arbitrator we can what's our other alternative? We can make a finding that it was an it that it was arbitrary with no substantial evidence.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:27:41 · ≈ 1:27 PM

Chair I think this probably bifurcates best as you can either affirm the award or if you were remanding it you would be concluding that there was no substantial evidence that supported that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:27:53 · ≈ 1:27 PM

and what if we didn't want we can't just make a decision that it was we either can affirm it or remanded

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:28:00 · ≈ 1:28 PM

Chair I think the tension here. The short answer is my recommendation is against simply reversing here versus remanding if you were going that direction and that is just by the nature of the substantial evidence within the abusive discretion standard would not have you actually make a new decision but to remand it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:28:19 · ≈ 1:28 PM

So this is and then you can You can advise. I have problems with the forty thousand dollars and I went back to the Engineering and surveying work and infrastructure that was done by Penfield and Smith. And then there were some additional engineering and let me go back those Penfield and Smith, those buildings were from 04 to 06. And they totaled $50,000. And as I understand from the record it was the previous owner had those items completed and they had the new owner purchase all of these documents that they could use should they decide to do any capital improvements.

So that was the cost for those for those documents from Penfield and Smith 2004 2006. And then there's no dates on this attachment but then there is engineering consultants, there are fees paid to the County of Santa Barbara, Goleta Sanitary District etc. So the total amount was $89,000. So Judge Anderley he says that As the county points out, the arbitrator did not identify in his findings how the total was reduced to $40,000.

Asked for example whether particular items were disallowed or whether the total was simply adjusted. So then I looked at the arbitrator's findings. So how did he come up with the $40,000? And as Mr. Valentine said, he did give a rationale for how he came up with that. And he says all of these fees by Penfield and Smith that I just mentioned in the consultants and plan review and permit fees as listed in Exhibit J were properly categorized as capital improvement expenses.

But then he goes on to say, given the amount of time that has passed since this purchase which confirms what I said before that they purchased these plans some of this work such as a permit are most likely stale and have yes utility. A more reasonable amount for the total of such items would be $40,000. So when I looked back at J. I was trying to figure out well how did the arbitrator still given his explanation come up with forty thousand dollars and I can't.

I can't I can't figure it out. I don't know how he came up with that amount. So if I was to say anything, since given the only options that I'm hearing are affirm the award or remand it. I would say that this piece be remanded to the arbitrator and then Because there are no, anyway I guess I don't want to say too much more. But that is the piece that is the most concerning to me is that the arbitrator really did not give enough information as to how he came to the $40,000 amount.

4:32 – 4:4019 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:32:04 · ≈ 1:32 PM

Thank you. Chair and supervisor Wolf, I think when we look at the requirement for findings they're supposed to be tying the decision back to certain evidence so that I think the other piece of this to consider would be if the board were considering a remand of this particular award number 8, it would probably be worth hearing from staff as to how that impacts the other potential awards such as amortization because I think there is a connection among these awards.

And again the board is the decision maker on this but when we look at this finding of fact, we spent substantial time with staff and concluded that the board were to affirm the award would be defensible in that action.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:32:55 · ≈ 1:32 PM

And we would also be defensible in remanding it I would suspect.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:33:00 · ≈ 1:33 PM

I think you would be making the conclusion that the finding was not adequate, which is the path that I had laid out for you. Making a conclusion of the fact the finding was not adequate to trace back the decision-making process of the arbitrator.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:33:14 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Does staff want to respond?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:33:33 · ≈ 1:33 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf just to be clear if this award was remanded I think we would recommend also remanding the amortization award and then also the total award because those are both potentially impacted by any changes to this award number eight.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:33:51 · ≈ 1:33 PM

What are the numbers then? That would be five correct awards 5 8 and 13.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:34:05 · ≈ 1:34 PM

Supervisor Williams.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:34:06 · ≈ 1:34 PM

So let me also just first of all I appreciate Supervisor Wolf for examining in greater detail the award number eight, the question I have about it is how does Is there documentation that says that the previous owner charged the current owner a pass-through of all those costs? And how could we defend affirming an award that we don't know whether the current owner actually paid for, it's previous owners expense.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:34:52 · ≈ 1:34 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor William. There's testimony in the record of Waterhouse Management Company stating that what was purchased from the previous owner so I believe there is evidence that they purchased it from the previous owner.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:35:05 · ≈ 1:35 PM

At the same cost?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:35:16 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Madam chair supervisor Williams I'm not prepared to address that at this point.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:35:20 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Can we make a suggestion if we are going to remand it to the arbiter that he actually asked for proof that they paid for?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:35:28 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Williams if this was remanded to the arbitrator there would not be any additional evidence received it would just be a decision revisited of the existing evidence in the record.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:35:42 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:35:42 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Adam.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction4:35:44 · ≈ 1:35 PM

Well I would just I'm going to ask my colleagues to think about the amount of attorney fees that this is going to continue to spin and this. This has been before us since I've been here, this is at least the 3rd time and I don't know you've been here longer than I have. It's been very consistent every single time the arbitrator sends back an award and for some reason it is very weird to me how the Board of Supervisors got involved in approving these things but it's not up to our discretion.

Every time it comes back here, staff recommends us approving it and we never do. We send it back and they grind and grind and grind and ultimately much of it maybe all of it is going to be borne by the residents of the park so if you want to do the residents of the park a favor let's get this over with and approve it and I would make motion to that effect.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.824:37:00 · ≈ 1:37 PM

And I will second that it's just. I'm bringing a ping-pong but paddle next time because this is all that happens we sit here and I don't know what you know I maybe folks feel that they're trying to save the residents like supervisor said this it's been going on as long as I can remember nothing's changed and because I mean if we had even the slightest inkling that Judge Andrew Lee, I don't really know. I listen to Supervisor Wolf.

But just because somebody didn't spell out exactly why it went from 89,000 down to 40 even though he said it was of less value. Apparently they made some determination at some point that 40,000 was fair. It's gone back and forth and back and forth and back and forth and back and forth. We're not getting anywhere. Somebody's hourly rate is just spinning over there and he's probably enjoying it very much He's not anymore. It's not worth it anymore at this point to take the beating we got it, we gotta end this thing I mean what? I think we've analyzed this thing to death and if we kick it back to the judge again I just hope someday I don't end up in front of him because I think we've kind of pushed them around for quite a while now.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:38:22 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:38:23 · ≈ 1:38 PM

Yeah well You know I think actually some of the issues that we've taken up have changed. It's made a difference and it's making a difference for the mobile home park owners. I think it's worth it for us to, if everything was fine and I went through this I was okay with it. I would say great let's move forward with staffs recommendation which is what I did back in February but when what I'm looking at the arbitrators rationale for number eight, I don't see it. I see that maybe he tried but $40,000 Is is a significant amount of money when you're looking at, you know the whole package so I'm sorry too that it's taking a long time. I'm sorry that there is attorney fees involved, I'm sorry that the homeowners don't have closure to this. I am sorry that it keeps coming back to the board but honestly this $40,000 just is so questionable in my mind as I was digging into this.

I can't support not remanding it back to the arbitrator to give us more specific information as to how he came up with this. So, I won't be supporting the motion.

4:40 – 4:4313 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.824:40:13 · ≈ 1:40 PM

Yes, can we have a vote then? We have a motion and a second unless somebody's got other comments.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:40:20 · ≈ 1:40 PM

Supervisor Williams and then I have something I'd like to say.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:40:23 · ≈ 1:40 PM

I agree with Supervisor Wolf, I just think that there is not to me the evidence there that would make me comfortable with I guess what's except the award to accept the award it's basically old work orders that we don't know how you know I just want to make a point about how much the new owner paid for. It sort of seems like an arbitrary amount that the arbiter is saying that it was 40,000 out of the $50,000 original cost that was reasonable. I'd like to know why It's a little bit like buying $50,000 worth of old lawnmowers for $40,000.

You know do we really know that is the value?

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:41:34 · ≈ 1:41 PM

And Mr. Gray was there anything more you wanted to add to that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed4:41:38 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Madam Chairman no I think our staff is complete.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:41:41 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Okay. Supervisor Adam.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction4:41:47 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Is it not true that the record is closed and there's no more evidence this can be accepted in this thing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:41:56 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Adam that's correct.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction4:41:58 · ≈ 1:41 PM

Well so we'll never find out.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction4:42:01 · ≈ 1:42 PM

That doesn't stop the arbiter from telling us what his reasoning is for why 40,000 is the right amount out of 50,000. The arbiter has that discretion to tell us.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:42:15 · ≈ 1:42 PM

For me this is really about a much deeper issue. That is we have people who live in mobile home parks and they own their homes, they're very difficult to move and they live on land that they don't own so they are extremely vulnerable to rate increases And the county has passed an ordinance and I think maybe we need to go back and review that ordinance because it doesn't seem to work very well in practice if this case is any example.

I've worked in administrative law, I believe there is, this isn't arbitrary and capricious and so I'm prepared to support the motion but it's painfully so because I think there's some fundamental problems with our ordinance and would like to go back and look at that. So we have a motion and a second. And could we have a roll call vote Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:43:10 · ≈ 1:43 PM

Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Mr. Williams? No. Ms. Wolfe? No, Mr. Adam? Aye. Ms Hartman? Aye Passes 3-2

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:43:31 · ≈ 1:43 PM

Turning to item number three in our agenda and need to do a change over here but while they're doing that Mr. Allen would you read that into the record?

4:43 – 4:5110 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:43:44 · ≈ 1:43 PM

Chair Hartman and members of the board, item 3 is from planning and development this is a hearing to consider recommendations of the county planning commission to approve case number 17 ORD 7 which would amend article 10 medical marijuana regulations chapter 35 zoning This is the Santa Barbara County Code to terminate the exemption from prohibition of medical marijuana cultivation for medical marijuana cultivation locations that existed as of January 19, 2016 and include a process to determine whether such medical marijuana cultivation locations are considered as legal non-conforming operations.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:44:20 · ≈ 1:44 PM

Dr. Russell would you introduce your team?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:44:23 · ≈ 1:44 PM

Good afternoon, Chair Hartman, Supervisors. I have Deputy Director of Long-Range Planning Dan Clemon with me and Senior Planner and Code Talker Noel Langell. Before I hand it off to Noel, I have a very brief comment to sort of set the stage for what you're about to hear. What you're about to hear is a staff proposal related to the existing regulations that cover the cultivation of medical marijuana This is independent of and really should not influence any decisions that you make in the future on cannabis regulations. They're really separate things, so with that I will turn it over to Mr. Langell to make the presentation.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:45:10 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Supervisor Wolf has a question before we get started.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:45:14 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Mr. Russell you said this has no impact on our future deliberations but don't we, doesn't for instance the draft EIR kind of complicate what's in front of us as there is a conflict?

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:45:36 · ≈ 1:45 PM

Supervisor Wolf, through the chair let me be a little bit more specific. Ultimately the board will be making decisions about a number of different cannabis regulations whether to allow them where or to allow them whether to ban them and my only point is that the decisions that you make today do not bind you to any or lead you in a particular direction as to whether you allow or not allow various aspects of cannabis.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:46:07 · ≈ 1:46 PM

Okay let's get going.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:46:12 · ≈ 1:46 PM

Thank you Madam Chair and members of the Board of Supervisors. Article 10 which is the subject of today's ordinance amendment, which is known as the Medical Marijuana Regulations was added to the county code in January 2016 in response to state legislation regarding the cultivation and dispensing of medical marijuana. As adopted article 10 prohibits The cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana except for two very limited exceptions. One applies to small personal cultivation sites and the other exemption is for legal non-conforming operations that were existing as of January 19, 2016.

Earlier this year, on July 17th your board directed the county staff to prepare amendments to Article 10 that would first establish a process to determine the legal non-conforming status of existing medicinal cannabis cultivators and secondly to provide for the termination of that legal non-conforming status so that sites must either obtain county permits or cease operations.

Therefore the purpose of this amendment is to first implement your board's direction. To establish a nonconforming determination process which would provide clarity in ongoing zoning enforcement cases as well as assist existing cultivators that may be applying for state licenses prior to the county's new regulations becoming effective and we estimate that if the board acts on these new regulations as scheduled in February of 2018 that at least for the non coastal portion of the county they would be become effective 30 days after that adoption of that ordinance within the coastal zone. It is subject to delay because the ordinance has to be certified by the Coastal Commission as an amendment to our local coastal program The amendment today also provides for the termination of non-conforming status such that existing cultivators would either have to comply with the county's new regulations or cease operations.

The amendments to Article 10 would first add definitions of terms that are used in the proposed added language This meeting is being recorded. The proposed ordinance that subsection C 1 B 2 of the application requirements be revised to read as shown on the screen by adding the underlying language at the beginning. Of the standard and then also correcting the reference to business and professions code section one 9 3 2 2 instead of one 9 3 3 2 The purpose of this proposed language change is to align the language of the ordinance with the language of the state code that existed in January of 2016.

The proposed exemption. We're not confirming cultivation locations as proposed in the ordinance would expire or would terminate I rather either six months after the operative date of the county's new regulations are one year from the effective date of the new regulations which ever is later. So this will give a minimum of one year. For existing cultivators to The new regulations are cease operation and also would allow an operation to continue past the termination date.

If they had filed a complete application for a permit with the county that their operation could be allowed under the county's new regulations, and that the operation would comply with the restrictions on nonconforming uses until that permit application is approved.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:50:41 · ≈ 1:50 PM

Mr Langille could you explain the difference between operative day and effective date.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:50:47 · ≈ 1:50 PM

The effective date is typically 30 days after your board takes action to adopt the amendment The operative date is one that your board can distinguish that would bring the amendment into operation past the effective date. So for example, in the inland area, the operative date and the effective date are typically the same 30 days post adoption. However within the coastal zone because the ordinance as adopted by your board would still be quote effective 30 days after your board action it would not become operative until final certification by the Coastal Commission which is at a delayed time.

4:51 – 4:5821 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:51:36 · ≈ 1:51 PM

And could you also or this may be a Mr. Gazzone question why so long? Why a whole year?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:51:45 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Madam Chair and members of the board, the idea is to give these existing operators We're currently operating as a non under a non conforming status. Sufficient time to recoup any investments they might have made in that operation such that the termination of the. The nonconforming exemption does not constitute a financial harm or. Financial harm to the operator

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:52:16 · ≈ 1:52 PM

and just the effectiveness of state law affect that at all?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:52:25 · ≈ 1:52 PM

I would turn to County Council for that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:52:27 · ≈ 1:52 PM

Chair Herman and Supervisors, whenever we talk about amortization what we're looking for is a reasonable wind-down time and when you look at the cases involving this it really depends something like roadside signs get shorter wind down periods than some larger investments but we had cooperated closely with planning on coming up with this one year figure and believe that's a reasonable wind down or amortization period Going back to your earlier question about the difference between effective and operative dates, that's a tool that we had recommended previously on some other projects which also provides some run-in time. The ordinance is on the books, everyone's on notice but its provisions are not felt by the public until the operative date even if it's in the inland area.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:53:11 · ≈ 1:53 PM

But in this case aren't people on notice because they know the state regulations are coming down?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:53:17 · ≈ 1:53 PM

I think that this would be a firm notice and it's actually sufficient to start a reasonable amortization period as opposed to whatever the state of the state regulations may be. And especially in our case because with these regulations, the state regulations have changed multiple times in the drafting process. So our thought would be that a firm trigger would actually start a reasonable amortization period.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.654:53:40 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:53:41 · ≈ 1:53 PM

Wolk? Thank you Madam Chair. If we didn't adopt this ordinance and we just allowed, we extended the amortization period to line up with whatever ordinance we adopt, we could do that correct Mr. Gazzano?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:54:07 · ≈ 1:54 PM

I don't want to overcomplicate this, but you may have more options. Your question may have identified a couple different options. The board could certainly take no action on this particular proposal today. You are not facing a hard state deadline for action unlike you were in 2016 with one of the earlier state marijuana statutes. enact both provisions, both the amortization and the nonconforming determination today. You could do one and not the other if there was going to be an unwind of that we would recommend continuing the item to sever the two or as I said before you could delay this and as the board considers future regulation consider them all at once so I'm not sure whether that's three options or four options but you have some options

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:54:59 · ≈ 1:54 PM

But the bottom line is we could separate it and do, and just do amortization without adopting this ordinance. Correct? And extend the amortization period. There

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed4:55:10 · ≈ 1:55 PM

would be an option for you and I think you would at this point this is coming in as a As a combined package to both understand who actually is who who who that claims they are nonconforming use actually is a nonconforming use and that they were in compliance with state law twenty sixteen. And then acting on that but you could separate the two and act on one or the other or both.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:55:34 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Mr Langle question for you has any other county done this? I believe that this question was raised during

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:55:46 · ≈ 1:55 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, we have not looked at other jurisdictions in regards to any similar ordinances. Our focus was on strictly Article 10 and implementing your board's direction earlier this year.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:55:57 · ≈ 1:55 PM

So you haven't looked at other counties to see if they've done this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed4:56:01 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf I have not, no.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:56:03 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Has anybody looked at this?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed4:56:09 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Wolf. I have been in contact with Santa Cruz County and planners up there. The difference between our jurisdiction and say a Santa Cruz County is that the other jurisdictions don't have an article 10 on the books they're in a different situation so for example with regard to Santa Cruz County they embrace the medicinal cultivation industry excuse me medicinal cannabis industry which includes more than just cultivation more so than Santa Barbara County did And they have a much more robust medical industry right now. They have a different set of issues as they transition from the old medicinal regulations into the combined regulations, so we're kind of in a unique situation just due to how Article 10 was set up and the specific provisions that were stated in it specifically for the existing legal medical cultivators.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:56:56 · ≈ 1:56 PM

So the difference is that we were more restrictive because we said as of a certain date there was no more medical cultivation allowed?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed4:57:04 · ≈ 1:57 PM

That's correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:57:05 · ≈ 1:57 PM

So and Santa Cruz was different so basically what I'm really having a hard time understanding you know as I read through this ordinance is that it's really specific and you know these are some issues and I'm just going to bring up the 600 foot away from schools. You know that was really specific in this ordinance And when we go forward and adopt presumably next year a comprehensive ordinance it might conflict with what is being proposed today. That's why I brought up the issue of why don't we just wait and just make everything consistent rather than have two rules on the books?

And again, to my earlier question to Mr. Russell is how do we move forward with this when we have this EIR that we're going to be looking at to inform our decision on the larger issue? It's very incongruent to me. So can you explain why we wouldn't just wait

4:58 – 5:049 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:58:18 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Supervisor Wolf through the chair. I can think of one thing that I believe is relevant and that is in the world of constantly shifting and changing regulations, that really has made this whole cannabis issue very, very complicated. We anticipate we're now expecting that in January of 2018 The state will be issuing temporary licenses and given that the only operators that are currently legal in the until we get our own regulations on the book whatever they may be. The only operators that are currently illegal legal who will are those who are in fact legal nonconforming medical cannabis growers.

By having a process whereby they can come and establish with us that they are in fact legal nonconforming. That would allow us to answer the state when we are requested to send a letter to the states saying whether this person who has gone for a temporary license is in fact legal. In the absence of having this process, it would be very difficult

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed4:59:36 · ≈ 1:59 PM

You know really miss it really helps the legal nonconforming to be able to get a letter from the county so that they can take it to the state and get a license. And it moves them to the front of the line while other people have may have another set of rules to adhere to I get what you're saying but we're not obligated to do that is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:00:07 · ≈ 2:00 PM

You are correct, yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:00:08 · ≈ 2:00 PM

Okay. Supervisor Wolf I just want to add that I believe the state law also says that if someone applies to the state that the county has 60 days in which we would be able to say no we don't believe it's a legal use or yes it is so the question is if we don't have a process how is staff going to make that determination in the 60 day period?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:00:34 · ≈ 2:00 PM

Well I would imagine just like they would with anything else that we are in the process of developing a process and we are not ready to issue a permit. Otherwise, I don't know why we wouldn't have done this a long time ago when we first passed this prohibition. If we knew that then why didn't we start this process earlier? My understanding is that we don't need to, that were not going to be required to just automatically within the 60 days say you know be forced to give them a permit or letter of authorization.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:01:19 · ≈ 2:01 PM

Yeah that's correct we're not obligated to respond. However, the way the regulations are drafted is that if we do not respond, the presumption is that they are legal and the state may issue the license and another consideration that this ad hoc subcommittee Discussed was putting those who are currently operating on notice that there is going to be a new set of rules that are going to come into play. This the sooner we notify people of that and give them the time as Mister. But because only so just earlier given enough time to recoup their investments, the better position we are in to defend our decision to implement those new rules which would require these people to change their operations or possibly shut down

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:02:08 · ≈ 2:02 PM

So I'm hearing two different things. Mr. Gazzone, can you respond to that? Because I thought you said earlier that there's not really a time constraint as to taking care of this legal non-conforming issue.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:02:24 · ≈ 2:02 PM

Thank you. Thank you thank you. Chairman to reserve of the script you don't face a hard legal deadline I agree with Mister. Clingman that that there will be- opportunities to respond to the state is whether someone is or isn't complying with local law if the county does not respond during a certain period the state might end up issuing a license that's also not a permanent But unlike- twenty sixteen you are not facing an act or lose your authority moment where although this was later revoked by the state you were then facing a hard deadline where if the county did not have regulations in place they would be preempted

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction5:03:13 · ≈ 2:03 PM

Well I you know when we when we were operating the ad hoc committee we did talk about this process at you know and it was an I thought a very interesting and creative idea to me. I think what's important is for us to really know what it will help staff do or what it won't help staff do. The the way that it. It seemed to me that it was is really to improve our enforcement capability.

And and that's what I'd like to understand from staff if if essentially you're asking for this tool to better be able to Differentiate what truly are nonconforming or not legal nonconforming operations for the purposes of enforcement. Or is the purpose that people not avail themselves of this process and just put all their eggs in the permitting basket? I want to understand, that's the other possible purpose I could see out of this if it Is that it encourages people to apply for a permit instead of trying to hang out there as a nonconforming operation with no permit.

And then my question is if that's part of the purpose, is that purpose obviated by the new requirement in state law for a temporary I think that's what I need to hear is what will this help you guys.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:05 – 5:116 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:05:14 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Supervisor Williams, there was a long question with many parts so if I don't get it right please help me get it right. First of all let me talk about enforcement. Right now we do enforcement on a complaint basis and will be coming to you in early December to ask What kind of enforcement would you like us to do on this? Would you like us to continue doing it the way we are?

But given the way we do it now, we have a relatively small number of cases that would in fact be directed to this process of determining legal nonconforming status. So it really doesn't help us do enforcement very much. It does help a little bit but we don't have that many cases I think what it really does do is the fact that we are told now that there are hundreds of operations out there.

And maybe some of those operations are legal non-conforming, I would imagine that most of them are not. So this would give us a process whereby we could differentiate between the legal operations and the illegal operations for the purpose of telling the state whether or not they should issue a permit. That's what I see this as primarily being of assistance and then when we get to our new permitting regime whatever that is.

This will all be in the past because if we put in the amortization this legal nonconforming status disappears.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.655:06:55 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Follow on Supervisor Williams.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction5:06:57 · ≈ 2:06 PM

See that's that to me that's interesting because I The thing that I'm most interested in representing Carpinteria is in people getting motor control devices, right? And people coming into compliance with what the future regulations will be. That to me is the most relevant thing to get going as quickly as possible and I have suggested that perhaps a better way to deal with The question that comes in from the state is for us to respond with what is this grower, assumedly in most cases, doing? Have they scheduled a consult process with P&D? Have they registered? Have they applied for a permit?

To me those are more relevant questions and do they adhere The provisions of our draft ordinance or not, those are to me more relevant for right now than whether you're legal non-conforming or not. Because if you're legal non-conforming and you've determined that they're legal non-conforming but they're still not purchasing odor control devices, that's the problem, the biggest problem for my community.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:08:29 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Supervisor Williams to respond briefly. We could in fact do planner consults but it will be very difficult Establish a process whereby we can make someone legal who's not until such time as our new regulations are in effect. So although we could do planner consults and that might be of some assistance, they're either legal nonconforming or they're not right now.

And if they are not Legal nonconforming then they're illegal and there's nothing we can do to change that until such time as we have a new permitting regimen in place.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction5:09:17 · ≈ 2:09 PM

And I guess my my the thing that I raised before and I will continue to raise is it just simply does not address the core problem the core problem is there should be an incentive for Potential future permit applicants to be good citizens now and not wait till March. There should be an incentive for them to purchase odor control and other things now rather than March, and essentially this is a process that gives someone a gold star who may or may not Have an operation that will even come close to the standard that we have for permit.

That's what I consider it kind of the. The issue here, I kind of could go for it if it helped you do enforcement but you're saying that it doesn't so I don't understand why it will be valuable to me this is especially a big issue in the coastal zone where there will be this time gap between when we pass. If that is a long gap, then that's even longer that residents might have to wait for odor control unless we have some process in place. In which case we don't say you know they're good unless we know they're good but to me having a process where we respond to the state's question after passage of the ordinance by saying These guys scheduled a consultation with our staff. We went out on site, we verified that they adhere to all the provisions of our draft ordinance and let the state make the determination based on that instead of whether or not you know They're they've been here around for a while or not because I guess I don't want to reward a bad operation that's just lucky enough to be around for awhile.

When we could respond to the state on the basis of what whether we think they adhere to the provisions of our draft ordinance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:11:37 · ≈ 2:11 PM

Supervisor Williams, we certainly could do that.

5:11 – 5:189 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:11:46 · ≈ 2:11 PM

We're probably still in the middle of the presentation. All right I'll wait.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:11:51 · ≈ 2:11 PM

Supervisor just I was going to go back to the presentation because there was a different page that you had that I think Mr. Langle had said is Page 4 I think that one can we get a copy of that? Thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.655:13:15 · ≈ 2:13 PM

You can go ahead Mr. Langle.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed5:13:21 · ≈ 2:13 PM

Madam Chair and Supervisor Wolf, the proposal is to revise a particular subsection of the ordinance identified as subsection C.1 point B subsection 2 which is the application requirements that requires the operator to submit evidence showing that they comply with For this particular standard, we are proposing that the language be amended as shown on the screen by adding the underlying language at the beginning of the requirement in order to conform the language with the language of the state code.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:14:02 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Go ahead Supervisor Wolf. Mr. Langle I thought that in the ordinance it says that they are That they have a caregiver relationship with qualified patients and caregivers. I mean there's nothing in here that talks about in the ordinance but I guess that's what you're talking about is adding this storefront or mobile retail outlet and why would it why would we do that? A retail outlet which implies it's open to the public when in the ordinance it says that it's for patients are primary caregivers

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:14:50 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisor Wolf, that language actually was at our suggestion and involves a pretty arcane overlap of the state law cases in this area which actually says that you can be a non-profit that uses a retail or storefront as a way to work with your patients. You need not do this. You can actually have a street front operation and still have a patient or caregiver relationship.

And that's why we recommended this because this language is directly out of the state statute so we would want this as representative of the criteria that existed in January 2016. So all of these that are listed in C1B are the meant to be the state law provisions that were in effect in January 2016 when the county adopted its general ban and exempted a couple categories, one of which was legal nonconforming. So these seven criteria are meant to catalog the state law provisions that were in place circa January 2016.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:16:02 · ≈ 2:16 PM

So your notion of retail is different than

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:16:06 · ≈ 2:16 PM

the conversational sense. Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 25Proposed5:16:30 · ≈ 2:16 PM

All right and so to conclude the presentation, the ordinance as proposed would allow that an existing operator could make minor modifications to their existing operation under two criteria. It's required in order to comply with state regulations and it would not result in expansion of the area of cultivation. The ordinance would also add processing requirements requiring that the Planning Commission is the review authority for such applications for non-conforming status determinations. That a notice public hearing would be required and in this particular instance, the Planning Commission is recommending that the noticing I would like to make a motion. To approve the nonconforming status determination that mailed notice be provided to all property owners located within one thousand feet of the operation.

It would require that in order to approve a nonconforming status And lastly, that the decision of the planning commission could be appealed by either the applicant or an agreed third party to your board. So in conclusion, staff's recommendation is that you follow the Planning Commission's recommendation And make the findings for approval, including the CEQA findings. Determine that the adoption of the proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and lastly to adopt the ordinance case number 17 ORD 0007 which amends article 10 of chapter 35 zoning of the county code and that concludes my presentation.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:18 – 5:2614 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.655:18:19 · ≈ 2:18 PM

Are there any additional questions? Supervisor Lavanina

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:18:23 · ≈ 2:18 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. There have been a couple of this probably from Mr Gazzone there's been a couple of letters that have made it to our record regarding the difference of what the state well let's just say that there's been some some new court cases and I don't know if you've had a chance to read those letters from my Callister brace that have said that you know we consider legal nonconforming What we might consider illegal might be legal nonconforming I'm just wondering if you could comment on what what you've seen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:19:02 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Chair Hartman, Supervisor Lavagnino Yes we are familiar with the cases that appeared in the public comment correspondence as well as one that did not. The one that did not is a case called People v Mitchell it's from our own second appellate district in 2014 And I think provided a pretty good backdrop that what we're normally talking about in this area is that the limited immunity in this area.

Is a limited immunity to potential criminal liability based solely on the fact that the accused engaged in the collective or cooperative marijuana cultivation And in Mr. Mitchell's unfortunate case, he did not and ended up with income, significant income outside of the collective or cooperative area. So we are familiar with the other cases that appeared in public comment as well as the Attorney General guidelines There is language within Mitchell, which is again a 2014 case from our Court of Appeal talking about there not being any evidence of a caregiver relationship and although I'm familiar with the public comment that refers to that as an outdated concept it is still in the case law. So I think this is an area where we try to differentiate between the, just as a footnote Ms.

Hartley next to me had done a lot of work on the jury instructions that go out for the criminal cases We're going to be talking about a couple of things that we've been working on this which are you know interesting and help to inform us as we worked with planning on this but we're really talking about is kind So I think probably the easiest summary is that some of the cases that were mentioned in public comment that overlapped in some of the public comment letters, I think it's probably easiest to think about dealing with this limited immunity from criminal prosecution for activities solely involving a collective or cooperative.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:21:04 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Okay so question on that too then is so I guess you have to prove your pre-existing before the drop dead date? You would have to be 600 feet from a school, have the non-profit status, caregiver relationship. Those are the main... I saw them all spelled out but those are kind of the main ones. Question was also raised about HIPAA and providing that information regarding the caregiver.

Do you see any? So you're saying from our perspective you didn't see anything in any of those letters Made you hesitate at all that we might be outside the bounds.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:21:43 · ≈ 2:21 PM

Chair Hartman, Supervisor Leaveny, no actually one of the changes or the change that we recommended actually came from actually reading the public comment and rather than arguing about what section C1B2 meant about 600 foot radius Recognizing that it would be clear to everybody in agreeing with public comment that adding the language about medical marijuana cultivation operations with a storefront or mobile retail. That was meant to be words of limitation to that so that was one where we thought that making that change to the proposed ordinance would provide clarity now as opposed to argument later.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:22:23 · ≈ 2:22 PM

So I guess what I'm worried about is okay, so what happens I guess we kind of really have to play this out in the real world. So you have somebody out there that thinks they're legal nonconforming, in their mind and we keep saying that we think that's just a few people so but what would happen if more than that because I think I saw on here said it would take like 40 to 50 hours for staff to make a determination whether or not they were legal or illegal illegally participating.

So we had 300 people in the registry. We're talking about a system where you would make a determination they fill out an application bringing the information and then you get to make a determination as the director but then they could appeal that to the planning commission correct now what if there if you say no it's now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:23:18 · ≈ 2:23 PM

The application goes directly to the planning committee does not come to me does not come to the zoning administrator at least as proposed here okay so go to the Planning

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:23:27 · ≈ 2:23 PM

Commission And then it could be appealed to the Board of Supervisors. Okay so what I'm thinking about though is if somebody let's say somebody, I'm trying to stop somebody that knows they're illegal but wants to use the system and the way my mind works I'm always looking for the back way okay what if knowing that you can't get on when's the earliest we could get on the Planning Commission right now? Let's say somebody said yes I mean Planning Commission it's like the Board of Supervisors is out a couple of months.

Right? And then if that they have their hearing and then it gets appealed to the Board of Supervisors, it's another couple of months. And we're going to do our ordinance in February of 18. So what I'm looking at is somebody that could actually come across as, I'm legally nonconforming and have it go further than our date for our ordinance. Is that correct? It could happen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:24:27 · ≈ 2:24 PM

Supervisor Leaveneau for the reasons that you just stated we decided that was one of the reasons we decided not to start at the very bottom. But yes it could happen

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:24:38 · ≈ 2:24 PM

all right and if we end up with got 300 out there enough I mean if everybody teamed up and said all right let's just deluge these folks with 200 applications, we're going to be hearing these things until the cows come home. But I'm just worst case scenario playing it out in my mind. So walk me through so legal nonconforming if at some point the person fills out the application it goes to the planning commission, planning commission rejects, goes to the Board of Supervisors is appealed rejects Then what happens? The guy's got to grow, he's got an operation. We've determined that he's illegal.

Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:25:15 · ≈ 2:25 PM

then what happens? Supervisor Lavanino there would be always the option of taking the decision made by the board to Superior Court but in the absence of that it becomes an enforcement operation where they would need to cease. Right okay so

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:25:30 · ≈ 2:25 PM

then but wouldn't we at that point Because none of this is going to get done before February I'm assuming. I mean we're already at the end of October let's just say that it's it's wouldn't at that point we tell the person to go get a permit and how would we would we shut down or would we I mean I thought normally what we do is work the person through to get a permit at that point and rectify the situation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:25:59 · ≈ 2:25 PM

Supervisor Lavanino, through the Chair if in fact we issue a notice of violation to someone and it is and there is a permit path it is up to that person whether they cease or avail themselves of the permit path The unknown here is where and what we're going to allow relative to any

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:26:18 · ≈ 2:26 PM

particular case. So if somebody's like outside the zone, obviously they would have to cease operations or if they're within 400 feet of a school or something like that, they'd have to cease. All right. I don't know if we know how many open enforcement cases we have right now, Dan?

5:26 – 5:3111 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:26:52 · ≈ 2:26 PM

We'd like to come back at least so we have the information

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:26:55 · ≈ 2:26 PM

for me it would also be helpful in and this might be for Dennis in the next meeting. I think is the 7th. For a couple hours

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:27:06 · ≈ 2:27 PM

chair Hartman supervisor loving you know at this point we've for agenda management purposes of moved out to November 14th, November

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:27:11 · ≈ 2:27 PM

14 OK. If there's any way we could get somebody here from the state because You know it borders on the ridiculous that they are going to be talking about issuing temporary licenses. They want people to apply in December, the final regs aren't even out yet. We don't even know what we would even be issuing licenses for and so you know I think it puts us in a really bad position because You know I'm not… We've got an EIR out there. We don't have the ordinance even complete yet. We put a timeline out there to folks that I think said February of 2018 is when we thought we would get the EIR complete and we would start talking about permitting. Are we still on that path?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:28:13 · ≈ 2:28 PM

Supervisor Lemon through the chair I think we are on a path though the window is you know drawing shut as we go through. I think there's a way to get there depending on basically reaffirming some of the discussions that we had in September and being able to begin to do some of that writing But again, I think as you correctly point out the EIR process is an ongoing process that really ought to inform any kind of policy and ordinance development here locally. And that is currently in draft form out for public comment which then has to be synthesized and brought back and built into that document so that you would reliably be able or be able to rely on that in that process of policy making.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:29:02 · ≈ 2:29 PM

All right I'm sure I'm going to have more questions but.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:29:09 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Maybe back to the point too about the state officials so you know 58 counties and hundreds of cities across the State of California have been awaiting this regulatory disclosure process that are now going to be emergency regs that the timeline seems to continue to be stretched out And so I suspect that a state official in the November time frame would probably say, it's coming in those state regs that are still pending. And I think in addition they would also say, and probably in all correctness, that your process and you have local discretion and it's about Fulfilling your local discretion utilizing your local discretion about what you would want to do to authorize either temporary licensing from the state.

Or any of the other standards you would apply for legal law conforming or anything else so I think that local discretion piece does kind of bring it back Home here

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:30:09 · ≈ 2:30 PM

for us. So you brought up a good point for me. OK so if they're you know I think that would be their position as well and I was kind of looking for somebody low enough on the totem pole that we could yell at but they could go back. But yeah it's Dennis. OK sorry Dennis. So So in the first week of December, folks are going to be asked throughout the state that if they want to apply for a temporary license from the state, they have to fill out an application in December.

Does anybody understand what the state is going to require? The person fills out an application, does it have to come with something from us or does it go to the state and then the state asks us for clarification at that point?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:30:58 · ≈ 2:30 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino. First before I take that question I want to get back to

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:31:02 · ≈ 2:31 PM

the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:31:02 · ≈ 2:31 PM

question you asked earlier. You asked about the number of cases so right now it's 29 open cases. Excuse me at 28 open one alleged that just came in. I'm going to count that as an open case so that would be 29 but to get to your Most more recent question so the applicant has 2 options to applicant when he or she applies for the state license may at that point volunteer give the state some sort of authorization from the local jurisdiction alternatively if the applicant did not do that in the state will contact us and then once again it puts us on a 60 day clock within which.

I guess the thing I really want to know from the state is what level are they going

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:32 – 5:3713 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.825:32:02 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Yes they have a permit. Yes they're in the process or all the way down to yes they filled out the application and we're doing a site visit and we don't do we know what that level is that they're gonna be comfortable

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:32:12 · ≈ 2:32 PM

with? Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino specifically says the applicant must present that they have obtained a license, a permit, or other authorization it's the other authorization which is kind of amorphous. We don't know exactly what would qualify pursuant to this date.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.655:32:31 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Supervisor Williams

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction5:32:37 · ≈ 2:32 PM

The do we know what the intent what what the intent in the regs are for that is for the temporary permit I mean it. It sounds to me like their their intent is to try to make sure that everybody starts getting into the system but do we know that what what what is their purpose?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed5:33:01 · ≈ 2:33 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisor Williams. The purpose is that when you read the regulations and all the publications on state cannabis laws it is very clear that the state is acknowledging that the local jurisdiction has authority on this matter and you can regulate to a certain degree there's only one thing with That you can't prohibit cannot prohibit and that is the indoor personal use cultivation everything else requires some sort of local authorization so the intent was to make sure that applicants were acting in accordance with local regulations in the state was not going to act in a way that would compromise.

Local regulation. In other words they're respecting of your authority

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction5:33:45 · ≈ 2:33 PM

It's interesting if that's the intent, that they're essentially rushing us to make a determination on whether someone is compliant with our land use laws or not before we've even finished an ordinance. And we can't be the only county that's in that boat If that's the intent it almost seems like it does the opposite of its intent which is to not allow us to finish our process.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.655:34:22 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Mr. Gazzone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed5:34:23 · ≈ 2:34 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors I think we generally agree with the framework that planning just laid out but I think would be helpful for you to hear from Johanna Hartley on just again the 10,000 foot distinction between this temporary state license and the one year state license.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed5:34:40 · ≈ 2:34 PM

So chair and supervisors, state law has two different types of licenses that are available to marijuana operators. The first is a temporary license which is 120 day license and as part of this license person applying to the state would have to provide copy of a valid license permit or other authorization issued by local jurisdiction. I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions.

And in that case of those one year. License applications will be forwarded to the county in which case the county will have the 60 business days as previously referenced to review the application and provide a response to the state either indicating that the application is in compliance with local laws is not in compliance with local laws or just not responding to the state.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.655:35:47 · ≈ 2:35 PM

Supervisor Wolf

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:35:50 · ≈ 2:35 PM

Thank you Madam Chair. Just on a little different topic is the issue of how we receive the cash or the money, has the treasurer weighed in because I know that was or it is an issue as we are moving forward and developing the larger ordinance?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 27Proposed5:36:11 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Chair, Supervisor Wolf there are ongoing discussions with treasurer tax collector Hagan and his staff about those. He just attended a meeting statewide meeting of the Treasurers Association this past week and was talking to a number of his colleagues rather robust discussion as you can imagine amongst treasurer tax collectors across the state of California at this point The intent would be that upon our return in November on November 14th would be to bring back some element of that discussion about from the treasurer tax collector about how that might happen.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed5:36:46 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Okay but there's nothing in this ordinance that is related to that I guess that's just another concern that I have as far as moving this forward it just feels like from what I heard from staff is The county should and does oftentimes retain, we should retain our authority. And it just feels like we're moving in cross paths when we really should be on a parallel path and I don't know why we would be going down this Okay I think we are ready for public comment.

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:37 – 5:436 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:37:50 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Chairman members where we have 10 requests to speak on this. We're going to start with will you have a. That's 11 requests. To be followed by John DeFrio

CommentVilja HapeProposedself-stated5:38:14 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Good afternoon. My name is Vilja Hape, I've been farming cut flowers and bouquets in Carpinteria for almost 30 years and I'm in favor of cannabis cultivation in greenhouses in Carpinteria. Thank you Supervisors for your work and dedication to this new aspect of farming in Santa Barbara County thank you Just a short note on the issue in front of us, in my mind it's pretty simple.

The Board of Supervisors and the County of Santa Barbara must try hard to provide a pathway for existing and prospective operations to obtain the local authorization and permits that are needed to apply for state licenses on January 1st. The state application process will start in December. So it is important you decide at your meeting on November 14th. Most important is to focus on the farmers who participated in the registry, everyone who registered did so in good faith and that you would make the path possible so they can register under state law by January 1st We need some sort of interim business license Please instruct staff to work on this and please vote on this in November Thank You

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:39:31 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Good

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 28Proposed5:39:40 · ≈ 2:39 PM

afternoon Supervisors, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today. Follow-up on some thoughts that I heard up here circulated by all of you, and if we focus on the timeline of this whole thing. It's news to us in the industry as well that the state is apparently removing the one year collective model while we transition through and now are requiring all operators to have some sort of local authorization to apply for the temporary license that Mr. Labagnino has been talking about In that case, this legal non-conforming before you won't actually help us because this will all happen sometime in 2018. And if there are 300 applicants and it takes one week of a county representative's time to go through each application, this puts us somewhere into 2019.

This transition isn't easy for anyone, state, county or industry operators. Many of us are employers and family members and are trying the best we can to work with all parties involved to develop a regulated market and make it through this transition You know, we have 65 employees at our business. My colleagues in Carpinteria I know have several hundred employees between several groups of them.

This is a difficult task but for us the focus is on transitioning into a regulated market coming into line with all of the ordinances and unfortunately the clearest way to do that right now We believe is to give some sort of temporary licensure or a path directly into the permitting model. Let's not do anything redundant, which this legal nonconforming apparently will be even if it's passed and we go through this pipeline we still end up getting funneled right back into the other pipeline for the ordinances.

The intention is to make it a smooth transition The industry is here to work with you for that so we hope to find a smooth transition together. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:41:53 · ≈ 2:41 PM

Eric Van Joosten followed by John Stashenko.

CommentEric Van JoostenProposedself-stated5:42:04 · ≈ 2:42 PM

My name's Eric Van Joosten I wanted to thank the board and staff for all their hard work, I know it's kind of confusing time for everybody There's been a lot of changes that everybody is having to deal with so I do appreciate all the time you're spending on this. I've had a Prop 215 compliant collective since 2014 in that time we not only had to be Prop 215 compliant, we've had to be MRSA compliant when those regulations came out. We attempted and were AUMA compliant when those regulations came out Now we've got a new set of regulations that we're having to deal with as well.

But in all of that time, we have maintained our compliance and we've always put in a lot of hard work to do so. We then been inspected by the P&D and Sheriff's Department in Santa Barbara. This now would be if we don't have some sort of a temporary permitting process, this would be the first time since 2014 that we were non-compliant I'm going to start by saying thank you to the board of Supervisors for allowing us to do this.

Compliance with the state. It's not going to waste a lot of time for yourselves and for County Santa Barbara but it's gonna allow us to move forward the way we should. Thank you for your time.

not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:43 – 5:485 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 29Proposed5:43:47 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Good afternoon board. Thank you for taking the time to hear us out. I know it's been a long day and a lot of topics covered today but we appreciate all your efforts. Just to echo some of the points that have already been made, we have I am an operator of a collective that has been in compliance since 2014 as well and we've been able to make it through all the different transitions and regulations over the years. We were all under the assumption as of even two weeks ago talking to Lori Ajax that there would be a grace period through 2018 for all of us to figure out this transition and work together utilizing current compliance as we transition into The new laws and regulations. However, having the state back out on that grace period and having them bump this timeline to have to comply with a set of regulations that have not been issued yet and then to do so within one month and then to have them turn around those applications within two weeks For us to be licensed in order to be considered legal operating entities is a heavy task that I know for me and I imagine most of my other operators that are in compliance here keeps us up all night long trying to figure out how we're going to jump through these sets of hoops in this time frame that's been given to us.

So, I guess The first thing I would ask for you guys is just that you can find a expedited way for us to prove our legal nonconforming use status. I know that process is not going to work, it's gonna take too long but a temporary business license or interim license or any other avenue that you guys see fit in order to give us that legal compliance that we can show So we are going to need maybe an other authorized you know use piece of paper that we can show to the state come December, mid-December when we are allowed to apply.

Thank you for all your time once again and I hope we can come up with a quick solution here thanks.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:46:12 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Jesse Zaragoza to be followed by Phillip Green.

CommentJesse Zaragoza I'dProposedself-stated5:46:21 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Hello my name is Jesse Zaragoza I'd like to thank you guys for working on this. I came from the Washington transition and from medical to recreational and I would just like to say it's very, I would suggest creating these temporary licenses too. You can always cast a big net and wind it down A lot of cities and counties that negated this in Washington saw a lot of proliferation of black market.

They were later to kind of job growth, revenue growth within the cities and counties. And you would see a lot of jobs, revenue resources that could have been within the county kind of gone to the path of least resistance other cities and counties that was very pro. So. Creating this temporary license again you can always from Washington it took it was passed in twenty twelve and it took them until twenty sixteen to really- get everything under one regulatory body and with each preceding year etcetera a given time to set these regulations in place for whatever the city and county wanted The more I guess less resistance would allow for a lot of you know job growth revenue, a lot of people to come and just comply with regulation.

That's it.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:47:59 · ≈ 2:47 PM

Philip Green to be followed by Bruce Watkins.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 30Proposed5:48:08 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Thank you guys for all the effort you've made so far. It's been a lot of education for all of us, both in the industry as well as you to figure out even where we are now. My one question goes to Supervisor Levin. You know his earlier question if illegal non-conforming can be denied, appealed and then end up in the permit path doesn't it kind of seem like the ship has sailed on correcting something we did 18 months ago?

And focus towards the future and a path with interim licensing that That matches up with what our intent is with the draft ordinance. It's what we're going to do in the future and bring everybody into compliance with what we're going to do in the long term, not something that goes away next year anyway. So that's really my main question. Thank you.

5:48 – 5:554 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:48:52 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Bruce Watkins, sorry to be followed by Peter Kennedy.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 31Proposed5:48:55 · ≈ 2:48 PM

Thank you and good afternoon. Thanks for staying a long day to get to this point, so it's been long for you guys have been dealing with a lot. I want to also thank Supervisor Lavagnino and Supervisor Williams for the questions you were asking, and I think they mirror a lot of what the comment has been in the room. There's kind of three different issues in front of us here. One is the expiration of the non-conforming then there's the status of hearings to determine if non-confirming You know, being met or not. And then what's to be done about the existing state licensing?

And we talked a little bit about the workload and if we're going to go back and validate existing non-conforming it could be 40 to 50 hours. I think the document that came out in advance expected maybe there was a couple of dozen of those although there were a couple hundred people that filled out the registry And so as you consider the county resources itself in terms of there's still a lot of work to be done right just drafting and proposing ordinances regulations for the new industry and hopefully getting those approved. Then there's the inspection of facilities and interview of applicants that would come along after that. I want to throw on top of that some review and inspection A way anyway seems a little bit redundant, not just redundant but maybe a little bit contrived because I mean consider this.

There was no registry done in January of 2016 there's been no formal process of inspections it's conceivable I'm not saying it happened but it's conceivable that some of those operations may have been expanded or altered between now and 2016. I mean it's only natural for successful operations to expand a little bit And you know unfortunately, we just got to say there's no real way of knowing this.

You know they can have documents that say they own the land or this and that but what was in there? And it's time and energy and I think that there's a format for considering based on the information that you have. I mean people will be filing applications with the state in December. They have to identify their corporations They're footprints where they are live scan background checks things of that nature so you'll have those records. You could compare those with the registry documents that everybody filled out does the registry line up with the application at the state level? That will give you a lot more clear sense of who's trying to come out into the sunlight It'll give you a clear sense of who they are because the documents are on file with the state and you can just have them given to you too.

And that might provide a framework based on known documentation in which you could grant a four month or six month temporary license We're going to be talking about the state license. And by the time that state licensing your temporary licensure over hopefully you'll have regular regulations and standards and all that of your own that can be based on documentation

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 32Proposed5:52:17 · ≈ 2:52 PM

Good afternoon, Chair Hartman and honorable supervisors. My office represents several cannabis growers throughout the county. I'm here today to voice concerns regarding staff's proposed new criteria for making legal non-conforming determinations As initially proposed at least three of the criteria staff was putting forward were not consistent with state law requirements applicable to cultivators growing on behalf of legal collectives and cooperatives.

Now as a result of the change to the 600 foot limit that staff has proposed Only two of the criteria remain inconsistent, so I appreciate staff looking at that carefully and making that change. The letter that I prepared and sent to you yesterday details each of the problematic criteria and specifically how each runs afoul of state law. The county may constitutionally impose reasonable time limits related to an amortization process But it may not impose new criteria that were not requirements when article 10 went into effect.

If these problematic criteria are adopted and then enforced by staff, it will deprive cultivators who are otherwise compliant with the law of their fundamental vested right to continue their non-conforming operations. We urge staff to re-examine the statutory and case authorities cited in my letter related to the caregiver relationship and the quantity limitations, and to reconsider what can constitutionally be required of operators who are growing on behalf of legal collectives and cooperatives for purposes of determining their legal status.

In addition, we need to know how the county intends to use and apply Article 10 in the context of the state licensing proceedings. We are effectively two months away from the state issuing licenses and we still have no idea what the county will require of cultivators before it will sign off and green light their license applications. Question does the county intend to force cultivators through the article 10 process before it will sign off on the cultivator's compliance with local ordinance requirements?

Based on what Dr. Russell said earlier, that would appear to be the case. Significant investment decisions hang on getting an answer to this all important question. Please keep that in mind as you move forward with your deliberative process we need an answer very soon thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:54:58 · ≈ 2:54 PM

Robert Fedor. To be followed by Charles Houghton.

5:55 – 6:035 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 33Proposed5:55:07 · ≈ 2:55 PM

Madam Chair, Supervisors, thanks again for all you're doing. I think you addressed what I was really worried about which was this amortization period and when things, when this legal non-conforming status would expire and then you'd be able to do an application so you'd still be on task. Some of the other concerns I had were addressed I just wanted to remind everybody that this is a case-by-case for a lot of operators and you know not everybody's in the black market and you know everybody's trying to do the best that they can but, you know, I'm a Prop D pre-ICO collective in Los Angeles. I've made the cut to be legal in January.

They want us to become for profit, not non-profit. I'm a union employer, United Commercial and Food Workers Union Local 770, 40,000 members and that local goes from Los Angeles to Ventura to Santa Barbara County so yeah, I think I'm legal okay? And I'm very happy here. I'm very happy with the, I think the future is hoop houses. I think most people will agree with that and we're trying to do the best that we can. You know, I got a notice of violation. I fought it. I could have abated and said hey come on out. I'm not growing anymore. That's not how I roll. That's not how a lot of people here So I'm trying and you know I'm a union employer.

And we're trying to create good medicine and we're really happy with what's going on. It's an impossible task, and I just want to remind you that we're all doing our best, and we're not going anywhere. We're trying. I don't think you guys are going anywhere either. So we appreciate everything you do.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:57:06 · ≈ 2:57 PM

Charles Houghton. Be followed by Jared Picker.

PresenterCharles Haltonproblems that you're associated withProposedself-stated5:57:13 · ≈ 2:57 PM

Good afternoon, my name is Charles Halton. I'm an attorney from Colorado recently relocated to California. I am very familiar with the problems that you're associated with. I sat on the city of Colorado Springs Medical Marijuana Task Force and helped write the ordinance for basically the second largest city in Colorado. I've dealt with countless boards of county supervisors in Colorado we call them Boards of County Commissioners We've got, you know a hundred cities that I've worked with over the years and I don't envy you your task. But one of the things that I would encourage you to do is when you're looking at especially this non-conforming use determination is does that determination have any current relevance?

At the time that it was passed in January of 2016, it certainly had a purpose. But right now we're faced with a completely different animal. We are faced with state licensing where the state is trying to bring everybody into compliance both I want to start by saying thank you to the board of Supervisors for this opportunity. It's been a long time since we've had a meeting like this, and it's been an honor to be able So I would encourage you to, for your constituents to make sure that they are able to stay in business until there is a reason for them not to be in business. Either they're non-compliant, they can't be compliant or they refuse to come into compliance. Until that time do what you can to keep them in place because you don't have a situation where you're overwhelmed with complaints or where horrible things are happening in the county What you've got is, is you've got a situation where you have an entire industry that will jump through any hoop that you put in front of them as long as you show them where the hoop is.

I work with countless of these people and they want to be compliant. They're dying to be compliant. Give them the chance and they'll make you proud of what they've done. That's just the way this industry works. Give them a shot. Thank you.

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:59:34 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Jared Ficker. Mr. Ficker is our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 34Proposed5:59:37 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Hi, Jared Ficker with California Strategies representing a number of cannabis operators in the county. You know I think it's appropriate that there has been a lot of discussion today relative to this new sort of temporary licensing that came from the state and I think it's caught everyone a little bit by surprise but I wanted to first comment on the proposed ordinance modifications that are before you.

We've offered comments and have spoken to many of the supervisors in the staff before. This is a backward looking proposal that is before you today. It is essentially trying to deal with illegal nonconforming use that is using standards of law that are no longer in existence in a couple months, and won't start to be processed until after those couple months have expired.

You know I understand we're trying to deal with that. I think the vast majority if not all of the people that have been participating in this process for some time over the last year have no intention of trying to continue to work in the collective model but rather work in the new state regulatory framework that is getting put before you. And are asking for pathways to go down that route. So when this was presented previously, this was a door number two if you will for those that decided to stay in the collective model through the course of 2018. It now is getting confused as potentially some kind of interim or temporary pathway that is out of phase with the timing that we need for temporary licenses for the state.

We've believed before that this was an unnecessary process that hardly anybody would ever explore. And if you wanted to adopt it for those that want to stay in the collective model, so be it. But I think the majority, if not most of the operators in Santa Barbara County want to get on the new legal compliance pathway consistent with the ordinance that you're putting forward and adopting.

We have a challenge of putting our heads together and coming up with some creative mechanisms in this quote other authorization pathway that, and this is not unique to Santa Barbara County but many jurisdictions up and down the state. To come up with a mechanism that allows Existing operators to move down the path of compliance get a temporary license and move on. And I would just offer that you know with a little bit of time working with folks from the industry in trying to do this consults with state officials, I think we can come up with something creative that works Does not unduly provide any rights. Remember these are all temporary licenses, the licenses at the state level or annual licenses I think we can be creative on a pathway to encourage people to get compliant and not push them to the black market.

And then the final thing that I would say is We've done a lot of work getting on the registry. I mean you showed that a lot of people have come out and said we want to do that. I believe the intent for the state with this temporary license if for some reason here is almost like a giant state registry as well they're looking to get everyone on a path to compliance so I think if we can be a little creative and sit down and talk about some mechanisms to do that, I think we can do something that is consistent with the path of your ordinance. And also meet the goals and intentions that the state is trying to do with their temporary licensing program but this ordinance amendment before you today is really only backward looking and does none of that.

Thank you.

6:03 – 6:0812 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:03:13 · ≈ 3:03 PM

That concludes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:03:15 · ≈ 3:03 PM

public comment.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:03:16 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Does staff have anything else you'd like to add to this? Comments you've heard so far.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:03:21 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Chair Hartman, Supervisors just very briefly. So until such time as we change our rules the only medical marijuana grows that are legal in the county are the ones that are legal non-conforming and so there are two aspects to what we brought to you today one is a process to determine legal non-conforming The other is an amortization period so that this whole, which is forward-looking not backward looking saying okay we want this legal nonconforming issue to go away so that everybody does come under the same Permitting regimen. So there's, I just want to remind you there are two things that we're considering here in terms of the process for determining who is legally non-conforming Supervisor Lavagnino made some very good points it is a process which is consistent with the rules that we have in place that reflect what is currently legal and what is not but I think for staff What is most important is that we get some policy direction on what to do when we start getting these requests for responses to the state.

And if the legal non-conforming process is what you'd like, we've brought you that, that's fine. If you want to go in a different direction obviously that is certainly your prerogative but we would like some direction as to how we should respond because if we don't respond that is a response

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:04:52 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Let me just follow up. The two can be separated we could terminate and yet not go forward with the process that you described is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:05:03 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Yes, that is correct Chair Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:05:06 · ≈ 3:05 PM

And let me just clarify, if we did determine legal non-conforming uses then we're authorizing that they started before a certain date and they have complied with the medical model. But as Supervisor Williams pointed out it doesn't really address the nuisances that people are identifying particularly odors And I'm not sure that it really gives an authorization that anybody could bring to the state because it's for medical and they really can't expand uses under illegal nonconforming so would that, it wouldn't apply to adult or recreational use would it?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:05:44 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Chair Hartman at this point The only legal operations are the ones that are legal non-conforming medical marijuana grows. We can change our rules to include things that are going to be licensed by the state or not, that's certainly up to the board.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:06:03 · ≈ 3:06 PM

But not under a legal nonconforming determination right that doesn't really get us much of what we want it doesn't give neighbors. Much to complain about and it doesn't give growers really something to go to the state and say were authorized by the county.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed6:06:22 · ≈ 3:06 PM

That's a conundrum we're in right now. So on the one hand if you start allowing changes to operations, new development, you're now stepping into the realm where you have to do CEQA analysis. You've got to analyze okay so what new effect could result from this? That's something different. What we tried to do with these Article 10 or its amendments was to keep this CEQAs example. The main way to do that is to not start talking about new uses that would be allowed changes that can occur to these existing operations basically what you get to work with is just what we've already allowed and that's what we've tried to focus on. And this is backward looking because unfortunately for better or worse article 10 is written in terms of regulations that exist in 2016 those are the rules are in the books locally so we have to work with those and finally I want to say we have been working with the industry and that is why we have so hastily process the permanent Ordinance amendments and we, for example, cranked out a programmatic EIR in less than 30 days.

I mean that is pretty darn quick and we did that with the intent of trying to get this through as quickly as possible so we could get these new regulations in effect as quickly as possible to get everybody into the new regulatory regime. This is just intended to be an interim measure for those who are already in enforcement or those who are in the coastal zone who are legal and can demonstrate that they're legal And can go want to go get their temporary license from the state. And if they can demonstrate that they can get their temporary license because of the way they're already operating and still meet the state requirements, they may get a license for a medicinal cultivation operation under the new regime.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:08:02 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Just one quick question, Dr. Russell you mentioned that there might be an alternative to the planning commission process that planner consults might be another path could you elaborate on that please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:08:18 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Chair Hartman if in fact we wanted to do planner consults which are currently available we do them all the time To determine whether or not someone was consistent with a legal non-conforming status, or with an as yet to be approved new permitting regime. We could do that and the benefits of that would be that Supervisor Adam.

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:09 – 6:157 turns

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:09:05 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Well I'm going to express my frustration and look for some guidance from somewhere down the dais because you know this thing presents a certain amount of attractiveness to me. Staff recommendations because what we've done here is we've created a pathway although it's circuitous to say the least for somebody to get a determination of nonconforming use And you know at least that gives somebody some sort of finality and I don't think anybody envisions this being a timely process. Sort of like Mr. Gazzone says about the Brown Act, they didn't call it the Efficiency in Government Act, they called it the Transparency in Government Act so this is another one of these things that's not designed to be efficient but it It does have a certain amount of attractiveness You know it just, one of my rules in life is other people's problems don't generally become mine.

And that keeps me nice and clean you know I don't want to accumulate a whole bunch of work sorting out other peoples stuff. If we try and zig-and-zag our way through this state process, you know it is just difficult to imagine a set of circumstances that they could have messed up any more than this. And when's this last change come up?

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:11:00 · ≈ 3:11 PM

In the last two weeks.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:11:01 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Yeah I mean come on! They continue to change the rules on us I mean you know if you want to get mad at somebody folks, you got to get mad at the state. These guys are idiots. I don't know who's in charge of this thing. I'd love to see somebody come down here but you know what? They won't they're not going to come because they know what's gonna happen to them. You know we're gonna have a barbecue and they're gonna provide the meat so that won't end well for whoever ends up here. So it's just I don't understand how to deal with this at this point so somebody give me an idea.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:11:42 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Supervisor Williams take the challenge.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:11:45 · ≈ 3:11 PM

That's a tough one, well first of all I want to be in agreement with what I think I've heard from my colleagues that I'm not sure that this is a useful process to go forward on. I thought I'd been really clear in the ad hoc meetings that this does not address the interim problem in Carpinteria and the coastal zone. If that's the purpose for this, it just does not do the job because it doesn't give anybody an incentive to abate the nuisances.

A legal nonconforming status does not help abate the nuisances. I mean it might be an indication of someone's character and maybe that, I don't know, might have some relevance but it just doesn't address it. That is why I brought up the consult process as another way that we could do it so that when the state asks us for a letter That instead of us saying yes, they're compliant or no, they're not compliant. We just simply say the facts We have visited the site and they adhere to all the provisions of the draft ordinance. That's just a factual determination, and if the state takes that as a yes then that's good. If they take it as a neutral I don't know but at least it's a factual and defendable act on our part.

And it provides the growers the incentive to before The ordinance is it is operative to already adhere to its provisions meaning they're not going to ask for a consult before the purchased odor control device because we're just gonna grow out there and say hey you need to have an order control device so it gives them an incentive to come in come into compliance ahead of time.

I thought that this process might work if it helped I'm here to talk about enforcement in the interim- but what I'm hearing is that it doesn't really help enforcement in fact that it could hurt it because. Because if you are on an enforcement action then you could apply for this and we'd have to stop the enforcement action right so it could actually make And I also thought the functionality could be, well we could have this as a process that looks so bad like so intimidating that nobody will avail themselves of it and they'll just try the permit path. So that's sort of my last question is what happens if someone does not apply for a permit?

If we don't have this, that's my only worry that I feel like we need to iron

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:14:49 · ≈ 3:14 PM

out.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:14:52 · ≈ 3:14 PM

No a county permit they don't apply for a county permit. Let's just say it's November of next year the Coastal Commission has signed off on our ordinance. We have a permit path and just someone's a scofflaw out there and has not applied for a permit Can they when you show up and when you when your guy shows up. You know zoning enforcement police had on hand says hey you're not in compliance can they say a way I'm nonconforming does that help them at all.

6:15 – 6:2015 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:15:33 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Supervisor Williams through the chair it's a complicated question. It depends on a number of different factors. One, it depends upon whether we're being reactive or proactive in our enforcement as I mentioned earlier we'll be coming to you in December to ask for your guidance on that as well as the intensity of enforcement. It depends upon whether or not they have Tried to well I guess the simplest answer is the following if we have a requirement for a permit and they do not have a permit and we initiate an enforcement investigation. They would be in violation

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:16:14 · ≈ 3:16 PM

Well yeah I don't see why we would do this. Maybe I see why we would put the amortization period in place but not have the legal nonconforming process determination and instead we go forward with a process for just issuing factual letters about the state And I think it's important for us to be clear. On the basis of a given operation if that for instance if if it's.

If it's it's April next year and some in the state says hey someone applied They have never come to us for anything. Right? Or they have gone through a consult process and they adhere to all the provisions of the draft ordinance, and I will tell you that I've run that by coastal commission staff. Because I think the only hiccup would be is that kind of a usurpation of the commission's authority? Coastal Commission staff is totally okay with it in concept, obviously I would expect you guys would verify that and then I guess the other for instance would be for the The no man's land or no person's land between January and March of next year.

My suggestion is we try to ask the state how they would treat a letter, say one of these folks applies for a temporary permit in January. We just send a letter that says they're on the registry They're in the zone that you know is generally agriculture and we just stick to a factual letter about what we know about that operation and whether they are in our process at all. And that way, we're not giving them a yes or no but we're giving them facts.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:18:22 · ≈ 3:18 PM

I think Mr. Casoni wanted to go first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:18:27 · ≈ 3:18 PM

I think this goes back to the earlier bifurcation we made about a temporary license or the one-year license. And I know you understand that distinction and have been talking about it with the temporary license, the criteria that the state will accept are a copy of a valid license permit or other authorization from the jurisdiction so doesn't sound like a letter would meet that definition And then we get down to the one year. One year license from the state it's an opportunity to comment and informed by the county to inform the state of their licensee is or is not in compliance I think that may be what you're referring to again I think it's a great unknown as to whether the state would.

Except just a factual letter as opposed to this person is legal not conforming with his purpose person has a has a permit I think

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:19:16 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Yeah I mean I think we probably should find out how they will treat it if we could but.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:19:23 · ≈ 3:19 PM

So should we

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:19:24 · ≈ 3:19 PM

invite him

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:19:24 · ≈ 3:19 PM

here?

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:19:25 · ≈ 3:19 PM

That would

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:19:25 · ≈ 3:19 PM

be a

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:19:25 · ≈ 3:19 PM

good idea. Yeah, I think we should invite him here or at least answer our questions.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:19:31 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Dr. Russell did you have something you wanted to

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:19:35 · ≈ 3:19 PM

add? But my point Mr. Guzzone is that if we're trying to do something defensible And they're rushing us to do something before we actually finish our process. Then the best thing for us to do is to stick to just telling them the facts and if they treat that letter as a yes And that's okay because they already have gone through the consult process and we've been by getting them through the consult process. We've already got them adhering to the provisions of our draft ordinance.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:20:13 · ≈ 3:20 PM

I think CEO Miyasato wants to weigh

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:20:15 · ≈ 3:20 PM

in. Chair Hartman, Supervisors, I think Supervisor Williams is getting to the core We're going to have a policy discussion with the board of Supervisors and we're going to have a letter of his suggestion on the consult or a letter to the state just stating the facts. The question is that OK for your board if that letter just stating the facts is interpreted as a yes?

And that's really the policy discussion for your board to have so whatever action we take, whatever measure, if it's a consult, it's

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:20 – 6:3521 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:20:50 · ≈ 3:20 PM

That would be the year. It actually already has a series of authorized extensions on it and one doesn't know how many more extensions might come on top of that four months, it's four months with 90 day extensions.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:21:02 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Supervisor Adam and then Wolf.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:21:05 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Well it seems that would be I think a prudent course to go down is to put a letter in front of them at least on somebody's behalf And see what they do with it. And the question then becomes can you in the event that in our ultimate ordinance dealing with the subject if somebody becomes an existing nonconforming then we're going to go through this process again and put an amortization period on it right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:21:43 · ≈ 3:21 PM

I want to go back to where we started in response to a question from Supervisor Wolf and that is that the board is not facing its own preemption or other hard legal deadlines. So if you passed today and did not enact this nonconforming determination or the amortization period and waited for the state landscape to settle out, you would not have lost that opportunity.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:22:13 · ≈ 3:22 PM

Supervisor Wolf.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:22:15 · ≈ 3:22 PM

Thank you Madam Chair, well I appreciate you filling us in Mr. Gazzone on a letter and that a letter is not a permit and it's not a license And I would be very concerned that even if the state considered something like that as tacit approval is worse than what we have before us as an ordinance. That gives us some guidelines, a letter if you're worried about enforcement then Doing this other process is absolutely has no benefit to our constituents residents but it certainly does help the industry because they get a letter that just, Basically says what they are doing and could potentially have some negative consequences. Never seen anything like that in a land use process.

Secondly it's not agendized, this whole idea is not agendized when we got this ordinance it went through planning commission hearings so it has been vetted by the planning commission However, the ordinance itself does have some issues. I know that you talked about CEQA but it basically circumvents the CEQA process There's no way to account for any of the financial issues that we're ultimately going to be dealing with.

There is no enforcement tool it's definitely a separate pathway different than what we're going to be doing with the generalized ordinance so you know there So I say we do what we can do and that is to not adopt the ordinance move forward with an amortization period maybe it needs to be a little bit more than a year. I don't know that would be a question for Mr. Gazzone And then we move forward and we focus our energy and our attention and our time in getting the countywide ordinance done.

I think this is, I don't want to say it's a distraction but it's moving us in a direction that's not keeping us focused on what we need to do. I'm ready to make a motion but I am sure other people have things

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:25:10 · ≈ 3:25 PM

to say. I have lights on all up here so Supervisor Lavanino.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:25:16 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Did you want to respond to that first? Sure, by the way since we are wearing matching suits I will defer to you. They told me this was one of a kind I had it handmade.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:25:25 · ≈ 3:25 PM

So so I think I just want to clarify something my my intent, I think it does address neighborhood concerns In a substantive way, that's the whole point. The whole point in my mind was how if this process could drag on in the coastal zone into 2019 because we don't know how long the Coastal Commission will take to approve our ordinance? How do we get people to adhere to our ordinance before it's actually law? That's how I...

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank Our people go out and ahead of time, they buy the odor control devices at least a year ahead of when they otherwise would have to if our ordinance isn't approved by the Coastal Commission for awhile. So this gives the people that live in some of the nuisance-prone areas some hope of relief within months instead of within years.

A year or longer, and to me that's a substantive improvement. I'm not suggesting that we should issue a letter to someone who fails all the provisions of a consult process. I think we issue a letter for someone who has passed all the provisions of our draft ordinance

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:27:20 · ≈ 3:27 PM

So what is the console process? There's nothing that requires. I don't know what you guys do, but would you require odor control or a certain? I mean, I think there are certain things that you have to look for and it seems almost with no disrespect that you're making up an ordinance. And that's exactly what we have in front of us so I wish odor control was in this ordinance, but it's not. So to say that a consult is going to somehow make sure that all of these rules are followed which rules, I don't even know what they are. No one knows.

That's why I feel like this is really circumventing the process and it's not...I just really don't think it's gonna get you where you want to be.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:28:07 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Mr. Gazzone? Hold on, but every one of our last three Three two hearings a majority board majority has been clear that we are going to require odor control. That's been it's fine guys clear

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:28:20 · ≈ 3:28 PM

of course that's why we're going to wait until we do our November meeting so we can draft our ordinances

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:28:25 · ≈ 3:28 PM

and that right that that is why we would and procedurally we would have to ask for the consult process to come back to us at the November meeting. We could not just do it ad hoc today

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:28:39 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Mr. Gazzone

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:28:41 · ≈ 3:28 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisors as we think about something like a consult process you know we like to do our worrying about a year or 18 months ahead of time. So I'm picturing somebody going in for consult and then if they're dissatisfied with the result of that consult, is that a director determination? Is that appealable? The informality of the process you know is it may be appealing at the front end but at the back and we're gonna end up with some questions as to what where does this process go.

Which is different than I think the current use of a planner consult. So just something to factor in and in response to supervisor Wolf's comment before about which I took as favoring potentially amortization only coming out of today's activity my recommendation would be if that's And I think it's important that we. Not take that action today, but direct staff to return with that and then you would have a two pick one option on coming back independently of the package Back that out of the current structure and then have everything you need to support that just frankly it is a litigation area and just would give us a little bit more time to look at that package in your decision we bring it back sooner than the rest of the package or or for bringing back at the same time.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:30:04 · ≈ 3:30 PM

Supervisor Lavinia

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:30:05 · ≈ 3:30 PM

thank you madam chair

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:30:07 · ≈ 3:30 PM

so. You know first up I did I want to touch on something that Dan mentioned and You know, I think we've been trying to be as supportive and as open and transparent as possible. I don't think ever in any ad hoc meeting or anywhere we ever talked about that we would be done and we would be ready before the beginning of the year. It's not you know, and I hate to point the finger at somebody but likes been set up here. It is this board has always looked at February as faster than anything I've ever seen before happen and staff just really crushing it to get to where we're going to be.

But we can't just respond because the state comes up with some crazy idea that they want to do something different now in the eliminate medical for the next year I think we have to, even though there's going to be very few people that go through this process. That it puts a bow on Article 10 and it says okay this wraps it up. There might be a few people and I heard a couple today that said they would go through this process or they're glad the process is there but it does leave totally unaddressed the major problems that are out there and that is you know that we're going to have an interim period That is especially in the coastal zone where most of the complaints are coming from as far as odor control is that we're not going to have that I.

I really like the idea of and I know we can't you know not to be voting on it today, but I would like to see Dennis come back in November when we're talking about what our ordinance looks like. You also go to the state and say hey is that something that would be reasonable Because we've got to remember something too. We're so used to giving out a permit and that's it for life, you know? We approve a project and that's it for life.

These are temporary. So if we issue a license or we issue the factual letter this state comes back and says yes and we end up with a bad actor. It's going to last for a year and you're done. And so that gives me a little bit more peace of mind. So I think we need to investigate the factual letter and come back with that in November. And remember, for inland, it's only going to be effective for a couple of months. We're not gonna have to deal with a Band-Aid forever because we're gonna be able to have the permit process open shortly after the beginning of the year.

Coastal zones can be different and you've got your work cut out for you there. But if this factual letter works, you know the one thing that I see as a problem with it is what I've talked about for 6 months now is that We've got to get resources in your department to deal with this because I could see right away if and if I have anything to do with this as a as a cultivator.

I'm going to want planner Council and you don't have that many to go out and do what needs to be done so, you know that's something we've got to look at right away and find out you know how many do we need And when do we need them and because I think that's going to be something that's. Whether or not we do the factual letter or not, or we do the permit process those people have to start getting on board and coming aboard because at some point we have to go out and do site visits in these and everything has to do with a full-on permit so This doesn't, I know why you brought this and it's going to fix a few problems.

So I'm okay with it, but obviously it doesn't fix the whole thing. And I know you didn't intend to fix everything with this, but I think it will help a few people out there that have been part of a collective model since back in 2009 or 2010. I don't know though if you go through the process what that really gets you since that's being eliminated, but if you find value in it at least it'll be there. It's not gonna cost us anything to put it in so...

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:34:43 · ≈ 3:34 PM

Supervisor Adam.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:34:46 · ≈ 3:34 PM

Okay so as far as the enforcement we're really not going to be able to do much until we get the final ordinance installed. You know there's just so much uncertainty both here and from the state that I don't see the sheriff enforcing anything, I don' see the DA prosecuting anybody till there is a

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:35:14 · ≈ 3:35 PM

Supervisor Adam, I think Mr. Gazzone wants to respond to that.

6:35 – 6:4113 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:35:20 · ≈ 3:35 PM

Chair Hartman and Supervisor Adam, so we have one recent case that was brought into compliance. We'll provide more detail to the board offline on that. That was a residential neighborhood grow that through the use of an administrative warrant gained access along with the Sheriff's Department and brought the parcel into compliance That was the first one that we had rolled out to see how that worked. So there is a potential to do that, but certainly case-by-case is not a fast practice and we did assign... We had resources from the Sheriff's Office planning development my office the court to get the warrant And you know we went through that. We have, you know, we've teed that up and we're one for one on that and will be doing some other so the board has some enforcement choices that are out there but they would be case by case in much slower than the traditional zoning approach.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:36:13 · ≈ 3:36 PM

Yeah and I'm thinking that most of these people that are concerned about this or not those kind of situations. So odor control devices, you know I'm just finding this whole consult process a little problematic because it's kind of presupposing that we're going to encourage people to invest in stuff like odor control devices which sound really expensive to me.

And then, you know in the end they're going to invest in this thing and our ordinance may say they are not appropriate parcels to be doing that on. So even if we give them an amortization period I just don't like to see people encouraged to go make investment without certainty. So I found comfort in Doss's stick to the facts letter and I think that's kind of where you're leaning Supervisor Lavanino if I read you right.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:37:32 · ≈ 3:37 PM

Sorry. You know me, I can only go a couple hours without eating all right so wait for it. I am but I think that letter the way I was seeing it was coming after a consult. So somebody because I don't want to just write a letter that says, I know this guy. I mean you have to say we went there they've

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:37:55 · ≈ 3:37 PM

been part of the registry. See that's the thing though. I mean do you need to go beyond their part of the registry? Because I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:38:04 · ≈ 3:38 PM

don't know and I think that's what we're asking Dennis

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:38:05 · ≈ 3:38 PM

to go find out. Could we ask, could we give some direction to staff and ask them to come back in November with some ideas forward? Supervisor Lavinino when you said when you were speaking before you said you understand why staff did what they did and your okay with it was that the legal nonconforming that you were referring to? So your prepared to go forward with that process? Well

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:38:28 · ≈ 3:38 PM

I think for me its parallel because there are some people I just want to make sure that we're getting this right. I don't see it myself, but if you're a business owner. And you were legally I guess maybe I would have to ask one of them that. If you've been part of the collective forever isn't that going away. Article 10, and it's not hanging out there. And we have the legal non-conforming established in case somebody wants to go through that process. I'm okay with that. I just don't think anybody will.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:39:07 · ≈ 3:39 PM

Yeah, it seems like an onerous burden. Mr. Klayman did you have anything you wanted to add to that? You have an inscrutable smile. I am not sure what that means.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed6:39:17 · ≈ 3:39 PM

This is very interesting Madam Chair, members of the board because all of you are grappling with what we've been grappling with since last spring. It's our

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:39:25 · ≈ 3:39 PM

turn in the barrel huh?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 26Proposed6:39:26 · ≈ 3:39 PM

Yeah and just to be perfectly honest with you there are a lot of different factors that go into this on one hand you have those who are the good actors and you want to see them seamlessly transition into the new regimen and for the coastal zone that's a burden just because of the Coastal Act requirements and it takes longer to get We want to be cognizant of the people who are being impacted by these illegal offers operations. So we want to shut them down when you throw that on to the mix and this may You have things working across purposes and at some point you can have there's going to be a give-and-take and it's really challenging we tried to accommodate everyone but we felt that specially after consulting County Council. That this is the most legally defensible position also what did not come up We're going to talk a little bit about what we did today and the reason why we elevated the decision to the Planning Commission as compared to the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Director is that number one, we're expecting these to be appealed.

Appeals are flat fees. Establishing the Planning Commission as a decision maker we are eliminating some of those appeals and possibility of lost revenue plus lost time for those who are going through that process. So it just clicks it up a couple steps and takes out a few hearings so once again we couldn't satisfy everyone but we felt this was the most legally defensible compromise that we could come up with.

I appreciate your struggle on the dais right now.

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:41:17 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Supervisor Williams your light was still on.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:41:20 · ≈ 3:41 PM

Yeah I'm just and I'm still trying to understand if what I think there's at least 3 of us that have said this isn't the good interim solution so if the purpose of the of the of illegal nonconforming is the interim solution then there's no point So then the question I have for you is what is the point? If the point is to make enforcement easier, okay I'm on board.

But that's not the answer I got from you guys and furthermore we've identified the fact that if someone enters into this process when they're in an enforcement action this could delay an enforcement action right?

6:42 – 6:4823 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:42:04 · ≈ 3:42 PM

Supervisor Williams through the chair. Just to be clear, if we had enforcement cases where we thought that and we had this legal nonconforming determination process as opposed to the amortization period, the legal nonconforming determination process in place and we have some of them, we would direct them in that direction. We'd say well you know what? I think it's important that we go take advantage of this process and until we know what the results are of that process. What we will hold your violation in advance- I just been the reason I say that it wouldn't help out that much enforcement. Is a more bigger picture circumstance which is I think recognized by- the supervisors today All of the people who are out there who are going to be asking us for letters so it does help in the enforcement process but the enforcement processes a relatively small number.

Of people who were actually growing compared to the total number that we have based on the registry that we know that are out there so would help It would

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:43:27 · ≈ 3:43 PM

help with clarity but hurt with timing because the enforcement tag actions then take longer. Because you put you avail themselves everybody who's in the enforcement action you're going to say hey we've got an enforcement action we're gonna close it down unless you enter this process and then they'll

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:43:49 · ≈ 3:43 PM

Supervisor Williams through the chair. Every enforcement case is dealt with differently based upon the facts of the case, but entering into this process would not be an excuse to thumb your nose at the reasons that you're in enforcement. We wouldn't allow them to just go and go and

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:44:15 · ≈ 3:44 PM

But we don't close them down in the meantime. This process would allow them to continue cultivating for another six months or whatever while they're getting agendized on the Planning Commission and while they appeal to the Board of Supervisors?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:44:29 · ≈ 3:44 PM

That's correct.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:44:30 · ≈ 3:44 PM

So I guess my point is, if our enforcement actions already take eight months why do we want to add another six? And make it a 14 month process. I just don't understand that why we would want to do that? So you know, but if there's some reason why this is going to help with enforcement, I guess I can go along with it. My main issue is we need a better interim solution And I would like to make a motion that, to ask staff to come back to us on the 14th with options for an interim solution that would include a land use consult process, non-appealable if possible. That's not what your normal process is now for a consult and what kind of factual letters that we could provide? And we can look at those options on the 14th

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:45:34 · ≈ 3:45 PM

And we would disaggregate the termination of the nonconforming as a separate.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:45:41 · ≈ 3:45 PM

That's right and

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:45:42 · ≈ 3:45 PM

findings

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:45:43 · ≈ 3:45 PM

regardless of whether we go through the legal nonconforming process today I guess I would add on my motion that we would bring back the amortization period for November 14th as well. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:45:53 · ≈ 3:45 PM

would just ask if you could, can we separate those two? The amortization.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:45:58 · ≈ 3:45 PM

Sure yeah I'll make two motions so you can vote for one of

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:46:01 · ≈ 3:46 PM

them. So I guess we have a motion. I

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:46:06 · ≈ 3:46 PM

will

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:46:07 · ≈ 3:46 PM

second the

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:46:08 · ≈ 3:46 PM

motion. Okay discussion supervisor Adam you've had your light on for quite awhile.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:46:12 · ≈ 3:46 PM

Yeah that was a long That was a long soliloquy. I wanted to get on there. Sorry guilty

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:46:21 · ≈ 3:46 PM

this time.

CommentElizabeth WilliamsProposed · by introduction6:46:21 · ≈ 3:46 PM

Yeah it could delay enforcement the discovery of a violation in a consult could delay enforcement and it could actually prevent somebody from getting their license later on because they have to be in good standing So you know that's if you're wanting to accommodate people I don't think you want to send people out there to inspect unless they know and you know that they are going to pass.

Because if you send them out there and they get a violation then they may not be able to get a letter that says they're in good standing. Whereas, if you say keep it real simple and say they're in the registry as pre-banned production that may or may not

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:47:17 · ≈ 3:47 PM

be good enough for the state. I think that's why we are asking him to come back with options in November of Give us different ways that the letter could look. And hopefully Dennis will go and talk to the state between now and then so we know what will

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:47:32 · ≈ 3:47 PM

work.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:47:36 · ≈ 3:47 PM

I didn't add amortization to that motion just so it will do two different motions so you can vote against one and vote for the other.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:47:45 · ≈ 3:47 PM

Thank you. Chairman supervisor so we've got a couple potential motions in play. With which I think the common denominator is take no action on the proposed ordinance today. And then there's a fork in the road return. I believe returned eleven fourteen with the amortization option and then with supervisor Williams return eleven fourteen with

6:48 – 6:5013 turns

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:48:13 · ≈ 3:48 PM

My motion is just the latter and we will cover the first two afterwards.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:48:18 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Okay and Supervisor Lavanino you seconded his motion so we have a motion and a second, any further discussion? Supervisor Wolk? Oh okay would you like a roll call vote?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 35Proposed6:48:35 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Mr. Lavanino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:48:37 · ≈ 3:48 PM

This is on which one? I'm yes on both of them so yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 35Proposed6:48:41 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Mister Williams. Miss Wolf

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.826:48:43 · ≈ 3:48 PM

no

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 35Proposed6:48:44 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Mister Adam hi miss Herman I motion passes for one.

CommentJohanna HartleyProposed · by introduction6:48:50 · ≈ 3:48 PM

Then I'd move that you that we return with the amortization period on the 14th

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed6:48:57 · ≈ 3:48 PM

and that we not move forward with this ordinance.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:49:00 · ≈ 3:49 PM

If that's your will yes. I think I understood that both motions were take no action on the ordinance other than return. I'll second

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:49:08 · ≈ 3:49 PM

that. And I think then we can just all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. So, Mr. Gazzone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed6:49:21 · ≈ 3:49 PM

And Chair Hartman as you're wrapping up this item I still need to report out from closed session and today in closed session the board had several existing litigation cases Santa Barbara Channel Keeper, Whitson versus Santa Barbara County two related cases County of Santa Barbara versus Zinke County of Santa Barbara versus Pacific Regional Director Bureau of Indian Affairs As well as deciding whether to initiate civil litigation in 13 cases and one consult with County Council for significant exposure to civil litigation. There were no reportable actions.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.656:49:55 · ≈ 3:49 PM

Okay, we adjourn this meeting. We meet next for a special meeting October 31st Tuesday here in the Santa Barbara hearing room and we do have a closed session item for that meeting as well right?