Board of Supervisors — 2018-02-06

I'd like to call the meeting to order. Roll call, please.

Is

there a approval of the minutes? Or is there a motion on the minutes?

I move to approve the minutes.

And a second. There's All in favor? Opposed? Minutes are approved. CEO's report.

No report this morning, Chair.

Thank you. We have a couple resolutions but first are there any items that supervisors wish to pull? All right I'm going to get

We have a request to speak on item A-6.

We will do that after our resolutions we have A11 and A12 that we will do first can you read those?

I move that we approve A11 and A12

all those in favor please say

aye.

Aye. Opposed? All right, can you read them?

Chair Williams, members of the board. Our first resolution is sponsored by our chair, Supervisor Williams. This is item A11. It's a resolution of commendation honoring Stacey Rosenberger, Jen Adame, Nancy Silva, Norman Villegas and Hortensia Cruz. And they are our Santa Barbara County February 2018 employees of the month and if they'll come up to the podium. We have Von De Roso also escorting.

I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas public health employees prioritize services to protect the health of residents during the Thomas Fire, the largest wildfire in California history. And whereas Stacy, her co-workers and partners including Direct Relief and the Medical Reserve Corps distributed approximately 350,000 N95 masks to residents in Santa Barbara County to protect them from poor air quality. And whereas Jen, her co-workers and partners including the Santa Barbara Humane Society, Equine Evac, Earl Warren, Buns and ASAP provided safe care and shelter for animals evacuated during the fire.

And whereas Nancy and the other nurses provided daily visits providing compassionate care to people evacuated to the Red Cross Shelter assisting with medications and medical issues at a challenging and stressful time. And whereas Norma and Hortensia, their co-workers in the partnership with the Joint Information Center at the Air Pollution Control District provided timely and accurate information to residents in English and Spanish so residents can be informed, prepared, safe, and healthy. So therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved on behalf of the public health disaster workers who provided exemplary service we honor Stacey Rosenberger, Jenna Dame, Nancy Silja, Norman Viniegas, and Hortensia Cruz as our Santa Barbara County Employees of the Month for February 2018.

I'm honored to be adopted today.

Good morning, I also want to draw your attention to Nancy who is joining us in Santa Maria she is the nurse that We are acknowledging during this time, thank you. So thank you very much for this opportunity to recognize the incredible, incredible efforts by the Public Health Department during the Thomas Fire. It's an honor and a privilege to work with such an outstanding team. And these five individuals provided extraordinary efforts along with their colleagues in the department and in the community. Thank you.

A12.

Okay, item A12 this is a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This is a resolution proclaiming the month of February 2018 as National Children's Oral Health Month in Santa Barbara County and I think I have Edward Tran, Dominic Calori, Georgine Lowe, Mary Ellen Recy and Teresa Rodriguez-Jones. And if there's anybody else they're welcome to come up as well.

And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas dental decay is the most common chronic disease among children that can be prevented through regular screening, early identification, preventative education and treatment. And whereas oral health is critical to overall health affecting nutrition, social development, growth and function, academic performance and quality of life.

And whereas untreated dental disease has been linked to adverse health outcomes associated with preterm, low birth weight deliveries, heart disease, stroke, diabetes and bacterial pneumonia. And whereas tooth decay is preventable through fluoride use, good eating and feeding habits, good oral health habits, and regular dental visits. Now therefore, it be hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors does hereby observe the month of February 2018 as National Children's Oral Health Awareness Month to facilitate increased awareness, education prevention and treatment of childhood oral health disease throughout Santa Barbara County. Passing adopted today.

Good morning, dear Board of Supervisors. Recognizing the significance of oral health alone and its relationship with physical health, concentrated efforts between Santa Barbara Public Health, Santa Barbara County Education Office and other key community stakeholders will be engaged in the next several years to assess the oral health needs of our community and vulnerable population.

In addition to assessing the needs, strategic efforts will be developed to address the infrastructure and systems needed to promote, address and improve the oral health of our community here in Santa Barbara County. The decay rate of Santa Barbara state preschool children is 49%, and this is of epidemic proportions. Santa Maria had the same problem in 2010, and they have reduced their decay rate by 50% using water fluoridation. Water fluoridation and topical fluoride varnish are widely known as the most effective public health instruments to reduce decay rates in a population.

Maybe we can consider the same measures in Santa Barbara County. Thank you very much for this very important proclamation, thank

you. Request to speak on A6.

Chair Williams, members of the board. Item A6 is brought to the board by the General Services Department. It's considered recommendations regarding ERG operating company LLC Fox and Petroleum Pipeline. This is in Santa Maria area in the fifth district. We have four requests to speak on this and we are going to start with Emiliano Campobello to be followed by Noel McGivern. Emiliano?

Good morning Board of Supervisors. Thank you so much for giving us this opportunity to address these issues. I'm here to really call on our sense of the future and our children and our sense of direction of where we're trying to go with our communities. We already have two cities that have passed resolutions against offshore drilling, I know some of you have been very progressive as far as the fossil fuel development direction, others have been on another side of progress possibly but I think there's an issue here about what is the North Star we're following What is the compass? You know, we're here in this society. We vote for our officials. The officials make decisions and what I'm hoping for is that we can figure out a trickle-up kind of process where the people, the cities, the counties, the states and then we all are on the same page instead of having cities and counties kind of in opposition We're challenging each other, states and federal governments challenging each other on certain issues.

You know this is really tearing at our communities. One thing with this FOXIM pipeline, ERGLLC just went through one of the biggest bankruptcies of 2015. Had to get 409 $1.75 million from a lien creditor to get them back in action and then them getting back in action, that's for three-year lien with the possibility of selling that afterwards as 2015. That's going into 2018 so it seems kind of clear that there's a plan here to build an infrastructure that's big and strong enough that they can be sold off This leads the way to further fossil fuel development.

You know there's an environmental impact study that was most of the information was gathered in 2013 It was approved in 2015. Now here we are two years later and it wasn't adjusted at all, it just said no significant changes have happened so we don't have to change do any more research now I think that is something that could be challenged in many ways that there've been no significant changes to our environment to the threats to it because that environmental impact study that was done before Refugio spill So that is the first point of contention that I would like to hold. I see my time's running out here, but so I think that I'd just like to call into question the wisdom of this action in the long term. Thank you very much.

Noelle Meaghern is our next speaker to be followed by Emily Williams.

Good morning, thank you all so much for considering not having oil pipelines in our county and protecting our wildlife. I am Noel McGivern. I was born in Santa Barbara. I went to Adams Peabody. La Cumbre, San Marcos, UCSB. I married a wealthy man. Lakota people would have a word for that kind of person. A very beautiful big wave surfer, big hearted man, father of my children.

Washichu is a word that means he takes all the fat off the land and saves it for himself. I went to East Hampton and they love their golf courses out there. The groundwater was polluted by pesticide. We bring our water in with plastic bottles, and it's like that. Not everywhere can do that so much, have clean water that we could just filter out all the things we put in it.

It'd be so nice if we just had clean water and made that our absolute priority. And discourage people like Nestle. When I worked for the Santa Barbara Unified, I took today off because I feel about this. I feel it's really important that everyone remembers our life-giving waters, our sacred Mother Earth, our life-giving waters. They're so sacred. In all over the world, our water is threatened. And the next wars they say aren't going to be over petroleum, they're gonna be over water.

So the more water we save, I just became a grandmother. My son gave birth to a baby girl in Hawaii and I really want her and all of our grandchildren and all of our wildlife. Those people don't have a voice. It'd be so nice Have more faith that we have clean energy and that some things money can't buy, right? I mean people are seeing the pumas come down for a drink.

Loss of habitat. Native people have ways, they used to do cool burnings. They were on foot. They weren't going to have a big fire like we just had. How are they going to get out of there? They would have cool burnings. They would take care of all that so less and less. I'm so honored to be here and I'm so honored you know my prayers that every kid in the unified has their own reasonable container use our beautiful water filters. And gets a good education thank

All right, good morning and thank you so much for your time this morning. My name is Emily Williams and I am a concerned scientist. I'm a PhD student at UCSB studying climate change and climate impacts. And I'm also with 350 Santa Barbara. As many of you know, 350 Santa Barbara works closely with environmental social justice groups all throughout the county, many students and young people, and a wide swath of community members who share our vision for a fossil free Santa Barbara County. So I'm here to talk to you today about the pipeline.

We are living right now at a time when we need to start making some serious choices, but they're not really hard choices if we think about the future that we want to live in. We know that we need to transition away from fossil fuels and toward 100% renewable energy and we need to do this quickly. This need has recently been felt sorely by our community. The wildfire that devastated our community two months ago was driven by unseasonably hot temperatures, dry fuel and strong winds.

What then followed was flooding caused by extreme rainfall where half an inch fell in just five minutes. This is not normal. This is climate change but this will be the new normal and we will be seeing these events more and more. As our community, like communities around the world work to become more resilient. The last thing that they need, the last thing they deserve is the promise of even more abnormal and devastating changes to our climate.

Our choices today are what going to determine that future and today we have some difficult but important long-term math to be doing So California is helping shift the tide in recognizing that we cannot keep burning fossil fuels, and we in Santa Barbara are helping shift that exact same tide. But Santa Barbara County remains one of the highest oil producing counties in the state. I think we all know that cannot continue. We can be the hub of renewable energy and renewable jobs but not what we keep building fossil fuel infrastructure, the very infrastructure that we know is going to be obsolete in a matter of years.

This pipeline being discussed is a difficult subject, I'll give you that. On the one hand it's a way to get 7000 trucks off the road but it's also a carrier pipeline and what does that mean for new future development? Will this pipeline really just be used for current oil production and not service any new projects? In the EIR, it explicitly states this pipeline is intended to match both current and future new oil development. Future development that we all know just cannot happen.

So we seem to be working on two different timelines. This pipeline has a lifespan of 20 years but we need to be managing a decline of fossil fuel usage before that time. A decline that would leave that pipeline empty far earlier than its lifespan. The math just isn't matching up. So the options on the table today are not about trucks versus pipelines. It's about profit or a safer climate.

So 350 Santa Barbara has faith that our elected leaders will continue to inspire us and help facilitate the transition away from this economy and towards 100% renewable energy. We just want to kindly remind everyone that building a new pipeline now at this stage goes against everything that science, economics, and morals tells us is right. Thank you so much for your time.

Helena Simon?

Chair Williams, board. Thank you. My name is Elena Simon with Food and Water Watch. I'd like to voice three specific concerns I have about ERG's Foxing Canyon pipeline. So we've heard a lot about the need to make a just transition to 100% clean energy and a significant aspect of that just transition is not approving new fossil fuel infrastructure. New fossil fuel infrastructure ensures our continued dependence on fossil fuels because ERG pipeline has a life expectancy of 20 years And we know that fossil fuels are a dying industry, so why are we investing in 20-year infrastructure for a product that we know we must transition off of?

Second, the intention of the pipeline is to accommodate increased oil development. Section 2.2.3 of the EIR notes that oil production in Cat Canyon has continued to increase since 2013 and notes that production is expected to continue to increase. So at what point do we say enough of producing new oil? Currently we have 2,400 active oil wells in the county. ERG's current capacity to truck oil is somewhere between 3,000 and 5,000 barrels a day. This pipeline would increase that capacity to 25,000 barrels a day. That's somewhere between a 500 and 833% increase. In fact, the EIR states on page 1.1 The proposed pipeline could accommodate increased quantities of locally produced crude oil in the future from various producers. The amount of additional trucking ERG could conduct is limited under its current permit to operate issued by the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

This could require that increases in field production be limited to avoid exceeding the permit-to-operate limits due to increased trucking. The proposed pipeline could transport expected increases in oil production without exceeding the permit-to operate requirements." End quote. This pipeline would allow for extracting more oil and it's another backdoor way for the oil industry to get what they want, producing more oil in Santa Barbara County.

And finally, it's a carrier line. So due to the references in the EIR I just stated there have been many concerns in the community that this is a precursor to approval of pending permits for ERG's 233 wells, AIRA's 296 wells and Petro Rocks' 231 new wells. So what's worse? I know that it's tough decision and I appreciate the county's concern for safety and GHG emissions in considering this pipeline Those two are concerns of mine, but it's hard to estimate which method of transit is worse. Is it death and destruction? Is it amount of oil released? Is land area or water volume contaminated? Habitat destroyed or CO2 emitted?

To me more oil production and investing in infrastructure that's conducive to more oil development is worse. I wanted to thank the supervisors for being diligent in the questions that they asked last week. Supervisor Hartman in the Blue Line Creeks, Supervisor Wolf in the Dual Lines. I appreciate that. In this county we continually talk about individual responsibility to reduce our consumption and yes that's very true. We do have an individual responsibility to reduce our consumption but the urgency of the climate crisis mandates collective bold solutions that go above and beyond after all the whole is greater than the sum of its parts thanks

Thank you. Any other requests to speak on this item?

That concludes public comment on A-6.

Any motions or comments from the board?

Chair Williams, members of the board. Prior to going on to our final motion on the administrative agenda I just have one announcement regarding the administrative agenda. This is item A7 from general services. The board letter had a couple small corrections that I want to read into the record. First of all this project is in the third district not the second district and also the RP file number that's listed on the agenda which is 003779 should be 003552.

So, and also I did post an addendum on Friday adding one case of significant exposure to litigation to the closed session agenda. And those are my announcements. Do

we have any comments on A6 or a motion on the balance of the agenda? Mr. Lavinia, I'll make a motion on the balance to move. Second. And I'll say something, because I just have to say that the comments on A6 leave me wholly frustrated. All of the environmental groups that have fought oil since the spill, so the ones that have been around here for a long time. Have always supported pipeline infrastructure so that we could push oil out of barges and out of trucks and there's no The numbers are really clear on what's safer. The numbers are really clear on what is lower GHG emissions, and I'm just astounded to have environmental groups come and advocate that we have higher GHG emissions.

By trucking oil, we cannot terminate that drilling that's going on. That current drilling so the choices between trucks and pipelines. And the reason why the capacity is larger to some degree and the reason why it's a common carrier pipeline is because the county wants the neighboring operations to also pipeline their oil and not truck their oil so that we reduce their emissions.

Everybody has to be a part of reducing our emissions for us to be successful, including oil companies. I just don't know what to say if we are going to try to block oil companies reducing their emissions, just because they might try the argument that that infrastructure means we should approve more development. I for one am not going to approve more development just because they built a pipeline. I don't think the county's ever done that before.

But if you don't think that there is a clear need for a pipeline instead of trucking or trains, then you're not looking at the accident data. You're not looking at the spill data and you're not looking at the emissions data. So I think we have motion in a second? Sure.

Since you commented, I feel compelled as well. The irony isn't lost on me that we have another item on today's agenda about a pipeline that is being decommissioned. We're going to take a bond back and that is not enough to fully decommission that pipeline. And so here we are approving another. For me, I appreciate the arguments that were raised today and I think a lot of research went into that. We are in a transition period of bridge time and so we've got some very difficult decisions to make but I do think Supervisor Williams, Chair Williams said that just because we are approving this doesn't mean necessarily that we're going to approve future development projects in oil fields.

We're caught between a rock and a hard place. And I think we have to try to reduce the greenhouse emissions now, to the extent that we can, and take future projects on their own. So thank you.

We have a motion in second. Any further comments? All those in favor? It's the balance of the agenda. The agenda please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Is there public comment for items not on the agenda?

Chair Williams, members of the board. We have one request to speak from Ed Kolaski. Mr. Kolasky.

The other one first one old design new design yeah we ready It's good to be here again. Finally, after four years it took I finally got to present our new design. We were kicked out of the fifth meeting four years ago and we were not allowed to present it. They ruled that our new design is located solely over the garage like the old design and that still stands even though it's over the garage, the kitchen, the dining room Is this a democracy?

Okay, I finally went back again to the meeting Mr. Chairman who insisted I do and I tried this several times before once I almost got my head bashed in by a guard when I was kicked out of a meeting that upset the members of the Board of Architectural Review so I did pursue that and then once again They would not let us present that design. So finally, we got to present that design and I hope over the next four years that maybe we'll get approval.

Now it turns out that once they start talking, we did get a chance to say a few words at the beginning but once they start talking you have no right to ask any questions or make any statements and I got all this, no don't say anything! You can't tell them hey Street scape the view from the street was designed by one of your members John Veritech, the guy sitting over here.

Well it's not good now that was four years ago you can't tell him that setbacks were argued in the fourth meeting and you approved it without the setbacks no you can't say that if you say anything they're gonna kick you out So here we are, I hope over the next four years to get approval. I just want to remodel my house. You stand here and you pledge allegiance for liberty and justice?

Come on. You don't know what's going on downstairs? You don't know that they're erasing tapes? When we got kicked out of the fifth meeting, they erased the first two hours of that day's tape. You don't know that they generated a bunch of garbage saying that old design is identical to the new design. Those two are identical. Flip to the next one Ken. This is just a blow up. Okay go to the third one.

You know we got one honest, good supervisor here and we got one that's corrupt. And we've got three supervisors that are hear no evil, speak no evil and say no evil. You don't know what's going on the other half. Isn't it time to make a change? I'm sick of my neighbors saying well they're all corrupt. They're not all corrupt! This is the United States of America. You know, I wrote down here the preamble to the Constitution.

When they wrote this it was for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It wasn't for somebody to come in and say you didn't pay an extortion payment. Your contractor didn't make a donation. You're out of here! 15 seconds! We couldn't say a word. They had Dylan jumping up screaming at us, you're out of here! That's life liberty and the pursuit in the second district and everybody knows it I'm over.

That concludes public comment

We're going to take two D items because we have them here rapidly and then go break to closed session.

Chair Williams, members of the board. We're going to start with departmental item number one. This is from the treasurer tax collector. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the issuance of bonds by the housing authority of the county of Santa Barbara for financing the new construction development of the residences at Depot Street. It is consisting of 80 units of affordable multi-family housing for individuals and families with special needs in the county of Santa Barbara.

Mr. Hagan. Chair Williams, members of the board this first item today is a TEFRA hearing. This item was heard by the Debt Advisory Committee on January 8th and it was recommended to hold the TEFRA hearing. TEFRA is the Tax and Equity and Financial Responsibility Act 147 F Internal Revenue Code provides a process for non-profits to request the use of municipal financing for projects.

I have with me today Bob Havlicek and John Polanski who can go over the financing and the project details. One point, I do want to make sure that we all understand that the issuer not the county is morally and legally responsible for the payment of this debt. We are holding the public hearing only. And I'm here to answer any questions also.

Any questions from the board? Supervisor Wolf.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If there's no public speakers, I'll go ahead and move this item.

No request to speak.

There is a motion. Second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye Opposed? Unanimous. That was an aye from me, and your second item.

Terminal Item 2 also from the Treasurer Tax Collector. This is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the issuance of bonds by the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Barbara for financing the acquisition and rehabilitation of Parkside Gardens Apartments. This is 48 units of affordable multifamily housing for seniors in the county of Santa Barbara.

Chair Williams and members of the board, this item was also heard on January 8th of this year by the Debt Advisory Committee. And it was recommended to hold the TEFRA hearing by your board. Again it's the same issuer John and Bob are here and we're here to answer any questions in the same rules apply to this also. Supervisor Hartman?

Well first, you're to be commended for producing more affordable housing for our most vulnerable citizens and I appreciate all the work that you do. I do have a question though and that is, and I see this particularly in the San Ynez Valley, what provision is made for services to these people once they move in? How is that incorporated into your planning process early stages?

Thank you very much, Chair Williams and Supervisor Hartman. That's really an excellent question. When you work with folks who are the most vulnerable there is a reason. You cannot just give them a key. And expect folks coming out of homelessness, folks coming out of substance abuse education and aversion programs to just automatically be able to sustain themselves just by getting housing. And so support services are something we work with very early on in the process. In fact at the time that we start going through the entitlement process We start identifying who it is that we're likely to serve.

And then what support services in the county are they going to need? And very early on, we start working with groups like Department of Behavioral Wellness, with Public Health. With Allan Hancock College, with a variety of different partners that we have who provide the types of support services that are really valuable and help our residents not just retain their housing but move forward. So thank you very much for that question.

And if I might just follow up, I think for example of non-profits like People Helping People in the Santa Ynez Valley and as new housing comes in there's new demands on that organization and not necessarily additional funding. So how does that come into play?

Chair Williamson, Supervisor Hartman. We have also had very limited funding in affordable housing. The structure and those of you on the debt advisory committee and others have been able to see it's very tight. And we pride ourselves in the fact that we only ask for the infusion of gap subsidy financing up front. And then operations are fully covered by the amount of rent that we're able to receive, which includes the support services that we can contribute to. So typically what we ask of our partners is we provide these support service space at no cost to them. That's actually built into the developments place to provide support services but we really have very limited resources.

to be able They'll apply for because we specifically know that they help to support our residents in the housing. So, we do work with our partners, people helping people is a valuable partner up in the Senate and we have many valuable partners throughout the county. And so, we really rely on them and in turn, we work to support their efforts to try to raise the funds as we increase the need for services by providing housing.

No further questions, comments? Can I get a motion? Motion by Wolff. Second by Hartman. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Unanimous. Thank you Mr. Hagan. We will break for closed session

Chair Williams and supervisors, today in closed session the board is scheduled to consider one matter of existing litigation. In the case of Beverage versus City of Goleta at all two cases of anticipated litigation. One conference with real property negotiators for submerged lands off the coast of Carpentaria an area of platforms Hogan and Hochin. And one conference with labor negotiators for Bargaining units, unrepresented employees, managers and executives. And as I understand it we'll be having a closed session now and then resume closed sessions sometime closer to lunch. That's right

so we won't necessarily do all those items at this point but will be back in here in about half an hour hopefully. So anyone who is watching who is interested in the cannabis hearing I don't

know what word was passed out to everybody, but when I stopped in my office to grab my books this morning there was a note up in Santa Maria that said that items 3 and 4 would start at 11 o'clock.

Well, maybe we'll handle a couple more of those. Why don't we do this? We'll handle all except for one of the closed session items because I'm thinking that you guys probably want to eat lunch at some point so we'll keep one on reserve for that lunch and then we'll try to handle the rest and be back in more like 45 minutes. You. Hi, everyone. ¶. Hi, everyone.

¶¶ you ¶¶ ¶. ¶¶ ♪

¶¶ Hi. Music you Music. You. you Hi. Thank you. Thank you. you you ♪ ♪ ♪ Hi. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. ♪♪ ♪ Hi. Oh, ♪ Hi. You. Hi, everyone. ♪ ¶¶ ¶. ♪ Yeah. Yeah. Music Yeah. Thank you. ¶. ♪ ¶. Music playing ¶. Thank you. ¶. ¶. Music ¶¶ Hi. Music

It's

okay. We're going to reconvene and hear D3. Item D3, please proceed.

And Chair Williams the board did break for closed session but we did not complete the closed session agenda and I would recommend just having the report at the end of the next closed session.

Thank you

Mr.

Gazzani Chair Williams, members of the Board. Item 3 is from Planning and Development today it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the County and Montecito Planning Commissions regarding case numbers 17 ORD 4 9 & 10 which would amend county land use and development code the Montecito Land Use and Development Code in article 2 coastal zoning ordinance to establish regulations for cannabis to consider The recommendation of the County Planning Commission to approve case number 18 ORD 1, amending and partially rescinding Article 10 medical marijuana regulations. To consider the recommendation of the Agricultural Advisory Preserve Committee to approve case number 17 ORD 19 for amendments to uniform rules for agricultural preserves and farmland security zones.

And to submit a resolution transmitting case number 17 OR D10 to the Coastal Commission.

Good morning, Chair Williams and Supervisors. We are here today to present and receive a recommendation on the cannabis land use ordinances for the Land Use Development Code, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, and the Montecito Land Use Development Code. My presentation today will include these components. We'll start out with a slide on the public process, then we will go into ordinance development and the standards that we created.

Other important standards that were made from our public processes. We'll show you the Montecito Planning Commission's recommendation and the County Planning Commission's recommendation, as well as the Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee's recommendation in regards to the uniform rules. We'll also briefly go over our final environmental impact report and then finally end with our recommendations.

As you can see from this graphic, we have had an extensive public outreach process including updates to both this board and the planning commissions throughout the process. Ad hoc subcommittee public meetings. Presentations and updates to other county commissions like the Agricultural Preserve Advisory Committee, and the Agriculture Advisory Committee. We also held multiple meetings in the development of our final environmental impact report.

To start out our discussion on ordinance development I would like to go over the land use tables recommended by the planning commission. As you know, the county has the three zoning codes. The LUDC, the CZO and the MLUDC. The Montecito Land Use Development Code does not contain any zones whose intent or comparable uses would fit with commercial cannabis activities.

The land use development code contains more distinct zone districts than the coastal zoning ordinance. This table shows the zones that are in both the LUDC and the CZO as white, and the zones that only fall into the LUDC as blue. This table shows that the Planning Commission proposes to allow cultivation and nurseries in AG 1, AG 2, MRP which stands for Industrial Research Park.

M1 which is light industrial and M2 which is general industrial. The difference between cultivation and nurseries is, nurseries are where plants are grown from seed or clone. And cultivation is where plants are matured to harvest. Cultivation and nurseries are also proposed to be prohibited in all the commercial zoning districts shown at the bottom of this slide here.

Additionally, this table shows the other commercial cannabis activities and the zoning ordinances that are proposed to be allowed in them by permit level. P stands for a land use permit or a coastal development permit. LUPs and CDPs are the lowest form of permit that allows staff to review a proposed project for compliance with development standards. CUP stands for a major conditional use permit, which requires a public hearing before the planning commission.

The proposed ordinances before you today also increased the noticing buffer for all of these permit levels from 300 feet to 1,000 feet to property owners around the cannabis activity. The findings for a CUP require that the proposed project be reviewed for design, size, location and adequate water supply. As well as determining that the project will not detrimentally affect the public health, safety or welfare.

In creating this proposed land use table staff reviewed the intent of each zone to make sure the activities were suitable. We also analyzed each zone for comparable uses, like other services, bars, handcraft industries and professional labs. Through these steps staff created the proposed planning commission recommended land use tables before you today. Besides those permit levels, all commercial cannabis activities must comply with additional development standards including compliance with state and local regulations.

The preparation of energy conservation plans, landscaping and screening plans, and a comprehensive odor abatement plan. In addition to the new standards for cannabis, any activity must also comply with an existing code standard. For example, if the structural development is 20,000 square feet or more, the applicant must also apply for a development plan. Another example would be if the project was in an overlay zone, then it would also have to follow those overlay standards. In addition to our newly proposed cannabis regulations.

Through our public process we heard a lot about the serious detrimental effects that cannabis odors are having on neighborhoods in Santa Barbara County. With our EIR consultant and in conversations with officials from Colorado and Washington, we have developed comprehensive odor abatement plan requirements. With the main goal of reducing odors that are experienced within residential zones.

The requirements include standards like a description of all equipment and methods to be used for reducing odors. The plan is required to be certified by a professional engineer or industrial hygienist. There are variety of different systems that could be used and they could include carbon filtration systems, or vapor phase systems but only those that eliminate odor and not mask odor.

In addition, if we have larger parcels that are applying for cannabis activities, staff will also review them for project siting practices. That would take the cannabis activity as far away as possible from any adjacent residentially zoned properties. We have left this standard open and only use these suggestions so that as technology advances in these fields, the odor abatement plan can include that new technology.

The cannabis operator must also designate a local contact. This local contact has to be available 24 hours a day. She or he must have a complaint tracking and reporting system, both for their operation and also for how they submit these complaints to the county. The property owners are notified within 1,000 feet from the lot line of this local contact so they can call if any issues arise.

In addition, if three complaints are verified in a 365 day period, corrective action must be taken to mitigate the problem. These odor abatement plan regulations apply to all cultivators, nurseries, manufacturers, distributors and micro businesses regardless of zone. There are also a couple other important standards that were developed through our public process.

Including on AG-1 lots that are 20 acres or less, we have proposed to prohibit outdoor cultivation including outdoor cultivation within hoop structures. This is another odor mitigation measure. Cannabis cultivation within an EDRN, or if the cultivation is primarily accessed on a roadway within the EDRN has been bumped up to a major conditional use permit so we can review it for consistency with the neighborhood.

In addition, the state set forth an exemption of cannabis operations not being located within 600 feet of a school, daycare or youth center. The recommendation of the planning commission before you today has increased that to 1,000 foot buffer. Also in the ordinances before you today are volatile manufacturing having an additional buffer of 1,200 feet. And now I'd like to cover the recommendations of the planning commissions.

The Montecito Planning Commission supported staff's recommendations for the Montecito Land Use Development Code, but requested that the county planning commission increase the buffer from sensitive receptors from the state mandate of 600 feet to 1,500 feet. This new buffer would eliminate the allowance of cultivation and accessory uses in the Montecito community plan boundary, and the coastal zoning ordinance.

The CPC considered this recommendation and also made additional changes to the Coastal Zoning Ordinance and the LUDC, which are increasing the buffer from sensitive receptors to 1,000 feet. Prohibiting cultivation in nurseries in the C3 zone. Prohibiting non-volatile manufacturing in C1, C2, C3, and CS. Permitting manufacturing with a conditional use permit in SC and all the mixed-use zone districts.

Permitting retail with a CUP in all the mixed-use zone districts, and also they had additional amendments to the odor abatement plan which are shown in your ordinances. And prohibited on site consumption for retail establishments. This last item on the list was changed from staff's recommendation of 50% of product being grown onsite for the allowance of manufacturing and distribution to only 10.

This vote was carried with Commissioner Park, Blau and Faridi voting for the change and Commissioner Cooney and Brown voting against it in a straw poll. This is also a recommendation that staff is not in agreement with. The original 50% language was proposed to be consistent with how we treat other uses such as wineries and olive oil pressing in code. It also would be a major policy shift on how accessory uses are treated in the county, and would not maintain agriculture as the primary use in agricultural zones.