Board of Supervisors — 2018-02-27

Thank you.

you

Okay we're going to call this meeting to order. We're going to do something a little unorthodox today, we have to move around a couple items. We were planning on taking D1 first but there's some folks here for public comment and for retirement so we're gonna try to whip through that. So we're gonna take two public comments People who have public comment can either opt to go right now for two minutes or after these items which will be probably an hour, hour and a half from now for three minutes. And then we're going to do the retirement and then we will take up D1. So public comment for oh, we need to do roll.

Ms. Hartman?

Here at a publicly noticed meeting site in Washington, D.C..

Mr. Adam.

Look at all those people

here.

Mr. Labadino. Ms. Wolf here. Mr. Williams

here and pledge. 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.

public comment. Then we're going to go with Ed Kolaski. Following Ed, we have

Keira Redmond. One of my neighbors suggested this that I should call the second district the Democratic Republic of Santa Barbara. There have been so many violations of California law and federal law that it's ridiculous. I listed five or six of them here. We had an old design up there, we went to four meetings, we had a five-to-two vote in our favor. We came into the fifth meeting, they requested that we expand our garage so it's over the dining room, the kitchen, and part of the living room. We did that. We came in, we sat down. They kicked us out, we didn't get a chance to say a single word. They had Dylan there jumping up and screaming at us side loading, side loading which means that your second story is solely over the garage.

There's so much to say. Anyways they wrote a report 64 pages, right here. 64 pages on our second story being located solely over the garage when indeed it is not solely over the garage and I've been appealing this for the last four years. We went to appeal for a PC. There were five members. Four didn't understand how that is solely over the garage and didn't even want to talk about it. And we came here before the supervisors. They didn't understand, what does that mean? That that's solely over the garage when it's not solely over the garage. We got 64 pages of that garbage. We had 15 minutes of Dylan Ryan speaking on it.

Four other members never even saw the drawings. Our architect came in, sat down, they kicked us out! Thank you, I'll be back with a lot more. You know they have a unique procedure and I was just there, Once they start talking, you have no right to say anything. Now they want us to do setbacks. They did that before. They approved it. It wasn't a problem. They wanted us to change the streetscape. They designed the streetscape! They voted 7-0 for the streetscape and then they kicked us out.

Thank you Mr. Glaske.

Kara Redmond and then we're going to go to Senator for Linda Enns who's our final speaker.

Good morning, Chair, Supervisors. Kira Redman with Santa Barbara Channel Keeper. Channel Keeper has been following closely the commendable work being done by County Flood Control and other agencies to clear mud and debris left by the devastating debris flows of January 9th. We're completely supportive and understanding of the pressing need to do so to protect public safety and property. However, it has been difficult to obtain information about certain details including specifically what storm water pollution prevention measures are being put in place at the various disposal sites. What the longer term plans are for the remaining debris that has yet to be cleared as well as that which has been moved to various purportedly temporary locations and what the longer term plans are to revisit and restore creek channels which have been substantially altered by flood control activities.

Following the disaster, the community looked to Channel Keeper for answers to these and other questions. We were inundated with questions about water quality, the contents of the mud being deposited on the beach, and the status of the county's search for alternative disposal locations. Eventually through our own sampling efforts and by tracking down lab reports submitted by the county to regulatory agencies we were able to provide some answers but we were disappointed that some of this information was not offered openly by the county.

I was pleased to read in one of your staff's recent updates to this board that they are currently evaluating mitigations taken during the life safety phase. To ensure they align with environmental safeguards, best practices and regulations. We will continue to ensure that our operations are in alignment with our community and environment. Channel Keeper is eager to learn more about how specifically the county is doing so. And I'm here to highlight the need for an importance of transparency moving forward. We ask that Channel Keeper and others in the environmental community be included in this conversation. So we can help identify priority concerns and provide assistance as well as pass along accurate and timely information to our concerned constituents.

Channel Keeper has some expertise on the subject matter, and we'd be more than happy to provide our input and assistance as appropriate. We commend the county and responders for the work they've done to protect life and property following the tragic debris flows. Yet we are concerned about the status of plans to minimize future environmental impacts that may arise the next time there is rain or flooding, and we respectfully ask the county to enhance its communication with the environmental community and the public so that these matters can be addressed in a more transparent and inclusive manner moving forward. Thank you.

We're going to go to Senator for Linda Ence as our final speaker under public comment.

Dear Supervisors, I'd like to bring to your attention that Tri-County's Regional Center is currently under investigation for abuse of my son William Ente. Complaints to the Department of Developmental Services allege that William has been subject The false imprisonment having been denied phone calls and visitations since 2010. Under California law, preventing a dependent adult from receiving visitors or phone calls constitutes isolation which is a form of abuse. The director of Tri-Counties Regional Center Dr Omar Noorzad responded that he isolated William under the direction of the conservator William's father Dr Philip Enty, Lomfolk neurologist. Documents prove that William's stepmother Angela Enty also participated in isolating William.

In a 2010 court investigator Reported that it was recommended by Angela, Auntie William's stepmother to place William in a level four group home for severely autistic adults. This placement was in complete violation of our divorce agreement. On one awful visit to the home I witnessed the client escape from the home. He was covered in feces and neighbors helped capture him and hosed him off in the garden. It was horrendous to witness. I called the supervisor to relay what I had observed. She replied to me don't call unless it's an emergency William was privy to the phone conversation and replied, this is an emergency. I need to get the fuck out of here.

Hopefully one day my son will be free. Thank you.

We're going to go back to Santa Maria for one minute to hear from Christine Cooper and that's our final speaker. Ms. Cooper?

Good morning Board of Supervisors, my name is Christine Cooper I'm from Covey Advocates and I have a 30 year career history working with family services for elderly disabled and children. I'm here to talk about the public defenders lack of representation of clients Many people have come forward. I'm particularly working with William Entie, and I'm going to read just my brief statements here. There is a history here in this case and many other cases. This is just a case that gives an ideal situation showing what is long-term going on in the public defender's office that needs our attention so that we can better serve the most needy people in the system. I'll start here.

In a report from the investigator in August 2012, William stated his desire to be at the next review hearing. We see no record of the public attorney taking action on William's behalf. When pressed further without attendance of this attorney he was asked about specific areas of petition to which he disagreed. William replied he would have his mother declared conservator. Further statement by the investigator states that William was unable to articulate a coherent alternative plan in the proposed endeavor to live alone. William was not afforded an ADA facilitator to discuss programs and processes to assist him in formulating such a plan, and was denied the opportunity to engage in such a plan. William was not contacted by his attorney to arrange for an ADA facilitator.

Neither his conservator nor his public defender provided the information necessary to plan, and then committed him to a conservatorship he did not have planned. In all fairness, few 18-year-olds are able to create lifelines without parental guidance. William attained voter status and held a job. His request fell on deaf ears and the conservatorship continued and William continues to be subdued to this day.

In 2014, William stated personally I'd like to make my own decisions. He summated his opinion by stating, I'm okay with them taking care of certain things in my life but not so much with everything I do or with whom I hang with.

Thank you ma'am.

Pardon me? Thanks.

That concludes public comment

We will take up A39 I'll make a motion to move 839. Is there a second? All those in favor, oh we need roll call.

Ms. Hartman?

Aye

Mr. Adam? Aye Mr. Labonino? Aye Ms. Wolfe? Aye Mr. Williams? Aye Passes 5-0 Item 839 is our only resolution to be presented today, and it's sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. And this is a resolution of commendation honoring Bob Clark on his retirement from the General Services Department after over 39 years of exemplary service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And if Bob could come up to the podium, I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record.

Whereas Bob Clark started his career with the County of Santa Barbara in 1979, he was a building maintenance worker with the Public Works Department. Facilities Maintenance was transitioned to General Services and Bob was promoted to Maintenance Supervisor in 1995. Due to Bob's hard work, dedication, extraordinary customer service skills, Bob was once again promoted to Facilities Project Team Leader in 2013.

And whereas over the years, Bob worked on many exciting projects not typical of building maintenance work. Such as the Queen of England's visit to Santa Barbara County in 1983 and also installing security fencing at the Santa Maria Courthouse for the Michael Jackson trial in 2005. And whereas Bob's job knowledge, skills and experience have contributed greatly to the overall professionalism and success of the General Services Department.

And whereas Bob is committed for his faithful and devoted services to the county community, his gentle quiet and pleasant demeanor will be greatly missed by as many friends associates throughout the county. Now therefore hereby order and resolve that this Board of Supervisors honors and commends Bob Clark for 39 years of exemplary service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County and the employees in the General Services Department pass and adopted today.

Good morning Supervisors, thank you very much for this honor. It's been a privilege to work for the County of Santa Barbara over these years I've seen a lot of different boards come and go and actually I worked with your dad when he was here back when he was a supervisor's assistant for Harold Fletcher so I just want to acknowledge our facility staff north and south they do a great job I thank them for all the hard work they do they keep our buildings Running daily.

I'd also like to acknowledge and thank our director, Jeanette Pell. She's been real supportive in helping us out through difficult times of financial difficulties. Also like to thank my immediate boss, Scott Hoskin. He's been a great guy to work with. I appreciate everything that he has done for me and his leadership. So thank you very much.

On behalf of Jeanette Pell, she's unfortunately out sick today with the flu. I take honor in presenting this award to Bob Clark. I've had the honor of working with him for over 30 years and have seen him grow, myself grow, and the county grow. Bob will be missed. He is just a wealth of knowledge on everything that has something to do with the county and even outside the county and how things work.

He originally started here at the courthouse And worked many, many years until we actually moved him up to manage the North County. And he's been a big part of this North County jail being at meetings and getting ready for the transfer to the maintenance department so Bob will be missed and he leaves a legacy behind him. And Bob thank you very much for your, he actually has worked with the county for 42 years there was a little extra help in there that doesn't really count but thank you Bob.

And then anybody that wants to join us we're doing a little reception down in the first floor of the admin building for about a half an hour.

Great I hope you will enjoy that and Bob will be there in spirit but we're not gonna let any supervisors go because we got to do this next item so I hope you will forgive us for that. D1

Chair Williams and members of the board, we're going to go to item departmental one. This is for planning and development. It's a hearing to reconsider recommendations regarding case number 17 ORD4 and 17 ORD10 which the board adopted on February 6th 2018 to amend respectively the county land use and development code and the article two coastal zoning ordinance to establish regulations for cannabis.

Good morning, Chair Williams and supervisors. On February 6th we presented the cannabis land use ordinances to your board. The ordinances amended the Land Use and Development Code, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, and the Montecito Land Use and Development Code. Your board adopted these amendments with certain changes. One of these changes was to specify that cultivation on properties zoned AG-2 and located adjacent to the urban rural boundary lines or an existing developed rural neighborhood, or EDRN require the approval of a conditional use permit.

The other was, remove the requirements for odor abatement plans for the cultivation of cannabis on properties zoned Ag 2 unless cannabis cultivation requires the approval of a conditional use permit. Although these changes were part of the direction, the actual ordinance language stated that these standards would apply to outdoor cultivation. The addition of the word outdoor would create a situation where odor abatement plans and standards would not be required for mixed light or indoor cultivation, which was not the intent of the board's direction.

So we are here today to ask you to make the recommendations, to amend the findings for the cannabis land use ordinances including the CEQA findings. To adopt the changes to remove the word outdoor to the Land Use Development Code and the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. And to determine that these changes to the land use development code are covered by the previously certified EIR and the changes to the coastal zoning ordinance are exempt from CEQA. And to adopt a resolution transmitting these new amended changes to the Coastal Commission, and we're here to answer any questions that you may have. Thank you very much.

Questions from the board? And we'll take public speakers.

We still have a couple of slips coming in, but we have approximately 14 speakers. So we'll put that at two

minutes.

Okay, we're going to start in Santa Maria with Dave Clary to be followed by Lil Clary. So if you could go to Santa Maria please?

Good morning, and thank you. My name is Dave Clary. My wife and I have been residents of Tippis Gate Canyon for 21 years, and I'm speaking to one narrow issue, a missing footnote. There is a chart on page 36 of the proposed LUDC listed as attachment 2B for today's meeting. The chart sets forth the permit requirements for Ag 1 and Ag 2 parcels. Under Ag 1, cannabis cultivation and cannabis nursery permits are subject to the conditions set forth in footnote 3 to that chart. Footnote 3 specifies that the parcels within an existing developed rural neighborhood such as a large part of Tepeskaya Canyon will require a major conditional use permit if they are within an EDRN or the sole means of access to and from the parcel is through an EDRN.

However, looking at the next column in the chart that sets forth the conditions for permits for AG-II parcels, footnote 3 setting forth the CUP requirement as described is not listed. So if a grower has an AG-II parcel whose sole access is through Tepiscay Canyon Road, that person will not be subject to the CUP requirement. We feel that this will trigger a mad race on the part of the growers to lease or buy, or otherwise obtain right-to-grow on Ag-2 parcels that are for the most part beyond the EDRN but will still use Hibiscus Canyon Road for ingress and egress thus avoiding the CUP requirement and contributing to the severe traffic problem in the canyon.

This oversight is not cured by the adjacent to an EDRN language sought by Supervisor Wolf when applied to AG 2 parcels and listed in footnote 6. As that is too limited, we need it to apply to parcels whose sole access is through the EDRN. Please resolve this issue by restoring the missing footnote 3 to Ag 2 Parcels as well as Ag 1. At least one supervisor has expressed to us that his understanding of the intent of the board was that the language of Footnote 3 was to apply to both Ag 1 and Ag 2 parcels. I have submitted a more detailed note in the written public comments together with the cited pages from the proposed LUDC. Thank you.

Next speaker is Lil Clary, to be followed by Andy Caldwell.

Good morning. My name is Lil Clary and I'm representing the Tepeskay Canyon Crisis Committee once again. You're probably rolling your eyes and wondering when we will go away, and I can understand that! You've approved language requiring a cup for Ag 1 in or access through an EDRN. And you'd think that would be sufficient. In any other EDRN, you would be right.

But Tepeskay—and I know you've heard this before—is different There is one roadway used to access the entire region. There are no alternate routes, and that roadway is barely 1.5 lanes wide for most of its length. This means that the cannabis traffic is concentrated and creates impacts that are intolerable whether for fuel and water tankers making multiple daily trips or grower employees hauling cannabis plants in rental trucks or in the beds of pickups clearly visible to residents.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the moratorium is still in effect, is it not? So why are we continuing to see plants delivered prior to the new ordinance which does state that cannabis activities are not allowed until licenses and permits are granted. My husband detailed a proposal the Canyon residents are making regarding expansion to Ag 2 dot adjacent and it's also covered in my written submission But here's why we aren't going away after nearly a year of fighting to protect our neighborhood. We want this done right the first time. We have the backing of over 100 of our Canyon families.

We're not out-of-state corporations with names like Phoenix Investments and Highland Hilltop Farms, or as I found by reading the public comment letters last night, United Property Solutions. And heaven help the folk in the West Muleton EDRN when they discover who their new neighbors are. We are long-term property owners with a commitment to our environment. And as I've noted before, we refuse to be collateral damage. We live in a beautiful region and consider it our home not junk land to be exploited. Thank you.

Mr. Caldwell and then we'll hear from Linda Tunnel in Santa Maria.

Chair Williams, members of the board. I'm Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. We're really truly concerned about the standards that you're applying to agriculture including archaeological surveys and all these other things. We don't believe that digging a hole to put a cannabis plant in the ground is any different for lettuce or broccoli or grapes And there should not be a different standard. Secondly, putting an auger in the ground to put a hoop structure or to put a greenhouse wall up isn't any different for cannabis than any other crop.

And I know that what you're going to say and Supervisor Williams, should I wait? Because I surely don't want you to miss anything I'm sharing here.

Go for it Mr Caldwell.

All right. Here's the point. We already have greenhouse regulations in the South County, we're going to have hoop house regulations in the North and it wasn't that long ago when a farmer, a vegetable farmer in Lompoc got tagged for disrupting a wildlife corridor habitat. So the point here is AG has and is being regulated, and we don't believe that what this stuff they're doing with cannabis is good in terms of precedent. Because as you well know, CEQA wasn't supposed to apply to the private sector when it was passed, and it just took one lawsuit to say that we were not granting equal protection or protecting things equally between the public and the private.

How much would it take for somebody to sue on cannabis and said we need the same protections against other crops? We have no idea why your staff would put these restrictions up because again, a hoop house or row crop or a greenhouse can switch crops on any given day. And so we don't think it behooves the county to do this and we would ask that you'd retract it. Thank you.

Linda Tunnel in Santa Maria followed by Claire Weinman in Santa Maria.

Supervisors, I would make my only comment is that the difference between an agricultural crop and pot is it is a class one drug therefore it should be handled separately other than that or differently other than that I support my neighbors in Tepezcay Canyon

Claire Wineman.

Good morning, my name is Claire Weinman. I'm the president of the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. We do not represent cannabis growers but we are concerned with the precedent that the development standards would set and could adversely impact conventional agriculture. We appreciate your careful consideration of the changes to uniform rules and ask that you exercise the same discretion on the contemplated changes to the Land Use Development Code.

We specifically ask that you remand the portions of the LUDC related specifically to development standards for commercial cannabis cultivation to the Planning Commission for further review with consideration of recommendations from the County Agricultural Advisory Committee. We concur with the letter submitted by the AAC detailing specific concerns with the development standards before you.

We agree with AAC's acknowledgment of the unique nature of cannabis as a crop, especially considering that it is still federally illegal and understand that certain restrictions are necessary and proper due to public health and safety concerns However, we share AAC's concern with the precedent of placing restrictions on agricultural production through development standards and the potential for the county to exercise its land use authority over routine agricultural practices.

Examples of concern include the archaeological surveys, prohibition of certain fencing materials, pre-protection habitat protection and wildlife movement plans, lot size prohibitions, avoidance of prime soils for cultivation that is not in ground and for ancillary use facilities, and water efficiency standards based on the director's satisfaction. Along with AAC, we question whether the addition of such broad development standards which could set precedent and negatively impact conventional agriculturalists should be made without greater opportunity for review and stakeholder involvement.

We urge the Board of Supervisors to remand the Commercial Cultivation Development Standards to the Planning Commission with consideration of input from the Agricultural Advisory Committee before taking final action. Thank you.

In Santa Maria, then we're going to come back to Santa Barbara for Charlotte Brownlee.

Good morning supervisors. Here I am again. I didn't have a speech planned per se, but I do want to speak to a couple of the things that were said today. One, I do want to ditto the speakers of the Tepeskaya Canyon Committee. I also have the concerns regarding the regulations and the footnotes that were eliminated regarding Ag 2. I thought it was interesting what Andy Caldwell had to say about hoop houses and the history in supporting agriculture.

We're not opposed to the typical hoop house growers that have their berries and various products, crops growing under them in the valleys. The people that are in our community are buying up urban land which is historically uncultivated Removing heritage oak forests and disregarding any of the existing county regulations regarding hoop houses that are not supposed to be lit up. They're not supposed to have electricity going to them, the growers in the agricultural fields don't do this they use Hoophouse for microclimate, for frost protection, for whatever. But that isn't the case with the growers of cannabis in Tapasquet.

And I want to support what Linda Tunnel said as far as this is a class one drug we're talking about. We're not talking about growing raspberries. Thank you very much.

Back in Santa Barbara for Charlotte Brownlee to be followed by Dylan Johnson.

Good morning, supervisors. My name's Charlotte Brownlee and I'm from the Kate School in Carpinteria. Kate is still extremely concerned about the impacts of cannabis operations on the children and community of Carpinteria. We're grateful for the time and the energy that you are all spending to understand our specific issues. It bears mention that the odors persist. They seem to be even stronger when there is cloud cover. Just last night, I was on duty in one of our girls' dorms and I could smell the odor from the dorms.

On odor abatement, we have addressed our primary recommendation in our February 16th letter which you have in your packet. And there's also a copy of the map showing the proximity of large AG 120 and 40 parcels that are under the current language cause concern. We would like to recommend adding a few words Sensitive receptors within AG1 to the language about odor abatement plans. My understanding from the discussion at the February 6th hearing was that there was agreement among the supervisors that odor abatement plans should prevent odors from being experienced in AG1 and residential zones by sensitive receptors. I think the planners, if they reviewed the discussion would see that this was pretty well supported.

I also believe you're going to be discussing caps at the next meeting but I did want to say we strongly support capping the number of cannabis land use permits in the coastal zone at 45. Finally, I would like to put a plea to reconsider the use of the coastal zone boundary as a defining Line for banning outdoor growing, perhaps just in Carpinteria. We believe this is the cleanest and the most straightforward way to establish protection for the Carpinteria community. There's a strong legal argument and good rationale for having a unique standard in the coastal zone. For heaven sakes that's why there is a coastal zone because it's a unique and special environment. The county is free to draw two zones. We already regulate greenhouses differently.

This is a similar situation. Finally, there's been some misinformation about Williamson Act properties in Carpinteria. Kate is surrounded by such parcels, we even own a few. Our strong belief is that cannabis is a product not a crop and should be treated as such. In the simplest terms, a crop is defined as food. So thank you so much for all that you're doing to support the community and not advantage the interest of industry over the needs of your citizens. We're grateful for your work. Thank you.

Dylan Johnson to be followed by Amy Steinfeld.

Good morning, Supervisors. Dylan Johnson, City Attorney for the city of Carpinteria. The city would like to take this opportunity where the board is reconsidering the regulations of cannabis to reiterate its request for a cap on the total amount of cannabis related land use within the county. The city understanding that the board did not take up the original proposal Based on a uniformity concern has endeavored to, without fully understanding what the uniformity concern was. Has endeavored to allay that concern by modifying its proposal and we're now proposing that the coastal zoning ordinance be amended to provide that no more than a total of 281.5 acres of commercial cannabis activity shall be permitted in the Ag 1 and Ag 2 zone land in the coastal zone.

This is a uniform standard in that it applies to all agricultural property, all Ag 1 and zone and Ag 2 zone property in the coastal zone. So it should not run afoul of any uniformity concern. As was stated by the previous commenter though would be a different standard for the coastal zone than the inland zone. There's ample reason. In fact, the Coastal Act even requires that the coastal zone be treated differently from the inland zone due to its unique nature.

The county zoning ordinance actually, the coastal zoning ordinance provides One of the purposes is to assure orderly balance utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources. And protect the character and stability of agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial areas. In other words balancing the various uses in the coastal zone to protect coastal zone resources.

This cap that we're proposing is necessary to ensure The coastal zone and carpentry in particular is an attractive area for cannabis related development. For a number of reasons, the cannabis industry is a new industry we don't have the experience to know what the impacts will be but we do know that we're experiencing negative impacts now and we can expect those to grow as the cannabis industry grows. The city feels strongly that this cap is necessary to ensure A proper balance between cannabis industry growth, it provides ample room for additional growth. But ensure that it doesn't overrun other uses in the coastal zone and adequately protects the environment and natural resources. So in closing I would request that if the board chooses not to adopt this standard based on a uniformity concern, that the reason for that concern be publicly stated so we can understand what it is.

Thank you.

Amy Steinfeld to be followed by Peter Imhoff.

Good morning, I'm Kate School's attorney. Because the March hearing is right around the corner, I want to again emphasize our support for caps on cannabis operations in the coastal zone. In our February 15th letter we set forth some legal support for a cap As set forth in the EIR, limiting the extent of cannabis development would result in substantial reductions and the severity of many impacts and protect sensitive receptors.

There's ample legal support for this as courts have upheld caps on marijuana operations imposed by local governments. In fact there's a 2012 City of LA case and a 2016 City of Lahoe case. Both those cases are set forth in our recent letter. It's also clear that counties may enact different zoning rules in different regions as Mr. Johnson set forth, as long as they have a rational basis for doing so.

The county has a rational basis for distinguishing between both AG1 and AG2 zones and also coastal and inland zones for the purpose of developing caps to protect sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are more densely located in and adjacent to AG1 zones and the coastal zone which contains unique coastal resources Including prime coastal farmland and sensitive coastal habitat.

This warrants different protections than in inland areas. In fact, the county already as Mr. Johnson mentioned has a separate coastal zoning ordinance to protect these unique resources. We ask that the county enact a cap on Lanny's permits for cannabis operations to 45 permits in the coastal zone. In addition I just want to add some additional support to what Mrs. Brownlee mentioned regarding strengthening the odor abatement plan.

As set forth in our letter, we're only asking for four simple words be added. We don't believe this will require additional CEQA review and we believe today is the time to do this especially since you are going to be clarifying what's going on with the odor abatement plan as it pertains to Ag 2. So what we're asking be added, it would now read, the odor abatement plan must prevent odors from being experienced by sensitive receptors within Ag 1 and residential zones as determined by the director.

Without regulations that requires growers in AG-1 zones to reduce or eliminate odors that impact sensitive receptors, this community will continue to be plagued by strong noxious odors. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Peter Imhoff, to be followed by Todd Amsmoker

Good morning, Chair and Supervisors. Peter Imhoff, Planning Director for the City of Goleta. I'm here again to state the city of Goleta's opposition to the ordinance as it's presently drafted. We're fundamentally concerned that the county is placing incompatible uses, cannabis cultivation in particular next to residential uses and other uses where it's simply not compatible without adequate protections. Right now, the only protection that would exist in Ag 2 is a narrow buffer of a single parcel where a CUP would be required. That is simply not an adequate protection.

A CUP requirement will now require the city of Goleta and neighbors and other neighboring jurisdictions to follow the county's permit process and intervene and participate in your permit process anytime there's a cannabis permit application. Parcels come in all different shapes and sizes, and a single row of parcels is inadequate to provide a consistent buffer from these uses. A set distance would mean a consistent application and make a lot more sense.

At this point there's no odor abatement plan requirement on AG-2 parcels beyond that first buffer. So in many instances, with a land use permit a very short distance away from sensitive residential uses, cannabis growth will be allowed. That's simply not acceptable. That's not something that the city of Goleta considers acceptable and we're very concerned Based on the experience of other jurisdictions like the city of Carpinteria. Finally, the intensive accessory uses that are now contemplated manufacturing distribution are also hugely incompatible both with neighboring residential uses and with the AG-2 land use designation.

In effect, you're going to be creating a exclusive cannabis manufacturing zone where with only a land use permit intensive manufacturing distribution uses will be allowed. We're very concerned also about visual impacts and traffic impacts and we simply want the county to take a step back and reconsider its approach here. Thank you.

Todd Amspoker to be followed by Anna Carrillo.

Good morning, Chair Williams and members of the Board of Supervisors. My name is Todd Amspoker. I'm an attorney at Price, Blistell & Parma. We represent Sarah Rotman who owns property on Highway 246 west of Buelton shown there on the diagram. Our client's property is the red property to the south of Highway 246. There is a EDRN, an existing urban development there on the north side of 246. 246 is owned by the state of California in fee. It's a very wide right-of-way, it's approximately 250 to 290 feet wide. The proposed regulation that's being talked about today indicates For properties that are adjacent to an EDRN, that a major CUP is required. Staff have indicated to us that in this situation our client's property is adjacent to the EDRN.

First of all we don't think that's accurate. Our client's property is adjacent to State Highway 246 which as I said is a very wide right-of-way owned by the state of California. But furthermore we think that this is bad policy and we also think it's a denial of equal protection. The same thing can be achieved by setback requirements and regulations such as odor abatement. The area where our client's growing operation would be is outlined in green on the diagram, it's 1,300 feet from the nearest residence on the other side of State Highway 246.

The proposed CUP requirement would be a denial of equal protection. Cannabis cultivation is being treated differently from any other agriculture operation for no particular good reason in this situation. Under county rules, urban development near agricultural operations is required to be subservient to the agriculture operations. This is outlined in the letter that we already provided to you. So this policy is inconsistent with that.

We urge you to not implement the policy that's been provided by staff. Thank you.