BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 April 10, 2018

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 – 0:031 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role0:00 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Music playing ¶¶ Music ¶. ♪ Music I call this meeting to order. Good morning. Please do the roll call.

0:03 – 0:067 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:23 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Ms. Hartman? Here Mr. Adam? Here Mr. Lavinino? Here Ms. Wolfe? Here. Mr. Williams? Here

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈20s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:30 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:51 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Can I get a motion on the minutes of April 3rd?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.843:56 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role3:57 · ≈ 9:03 AM

All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. And we have four A items by resolution starting with A23.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:13 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Would you like to accept a motion and a second to approve those items?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:18 · ≈ 9:04 AM

I'll move the resolution items. This is A23 through A26? Correct. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. A23 please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:35 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Okay, we have four resolutions to present this morning and We're going to start with item 823. This is sponsored by our chair supervisor Williams This is a resolution proclaiming the week of April 23rd through April 27 2018 as Kate has committed week in Santa Barbara County And I think Britt Stanley and Stephen Thompson are here if they would come on up to the podium Thank you, I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record Whereas the county of Santa Barbara suffers numerous problems associated with alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse and values the health and safety of all of our residents.

And whereas committed week is a youth development campaign planned by youth for youth focusing on drug abuse prevention and education to promote a healthy and drug free lifestyle. And whereas it's the goal of the council in alcoholism and Senate Barbara County Friday Night Live Partnership, the Youth Service Specialist Program to involve families, schools, businesses, media, government, medical institutions, faith organizations, law enforcement agencies and other youth organizations in all aspects of this campaign. This will foster an atmosphere that supports a healthy lifestyle for youth and educates and creates awareness of the harms of substance abuse.

And whereas the committed campaign was established by CATA to encourage our youth to live a healthy lifestyle through the prevention efforts focused on promoting activities that keep youth drug free. And whereas, the month of April is California Friday Night Live Month and Alcohol Awareness Month, our town hall is a way to showcase student efforts to curb the effects of drug and alcohol in the community.

And now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors proclaims April 23rd through 27th, 2018 as committed week in Santa Barbara County. It encourages all residents to support and participate in alcohol and other drug prevention activities. Passed and adopted today.

0:06 – 0:135 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:34 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Thank you, Supervisor Williams, other supervisors. We think that the committed campaign and campaigns like Red Ribbon Week are extremely important nowadays with what's going on with our kids. In our teen court program, over 70% of the kids who come into that program admit to using drugs. Over 60% admit to using alcohol and we're talking as kids as young as 10, 11 years old. So I think campaigns like this are extremely important. Steven Thompson our coordinator for Friday Night Live here in North County. We have three chapters going on currently with over 75 kids in South County. We have over seven chapters with 190 students.

So there are kids who are wanting to make a difference in our communities, and we just want to thank you for allowing us to have this resolution for our committed campaign. And you can see each one of you got a committed campaign wristband to wear and so thank you very much, appreciate it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:42 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Chair Williams and members of the board, item A24 is sponsored by Supervisors Wolfe and Hartman. And this is a resolution recognizing April 10th 2018 which is today as Equal Pay Day in Santa Barbara County. And we have Diane Owens who's here with some friends, former supervisor Owens. And if you guys will come on up and I'll read the resolution into the record.

Whereas more than 50 years after the passage of the Equal Pay Act, women and disproportionately women of color continue to suffer the consequences of unequal pay. And whereas according to the US Census Bureau, women working full time year round in Santa Barbara County typically earned 87% of what the men earned for comparable work. And whereas in 2009, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was signed into law giving women a legal framework to challenge pay inequity in our courts. But nonetheless, lawmakers are urged to pass the Paychecks Fairness Act which would close loopholes and improve the law's effectiveness.

Whereas nearly four in ten women with children are the primary breadwinners of their household and nearly two-thirds are the primary or significant earners making pay equality critical to family's economic security. And whereas, a lifetime of lower pay means women have less income to save for retirement and less income counted in a social security or pension benefit formula.

And whereas fair pay strengthens the security of families today and eases future retirement costs while enhancing the American economy. And whereas April 10th 2018 symbolizes the date when the wages paid to American women each year catch up to the wages paid to men the previous calendar year. Therefore, it is hereby ordered and resolved that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors urges citizens of the county of Santa Barbara in the state of California to recognize the full value of women's skills and significant contributions to labor force. And further encourages businesses and employers to conduct internal pay evaluations to ensure women are being paid fairly. Passed and adopted today by the board.

PresenterPat GrijalvaLompoc-Vandenberg branch of American Association of University Women and AAUW haProposedself-stated9:48 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Thank you, I'm Pat Grijalva. I'm currently president of the Lompoc-Vandenberg branch of American Association of University Women and AAUW has been empowering women as individuals and as a community since 1881. And for more than 130 years we've worked together as a national grassroots organization to improve the lives of women and their families. Today, Tuesday April 10th marks Equal Pay Day as the resolution stated and it's symbolic of the day when women's earnings catch up with men's earnings from the previous year.

The typical woman working full time year round in the United States is paid just 80 cents for every dollar a man is paid which means she has to work until April 10th 2018 to be paid as much as a typical man took home by December 31st 2017. So we just want to thank the Supervisors Hartman and Wolf for sponsoring this resolution. And we feel every woman deserves a full paycheck, so thank you again.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role10:59 · ≈ 9:10 AM

That's right. Let's do A25.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed11:03 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Okay, Chair Williams and members of the board. Item 825 this is also sponsored by Supervisors Wolfe and Hartman. This is a resolution proclaiming the week of April 8th through 14 2018 as National Crime Victims Rights Week in Santa Barbara County. Cindy Gresser we have Cindy back there and Megan Reinschild and anybody else you friends bring them on up And I'll go ahead and read the resolution.

Whereas over 3,500 individuals are directly harmed by crime each year in Santa Barbara County and each crime affects many more family members, friends, neighbors, and coworkers. And whereas crime leaves a lasting physical, emotional and financial impact on people of all ages, abilities and economic racial and social backgrounds. This year's theme is expand the circle reach all victims and emphasizes the importance of inclusion and addresses how victim services field can better ensure that every crime victim has access to services and support. It also addresses how professionals, organizations and communities can work together to reach all victims. And whereas the Santa Barbara County District Attorney Victim Witness Assistance Program is a primary provider to help and support the victims of violent crime.

To provide services such as court appointed an advocacy obtaining crime victim compensation in attempt to mitigate the negative impacts of crime, and assistance with navigating the criminal justice system. Whereas National Crime Victims Rights Week honors the extraordinary progress that's been made on behalf of millions of victims since the passage of the Victims Crime Act in 1984.

And whereas National Crime Victims' Rights Week challenges our community and our victim service providers, criminal justice partners and concerned citizens to promote victims rights initiatives. And the need for effective and compassionate victim services. Also this includes financial and emotional support for all those affected by crime. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors declares the week of April 8th through 14, 2018 as National Crime Victims Rights Week in Santa Barbara County. Affirming the county's commitment to respecting and enforcing victims' rights and expressing our appreciation to all of the victims and crime survivors who have turned personal tragedy into action in order to build a more just community.

Passed and adopted today.

0:13 – 0:182 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed13:38 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Good morning, Chair Williams, Supervisors Joan Hartman and Janet Wolf. I want to thank you for joining crime victims and survivors, victim service providers, criminal and juvenile justice professionals, and community volunteers across America to commemorate National Crime Victims Week. Since 1978, the District Attorney's Office has been designated by the Board of Supervisors as the primary local provider of crime victim services.

Our office was one of the first county agencies in California and the nation to offer a voice to victims through the criminal justice process. Every day, our crime victim advocates many of whom are here today work to ensure that the victims views are honored their rights upheld and that every service is made available as they try to overcome and survive the aftermath of crime.

Today we have members of our Human Trafficking Task Force, our Sexual Assault Response Team, our Elder Abuse Advocacy and Outreach Team, our Domestic Violence Support and Advocates. And each year we serve over 3,500 victims of crime in our county. And through our victim compensation program contract with the state of California pay out upwards of $700,000 in victim compensation benefits to victims in our community.

I want to thank the Board of Supervisors for their ongoing support of the Victim Witness Assistance Program and for commemorating and honoring victims of crime, and those that serve them every day of the year. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed15:42 · ≈ 9:15 AM

A26. Okay, Chair Williams, members of the board we have one resolution to present left and this is 826 sponsored by Supervisor Adam. This is a resolution recognizing the month of April 2018 as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County and also honoring the Orca Academy students for their achievements in poetry out loud. Sarah Rubin is here, Arts Commission Executive Director with the Arts Commission staff and members.

We have Josie Allen, Rhett Carter and Andy Speer. And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas since 1996, The Academy of American Poets has designated April as National Poetry Month to highlight The extraordinary achievements and ongoing legacy of American poets. And to increase the visibility, presence and accessibility of poetry in our communities and culture.

Whereas in celebration, presenters including County of Santa Barbara and the Santa Barbara Public Library System create and facilitate free public poetry events countywide throughout the month. And whereas Santa Barbara County hosts an annual poetry out loud recitation competition through a partnership with the California Arts Council, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Poetry Foundation to help local high school students master public speaking, build self-confidence and learn about their literary heritage. And whereas over 2,000 students from six high schools participated in Santa Barbara County's 2018 Poetry Out Loud program with Cabrillo, Carpinteria, Orchid Academy, Pioneer Valley, Ernest Regetti and Santa Maria High Schools holding separate competitions at the school level.

And whereas the high school champions competed in Santa Maria at the regional competition on February 15, 2018 with Orchid Academy High School students Josie Allen and Isabella Melsheimer finishing in the top two places to make 2018 the second consecutive year that Orchid Academy students have won the competition. Highlighting Orchard Academy's continuing commitment to literary education.

And whereas Santa Barbara County was represented in the Poetry Out Loud state competition in Sacramento on March 18, 2018 by Josie Allen from Orchard Academy High School who beautifully recited the poems American Smooth by Rita Dove. It was No Death for I Stood Up by Emily Dickinson and The Gift by Lee Young, Lee Poetry. Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this month of April be proclaimed as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County. And further resolved that the Board of Supervisors offers congratulations to both Orchid Academy High School students finalists for their exceptional finishes and representation at the Poetry Out Loud competitions in the year 2018. Passed and adopted today.

0:18 – 0:2211 turns

CommentJosie AllenProposedself-stated18:33 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Hi, my name is Josie Allen and like you just heard I was the winner of the Poetry Out Loud County Competition. I just wanted to say thank you so much for having me here today and it's just really a privilege to have participated in this competition and to have so much support from my community. And if you guys don't mind, I'm going to recite one of my poems that I prepared for the state competition.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role19:05 · ≈ 9:19 AM

I was going to be really sad if you didn't.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed19:24 · ≈ 9:19 AM

Josie, can we get you on the mic? Yeah, totally. So you can

CommentJosie AllenProposedself-stated19:27 · ≈ 9:19 AM

hear me

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed19:28 · ≈ 9:19 AM

better. You can turn the mic that way and still face out. Let's do it that way. Is this better? Perfect. Thank

CommentJosie AllenProposedself-stated19:34 · ≈ 9:19 AM

you. Can you help

CommentJared FickerProposed · by introduction19:38 · ≈ 9:19 AM

me

CommentJosie AllenProposedself-stated19:39 · ≈ 9:19 AM

with this? Oh wow! This is so cool! Yeah, totally worth it! Okay let's start from the beginning. The Gift by Lee Young Lee. To pull the metal splinter from my palm, my father recited a story in a low voice. I watched his lovely face and not the blade. Before the story ended he'd removed the iron sliver I thought I'd die from. I can't remember the tale but hear his voice still.

A well of dark water, a prayer and I recall his hands two measures of tenderness he laid against my face The flames of discipline he raised above my head. Had you'd entered that afternoon, you would have thought you saw a man planting something in a boy's palm. A silver tear, a tiny flame. Had you followed that boy, you would have arrived here where I bend over my wife's right hand.

Look how I shave her thumbnail down so carefully she feels no pain. Watch as I lift the splinter out. I was seven when my father took my hand like this And I did not hold up that shard between my fingers and think metal that will bury me, christen it little assassin or going deep from my heart. And I did not lift up my wound and cry death visited here. I did what a child does when he is given something to keep.

I kissed my father. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role22:31 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Well, that was the right way to begin a morning session. We have a request to pull item A8. Is there any other items requested be pulled from the public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:43 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board, no requests to speak on administrative items this morning for the public.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role22:50 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Then why don't we read Item A8?

0:22 – 0:2816 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:54 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Item A8 is from General Services. It's to consider recommendations regarding a First Amendment to the agreement with Simpler Systems, Inc., for information technology services.

CommentJared FickerProposed · by introduction23:08 · ≈ 9:23 AM

And I would just like to have a, I assume you wanted me to go. Sure. I would just like to have a roll call vote.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role23:16 · ≈ 9:23 AM

And is there any other requests to speak on this? Alright, is there a motion to approve item A8?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8423:25 · ≈ 9:23 AM

So moved.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role23:27 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Is there a second?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8423:29 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role23:30 · ≈ 9:23 AM

All those in favor, oh please initiate the roll call.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed23:34 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adam? Abstain. Mr. Lavinino? Abstain. Ms. Wolfe? Aye. Mr Williams? Aye Passes three ayes, two abstentions.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role23:45 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Can I get a motion on the balance of the agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed23:50 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Mr Chair, I'll move approval for the balance of the agenda. Second. Thank

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role23:55 · ≈ 9:23 AM

you Supervisor Wolfe. There's a motion and second all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Any public comment for items not on the agenda?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed24:13 · ≈ 9:24 AM

No request to speak.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role24:17 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Then let's go forward to D1.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed24:23 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Right, Chair Williams, members of the board. Item one on the departmental agenda is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a commission for women's report on the March 2018 countywide Women Speak Up events.

CommentSusan FoleyProposedself-stated24:41 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Good morning supervisors, my name is Susan Foley and I staff the Commission for Women. And one of their charges is to help keep these supervisors informed of issues countywide affecting women and children and families. And last year the commission, well they put on events and activities. And last year they put on a Women Speak Up event that was very well attended and very well received.

The biggest request that came out of that event was please put on more of these and do them county wide. So this year we did that. It was a lot of work. These are volunteers. We were out almost every night the last two weeks of March including a Friday night so it's an amazing commission. They're very dedicated. And they're here to give you the outcome of those events. And Vice Chair Heidi Summers and Commissioner Tracy Beard are here to present.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed25:34 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Hi, thank you. I'm a Commissioner for Joan Hartman and I want to thank Joan Hartman for being part of her organization on the 3rd District. I want to thank Joan for being part of our Women's Speak Out and also Janet Wolf for being part of our Women's Speak Out. We are here on behalf, I am past Chair for the Commission. Our speak outs were held in Isla Vista, Goleta, Carpinteria, Lompoc, Guadalupe and Santa Maria. And yes, we are here today for Equal Pay Day.

And we want people to know that, that we are here but enough has been said about that. We just know we're not receiving equal pay women as we move forward. We did host six county wide speak outs for women and the following things were noticed on there. Women want to be heard and they wanna be listened and we wanted to hear what was happening in the impacts around what was happening within our community.

Our community has many rough spots still within Guadalupe, Lompoc and Carpinteria. And they need to be heard. We need to make awareness to these situations that are happening. The we gave you a list an item list on page four but we're going to kind of quickly go through them the biggest thing that we heard from mayors discussed in every single community was immigration deportation Human trafficking, assault, sexual abuse and insufficient mental health and psychiatric. You cannot get psychiatric counseling anywhere in the county.

And they feel people were outraged by this and this is the biggest thing. New concerns that arose were the social media on cyber bullying. Children do not feel safe within the school system. And this is the biggest thing, our social media has not kept up with our laws. Lack of affordable housing throughout the county especially in Guadalupe. Irregular rents price gouging in Guadalupe.

The lack of participation in economic development for women that have degrees cannot find employment, and this was especially within Guadalupe and in Lompoc. More so within Lompoc women spoke out about the economic disparities that they have. As we look at a snapshot Of our speak outs, we had at least 50 to 25 women in every single event. Some of them were small but we had people from high economic that sat on boards to people receiving social services. Our reach out went to women that were on human services, our non-profits and our leaders within our community that we asked to come bring people to speak and listen to what they had to say.

0:28 – 0:342 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed28:30 · ≈ 9:28 AM

The other thing I wanted to highlight was the very essence in the rooms that when we had these speak-ups. At the end, at the end of all six somebody said let's just call these Let's Talk. Speak up might be a little bit more assertive but Let's Talk is dialogue and just by the very fact of coming together giving people a voice listening and empowering our communities to start discussing these issues and the actions we can take as individuals was quite encouraging In Isla Vista, if we have that PowerPoint slide just of Isla Vista so you see the picture.

I'm just going to give you quick highlights from each one because they each had their own flavor and I think it's important to get a feel for that flavor. Isla Vista was about sexual assault and they talked about safety in the community and how they're communicated when something happens like say at the college is it how is information sent out electronically with our Barbara County Board of Supervisors Our nation and how our children just don't feel safe in the parents are concerned.

Emotional right to be a child also talked about one stop for resources we have the 2, 1, 1 but we need more awareness out there to utilize the 2, 11 system is a one-stop for resources. In Carpinteria Again, you heard mental health and if we know anybody who suffers from mental health finding access to this in real time care. Whether it's abuse or a substance abuse, addictions or mental health issues. Also education in Carpentry was an issue with the literacy level. Concerns about the reading level of the children in school and the resources they have. And cannabis and the location of it near the school in Carpenteria. Immigration came out in Carpinteria also with ICE and deportation.

For Lompoc, I have some of our Lompoc Lompoc economic development, we've heard this several times there related to vocational training that we don't have enough of that in the schools to help those who don't want to leave the community. Those who do leave the community to go on and get their education but come back and want to work professionally in that community and there aren't any jobs. And then about cannabis but in a different way if we are going to have licenses for cannabis the women were saying We as women want 40% of those licenses. We want to be part of that discussion, so that was a different way of bringing that up about how do we look at who is receiving the license?

And then human trafficking and sexual assault again and again, we heard this in each community. Guadalupe not feeling equal services for that community. And then housing instability, as we heard it was a sad story to hear people who are living multiple families living in one dwelling and then price gouging going up for their rent and not being able to afford it. It was a very sad story to hear in a community that's very close And then as we remember from Carpinteria, again ICE and deportation and breaking up of families is an issue in Guadalupe.

Mental health and also they talked about a preschool one for all not just for those who are lower income but what about preschool for those who are making enough money but can't afford to be paying to have their child go to preschool? And then Santa Maria, we ended on a Friday in Santa Maria. We went for two sessions, an English speaking session and then a Spanish speaking session.

Social media came out here over and over again. Kids not feeling safe, parents not sure what to do with it, schools not sure what to do with it, and how are our laws protecting us? Human trafficking and massage parlors. Why are those massage parlors open at all hours of the night? And what are we doing related to safety? How do we speak up when we see it happening, we talked about in the Let's Talk environment.

And then in the Spanish only again social media parent empowerment and some things about health care and how they really They were happy about the health care they were receiving. So that was a nice positive to hear in Santa Maria. And then here to summarize up...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed33:01 · ≈ 9:33 AM

We want to continue our commission, we want to continue funding with the commission. The commission has very work that needs to be done yet. We want to thank our partners that came and especially 211, CAC, Rape Crisis, Legal Aid. These are just some that came out to help us very much so. But we need to take action on a lot of these items as we move forward.

And we want to make sure that action is heard from all of you and that we hear you, and that we're here for you. We want to be here for every single one of our county supervisors to hear what you have to say and how we can help you with women in the future and how we can help make some of these changes better. And that, so just on a good note I want to thank Susan Foley for being part of us and leading us and guiding us very much so. And we want to thank Margs Fix-Williams and stand up Margs.

Margs helped us through every six of the events she was there and I was there for five of the events and I can only tell you we could not have put this report together and we will have it to you in May, a full 20 page report of what happened and all of the comments in that. So thank you very much, and thank you for funding the Women's Commission that you have done so graciously.

0:34 – 0:4213 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role34:24 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Supervisor Lavinino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8934:26 · ≈ 9:34 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. Tracy or Heidi I just had a question about I know when you go out and you kind of do a public meeting, sometimes the forum can get a little. I'm just curious how did you have public comment period? Did people have or they raise their hand or was it just a free for all open let's talk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed34:45 · ≈ 9:34 AM

No we started with just, we had people from the school districts, people from different social services there. We had at different times Miss Joan Hartman was in the audience also Janet Wolff was one of our speakers. We allowed people to say what we do for women but what do we need to do better and what are we doing that's good? We do so much good but we need to do a little better and we allowed people to, we took a mic around the room and let people speak And then we ask questions on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed35:17 · ≈ 9:35 AM

I think another thing that we tried to do is start each session with, in the three that I attended by just having each attendant say their name and what we said about when we went around the room is to say that each of us have a voice and we want to hear it and so by saying a name we started each meeting by honoring uniqueness of each person and being open to the rules Thank you very much.

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed35:58 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Who

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed36:01 · ≈ 9:36 AM

do I make the check out to?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed36:05 · ≈ 9:36 AM

We'll work on that. We can, we'll work on that at the end over here but we want to very much thank every one of you for supporting the commission and truly being part of your community.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role36:21 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Just ask this, we do have one speaker on this item. Do you want to take public comment or speak first? We'll have one speaker, Janet Blevin. Yep. Janet?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed36:38 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Good morning Board of Supervisors and staff. Thank you for your service, everyone. I attended the Women's Speak Up in Lompoc and it was a fantastic event. It was well-attended. One of the things that the summary doesn't talk about is the lack of representation in the fourth district. So the women's commission could be much more effective if we had full representation in every district. Thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role37:08 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8437:10 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the Women's Commission and especially Tracy Beard for the leadership they showed in this process. It's a huge effort to go out to the six different areas in our community. They went out with good food and as they said Organized speakers from government agencies and from non-profits to explain services that are available. So they functioned as our eyes and ears, bringing forward various services and listening to people and giving them an opportunity in each session that I attended, there was just tremendous energy in the room. It was in a way a bit cathartic and that people had so much pent up that they wanted to express and I guess we each come away remembering different things but in Isla Vista for me it was sexual assault and in Guadalupe again we heard about these Multiple families living in homes, in one month rent going up $700 and parents working but having to leave their children.

And the children being the subject of sexual assault by strangers because they're having to live in these close quarters so it was really heart wrenching and Figure out what we now can do as you bring your report back to us and how we can begin to dissect that and figure out ways forward. While I have the mic, I just wanted to mention too that I've been reading a book provided by the Rape Crisis Center on adverse child experiences. And what we're learning is that children who are exposed to tremendous trauma As children have health effects later on because of the cortisol, because of the impacts.

Molecular biological impacts on their bodies of these traumatic experiences and Nadine Burke Harris will be in our community on Thursday talking about this and I think it is a public health crisis. And I saw that kind of revealed in what I observed at the sessions sponsored by the Women's Commission that I attended so Again, thank you and this is a public health crisis that we need to address.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role39:39 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Supervisor Wolfe?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed39:41 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. Heidi and Tracy, thank you for being here and being the face of our incredible women's commission. And also thank you for being here as well. Susan. I just, I don't know if my commissioners are in the South County or they're listening right now but I want to thank Anna Everett Secret Right and Suzanne Peck for all of their work as second district commissioners and the impact that they and all of you have had I think that we're seeing some of those results and I just know personally from things that are going on in the school district, the coordination between the Women's Commissioners and the Board of Trustees at Santa Barbara Unified has been exemplary. And I think hearing from the community really helps them communicate issues to different elected officials.

There are so many issues and I really look forward to seeing your report, we saw the slide up here for a moment but I think what really What's so impressive about your commission is your willingness, and this isn't the first time you've done this. But your willingness and desire to go out to the community and hear from them. And then bring back to us, the policy makers what you're hearing. That is so incredibly valuable. And what I heard from you today, we all take away something a little bit different. But the issue of mental health and access to mental health. And I know for me it might be something for my office to coordinate some form of a workshop or forum where we can have our county representatives and SenCal representatives the public to answer some of these questions on access and what is available to them because obviously that's something that's missing.

So there's a lot more I think that we can do but honestly, Really our eyes and ears to what's going on in our community is so essential. And we thank you for that, and thank you to Susan and your office for coordinating an incredible amount of work. I don't know how you all did it. There was a week when you were going out, I think three or four different forums in the evening, and that is not easy. So thank you for your tireless effort and your continuous work.

0:42 – 0:4612 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role42:33 · ≈ 9:42 AM

And I also want to thank you in particular for at several of those forums highlighting issues that are a special concern to our young women, college and high school age. The gauntlet that they are forced to run in this society is shameful and The more attention that we put upon it, the more societal pressure we can come to bear. And I just want to thank you in particular for that effort because it is not an issue that we should let up for one moment.

So with that, we'll go to D2. We need a motion. Can I hear a motion on A and B? We did do public comment.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed43:26 · ≈ 9:43 AM

I'll make a motion that we move this item for approval.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role43:31 · ≈ 9:43 AM

There is a motion.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed43:32 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Second.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role43:33 · ≈ 9:43 AM

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed43:37 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Mr. Daniels? Chair Williams. Just in response to the question from the member of the public about donation my recommendation would be if that person is interested in that, that county staff member Susan Foley make a point of contact there will be a conditional gift to the county and we'll work with Ms. Foley on that so I'm not soliciting donations but that'd be the process.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role43:56 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Thank you Mr. Gazzani. We want to make sure that information is out there. Okay, item D2. Mr. Allen?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed44:04 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board. Item D2 is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to appoint members of the Board of Supervisors to the Local Agency Formation Commission. These are two terms from March 1, 2018 to March 1, 2022 and one is for our regular member position from the board and one is for the alternate member position. This item is in response to a request from our LAFCO Executive Director Paul Hood and currently We have Supervisor Lavinino and Supervisor Hartman in these two positions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8944:44 · ≈ 9:44 AM

Supervisor Lavinino? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Well, this is my seventh year on LAFCO but my first year as a voting member so I would like to- it started off a little dry, I would say. I kind of joined LAFCO thinking that the name meant it was going to be fun. Much to my surprise, it had nothing to do with comedy. But I would love to stay if you guys will have me.

Supervisor Wolk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed45:18 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think Ms. Hartman was going to say something but assuming that she's willing to remain as the alternate, I would like too and I also serve as a regular member and it's great having both of them there as representatives of the county so I would recommend that we move the appointment for Mr. Labagnino as a regular and Miss Hartman as the alternate.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role45:47 · ≈ 9:45 AM

There is a motion and a second. Any comment on the motion? No request to speak on this item, all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? It's unanimous. Item D3.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed46:13 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Chair Williams and members of the board, item three is from the county executive office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the cannabis business license ordinance transition period options in cannabis compliance staffing

0:46 – 1:022 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed46:33 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board. Dennis Pezant from the County Executive Office to present the title report and so to go ahead and begin just to think through what we have before you today is to consider the introduction of a revised ordinance to establish a local annual cannabis business license Consider options for addressing ongoing cannabis operations during the transition period as we previously have discussed back in December. And then receive an update on staffing to address the permitting, licensing compliance and enforcement functions of for the cannabis industry.

So a couple of notes as we look at the cannabis business license. The intent and goal is to really leverage subject matter expertise for multiple departments, and so it involves quite a bit of detail about the roles and responsibilities of each of the department partners in the licensing and compliance function for the cannabis industry. It does seek to align the licensing requirements locally with the state licensing requirements and local land use requirements.

And I'll remind you of an attachment number two that we had on March 20th, that we've brought back as part of the agenda packet here for you and for members of the public to review. That identifies a fair number of the state licensing requirements and then how those correlate crosswalk The ordinance that you previously adopted back in February and the business license ordinance that you'll be considering as a first reading today.

The other goal was to provide industry with clarity and certainty on a compliance environment, and then last but certainly not least building trust with residents that excesses of the past will be addressed locally. So your board on March 20th provided a series of directions to staff, and so I just want to note that those changes have been made. First of all you capped at zero acres the outdoor cultivation of cannabis everywhere within the coastal zone.

And for those of you who may be interested in where those cultivation caps exist in the draft ordinance, that revised ordinance you have before you. Those begin in section 50-7. The board also directed staff to come back with a cap of 186 acres of indoor and mixed light cannabis cultivation within the boundaries of the Carpentaria Agricultural Overlay District as established by ordinance in 2004.

Those are still, that cap can be found and as revised as the request was made on section 50-7 on page 8 of the revised draft ordinance. Your board further directed that you provide an option for energy conservation section to allow for the purchase of renewable energy credits. And we did make those revisions on page 18 in section 50-10 to item 2 of that, to allow the purchase of those credits as one of the options to address the renewable energy requirements.

The board further directed staff to return with a simplified and revised appeals process. Those revisions were made on page 33 of the draft ordinance in section 50-27 by moving it from a board appeal to a hearing officer appeal process. And then finally, there were some wording additions on personal cultivation. Location being indoor and the mature plants being those that are flowering.

Those changes were added to the definition section 50-2 on page 3 where we added under canopy the words mature flowering plants as well A little further back, the item was about indoors was in section 50-. Section 50-5, which provides some exemptions including the personal exemption. And there on page 7 under 50-5 section 2 we use the same definition of a legally established secure dwelling. Same language that we used in the land use ordinance that your board adopted in February. So those are the revisions that were made to the cannabis business license ordinance.

I'd like to at this point turn to some of the challenges during the transition period. And your board will recall that back in end of last calendar year, we did present the fact that there were going to be these transition issues associated with the cannabis industry for us here locally as we move into establishing local ordinances. But also having to work in conjunction with the state licensing system, with their temporary license that was only going to be good for 120 days. With the possibility of a 90 day renewal only if they had submitted a completed state cultivation application.

We also had noted in the past to you that there are additional requirements in both land use ordinance as well as in the business license ordinance. That any of the operational date of any of these ordinances based on whether or not the treasure tax collector is able to successfully open Reliable financial institution and also is going to be contingent on Coastal Commission certification for those components of the coastal zoning ordinance that your board approved in February.

It's also important to note that this, the business license ordinance that we were just discussing that you'll be considering an introduction first reading of today Would not become effective until May 31st at the earliest. The second reading would be scheduled if your board approved the introduction today, the approval of that would occur on May 1st and so consequently 30 days would need to expire for that to become effective and the cannabis business licensing The fee ordinance is adopted by the board, whichever is later. And just to put in a comment here, staff is currently anticipating bringing back that cannabis business license fee ordinance on May 8th for your boards consideration.

We also noted in the transition period that in the coastal zone, that those business licenses will be delayed until the Coastal Commission certification and not just business licenses here but also any land use permits in the coastal zone until that certification process is completed by the Coastal Commission. Another challenge that is in front of the industry here and for us as a regulator, is that some licensing path for legal non-conforming businesses will need to continue to be in effect until the amortization period expires in approximately June 2019.

And so we probably just want to find some way to allow them to continue to recoup their investment backed expectations of their current medical cannabis cultivation operations that you have identified as legal non-conforming based on your actions in January 2016. Another challenge is that cannabis cultivators cannot currently remove product from their locations without a state distributor license.

We have discussed this in the past where once you enter the licensing regime of the state, as many of our medical cannabis cultivators have, their only option to move that product off of their particular cultivation site is to another licensed distributor and We have none of those currently in the county. Folks are using services as far away as Cathedral City to provide that licensed distribution service for them to move some of their cannabis product off their sites.

Another challenge is that under state regulations, current state regulations, local medical cannabis cultivators that received a state temporary license cannot sell product to the adult use cannabis market after July 1st 2018. So currently up until July 1st Folks that have a medical license can sell it into the adult market as well as the medical cannabis market. The state allowed that to occur, to allow for sufficient development of the supply chain.

But after July 1st, they would have to stay within the medical cannabis licensing stream what we call the M licenses. And that is a bit difficult because most of the market has now about 80% of the market has shifted over onto the adult use side away from medical. And so unless the state amends their regulations, which there is some active discussion about an amendment as part of a budget trailer bill in June.

But there may be some extension of that crossover possibility for the market that might continue until December 31st but that is unclear and unknown whether that will occur. So the challenge remains. And then last but not least of these challenges, the state temporary licenses are set to expire after 120 days with that 90 day extension period. And the extension periods only allowed if the applicant has submitted an application to the State Licensing Authority for an annual license.

Folks in cultivators and operators here in Santa Barbara County, the first individual received a temporary license on January 1st. And so that will expire on May 1st and there is not a remedy at this point for how to get to an extension if we're not allowing an application to be made for a state annual license. So the board requested some options at their March 20th meeting, and I came up with a couple of general ones. One option was to extend a coastal zone consultation process.

This is an option we discussed with you back in December. It would still require that the banking and licensing fee ordinance are still required to be in place. It would include a consultation process and that if the operator would otherwise be compliant, the county would stay silent on an application for a state annual license. Consultation process if the operator would not be compliant so for example if they're inside one of the buffer zones for school then the county would immediately notify the state that they are not in compliance.

And then option two would require fully operational county ordinances. In this situation, option two staff suggesting that all those banking and licensing contingencies would still be in place. There would be no consultation process. All potential licensees would have to wait until permitting and licensing would become operational for their circumstances. So, for example in the coastal zone that would be following Coastal Commission certification.

In the inland portions it would more likely happen sooner based on the contingency of the requirements for banking and a licensing fee ordinance. And I would just note that this would really fail to solve some of the supply chain and market shifts for those legal non-conforming entities that you have identified. And we've exempted based on the January 2016 ordinance that was adopted as Article 10.

Looking at a little bit more in depth, a couple of sub-options if you will for option one would be to still remain in effect those contingencies. But it would open up the consultation process to allow all operators into the consultation process and not just those that are legal nonconforming but others That might wanna open other parts of the supply chain, for example the distributors licensing type.

That would be possible under option 1A if your board's so directed. And then if an operator would be in compliance, the county would again not take any other action other than to stay silent on their request for an annual license which after 60 days would become approval. And that staff under option 1A, if we were to know for certain that they were never going to be in compliance. They're not zoned properly, they're in a buffer zone, any one of those other kinds of circumstances. We would immediately notify the state of non-compliance and so then that license could not become effective.

1B is similar but what we would do there, a suggested limit would be just to allow those that have the state temporary licenses allowing them to enter into that consultation process. And then if the board were to choose option 1B it would be helpful for us as staff Some guidance and direction from you about whether to continue the county letters, or should we make this apply county wide or just in the coastal zone?

A couple other options are under option two. Supervisor Wolf just has a question on that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:01:18 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Thank you, before we go on to option two and maybe it would also apply to option two the one thing that I'm not clear about Mr. Pisanich is that one of the challenges that you had listed was In the coastal zone, that licensing would be delayed after the Coastal Commission certification of land use ordinance and subsequent permitting. Yet in option one it looks like this is a proposal to buy a consultation.

Actually in my handout it says option one and then right next to 1A. Or in option one, it says extend coastal zone consultation process.

1:02 – 1:079 turns

CommentJared FickerProposed · by introduction1:02:06 · ≈ 10:02 AM

That's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:02:07 · ≈ 10:02 AM

that one right there. So is that a way to circumvent the requirements of Coastal Commission certification by saying if we have a consultation that that's enough?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:02:23 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Supervisor Wolf to the chair, it is not in any way intended to be a circumvention of the Coastal Commission certification process. We would be simply being silent on their application to the state license if they would otherwise be compliant with our local regulations for example the buffers and the zoning requirements.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:02:46 · ≈ 10:02 AM

Okay maybe this to Mr. Gazzone Being silent, I'm just finding a contradiction here and so I just need some clarification. If it needs to be certified by the Coastal Commission how does either consultation process or being silent then allow anything in the coastal zone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:03:16 · ≈ 10:03 AM

Chair and supervisors, I'm going to start by saying something we've said before as we go through this and that is that the tension that you know that we're talking about today is not a creature of the county's creation. We have local control on certain portions of this and then a state licensing scheme for this and that's where the tension comes in terms of the timing of the state licensing package So at 10,000 feet the county would not have authority to actually permit or license in the coastal zone until action by the Coastal Commission on these packages.

And there's an asterisk next to that, and that is until the county's cannabis ordinances are operative. The county has already protected any legal non-conforming medical cannabis cultivation sites but in general the county would not be able to take any permitting or licensing action in the coastal zone until certification by the Coastal Commission. I think what these slides are discussing Is essentially a non-binding, non-permitting consultation process where if someone wants to come in and say this is my operation. If certified by the Coastal Commission would this be compliant with the county code? Yes no.

And that's what this slide is it's not a permission or an approval by the county.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:04:42 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Well, I didn't understand the stay silent piece because what you just said is telling the applicant one way or another. But it just explained the stay silent.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:04:52 · ≈ 10:04 AM

And I think Mr. Bozonich can chime in at any time here, but basically once we go into the state's annual licensing process there is a statutory provision in there where if the county does not speak within a certain time that the state will issue the license. That's the 60 day period that we talk about. But if the county comes in and says they would not be compliant with our program once certified, that's the affirmative communication back to the state.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:05:25 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Okay so I think the stay silent part is really the part that bothers me. It would seem like we would have to take Either an affirmative stance or a denial if someone is involved in that consultation process. Otherwise, what's the point of doing it?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:05:47 · ≈ 10:05 AM

Well I'll step in just because it was my idea and take responsibility for this. This is really needed and its origin is trying to figure out How to provide an incentive for the removal of nuisance elements from cannabis in the coastal zone. Because it's unknown how long the Coastal Commission will take to approve our ordinance, the local community in Carpinteria was definitely facing the intimidating prospect Another year with no rules, and how do you provide an incentive for these operations to comply with county ordinance before they technically have to?

And I would further say that it is Our discretion, whether to send a positive letter or negative letter or no letter at all in state law. The positive letter would be yes they comply with our land use ordinances which we technically be strange to send before we actually had our ordinance was effective. Or you could send a no letter, which would also be strange to send if that business actually does comply with all of our land use ordinance. But our land use ordinance is simply not effective yet.

And so it makes sense that the action we take would be no letter at all under those circumstances. To me, the primary function of this is not to facilitate the growers but to facilitate a removal of nuisance elements from the community.

1:07 – 1:1818 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:07:52 · ≈ 10:07 AM

If I could just respond? Sure. So I understand and I think the consultation process you can I don't know if it's a good idea or not, but I think it's creative. But it doesn't really mean anything if after the consultation process we remain silent. What's the point of it? It would seem that the consultation process especially for talking about protecting the community is that if someone is out of compliance for a land use zone And I'm not just talking about coastal, any land use area could be in a residential. I know I have two in my district that are not in accordance with what we adopted as the ordinance. It would seem like this would be an opportunity to tell the applicant guess what? You are not in compliance with the ordinance that the board adopted and We will not submit a letter saying that you are so that you can get a permanent state license.

I think that- That would

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:09:00 · ≈ 10:09 AM

be the recommendation under 1A, if they are not compliant after the consult and they insist on submitting an application for a state license we would send the letter back in the negative to the state. That's included in the- Yeah.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:09:18 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Well, I guess one could also make the case that they are not, that the Coastal Commission has not certified our ordinance. So what I'm hearing is for some things it's okay but for others it's not and so anyway I think this option 1A is very, option one Is very concerning to me because it is not consistent throughout all license types and because of all, because it's not consistent with our ordinance that we adopted.

And then just before we go on this banking and licensing issue or sorry just the banking issue. Maybe after your comments, we can hear from the treasurer's office about where they are on this. And then how that overrides anything that we may be talking about here during this transition period. Thank you Mr Chair

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

Thank you, and I do believe Deputy Director Jen Christensen is in the audience down south. And so would be able to speak to that perhaps maybe right after I just finish up the option twos here. So option two- Before you do, I

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:10:36 · ≈ 10:10 AM

do also want To reassure Supervisor Wolf, I also did detail this idea to the Executive Director of the Coastal Commission, Jack Ainsworth. So it would be no surprise to Coastal Commission staff and he raised no red flags about us going through this procedure.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:11:00 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Please proceed. Thank you, Chair. So option 2A and 2B fit within this context that I believe Supervisor Wolf was just Expanding upon, which is that these would require existing operators to continue until the end of their amortization period approximately a year from now. But they would have to seek extensions of their state temporary licenses or apply for state annual license with some kind of county verification Which would actually require a Coastal Zone Ordinance Certification. And so in many ways, if they weren't part of the existing operators that we have as legal non-conforming, they would have to really wait until that Coastal Zone Ordinance Certification occurs. So this is the option you might enjoy based on your comments and questions at the moment.

Yes, there you go. So thank you. So the option to be again still all the contingencies remain in place that we've, the board has approved already and that no verification under 2B. No verification of existing or future local permits or licenses. Or state licenses allowed until all the contingencies and certification requirements are met. And this would virtually put in place a complete ban, a complete shutdown on all cannabis operations until all those certifications and contingencies are met.

And we would have then just the enforcement issues for the non-licensed operators. So those are the options and the staff is seeking direction about which of these options you'd like us to enforce. We realize it's a difficult policy call, and I think as Councilor Guzzone mentioned a moment ago, it really is this point of tension if you will between the state system and our local system as they come online.

So there was also a request to come back on

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:13:16 · ≈ 10:13 AM

staffing. Mr Chair?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:13:18 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Supervisor Wolk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:13:19 · ≈ 10:13 AM

Thank you, before we leave that issue has there been any consideration on stopping or moratorium on the letters that we will submit now that we have our ordinance? So that there's kind of a, we had I think 300 and something licenses when you came to report to us before. And now we're up to 700 licenses in the county. And I think that's partly because of the letter that we are allowing to be submitted.

Have you given any thought to stopping that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:13:58 · ≈ 10:13 AM

So Chair Supervisor Wolf, if you look at the very last line of option 1B I did identify for your board's consideration whether or not we ought to continue the county letter system. And so I did include that as one of the options under option 1B for your board's consideration. But we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:14:16 · ≈ 10:14 AM

couldn't include that in any of the options in theory?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:14:21 · ≈ 10:14 AM

Chair, Supervisor Wolf. It would lessen the impact of option 1A certainly it would be a significant constraint on that if there were no additional letters. Partly this was to address the other parts of the supply chain particularly distribution role. That is necessary for people to be able to move product off their property. But it would certainly be in the board's discretion to figure out how they might want to factor in the county letters.

Just an important note, so Supervisor when I did report In March, I believe we had 450 or 480 licenses issued by the state. And I think at that time, I included in the chart in the back of the board letter just the distinction between state licenses and then what we're talking about here. And this is important as we talk about staffing in a moment. The number of local folks that would basically convert into local licenses and local permits, which is something much lower. It's like 100 not 400 and you may recall I described the system in the state regulations that allow a cannabis cultivator to have one medium sized license which is approximately 22,000 square feet in a building or in a greenhouse or on a outdoor cultivation site. And then basically an unlimited number of small licenses which are 10,000 square feet for indoor or for greenhouse and up to a half acre on On the outdoor cultivation that they are then stacking these licenses, many licenses per parcel.

And as we looked at our local permitting and licensing structure, we were careful not to replicate that state system of creating different licenses based on the size or the location because if we're going to do compliance checks, we're going to go to one parcel and All the state licenses that are there, because there are a single licensee and a single permitee in the County of Santa Barbara.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:16:42 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Can I just go back to your statement about the license for distribution? So if someone comes to you and says that they want a distribution license, are they getting that letter?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:16:57 · ≈ 10:16 AM

No.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:16:58 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Okay so the only way that they should be getting the letter which is what you're doing is if they say that they are a medical marijuana cultivator.

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

Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolfe that is correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:17:12 · ≈ 10:17 AM

Okay so then why and all as I recall when we allowed that distribution was not an issue because they were supposed to be non-profit and they had their own group of people who were seeking medical marijuana. So I'm not sure why You're putting an emphasis now on distribution, hence the reason why I think we should stop sending out these letters. Because what you said is that the only reason we would do that is to allow the distribution of the medical marijuana. And frankly, I don't know why we would do that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:17:51 · ≈ 10:17 AM

So, Chair and Supervisor Wolf. So you are absolutely correct that the group of folks that we offered the letter process to based on your board direction were folks that had been operating in the prior system, the collective and collaborative model that allowed basically some form of distribution to their patients into caregivers. As soon as they signed up though for a state medical cannabis license, the only path for them to move that product off their property and into the supply chain was to another licensed distributor. In effect, the collaborative and cooperative model more or less ends the day you get a state temporary cannabis cultivation license.

1:18 – 1:256 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:18:46 · ≈ 10:18 AM

The other viewpoint is that then you create a situation where there is no legal path for at least a few months time. And I think the entire philosophy behind this ordinance is that a legal path can have better compliance than having no legal path. And so that's the other viewpoint. Chair, can we continue with the staff report

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:19:18 · ≈ 10:19 AM

for a while? Yeah. So just to provide an update to you of our staffing. Currently, we went back and after looking at where we've been now after several months of receiving and processing medical cannabis cultivation license request or letter requests. Our best estimate now is that there's probably only going to be 100 to 200 permits and license applications during the first 12 months of these licenses becoming operational, or these ordinances become operational.

That's a lot fewer than what we had anticipated when we had the registry data to go on. And so, we went back and worked with the staff to really clarify those roles and responsibilities between the various departments. And identified that there's probably a reduced need for staffing based on what we see coming forward in the next 12 months. And the plan would be to then return with a fee study on May 8th and a cannabis fee ordinance.

Currently, the estimates for staffing are a cost that's slightly higher than I had previously estimated back at the end of 2017 at about 2.37 million from permitting and licensing. About 12 and a half FTEs, and then I've listed the staff from CEO, Council, Fire, Sheriff, Ag, Public Health, Planning & Development, the Treasurer, Tax Collector as all components of the application and compliance team that would be working It's important to note, these are folks that we will collect fee revenue after that if your board chooses to approve that cannabis fee ordinance. We would be collecting fee revenue to compensate the county for the provision of these services for permitting and licensing. So this would be reimbursed by those seeking licenses and permits themselves at full cost recovery.

The second column in the chart at the bottom represents the enforcement team. And as we've defined previously, enforcement is designed exclusively for addressing the unlicensed, unregulated marketplace. And at this point, we've identified and we detail this out more extensively in the board letter. Just under $2 million in costs associated with that likely to come from your general fund revenues from a variety of sources approximately nine and half FTE's.

And that would include staff from county council, DA, sheriff, ag commissioner, and planning and development. So with that, and not wanting to leave Jen out of the mix in terms of an update on the banking as was requested. These are the recommended actions for today. Consider the introduction first reading of the ordinance of the Board of Supervisors adding chapter 50, a cannabis business licensing ordinance. Read the title and waive the reading of the ordinance in full.

Receive and consider options from staff and provide direction is necessary and options during the transition period. Receive the update on the staffing that I just provided, any other directions that are necessary. And then I'd ask that you set a hearing on the administrative agenda for May 1st for the adoption second reading of the ordinance adding chapter 50 as well as making the CEQA findings. With that chair at your discretion if you want to Ms. Christensen to provide an update on the banking circumstances, that might be a good time to-

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:23:05 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Yes I believe Supervisor Wolf requested update on the banking circumstances Please proceed Ms. Christensen? Good morning. Good morning.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:23:17 · ≈ 10:23 AM

Sorry, it's odd to speak to you remotely. I apologize. Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the board, Jennifer Christensen, Chief Investment Officer and Deputy Treasurer. With respect to banking we have established an account with a well capitalized recognized banking institution one that the county has had a long standing relationship with We are still working through the piece that for lack of a better phrase, we still need to figure out how to get the money into the account. But we are confident from the treasurer's office that we will be able to do so and are working through a list of vendors for that purpose and believe that we will have something in place by the end of June which would be well timed with whatever outcome there is for the tax measure.

And if there's any other questions, I would be happy to answer them.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:24:15 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Any questions from the members?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:24:17 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Supervisor Lavenino. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you for that update and I just wanted to also let you know that we, and I don't know how, if we would even be interested In the idea that the state is pushing forward with Senator Hertzberg's bill to establish a state chartered bank. I think it's SB 930, and it's through the collaboration with the Board of Equalization past Chairwoman Fiona Ma.

And we talked about this in ledge committee yesterday that there's a hearing April 18th that I know our government advocates are going to be attending. If they did set up a state chartered bank like that, I don't know how much you know about the situation. But would we be more interested in looking at a state chartered bank or with our own kind of relationships that we've built with our own partners?

1:25 – 1:3515 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:25:20 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Through the chair, Supervisor Lavagnino. I think we're open to exploring all of our options to see what fits best not only with the county's needs but the county's needs in this unique situation dealing with cannabis sourced revenues. And certainly we've been tracking and I've been tracking the discussions in the working group progress on a state chartered bank. A great option but with many obstacles, but definitely open to that possibility. Okay thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:25:53 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Other questions from supervisors? Well Harry gave me the blow by blow on the banking and we appreciate both of your good work on this. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:26:05 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Thank you. I have a question.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:26:08 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Supervisor Wolk?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:26:09 · ≈ 10:26 AM

So Mr. Gazzone, I think in the ordinance it talks about The operative date would be, part of it would be when the tax collector has an account with a bank. But it sounds like from what Ms. Christensen said that it's almost a two-step process. So it's not just getting the account but also getting the money, the actual funds into the account. Which she expects will probably be taken care of in June.

So do we need to clarify that in the ordinance, or is that just assumed? That's what it means.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:26:55 · ≈ 10:26 AM

I'd like to take a second and actually look at that for a moment and respond back to you as we go forward. And again, we've got a couple contingent items on here that I want to wrap up all into one answer.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:27:06 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Very good, thank you.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:27:11 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Any further questions or comments from staff? We will take public comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:27:19 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Chair Williams, members of the board, we have about nine requests to speak. We're going to start in Santa Barbara with three speakers in Santa Barbara, John Defriel to be followed by Robert Bordello.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:27:47 · ≈ 10:27 AM

All right, good morning Chair Williams and Board of Supervisors. Thank you for my opportunity to speak with you this morning. I'd like to speak in support of option 1A. This is our best chance to maintain compliance unfortunately for the most compliant operators and the earliest adopters Current state licensing model, our first licenses start expiring May 1st. So while this option 1A gets us into compliance with the annual licenses starting in June we will still have a potential gap in licensure and compliance so unfortunately not having some sort of temporary authorization for adult use in the meantime means the most compliant operators are at the greatest risks We're still seeing large competition with the thriving black market who has not sought any sort of licensure.

At a minimum, we would request that there are additional medical affidavits added as an addendum to the existing affidava that we have allowing for nursery distribution and processing because like was discussed previously those are Uses that were once allowed under cultivation and only since the new licensing structure has been created where those divided out and no longer part of the same Robert Berdello to be followed by Dylan Johnson.

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:29:43 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Good morning board, my questions have been answered. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:29:49 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Dylan Johnson in Santa Barbara and then we're going to come back to Santa Maria for Josh Jensen

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:29:57 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Good morning Supervisors, Dillon Johnson Legal Counsel for the City of Carpinteria. The city wishes to express its gratitude and support for the revisions made to the business license regulations to incorporate the caps that are being proposed and the city supports the one who expresses support for the ordinance as proposed to your board today. The city also wants to take this opportunity to comment on the transition period options being presented The city strongly believes that the only legal and appropriate action is to not take any action or inaction. That allows new or expanded uses to begin operating prior to the certification of the LCP, and to enforce against any illegal operators to ensure that occurs.

The city believes that any other action would violate the Coastal Act Planning and Zoning Law and CEQA in these circumstances. And that silence here would constitute essentially an affirmative approval. If the county's regulations do not yet authorize the cannabis use as being proposed because they are not yet effective through the LCP process, we believe the county has a duty to inform the state that anyone proposing to undertake such activities is not legal under the county's current code.

Furthermore, no CEQA review has been conducted yet on the impacts that would derive from new or expanded uses during this transition period when the regulations are not effective. The programmatic EIR that was prepared for the ordinance depended on the regulations being effective in many instances to mitigate the negative impacts of cannabis uses. By authorizing new or expanded uses, we also are concerned that the county is putting itself in a complicated and problematic position where the users that are authorized during the transition period may claim a type of vested right or legal non-conforming status. that once the LCP is actually certified by the Coastal Commission and making it difficult for the county to bring these users into compliance later on down the road, especially if the ultimately certified LCP makes some of these users that are authorized in this period either wholly or partially illegal once it is actually approved by the commission.

So in closing, the city would support only an option that merely allows the status quo to be maintained. Meaning allowing existing legal non-conforming users to continue during this transition period. We believe that would be option 2A though admittedly we're not extremely clear on how these options are functioning but that is the core of what the city supports and I thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:32:30 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Josh Hinson and then Renee O'Neill here in Santa Maria.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:32:35 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Hello everyone from the board, I'd like to thank you for having me. I'd like to thank you all for the attention that you've put on this matter, I think it's very commendable. One of the things I'd like to touch on is that some of the gentlemen that have been here have said how the distribution and the medical and adult use is kind of a blurred area at this point in time.

I urge the county to put some clarity on this because without distribution Whether you have a state license or not, you're not in compliance. You don't have a way to get your product off of the property and into the consumer's hand. This is going to be something that brings a lot of tax revenue to the county for distribution like another gentleman spoke about with processing.

These are all things that are necessary in this industry to remain compliant. We all have a similar goal here, and that's to the safety of the children. Bring tax revenue to the county and for people to be compliant. We need to have clear lines between what's legal and what's not legal with excuse me I didn't bring my notes. The only way to keep the kids safe is to eliminate a black market, really.

You have to have clear channels of cultivation and distribution to bring down the cost to the consumer. If the cost to the consumer doesn't go down Then there's going to remain a black market. This is a very big deal, your neighbor isn't brewing beer and selling it to the other people in the community. And there's a reason because he can't produce it as cheap as Budweiser or somebody else. So with all the agricultural land that we have, Advantage of all that and allow these people to to cultivate to a point where they can bring it to the public at a reasonable rate.

And do that in a safe manner. So it's important that we put in all these channels of distribution, retail. I agree that it shouldn't be anywhere near schools or anything else but the county should decide where they want it, how they want it and put those measures in place so we can all comply. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

1:35 – 1:4510 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed1:35:25 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Good morning Chair Williams and Supervisors, it's lovely to be back here again. I thank you for all your hard work and I can't wait for this to be over on all our behalves. I really liked what Supervisor Wolf said regarding Having a, once the people go through the consultation process it's a yay or a nay. If you're there why not? And then because there's growers that are applying for numerous licenses in some cases it helps to Prevent anyone from, any of those little licenses for this aspect or that aspect from slipping through the loopholes.

So I think it's a good idea to have a yay or nay on each individual license. Then there was somebody up here speaking on women growers being 40%. They said 40%, I'm like, wait a second here. If we're doing this equally shouldn't it be 50%? So I just wanted to say if women are being given licenses for growing let's make it an even deal and I really support the growers that are trying to be compliant or doing their best to be compliant I'm really looking forward to the enforcement occurring in Tapiskaya Canyon with growers that continue just this weekend.

Cutting down more oak trees, grading more land. Six new hoop houses going up in the last month. What's it been Lil? You've got a view of their farm from across the way and the generators that are coming up, the fuel tankers that are coming up, the water I really would like and my husband asked me to ask you. Are these growers going to be allowed to transport water to their farms if they don't have enough water on their land?

Because we have water tankers coming through 24-7 now. It's not three or four days a week, or five or six days a week, it's now seven days a week because they keep expanding. So please help us. Thanks. Eliminate the bad actors and support the people that I've heard speaking, the growers that I've heard speaking that I'm very supportive of the way they're doing it. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:37:57 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Graham Farrar and then we'll hear from Jared Ficker.

CommentRobert BordelloProposed · by introduction1:38:02 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Good morning, Chair Williams and board. I'd like to thank you guys again and staff for all of your work. The understanding of the nuance reflected in the staff's report on this transition period is impressive. There's a lot of detail to it and I appreciate everyone's time working on it. We'd like to support option 1A with an emphasis on moving the consultation process forward and allowing other aspects that the industry needs of the supply chain to establish. I think the way that we should be thinking about this is that it's a next stage in tightening the filters around the industry. We went from Article 10 to the registry, to the affidavit and now to this consultation process where it's the first step for communities like Carpinteria to have some filtering on where people are doing this and how they're doing it but in a way that allows us to stay consistent and compliant with The state licensing requirements.

The impact of missing or having a gap and not lining up with the state impacts those of us who are trying to do it the best, the most. And that's not what we want from a filtering process. We want people who aren't in the system. We want people who aren't in zoning that is allowable. We want people who are within buffer zones to go away and the people who are trying to do it right and they're in the right place to do I'd also like to point out too as a reminder that there is never a speak now or forever hold your peace moment for the county at any point with the state. Anywhere in the process, anywhere after the process if an operator's not in compliance with our local ordinances and rules, the county is able to tell the state and the state will revoke that operators license so we should keep people who want to be in the system moving.

And if at any point something diverges, we can stop it then. We haven't missed the boat. Thank you guys very much for your support.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:50 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Jared Ficker to be followed by Lil Clary.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:39:58 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Chair Williams and members of the board, Jared Ficker. Again I'd like to thank you and the staff for providing a clear legal pathway for commercial cannabis operators in Santa Barbara County. Santa Barbara County is somewhat unique in the state in that commercial cannabis operators have really embraced a culture of compliance here and have aggressively sought licensing to participate in the new state legal market.

That's quite different in other jurisdictions throughout the state. And so we've made this point previously because we provide clarity on legal pathways and a process here, folks have really embraced compliance. I first want to comment on the transition part of the process to make sure we maintain these pathways of compliance and we don't have any break. I think staff has done an excellent job outlining the options for operators to make sure we have compliance pathways. As related to the transition, we support option 1A as outlined by Mr. Basanich and the staff. It is the best option to maintain compliance and provides a pathway for participation of the standards set forth in your ordinance which we've all done a tremendous amount of work on.

Again, it's really critical that we maintain compliance and have a pathway during this transition process. These planning consults that could start as early as June or July having the resources in time to get those things done and move forward I think is quite critical. So getting specifically to the business license ordinance, we support it as presented today.

Staff have put a great deal of effort into it and I think it's well crafted and address some of the issues we brought up previously. One final item just for discussion purposes, and this has to do with retail licenses. We've been so focused on cultivation and other aspects The commercial cannabis sector. But having reviewed this in a little more detail, I'd strongly suggest a merit-based system for the retail licenses. Right now there's a sort of prequalification method and then essentially a lottery system. And I think a merit based system is going to produce operators in the system that Actually, it will favor potentially local operators and people that understand and know the nuances of this community. I'm concerned that this lottery based system will bring a lot of outsiders that are not familiar with what it takes to operate and be part of our community in Santa Barbara County.

With that said, thanks for all the hard work that staff has done and all of you in participating in this process. Thank you. We have a question from Supervisor Hartman.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:42:49 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Could you expand on a merit-based system?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:42:52 · ≈ 10:42 AM

Yeah, I mean briefly in most other jurisdictions and we've participated in retail applications and other jurisdictions. And most notably in our own community the Santa Barbara City has just completed a process some a couple weeks ago these were essentially they set a number of licenses and people applied for those and they were almost like an RFP where they were evaluated based on merits and appoints system I think there are some ways that you could implement that with the business license ordinance as presented, but the pre-qualification aspect of this requires you to have land leased or owned and then you put in and then you're in a lottery.

Once you're in the lottery and you get one of those eight licenses, you kind of lose control of evaluating based on the merits. So we would recommend front loading this and making it merit-based. I understand some of the rationale for a lottery but I'm not sure a lottery system really gets you the best results. And I'd look to the city's process. We really want the best operators not necessarily the lucky ones. Thank you.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:44:04 · ≈ 10:44 AM

And just a few other factors then that would define merit?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:44:08 · ≈ 10:44 AM

Well, certainly experience compliance in the city of Santa Barbara. They did put some preferences on local ties to the community. I think one of the biggest aspects of the city's process which you could certainly consider in the county as well is essentially the business plan. Which includes components related to security and all those elements. So I think good business plans and having something that you can evaluate, I think is gonna get, and you can lay out those criteria in a point system. So again, I just think merit based and looking at that versus sort of a random draw is probably gonna produce better operators.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:44:59 · ≈ 10:44 AM

One more question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Some communities really don't want this and some do. Could that fit into a merit system or maybe that's a question for County Council?

1:45 – 1:526 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed1:45:13 · ≈ 10:45 AM

In terms of localities I think there could be, you know certainly folks could find locations and you know I think as you've done in the ordinance you've tried to allow these for different jurisdictions. I think you can provide guidance as to where you want to preference these two as an evaluation criteria for any kind of system. And again, I do want to emphasize. I mean, I think if you put more loading into the pre-application process in terms of looking at the merit side of it, you can do that.

I would just suggest then potentially removing the lottery aspect of it because again, lucky doesn't necessarily produce the best. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:46:05 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Lil Clary? To be followed by Richard Ledbetter.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:46:12 · ≈ 10:46 AM

I'd like to amplify some of the remarks I made in the written comment. We've been involved in this process for just over a year now, my notes reflect that I spoke before you on April 4th of 2017 and it is definitely time to retire these visor caps. The fashion police have informed me that the color is no longer viable We recognize the hard work of the supervisors and the hard work of county staff who can't possibly have worked less than 24 hours a day throughout this whole process.

In Tepeskay, we're fighting to preserve our unique environment. We want to insist that the county deal with the illegal operators who have infested our community over the last couple of years. This definitely colors our approach to what we're hearing and seeing at these meetings, the options for example. When we're dealing with the illegal operators who run generators night and day and who are traveling our roads unsafely, we would really like to see the fastest possible mechanisms put in place to deal with these individuals.

The Land Use Ordinance and the Business License Ordinance give us hopes that we can achieve our goals and protect our neighborhood. I'd like to quote from your own document this morning, the purpose and authority section 50-1 of the licensing operation Encourage a well-regulated cannabis industry to eliminate illegal cannabis operations and access to illegal and untested Cannabis, and to protect the health life safety in general welfare of residents particularly vulnerable minors These are excellent goals. We'd like to see them implemented. Thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:48:07 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Richard Ledbetter Then we're going to go back to Santa Barbara for one final speaker. We had a late request from Anna Carrillo, Richard?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:48:16 · ≈ 10:48 AM

Yes, hello board. I have no involvement in the pot industry. I'm here as just a taxpayer of Santa Barbara County and it was the article in the Santa Maria Times that prompted me to show up today. A couple items. As we all know, we still have a lot of legacy costs for Santa Barbara County employees and this seems to be accelerating as we go forward. Depending on the investments that the county has. My concern is, although I don't think it's any way around it, is developing another bureaucracy such as planning development which I do see this industry is probably going to be requiring at some point maybe not as large but still quite a bit.

And I just go by the numbers that were presented where it was suggested last year, meaning December of last year. It was going to be 4 million and 26.5 employees. We go the new payroll schedule and it's gonna be 17% less employees but 7.5% more money. At that rate we're gonna be at 5 million within two years. All things being equal, which is what it is. Now I don't know because I haven't been to all the meetings or what have you, what the fee schedule's gonna be. I would like to see this industry pay for itself and basically we're starting fresh.

And I know there was efforts some years back to where planning and development was supposed to be fairly self-sustaining. And based on their fees, I would hope they are having just gone through a remodel project. It bringing into mind where the enforcement is not funded yet. I would like to see that wrapped into the umbrella of the whole industry. With what you're going to do, because I do believe once these legal growers are gonna come on the black market.

The illegals growings and what have you are gonna continue if not accelerate like in planning development where you have code enforcement done by building inspectors. I could see we could have something in ag similar and just like in the building department, the fees and such pay for them to come out. So I guess my main concern is let's make this thing pay for itself.

We're not getting anywhere flush as far as accounting. And then the other thing is, and I'll leave this with this thought, A problem in my mind, but taking the numbers once again. If we take the processing and compliance aspect at 2.37 mil 12 and a half employees, okay? We're talking about $190,000 per employee. I don't pretend to figure out your legacy cost that still seems pretty extreme unless you're talking Heads of departments, I don't imagine these folks are that.

You back out 500,000 for infrastructure or whatever else, you're still talking 150,000 per person. You get down to the enforcement which it was shown I guess with sheriff, I don't know who exactly who would be. But even at that, it's $206,000 per employee. That seems to me to be pretty extreme. I don't know where those numbers come from. I'm sure county has whatever that they use. But I'll tell you what as an enforcement, I'll do it for 50 grand no benefits, no nothing. Anyway thank you and I think this problem is just something that It's done.

California wants it legal, I'm just not a big fan of it. But at least from the cost standpoint we can control that here and I'm a resident who's been here 30 years. We have to watch where that money is going. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:52:09 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Back to Senator Barbara for Anna Correa who's our final speaker.

1:52 – 1:588 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:52:16 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. I want to commend the Board of Supervisors, the staff for the amount of time and everything that's been done. I'm speaking this morning on behalf of the Carpinteria Valley Association. We are thanking the board for banning the outdoor cultivation in the coastal zone and limiting the number of cultivation sites in the Carpentaria area.

We are in favor of the cannabis business process and agree with staff that having a county executive officer as lead coordinator and hearing officers separate from the permitting process is a good idea. We like the transparency involved in posting on the county's website, the pre-qualified retail applicant list and the pre qualified cultivation applicant list.

CBA requests the option, I know there are a lot of problems with all the four options that are being presented. That will result in the least growing and the most regulation of that growing. This has been going on in our area for two years and it'll be probably three-and-a-half years before all said and done. This past Friday and Saturday people were forced to keep their windows closed to keep the stink out even though it was too warm inside and nice and cool outside. The impacts from odor, traffic noise, night lighting need to be minimized as soon as possible.

We like the consultation model and we agree with Wolf that the letters should stop so I think those who have the medical marijuana or medical cannabis licenses through this transition period. Work out some sort of consultation model but stop new letters from being issued to the state. I know the city has asked for the support for option 2A, no new or expanded uses during the transition period. I know there's a problem with that July 1st 2018 date of distribution but we are continuing to have problems in the Carpentry area till the Coastal Commission acts And the amortization period runs out.

So even though we have many, you know, we probably have some very good operators maybe 22 in our area who say they have put in the odor abatement but we still have terrific problems with the odor. So there may be different requirements for the coastal zone. Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:54:39 · ≈ 10:54 AM

That concludes public comment

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:54:43 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. So some of what's been brought up, and I know especially up in the Tepesca area is about enforcement. And as we go through this transition period, I think it's important that I can't believe first off how patient y'all have been because I know what's going on out there. But I also want to let folks know that just because we're in a transition period or Doesn't mean that we have to wait for enforcement until we put together this enforcement team after we get the tax passed and we put this together.

We do know of growers that have not applied for a cannabis business license, a temporary license. And I would just like Brian Olmstead if you could from the Sheriff's Department That we just haven't abandoned enforcement period. I'd like if you could just kind of talk about what's available to us between now and the time that we get to that enforcement team?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:55:47 · ≈ 10:55 AM

You're correct, we are starting to work on enforcement ideas with our moratorium that the county already has plus with now temporary licenses issued. It's starting to give us a lot more options and availability to do enforcement. Recently, we've had meetings with the district attorney's office, Fish and Wildlife, and evaluating various properties to start doing enforcement actions on since we know there's a lot of properties that do not have temporary license issued. We do have a little bit of staffing and some time to do some enforcement so we will start doing enforcement.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.891:56:27 · ≈ 10:56 AM

So heads up if you're out there and you're not following the rules right now. The second question I had was, And I guess, maybe it's for Dennis. I heard that the state is out in the last couple of days and I think even some of the growers here have probably been visited. I'm just curious how our Ag Commissioner, I think Kathy Fisher might even join this state?

What exactly is going on there and can you just kind of tell me about how that all went down?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:56:58 · ≈ 10:56 AM

Yes, Chair Supervisor Lavinino. There are four teams of Cal Cannabis Enforcement staff in our county this week and they plan on conducting 60 cultivation license inspections throughout the entire county. I joined them yesterday for one location and frankly they were very impressed there is a lot that they ask and that they're going Over again just for the cultivation license requirements and just for this one location. We were there for about two hours Great, so they'll be in the county through the end of the week

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:57:31 · ≈ 10:57 AM

perfect. Thank you Other questions comments supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.841:57:39 · ≈ 10:57 AM

I just wanted to follow up on enforcement. I know in my neighborhood we have somebody who's operating and not on the registry and not permitted, and I know there have been complaints filed. I'm not sure where but what I would like is for you Mr. Bozanich or P&D Mr. Olmstead, to tell us what should people do when they're observing people who they suspect are not in compliance and who don't have a permit?

1:58 – 2:0323 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:58:15 · ≈ 10:58 AM

So I guess over the last couple of years, a lot of people have called and complained and we've been limited through the years on doing some enforcement but as Going to this point, we're going to have a lot more options for enforcement and especially after the ordinance is passed. We'll have additional resources to do enforcement actions. Right now they can call their local sheriff's substation if they're in obviously the county area or an incorporated area and that information will be sent to the Narcotics Bureau.

They can call I'm sure the CEO's office and they'll pass information on or P&D or County entity since we've all over the last year and a half been working together and trying to identify the properties in the locations that aren't complying or they're not being good neighbors and complying with whatever local rules there are.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed1:59:14 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Mr. Chair and members of the board, with respect to planning and development we have an enforcement line. We receive complaints online and people can come into the counter and talk to somebody so there's different ways of filing a complaint. And if we receive a complaint, we will coordinate with the sheriff's

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:59:34 · ≈ 10:59 AM

office. Can you tell us what that phone number is?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed1:59:37 · ≈ 10:59 AM

I could if I had it in

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:59:38 · ≈ 10:59 AM

front of me. Somebody will

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed1:59:40 · ≈ 10:59 AM

get it

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role1:59:40 · ≈ 10:59 AM

for me soon. You're going to get good staff work here and have someone hand you the phone number momentarily?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed1:59:47 · ≈ 10:59 AM

I will say, we do have limited staffing resources to follow up on enforcement items including cannabis until some additional resources come to bear. So we won't be able to follow up on everything the minute we receive a complaint, if we receive a lot of complaints.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:00:04 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Supervisor Hartman has another

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:00:05 · ≈ 11:00 AM

question. Thank you, so we'll get the phone number can people then make the complaint over the phone or do they have to file something in writing and can they remain anonymous because there are people who are afraid?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:00:22 · ≈ 11:00 AM

So I can answer one of those questions, which is please provide an address. That is the hardest part for enforcement staff, without a parcel staff or an address to initiate an enforcement

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:00:35 · ≈ 11:00 AM

action. And if I might add then how do you coordinate?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:00:39 · ≈ 11:00 AM

That's a lot of questions. I will try, okay. Mr. Chair and members of the board first of all we have two enforcement lines one North County one South County if you get the wrong line don't worry we'll sort it out. The North County line is 805-934-6251 South County is 805-568-3558 and those phone numbers are on our website There's also an online report process that's on that same page.

So, there's a difference between telling us who you are and the reporting party remaining anonymous. We require that we have a reporting party to act upon a complaint. We do not release that information unless we're compelled to. And we have been compelled to on occasion by the courts Not very often, but it does happen.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:01:39 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Give us an idea how often that has happened and whether or not that's happened in cannabis cases?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:01:47 · ≈ 11:01 AM

Mr Chair and board members I don't believe it's happened in cannabis cases. It's happened a couple of times in the last few years that I'm aware of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:01:58 · ≈ 11:01 AM

If I could just chime in, because I think P&D has been very helpful. In a couple of instances in my district where it hasn't really been the law enforcement piece because of the coordination with the district attorney but P&E has taken enforcement action if there are electrical systems out of compliance, if there's buildings that are unsafe and they've been I mean, it's taken a while. But there is definitely a process that P&D goes through in certain instances.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:02:33 · ≈ 11:02 AM

So Mr. Chair just to be a bit more specific on the number of times we've had to release reporting information. I am receiving a text right now from staff watching. It's been twice since 2008. That's not that

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:02:47 · ≈ 11:02 AM

often. That's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:02:50 · ≈ 11:02 AM

pretty

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:02:51 · ≈ 11:02 AM

reassuring.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:02:52 · ≈ 11:02 AM

I believe there was one other question about how we coordinate? As soon as we receive a complaint regarding cannabis, we contact the sheriff's office because we are not going to investigate those complaints alone and so we begin coordination immediately. We have good relationship with the Sheriff's Department.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:03:12 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:03:14 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Hart. One follow-up, I think you said that there was an online way to register complaints and that address?

2:03 – 2:0812 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:03:24 · ≈ 11:03 AM

You would think I would know these. And

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:03:26 · ≈ 11:03 AM

while I'm asking, do we have a frequently asked questions or is there some place where people can learn more about what we've done so far?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:03:38 · ≈ 11:03 AM

Mr. Chair and members of the board, the Planning and Development Department's website is svcountyplanning.org And you have to go into some sub tabs. You've got to go into the permitting page, zoning page, violation page. If you can investigate a little bit, you have to kind of look around. It's gripping and then your other question I'm sorry. Do we have frequently asked questions?

Mr. Chair and members of the board, we do. They're mainly I think focused on medical cannabis but we are in the process of updating our webpages and we will do that.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:04:27 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Then I had a question just on timing of Would it speed up the consultation process if we were able to do second reading sooner than May 1st? Because I think one of the real issues here is The sooner we are able to start the consultation process, the sooner we can dispense with letters and other things that some might view as loosey-goosey. It helps us button this down quicker.

So how quickly can we start initiating consults?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:05:17 · ≈ 11:05 AM

So I actually, I think I want to really invite Mr. Gazzone because I think it does go back to the other question that was raised about the ordinance language around what constitutes meeting the contingency of opening the bank account which were the pure words that are in your ordinance and based on what Ms. Christensen shared with us today, Mr. Gazzone did look at that as you, as your board requested so I defer to him at this point

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:05:45 · ≈ 11:05 AM

The chair and supervisors, I'll start just by looking at the operative language in section four of the business license ordinance which is has two prongs with an end between them. So it becomes operative only if both treasurer's able to open an account and the board adopts cannabis license related fees so that those are the triggers so the board has control Of after the end of adopting the cannabis license related fees. And I think that part of the input for adopting cannabis License-related fees would be hearing from the treasurer that there's actually a mechanism to deposit those funds pulling up to 10,000 feet and note that the On the land use side, we have three ordinances. The Coastal Zoning Ordinance, the Montecito Land Use Code and the Inland Land Use and Development Code which have language very similar to the first prong that I've just said.

The county treasurer is able to open an account with a suitable financial institution. Going to Supervisor Williams' question of would it speed the process to have a second reading sooner than May 1st? I would say that certainly not for the coastal zone because the effective date is the ladder of The effective date by the county and the certification by the Coastal Commission

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:07:09 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Supervisor Williams, I have a Another perspective on that, but it basically gets to the same point that Mr. Gazzini is making because if we did look at that could we start the consultation earlier or can we do the second reading earlier and start the consultation? And the issue would be for the consultation we would still need to charge consultation fees and it gets to the point then again of do we have a bank to deposit those fees so in a practical matter it still goes back to the ordinance and the treasurer opening an account

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:07:39 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Of course, scheduling a consult is different than actually having the consult. So why wouldn't it speed up? Why wouldn't we be able to go through the work of actually scheduling it because then there will be further delay between when we open it up and we can actually schedule and then have the actual consults.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:08:08 · ≈ 11:08 AM

I'm looking at Ms. Black, if that's possible to schedule the consults prior to the operative date?

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

Mr. Chair and members of the board, I suppose it's possible if we're talking about the banking not being in place until the end of June then we may want to schedule them mid-June but I don't think that the May 1st second reading is really going to postpone anything because we couldn't schedule amount more than about two weeks before we could accept funds

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:08:46 · ≈ 11:08 AM

So we could schedule them, but it wouldn't actually change the date to change the operative. I don't believe

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:08:53 · ≈ 11:08 AM

so. Okay.

2:08 – 2:2017 turns

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:08:56 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Well that's it partially responsive and some days that's better than anything else you're going to get. Any other questions from the board? Supervisor Harp?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:09:07 · ≈ 11:09 AM

I wanted to follow up with Mr. Gazzone about the retail licenses and whether we could do something more as was suggested with a merit-based system rather than just a lottery?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:09:26 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Chair and Supervisors, we had looked at the defensibility of various options and felt that the random drawing approach was the most defensible. And feel more strongly on that point now that the business license ordinance actually has some restrictions on cultivation locations for example not outdoors in the coastal zone so the more Provisions in the business license ordinance that regulate a use in the coastal zone. The more we feel that the random base system is the most defensible approach, so that we don't run into uniformity problems within a business license ordinance that actually has some crossover with the land use.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:10:19 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Well, any comments from the board? Is there a motion? Supervisor Lavinia.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:10:35 · ≈ 11:10 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair. I think the option for me that keeps things moving in the direction that we're going. I want to see as many people get into the consultation process as possible. And so I would make a motion we go with option 1A. Is there a

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:10:55 · ≈ 11:10 AM

second?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.842:10:57 · ≈ 11:10 AM

I would second. I assume you're moving staff's recommendation including, so 1A for E.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:11:04 · ≈ 11:11 AM

So that would be A B C D E F and G with the option 1A

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentJared FickerProposed · by introduction2:11:16 · ≈ 11:11 AM

Supervisor Adam. Okay, so I have always felt that this process that we've gotten into is too complex, convoluted and confusing. And I've never supported this regulatory scheme and I do not support it now because I feel that it encourages and rewards people who engage in the black market while failing to generate revenue needed for enforcement. Clearly, the train has left station on this ordinance and I'm just going to be preserving my ability to say I told you so when it doesn't work out.

Supervisor Wolf?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed2:12:00 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Well, I'm going to just speak to the motion on Option 1A. What this option does is it, and it says here, it opens it to all potential cannabis operators including distributors and any adult use license. I mean, I can't honestly believe that we are taking this step to now open it even to a greater group more licenses. We are not getting any money. If the ordinance was in place, we would have a regulatory scheme. We would be getting money for the licenses.

The way that I read this is that now We're opening it up to essentially everyone who may want to get into this industry. Before at least, we had it limited to medical marijuana cultivators. Now it says all potential cannabis operators. I think this is such a disservice to our community when Supervisor Adams said Use the train analogy. I felt that way before, then I felt that we were kind of getting back on track.

We were moving down a path and now I feel like we're going into a derailment. That we should stay on course and this just In my opinion, is almost reckless that we should maintain what we have. It doesn't provide more money for enforcement. It doesn't provide money for P&D. It doesn' provide money for licensing. We should hold the line. And by holding the line, I don't even feel like we really are because we have the most licenses in this state.

And to me, it's out of control. And we are now by moving forward with option 1A, it would enhance that and something that's definitely not good for in my opinion, good for our community. We're not getting any money for it. We should wait until everything is operative. And everything is set to move forward and not allow any more operations. And I don't know if Mr. Lavagnino would even consider this.

Actually, I don't think you could because it would fly in the face of option 1A which would be that we stop issuing letters. But I think option 1A allows us to continue to not only issue letters but to enhance the opportunities for operators to get those letters from us. So I will be voting against this.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:15:15 · ≈ 11:15 AM

That actually gives a good entree to a question that I had is, can we stop issuing temp letters as soon as the consult process begins? Which to me makes sense. We don't want people to pursue temp licenses anymore once the consult begins. We want them to do permanent licensing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed2:15:40 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Chair Williams, it's a good question. I think what 1A lays out in fairly specific terms that we would be communicating with the state and we would not be verifying any request for a license through Based on the results of the consult process, if we were to find that they were not going to be compliant. And then we would be remaining silent if they are indeed and in fact could be compliant and then we would continue in the compliance or in that consultation mode.

It would be, I think valuable to note that part of the sequencing with the actual availability of being able to deposit the money is critical. Because P&D does have a consultation fee on their existing fee schedule that we would be able to use to generate revenue in order to support that consultation effort to perhaps minimize that concern.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:16:36 · ≈ 11:16 AM

That's very important, i.e., first that we can recover our costs for the consult and I think your last point was or your first point is really my last which is that 1A gives us this ability to issue negative letters when people won't fulfill the provisions of our land use ordinance which if we want Cracking on reducing the nuisance aspect of this and really force the industry either into compliance or out of business, that's a good move in that.

I will again take ownership of this consult process idea. To me, it is just vitally needed for areas like Carpinteria. But I would argue for other areas where there's concentration of nuisance and provide an incentive for operators to adopt the provisions of our ordinance and comply with the provisions of the ordinance before they are legally required to do so.

And to me that is an advantage of this option and I will be supporting it. Supervisor Labnina.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.892:18:02 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know this is difficult but from where I sit We were out of control before we tackled this thing. It's not like we lived in this beautiful nirvana where everything was working well, it wasn't. It was a disaster and that's why I got motivated to move on this is because we had a bunch of growers that were just with impunity doing whatever they wanted to do.

And so I think every step of the way that we work this and every board meeting we've been at even though You know, we've been told that the next step we're taking is the crazy step. We've continued to move forward and move towards I think what everybody's looking for which is a regulated industry with people paying taxes and paying for the enforcement of this so I will reserve the right, I will give you that right Supervisor Adam that when you come back to us and tell us we had our heads firmly planted where they don't belong.

I hope we're both here to be able to say you were right but I think starting off from where we were if we had been in this beautiful utopia where everything was working well I think that's a different argument, but at least in my district things weren't working and that's why I moved in this direction. Chair Williams?

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:19:33 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Mr. Guzzetti?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:19:34 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Just as to Supervisor Levinino's motion just for clarity for Clerk of the Board in the minutes downstream, I understand the motion is staffs' direction and at item 3C there would be option 1A as spelled out at pages 5 through 6 of the board agenda letter.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:19:53 · ≈ 11:19 AM

That's it? So thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Gazzone. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor please say aye. Aye. You want to roll call? Okay I think it's pretty clear who is in support and who is not but if you request a roll call we get you get a roll call. Ms. Hartman

2:20 – 2:247 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:20:20 · ≈ 11:20 AM

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

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:20:34 · ≈ 11:20 AM

We'll adjourn to closed session, please give us the preview. Mr.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:20:38 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Gazzani? Chair and supervisors today in closed session you will be meeting with county council on existing litigation in the case of Gaviota Coast Conservancy versus Santa Barbara County. Also one case of anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate litigation. And you will also be meeting with your real property negotiators concerning separate parcels, one at 183 Winchester Canyon Road, Goleta and two other parcels at an adjacent to 251 La Casa Grande Circle, Goleta.

As well as meeting with labor negotiators for all bargaining units on representative employees, managers, and executives.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:21:21 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Thank you. How long do you estimate?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:21:27 · ≈ 11:21 AM

My estimate is an hour and a half.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role2:21:29 · ≈ 11:21 AM

So we will return with a report from closed session in about an hour now.

CommentJared FickerProposed · by introduction2:22:20 · ≈ 11:22 AM

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah.

4:55 – 4:575 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed4:55:53 · ≈ 1:55 PM

I have a feeling they're still fighting.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:56:11 · ≈ 1:56 PM

We're back from closed session. Report from closed session, please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed4:56:15 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board considered one matter of existing litigation Gaviota Coast Conservancy versus Santa Barbara County. One decision whether to initiate litigation as well as real property negotiations including three parcels. One at 183 Winchester Canyon Road, Goleta and two parcels at or near 251 La Casa Grande Circle in Goleta. As well as conference with labor negotiators all bargaining units unrepresented employees managers and executives there are no reportable actions.

UnidentifiedChairProposed · by role4:56:49 · ≈ 1:56 PM

Thank you and then we will adjourn for budget workshops on the 16th 18th and 20th and for our regular meeting on the 1st of May

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.894:57:02 · ≈ 1:57 PM

I want someone to come out and say, there is no reportable actions.