Board of Supervisors — 2018-10-22

School District in Santa Barbara and thank you so much for being here. Thank you for having me! Can't wait to dive right into talk all about school education, what's ahead at Hope School District and to talk about your leadership which is truly exceptional. You're such a gem in the community not only to Hope but truly to K-12 public education. Absolutely, but a great place to start is at the very beginning. They love to hear about where you were born and your childhood and your growing up so let's start there. Okay

well just a few years ago not that long ago. So I was born in San Jose California so I'm a California girl I was the third of three girls and then later my parents added another sister. My childhood was one that could be described, I think the best word is stable. That's nice! My dad...my mother passed away a few years ago several years ago and my dad still lives in the house that I was brought home to from the hospital and so you know that's the neighborhood.

The You wanted to do this? Yeah, I had been thinking about it because we live somewhat on a border and I had an after-school job at a daycare that was the other way. And I thought you know I'm going to be walking home from school to my job at the Day Care Center. This is a good time for me to try this. It was great fun! Such a leader, then and now. Well I just really wanted to see what it was like you know?

And then both those junior highs fed into the same high school so I knew I'd be reunited not only that but when I started high school I knew everybody. Was it a large high school? Yes it's fairly large Leland High School in San Jose and then went to UCSB and I knew I had one of those experiences as a student When I was in sixth grade and I had a teacher that just connected with me, he got me. And it wasn't just me, I wasn't you know a teacher's pet or anything. It was his approach to students, to the class. It was the first time I really felt a teacher care about the class and I had great teachers don't get me wrong but it was one of those exceptional times where he would ask our opinion about things we had just great engaging curriculum, we did this science thing called the Berkeley Project where we were dissecting hearts and he brought in just really unique and fun experiences and really would connect with us as people.

And I didn't have teachers in my family or anything but it was at that year that I said I want to be a teacher and I want to be like Mr. Cook. That's what I want to do. So when I went away to college, I went to UCSB because it was by the ocean and there were surfers. Those are my two qualifications and at that point you know I knew I had looked ahead what will I need to do to get my credential? I could major in a variety of things so I chose communication because it was something that piqued my interest knew the whole time I was going to be applying to the graduate program for the teacher credential program. So, you know hit the markers.

I was involved in an amazing program at UCSB called Project Time Teachers Improving Mathematics Education and we'll say up until that point I struggled through math in high school and whatnot thought okay I will do anything to avoid Taking a math class again ever, you know thinking as an elementary school teacher. I've got that math right good But as I was hitting my prereqs for the credential program I saw some more math that I had to take and I panicked Anyways, I even thought for a while. Okay fine. I won't be a teacher What else will I do? You know, that's how much math was an impediment and then I thought, buckle up Ann.

This is ridiculous. Face your fears, get in there and take that math class. So, I took the math class and that was taught by Professor Weisglass? I don't know if you went through UCSB but- I did but didn't have- Okay so he taught an amazing approach where for the first time we were doing algebra problems. And I had a fairly good concept of basic algebra but advanced algebra I was like what?

Well, he brought in this manipulatives and algebra tiles. And it was like I get it! I see it! You know? I fully understand what's going on. And again was one of those aha moments where it sparked this like desire to what other math don't I know that now I can know.

That's

fascinating. And Dr. Weissglass tapped me for a program to be an intern for Project Time So then I at the ripe old age of, I think I started at 20. I got trained to teach math lessons very specific lessons that were generated out of Project TIME kindergarten through high school and they would go in the professors and people with project time to train teachers And interns would actually take over and instruct the classes. So I started teaching kindergarten through high school, but very specific curriculum in this math curriculum and just got this great experience as a fairly young adult.

Hi, everyone. ♪ Oh. you Hello, everyone. Hello everyone. Music playing ♪ The Hello, everyone. . You. Good morning. Good morning. you Music You.

Please call this meeting to order. Roll call, please.

Ms Wolfe here Miss Hartman here Mr Adam. Mr Lavagnino here Mr Williams here Please join me with the pledge of

allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to We will take public comment for items not on the agenda.

Good morning, I've been trying to remodel my house for about five years. I got the second story outlined in red above and it's located over the garage, the kitchen, the dining room and part of the living room. We were rejected because they claim that it's located solely over the garage which makes no sense. Matter of fact one of my first talks was you can't make sense of no sense and that's precisely being here.

I kind of try to summarize things into a short order here that we have in the second district is a reign of terror, lying and dirty tricks. Let me start off with we were kicked out of our fifth meeting after having a five-to-two vote in our favor. We were not told why we were being ordered out. We're ordered out in 15 seconds. We couldn't ask a question because they had Dylan jumping up and screaming at us so we could not say anything After that I was totally shocked, mortified. Just couldn't believe anything.

My blood pressure shot up to over 200 at one point and for two years I more or less struggled to get it down below 185 which I didn't realize at the time was I should have really died. My mother died of stroke and I was two years younger than her but I really should have died. I don't understand that. This is like the Middle Ages when I come down here, like dealing with a warlord. You know you can't do anything unless the warlord approves of it and that's what the Second District has been like.

One time about a year later or so I'm sitting in the audience and actually trying to get my book out to read while I listen to what's going on A guard comes up to me and says that you have to leave. I said, why? Because somebody doesn't want you here. This is not typical of public meetings especially when he's just sitting in the audience. He started to get his nightstick out And I hurried to get my books and my paperwork together because I truly feared for my life that I was going to get whacked across the back of the head. As he moved, getting his nightstick out so he can position himself to hit me over the back of the head it was terrifying to me and I'm just wondering am I gonna get all the way up or am I gonna get hit before I get all the way up?

I was concerned that when you get hit in the back of the head is a soft part of your skull. That yeah, you might live but you might be a vegetable afterwards. It even horrified the members of the Board of Architectural Review who got a special meeting out of that and so this is what life has been like for me for the last almost five years You know, we got kicked out. You can't imagine to me what that means to be kicked out of a public meeting, a meeting you paid for in 15 seconds. Thank you Mr. Klosky and we'll be back.

That concludes public comment

This is a special meeting today. There is only one very important item on the agenda and we will hear it now.

Chair Williams, members of the board, Item 1 is for planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the California Coastal Commission certification with modifications of an amendment to the implementation plan component of the county's local coastal program regarding the cannabis land use ordinance.

Good morning Chair Williams, members of the board. For the record my name is Dan Clemon I'm the Deputy Director of Long Range Planning. I'm here with Mr Steve Mason, the Assistant Director for Planning and Development as well as Miss Karina Venegas our newest and brightest planner for long range planning who has been assisting me recently with this project.

And of course we're here to discuss the Coastal Commission Certification of the Cannabis Local Coastal Program Amendment or what we refer to as the LCPA. So just by the way, background on February 6th and 27th of this year your board adopted four ordinances. One for the land use and development code, a second for the article two coastal zoning ordinance which is the subject of today's hearing.

A third which amended the Montecito Land Use and Development Code. And these ordinances specified where and under what conditions commercial cannabis activities are allowed in unincorporated areas of the county. In addition to those three ordinances, you also passed an ordinance to partially repeal and amend the Article 10 medical marijuana regulations that were in effect at the time at which you adopted the commercial cannabis ordinances.

In addition, in May of this year you also adopted a business licensing ordinance to be administered by the Treasurer Tax Collector and County Executive Office. And this new ordinance added a new chapter 50 to the county code and it specifies who may obtain a license to conduct the various commercial cannabis activities that are allowed pursuant to the zoning ordinances that I just discussed.

And then also in May, your board authorized us that is planning and development staff to submit the local coastal program amendment to the Coastal Commission staff. To be processed and considered by the Coastal Commission and we did so on May 21st So on October 10th, the Coastal Commission considered the local coastal program amendment. And once again that included not only the amendments to the article two coastal zoning ordinance or what's also called the implementing ordinance of our local coastal program but we also included the chapter 50 cannabis business licensing regulations as well. The Coastal Commission adopted the amendments or should I say certified them subject to four groups of modifications which I will go through right now.

With regard to the changes included as part of modification number one, the Coastal Commission added a number of definitions that were set forth in the business licensing ordinance. They pulled those over and add those to the article two zoning ordinance just to achieve consistency between the two ordinances with regard to some of the terms that are used in those two ordinances.

They also revised some of the definitions, just once again to make them consistent with the corresponding definition in the business license ordinance. And then also just word smithing that clarify some of the regulations. And then once again because the purpose of adopting these new regulations is to effectively repeal and get rid of the old medical marijuana regulations. The Coastal Commission staff also included modifications to pull out some glossary terms that solely apply to the medicinal marijuana regulations. As well.

With regard to the changes included as part of modification number two, a number of these changes were actually unrelated to the proposed cannabis regulations. We had a number of local coastal program amendments and changes to regulations unrelated to cannabis that are in the works or were in the works at the time which we submitted our application. So what the Coastal Commission staff did, and rightfully so is they went through and struck out all of the language that is in the works but has not yet been codified. Just to make sure that when or if the cannabis regulations are certified they will reflect actual LCP language as it currently exists. Once again a number of the pending uncertified non-cannabis regulations were removed. But depending on the outcome of the LCPs associated with those regulations those may be added in the future.

Okay, so modification number three I believe includes the majority of what I would call the more substantive changes to the local coastal program amendment. And it included everything from deleting references that we included to uncertified documents. So for example you might recall Dr. Russell before he retired amended the cultural threshold guidelines. We had direct references to those guidelines and some of our regulations. And the Coastal Commission staff suggested the Coastal Commission, the Coastal Commission pulled those references out. And that's because they don't like to certify language that has references to outside documents. They either want to certify those documents themselves as part of the local coastal program or pull out the reference altogether so that's what they did in this situation.

They also made a number of clarifications to the standards, not only to make explicit references to for example existing regulations regarding environmentally sensitive habitat. But they also clarified for example that nursery cultivation is one type of cultivation. And as such, it is subject to all the development standards of cultivation which are set forth in the amendments. With the one exception being that your board specifically adopted a buffer for nurseries from sensitive receptors that is 600 feet whereas all of the other types of commercial cannabis activities have a buffer of 750 feet. They preserved that one distinction but with regard to all the other aspects of cultivation It is treated the same way as cultivation and they made very minor edits to clarify that.

They also revised the use table, which sets forth in which zones the commercial cannabis activities are allowed. And they restructured it to identify the principally permitted use and for example in the Ag 1 zone and Ag 2 zones, the principally permitted use is the cultivation of cannabis such that manufacturing a distribution that would also occur on those lots. That's accessory not considered to be the principally permitted use of that zone.

And then once again, the Coastal Commission pulled over certain restrictions that were set forth originally in the Business Licensing Ordinance. And more specifically they included the 186 acre cap on cultivation within the Carpentria Agricultural or CA overlay and added that to article two because once again they did not want to certify the business licensing ordinance as I'll describe in a minute.

And then finally, they had a number of minor edits just to make sure that the wording of some of our proposed regulations were consistent with some of the existing policies in the local coastal program. Okay, so in addition to those changes the Coastal Commission also added a ban on outdoor cultivation for areas that are located within two miles of urban areas. Or more specifically where the urban rule boundary line is located. So for example, in the Carpinteria Valley that line is coterminous with the city boundaries. So the two mile buffer's measured from that boundary right there.

The Coastal Commission staff added this because they were particularly concerned about the effect that, for example, a complete ban on outdoor cultivation would have. Such that there would be pressure to have new greenhouse development along the Gaviota coast. So initially what the Coastal Commission staff did is they rescinded an initial prohibition that UN included in Article 2 which prohibited outdoor cultivation on Ag One lots that are less than 20 acres in size.

Lots that are zoned AG 1-5 and lots others zoned AG 1-10. Once again, initially that was removed in the two mile prohibition was added to the regulations but as part of a subsequent addendum to their modifications they put back your original language and also added this two mile buffer so The effect of it is that the two mile buffer includes all the areas that were included in your original prohibition, and then additional areas. So what the Coastal Commission staff was trying to do was once again address the land use incompatibilities that we've been experiencing in the Carpinteria Valley area yet once again tried to prevent a proliferation of greenhouse development along Gaviota if a complete ban was adopted.

So this slide just includes an excerpt from Attachment 4 to your board letter packet. This area focuses on the northwest portion of the county, such that you can see there is a small area right here next to the city of Guadalupe and a very small sliver right over here in which the two-mile ban would apply. I think more people are concerned with the South Coast, given once again the history of cannabis development down there. And this slide once again is an excerpt of Attachment 4 and as you can see by the oranges hashed area it encompasses the majority of the coastal zone along the South Coast going from the Ventura County border up to two miles west of the city of Goleta and once again does not include the Gaviota coast so once again for this extent to the West where The two-mile ban would apply, and then over here you can see it applies almost all the way to the eastern boundary of the county.

There's a small sliver that's not encompassed right there but those were already not subject to the ban so once again the two mile band encompasses the majority of the South Coast area. In addition, the Coastal Commission adopted an additional standard specifically for the Gaviota Coast whereby if accessory manufacturing or distribution occurs on an Ag-1 or Ag-2 lot on which cultivation occurs a minimum of 51% of the cannabis that is manufactured or distributed as an accessory use must be grown on the same lot as where the cultivation occurs.

So initially your board adopted a 10% standard, that is 10% of the cannabis must be grown on site. But in order to achieve consistency with a recently adopted standard for the Gaviota Coast plan whereby all other ag products are subject to the 51% requirement in order to achieve consistency with that, the coastal commission staff wanted to apply this standard specifically for cannabis to the Gaviota Coast area.

I will also say that there's similar accessory processing requirements, once again for AG-2 lots. And the main concern of the Coastal Commission is to make sure that cultivation and not the accessory processing and distribution remain the principal use of the lots. They don't want these lots turned into basically industrial lots where manufacturing is the principal use as compared to the cultivation so they added this 51% standard.

Another substantive change involves a requirement that was added, and I should say that this requirement already applies to the processing of agricultural products besides cannabis. It's already stated in Article 2 Zoning Ordinance but just to reinforce this requirement, Coastal Commission staff specifically added a requirement that says if you are going to be processing cannabis that's grown from off-site either In the form of manufacturing or distribution, that cannabis must be sourced from ag lands located within 25 miles of Santa Barbara County.

The intent behind this requirement is to protect local agriculture and the Coastal Commission staff once again identified this requirement for all other types of agricultural processing and felt it was important to add this specifically to cannabis. This is just a simple slide, this is an excerpt from the map that's included in your board letter. It shows the extent of the 25 mile area surrounding Santa Barbara County and includes portions of the southern portion of San Luis Obispo, western portions of Kern County, and then northern portions of Ventura County. So that would be the area within which the cannabis could be sourced if it is going to be processed as an accessory use.

Dan, we have a question. Supervisor Hartman?

Thank you. So this doesn't apply if we had a lab for testing it's just for the manufacturing?

That is correct. Excuse me Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman that is correct. It's manufacturing distribution when its accessory to cultivation on Ag 1 and Ag 2 lots Okay, so the fourth modification involves the business licensing ordinance. Once again we submitted the business licensing ordinance as part of our local coastal program amendment application because we knew that there were certain land use controls that resided in the business licensing ordinance that did not reside in Article 2. So for example, the 186 acre cap on cultivation in the CA overlay, that was in the business licensing ordinance, not Article 2 So what the Coastal Commission did, they pulled over just those select items that had land use controls. Added those to Article 2 but refused or rejected certifying our entire business licensing ordinance because they believed that there were so many other requirements that were unrelated to the coastal act and what is within their purview.

They really did not want to Create a situation where every time we amended our business licensing ordinance, even if it was unrelated coastal regulations, we'd have to go back and amend that as part of an LCPA. So they rejected the certification of the business licensing ordinance and once again just pulled over what they believe was needed into Article 2.

But because it's not a land use ordinance, it does not nullify our business ordinance? Or does?

I'm sorry, could you please repeat the

question? How does that affect our business licensing ordinance because some of our protections are lodged in our business licensing ordinance.

That's correct so those would still also apply. What I'd say is the Coastal Commission just pulled over what they felt they had purview over and that did not add anything it did not take away it just kind Added to the LCP what they felt they wanted to keep control over, but they don't want to deal with the other standards that still will apply. Okay so the

decision.

Before you move on,

Supervisor Lavagnino. So what would have been the benefit of getting our business ordinance blessed by the Coastal Commission then?

Chair Williams, Supervisor Lavagnino, the only reason we submitted the Business License Ordinance because once again there were certain land use controls that solely resided there. They took the ones they wanted. So your decision options today with regard to modifications, obviously you may accept the certification with modifications. You may withdraw and that is amend and resubmit the LCPA if there's something in there that you find objectionable that you would like to change and then resubmit and have consideration of.

Third, you may reject the modifications. And fourth, you may choose to take no action which would mean that this certification would expire effective April 10th of 2019 which is six months following the Coastal Commission's decision to certify with the modifications. So what we are recommending that you do is that once again, you receive notice of the California Coastal Commission's certification with the four modifications. And you adopt a resolution acknowledging receipt of that notice and that you accept and agree to the modifications. We're going to agree to issue CDPs for the area that is encompassed by this local coastal program amendment which is the entire unincorporated area of the coastal zone.

And then adopt the LCP amendment with the Coastal Commission modifications. Third, we're asking that you determine that your action today is not subject to CEQA and direct us as P&E staff to transmit the resolution that reflects your board's decision this morning to the Coastal Commission Executive Director such that he could agendize this for the November Coastal Commission hearing for final acceptance of the LCPA.

That concludes my presentation. I'm more than happy to answer any additional questions you may have. Supervisor Hartman?

Thank you, this is just to ask you to repeat and clarify once again how the modification from the Coastal Commission affects hoops and what we did to ban hoops in the coastal zone on certain parcels.

Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman. So right now hoop structures that's on a separate path that is the ordinance amendments but with regard to the specific regulations that you adopted regarding hoop structures so for example treating them as outdoor cultivation that all remains there were no changes with regards to that.

That means that hoops are legal in the coastal zone, but because the two-mile buffer for at least the eastern portion of the county of the coastal zone is pretty much with the exception of a handful of parcels, the whole coastal zone. And that means hoops for the purposes of marijuana would not be permitted.

Within the areas that would be subject to those prohibition on outdoor cultivation, that is correct.

Since it's a related question about the buffer I just wanted to ask this map that you did It would be in effect in the coastal zone but the buffer would not be in effect in the inland portion? Chair

Williams, that's correct. So whereas the exhibit shows the full extent of the two miles as you pointed out it extends way into the inland areas so this prohibition only applies though to the coastal zone portion shown here. I

just wanted to clarify that because the origin Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. The reason for the regulation in the coastal zone was that one of my colleagues was not comfortable with the buffers in the inland portion and therefore we did defacto buffers in the coastal zone only. I wanted to stand by

Chairman, members of the board. Just feels a little bit like a non sequitur at this point given the conversation you're having about buffers but Mr. Gazzone and I agreed that it might be important to note on the business license ordinance elements we are going to bring back an amendment on November 13th For your board to consider about what it takes to actually have the business license operational in the coastal zone.

There is some language in there that currently calls for the certification by the Coastal Commission as making it operational, we're going to strike that language and bring that amendment back to you so that the elements of the business license ordinance would be effective in the coastal zone even without that certification. So just wanted to make that clear for everybody.

Any other questions? Supervisor Wolf.

Thank you Mr. Chair. On that map, Mr. Kleinman we had written to you on Friday because of concern with the ag parcels in the urban area within the coastal zone particularly Patterson Ag Block And what I understood from your response, I just want to get it on the record that those are located within the Coastal Commission's two-mile ban on outdoor cultivation. Is that correct?

Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolff, that is correct.

Okay so all ag land within that two mile would be banned?

Yes. To clarify, Chair Williams, Supervisor Wolff, all outdoor

cultivation. All outdoor. Thank you very much.

I believe most of those were already covered with our ordinance but the nervousness was when it looked like the Coastal Commission was repealing our coastal zone ban and replacing it with either a mile or two-mile. And the difference between a mile or a two-mile would have been extremely large in terms of what parcels it covered. Any other questions before we go to public comment?

We'll take public comment.

Chair Williams, members of the board we have four requests to speak. We're going to start with Charlotte Brownlee be followed by Anna Carrillo

Good morning, Supervisors. Just wanted to thank you for your partnership as we work to protect Kate School and also the Carpinteria Valley. I did want to comment that this weekend it was actually particularly intense in Carpinteria. We had about 200 families visiting from all around the world and the odor from the cannabis operations was one of the worst weekends we've had so Our sense of urgency around getting this settled is very high, not only for the odor but also for the safety issues that we've seen especially with the recent robberies and invasions.

We were certainly distressed by the potential to lose the ban in the coastal zone so I'm pleased with this new two mile buffer and we had about 50 Kate families who wrote letters Support of continuing some sort of protection like that. So we are in favor of accepting these certifications and we support the two mile buffer, banning outdoor growing from the urban rural boundary in Carpinteria. We think that will provide us adequate protection and we are eager to move on towards having the ability to start enforcement.

So thank you for that and I hope that you will accept that certification. Thanks.

Anna Carrillo, be followed by Graham Farrar.

Hello good morning thank you for all your work and effort in this part I'm representing Carpinteria Valley Association this morning we would like you to adopt certify the cannabis land use ordinance with the four modifications requested by the Coastal Commission it's not perfect but we cannot afford any further delay in the implementation we are most supportive of the two-mile ban of outdoor cultivation from the urban rural boundary We've waited long enough for the county to implement the rules and regulations which were passed back in February 2018.

Though many cultivators have received extensions on their temporary medical permits with a statement of having odor control, the odor continues to be a terrible problem here in the Carpentaria Valley. And all residents including children at home and at school need to be protected from these odors quite simply as our right We want to be able to open our windows and enjoy our outdoor beauty day and night, but this has been compromised for the past two years. It is time to begin serious enforcement.

The county has concurred that the right to farm ordinance does not protect cannabis cultivators, but without the county's adoption of the Coastal Commission modifications nothing can get done. Cultivators can't get licenses, the county can't receive any revenue and the public is at the mercy of the growers who aren't required to prevent their noxious odors from leaving their greenhouses, hoop houses or outdoor fields. Nearly everyone has given up filing complaints because even though there's a new form, the pat answer from county planning and development is that nothing can be really done until the Coastal Commission approves the cannabis land use ordinance in the coastal zone. CBA requests that you certify the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance that the Coastal Commission has approved.

Thank you very much.

Graham Farrar and then we'll hear from Liz Rogan who is our final speaker.

Hi, how are you doing? My name is Graham Farrar. I'm here today on behalf of the Carp Growers Association in Carpentaria that comprises over 150 state licenses and employs over 600 people in the Carpentaria Valley. I'd like to first start by thanking Dan Clemmons and Dennis Bozanich for their work at the Coastal Commission in helping balance community industry, the board, and the Coastal Commission as well. We'd like to also request that the board support the modifications and implement the ordinance Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee. I would like to make a couple of comments on what was requested. We continue to support both the board and the community in the prohibition on outdoor cultivation within the Carpinteria Valley but feel also that Liz Rogan.

Good morning board, thank you so much for your time today. My name is Liz Rogan I'm here representing the Cannabis Business Council of Santa Barbara County and really what I'd like to say is thank you thanks for expediting this I know it's been a challenge and we've all worked together and I think that as we move forward with this we will be able to resolve all of these issues that have been brought up today And one thing I'd like to say is it is harvest season, so it is going to be the strongest smelling time of the year. So I really thank you again for putting these moving forward as much as possible to make this a workable solution for everyone. Thank you very much.

That concludes public comment.

Supervisor Labnino. Thank you Mr. Chair I just want to remind the folks that are here, you tend to show up at all of our meetings anyway when it's cannabis related so you probably already know this but November 13th we are going to be getting an update and one of the items that we're gonna be covering is enforcement And I know it's been a little bit less in the Carpinteria Valley because the Coastal Commission had not, we were waiting for certification. But I can promise you that in the inland, it's been hot and heavy and been doing an outstanding job on enforcement so it's a target rich environment out there.

And our guys are doing a really good job and we're gonna be going over some numbers on the 13th to kinda show you where we're at right now. Supervisor

Harbin.

I think a lot of our enforcement in the inland has been people without permits, but I would like just to ask a question about what exactly does our ordinance require with regard to odor both for greenhouses and for hoop houses or outdoor? And then the second is that this is a learning curve and in the future we agreed that we would come back and review in about a year. So I'd like you to talk a little bit about that, when is that?

Just so that in addition to the upcoming meeting people have a sense that this isn't the final word on this ordinance it'll be an evolving process as we learn more.

Yes, so Chair Williams, Supervisor Hartman. You are correct, so all forms of cultivation are subject to the odor control requirements. So regardless if it's indoor or outdoor there is supposed to be outdoor controls in the coastal zone. With regard to revisiting the ordinance, yes we definitely do intend to revisit this. Indeed just from our implementation of the land use development code cannabis regulations, we saw certain things that weren't working for some of the planners. So for example some of the security fencing requirements, some things were getting captured in there that were never intended to be captured in those requirements.

Got some of the specific surgical changes done to article two when we could do that through the modification process. But we should go back and, for example, also modify the corresponding regulations in the inland area. So little cleanup items like that, we definitely need to revisit and amend and fix as we learn them. With regard to enforcement, yeah because there are heightened enforcement requirements for this particular type of development.

In addition to the reports that you're going to receive from the CEO, I'm looking to Mr. Mason here who's in charge of the enforcement and we could do an update to your board say within a year or so or whatever time frame you feel is appropriate just so we can give you an update on how things are going and let you know what's working and not working to possibly identify future amendments as well.

Thank you and I just want to emphasize, I think that was direction that we gave initially is that in a year we wanted a full accounting and report and opportunity to amend.

Supervisor Wolf?

Thank you Mr. Chair I also wanted to thank staff for moving this forward as you know that there has been some complaints in the ag area in eastern Goleta Valley so similar to what we're hearing and Carpinteria on odor So I'm really pleased that this is moving forward. I think the Coastal Commission, in my opinion, has done us a favor. There's three things that are important that they have included in these changes.

One is that two mile buffer. The other one is the 51% on-site requirement that I thought was really important and I'm glad they included it. I think there's been some real cause for

For optimism going forward, this is a very challenging subject matter. And of course the thing that has frustrated me for two years and continues to make me wonder about the efficacy Thank you Mr. President. I want to start by saying that the expedited ordinance that has caused your department to have to work overtime, have to mark much faster than it normally can execute and hopefully not burned out some very talented people in And the expedited version of this because of our convoluted process vis-a-vis the Coastal Commission and because of our full environmental review, the expedited process took two years. This has been an almost two year process so I think it I hope if there's some political scientists out watching this or something, they go maybe there's a better way of doing this.

Because it obviously has meant that in particular, Folks in my neck of the wood in Carpinteria have suffered a lot in that without the regulations in force, enforcement has been difficult. And without the regulations enforced you don't have the higher standards in effect and there's obviously some people trying to exploit that. At least as far as I can tell, a lot of these operations that are still doing outdoor grows in the Carpinteria Valley haven't even requested permits.

So these are not people that are trying to be in compliance and so I would urge the department to go after some of these operations both in terms of violations of this ordinance but in terms of violations of other ordinances that we have. And to Anna and the other folks who've been vigilant, Just because this ordinance has been in effect doesn't mean that someone can legally use electricity outdoors, right? That's usually a zoning violation. And so anybody who is lighting a hoop house in the Carpinteria Valley to grow marijuana is probably already in violation.

And so I hope people are listening that. I hope people cut it out, I hope people report it. I even made a report violation to the department because I heard of one that people weren't able to figure out the address for and I tried to figure out the address for There are definitely some people who are still contributing to the acrimony, the angst of the community. And then there's a whole other group of folks who have already purchased odor control, who are trying to be good neighbors. And I think the point of optimism that I have is that if you read the letters The letters from the industry folks and the letters from the neighborhood folks who have been maybe critical of the industry were almost exactly the same.

Right, asking for almost exactly the same things. And that is to uphold the county's intention to prohibit most outdoor grows in the coastal zone and to move with speed so that we can actually make sure that folks who are trying to be in compliance can do their business and the people who are not trying to be in compliance have to stop doing their business. And this, as there is one issue that I have with it, I do think It seems the Coastal Commission's intent behind the 25-mile buffer was to try to reduce traffic coming in, vans coming into our operations. But they just as easily could mean more traffic of vans exiting Our operations and going to manufacturing elsewhere. And so I don't really think it was well thought out, I think it's something that we should address at some point and really think it through.

But I don't think that we can stop, we've got to certify this, we've got to concur in their certification to be able to move forward with adequate enforcement. Supervisor

Lavagnino. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If we don't have any other discussion I'd like to go ahead and move the recommended actions.

Second.

Any discussion on the motion? All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. We are adjourning to November 7th in Santa Barbara.