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.0:01 – 0:065 turns
When they'll come out of closed session, they're going
to do
the resolutions and then
You.
Thank you. You Good morning.
0:07 – 0:1210 turns
You. All right I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Board of Supervisors for Santa Barbara County. Mr. Allen can they get a roll call please?
Mr. Adam, Mr. Williams, Mr Hart
here,
Ms. Hartman here,
Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the January 15, 2019 meeting?
So moved.
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Okay we are going to take things a little bit out of order today and we've got kind of a long closed session so what we're gonna do first is take general public comment so these are for items that are not on today's agenda Mr. Allen do we have any speakers?
Chair Lavinino, we have one request to speak. Mr. Kolaski?
It's good to be here with some new faces at least one there I really appreciate it. And I appreciate the comments that he made about more or less fixing the system, which brought up even ahead of time. I was talking to a sheriff's officer here once and he apparently had heard one of my talks and his remark was that the system is broken Clearly it has been broken.
Where we go from here, I don't know but I've been trying to remodel my house The second story is shown in red up on top and it's over the kitchen the dining room the living room Part of the living room laundry room and and the garage The board or at least Alex Pujol ruled that it is located solely over the garage therefore it's in violation of guideline 4.7 and Basically you're out of here even though we never got a chance to talk and we never got a chance to present it. We got kicked out You know, it's like this is what we live for I've been coming here for five years now Maybe not up here for a total five but at least four With trying to do something downstairs for more than a year just like the old lady I mentioned how it was gonna see how she's coming along she's I've been trying for a year to get her approval and hers, I understand is a lot less complicated than mine.
It's a sad thing that we got to go through this. One of the things I pointed out on item 15 here in our previous document was that apparently my architect tried to get an approval by raising a little extra cash and donating it And see if we could get approval that is he charged me a $1000 or you attempted to charge me a thousand dollars extra. Presumably that was going to go to the board.
You know there are things that some humans do that are terrific, you know you hear about it on the news and whatever and then you hear about things like this with Our supervisor, who thank goodness has retired. It's unfortunate that for 12 years she had been here and I've always heard people complain about it and complain about it until I have now. We're going to have a meeting with the board of Supervisors in a couple of days. And we'll be taking part of having our previous supervisor who should have been prosecuted.
Her and Alex should have been prosecuted there's enough items here enough violations You know, ludicrous. You show the drawing to an architect and they think the ruling's crazy, it makes no sense. It's like asking a person how much is two and two? And they say three. This is just utterly, utterly ridiculous. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Klasky. Okay that takes us to our closed session. Mr. Gazzone can you please read that in please?
0:12 – 0:255 turns
Chair and Supervisors, today in closed session the Board's agenda is to consider three matters. Public employee appointment for Planning and Development Director. The second item is a conference with real property negotiators for a portion of the Dangerman Preserve in the Coho Halama area at 10,000 Halama Road. And the other item is a conference with legal counsel concerning a worker's compensation litigation case, Manzur versus County of Santa Barbara. My estimate for the public employee appointment section is about three hours and for the other two items combined about 30 minutes.
Okay, so doing the math. If anybody's here for any item that's part of our regular agenda it will happen this afternoon. So we're going to be moving to closed session. Mr. Guzzone?
And Mr. Chair, did you want to provide an opportunity for public comment on
closed session? Yes. Anybody has public comment on any of the items that are on closed session now would be the time to discuss those. Okay don't see any no public comment. We will then adjourn to closed session ♪
Hi, everyone. Oh, Good morning. Music Hello. ♪ . . Thank you. Hi. Thank you. You.
0:29 – 0:542 turns
♪ You.
Good morning. Good morning. You. Music Hi. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hello. Hi, everyone. Hello, everyone. ♪ Music Music . . Yeah. You. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Hi.
0:59 – 1:232 turns
Thank you.
Hi. Good morning. Thank you. Yeah. you ♪ Hi. Hi, everyone. Hi. Good morning. Hello, everyone. ♪ ♪ . . You. Thank you. Hi, everyone. you
1:26 – 1:291 turns
you Okay. You.
1:32 – 1:521 turns
Good morning. Hi. Good morning. Music Music ♪ Yeah. Good morning. Hi, everyone. Good morning. Hello. ♪ Music Music . . You. Hi. Hi, everyone. you
1:56 – 1:581 turns
you Yeah.
2:01 – 2:221 turns
Good morning. you you Music You. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hello. Hi, everyone. Music Hello. ♪ Hello, everyone. . . Hi. Thank you. Thank you. you
2:25 – 2:301 turns
you Yeah. You. Good morning.
2:31 – 2:511 turns
Good morning. Good morning. Okay. you ♪ Hi, everyone. Hello. Good morning. Hello, everyone. ♪ Music Music Music. You. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you. you
2:54 – 2:561 turns
you Yeah.
2:59 – 3:201 turns
Good morning. You. Good morning. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. Okay. ♪ Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. Good morning. Hello. Hello. I'm Music Thank you. You. Good morning. you
3:23 – 3:251 turns
you Hi. Good morning.
3:29 – 3:491 turns
You. Hi. Good morning. Okay. you ♪ Hi. Thank you. Hi, everyone. Hi, everyone. The Hello. . . Hello, everyone. . . Good morning. Thank you. Good morning. You.
3:52 – 3:541 turns
you Hi. Yeah.
3:57 – 4:161 turns
Good morning. Hi. Good morning, everyone. Yeah. You. ♪ you Hi. Hi, everyone. Hello. Hello everyone. The Hello, everyone. Oh, Yeah. Good morning. Thank you. Hi, everyone.
4:21 – 4:231 turns
you Yeah. You.
4:26 – 4:451 turns
Good morning. Music Music you you ♪ Yeah. Hello. Hi, everyone. ♪ Hello. ♪ . . You. You. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning.
4:51 – 4:5711 turns
All right, I'd like to re-adjourn meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. If we can get your attention please? Thank you. All right, Mr. Gazzone can we get a read out of closed session please?
Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board considered three matters first public employee appointment concerning planning and development director second a conference with real property negotiators concerning part of the Dangerman Preserve in the Coho Allama area and then third existing litigation Manzer versus County of Santa Barbara workers compensation case there are no reportable actions
Okay, very good. Thank you very much. So we are now going to make our way towards item one but it's gonna take us a little bit to get there because there's some unfinished business we have. We have some other folks that showed up for public comment even though we had it in the beginning of the day. We will go ahead and honor that and have general public comment now.
Mr. Allen? Two minutes. Everybody is gonna be speaking for two minutes.
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, we have three requests to speak. We'll start with Patricia Rosen. Followed by Brian Rosen.
You're the lead off all right pull the microphone down just a little bit so we can hear you there you go ma'am
Okay, I'm here because of what happened to me which shouldn't happen to anybody. I moved to Santa Barbara from the south because my husband took a job here in the old general hospital. He was a physician and I loved it here and thank you And anyway, a lady came to my house and she said that I can't live here anymore because it isn't my house. It belongs to me! She said start packing my suitcases, I have to get out now.
And she was, I believed her. And it turned out that she called herself my conservator and I didn't know what a conservator was because I haven't ever had a conservator. Then I found out that she wanted me to pack my suitcases and leave. And right now, then and I said okay whatever she I believed her. I went home and I packed my suitcases and then I'm ready to leave and then I got a phone call from Arlene Diaz Who is a public guardian here and she said that she had heard that this woman was doing this to a lot of people. And she said, she has a lot of clout with the judge and she's going to tell the judge what's happening.
I went to the court and Arlene was there, bless her heart. The judge was wonderful and she took me out of conservatorship And I'm here mainly to tell you that this has happened to other people, and they weren't lucky enough to have someone like Arlene Diaz. And the wonderful judge who listened to her and listened to me and freed me. Now I'm completely free and I own my own house and I love Santa Barbara.
Well thank you for being here today and we appreciate that. I think you've got some more folks who probably want to talk about that as well so thank you.
I went to everyone to know, to be careful. I didn't know anything.
Okay, thank you very much.
All right Brian Rosen and then we'll hear from Dorothy Dent and that will conclude public comment
Okay, are we going to start at zero? It says 45. No, we're going to get you two minutes and go. She's almost 91 and she outlived her judge and two of the conservators so I think she's doing pretty good. People are coming to me all the time asking me for help and there's nothing really I can do. Our friend that went to the hearings with us, our old dear friend, A special home. She didn't want to move out of her home, it's terrible and they won't let anybody talk to her. It's horrible. Getting old is horrible in this country.
I want to talk about Montecito, what happened with our little trailhead up there, Hot Springs Trailhead. DOS, this is important I think, a private security company blocked off the trailhead parking lot put cones right out to the street And I said, nobody could be there. And a lot of people I know have witnessed this because they would go to the hot springs late at night and the security guard said no you can't be there and the cones were there. So finally after a year passed or so, I got Brian Yannis from the Parks Department wrote a letter to the security company that Supposed to, they can't block off the property. Now they claim they never had cones, they act like they never did anything, they never were there but there's plenty of witnesses and I wrote a little thing for The Independent about that.
But they grabbed my bicycle, he wouldn't let me leave. Call the sheriff and believe it or not, I said you can't. When I tried to go, I got kind of hit kind of hard. I was assaulted. It kind of hurts. And when I called the company up he said if you're not telling the truth we're going to do legal action against you You repeat this tale of assault, these things happen.
And so that was the Mission Security Company and I guess maybe I'll get in some legal trouble for telling you all of this but we can, it was in the dark, we can prove plenty of witnesses. I'm sorry. Thank you so much. Thank you for all listening.
4:57 – 5:009 turns
Dorothy Dent.
Thank you so much for protecting ourselves and our coast we had a wonderful event on Sunday and Doss was there and others it was great I wanted to mention that my relative actually, William Stamps Farish was a president of Humble Oil Company, a division of Standard Oil. And he said that government was necessary to regulate the oil industry because he said our industry cannot govern itself.
Flash forward a couple centuries and we now can understand just how important government regulation is With the destruction of our environment by weather disturbances or greedy profiteers or vandals, we need protection for our earth and ourselves. Especially our most vulnerable. I ask you today to please investigate the fraudulent conservatorship 16PR00411 which was instituted with violence in the courtroom No service of papers, no evidentiary hearing even though we formally requested twice.
No pre-move authorization with the only valid lawyer doctor neuropsychologist and physical therapist reports stating none was necessary. We court No court investigator came to see the elder in her home and fraudulent documents were submitted by the court-appointed attorney who was not necessary or requested, and whose fraudulent document said the elder didn't even live at her own home which she had owned since 1962. The judge I believe Was influenced or corrupted by another judge. I'm sorry but your time's up. So, I really wish that you would do this because everyone needs to have justice in our community and I know that you are with me against law breaking and corruption so please investigate. Thank you for
your time.
Okay,
I just wanted to make an announcement as well is at the end of public comment Mr Allen?
That concludes public comment.
Okay, there's a large conference room over here on the side and if you need somewhere to sit I believe they're seating over there you cannot You'll be listening for your name and you can't comment from over there, but you can wait over there while your name is being called. So if you don't want to stand, you can sit over there. Otherwise we will move forward with our administrative agenda.
We're going to take our honorary resolutions first so can I get a motion on A1, A2 and A44 please?
So moved Mr. Chair.
Second. Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, can we read item A1 please?
5:00 – 5:045 turns
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. We have three resolutions to present today and we're starting with A1 sponsored by Supervisor Hart. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Yelena Pavlov upon her retirement from the Behavioral Wellness Department after over 20 years of service to the County of Santa Barbara. And if Yelena would come on up and we have our director Alice Claghorn as well. Thank you and I'll read the resolution into the record.
Whereas, Yelena Pavlov was hired as an EDP Systems and Programming Analyst II within the Alcohol, Drug & Mental Health System on April 6th 1998 and was promoted to EDP Systems and Programing Analyst Senior in July of 2002. Yelena made significant contributions through this role in both the Information Technology Division and in the Office of Strategic Management.
And whereas, Jelena Pavlov has provided over 20 years of service to behavioral wellness and conveys by personal example her dedication to the highest standard of ethical conduct. And her work has consistently reflected her commitment and dedication by ensuring all efforts are made to provide accurate and consistent results for department-wide reporting needs. And whereas, Jelena has a deep understanding of the behavioral wellness external and internal reporting requirements and needs we applaud her efforts to provide quality reporting products.
And whereas, Yelena has shown consistent commitment to the well-being of her teammates and can always be counted on in time of need. Helping with assignments and work that goes undone. Yelena makes sure this work is done and accounted for therefore we acknowledge her mindfulness of all those working alongside her. And whereas, Yelena has a comprehensive knowledge of the electronic health record data and reporting systems used by behavioral wellness and promotes open communications in relationships with behavioral wellness staff supporting their needs to understand the link between reporting requirements and technical data architecture. Yelena's historical knowledge of the department, her technical expertise, and her positive attitude will be missed.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County on this day, the 29th of January 2019 does hereby recognize Yelena Pavlov's long years of service by unanimous vote by all members present and wishes her the best for a satisfying retirement and success in all future endeavors. Passed and adopted today
Thank you. I'm Dr. Alice Glykorn. I am the Director of the Department of Behavioral Wellness and I'm actually thrilled today that we have a packed room to appreciate data and all the work that Yelena has done here over the years, 20 years with the county and now moving into retirement so it may not be why everybody came to the room but I know everyone here appreciates the role Data and information plays in public service. So I'm going to turn it over to our Division Chief of Information Technology with Behavioral Wellness, Marshall Ramsey.
Yes just very quickly. So on behalf of the entire IT group and all of those in the county and community that you've had an opportunity to cultivate relationships with during your tenure, we will miss you. We'll
miss you too.
You know, significant loss of expertise and knowledge. We are thrilled for your new journey and we wish you the best in retirement and hope that you have much more time to spend pursuing the things you're most passionate about. So Jelena thank you. Your efforts and work contributions are greatly appreciated and we will miss you.
5:04 – 5:088 turns
All right, A2.
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item A2 this is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. This resolution declares the month of February 19th 2019 as Grand Jury Awareness Month in Santa Barbara County and Randy Downer is here our grand jury foreperson and I don't know if Darrell was able to come back over? Darrell is
on his way to Santa Maria.
Okay so we're gonna move ahead. I'll read the resolution into the record Whereas the Civil Grand Jury consists of a panel of 19 citizens which serves the citizens of the County of Santa Barbara for a one-year period after selection. And whereas, the individual grand jurors are selected from a list of volunteer applicants who have been screened and qualified by a panel overseen by the presiding judge of the Superior Court with the final selection of the 19 obtained by random drawing.
And whereas the jurisdiction of the grand jury extends to all activities of local government within the geographic limits of Santa Barbara County, including both public and private transactions. And whereas the grand jury is granted subpoena powers that extend to records, persons and entities and parallel powers to undertake independent investigations and to issue reports detailing the results of these investigations and to function as a completely independent autonomous body. And whereas the primary function of the grand jury is to provide independent oversight into the efficiency, effectiveness, honesty and impartiality of government. And whereas the grand jury in a large measure relies upon public awareness and responsiveness of the public to its reports which set forth in findings and recommendations.
And whereas it's believed that public awareness of the grand jury's function and purpose can be furthered by governmental declarations of awareness. Now therefore, it is hereby ordered and resolved by the County of Santa Barbara and the Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim February 2019 as Grand Jury Awareness Month in order for all citizens to become better acquainted with the purpose of the grand jury, to give attention to the grand juries reports, and encourage public participation in the grand jury process passed and adopted today.
Thank you very much. And I had no idea that the grand jury would pack the room, so anytime you want the room filled again give us a call we'll be happy to be here. Thank you very much for Supervisor Hartman for sponsoring this and the Board of Supervisors for passing this there are a number of many many great people on the Grand Jury both past present and future that are here to provide oversight over the various entities within Santa Barbara County. There are 75 public entities that are funded with public monies. And we get a chance to visit most of them at one time or another during the course of one year.
Very busy, very detailed process and I'm telling you 25 bucks isn't quite enough but you know what? It's not the money it's really the opportunity to serve this community and the people that live within it. Thank you very much. Supervisor Hartman would like to say
something.
I just wanted to add a few words. The Grand Jury service is very demanding but very, very important and I know you interview with the board members once a year and it's a very significant watchdog agency. I've been asked to tell people how important it is to get volunteers for the Grand Jury from North County and from Mid-County And we need greater geographic representation, as well as greater ethnic diversity. So it is a very rewarding experience. We rely on those reports. We respond to those reports. It's a very significant watchdog function. So if you have any interest or know others who may, please recruit them to apply. Thank you.
All right. That public service announcement brought to you by Supervisor Hartman. Right on. A44?
5:08 – 5:145 turns
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, item A44. This resolution is sponsored by Supervisor Williams. This is a resolution of commendation honoring Sergeant First Class Salvador Perez as the January 29 veteran of the month in Santa Barbara County and unfortunately I believe that Sal is under the weather today but Ray Barra is here. Is Ray here? Or Carmen Munoz?
They might be coming from the other room. There's
Carmen and Ray. Why don't you guys come on up to the podium And I'll read the resolution into the record. Whereas Santa Barbara County is home to over 22,000 veterans constituting about 5% of the county's population as a whole. And whereas those have given the ultimate service to this nation by serving in its arms forces are deserving of endless recognition and gratitude by all Americans. And whereas the 2019 chair of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Steve Lavinino has dedicated time at the last board hearing of every month to recognize one veteran as a symbol of our appreciation of all veterans.
And whereas First District Supervisor Das Williams has chosen Sergeant 1st Class Salvador Sal Perez to be the recipient of the first Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors Veteran of the Month resolution for January 2019. And whereas Sal Perez was born on August 23, 1919 in Arizona enlisted in the Army in 1940 and jumped into Normandy just behind Utah Beach on D-Day with the 101st Airborne and proceeded to fight through the Battle of the Carnetian.
And whereas, Sal Perez continued his service in the Armed Forces in both Korea and the Vietnam Wars before retiring in 1968, raised his family in Santa Barbara, has continued his service to our community by doing an annual lunch for the Santa Barbara High School students who volunteer for the United Way VISTA program. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors Sergeant First Class Salvador Sal Perez as our January 2019 Veteran of the Month, passed and adopted today.
So again, it's sad to not have Mr. Perez here today but my grandfather who was a veteran of the same conflict wouldn't have put up with the crazy schedule we had today so I don't expect Mr. Perez to do so either. But I don' think it takes away from the service that Mr. Perez performed. In this age of entitlement, in this age of plenty it's very easy to forget that the civilization that we know almost did not come about and it was through the heroism Thank you very much. I want to start by saying thank you to all of the members of the Board of Supervisors who are here with us today. I know that we have a long list of people, hundreds of thousands and even millions of people but particularly those in our armed forces that fought at battles of Renown like D-Day and just as important the Battle of Carentan It is actions like this and heroism where people stood up to the forces of totalitarianism, the forces of brutal dictatorships and a system of government that would have held sway over the world and plunged us into another dark age.
And it's hard to imagine that a bunch of folks really just Barely kids put their lives on the line to stop that from happening. And the reason why I honored Mr. Perez is both because of his distinguished service, but also because there's so few of that greatest generation still with us. That to me still serves as a beacon of understanding about public service and about sacrifice that we could all learn about.
Mr.
Ibarra? Thank You supervisor Williams they share a love Anito boards ladies and gentlemen of the Board of Supervisors My name is Ray Lott right now. I'm representing Salvador Perez Salvador Perez would want to have been here he regrets it but He's a little bit under the weather and he shy of his hundredth birthday five months from now So he wants to recuperate so you can yes, let's give him around. Oh So he's looking forward to celebrating his 100th birthday in August and so he wants to recuperate so he can celebrate.
And he will, believe me! But one of the things I did want to say is there are two important things that Salvador is very proud of. His family And his 28 years of service in the United States military and the Army as a Sergeant First Class. So those are two important things to him, and I would like to just thank you on behalf of Salvador Perez and his family. And I appreciate this award, and I'll give it to him and give him your regards. Thank you.
5:14 – 5:1912 turns
So that was part of our new initiative to honor a veteran every month and Doss, great job. That's going to be a hard one to live up to and I think next month Supervisor Hart will be bringing forth one of his veterans so really appreciate that. Are there any items in the administrative agenda that the public has pulled?
Chair Lavenino, one request from Mr. Caldwell and Santa Ria on A26.
826 supervisor Adam is pulling a 7 and a 26 anybody else on the board Got anything to pull. Okay, why don't we go to a seven first?
sure Lavagnino members of the board item a seven is Resolution sponsored by supervisor Williams and Hartman is to adopt a resolution supporting statewide Commission on recycling markets
Supervisor Adam. Well, I wish I Understood exactly what the point was behind this because it kind of I'm probably miss interpreting this But it kind of seems like we're telling China to know their place So they take our trash that we don't want to recycle ourselves Am I misinterpreting that I
think you're misinterpreting it. If you read the resolution, the essential problem is that we have a fiscal ticking time bomb in our recycling markets. Right now some of the plastics that we've long regarded as recyclable and mixed paper are not actually recyclable. We're just stockpiling it or Landfilling it because there's no market for it. And so either there needs to be some types of agreements with China or we need to create domestic markets, but what this really is about is trying to make sure the incoming governor Mr. Newsom Is fully aware of what a problem this is.
And that there be some plead for statewide direction and leadership on this issue. I know CalRecycle is open to such things, but the leadership needs to come from the top and this is really a plea for that kind of leadership.
Well, just the way the whole thing's written and I'm not going to read it but it just suggests that we were trying to force China to take our trash. And I think that we should probably consider the possibilities that we've set up some goals that are unattainable or unreasonable and we may have changed the way we think of it instead of telling China to take the three to seven.
Well, I know what it's about that. That is
not what the language says. I personally have always been an advocate that we should have domestic recycling markets whenever possible, and that's really probably a more long-term or at least short-term viable solution. The resolve says that this Board of Supervisors supports a statewide commission Tasked with addressing these significant challenges to our recycling markets and examining potential solutions. Including updated compliance standards, which is what you just mentioned in this new economic environment. Ways to increase source reduction and any other means that will alleviate the growing public health and environmental crisis while still allowing California to meet its goals for a sustainable future. So nowhere in that paragraph is there an action associated with muscling China?
Well, that's the inference. So at least that's the way I read it and I'm not sure that I'm gonna be able to support that because I think really what we should be looking to ourselves To be able to solve these issues ourselves and making our goals reasonable instead of kind of citing the fact that China used to take our trash and now it's It's telling us it won't take that trash.
And so it's creating a problem for us because we've already decided that that should happen, it seems like and so anyway I'm just not going to be able to support this.
Okay there's a...I just got back from DC and we are going to be coming out with a report on what that trip was all about. This is one of the issues that was discussed there and what our possibilities are for creating Additional markets in the U.S.. So That'll be part of that I think it's probably going to come to us next month as an agenda item and we can discuss it then as well But on this is there a motion to move this item forward?
so moved
second
moved in second at all those in favor aye opposed no Passes four to one let takes us to a 26 you read that in mr. Allen
5:19 – 5:224 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item A26 is from General Services. This item requests that the board consider recommendations regarding the local vendor preference policy update and would you like to go to Mr.
Caldwell? Let's go to Mr. Caldwell first.
Mr. Caldwell in Santa Maria please.
Chair Lavinino, members of the Board, Andy Caldwell representing Colab. If my memory serves me correct, and I'm not sure it does. If I recall, I think this was the only bone Supervisor Schwartz ever threw CoLab's way back when. And to make a long story short as you well know, The county spends literally hundreds of millions of dollars a year on this, that or the other thing. Mostly salaries and benefits and stuff but there is a local component or what could be a local component of purchasing locally which will trigger what's known as the multiplier effect.
And the one vendor that we knew of and that we worked with on this over 20 years ago was Labards. And I don't have to tell Supervisors Adam or Lavinino what the Labards meant to Orchid. They did so much community service there, plus Steve Labard was an outstanding veterans leader as well in the community. Well they had county contracts and that was one of the ways they were able to make a living and give back to the community.
And the bottom line here is I understand the county wants to save money, but they're saving money at local expense by not giving the local vendors a leg up on the competition. Because they are paying property tax here, they're paying wages here and most importantly, they are paying sales tax here. One of the issues that triggered this is the county was going Scraper loader thing for hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars out of Ventura. And I said, we have a cat dealer in Santa Maria. Santa Maria ended up getting $30,000 in sales tax from that. Now it wasn't the county but it was in the county. And I'd like to know whether the staff even notified the local vendors you were going to pull this program. We'd ask you to keep this thing because overall it's making money for the overall economy via the multiplier effect and keeping the taxes local.
The difference at 6% isn't even enough, doesn't even cover all the taxes we pay here locally. Thank you.
5:22 – 5:3027 turns
Well my problem with this is that you know it's sort of muddies the bidding process and if you're having a true bid, everybody writes down their number on a piece of paper and sends it in. And if you have a certain group which I'm not opposed to having the 6% that gets a 6% head start on that, if they come in within the 6%, They get the job or they get that they get to the sale.
But what we're going to do now is we're going to take the lowest bid and then we're going to match it we're gonna we're gonna ask somebody to match it within 72 hours and at the unintended consequences of that will be that you know people that are long distance or remote vendors will get They're going to come up with an idea after a while that they're just bidding for somebody else and they'll stop bidding or they'll give you.
I know from the produce industry that when people don't buy stuff and they call every day to find out what the price is, they don't get the real price. So be careful what you're asking for here in certain respect because You know as long as it's clean and and everybody gets a real chance to be competitive Then you'll get the right prices, but if if you're not careful what you'll get is a bunch of fake prices And then you don't know whether you're gonna. Be I mean it's ultimately it's going to cost you more Supervisor
Hartman.
Thank you Mr. Chair, I just wonder if we could get our CEO to kind of explain why we're doing this? I think there's broad support for buying local and using our county resources to make that happen and we're just looking at different strategies and this is the next one we're considering
Supervisors, I'm going to ask the assistant director for general services Joe Tony to comment on this But just to let you know The reason this is on your board agenda as staff is not seeing his mount the competition. They would like to see so It's actually getting to the direct point that supervisor Adam is making that we're not getting enough outside bids And so this was an attempt to try to get more bids
Chair and members of the board and Supervisor Hartman. So our effort is really to try to maximize the amount of competition and have as many bids as possible over the years, although this hasn't been used that often we have heard from outside vendors that they don't even make take the opportunity to bid because I can't beat a 6% margin so we still want to give that opportunity to local vendors to have The opportunity to have a preference, but we want to make sure that the dollars we already have to spend are spent.
To the maximum level they can be and then most of those dollars will still be spent on services at the county's providing so that we're maximizing what we already have
So have you, I'm sure you have done research to see how various other jurisdictions try to give a preference to local. And this is the best strategy that you think is for our county and our needs?
We think it would be the best to use and most applicable for us. We've seen other counties do it, we know Kern has done it I think in the board letter we also referenced another county maybe slow. Santa Barbara City does not have a local preference but up and down the coast it's fairly different some have 5% some don't have any sort of preference so ours settled on that amount I think in 2005 Supervisor Adam
maybe six percents too much. I mean, what are the other? What are the other jurisdictions there anybody over six?
Not that we've seen no
so they're The rest
of their may be a ten percent but yeah well you don't know that you just
Offhand no okay So How do we know that six is the right number
That would've been something that your board would have deliberated on back in 2005 and chose the 6% number. Well,
maybe if you can't get anybody to bid from outside it's indicating that that's too big a number.
I've got a suggestion. You know we gotta really pack day-to-day and I have some serious questions about it as well and I don't think this is a pressing issue It probably be better if we.
I was going to make a motion. I'm number one comfortable with the policy. Number two, I think hiring local and local vendors is an important thing to stand up for. We talk about it all the time. And if we don't actually have policies that are open to that then it really doesn't back up our values that we articulate. We should be doing this fast and let these people talk so I'm going to move.
Well, you made a motion so I want to comment on the motion before my background is purchasing and to see you know. The bid process has to be transparent for people to participate in it and for us to have A system now where we would open bids and then go back out. And ask for another bid based on what we've already seen is very troublesome to me. I don't like it, I like the fact that we had a built in 6% already but going back out I think is problematic.
And I think maybe the problem is and I'm not sure so this is why I kind of wanted to bring it back is maybe the reason why we're not seeing the bids. I don't know how much outreach we're doing and We've got a lot of really capable businesses in this county and surrounding counties. And I don't know at what level we're doing outreach to finding those businesses that are doing the services that we need done, so you can go ahead and make the motion. I'm not going to be able to support this but I would really like to bring it back. I support a local vendor outreach program but it has to be something that's workable for me.
So I don't know. I'm not saying put it off for years We already have a program in place right now
Supervisors if I may we did talk about this if the board wanted to have further discussion We could bring it on and back on 212 that agenda seems pretty light at this moment
Okay with that okay, two twelve twelve won't end up being light but you know The thing is
this is new information And I'm a little disappointed that that wasn't in the board it isn't
That's in the board letter
know that we're not getting bids from outside, which is the reason that we're doing this. So that was wasn't really fully disclosed and so you know if we're not getting maybe we need a different outreach program or something they need to be thinking about why it doesn't work and either We're not outreaching enough or The 6% may be too high okay?
So between now and February 12th mr.. Tony will be visiting all of our offices Thank you very much so to kind of get a motion that we move this item to February 12.
So moved second
second all those in favor. Passes unanimously. So can I get a motion to move the balance of the agenda. So it's
second
moved and seconded all those in favor. Opposed passes unanimously. All right, that takes us to item number one. Mr. Allen.
5:30 – 5:427 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Item number one is from the county executive office, it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding options for cannabis regulatory amendments and authorization of the California Environmental Quality Act compliance for state provisional annual licenses.
All right, Mr. Brzenich? Good morning, Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Dennis Buzanich, I'm sorry good afternoon, sorry. Feels different this way. We are here with Diane Black, the Director from Planning and Development and also Frank Vasquez from the County Sheriff's Department as well. And we have a cadre of other folks in the room to help us with this presentation.
As we start this presentation, it's important to make a note for members of the public as well as for your board. That as we begin to talk today about possible amendments to the Cannabis Land Use Permit Ordinances, as well as the Cannabis Business License Ordinances that as of today zero operators have gone completely through The permitting and business licensing process.
And the requirements that your board established last spring in the approval of those ordinances have not yet taken effect. They became operational in the inland area last June, the California Coastal Commission confirmed certification of our coastal zone article two ordinance language in November of 2018 Following the board's acceptance of some recommended modifications.
On November 13th of last year, the board requested staff to return with options for amending cannabis regulations to include the possibility of testing labs on AgZone properties as well as any other amendments. And it's also important to note for context today that in September, Governor Brown signed SB 1459 which created a provisional annual license process. That requires the operators to hold a temp license as well as an annual application that is ostensibly complete with the exception of CEQA requirements.
In your board letter as well as today, we're prepared both myself and Ms. Black are prepared to talk with you about seven possible amendments to the ordinance. First one is to allow cannabis testing on ag lands and that would require some amendments to land use and development code as well as article two as well as chapter 50 and the uniform rules for the Williamson Act contracted properties.
Amendment number two possibility is to increase control of cannabis operations on Ag One properties. And that would require some changes to the LUDC, the Land Use and Development Code for the inland sections of the county. Third, to summarize these is eliminate ag employee live scan requirements and retain for all other categories of employees for cannabis operations which require amendments to Chapter 50.
Considering alternative storefront retail allocation methods that would require amendments to chapter 50 which is the business license ordinance. The fifth possible change for your board's consideration and direction today would be to change the energy plan review from currently the planning department to the community services department sustainability division.
Possible amendment number six is to increase the authority reject renewal of licenses for additional reasons that would require changes to our chapter 50. And the last possible one that staff has brought forward as part of the board letter today, is the allowance of generators for security lighting or security cameras as required in chapter 50 but the required amendment would take place in the land use and development code as well as article two.
At this time, I'd like to turn it over to Ms. Black to provide some basis for understanding the issues around testing on AgZone properties.
Mr. Chair and members of the board, as Dennis mentioned, this item was specifically raised by your board on November 13th and you asked us to come back with options for consideration of allowing testing on agricultural properties. The county's existing regulations that we adopted back in June and again in the coastal zone in November do not allow testing on agriculturally zoned properties. Testing is allowed in commercial zones, in C1, C2, C3 zones, the PI zone and industrial zones.
Cannabis manufacturing and distribution are also accessory to cultivation on zone properties. Has to be separate from other cannabis operations, so it does present a challenge to permit testing on agriculturally zoned lands as testing operations are not considered an agricultural use. However we need testing and it's essential for public health and the health of the cannabis supply chain. Current operators are driving product across the state for And again, testing facilities do need to be consistent with the purpose of the agricultural zone.
So we've identified three options for the board to consider. The first is to allow existing structures on agricultural properties to test cannabis product with a conditional use permit and with a cap through the business license ordinance. The second option is to allow existing or new structures For testing operations on agricultural lands with a CUP and again a cap under the business license ordinance And then the third of course is to keep the regulations as they currently exist The next issue I Wanted to speak to is controlling cat cannabis on agricultural one properties or the inter-rural areas and this item Came about based upon public comment your board heard recently at one of your meetings.
Existing regulations have controls on indoor and outdoor cultivation on Agricultural 1 and Agricultural 2 properties. Outdoor cultivation is prohibited on Ag-1 properties within 1500 feet of a residential zone or on lots, and on lots of 20 acres or less but that's outdoor cultivation It requires a conditional use permit for cannabis cultivation that is located in adjacent or requires road access through an existing developed rural neighborhood.
Requires a CUP for cultivation located on AG2 lots that are adjacent to an urban-rural boundary line, and prohibit outdoor cannabis cultivation within two miles of an urban-rural boundary in the coastal zone. The area that's specifically of concern here is that indoor or mixed light cultivation is being proposed in AG-1 zones close to residential areas. So we've identified several options for your board to consider. The first would be to amend the specific development standards and the land use and development code for AG- 1, to establish setbacks for mixed light or indoor cultivation.
The second option would be to require a conditional use permit for cultivation on AG-1 properties in the Land Use and Development Code. The third would be to ban cultivation on Ag-1 properties in the Land Use and Development Code, so the inland areas of the county. And the fourth is to maintain existing regulations. And I'll turn it back to Dennis to go over the other options.
So possible amendment number three is to eliminate the live scanning requirement that is in the cannabis business license for agricultural employees. It's important to note that chapter 50 requires all the owners, supervisors, employees and other persons having at least a 20% stake in the business to have live scan criminal background checks. And making sure that they don't have a felony that prohibits them from being an owner or manager or supervisor of cannabis operations per state law.
Part of the area of concern that surfaced here is that this requirement exceeds the state's requirements, which excludes employees as one of the groups under an operation that is required to be fingerprinted. This could affect access to labor for the cannabis operators with some of the things that are going on around the country with labor shortages that are being seen in other areas of agriculture.
And it's important for us to note that not all county staff is in agreement with amending the provision of Chapter 50, so we want to make sure you're aware of that as well. A couple of the options that staff has identified here is first to eliminate the live scan requirement for employees only And maintaining it for the other groups of folks including investors, owners, supervisors and managers. But excluding it for employees and then option number two would be to simply maintain the existing regulations as they are.
Next item for your consideration is an alternative allocation method for retail. So our existing county regulations limited storefront cannabis retail operations to eight locations countywide, with a maximum of two allowed in any particular supervisorial district. The code also establishes a random selection process for pre-qualified applicants The area of concern here is that we may end up in that random selection process with two cannabis storefront retail licenses being issued for one small community and then not in another, creating an excess concentration of cannabis operations. In one small community and excluding another community that might want that access to storefront retail.
The options that we've asked your board to consider here is to pre-qualify applicants and hold a random selection process for each of six community plan areas. Orcutt, Los Alamos, San Ynez, Eastern Goleta Valley, Isla Vista slash Goleta and a combined one of Summerland and Toro Canyon. Plus that if we did that, that would allow for 2 countywide site selections for areas not covered by those 6 community plan areas.
The other option that staff is proposing is just to maintain the regulations as they are.
Mr. President supervisor Adam so
there's there's delivery right? Chair Labadino, Supervisor Adam, there is delivery more formally known as non-storefront
retail. Non-storefront retail okay so there isn't any place that's quote underserved unquote
5:42 – 5:5111 turns
Supervisor Adam through the chair, I believe that you would be able to access product Anywhere including on your
front door step. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thanks So before we go any further because we do have a packed house and we have a lot of new people here today So if you hear something you like, I know everybody's really invested in this in this Here's something you like please don't clap chair just like if you hear something you don't like We're not going to boo or hiss. We're going to be all very respectful and try to make it through all these presentations because I know we have a divided room, and we're going to try to do our best to maintain an even keel. Okay, Mr. Buzanich?
So possible amendment number five is to move the requirements or the responsibilities for reviewing the energy conservation plans from planning department over to the community services department. The area of concern here is that Really, the expertise does not necessarily exist for the review of these plans amongst the current staffing and planning and development. And to have them make a sufficiency determination which is going to be required for the ability to approve a license we thought it might be better under option one To amend that section of the county code to specify the sustainability division. Of the community services department, which already does similar evaluations for the overall sustainability plan in the county. To conduct those reviews and the sufficiency determinations for those energy conservation plans.
The other option is as we've been consistent is just to maintain the existing regulations. If you don't mind indulging me for just a couple more of these and we'll keep it moving here. Number six recommended alternative would be to increase the authority to reject renewals. So under the current county regulations that your board adopted in the business licenses, so the renewal of business licenses recall that they are given out annually but must be renewed.
It specifies the following reasons for denial of cannabis business license. If they fail to apply for renewal less than six or if they only apply with less than 60 days prior to expiration, if the applicant fails to meet the requirements of Chapter 50, if the applicant is delinquent in some ways for paying their cannabis taxes, if licenses or land use permits are suspended or revoked, or for any other reason for denial of existing languages That are licenses that are set forth in chapter 50 section 17.
Our area of concern here is the is that that section offers criteria that may be used for denial of granting license or licensure no. And that County Code section chapter 50, Section 20 offers criteria that shall be used for denial of a renewal. And so we've got one that's permissive and one that's required right? We have one that says may and one that says shall. And so one of the concerns is does it give us strong enough cause of action to deny the renewal So a couple of the options that staff has brought forward here is to amend Section 17 of Chapter 50, to state any application for a cannabis business license shall be denied rather than may as a way of strengthening our ability to reject a renewal application from a licensee.
A second option would be to add additional criteria for denial of applications or renewals to either 17 or 20. And then the third option here is to maintain existing regulations.
Supervisor Williams?
I mean, Dennis you've been involved in now at least 20 enforcement actions. Are there some other criteria that you would recommend that would help us catch the scofflaws?
Supervisor Williams and through the chair. We would have to sit down and really kind of pencil that out with the enforcement team and try to figure that out. Nothing comes as top of mind here, I think the way the ordinance was originally written and then approved by your board was fairly broad in its scope in terms of giving the staff leeway. It's just a question about whether or not it'll be strong enough in all cases and But there may be some additional criteria that we might want to add. But I don't, we haven't really talked through anything looking at Frank just to make sure that there's things so it would be a little bit of work in progress on that one. So
staff recommendation is option 1? At this point? Yes. But looking at others possibly
in
the future? Correct
So and finally of the possible amendments that staff has brought forward today is the allowance of generators for security. This is a real critical one because there's kind of a couple of competing interests here. One, the LUDC land use and development code for the county in the inland portions of the county and Article 2 in the coastal zone prohibit the use of generators for cultivation including the lighting of hoop structures.
Let me say that again. In both the coastal zone and inland, lighting of hoop structures is completely prohibited through the use of generators. However in Chapter 50 of the business license we do require security lighting and 24-hour surveillance video monitoring as a condition Of the cannabis business license. So what may happen is that we have some AG parcels where it would be difficult for operators, though not impossible to comply with the security requirements without the use of generators they could use solar with backup batteries as one possible alternative.
Operators would still be required to meet that energy conservation plan requirement. And allowing for generators is highly likely to require the circulation of a supplemental EIR in order to assess the environmental impact of allowing generators on those properties that have no other means of powering the security lighting and the security surveillance cameras. So a couple of the options that we did consider was one, allowing generators solely for the purpose of site security lighting and video. And then secondly just maintaining the existing regulations.
So for your information and to help provide you with additional information, we did a staff look at what the process and the cost would be in order to do these amendments. So to amend basically all the ones that were assigned to chapter 50 for the licensing of cannabis operations, that would probably require as little as six to eight weeks depending on the direction the board were to give us. And the ordinance would become effective 30 days after a second reading of those ordinance amendments. Staff time for writing and docketing those amendments would be able to be accommodated within the existing staff appropriated in the departments.
The second process though is about the amending the Land Use and Development Code or Article 2 would require approval back through the Planning Commission, and then ultimately back to your Board of Supervisors. Any amendments to Article 2 would also require the certification by the California Coastal Commission Work could be included in the upcoming work program for 19-20 with work beginning in July of 2019.
And then if we, if the board were to direct us to accommodate that in the current fiscal year other work there is currently included in the work program must be delayed until next fixed fiscal year. So I'm going to change the chapter now, if you will. So those are the staff and the board requested suggested amendments to the existing ordinances. Turning now to the state provisional licenses. So the temporary licensing program lapsed statutorily on December 31st, 2018.
An annual provisional license that was created by legislation from the governor that I noted at the beginning of the presentation would provide a provisional annual license that would be valid for one year from the date of issuance. And the provisional license is not renewable. It's a one and done circumstance during the year if they were to if anybody operator were to get a provisional annual license, they would have to comply with all of the regulations. They would also have to apply for And receive an annual license from the appropriate state licensing agency. Which means they would have had to have completed our local land use permitting and business licensing process here in the county before approaching the state. They would have to get all that done in the ensuing or following 12 months, 365
days.
5:51 – 5:598 turns
So does this mean that what we, you know, envisioned or were advised that we could safely do an amortization period that ends in June really because of compliance with the state. The amortization period ends for all intensive purposes at the end of April because An operator would have to get a state permit. So at the end of April, it becomes easy to tell who's legit and who isn't because if they don't have permit then they have to be shut down.
So,
Supervisor William. Am I reading this right? Supervisor Williams to the Chair you are but maybe helpful to have a little bit of clarification on that so the amortization period would still continue to exist as part of our ordinance when we amended Article X over a year ago and so that amortization period would continue let me And so I'm going to go ahead and.
Entity that existed that it was licensed either state or locally or both by that point we have Identified though that because of the date of the certification by the Coastal Commission of our ordinance That actually the amortization period in the coastal zone ends much sooner actually ends May the 7th and And so at that point, what would happen is yeah May 7th in the coastal zone and June 15 in the inland portion. What here's what happens that date? Is that their legal non-conforming status on that property that goes away however as has been consistent since your board created the allowed for the temp licensing program The effort of this board has been to make sure people maintain compliance with the state licensing program. So while that land use determination of legal non-conforming would go away on either May 7 or June 15, their requirement to have those state licenses has Would continue as it has for the last 12 months basically since January 1st of 2018.
And so, it's important to note that they still have to have the licensing. So I want to kind of separate out the legal non-conforming status on the property and that use from their licensing requirement which your board is consistently since January 1st of last year said they had to have and maintain.
But because of this, I guess let me clarify my concern. My concern is of course operators who are not permittable because they're too close to a sensitive receptor or something else and operators who don't seem to want to try to get a permit probably because they don't want to go through expense. So essentially operators that are trying to skate by on a period of time They would have to be shut down by the end of April because of this.
Chair Williams to the, sorry, Supervisor Williams to the chair. So there becomes a much tighter window in which they have to operate and move through. And so what we're gonna propose on the next slide is a way to make sure that basically they're either in our boat or they are not in our boat, to make a Coast Guard analogy here. And see that we can somehow figure out a way Puts them in a position of making that decision now, sooner rather than later.
So if I could, just to finish that up and then I'll point to where the boat decision is about boat or dock. So to be eligible for that, to receive a provisional annual license from the state, the operator must hold a state or have held a state temporary license for the same site and the same cannabis activity. They can't go moving around, they can't go to another APN, they have to be the same operator on the same site. In order to get a provisional license according to the state, they have to have submitted a complete application for an annual license to the State of California.
With everything complete except for their compliance with CEQA, okay? Next, they have to be able to document that CEQA is quote-unquote underway. Those are the words in the statute that CEQA is under way for that application and they have to have from Fish & Wildlife a final lake or stream bed diversion agreement or an exemption provided by the Fish & Wildlife Agency So what do we do about this? How does this kind of fit with what, what we've been working toward here in Santa Barbara County.
So the staff expects to rely on the county's certified programmatic EIR for the cannabis regulations at the project level for applications. For some discretionary permits, additional environmental review may be required. We know that. Staff is recommending that the authority be given to the County Executive Office point of contact for providing any requested notification to the State Licensing Authority of evidence of engaging in the permitting or licensing process within the county Only if the applicant is either a permit application accepted for processing by our planning and development department, and have paid the fees.
Or they have already obtained their land use entitlement through the application process which as of today we have three of those for the proposed cannabis operation. And they've submitted to Stephen in our office that completed application for the corresponding business license. So that they would have to have gotten into us, and this was to the point Supervisor Williams I think that you were looking for is how do we get them from the dock into the boat? This is the point. They either in order to qualify for this provisional license They either have to have put in an application paid their fees with planning and development. And or already gone through the planning and development department, have their permit in their hand. Now they've come over to the business licensing process and they would have to be seeking that business license.
Supervisor
Williams? And what could we
do to prevent folks from gaming this? IE applications that are clearly not approvable Being sent in at the last minute to avoid being shut down. I would like to give the P and D department some discretion on, when there are applications because say it's a A hoop house operation in the Carpentaria greenhouse overlay, or a place that's within the residential buffer.
Or a place that's within the buffer from schools. I want P&D to have the authority just to say you know what? This isn't approvable we're not gonna concur and therefore this operation can be shut down.
5:59 – 6:0718 turns
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Williams We advise people when they bring an application in of Items where we don't think it's approvable, but we we can't just reject the application because it's not approvable if somebody wants to submit an Application that we know we're going to deny they they have that ability we could perhaps adjust when we would be telling the state that somebody is engaged in this equal process by a Indicating that it meets those basic thresholds for approvability, meet setbacks. And it's an allowed use and qualify it a bit.
So you would be able to at least separate the ones who do not meet setbacks or basic zoning questions like an outdoor operation in the carpentry greenhouse overlay?
Yes, Mr Chair yes.
So just to wrap up the proposed process here is that, it's important to note if the board were to want to provide that level of authority notify the state licensing authorities. That if we don't do something here that without those provisional annual licenses existing cannabis operators not in possession of a local land use entitlement And without a business license and without a state annual license, which again let me just say is zero people right now in the county of Santa Barbara.
We'll have to cease operations upon the expiration of their state temporary cannabis licenses which is estimated to be the end of March very first week of April.
Was that pause for effect?
No, I
needed to change the slide. Good. I wanted that to sink in with everybody too. So if you're out there, you might want to get the ball rolling a little bit. OK, maybe a little bit of dramatic effects.
So with that, the recommended actions are to review areas of potential amendment to the county's current cannabis permitting and licensing regs, provide conceptual direction on possible amendments to improve the effectiveness of the cannabis regulatory system Authorized the county executive office to notify the state cannabis licensing authorities at compliance with the CEQA being underway for applications that have already had state licenses and that they have provided planning and development with a complete application.
And have paid their fees or that they've already completed the permit, and now currently have an application seeking A county business license. And then finally, we ask that you make sure that all the actions above are identified as not a project under CEQA and with that staff's available to answer any questions.
Okay,
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you. I had just two questions for the moment, one is what is our current noticing and I'm interested in getting public comment on broadening who gets noticed of proposed cannabis operations? And the second thing I'd like before we turn to public comment is for P&D to talk about the security standards because I think there are a lot of people out of compliance and that would be helpful.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I'll just mention it's 1,500 feet is the noticing requirement which as you know has expanded beyond what our normal noticing space is and perhaps I can let Diane talk about the review
of- Well just second on that too. I thought that when we originally wrote the ordinance that anybody within an EDRN, everybody within that EDRN would be noticed prior to when a CUP is coming forward for anybody trying to have any cannabis activity inside an EDRN.
So Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hartman, I think the noticing requirement is 1,000 feet. It's typically 300 feet for a project so I think the noticing is 1,000 feet. I don't know if we have a different standard for the EDRNs. I'm looking...I don't believe so And then in terms of the fencing and security plan, the ordinance is fairly specific about what's required.
An applicant has to submit both a fencing and a security plan. The fencing has to be depicted including details locations fenced. Uh, type and height. Um, all fencing or walls have to be made out of material that blends into the surrounding terrain and shall maximize or minimize visual effects. Fencing has to take into consideration wildlife when it's next to an undeveloped area. There's prohibited fencing materials which includes Razor wire tarps, dust guard fencing, privacy netting and woven or unwoven polyethylene plastic.
Fences are to include lockable gates and this is I think a very important one. There should be no visual markers indicating that cannabis is cultivated on the site, visible from off-site. So if somebody's passing by this site on a roadway or is viewing it from an adjacent property they shouldn't be able to tell that cannabis is being Cultivated on-site. So, and Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hartman I think this is a really good example of the fact that we don't have anybody all the way through the permit process where they've pulled a permit got their business license and have their state license in effect so we don't have any operators I can point to and say They're absolutely compliant with this requirement because nobody's gone through the entire permit process so I think we see a lot of people who don't are not compliant with these requirements.
Today
correct. Supervisor Hartman follow-up
yeah just a quick follow on. This is not a complaint-driven process, right? This is like our building inspections. That is after they get their permit and they construct, they've got to be in compliance, right? This is not complaint driven.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hartman, that is correct there are three parts to our Cannabis staffing for planning and development permitting compliance as in we do compliance on all of Permits that are issued and our commitment on compliance for cannabis cannabis operations was quite high That we would be doing regular checks of cannabis operations And then the third is enforcement So we're staffing all three of those operations. We haven't had any permits in compliance yet, or compliance activities yet because we don't have any permits that have been fully executed in the field.
And one final thing and that is about lighting. Lighting for security and lighting trespass and lighting in various greenhouses you've already addressed it's not allowed in hoop houses?
6:07 – 6:1420 turns
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hartman, that's correct Lighting is not allowed in hoop houses And there are specific provisions in the ordinance that address lighting plans and where lighting can and cannot occur and how?
Don't allow light trespass right
I Could go through all of this standards Sure, I think
it's important for because right now we were living in a lawless land
so the requirements under
So some people are here to complain that other people aren't following the rules, but you can't follow the rules yourselves. Okay? So no clapping, no booing, no cheering. There we go. All right.
So just to briefly review the lighting plan requirements. So first of all any commercial cannabis activity that involves artificial lighting has to submit a lighting plan and those plans need to demonstrate that all lighting will comply with Standards set forth in the ordinance, which I'll go through in a minute and all applicable community plans. So a number of our community plans including the Santa Ynez Valley have lighting standards that they'd have to meet those.
Lighting necessary for security. Is to consist of only motion sensor lights and avoid adverse impacts on properties surrounding the lot on which the cannabis activity is located. Outdoor lighting used for parking areas and other loading areas, and for security is to be fully shielded and directed downward, which is sort of the light trespass issue. Lighting is specifically prohibited in hoops.
And those are essentially the standards.
Supervisor
Williams.
So on the question of sort of visibility, what does that mean for say a greenhouse with low transparency? You're not requiring a shielding for a greenhouse with low transparency are you?
Mister chair and supervisor Williams. No, but I think it would be part of their screening in landscaping plan to screen the edges of the greenhouses where they can be seen from public viewing places.
I mean you just read the definition and I just don't understand why I mean let me put this into context. The slower the permitting happens. Longer, it's unclear who is legit and who isn't which is the source of our whole enforcement nightmare. So why would we be requiring? If folks are not supposed to visibly be showing marijuana but they're operating in a building where you can't see the marijuana, why would we require screening?
So I think we've hit the one plan that we haven't talked about yet, so we do have a landscape plan and screening. Screening plan requirement and it's required for applicants to allow outdoor indoor and Mixed light or nursery cannabis cultivation development, they have to submit a landscape and screening plan. It doesn't mean it needs to be highly extensive plan if it's not necessary but they do need to submit a plan for landscaping
I mean, I just want to put a little marker in there. My goal is to force odor control as quickly as possible, have it really clear who's legit and who isn't so the ones who are not permittable are shut down. If we're messing around with landscaping plans on ones where the marijuana is already not visible, to me that is an impediment to enforcement, not an ally of enforcement.
Yeah, I think if we could strike actually indoor. If you've got an indoor facility or a greenhouse, I'm not sure why we're screening it but that's something we can come back to. Are there any other questions? We have 70 speakers. So here's what I'd like to do. We're going to do two minutes. If anybody would like to do one minute And I know that's really tight, but if you've just got something very succinct that you'd like to say. You come up and give your name because Mr. Allen. Yeah, I know. Mr. Allen? Well, we gotta do public comment.
No, I can't go one minute. Not voluntarily. So Mr. Allen's going to have to find your speaker slip in the stack of 70, so if you're going to come up and only use one minute go ahead and line up here in the middle make sure you clearly state your name and then you can be on your merry way. Meaning you get to go first? You get to go first but make sure you clearly state Hopefully you already have a slip in.
I do, but did he find it?
No, just say your name and he'll find it for you.
Okay. My name is Maureen Foley Claffey. I live in Carpentria. I'm here to represent myself and also concerned Carpentrians which is a grassroots group that's forming. We're wearing red and wearing clothespins. We've had enough. Pot stinks and we're mad as hell. My family's been growing in Carpinteria agriculturally since the 1860s. We're the Baylord family, as in the off-ramp.
I have a six year old daughter. I live right next door to 3889 Cresco 3910 Via Real. It's a nightmare. I feel like I've been launched into catch 22 land. Ms. Hartman you asked about lighting and why would you need shielding for a greenhouse? They're clear. They're clear. Last night, a whole band of light just appeared overnight. So it's the Wild West. I've had people trespassing.
My daughter on our way to school she was talking to some stranger who was the facilities manager dude looking for a job at the pot farm you know? I've had gun safes arrive at my doorstep. It's a nightmare. Your time is up thank you very much. Okay just enforcement enforcement and consequences.
We have 70 people so we're all going to follow the rules so one minute and we're gonna be done
Shelby Sim, Shelby Sim, Shelby Sim. Visit the Santina's Valley. I am here representing 37 lodging properties for the towns of Santina Solving, Bilton, Ballard, Los Olivos and Los Alamos. And people come because it is beautiful. People come because they can relax. Breathe deeply and enjoy. And without regulations, there's going to be a lot of unwanted smells, unwanted things to look at so I highly encourage the Board of Supervisors to regulate, regulate, regulate. I'm not against cannabis at all but I think it needs to be cohabitable with everybody. Thank you.
6:14 – 6:2310 turns
Bill you have a carpentry I'm farmer in company I've I farm cut flowers. We need to move forward with the current county regulations so we can enforce the bad actors and I'm here to thank the Board of Supervisors for your continued support for agriculture in our county. I also want to mention that for the first time ever three bedroom two baths track home in Carpinteria sold for 2 million dollars. So house prices are going up in car. Thank you.
Good afternoon, I'm Sandy Nargi. I live in Carpinteria and I agree with Maureen it smells awful people are getting sick Children can't even go to school. It's I hope you can save us because our community needs you. Thank you
Good afternoon, supervisors. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Sheila Batson. I'm a registered nurse working here in Santa Barbara and I live in the Carpinteria Valley. I've been there for 10 years. One of the things that drew me to the Carpinteria Valley is the agricultural environment. Avocados, cherimoyas, lemons, flowers and now cannabis is being grown And the farming industry plays such a critical role in local non-profits and economic stability of our valley.
To stay agricultural, many of our farmers have begun to grow cannabis which is legalized in California in 2016. I say let our farmers grow cannabis, let our farmers follow your rules. Our farmers are good responsible citizens. I support cannabis cultivation in the Carpinteria Valley. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. All right, I'm not much of a salesman. We started off with 70, we're down to 65 so y'all wanted your two minutes. They should have put an incentive in there. All right, so what we're going to do is Mr. Allen will call out three names and if you could please get close up here because we spent a lot of time waiting for the next speaker to walk down. So it's like the price is right, let's go.
Chair Levine, members of the board. Everybody can relax for a second because we're going to go to Santa Maria first to hear from Lori Tamura and then Lil Clary. So can we go to Santa Maria please? Ms. Tamura?
Sorry it took me a moment to walk up. Lori Tamura, Urban Planning Concepts. We have worked on a number of cannabis projects recently since the ordinance was adopted. Yeah, we're good. Okay, we are working really hard to put complete applications in. We are struggling with some of the requirements and we do hope that we can continue to work with staff. To come up with some ideas on some of the submittal requirements.
The application packages now are costing probably somewhere between $100,000 and $200,000 for the studies, the work, the permits, the plans. And it's becoming prohibitive and again these are for new applications, new operators who want to be compliant. And we just think that there may be a better way to get these new operations into the process. So the county can make money, applicants can make money and move forward with the process.
Some of the examples are archaeological surveys, biological surveys, landscaping plans. All of these things cost money before you even submit the applications. We want to work with staff, we want to come up with some good ideas. One of the other ones that has really become a problem is legalization of the parcels. Do you have to go through a certificate of compliance? If that process is being required, that could be six months to a year holding up an application. So one of the ideas was can we get through the process and then maybe have a notice of correction. Some of the items would be like CC certificate compliance or a house in the back 40 that had a new porch put on, or something and have that go through notice of correction. But allow the operation to move forward through the rest of the process.
Just some ideas- Thank you. We're looking forward to working with the county.
Lil Clary to be followed by Renee O'Neal in Santa Maria.
Yes, Lil Clary for the Tepeskay Canyon Crisis Committee and I want you to know that there are eight of our members here today with me. You've already published our written statement but based on something that Diane Black said, I want to amplify something. We urge the board in that statement to codify the expanded notice for EDRNs as Supervisor Lavinino noted.
Here's why this is important in Tepeskay. Teviskay Road is 15 miles long. If a cultivator establishes an operation at mile marker 7, anyone in the canyon below that point is vulnerable to the increased traffic safety fire and other issues so we experience. We urge you to give us that notice for all parcels within the EDRN I also want to let you know that in the last 36 hours, we've received signature approval for our letter from 35 Canyon residents.
Five others sent in additional written comments. We are committed, we are here and frankly we are pissed. We've been coming to this board for nearly two years telling you about our dire circumstances. And while we appreciate being the first target for enforcement actions, it's more than disappointing that there is minimal direction in the board letter regarding enforcement. I specifically refer to the business license section.
We understand that under the current ordinance, licensing may be one of the few mechanisms that may be used. But no one has considered additional rationales including and I'm going to say this rapidly, deny a license to operators subject to prior enforcement activities. Investigate the veracity of claims to be illegal non-conforming gross site. Stop telegraphing your intent to enforce, these growers are not as Supervisor Williams indicated garage conversions. And finally do a better job of coordinating enforcement actions and reach out to the neighborhoods to explain how they can get complaints filed and what confidentiality is provided. Thank you.
Renee O'Neil in Santa Maria and to be followed by Bruce Watkins if Bruce is still there this afternoon?
He is. Good afternoon, Supervisors. I'm Renee O'Neill. I want to thank all those who support our effort to protect our communities, our environment and our scenic county lands. You may have heard how Joshua fought the Battle of Jericho. Well it's the seventh day in its pastime to raise our voices very loudly so that we are heard. Last year staff made recommendations to this county EIR recommendations, and we felt that was a very comprehensive report. And it was developed with forethought and wisdom.
We approved most of the language in that report which protected our county and our agricultural lands. This county has turned a blind eye to the EIR recommendations. They appear to support the industry players instead of our communities or small growers. The EIR stated exclude cannabis activities from Ag One lands, instead the board thrusts them into the hinterlands, the rural isolated communities of our region.
Today, I guess I'm just going to point to testing on ag lands. I absolutely think that's deplorable. How do you plan to monitor regulate and enforce regulations on testing facilities when you haven't even demonstrated that you can regulate or enforce on the growers that are out there right now? Last December Sacramento The lab was shut down, they turned or surrendered their license and were failing to correctly test for 22 different pesticides. The director was forging the test results.
We're talking major lawsuits here folks. If you don't get a handle on this, this county it's going to backfire on you. Thank you.
6:23 – 6:3214 turns
Bruce Watkins? To be followed by Steve Tasda here in Santa Barbara.
Hello, Supervisors. The county spent over a year in public review on a cannabis ordinance. Setbacks, acreage, odor suppression and more were debated and agreed on after extensive public reviews. So I'd ask please keep that in mind when considering modifications. One issue that was never publicly reviewed in any of the hearings was the use of generators, the subject matter of item seven, generators for security. Rather than public review and comments someone simply inserted a ban, I guess considering the matter might have required a lot of work. We support the use of generators under appropriate guidelines, but the current proposal is short sighted. Here are a few other mandated requirements that require on-site power. Power for digital scales, scanners, printers and computers that are needed for the state's mandated track and trace program.
Power for odor suppression systems that a lot of folks care about. Power for telecommunications needed to alert fire and police in emergency. Not to mention power for water pumps similar to the needs of every other form of agriculture in the county. Last October, I filed an ordinance amendment on this matter and haven't heard a thing. I provided several easy commercial solutions for things like exhaust suppression, noise suppression, fire suppression. I suggested use could be limited to two years to phase in renewables.
I'm also the Chief Operating Officer of a company that designs renewable wind and hydroelectric energy technologies, and I'm a domain expert. Off-grid renewable would cost us literally ten times the upfront cost of generators. We are being hit on the front end with review and application related expenses unlike any other industry. And at a certain point we need time to earn the capital required to make investments in renewable energy. The point is, there are simple commercial solutions to address every generator concern. What is not reasonable is a ban simply because nobody publicly reviewed the matter. We need public discussion on reasonable generator use. But this current proposal is far too narrow. Thank you.
Stewart Kasdan and then we'll hear from Steve Pepe to be followed by Ann Louise Bardak.
Hi, my name is Stuart Kazdin and I'm representing the City of Goleta. You already received our comments. I was here to talk about two issues, issue one and issue two. And in both cases I urge you to go with option three which is to deny those. With respect to the cannabis testing it's inappropriate to apply testing on agricultural lands. It's something that should be done in a lab, it should be done outside of the agricultural realm.
I understand the idea that the cannabis industry indicates there needs to be a supply chain, you need to have testing available. I can assure you that in Goleta we will have testing available and it's not like we're trying to steal business. The taxes that will apply for the testing will be zero on available testing so there will be opportunities for testing without having it be cited on ag lands With respect to issue two, which is providing for the growth on or for placing the cannabis and agricultural lands near or adjoining residential areas.
It seems unnecessary to me the whole point of zoning really is to avoid negative spillovers from one area to another to define At particular area for certain activities and so you could exclude its impact on adjoining ones It just it seems inefficient and it ensures conflict between the neighbors and the growers It's not a case like where we have the equivalent of a house halfway house or something like that Where a community is potentially objecting to something of some positive benefit this it's unnecessary to go ahead and do this And so I would urge you not to expand it to nearby communities and the lands next to it. And thank you.
Steve Pepe, then we'll hear from Anne Louise Bardak and then Nancy Emerson.
Good afternoon, Supervisors. I'm Steve Pepe, the President of Econ Alliance and also the co-owner of Clopepi Vineyards. We're 10 miles west of 101 on Highway 246 and we've resided on the vineyard since 1944. 94, excuse me. There are no visible marijuana growing areas from our property though we know they were being grown in At the end of Hapgood Road, we know they're being done in Gypsy Canyon and Sabata Canyon as well.
Over the holidays for Thanksgiving, the kids and grandkids drove up from Orange County. They got there around 10 o'clock at night. They pulled into the driveway and we started unloading their car. And one of the grandsons said to me, Granddad why does your vineyard smell like pepperoni? And the kids know pepperoni because that's the only kind of pizzas they eat.
But that's what's happening out in our area with the failure to control the odors from. The cannabis growers, and this isn't like we have in other areas. We have a cattle ranch behind us and once in awhile we'll get some odors there and we'll have row crops across the way. It's also interesting that a couple years ago those of us in the wine industry were here dealing with the proposed winery ordinance and Article 8 of that contained an odor abatement policy. So an industry that sells smell, the wine industry who always talks about aroma bouquet and other things was being told we had to have an odor abatement issue in our wineries. And here you have an industry that really does stink and isn't blue emu, and it doesn't have any odor abatement requirement which makes no sense.
Thank you.
And Louise Bardak. Hi. And Nancy Emerson. Thank you. And then we'll hear from James Baylard. Okay,
I last saw many of you at the retirement send-off for Janet Wolfe, the great supervisor of the 2nd District and I couldn't agree with you more about your tributes to her. One thing left unmentioned however was Janet's tireless campaign as a supervisor to put reasonable basic limits on cannabis cultivation in Santa Barbara County So that it is treated with the rigor and the due diligence of every other land use issue. Indeed, Janet was the canary in the coal mine and everything she warned that could go wrong has come to pass. Unfortunately many of you rejected her recommendations on cannabis at every turn. Indeed we are baffled by your utter capitulation red carpet rollout that you've given the cannabis lobby and growers. Breaking news bulletin, Santa Barbara being tagged quote the Cannabis Capital of the United States in The New York Times is a negative it's a really big negative The ordinance you have drafted for all intents and purposes could have been written, and for all we know may well have been written by the cannabis lobby.
Leaving the 300,000 residents of this county out in the cold for about 30 big wig cannabis guys. Much of it was enacted while many of us were dealing with or diverted by fires, mudslides and evacuations. We need an immediate moratorium on the issuing of any more cannabis licenses, and we need an investigation into the 2200 you have already issued. Listen, nothing in America is free. Nothing. Nothing in the world is free except a cannabis license in Santa Barbara County.
We don't need a cannabis czar selling Santa Barbara as, quote, the site for world domination of the cannabis market. In what world does a greenhouse take precedence over a child? Our schools, our homes, our seniors- Your time's up
ma'am,
thank you. Yes we are indeed sensitive receptors.
Thank you.
Our next speaker is Nancy Emerson. Thank
you for your time and
this is- Then James Baylard and then Robert Lesser.
6:32 – 6:408 turns
Good afternoon Chairman Lavagnino and board members. I'm Nancy Emerson representing We Watch, an organization focused on protecting the rural character and beauty of the San Dines Valley. Thanks for taking another look at the current cannabis regulations. When crafting this cannabis land use ordinance, you promised to enact strong and effective regulatory controls that protect neighborhood character and minimize the potential for negative impacts on people, communities, and the environment. The question before us today I think is what needs to be done to fulfill the above promise to those already living in the county Including the Sandy and Nez Valley, given an ordinance that is partially opened Pandora's box.
Please look at the zoning map. The San Ynez Valley Community Plan area has most of the county's Ag-1 parcels, about 1,600. Usually more residential and agricultural, about 70% are Ag-120 or below. All are eligible for some type of cannabis activity. Our latest problem is a new owner advertising online that its existing site will be one of the largest grows in the world in 2019.
To fulfill the promise, we need a strict ordinance now before permits and licenses are issued. It needs to control size, odor and where cannabis activities are allowed. See earlier letters To ethical applicants, we hope you can find a way to work within this framework. Thank you.
Chair and members of the board, my name is James Baylard. I'm here representing my family's avocado farm. We've been farming in Carpinteria Valley since the 1860s and growing avocados since the 1950s. I am really speaking to you to alert you to an emerging problem that Relates to right to farm issues when you place cannabis growing operations next to existing AG operations.
Just by way of background, we have a cannabis growing greenhouse next to a large part Avocado Ranch. In fact, half of our cropland sits within 200 feet of that greenhouse. When you grow avocados you are faced with a lot of issues one of which are pests And we have to spray for two different pests once a year. Those include persiamite and thrips, and those insects either chew on the small avocados or they chew on the leaves but either way if you don't deal with them you look at a significant loss of revenue.
The problem is when you introduce a greenhouse growing cannabis right up next to our avocado grove, you have us high value sensitive receptor that being the cannabis that is tested to very stringent standards. We're talking parts per billion and they're testing for the very pesticides that we use to control the thrip in persiamite. So as a result, these greenhouses also are porous. So they have large fans that draw a lot of air through the greenhouse and it runs the risk of our pesticides contaminating their crop.
So, as a result, it looks like we aren't going to be able to spray for those insects. Thank
you. Robert Lesser, to be followed by Marilee Peebles then Anna Carrillo.
Thank you, Board of Supervisors. I'm Robert Lesser. I live in the Carpinteria Valley. You are probably familiar with an old adage that goes it is an ill wind that blows no good and I'm here to tell you that that wind is blowing through Carpinteria Valley these days and it smells like skunk. We have to nip it in the bud We don't want to live in the capital of cannabis production in the US.
This smelly ill wind is no doubt a windfall for its growers, but we the people are not reaping the benefits only the negative impact falling real estate values armed break-ins from criminals rivals and stoners looking for free samples We need an immediate moratorium on the issue of cannabis licenses without any inspections or analysis of the applications. We don't need a cannabis czar, especially one who functions as a salesman seeking world domination of the cannabis market for Santa Barbara.
I thought we had gotten rid of the czar 150 years ago when my people came to this country to escape. Cannabis needs to be regulated and treated like all land use issues by the county's great planning and development staff. With three votes, you can restore fresh air to our beautiful valley and end this bummer for all of us. Thank you.
Mayor Lee Peebles, to be followed by Anna Carrillo and then Maureen Claffey.
Thank you for listening. Can the massive amount of greenhouses now aligned with the cannabis industry in the Carpinteria Valley coexist in an eco-friendly way with 20,000 Carpinteria Valley residents? So far the answer is no. Since 2017 we've discussed the polluted air quality That has incredibly continued to increase after the 2016 medical grow moratorium. In 2017, the county threw up its hands declaring they can't go back and make a list of certified growers. And at the same time more and more illegal grows popped up mainly some by supposedly good players. We were always insured that the good players would be good. Carpinteria Valley alone has over 1400 temporary cannabis licenses at 33 different sites in October of 2018 there were 22 sites.
Today this growing industry wants essentially blanket permit extensions. Giving money to art, civic and school organizations is a payoff when it's not backed by legal upright and transparent actions. We want clean air and good business policy not money under the table. Throughout 2017-18 The board meetings were packed with cannabis growers, consultants and lobbyists. We 20,000 Valley people were made to believe the growers would install air devices when temporary permits were obtained. It has not happened.
Instead, they want more extensions. As an example in the western area of the valley where I live between Nidiver Cravens on the east-west and Foothill and Villareal on the north-south clearly more greenhouses have exchanged hands and are growing more cannabis. And more weight. Ma'am your time's
up, I'm sorry.
Okay. I'm sorry.
6:40 – 6:4914 turns
Anna Carrillo, to be followed by Maureen Claffey, to be followed by Sarah
Triguero. Maurene spoke in the one minute
time. Okay
thank you.
All
right I'm here today...I brought a map of the greenhouses from Carpinteria okay so on the maps you have I've colored in where it says HS that's the high school so you can see all the greenhouses around the high school and I put on your maps that you have on your table All of those are residences, and then you have up at the top there is La Mirada which is an EDRN. Then there's Ocean Oaks which is another EDRN. And way down at the bottom is another EDRN below where Mr. Baylor talked about that row of greenhouses right there at the bottom right. This map doesn't even show Kate School or Shepard Mesa which is another EDRM which is at the far end. Our problem in Carpinteria is we had all this infrastructure which was being used for flowers. I mean, I feel very badly for the flower growers but to put cannabis in these old greenhouses that we feel...I don't think the odor abatement is even going to work because you may stand next to a building and maybe there is odor abatement but then when they open up the vents And it spreads over the valley.
And our valley sits, we have the mountains right in back over here and then the ocean on the other side so it's just sitting there. And we've been given extension, extension, extension. I mean, I've spoken to DAS many, many times when DAS sent me a note in October or November odor abatement is in place but then I find out no, no, odor abatement won't work until you get I want to start by saying thank you to all of you.
They're temporary licenses in October it was twenty two. So, you know the it's expanding we have no enforcement Sorry, we can't continue this blatant activity so anyway That's what I wanted to present is just show you a map of what we're suffering from in Carpinteria Thank you very much
supervisor Williams. Yeah, I'm gonna take the personal privilege when you're being addressed personally As we discussed, the odor control requirements are in place as part of the Coastal Commission approval of our ordinance. Not until mid-November, right? Whenever that Coastal Commission meeting was. Of course, the way our zoning enforcement works, we can't enforce that until people get a permit. So if people want to have a moratorium on permitting, that means longer with no odor control.
And that's why, you know, some of what people are asking a little contradictory. So I mean, I think you understand coastal commission processes well enough to know that this doesn't all happen overnight. People have been trying to control this crop for 100 years and for you to think that I'm going to be able to control it in two and a half months after rules go into effect Shows a little too much confidence. I'm glad you believe in me, but it's gonna take longer to fix it. Thank you.
All right next.
Sarah Trujillo to be followed by Bobby Ofton and then Joan Esposito.
Fantastic. Hi, I'm Sarah Targuero, Concerned Carpenterian. I'm here to talk about my grave concerns for the Carpinteria Valley and my disappointment quite frankly with how the commercial cannabis regulatory framework has been handled to date. Whenever I or my neighbors have raised complaints we've been told just be patient that soon the county will be able to enforce but that the growers must have land use permits first This strikes me as completely illogical and backwards. Other counties have not allowed cannabis operations to proliferate without going through full land use permitting process first, and many counties frankly have not allowed it at all. Would we let someone build a house without a permit and then tell their neighbors oh wait sorry we can't enforce against them until they get a land use permit?
Clear double standard here. It seems very much that the cannabis lobby and growers have written the ordinances without adequate consideration for protecting public health, safety and welfare. And so much for minimizing impacts to this community and the environment. I want to say something about owning the entirety of the profit and loss associated with your cannabis regulations. I think it's very important that the county owns both the income it earns from the tax dollars it brings in, as well as the damage this is doing to our property values.
I plan personally to apply for a property tax reassessment this year and I know that several residents in my community plan to do the same. I think it's really important you know that and the reason is this pains me Because I know that these taxes fund our schools and are very valuable social services, but I honestly feel I have no choice. It seems the county only cares about the money.
So what do I think we need? I think we need a full scale independent review. We need a do over. The cannabis regulatory experiment has failed in Santa Barbara County. You guys have the power to start this thing from scratch To go take it the right way through planning and development all the way no ad hoc committees Let's get the public engaged every step of the way. Let's have full sequel review every step of the way, you know We need to care about our neighbors we need to care about our schoolchildren
You know what next speaker two strikes okay next time when somebody Has to express themselves. I'm going to ask the bailiff to escort you out. We're gonna have to follow rules here, that's the way we work. Go ahead ma'am.
Okay good afternoon my name is Bobbi Offen. I live in the county of Santa Barbara in the area of Carpinteria Valley in the La Mirada area. I've been in that house for almost 33 years. I am very concerned about how the Board of Supervisors have sold out the residence and become pawns in the hands of the cannabis growers. Every homeowner and business in Santa Barbara County has to go through the planning and development process. I just did a remodel, I had to do that.
But not the cannabis growers. No, they have been given a free pass. Come to Carpinteria, it's free! We want to be the cannabis capital of the world, according to the man who's been appointed by the Board of Supervisors. To oversee the permitting process and not only that, the growers are getting a free pass to do it. I wanna see every application for cannabis activities in the county property be required to go through the planning and development process like every other resident has to do.
With a moratorium on new applications until that happens. Anyone driving through Carpinteria, not just the residents and visitors can smell the odor from the cannabis. It's not just downgrading our property values or the smell in our noses that I'm concerned about. I have a degree in chemistry. All those smells are coming from particles in the air that we're being forced to breathe. Here in Carpinteria, you can't see them as we could with the Thomas fire. But believe me those particles are there and they're going into your lungs.
Just last week I was diagnosed with asthma symptoms again and haven't had it for 18 years. I'm not a happy camper about that. But more importantly, what are we doing to our children? They don't deserve that. While the growers are raking in the dough, we have armed robberies, armed guards, the health of every carbon nebulous citizen is at risk, our property values are falling and we haven't been given any voice at all. Zero, zero. Ma'am your time's over.
Okay I'm sorry. Thank
you.
Thank you.
6:49 – 6:5416 turns
Jonas Pazito To be followed by Sally Eagle, Supervisor Adam, Rick Grim.
While our next speaker is coming up I just want to state for the record that I did not vote for this This ordinance so everybody
State for the record by the way that sixty nine point two eight percent of district one voted to legalize marijuana with proposition six So if we want to balance that out I'm
not arguing over that and and I got some comments prepared here if I ever get to make them. Oh
Well, you know what? What we're going to do is Supervisor Adam does have to leave in an hour. So if we're not through with public comment, what we'll do is suspend public comment for a little bit and let you make your comments before you leave. Thank you. Okay? All right great thank you.
Good afternoon my name is Joan Esposito and I've lived in Carpentaria 35 years long before the local cannabis farms existed I just live a stone's throw from a very large cannabis farm, and the farm is just across the road from our high school and next to our boys' and girls' club. Students and teachers have been getting sick for the last two years and having to take days off school.
I'm here today to let you know how your decisions on the cannabis farms have impacted and disrupted our everyday lives in the Carpinteria Valley. Again, as someone said earlier, we're no longer the avocado or the orchid festival. We are now the marijuana capital Ever since the cannabis farms have opened and sent their obnoxious smell into our valley, I like many citizens in our valley are suffering from health problems.
Problems such as stinging eyes, breathing difficulties, asthma attacks, stomach pains and headaches As a direct result of the growers not living up to their promises to control the odor they emanate into their valley, my husband and I can no longer enjoy visits from our two grandchildren who live out of town. One of our grandchildren suffers from asthma and for years he's enjoyed playing soccer on the grass in front of our home.
As proud grandparents we've enjoyed playing with him. Having my grandson spend weekends and holidays is one of our greatest pleasures. That's no longer possible because of this atrocious stench that is in the air in the Carpinteria community. My husband and I have been denied this great pleasure for the last three years, we can never get those years back. In the last six months, I've suffered more and more debilitating headaches. And I've had them ever since the odor has gone into the air. A few weeks ago my doctor ordered a brain scan, an MRI to find out why I'm getting headaches. MRI was clear. I have my eyes tested for my glasses no problem. I had my teeth checked last week, no problem. This month we paid for a home environmental study for mold and it appears that it's- You know, I have left you a packet.
Yes, we
have
it.
And it's what's happening in Carleton too, between crime and guns and vulnerable people like myself.
We got it.
Thank you. Yeah thank you. Sally Eagle. Oh and I ask you not to vote for this. I'm asking you obviously you know that I'm against it. Yep. Thank you.
Sally Eagle to be followed by Rick Grimm and then Peter Levitas.
Good afternoon, my name is Sally Eagle, a sensitive receptor living in La Mirada and Carbondale. Well happy 75th birthday to me! I received a special present this morning, a smoky cannabis filled courtyard. According to the fire department after I called 911 there was a nearby controlled burn and they said perhaps from Cravens, Foothill, Toro Canyon, there were a lot of them going on. Wow, a new odor to add to my sensitive receptor list.
You've already heard my complaints regarding intrusive cannabis odors. Nothing much has changed in my neighborhood, and that brings me here to echo those who protest the seemingly loosey-goosey approach by the county to shut down the so called bad actors. I think all cannabis growers need to be labeled as bad actors They must share the reputation until things change. The so-called good guys need to force the county to shut down the bad guys.
We've even been promised by some of the good guys that they'll make it happen, it's not their job. They can register complaints with a county just as we don't must. They know exactly where the violators are, perhaps they'll have better luck. I'm concerned that the county has a bias towards cannabis growers. Changes to the cannabis ordinance really should be determined by the planning department and probably vetted by them, not the CEO's office.
We've already witnessed the letter of authorization debacle. As a result we have over 2,000 active licenses in Santa Barbara County. The cannabis growers have gamed the system. Grandfathering operations based on no proof is not how government should work. Compliance does not mean expansion. Look it up. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
Rick Grimm, Peter Lapidus, Paul Ekstrom.
6:54 – 7:009 turns
Thank you for the time to talk to you. After doing considerable researches for the best places to live in America several years ago my family and I moved to Santa Barbara County in 2007 The county had plenty to attract people to the area. Beautiful beaches, mountains, hiking trails, relaxed lifestyle, low crime, good schools, near perfect climate, fresh air, scenic beauty.
What more could you ask for? In the 12 years we lived here, we also remodeled and built several homes and buildings. We found that the planning regulations and process was extremely frustrating and overwhelming along the way. We were instructed to submit frog studies, salamander studies, butterfly studies, raptor studies, cultural studies, environmental studies, seismic studies. You name it.
One could easily get upset until you ask yourself why the county is so rigid in these planning rules? And the obvious answer that there's a deep desire to keep this county the way it is. We want to keep the scenic beauty in place. We want to keep crime low, we want to keep the building style in keeping with the region and the countryside remain as substantially as it is or has been in the past I'm sorry.
The same rules don't seem to apply with cannabis. The green rush in this county it's particularly true for larger grows on Ag 2 parcels little consideration is given for the industrial or the neighbors Near these industrial-sized cultivations that might have neighbors with blighted views of hoop houses, the smell of what would appear to be a thousand deceased skunks grow and choke our county.
Public input seems unusually mooted when it comes to this new cash crop. It's imperative that these regulations cover ag too, in the same way they do other agricultural parcels. The problem is just bigger. You know you got 35 or 50 or 100 acres of cannabis. The smell is greater it's going to affect a larger number of people in a broader area. It has to be considered.
Other counties require effective odor abatement systems for all indoor and outdoor cannabis Cannabis cultivation, regardless of size. Why shouldn't Santa Barbara require it? You need it for Ag-2 as well. As it stands now there are no requirements for growers to install odor abatement systems in Ag-2 properties. Yes one can complain after
the fact. Sir you're 25 seconds over I'm sorry.
Okay.
No I mean that meant your over yeah.
Our next speaker Peter Lapidus to be followed by Paul Ekstrom and then Stephen Jaynes
I want to address a couple things with you guys. Um, I'm kind of a common sense kind of guy. I've worked in these greenhouses before they turned to cannabis as a contractor we did grading and other such stuff in them at Carpenter High School for a time. I was in charge of running their greenhouse there with the FFA. I'm a farmer myself. I grow avocados aside from being a contractor and what I never understood with this whole odor abatement thing DOS promised us there was going to be odor abatement Dennis told me it was going to be 100% contained within the boundary when all this came into play here with the laws.
Greenhouses are made out of very thin plastic, it's clear. It lets the light in so they can hold that heat in and by the virtue of that they need to ventilate if we have a hundred degree day in a greenhouse I mean it could be 150 degrees in there if they don't ventilate it. So when you put these stinky plants in there and they're sitting in there all day with the vents closed keeping them nice and warm putting light on them so they grow. And that smell is building up, you know inside of that greenhouse it's like a hundred times more than what it would have been in an outside grow where it's going away a little bit at time and in the morning probably around I don't know 845 they open these things up maybe a little earlier because that's about when we smell it at our houses this giant cloud of stinky air comes up envelopes our houses it goes into high school It goes downtown.
It all just depends on which way the wind is blowing, okay? So this being the case I don't see... The way they do the odor control they have these buyer scientific and from what I understand Doss hosted the buyer scientific people at his house along with the growers we weren't invited there. They decided to put these systems on and they pump out a chemical out of a pipe that's wrapped around the greenhouse at the eaves yet the greenhouses vent down the center so you could have an acre of greenhouses wrapped in a pipe All the roofs open up and all this gas comes out, odor or whatever you want to call it. It's particulate because we can smell it. It goes up. It sails around the valley. There is an inversion possibly. It comes back down our houses.
Maybe you don't smell it right next to the greenhouse because it's like a chimney. It goes straight up.
Sir your time is up I'm sorry.
There you go.
Supervisor Williams? Yeah I'll take the same point of personal privilege. Mr. Lapidus, at that meeting there were several anti-cannabis people invited. My purpose to do that is to promote odor control. You as a contractor know full well that we don't have the zoning power to force people to do odor control until they come to get a permit. You know that and to get a lecture from you who've taken water out of the Carpinteria Valley in out of compliance with the law to give to rich people in Montecito is a piece
7:00 – 7:059 turns
Next speaker.
Along with yours, Mr. Lapidus. Let's go to the next speaker please.
Paul Ekstrom please? Paul are you here? Paul Ekstrom. Next speaker to be followed by Stephen Jaynes and then Allison Laslett.
Good afternoon. I've been a Carpinteria resident since 1970. I have an update for you, the odor control does not work in Carpinteria Valley. The odor is just as bad and now at Insult to Industry they pump out this cheap smelling perfume smells like cheap laundry scope that comes out like a cloud so now I have to live with that. I don't know when it's going to end thank you
thanks
Stephen James to be followed by Allison Laslett.
Hello again, dear Board of Supervisors my name is Steven and I'm here representing the wine industry up in Santa Barbara Wine Country an industry of which I have been involved with in Santa Barbara County for over 25 years now. I am not anti-hoop I'm actually not anti-marijuana. Yes, we voted for the legalization of marijuana and so we have to figure out a way to get along. I've obviously heard a lot of different stories and it's heartbreaking to hear But we do have a significant problem up in wine country that we need to address. And that is the powerful, toxic and pungent smell associated with marijuana. I understand that there's some regulations about permitting and then you guys can address it but I understand from both the Ag Commissioner and the Planning Commissioner that they recommended that you put odor abatement into Ag 1 and Ag 2 and you guys chose not to apply it to Ag 2.
I work next to what is supposed to be a 35-acre grow. I've heard as high as 70 acres next to us. Everyone in my team, when they step outside gets headaches immediately and I guess it's obviously our own health that's a problem there but imagine what the consumer is going to start to see when they come to wine country and smell marijuana. I think that you all should be really concerned about this in the sense If we don't have odor abatement, the consumers are not going to come. The tourism industry will be incredibly affected by this. They won't stay at our hotels. They won't eat at our restaurants. They won't give you tax money to spend more money on and other things. I think you all really need to think about putting some sort of odor abatement in obviously in Carpinteria and up in Santa Barbara wine country.
We have a huge problem and it's not going away. It's only getting worse. We've got to figure out a way to get along.
Thanks. Allison Laslett, followed by John Dorwan and then Steve Decker.
Hi. I'm Allison Laslett, the CEO of the Santa Barbara Vintners, the trade association for the winemakers. After 50 years of work, Santa Barbara wines have hit the international radar. Our wines not only compete, they win. But our region is not so successful yet that people call us up and order the wines to be shipped around the world. That's not how people buy Santa Barbara wines. They buy it in our tasting rooms. An average of 78% of consumer sales happen in the tasting rooms. And in order to taste wine, of course you must be able to smell it. It's a requirement and cannabis is smelly. The Santa Rita Hills has a well-known transverse valley with the prevailing west wind that kicks up every day in the afternoon. With cannabis odor unabated, the smell can travel four miles because of the size of the grows that are planted.
You may not have actually seen the grows themselves so I brought a picture of one. This is on the Santa Rosa Road. It is acres and acres. You can go through, there are a couple more photos of that. Interestingly this one exists under temporary license which apparently means it's always been there. So there's that. Also of note, this one would be allowed under your current ordinance. The ordinance for the land use permit and the business license would allow this exact grow to exist California originally created a regulation that there could only be one license per parcel, but this regulation was removed for the small licenses which led to practice called license stacking which allows for unlimited growth sizes. If you'll go to the next slide, one more, Okay, these are the grows in the Santa Rita Hills area right now along Santa Rosa Road and along 246.
Those are the vineyards that are in there and the tasting rooms are marked by an X so that's the impact it's having. The Santa Barbara Vendors recommends that all cannabis grows be limited to a maximum of one acre with odor abatement required and then cannabis and Santa Barbara wines will be able to peacefully coexist.
7:05 – 7:1410 turns
John Dorwan is our next speaker to be followed by Steve Becker, Steve Decker pardon me and Kapono Curry.
My name is John Dorwan I represent the Moffitt family on Blazing Saddles Drive in Tepeskay Canyon within an EDRM. I think you have a problem with CEQA in amending your ordinance at all so long as you are allowing Applicants to process who are in current violation of your grading ordinance and also of California Department of Fish and Game Regulations 1602. In Tepeskay Canyon, we have two applicants Watkins and Dayspring.
There is a zoning violation case 18-ZEV00196 referenced in your schedule of applicants. And we also have illegal bulldozer work in Tepiscay Creek on the Dayspring property, no enforcement action is being taken. These I think are the people we're talking about who are the scofflaws. They're two cases that the county really ought to take a hard look at And understanding how your ordinance by not enforcing your grading ordinance and not enforcing state law as to creek excavation is going to come back in the form of a CEQA lawsuit.
The first case is the Fish and Game Section 1602 case of people versus Donald Weaver back in the 80's in Tehigwas Creek, which Analyze the public policy behind degradation of water quality, erosion and biological resources caused by illegal grading in a creek bed. The second case is somewhat more recent I think it's a 2004-2005 case. called Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association versus Montecito Water District. And that involves visual impacts, and that gets back to the lighting issue and how you can have lights inside of a greenhouse. And our second district court of appeal had some interesting analysis, and it's a landmark case in terms of visual impacts and CEQA triggers.
And I think based upon...
Sir, your 15 seconds over, I'm sorry.
The Watkins and Dayspring activities.
Is my mic on? The county is aiding and abetting the... I'm sorry, you have to stop talking then. ...violations. Steve
Decker please, followed by Kapono Curry and then Richard Klein
Mr. Chair, members of the board, I'm Steve Decker, founder of Santa Barbara Cannabis LLC, a family-run licensed boutique medical cannabis cultivation business on my five and a quarter acre Ag 1-5 property legally growing onsite since 2008. We are presently processing a land use permit application for a new low profile mixed lake greenhouse. The total structure footprint including our existing residence will cover only 8.7% of our total parcel area Does equivalent to a 3,700 square foot structure on a one acre parcel. Our cultivation system will be high tech aeroponics using 90% less water than conventional systems and two thirds less labor.
LED grow lights will be used energy offsets will be through solar electric strict odor abatement will be used as required. And on that point we I had county staff visit my site actually had an indoor activity flowering And we had odor abatement underway in there and county staff could not detect the odor. Actually went up next to the exhaust fan and said, can't smell it.
There will be no exterior lighting on our building. Interior lighting will be blocked to the outside through state of the art light deprivation systems that do work. Daily traffic to the site will be four to five employees during a normal work week. Commercial deliveries to the site will be one small FedEx truck per month. Deliveries off-site will be two small pickup trucks per month.
If I were growing any other plant than cannabis, only a building permit would be required. Not a land use permit that requires odor, noise, traffic, fencing, landscape and lighting restrictions. The community's interests are actually better protected through the Cannabis Ordinance than otherwise would occur. I believe it would be better for everyone concerned to see the details of specific projects before speculating on their need to amend ordinances across the board particularly on Ag One properties. Thank you
Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Capone O'Curry. I'm a cannabis professional. I operate inside this industry throughout the state I've gotten properties through licensure in Mendocino Sacramento and we've begun a project here We do not currently cultivate so I can't lay claim to the issues that are currently facing the community what I can say is that The operators that I do work with earnestly work very hard to make sure we are inside the regulatory frameworks of every municipality we operate in. In Sacramento, we had gone through four rounds of inspections installing additional odor abatement until we were in line with our neighbors making sure that we were good members of the community.
I can't give a very granular perspective on all the amendments that have been proposed but I can give a professional perspective on some of the things that were brought up. First off, the amendment regarding testing labs being placed on ag properties. Testing labs as you may or not be aware fall under ISO standard 17025 International Standards Organizations Regarding Analytical Chemistry Labs. They are very stringent. They have very strict accreditation standards as well as a process that has been carried out and monitored state by state across the country and across the world.
Saying where you can or can't locate these just makes life a little bit difficult for the people who are trying to operate legally. The types of testing labs that are standard, are third party testing labs and they need to be located closer to the distributors. Testing labs close to the producers themselves are strictly to find out the potency As well as the profile of the active ingredient to help them get a better sale price for their product, helping small farmers.
The employee live scan amendment, seasonal employees are a fact in this industry when it comes to harvest time we have many people there who are not typically there making these regulations a little bit easier and more streamlined would make life a lot easier for operators seeking to operate legally. In addition to that in regards to the language of are you inside the boat or not? The operators that I work with want to be inside the boat. And there's a lot of frustration on bad actors making the world all the more difficult for the rest of us trying to operate legally and what I would suggest to your area. I'm sorry your time is up. Thank you very much for your time
Richard Klein to be followed by Jackie Thiel and then Jane Overbaugh
Hello I'm Richard Klein and I'm here to support expanded enhanced cannabis regulations. Earlier this month my wife and I received notice from planning development of pending approval of a land use permit for outdoor cultivation of approximately 40 acres of cannabis on the property adjoining our ranch in Los Alamos. We've owned and resided on our ranch for 31 years, during which time we've operated farming cattle and horse operations. Approximately 21 years ago with full county permit approval, we constructed a house in which we reside that's located approximately 50 yards from the property line and the proposed cannabis cultivation. The most important issue which we ask your assistance is odor abatement. This is critical. According to a representative of planning development No odor abatement plan shall be required in AG 2 zoning unless the CUP is required.
This case does not trigger a conditional use permit. We're shocked to learn that the county requires no odor abatement plan in AG 2 zoning. That's totally contrary to protecting the living environment and property values of immediate neighbors. Further, it's unconscionable that the applicant for this cannabis development so close to our home simply states winds in the area will mitigate odor in the area.
Wind in Los Alamos often blows east to west, which would send the cannabis right to our bedroom. We ask that the county take aggressive regulatory measures to manage and monitor the subject property and similar proposed projects requiring the owners to minimize any noxious odor pollution as a result of their operation. Another issue which would be required in an ag tour, any property is a setback. We've been advised that the code does not require 100 foot or any greater setback around the property where cannabis is proposed. This is not only of concern but it appears inconsistent with other county regulations. Last year a developer proposed a motel at the western edge of Los Alamos. The county rejected the plan primarily as it did not have an adequate 300-foot buffer Good afternoon.
My name is Jackie Thiel and I live in North County.
7:15 – 7:2917 turns
North County has been greatly affected by the large cannabis growers with stacked permits on Santa Rosa Road. We cannot allow stacked permits, the hillsides that the photos you saw earlier don't even do it justice there we look at a sea of white on the hillsides they are grading all the way to the top of the hills inside our house is completely blinding outside is completely blinding We can't walk, we can't drive because when it's on a hillside it's on a slant. So the sun reflects directly back at us.
I also feel the 4% tax for cultivation needs to be higher. When you made 1.8 million in taxes and 1.7 went to law enforcement basically that $100,000 was the ruin of North County. That's just not worth it. The 1500 feet setback and the notice, that doesn't make any sense either. My neighbor a mile away put in a pool, a 50 foot pool and I got a notice from planning and development. So 1500 feet is nothing especially in North County when we're at two and there's larger pieces of property. I am asking you to please keep our county beautiful. We live in a beautiful place. Please be fair in your regulations to everybody. The residents, the existing businesses who are being hurt, and also the cannabis growers as well. Thank you.
Jane Overbaugh followed by Jay pardon me Terry Ames then Jay
Higgins. Supervisors thank you for the opportunity to speak to today I live on a two acre parcel in San Ynez that's probably not any more than 100 yards from a indoor greenhouse cannabis grow along Highway 154 About a year ago, started smelling this horrible skunk odor. Figured out what it was went over tried to work with the grower who I think has tried to put in mitigation efforts to mitigate the odor. It's just not working. I've had relatives come in from out of state friends come over workers working on the property people who live in other parts of San Ines who drive by and say that odor is horrendous. I can't open my windows at night in the summer, can't enjoy a glass of wine out on my patio. I even had a three year old come one time when the odor was bad and said to her grandmother, Mimi it stinks here.
There's gotta be some balance between cannabis growing and maintaining the quality of life for people who live in this county. I'm here to urge you to support option three which is to ban all cannabis growing on Ag One I just think that the properties are so close together. And if our neighbor has made the efforts that I think he has made to mitigate owner and it's not working, something's got to give there's gotta be some happy balance here and I urge you to implement regulations that allow for that. Thank you.
Terry Ames Followed by Jay Higgins and then Stephen Jacobs.
Hello, my name is Terry Ames and I live at 976 Freidensburg Canyon in Solvang. I am speaking to you today on behalf of the 360 signed members of our group opposed to the commercial cannabis facility at 988 Freidensburg Canyon Road in Solvang. My husband Ben and I have lived in the Santa Ynez Valley for 48 years. We raised our three children in the house that Ben built for us on Freedonsport Canyon, and now our grandchildren come to visit quite often. We're both retired now and we enjoy the peace and quiet that our neighborhood provides. Ben and walk our streets. We often walk with our next door neighbors Ty and Rebecca Smith and their kids Jake 4 and Kylie 2.
They love to ride their bikes to their grandparents lot up the canyon. We often see neighbors jogging, walking their dogs, riding horses. We don't need increased traffic on our street. It is a rural and quiet neighborhood and we would like to keep it that way. We invite you to come and see the location so that you can see that our neighborhood is a wonderful neighborhood.
Cannabis operation of that size does not belong in our neighborhood. We need to protect our families with children so they can grow up in a safe neighborhood. Our neighbors application goes against the intent of the county's cannabis ordinance to protect neighborhoods. This facility would be located within a residential neighborhood with no commercial Commercial activity whatsoever. Our neighborhood is centered around a dead end country road where families live in a safe community. This operation, like others in the county, would introduce large increase in traffic from employees, odor issues, most critically criminal activity and we don't want that.
Throughout the San Ynez Valley, AG-1 parcels are used as residential properties with few exceptions. We're requesting that the county prohibit The cultivation of cannabis on AG one parcels to protect our neighborhoods and our children. Thank
you.
Jay Higgins to be followed by Steven Jacobs, then we'll hear from Arlene Ellen.
Oh sorry excuse me thank you Mr Chair supervisors for having the hearing today I've learned quite a bit just by being here and you know I've come to represent several Applicants to the process all different kinds. Those are legal non-conforming those are trying to come in the front door So to speak Carpenter area North County and I can tell you emphatically that they all are desperate to learn The rules not like unlike any other development project certainty in the process is key Especially for those people that have already made investments or already made acquisition choices based on the rules that you set up last summer I'd like to read it reiterate what mr. Morris said at the beginning of the public comment period about the process and the expenses And urge you before you make any decisions with regard to directing staff today or in terms of zone districts or procedures sit down with staff and maybe some of the industry or some of our some of the agents and And understand from their perspective how difficult it is to get in and then get out.
Okay, it's not easy. Just look at the numbers so I think it's obviously premature to make these judgments now based on non-compliance when you can't get compliance because you can't get a permit. It's very difficult. I've stopped actually giving advice in terms of how long it'll take, because it seems to be in the last month or so. It's getting very dicey in terms of predicting procedures. So case in point, and I would like to advocate for you to give the authority necessary to Mr. Pisanis' office to extend provisionals.
The issue with certificates of conformity or compliance on ag Properties is a hang-up for several of my clients that will not make it into the process Unless there's some relaxation given to and after the fact certificate of compliance Some flexibility that process so they can come into the process at least apply for their land use permit and become conforming. Thank you
Stephen Jacobs be followed by Arlene Ellen, and then Liz Rogan
Steven Jacobs, I live on Fredensburg Way right at the corner of Fredensburg Way and Fredensburg Canyon in Solvang. We're about a mile north as the crow flies from Solvang City Hall. I'm here today to support the changes to the current cannabis permitting and licensing regulations and specifically for the option to ban cultivation on AG1 property. I'm also here as Terry was before me to speak for over 360 residents in the area of 98 Fredensburg Canyon who opposed the proposed commercial cannabis operation on that AG1 property.
You know about three years ago we moved into our property, I'm a retired deputy chief from the Los Angeles Police Department my wife's retired elementary school teacher and we moved here to raise our now currently seven-year-old granddaughter We spent months searching an area where we could enhance our lives and have what we needed, and we found that in Fredericksburg Canyon.
It's a residential neighborhood with a rural feel. We're able to have our horses there. It is a mixed community, everything from senior retirees to young families. And we are on a dead end road, a dead end road that people use daily as Terry indicated. To walk, jog, exercise their horses. But more importantly you see the kids out there every day with their bikes and their scooters The proposed cannabis facility with a possibility of the increase in lighting noise Odors and even possible criminal activity would destroy the neighborhood character and have a negative impact on the people in the community I don't believe this board envisioned a commercial cannabis facility in a neighborhood like ours when you made this regulation. And I think, I know the residents of Fredericksburg Canyon ask that you rectify this now by changing them and ban the cultivation on AG1 property.
Thank you.
Arlene Ellen then we'll hear from Liz Rogan and then Susan Lang.
My name is Arlene Elon. I don't live in California, don't want to live in California. I came here to share my expertise with you. I'm a licensed fraud examiner. I've done my career in insurance. I am on the board of directors for housing. I have done all industries and I am appalled at what I have seen. I went to your meeting with this gentleman over there in Solvang. I attended that, I took my time because I'm concerned about what's happening to your people here and I'm very concerned. I was asked to be on the city council in my own town. I am a way too long to be able to commit but I do get involved And I've gotten involved here today because I'm appalled at the behaviors that I've seen. You draw on no expertise, none from anybody who has expertise about security?
There's tons of people who can help you make a good decision and a plan which you're not done. You put the cart before the horse. Temporary permits for what reason? You haven't done your homework. You haven't done the homework. You don't know what you're doing. You're passing ordinances with no expertise and I'm sharing my expertise and my time to come here and do this. I'm here selling my sister's home in Los Alamos, my twin who passed away.
That's why I'm here and I've been here for months and I know the town and she's been a resident for 25 years. I am appalled. You do not need for security cameras to run a generator Absolutely not. That's an excuse. Draw on expertise, have people join your committees that can give you the information so you can put together a plan from ground one that will protect your communities. Residential is residential.
You want to have a farm, you want to grow cannabis? Go out into the areas where it belongs. It doesn't belong in your neighborhoods. Sorry. My time is up and I appreciate coming here. I've donated my time for this because it's that much of a concern.
Thank you.
Thank
you. Liz Rogan then we'll hear from Susan Lang and then Elaine Trifas.
Good afternoon, board. Thank you all for your time today. I know that we recognize each other, that we've spent time together through the last couple years sitting here talking about all this stuff that we're here talking about again. And I wanted to thank you for your patience and I know that you personally have so much to do, that you do the best you can with relying on staff and expert testimony. And throughout this process, you have taken the time to have community feedback all over and multiple parts of our county. And I think that some of the people here don't realize that. I don't think they understand that this process has been going on and just because you're here today to make a statement. This has been happening, you know just because you just came it's been here.
Unfortunately I hate to tell people too but if you look at the medical or the marijuana capital it's actually Humboldt County. It's the Emerald Triangle so sorry Santa Barbara we're not quite there yet. All cannabis has to go through a very extensive testing process as you guys know The thing is this guy's talking about his avocado fields right next to it. Well, what are you spraying on your avocados? Because the thing is cannabis also has pests. We are not allowed to use any of those things that they're using because we're tested down to parts per billion. So if it's okay to spray that on your food but it's not okay to spray it on your cannabis seems kind of interesting to me.
Also, so everybody keeps talking. First off there are definitely land use permits so for anyone out here who thinks that there's no land use permit with cannabis they should definitely be educated about that because I've heard that said multiple times today. The thing is let's base this on science, let's base this on reality okay sure it has an odor first off those odors are from terpenes they're not toxic to people A lot of companies, including Whole Foods, spray terpenes in their air for effects. Linalool is from lavender. It's relaxing. It actually helps people supposedly buy more according to Whole Foods. But regardless let's look at this. This is ag land it obviously has odors but can you base it on something real? If I have a cow farm and it smells or a broccoli farm or Brussels sprouts and it smells well then you know let's have some kind of science.
Thank you.
Susan Lang then we'll hear from Elaine Dreyfus
7:29 – 7:3718 turns
What's up?
Good afternoon. I'm Elaine Dreyfuss and this is Susan
Lang.
We're speaking to protest the possible permitting of a commercial cannabis operation at 988 Freedonsborg Canyon Road as a separate point, this person already has a home growing because of a family member who apparently needs medical cannabis We are a group of directly affected neighbors who have already experienced negative impacts by the actions of this applicant. We wish to point out the applicant's disregard for county regulations and the health and safety of his direct neighbors.
We have seven specific areas to address, which have already directly and negatively affected some or all of us. The first was a severed gas line that occurred at the end of February 2018. We were notified by the Southern California Gas Company that our gas was being cut off. Because there was a broken line in the area and that we would not be able to turn it back on without being recertified.
A neighbor observed Steven Decker and his son digging, likely unpermitted with a backhoe. When the Southern California Gas Company arrived to shut the gas off they confirmed that the backhoe had caused the break. Owners Dreyfus, Kays, Mazer, Quinn and Norquist were without gas for periods of up to one week. Significant costs were incurred by each owner to get their gas service restored.
Stephen Decker, without permission designated Well Master for a four-party shared well proceeded with well reconstruction without giving the other three parties an estimate or keeping them updated on the costs. Had they known the bills would mount from an initial approximate 6,000 per owner to another more than 15,000 per owner the other parties would likely have requested another opinion and estimate from a licensed well contractor.
Though recognizing the improved water quality the other parties had been given no reason to expect bills so high as the ones received from Stephen Decker Some or all of the work was performed and billed by Steven Decker and his son. It's doubtful that permits were pulled. The water well owners are Decker, Hobgood, Lugli, and Norcutt.
Ma'am, your time is up.
Time's up? That's it? Okay. But that's my time. Now your time. We've got two minutes
twice. Did you put in two slips? Yeah. Okay, go ahead.
Some of the neighbors have already had periods of time when they have had no water, when they've turned their spigots on with no prior notice. There now appears to be additional work being done on the well site without prior notice or consent of the fellow owners. We own adjacent parcels that have wells on the same aquifer. We are concerned that Stephen Decker's actions will affect aquifer capacity and quality.
The grow lights on the current operation that Stephen Decker now has on his property are already causing discomfort to the neighbors, specifically some direct intrusion into neighboring homes and overall nightlight pollution.
The odor in the current operation that Stephen Decker now has on his property is already causing disturbance to some of the neighbors.
And the noise from the current operation that Steven Decker now has on his property is already just causing discomfort and disturbance to some of the neighbors. The sound, the noise sounds like generators and or pumps. The noise wakes the neighbors up as early as 5 a.m., and this is a residential area. Thank you.
Thank you.
Barbara clues. To be followed by Judy's stiff suffer and then Sharon merit.
Thank you. I'm probably the only person from the Eastern Goleta Valley, and I just want to say hello to Supervisor Hart and welcome you to our district. As a longtime resident of the Eastern Goleta Valley, I've been watching with alarm in the way that the cannabis ordinance has been rolled out. So far in our area, we have some really prime ag land that has not yet been targeted for cannabis except for one property that's growing cannabis by Ed St. John who is a developer who we know is super not neighbor friendly and he already I think has some violations that we're going to have to look into but So we're so far hopefully ahead of the curve in crafting an ordinance that will help not go backwards here.
I think it's time to stop catering to the poor mentality of the growers and the industry They've stood up here for over a year telling us that they want to be good neighbors and they want to work with the community as they infiltrate organizations and garner support for essentially exploiting our community resources and character. We're watching this take place right before our eyes, and our leaders seem to all have revenue streams in their lenses.
And we aren't able to see the reality of what our communities are turning into. The cannabis industry is here to make as much money as it can at our expense, and I think it's time to stop drinking the cannabis Kool-Aid and start protecting the 300,000 residents in our county. I just want to address a couple of things. I think that the noticing should be as far as the odor goes and As far as the residents Voting for cannabis, I don't think that they voted for the industry and for crime and for the odor and everything I think they just voted for personal use so thank you
Judy Stauffer to be followed by Sharon Merritt and then John Faulkner
Judy had to leave. Her issue is enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. I'm Sharon Merritt. When the ordinance was approved you did not know what the impacts would be because we didn't have it yet And now that there's widespread cultivation. And you can see the number of people who've taken their day to come here, which is a pain in the deer here. You know that there are impacts and I think that It is incumbent upon you now that you know there are widespread impacts from widespread cultivation.
That you need to review all aspects of the ordinance, it's part of learning right? You try something, it's an experiment, it has problems, you review and you restart. And then you review again if there's more problems. And that's within your power, and I think within your responsibilities. You have had lots of meetings. It really is hard for people to come out to meetings when they're not time certain, when there's only two locations. It's very difficult. I think you need to have workshops to get more input. I think you've gotten a lot of input today, but I think there needs to be input more broad.
I also think that you guys should combine the hoops ordinance or at least review of the hoops ordinance with review of the cannabis ordinance because they are completely interlocked and can't be separated out. By the way, to Ms. Black's statement that there must be no visual markers that cannabis is being cultivated, there was a chortle because everyone knows the greenhouses and the massive hoop houses are growing cannabis.
So, that doesn't work. Thank you. And you could smell it.
John Faulkner? Who's next? And we'll hear from William Hines and then Nathan Ryan.
7:37 – 7:437 turns
Hello, my name is John Faulkner and I'm a winemaker in the Lompoc Valley. I'm representing our business in the cultivation of estate vineyards in the Santa Rita Hills AVA which is an internationally regarded viticultural region that has the current misfortune of being in Ag-2 zoning We wine growers are especially concerned about the lack of odor abatement requirements on our marijuana growing neighbors.
It's known that grapes grown by eucalyptus trees can be tainted by eucalyptol, a volatile terpene perceptible in parts per billion. It is known that wildfire smoke that wafts over grapes can irreparably taint them with volatile phenols. The odor adheres to the grape's waxy skins. It's not yet known how absorbent grapes will be of the volatile airborne plant oils from marijuana, but we wine growers are nervous to find out.
While the effect of stinky marijuana growing next door to our vineyards will definitely be bad for wine tourism and wine tasting, it's the damage to our crops that might be the real disaster. We'd like odor abatement requirements in Ag 2. Thank you.
William Hines. Then we'll hear from Nathan Ryan and then Sarah Rotman.
Good afternoon. Supervisor Williams, I'm in your district. Supervisor Hartman of building 50 acres of vineyards in the Santa Rita Hills. I've also over two years ago started the process of this passing of the legislation for cannabis. I put over a million dollars into business of building greenhouse, So I totally believe in both of these projects that you're trying to do, but you've got to keep it down and put in a package if you go with one acre.
And that's it shouldn't be allowed in the wine ABAs period. But if you're going to go ahead and bin one acre in the AVAs odor abatement is critical. So I've got a winery, I've got multi-million dollar winery that's on y'all's books and I'm not building it Until I know what the situation is. So there's harm occurring, you'll hear from Tyler with Dierberg. The smell, I know y'all are trying to get all of this under control but it's going to be imperative that the concentration... You wonder why we're here? It's because no one ever imagined they'd be a permit for 70 acres when it was a 1 acre state limit period! They want to stack the licenses let them stack them that's fine but you got to keep at one acre you can't kill this wine industry There's 40 pages of this book that gets into the centuries of wine tasting.
It's very, very important to Pinot Noir. Your own articles in your Santa Barbara season. Wine tasting in the vineyard direct-to-consumer sales. You're going to kill this business if you allow cannabis to flourish and you smell it all over the valley. Thank you.
Nathan Ryan had to leave. Sarah Rotman and then John DeFrio.
Hello,
and thank you guys so much for taking so much time to listen to everyone today. My name is Sarah Rotman and together with my husband a third generation avocado farmer from Carpinteria we own an organic vegetable farm and cannabis cultivation business in northern Santa Barbara County We are simply as local as it can be A lifelong environmentalist and branding expert I have spent a lengthy career creating and protecting beautiful things It was only via life-threatening illness that I quite reluctantly came to be a legally operating cannabis cultivator. Viewed through this lens, I can see both sides of the community's needs and concerns expressed today. And I know a great deal of what has people so upset is based on bad information, the actions of illegal operators and a lack of understanding for the incredible significant laws and regulations that your team has already put in place.
I mean, we understand and I think that a lot of the people here would benefit from a greater understanding of some of the regulations that are currently being applied and in the act of being applied to all of us legal growers. The truth about this community though is that the community itself and the people here and the cannabis cultivators operating legally have more similarities shared values and goals than differences. Most of the concerns that have been raised today are due to a complete lack of understanding of the regulation that is currently in place. And, of course, the activity of the many illegal actors rather than the legally compliant businesses operating in our community today. Unfortunately any further restrictions on the legal operators will do little to remove the threats of the people's concerns expressed today.
Let's focus on the immediate shared goal of enforcement that is happening on both sides of the community, the cannabis as well as the cannabis opponents. We should allow at least a full year of operation and compliance And permitting and let people actually have permits as has been expressed multiple times today There isn't a single cannabis operator here who's been able to successfully get through the permitting process Although I understand there is close to 50 that are in process at this moment. Is that correct?
Something around those lines in any event, I think once we see these legal operators operating safely man your time's up Okay Thank you for your time
John DeFrio To be followed by Susan baloney
7:43 – 7:5621 turns
Good evening Chair Lavinino and fellow board members. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you today I speak in support of staff's recommendations for the small changes to the land-use code And one thing that I think we've all talked about over the last several years working together is that when you want to make land use, you want to craft policy that lasts the test of time.
And we haven't even begun to see the majority of operators go through the policy that's been developed and we haven't had a chance to do an iteration yet. So hopefully with the two years we spent as a community working for the rules that we have in place now That policy will hopefully last us the next five to 10 years. In that time frame, we'll also likely see full federal legalization with the States Act quickly approaching.
It's expected to see some small tweaks in the regulations but without actually seeing anything work its way through the entire process it would be a little premature to make large changes. I've spoken to you guys many times and I think you all are very well up to speed on the issues and I'll keep it short today.
Susan Belloni to be followed by Eric Edwards and Peggy Brierton.
I'm Susan Belloni from Solvang, and I'm here to stand up for the San Ynez Valley Community Plan. As you know well each area in the county has different goals plans and overlays. Inconveniently one size regulation may not fit all. Within the San ynez valley plan are approximately 1,600 Ag-1 parcels We have two-thirds of all the Agwin parcels in the entire county.
Only a hundred more Agwin parcels exist in the rest of North County, so it's concentrated. Almost every single one of these Valley parcels is eligible for a cannabis business and many with no CUP requirement. Only properties adjacent to urban, rural, EDRN boundaries or within an EDRN require a CUP. I really don't think Valley residents know these details. There wasn't a workshop on the valley before the ordinance's adoption.
The county requires a minor CUP to breed puppies in a kennel. Surely you would want to require a CUP for all cannabis cultivation? It seems that the county wants to let the free market determine the outcome of the ordinance and to streamline and minimize regulations. But you also promised to protect the public from serious, and acknowledged in writing adverse effects such as crime and health hazards for sensitive populations. Please explain how you can effectively do both?
Lastly, here's a permit notice. This process seems difficult to navigate for the unsuspecting neighbor. The neighbor is surprised one day and gets a notice in the mail—the only notice. They have to call the county to become an aggrieved party, and before the permit is approved if they want to appeal later. They have to figure out how to determine when a permit might be approved. They only have 10 days to make an appeal starting when the permit is approved, there's no public hearing. This really puts pressure on a neighbor who may have no idea how the process works. A CUP requirement is a better alternative. Thank you for amending the right-to-farm ordinance to leave out cannabis cultivation due to potential adverse effects. Thank you for retaining the right to change the ordinance to further protect residents.
Eric Edwards to be followed by Peggy Brierton and then Courtney Taylor.
Chair, Supervisors my name is Eric Edwards and I'm here on behalf of a licensed cultivator here in Carpinteria we're a member of the Carps Grower Association and we are employing best available odor technology We're currently preparing our CDP, and I can tell you that it's an extremely expensive and time-consuming process to submit an application that complies with the county's comprehensive list of standards including architectural plans, odor abatement certified by a professional engineer, biological studies, water efficiency standards, transportation demand management plans.
Lighting and security plans. When all this is said and done, we estimate the cost to be upwards of $30,000-$40,000 for the county compliance alone. We are happy to pay these costs for the privilege of being able to operate in the county but we need increased enforcement for those who are not playing by the same rules. We support a pathway to state provisional licenses while our CDP is in process and we urge the county to eliminate the live scan requirement for ag employees. Thank you.
Peggy Brierton to be followed by Courtney Taylor and then Mike Palmer
Hello, Peggy Brierton. I'm from Buellton. First of all, I am not against cannabis. I want you to know that. I know it has a lot of benefits and there's a lot we don't know yet that can come out of this so I am not anti-cannabis. But cannabis cultivation must be controlled. We don't want to be the cannabis capital of the world or of the United States, or even California.
Put limits on cannabis growth outside grow and inside grow. Limit it to one acre per property of open grow and limit indoor grows to 22,000 square feet. No cannabis grows on AG-1 property of 20 acres or less, or zoned AG-15, AG-10, or within 2 miles of urban growth boundaries and EDRNs. Cannabis cultivation has public and health safety issues and they are best addressed in enclosed structures but they must have the odor control in place prior to operation.
Prohibit outdoor cannabis cultivation, including cultivation within hoop structures with exception for large parcels and remote properties that pose no health and safety issues. If they can be shown that odor is not a concern due to the remoteness, no negative impacts on vineyards or tasting rooms, adequate water supply, no trucked in water. No hoops allowed protecting our scenic view sheds.
Complying with all other local and state regulations, a one acre maximum of open grow property should be granted. I believe in better enforcement and also conditional use permit for all cannabis operations. And at this point, I am against the generators for the properties, thank you.
Thank you at this time we're going to take a quick break in public comment sorry had nothing to do with the next speaker. Supervisor Adam has a has has to leave and so we're going to give him an opportunity to speak before he goes
OK so. You know right or wrong good or bad people have approved Prop 64 And I am not a fan of the recreational use of pot, but I'm also not in favor of thwarting the intent and spirit of a duly passed initiative from people. Like it or not, production per se has become legal. I oppose the whole scheme that we passed earlier based on the fact that I believe that we have created too cumbersome a program and have effectively frustrated Prop 64 without allowing sufficient accommodation of people with a variety of interests, both those who produce and those who live around it.
And for that reason, I come down on these various issues as follows. Issue one, cannabis testing. I'm an option three guy on that while I support adding as much value as possible on ag property generally such as wineries or olive presses. The state requires that ownership be entirely separate in this case, and so I think it's appropriate to require that not be on ag property.
Issue number two, the AG1 option three ban cultivation on AG1. This takes care of the smell issues and the EDRNs Option three, or issue three. I'm okay with reducing the requirement to owners of 20% only not general employees. So that's option one. Issue four, option two maintain the existing two per district I think is good enough Issue 5. Change the energy plan review I think this is exactly the kind of overreach that we should not have engaged in.
Option 2 is leave existing regulations alone. And then issue 6, the renewals. It seems like a typo happened there but there's an inconsistency between the two and option 1 to correct that made to shall is fine. 7 Generators again too much micromanagement and regulations option to maintain existing is Is what I could support and I'm sorry that I'm not gonna be able to hang in with you guys
We're sorry, too. So yeah Do you need a ride or Not yet. Okay, so okay well I guess we'll continue with public comment will come to us and if we get some situation where we can't get the three votes or whatever then
Well, I'm absolutely certain we're going to hear this issue again. Yeah, I don't have any I hope nobody harbors any delusions about being able to get this all squared away Today,
I would imagine not so
sure that for the rest of my duration here We'll talk about
this a
lot
So we'll soldier on through public comment and then do our best on our deliberations
Courtney Taylor then we'll hear from Mike Palmer than Gail Hurson and
All right, good afternoon. So Courtney Taylor I am an alcohol beverage attorney here on behalf of several clients mostly in ag to zoning that are concerned about potential projects nearby their properties. Just hoping to be pretty succinct some kind of basic practical maybe ideas to throw around just to ensure consistency with the EIR compatibility with and input from residential uses neighboring properties and then to hopefully Put some additional amendments in the regulations to help maintain growth of the industry, to make sure it doesn't go too crazy.
So from my understanding is we're the only county that doesn't have some kind of acreage cap on how big these grows can be. So there's this licensing stacking issues and ways that they can stack multiple permits to get these very large Thank you very much. And that would be consistent with other counties that have cannabis regulations on the books. As you've heard before, it doesn't make any sense that there is no odor abatement requirement on Act 2 when you have an ordinance with no setbacks, you can have a residence that is right by a proposed grow. There need to be setbacks and odor abatement procedures for I mean you have neighbors.
I know the EIR contemplated residential uses, didn't even specify residential zoning. So you have residential uses even on ag parcels that aren't in an EDRN or an urban-rural boundary so they don't get a CUP. So you have neighbors who have no input. There is currently pending ministerial permit and there is no process for us to have any input to go before any kind of body to give any comment.
And your time's up.
Sorry, so please do see you piece. Thank you
Mike Palmers our next speaker to be followed by Gail Hurston and then Robert fitter
7:56 – 8:0312 turns
Thank you, Chair and Board and County staff. My name is Michael Palmer. I'm a founding member of the CARP Growers Association that stands for Cannabis Association of Responsible Producers in Carpinteria. I understand that there are remaining community concerns related to the odor in Carpinteria Valley. Our association is committed to operating at the highest standards including the best available odor control technology.
As we've discussed before, we've been through iteration of many machines. I think we've come to one of the or definitely the best machine up till now in the vapor system. And although not all growers have been able to afford to adapt, they're all in the process of doing that. All the ones that are in our group and as we all know there are actors within the community that do not have these yet.
We are putting the pressure on them and trying to identify the properties that are not in cooperation. The vapor phase technology which uses a highly effective deodorizer, which is used in landfills, compost facilities and water treatment plants does work. It's been certified by an independent third party consultants for public health and safety as well as a certified industrial hygienist. We have installed these systems around the perimeter of our greenhouses and packing houses to maximize the efficiency. These systems can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to install and maintain But they do work. However, they are not currently using this tech. Let's see. Sorry.
However, they do not currently... I'll skip that. Actually our county does have actually one of the strictest odor control standards in the state compared to other counties and So although there may be some bad actors now, that they will be forced upon soon. If the board accepts the staff's option to go ahead and-
Time's
up,
Mr. Wallman. Sorry, thanks
guys.
All right, thanks.
Gail Hurson followed by Robert Fedar, Anthony Karen.
Good afternoon. Thank you all I know that you really want to do good. You're our neighbors we voted you in. I know you only have the best interest of our community. Yet somehow you've allowed cannabis growers to hijack our precious Eden. And of course, you know your first responsibility is to the citizens of this county not to the growers and so of course we want you to remember your very best self and stand up for us Because the unintended consequences of the cannabis growing, they're really huge. You know we've got headaches, burning eyes, sinus problems and I'm bothered every single day as I breathe this stuff. And now these crazy odors have reached my own lovely little farm, my heavenly retirement haven and that pushed me over the edge at that point I emailed Das Williams Who to my surprise and delight emailed me right back, which was fantastic.
And explained to me that there was going to be lots of odor abatement coming in. But recently I found out a lot about that odor abatement and I think we need to take another look at it. We don't want more unintended consequences if we're talking about spraying stuff into the air. Detergents, emulsifiers, essential oils. And we haven't really taken the care and the knowledge to know the long-term effects of these to humans, to wildlife, insects, waterways. So the only testing that has been done evidently is on acute poisoning. Now that's not what it should be tested on. It should be long-term chronic exposure to these chemicals, because that's what's happening. These chemicals are there on a daily basis and long term chronic exposure will create reactivity and chronic problems in humans and animals.
Untested masking agents will be spewed into the air by thousands of grower sites With no regard for the consequences. So what about people like me who are actually allergic to the A-terpineol and the B-pinene in these masking sprays? I'm already having headaches, as are many of my neighbors and friends in town. It also contains polysorbates. Okay but I won't even put that in my toothpaste you want me to breathe it so we need to look at that thank you so much.
Robert Fennar followed by Anthony Kieran and then Tara Steffen
Chairman Lavallino, members of the board. Thank you again for all your work with the Santa Barbara cannabis industry. It's been a real challenge for all of us in the business. I know for you guys, Mr. Bozonich and for staff as well, thank you. My comments today will be limited to cultivation. Specifically my experience which is outdoor cultivation on a greater than one ag 20 property. My conditional use permit application came back as incomplete and with over 10 pages of notes. This is for what is essentially a crop change. My biggest hurdle will be odor. We're trying to work with the code where it specifically says that odor shall be prevented from being experienced in residential zones, as determined by the director. To what standards or how will the director decide?
The lack of clarity on this point makes purchasing a system very difficult. In my case, I am five miles from a residential zone. Hoops would help with odor control but there's a de facto moratorium on hoops unless you're a berry grower. There is no technique that is 100% going to control odor even in fully enclosed greenhouses. Regulating odor is subjective and that's probably why the APCD will not weigh in on this. It's kind of like regulating for visual impact. It's very subjective. I've hired an air quality engineer and hygienist, and met with two odor control companies. They've all told me effective odor control is definitely site-specific, and I'm lucky because I have a large hill on one end of my property, and the wind always blows in the same direction.
So their high pressure nozzles mounted on the west end of my hoops combined with my existing 150 foot setback will mitigate my cannabis odor And they also said that it's fortunate that I'm the only farm within a mile. Except one vendor also confided that 60% of the systems he's ever sold have been fired up one time for a county or state test and never turned on again, and never been complained on. So that's good news for me except I'm hearing this from a guy I pay money to and two guys who want to sell me something. So we need guidance on this or the county needs to accept our licensed professionals findings.
Your time is up sir. Thank you.
Anthony Heron. Then how about Tara Stephan? Is Tara here? All right, great and then we'll hear from Dr. Judy Dean.
8:03 – 8:109 turns
Thank you all for coming here today and I just wanted to also take a moment to thank you guys for every day of work you've done in the last two years to help come up with working regulations between the cannabis industry, the residents here and your offices. Without taking too much time, I just want to vocalize my support for Keeping the cannabis control on AG-1 zones as is. I think changing it right now would be burdensome for any party involved Also, I would like to say that finding a happy medium for the live scan requirements Would be in the best interest of everyone too. I fully support Supervisory positions management and ownership being live scanned but we already go through the due diligence of making sure that our staff is 100% legal citizens and we do our own background checks that are more of a standard format under social security search.
And lastly I would just like to go ahead and say as a resident of Carpinteria, a parent of a little carpenterian and someone who's lucky enough to work in Carp Valley, I fully support the cannabis industry and the progressive impacts that it could have towards our future. We realize that the odor is a problem that we want to work with everyone to find a working solution for We just want to commit to the progress for not only our county, but the country in itself. Thanks.
Dr. Judy Dean be followed by David Van Wingerden and then Susan Shackleton.
Good afternoon, I'm Dr. Judy Dean. I'm a physician. I just recently retired after 25 years of practice in the city of Santa Barbara. I am appalled at what is happening to Santa Barbara County under your watch. Are you listening? I have been to some of the previous meetings. Who is your constituency here? The only people benefiting from this wholesale introduction of cannabis cultivation in this county are the people who stand to make money from it.
There's just a greed and profit motive here, that's all. Money brings sight to the blind. And is money bringing sight to you? Are there dollar signs in your eyes for the tax revenue, or maybe for the campaign contributions. What could possibly motivate you to let this happen under your watch? Shame on you! Santa Barbara County was once known for its unsurpassed natural beauty Lovingly preserved architecture and a vibrant arts community now. It's going to be known as the cannabis capital of California How brilliant of you?
Please do something Irreparable damage is being done to this county Are you listening? Are you listening to the physicians in your community? Are you listening to the law enforcement in your community? Are you listening to the teachers in your community? Are you listening to anyone other than the cannabis professionals and those who stand to profit from this wholesale introduction of a wild west industry in our county.
It's deplorable, we want you to do something about it Please don't chide us for expressing our disapproval by appropriately clapping. How dare you? We've spent our time to
come and talk to you. Your time's up, your time's up. Yes, so is yours.
David Van Wingerden then Susan Shackleton and then we'll hear from Colin Dvorak. Is David Van Wingerden here?
Oh, now she's going to leave.
Then we'll hear from Susan Shackleton.
Hi, well my story is very different might actually refresh you a bit I Actually came about this in a whole nother way. I came Actually, I came to some of your board meetings maybe year and a half ago two years ago And I'm here in Santa Barbara today because of the things I heard here. regarding welcoming cannabis. And I ended up going and buying a farm, we closed in June.
I had my application for my permit ready as soon as they opened up and was the first one there. And actually am the face of the first cannabis permit in Santa Barbara County. I'm still working through the licensing part but feeling like we're pretty close to the end and. Being one of the first, I've been one of the first with everybody in the county. Planning, Sheriff, EHS.
So this whole process has been frustrating but we all kind of know that while we're It's the first for all of us and I keep hearing, well you're a pioneer. And I feel today kind of like I'm more like a guinea pig. I'm very concerned we are outdoor cultivators. We don't use lights. And the longer it takes to get this license, I might miss this year. I missed last year and if I missed getting into the ground this year by June, I've had two years with no revenue and I don't think I could sustain that so I'm hoping this process can kind of get a little bit more timely. Time's up ma'am. Thank you.
Colin Dvorak followed by Jack Uchiferri and then Elijah Spina
8:10 – 8:165 turns
Chairman Lavineto and Supervisors, my name is Colin Dvorak representing various cannabis industries in the county. I think we can all recognize and respect many concerns over cannabis in the county. Establishing a new industry is hard and I encourage us all to continue to work together patiently to resolve each of these concerns. While we've heard a lot about local details, I wanted to quickly change pace and give us all a global context to this conversation. And zoom everyone's attention out to the new global reality of cannabis. Reality that I think you our supervisors recognized last year when you passed our ordinance.
I returned last night from Davos, Switzerland where I was extremely fortunate to attend the World Economic Forum. I was there because I was lucky enough to be invited to a special meeting of global cannabis leaders titled the Consumer Choice Center Cannabis Conclave. I was privileged to meet many of the world leaders in cannabis representing many billions of dollars in public traded cannabis companies most of them Canadian.
I unfortunately was the only Californian in the room Let me assure everyone here that whether or not you love or hate the smell of cannabis, or the look of hoop houses, that we are past a global tipping point. With compelling positive medical research and better understanding of social impacts, the antiquated stigma that has hung over this industry is ending.
Don't think you're alone in this. The European Union expects $120 billion of revenue by 2022. U.S. cannabis companies are already in a desperate race to catch up with the Canadian IPO behemoths, and California is far behind the sophisticated farms of Washington and Colorado. There's no time to lose. We have to support our neighbors and local farmers to be competitive.
This is an incredible moment of history, regardless of what you think about cannabis. And I know that with our superior environmental conditions, our technical agricultural expertise in this room combined with our local government support and community support we can be competitive in this industry. Thank you.
Jack Luciferi, followed by Elijah Spina and then Lisa Bedrogi.
Chair Lavagnino of the Board of Supervisors My name is Jack Luciferi I work for Brownstein High at Farber-Schreck primarily assisting cannabis cultivated clients navigate the very complicated permitting process To all my neighbors who are concerned with Impacts of cannabis in their neighborhoods and our community. I hear your concerns, and I want to reiterate what staff has said, what Supervisor Williams has said.
In a few months hopefully the good actors will be weeded out from the bad actors. And the good actors are spending a lot of time and a lot of money. to conform with the permit process and comply with the regulations as we are all working through them. In a few months, cannabis will be the most regulated agricultural product in the world but not yet. First, we have this very crucial Barrier that we have to get through. We have to get these operators permitted in order to start enforcing state licensing requires sign off from numerous state agencies at the county level, we're helping clients navigate the county land use permitting and we're working so hard and I am impressed by how much Effort and resources our clients are expending in this rigorous process.
We support the county's authority to address the state provisional licenses by notifying the state that CEQA compliance is underway for permittees that are in the process of obtaining land use permits, and who have paid the requisite fees. I'm also here to request that the board refrain from unnecessarily reopening the cannabis ordinance process Beyond the minor and very prudent changes discussed by staff in some instances.
I'd like to say that you crafted this ordinance after numerous public hearings and opportunities for public input, and it's time that we reassess the cannabis ordinance after we have had a chance to see how the ordinance is actually performing. Thank you.
Elijah Spina followed by Lisa Bedrogi and then Eric Edwards.
Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Elijah Spina. I'm a scientist, genetics researcher and CEO of Delta Leaf Laboratories. My company, my business applies biotechnology to improve agricultural efficiency of modern agriculture and we serve cultivators in the cannabis industry by providing DNA testing to these cultivators We identify male and female plants, which allows them to call out the male plants earlier. And in 2018 alone we've saved over 500,000 gallons of water in the California state alone by applying this technology. And more and more cultivators are adopting this technology as well as new other technologies such as new advanced order abatement technologies and things like that to help improve and lessen the impact of this industry.
So a lot of work is going into this and advancing this new industry. And I'm here today to support craft cannabis cultivators and local cultivators here in Santa Barbara County, particularly like Santa Barbara Cannabis. So in my eyes hosting cannabis producers here in our county many of whom are also longtime residents of our county. Excuse me, it's a symbol of scientific and medical pride.
Regulations that support cannabis producers will also maximize the societal benefit that medicinal cannabises have in the world by facilitating the development of new therapeutically relevant varieties. Not all cannabis gets you high. There are hundreds of compounds in the cannabis plant that provide therapeutic benefit that do not provide psychological impairment. And by allowing our cultivators to flourish here, we'll further advance the science and therapeutic impact of this industry. Thank you.
8:16 – 8:225 turns
Good morning, good afternoon. It seems like maybe it's morning, maybe we went that long. Good afternoon Chair Lavinino, members of the board. My name is Lisa Bedrogi and I've been processing permits in Santa Barbara County for, hate to admit 30 years and representing agriculture for over 25 of those years. I was instrumental in growing the Santa Barbara County wine grape industry, have worked with a variety of farmers and ranchers in expanding their cooler operations, wineries, agricultural preserves and parcel map configurations. I'm a strong advocate for any and all tools that enable our Santa Barbara County farmers and ranchers more opportunities to expand their enterprises that keep our farmers farming.
The regulatory framework, which I know you worked very hard on, was crafted for cannabis is by no means an easy permit path. Cannabis has to comply with more regulations permitting and licensing than any other agricultural crop it is really unprecedented there needs to be a window of opportunity to enable this industry to get off the ground in a fair and balanced manner The voters of California voted for cannabis and your Board of Supervisors has been working through the regulatory dynamics to make this crop part of our working landscapes.
More needs to be done to protect those who are willing to make the investment in Santa Barbara County agriculture, and pay the extensive permitting licensing and taxation fees. I just want to conclude, I hope you do read my comments. I had specific comments on each one of your items but I clearly hope that more dialogue can take place. We're just so new six months into the ordinance and the coastal zone only just a matter of months I mean we need to allow our legal operators the opportunity to process and get their permits processed. I would say in closing that rather than just allowing temporaries go into the provisional status, I would say that anyone who's applied for a cannabis license should be allowed to apply for the annual license to the state as well.
Thank you.
Eric Edwards Okay, Autumn Shelton and then Brett Rapnick
Thank you for having me. My name is Autumn Shelton, I'm a co-owner in Autumn Brands. We have a licensed farm in Carpinteria. We are part of the Carp Growers Association aimed at being good business operators and neighbors. We've applied for our coastal zone land use permit and are moving through the process as quickly as possible. We applied for our annual licenses with the state in May of 2018, have gone through all requested revisions but have yet to receive communication beyond that other than extensions.
We are very supportive of recommended action C, which would give the CEO authority to notify the state that we have submitted our CDP. We're working on CEQA compliance and are therefore eligible for provisional licenses. This is imperative for ability to maintain our state licenses and avoid any gap in compliance. The existing standard in the business license ordinance to live scan every employee is extremely onerous. and will scare away a large workforce that won't understand what it means or how it'll affect their citizenship or green card. Not to mention the large, unnecessary costs this will create to live scan every employee we ever hire. We have a lot of employees that have been employed for 10-30 years that are loyal and honest people.
This would not be in line with the state requirements which only require owners and financially interested parties to be live scanned. Our property has a border and internal fencing security protocols and cameras on every corner inside and out as well as cameras that provide a bird's eye view And numerous other security measures. Our employees are well aware of our security measures and have continued to be honest team members. We believe our internal controls and the state requirements are good enough to prevent thefts, we continue to approve our protocols daily. We don't believe live scanning all employees will show any benefit securing our businesses or community.
KYT just aired a clip in article about odor control issues in Carpinteria. This clip unfortunately featured a business name that doesn't grow cannabis and a farm that has had odor control for a few years. Due to our original ignorance, we did have a system called a peon system that did put chemicals in the air that could possibly affect people. We did a bunch of research, found the Byers Scientific System, installed that system as well as many other growers in the area.
I'm sorry. Thank you. Brett Rapnick? Is Brett here? Yep. And then we'll hear from Graham Farrar and then Ivan Van Wingerden.
Good evening, my name is Brett Vapnik. I've been in the cannabis industry in California for... Can you move your microphone up just a little bit so we can hear you? Thank you. I've been in the cannabis industry in California for about 10 years. Been cultivating in Santa Barbara County since 2015 and worked with the numerous groups in the county on this ordinance for the past two-and-a-half years.
As a business owner what we're looking for is certainty and we waited for the regulations to get crafted I'm going to talk a little bit about what we've done in the last couple of weeks. We've made decisions on expansion based on that recently part of a group that purchased a 3 million dollar plus property in the San Ines Valley in act is owning specifically because of the nature of the ordinance that was created so making changes that currently including odor abatement which is not really effective on outdoor crops In an area where it's large-scale property, it's over 60 acres. We're not near neighbors for this reason so the odor abatement costs which on other facilities I have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to put in is really just blowing mist in the wind and it's not really going to be proven effective.
So my main concern would be making that change. And then with some of these other things we're going through the original process now. Where we were not existing nonconforming or a new process we've set filed a land use permit It's extremely time consuming, it's extremely expensive. But we believe in the business and we believe in this county so that's why we made the investment here.
The thing that a lot of people aren't talking about is we employ thousands of people in this county. Ag jobs that left when the flower industry left this county or was severely reduced. We're putting good paying jobs above ag wages. For the people of this county and also paying the taxes in the fees and permits and all that so just think that that should be considered for not just the homeowners but the actual people they need to make a living and live here. Thank you.
8:22 – 8:2810 turns
Graham for our then we're from Ivan van Weerden and then Tyler Thomas
Hi, Chair Lavanini on board. Thank you for having us here today. My name is Graham Farrar. I grew up here in Santa Barbara. I'm the father of two children. I am also a cannabis farmer in Carpinteria Valley. I am also one of the founding members of the Carp Growers Association which is an industry group in Carpinteria that we formed To help work with the communities and encourage people to follow the best practices of the ordinance that we've collectively built here over the last year-and-a-half. I know there's a lot of familiar faces in here on the board as well as staff, community members, Carpinteria Valley Association that were here. I looked back and I personally attended 27 public hearings as well as two open houses put on by the county as well as conversations with the community facilitated by people like Doss who invited the Carpinteria Valley Association People from the industry into his own living room to help find common ground.
We the result of that work was one of the strictest odor standards that we have in the entire state of California as of November, we can start applying for As someone who has submitted a complete CDP to the county, I can tell people that those standards are stringent. They're not easy. Odor is clearly one of the dominant conversations here. Odor control is something that we advocated for, something that we've encouraged people to do voluntarily. It's something that requires a certified industrial hygienist to certify so people who don't have odor control will not continue to exist. In this environment in our community, we encourage the county to permit the people following the rules. We encourage the county to enforce against those who aren't.
It is time now that we've built this and that we're implementing it to see the effects both for the industry and the community. We appreciate everyone's work and we are glad that we're here to a point where these temporary licenses are going to transition to people who either follow in the rules or they're not so In addition to that, I support the changes for moving live scan for employees and also the ability for the CEO's office to approve provisional licenses for people who are looking for CEQA determinations. Thank you.
Ivan Van Wingerden? Then we'll hear from Tyler Thomas and then Deborah Eagle.
Honorable Chair and Supervisors, thank you for your ongoing time and consideration through this extensive and important process. My name is Ivan Van Wingerden. I am a third generation greenhouse grower in Carpinteria Valley. Our farm is a member of Carp Growers as was mentioned before which is an association of industry leaders who are committed to operating with the highest standards including installing best available odor control vapor phase technology We are emphatically in support of this ordinance's requirement for order control and look forward to its enforcement countywide. CARB Growers also pulls contributions from growers to support local organizations, education community events and other philanthropic causes.
We do not support the existing business license ordinance provision that would require live scan for all agricultural employees. We support amending the business license ordinance to live scan only owners and our supervisors of these businesses We support amending the business law ordinance to be consistent with state regulations for these following reasons.
It is inconsistent with state regulations which would only require a live scan for owners and executives, the county stated goal at the beginning of- I
don't think your clock got started but that was two minutes. Two minutes? Your time's
up. Thank you. I only got third of the way.
Sorry.
Tyler Thomas and then Deborah Eagle.
Good afternoon or evening it is now. Thank you all for, thanks for your patience. I'm Tyler Thomas, I'm the Managing Director and Winemaker for Deerburg and Starling Vineyards. We farm about 350 acres across three different properties, All Ag 2, Santa Maria east of San Ynez and then the Santa Rita Hills region just west of Buellton. And I'm sympathetic to the cannabis industry and the frustrations they feel wanting to get a clear ordinance. Our main concerns, as some of my colleagues already expressed are odor abatement in Ag 2 areas. A young woman she mentioned Whole Foods using terpenes to sell more retail products and I think that I've had a business solicit me for Adding positive aromas into our tasting space to add sales and I explained to them what we are whole business is predicated on smelling the actual wine.
And I think if it's true that businesses are succeeding in boosting sales and doing that it stands to reason that negative aromas could reduce your sales. And that's a huge concern of ours. The wine industry is also a huge employer in this county and a huge part of the agriculture community. And then secondly, we are also concerned about the odors impacting grapes.
My colleague John mentioned eucalyptus trees. This is a real issue. I used to work in the North County. In December, I tasted with a friend who I was actually trying to sell grapes to And he showed me wines he had made at different distances from eucalyptus trees on a property he was buying fruit from. It was obvious the closer stuff had more eucalyptus. He did that experiment to show the grower why he no longer wanted to buy the fruit and get out of the contract, so it's a real concern for us. I don't envy you sorting all this out but that's my two cents. Thank you.
Our final speaker is Debra Eagle.
8:28 – 8:385 turns
No pressure.
My name is Debra Eagle, I'm a fairly new transplant to Santa Barbara County. I am in the wine industry and have been in this industry for 25 years. I live both in the city of Solvang and in Sonoma Valley. Like many vintners in Santa Barbara County, I go between Northern California and Santa Barbara County I was a little confused about why this became such an issue here. It is not an issue anyone discusses in Napa County and admittedly the much, much larger Sonoma County which is also much more diverse agriculturally so the purpose of my One minute here is to draw your attention to Allison last let's last page in her presentation and I will read it for the audience we surveyed 9 counties other than Santa Barbara County.
To look at the maximum growth size for an outdoor. Cannabis grow and there is no Stacking allowed of these permits. So in the admittedly wild and crazy and possibly dangerous County of Humboldt one acre maximum Mendocino 10,000 square feet that's less than a quarter of an acre prohibited Monterey two acres in the also wild and woolly Santa Cruz County San Luis Obispo 1.5 acres, Sonoma County where I have a home one acre.
Cannabis grows are prohibited in Kern County, Napa County and Ventura. And I think that Santa Barbara County really needs to reevaluate its motivation for doing something that is clearly not happening elsewhere in the state of California.
That concludes public comment.
Okay. We're going to come back at 530 and we'll start our deliberations at that time. We need a little break.
Hi. Good morning. Hello. ♪♪ ♪ Music. Thank you. You. Thank you.
8:39 – 8:484 turns
You OK, I want to see if staff's got any input or you want to respond to our questions. We'll lead off with a quickie get quiet please in the room we're going to try to finish up. We still have two other agenda items believe it or not after this so Supervisor Williams.
Well I also want to repeat something that a couple of speakers said is that they've said we need enforcement, we need enforcement, we need enforcement I think that's vital. It's particularly vital in a place like Carpinteria where everybody is, everything is close together. We have a narrow strip between the mountains and the sea and we all sometimes are apparently too close but we're all close in one small community.
You know, some of my constituents' patients ran out a while ago. Some of them have run out recently and that means my patients has run out. We need strong enforcement and as such I will support things that make that enforcement easier and oppose things that make that enforcement harder. That's why I don't support bans Or moratoriums. All this marijuana came to town in the middle of a ban.
It doesn't work. A moratorium would mean that we're not issuing permits, which means we don't have any way to force people to do odor control. That doesn't work. There's a reason why some of the biggest busts that have taken place in the county have taken place since the permitting regime At least been put out there in concept and taxes being assessed. It's because we have more enforcement staff, we have more sheriffs, we have more zoning enforcement working on it. We have better enforcement capability.
All of the elements of this ordinance was done in consultation with law enforcement with a mind to making it easier to determine Who's a good actor versus bad actor or who is compliant and who isn't? And it used to be as clear as mud. Back in the medicinal marijuana days, law enforcement sheriff would roll out to an operation and they'd say hey I got this book and here's my patients.
We'd have no way to verify whether that's duplicative of another patient list at another grow site. We had no way to really know if they were really doing medicinal marijuana. As of January 1st, people need to have a permit to operate, right? And that makes it a little more clear. It'll make it a lot more clear come to the end of April if we have the ability And here's, I guess my punchline and my biggest reaction to staff recommendation is.
I can go along with this your state provisional license framework as long as we are making sure that Operations that are obviously not permittable get rejected in time for us not to allow them any more time. Operations that are not permittable, i.e., it's an outdoor operation in the Carpinteria greenhouse overlay, that also includes hoop houses or it's within a setback, I want those shut down At the end of April, if not before.
And I just want to make that really clear. In my view, the only way this works is if the most compliant operations are permitted and the least compliant ones are shut down. And the reason for that is, all you have to do is look at a county that has bans. They still have marijuana groves. This is a money problem. People been trying for 100 years to shut down marijuana with no success.
The only way to enforce on marijuana or at least on some operations, the least compliant ones, is the tax revenue from the ones who are compliant That's the only way we're ever gonna have resources to address this in a way that approaches enough. And you know, we're not gonna get this completely right the first time around so I'm actually open to looking and evaluating changes along the way. I'm a little bit frustrated because in the coastal zone our rules have only been in effect since mid-November, that's two and a half months I don't think that's really long enough to really evaluate whether we've gotten everything right.
But, I just start from the viewpoint that if people have been trying to get this right for a hundred years and they haven't it's probably not the case that we're gonna get it all right without tinkering with it. So let me go through some of the ones one by one Where I'm at. Hold on a second.
I just wanted to ask the chair what is the process for going forward? I mean do we just splatter out everything or can we move one by one? We're
gonna move one by one but if you have general comment that you'd like to make now before we go into the one-by-one, I think that would be helpful and then we'll take each one as we go so if you have anything to add...
8:48 – 9:0015 turns
Supervisor Williams, you were done? Yes. Sure. Done enough. Okay I do have a question about the comparative chart that we saw and from the Vintners Association and benchmark counties and stacking and is it true that Santa Barbara County is the only county that has on Greater than say two or three or four acres being cultivated. I that's an important point to me
Chair loving, you know through to Supervisor Hartman your question so we our staff did go back and validate and Clean up a few of the things that were on that chart but to your question the The counties presented in this chart, and now this is not exhaustive of all counties but a fair representation of comparable counties. The information there does appear to be accurate on the chart presented by the Vintners Association so Mendocino has Maximum outdoor grow size of 10,000 square feet. Santa Cruz County has a maximum outdoor grow of two acres per property. These are per property and San Luis Obispo 1.5 acres and one acre in Sonoma.
Thank you. So, we have a framework in our board letter and I thought the board letter was extremely well done and we could walk through that but I did have some additional things that were not in that list so I just want to get them on your list Mr. Chair if that's okay? Okay
why don't we do this um I've got a few general comments I'd like to make we'll go through it what was in the board letter and then if you want to add items let's do that after we get through the board letter items okay Supervisor Hart give me general comment
Yeah, I just want to thank all the people who took time today to come out and testify. And all the folks who sent emails and communicated with all of us about this issue. There's obviously a lot of passion on this subject as the new person on the board have tried hard to kind of get up to speed. The issues that we wrestled with at the city of Santa Barbara didn't include cultivation. And so this is an area that I need to get up to speed with and I was very fortunate to join Supervisor Hartman Up at the forum that we watched put on, up in Solvang. I thought that was really helpful and I really appreciated the civility and the graciousness that everybody had in that meeting talking about these issues and really trying to understand them and learn from each other about this.
Supervisor Hartman and I also participated in a tour in the San Ynez Valley with some of the representatives from the winery industry. That was very helpful to me, it really helped me sort of frame this issue in a little different way So I am really looking forward to this discussion. I appreciate the work that the staff has done, you know, to specifically go through these individual light items and I'm very interested to hear what additional issues that we might talk about and see if we can as Supervisor Williams said get right get the regulation right get the enforcement right? You know make sure that we're rewarding folks who are doing the right thing and then we're going after the folks who are not because that is Everyone shares that in common as a goal.
We want to get folks regulated, we want to make their operations appropriate for our community and we want this all to be successful so I think we can collaborate and find a way to that path.
Well, I applaud your optimism. And you...we'll get there. It always baffles me is when we come to these meetings on cannabis and some people in the crowd come with just so much anger directed at the board where I look at it as you voted for it. We didn't, five of us didn't get in the back room and go man, you know what would be a great idea? Let's legalize cannabis and let's make it happen.
Our job is to try to come up with some rules and regulations that make it work. You can't have 69% of the people Like in District 1, vote for the legalization of marijuana and then impose some sort of artificial ban which we all know doesn't work. We had banned marijuana in the county for many years outside of medical and all I got were complaints, complaints, complaints. And we just didn't have the tools necessary to go out and enforce on those.
So we're trying to make a clear path To that bright line between legal and illegal. It's going to take time, I understand people are frustrated but one thing I really want to nip in the bud is this. I signed up for this job we all did you can come and spend your three minutes ripping us and I'm fine with that everybody has their opportunity but For people to and I've seen it in some of the letters and emails disrespect some of our staff When all they're doing is their public servants, they're doing what we're telling them to do. So if you've got a problem with a staff member that person is following the policy that we laid down so I would prefer in the future If you get somebody you're upset with direct it to us or the ones that are creating the policy so Let's see what else The other thing I've got to say, it's tough for me to hear the wine industry.
I sat up here and have been defending the wine industry and fought to get the wine industry moving in Santa Barbara County. A lot of people didn't want you guys around. You know there was a lot of took a lot of heat for continuing to push for more access more acreage More tasting rooms. And it's very rich to me to then have you turn around and like, hey who are these new guys?
There's 21,572 acres of vineyards in Santa Barbara County. We're going to end up with about 200 or 300 acres of cannabis. You know it's it's been really hard to sit here the whole meeting man when you the whole meeting you've been talking to other public speakers denigrating them when they were speaking telling them that their time was up and I sat back in and let it go. But now is not the time for you to talk OK thank you all right so with that we're going to go through each item We're going to start with item one, possible testing in AgZone.
And Supervisor Hartman if you'd like to lead it off or I thought you had your light on, I'm sorry.
I didn't really make any general comments and I guess I don't need to. Cannabis is here. The question is, is it regulated or not? It's coming through deliveries that are lawful or not lawful. It's coming on panga boats. It has been grown here and the impacts at our schools, the impacts to health, not knowing what it is. I voted for the proposition at the state level because the California Medical Association said we got too much stuff that's hurting people. We don't know what it is, it needs to be regulated.
I also was very much influenced by the NAACP that said, indeed we've got too many people of color sitting in our jails because of cannabis marijuana violations. So I support getting it regulated and getting it legal but this is new and we don't know everything. We, all of us learn by sharing information and I just want to thank Supervisor Hart for coming out to the San Ynez Valley and listening to people. And we watch for organizing that forum so that people have more knowledge a base because not everybody has been involved In the 10 board meetings that we had previous plus workshops, etc. So it that was extremely helpful and The vintners tour that they gave was extremely helpful as well I learned a lot of things although I've been studying this now for a couple of years as well We, as Ms.
Merritt said, we don't necessarily get it all right so we've got to keep working on that and I've got some ideas or some things that I think aren't going right. We found ourselves in a position where the state was moving and we had to play catch up And then the state would change once we already put things in place. So it has been a horse before the cart kind of a thing, and we're still sort of stuck in that with the temporary and the non-conforming and then provisional but I do want to say something. I appreciate Supervisor Williams wanting us to get these things through the permit process but these land use permits go with the land And so we don't wanna get it wrong or we get ourselves in a lot of difficulty as well. So, we're sort of stuck in lots of different ways doing our best and so I just wanted to second what Supervisor Hart said.
Thank you for sticking with us. We're all of us gonna work through this and I've learned a lot and I appreciate those from Tepesque Canyon and Carpinteria who have been here the whole time. And also people from the San Ynez Valley And the wine industry, who are now saying maybe we didn't get it quite right the first time. So with that I'm ready to take it issue by issue.
Who wants to go kick off item one? Possible testing in AgZone. Supervisor Hartman.
I might as well dive into the pool. Yes. I originally thought that there might be a way to do that, to have testing on ag parcels but particularly with the CUP because I think that's I think increasingly, this is probably not necessary to do at this point. I think that just maintaining the existing regulations is probably the right balance point to begin this
conversation for me. Okay, Supervisor Williams?
Yeah, this one of the ones I brought up. I am convinced that we should probably put it on a shelf There are is any testing labs in any of the cities or any of our commercial zones. The reason why I brought it up, though, is because it's bad for the county for all sides if we don't have a testing one here because it means more traffic trips. It means less revenue. You know, this is very good jobs. It's technical jobs. It' higher paying jobs So my hope is that we do have a testing lab, even if it's in the city of Goleta.
I just want it somewhere in the county so that this doesn't have the added complications of cross-county traffic.
Supervisor Hart?
I agree.
All right seeing us out three there let's go to so that would take us to option three then maintain existing regulations all right Staff got that one. Item 1 is, so do we, should we vote on each of these? It's going to be pretty messy if we keep waiting. Just make it one. All right. Item 2 controlling cannabis on AG1 supervisor Hartman you're in lead off.
Yes I would like to ban, ban cannabis on AG 1 in the Inland.
9:00 – 9:0520 turns
Okay, I don't see any other takers on that idea. Supervisor Hart?
Well I think that makes sense for the Ag 120 and lower parcels
in the inland area. Okay so we have a 20 and under ban. Well there's some that are exactly 20 so is 20 20 and under or 20 and over? Supervisor Williams
I would love that clarification too, but I guess I'm open to doing this. I do think that... I feel like in Carpinteria we are trying to trim down things. I'd hate to see another parts of the county repeat what we've had to kind of go through and The proximity obviously is an issue. I think we're going to be able to get it under control in Carpinteria, but it's not there anywhere close to there yet and I'd hate to see everybody else have to go through so.
Supervisor Hartman?
So Banning on AG 120 acres and under so that would include so 21 and over would be and So I think we have Supervisor Adam also weighed in on that one.
So I'd have to look at a map of what how many AG 20, I understand I'm fine with under 20 I have a band, but I'm not sure how much AG 120 is out there that that is a problem for you. And I understand where your area is and I think a ban of AG 1 under 120 fixes your problems. Okay can we do that? Okay so it would be Ag 120 would have to be the minimum.
Diane? Yeah, Mr. Chair I'm just requesting some clarification on whether you're actually picking a zone district or a parcel size because there's a difference.
Zone district correct? So zone district ag 120 to be the minimum zoning for mixed light and indoor just like it is for outdoor
regardless of the parcel size in that.
Yes So we, do we have consensus with that? So AG 120 is the minimum zoning for mixed light and indoor just like it is for outdoor. Okay. So let's go to item three. In the inland zone. In the inland zone just like it is. Right. Correct. In the inland zone. Mr.
Gazzone. So Chair and Supervisors, what I understand is that the action today would be providing conceptual direction to staff to work through some of these things. Identify problems with the conceptual direction and then come back with ways to mitigate those problems at the future meeting so it's broad direction today.
Okay, broad direction today so this is still going to come back?
Mr. Chair, just to be very clear this will come back after going through the Planning Commission right so
that's not Broad I mean that's pretty clear
Okay, I don't see I
don't think we disagree. It's going you're providing direction today, but when the package comes back with a recommendation from the Planning Commission it will also have staffs recommendations here are some issues that were found here some potential solution to those so this is not the last time that you will be
acting on this. So in that bringing back it would be interesting on AG 120 to see the difference between zoning and parcel size and how many parcels that because I think You know we I don't want to overstep there, but I also wanted to be so if we could I Don't know if you heard that part. But if we could kind of look at zoning and parcel size, so let me go options
Chair, if you don't mind, I'd like to try to clarify just because I think miss black missed it but So it sounded like that you would like to create the prohibition in the inland part of the county on a egg zone egg 120 zoned properties And then there's the question about whether or not it ought to be on parcels, let's say 20 acres or less in size. Or some other number there so. So
just one clarification I think it would be banning on AG 1-5 and AG 110 and then looking at parcel sizes as well and seeing whether you want to also include a minimum parcel size.
9:05 – 9:1530 turns
Yeah, AG 1 5 and yeah.
Actually I thought it was a 1, 5, 1, 10 and one 20 that's what I thought we agreed to.
Well then in addition if it's a 220 acres and less possibly that's I think what you are suggesting or on parcel size
so I'm not sure we have consensus on that so. I'm good with act 5 and 10 not at 20 unless it's right But I want to look more into that.
Yeah, I thought we were talking about zoning less than AG 120. I'd have to have a bigger analysis to go farther
than that. So can we shelve that one or go ahead Supervisor Hartman.
OK I think we had agreement and direction AG 120 acres unless it would be banned then I think you raised super Miss Black raised another issue about whether it's in the AG 1 zone or whether we wanted to go to parcel size and you followed that up but I'm willing to let that one go
now I think okay because I I think I overstepped for me so it's AG 5 and 10 And I want to study 20, so. Can we do that?
I mean, I just think that without knowing it all...
I'm happy to do that. I think it makes what we have already with outdoor AG-20 consistent but it has to come back anyway.
So give
us some options
when you bring it back. Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hartman, I don't think you have to decide today. This is part of what the Planning Commission is good at. So I think what you want us to look at and what you want us to have the Planning Commission weigh in on is a ban in AG-1 centered around 20 acres or less but whether it's AG-15 10 and 20 if you do AG- 15 10 and 20 that's pretty much all of the AG- 1 zones But let's make sure
it's a multiple choice we're sending to the PC, not an open-ended question.
And if I may, I mean I think intent is important and I think we were clear about our intent that in small parcels particularly the San Ynez Valley where people...it's really These AG-1 parcels are residential areas with large lots where people have goats and horses and chickens and bees, horseback riding lessons, and maybe boarding. It's not a commercial activity so we want to protect that. At least that's my intent.
Okay if that's what the study comes back and shows me but I gotta look at a map and see where all that AG-120 is okay? We're clear on that as far as what's going to be studied and brought back to the planning commission, okay. Let's go to eliminate employee live scan. Supervisor Hart?
Yeah I think that given what's happening at the national level with immigration enforcement and the legitimate fear that folks have who are farm workers, I think this is a wise prudent thing to do to eliminate the live scan requirement.
Okay, Supervisor Williams.
Well my request is we don't take action or at least we don't do irrevocable action before we verify that the background checks that are non live scan that the growers do are sufficient for adequate security. Or at least that we frame the requirement as our own local requirement for all employees besides line ag employees. And the reason for that is, that right now might be exactly the same as state law but state law could change and to me I wanna be able to say to people we're not gonna let felons into this industry I understand when people are trying to make their life better after they've been punished for something, I just don't think this is the right industry.
For them and and I want an effective barrier to that. And so I would ask if we're going to change it that right now that we you know clarify that all employees besides line AG employees are still required to do the live scan And leave it at that. Or if you want to get more detailed, we could look into whether the non-live scan background checks have commensurate effectiveness and then frame our definition around that.
Okay so I'm agreeing with you but I just want to make sure that we are firm on what Definition is of what a non AG employee. I mean it align item employee So I'd like to see everybody in the front office obviously management and that sort of stuff go through live scan And just don't see the benefit of it for the others and seems Yeah, a little bit onerous this state
drivers Office staff everybody else should be live scanned in my okay, and I think that's right now state law I think does have the drivers do it. And so if we defined it that way, that would be consistent with state law. I just don't want to say- Follow state law because
they could change it. Okay, so Miss Black, if you could just bring back to us then soon. Obviously this one can be an easy fix or Mr. Buzanich and easy fix is bring us what the state We will then mirror it, but make it ours so that we aren't relying on state law. But that we make sure we cover everybody that the state covers and we're not covering people that the state doesn't feel that's necessary, okay?
And I'd like to get that back as soon as we could. Okay, alternative allocation of retail for Lord this is a long one. I was thinking were just smoking through going through this. But we're going to hit a roadblock here. All right, number four?
I just had a question that I didn't ask during your presentation Mr. Blasanich and that is what opportunity does the public have to get involved in this if at all they really you know how can they register whether they want this in their community or not?
We're talking about retail
Okay. Supervisor Hartman through the chair, the opportunities for public input is really going to be in the permitting process as that notification occurs and there's that availability to appeal even a land use permit, that that's where the public's input could be garnered around the siting and the location and Ways in which the applicant for the land use permit has met the requirements as laid out in our ordinance.
OK, I'll try to tackle this one a little bit because this is something I think kind of came up that we were looking at and you know the idea of there's really no easy way to do this. But what we're really trying to avoid is if you go into a lottery first off when you go I think you end up with the luckiest person running the facility instead of the most qualified, right? And that's not what we're looking for.
So the other thing is it really made it so that you could get to in a very small location like a Los Alamos or Koyama or something like that and obviously that's not what we want and so I like option one And I understand that there's some issues maybe with option one. But it does seem to get us to where we would pre-qualify people, and we would also be able to kind of not direct them but it would put them in places that I think would make the most sense for us from a law enforcement and from an activity standpoint.
My move would be for option one. Supervisor Williams? I'm okay with that. We're all good with that, okay. Well it was easier than I thought it was going to be. Okay let's go to option five item five energy plan review by CSD. Are we all good with option one, amending the county code to specify that it goes to CSD which already conducts similar evaluations? Yes. Good. We have consensus.
Let's move to item six more authority to reject renewals. Option one. Yes, let's give them
more
authority to reject renewables. So this is amending the county code to say that we shall deny not may deny when there are issues?
And then in earlier discussion I think Supervisor William asked is it possible to explore additional criteria and I think that would be worth looking at.
9:15 – 9:2223 turns
OK allowing generators for security. Supervisor Hartman
I am absolutely opposed for the greenhouse gas fire noise. I don't know if it has to be solar with battery storage but generators sound carries in my neck of the woods and we don't want this.
I agree. I think this proposal is crazy. So you guys are all on the fence on this one? Alright, you're all undecided. To me this just looks like a way to make areas where it's not currently permittable and to do it by poisoning our air along
the way and I'm not good with that. Throw this out there. I see that this is toast, but we've got to remember that generators are allowed in agriculture on ag lands. So we're singling out cannabis which I understand I'm in the minority on this so we will move on but as we heard today there are other ways to keep your lights on and keep your cameras moving. All right.
Wow, did we go through all of them?
Supervisors I just want to clarify. I'm looking at Dennis and Diane so on number six increase authority you said option ones to change the may to shall but I also heard supervisor Hartman also say she wanted to add additional criteria which is option two so
like to explore what those might be
well I from for my part I think that we could let that be staff initiated based on their enforcement cases I mean, there's a lot going on right now. I think they'll learn lessons along the way and I want them to feel free to say hey when there's additional criteria that would be helpful because we want there to be accountability. When people break the rules, we want there to be a reason for them not to break the rules and renewal of licenses is one of the most important of those.
All right, now this takes us to the part where we get to Supervisor Hartman's addendums.
Let me start with the easiest. I think we need broader notice provisions.
I'm glad you brought that up because I had forgotten that and I apologize to everybody in Tepeskaya because I definitely wanted to make sure that all residents and EDRNs are notified any time there is a CUP hearing so...
Right, and did we say it's 1500 feet? A thousand, yeah. I would like 2,500 feet. You'd like to what? 2,500 plus CDRNs. I think we need broader notice on this.
So these are anytime there's a permit or anytime there's a CUP required?
I would like to see it for a permit
I'd be interested to hear from the department how, I mean, how many permits do we have going through and what kind of noticing? We could have a whole noticing department after awhile. I'm good with it if it's
doable. So Mr. Chair as I indicated earlier our typical notice is 300 feet.
That's a football field.
Which which I understand that, you know the board wanted to have noticing further We have 50 applications currently we certainly expect more. I Can't tell you how many more properties that would add to each permit but if that's what the board wants we can do it 300 feet is a football field so
you're talking 2,500 feet is is a is basically I mean how big this That's 8 football fields in each direction. You're almost covering the city every time somebody needs a permit. I think that seems like a lot.
Well, and I'm just curious to see how it affects workflow. My most important question is That we reach resolution on the permits year nay so they can be either permitted or shut down. I guess what my question is you if you notice, you know 10,000 people every time there's a there's a permit request does that slow down your process to people does that mean everybody asks questions and in I think there's a balance here.
I'm open to more stringent permitting or noticing, but I don't like that if it slows down the process that's an enemy of enforcement.
So Mr Chair and Supervisors If you do a blanket 2,500 feet noticing. If we have a permit in Carpinteria, we're going to notice the whole Carpinteria Valley or a good part of it. If we have a permit near Township and Santines, we're going to end up noticing the whole township. That's a lot.
Not only is it a lot but I think it starts losing its effect because if you get noticed every time you're like eh those other ones It matters if it's in your sphere.
So it's currently 1,000 and EDRNs. I'm willing to go with that because I care even more about the next thing.
OK. All right. So we're at 1,00 and any time there's an application in EDRN which would have to be a CUP anyway. Notice everybody in the EDR. Notice everybody in the EDRn. Yes.
9:22 – 9:276 turns
The next one is I think we need some additional restrictions on egg too, particularly for odor control. The reason I got into this box was, I didn't expect there would be 70 acres of cannabis right in the middle of the Santa Rita Hills AVA. And so we must deal with odor control outside and that's kind of up to them. So the reason why notice was important is because people are experiencing the smell. But if we can deal with the smell, then they aren't at risk of being affected so I'm willing to make that trade-off from my own perspective.
But I also think we need to consider setbacks on Ag 2 parcels because they're right up to the property line And I. I, this stacking of permits so that we've got 70 acres. The original idea for the state was to go slowly and to have an opportunity to be able to assimilate administratively what we were doing. And then at the last minute between draft and final regulations they pulled the rug out. We're dealing with that We have a wild west industry, everybody trying to get their piece of the pie. And we don't have the capacity administratively to process that. So where it was originally going to be kind of a go slow and have an opportunity for local people to get invested And to take advantage of this. Now we've got outside corporations, huge national and international corporations buying up land, yes!
And with the idea of putting in huge acreage and that's not okay by me. So I would like to consider setbacks and I would like to consider some parcel limitation
I could talk about setbacks, but if you're talking about odor control on AgTube for me that's like a ban on AgTube because you're growing it outside in a hoop. And I don't know of technology that exists If we're going to do that, then to me you've got to go after wet cauliflower and stinky broccoli and everything else. It's outdoor. That's what Ag-2 is, is large parcels that are outdoor. This is where we wanted this industry to go.
And now to come back and tell them you're going to have to odor control an outdoor ag product, I think that that's more of a ban. So I mean, I could see a setback. I could live with that, but I don't know where everybody else is either so.
Well first of all, I've experienced this. It does give you a headache. You can't live in this 24 hours a day when it's at the height of the odor and the wind carries it. And while it's different in different parts of the county what we have in the Santa Ynez Valley is as you've heard a very lucrative Industry that you work very hard to get to support and get established, and they're telling us that this 70% of their sales come from tasting. And you can't smell this stuff and enjoy your experience of tasting wine or even tourism in the valley so I really see a conflict And other counties are doing it, and there's a lot you can do with sighting.
And there are technologies. I think the onus has to be on the new industry. All
right. Well, I think some setbacks can work. I worry a little bit about the odor control for the reasons that Supervisor Lavenino raised. My understanding is the technology's changing on that, and that may be possible. So it's something we should consider and learn more about is what really is reasonable? Maybe it's a combination of setbacks and or auto control.
Oh, Dennis has something.
That's OK. Just a clarifying question on this. So is there a sense about where you would want to go with the scale of the setback to help kind of guide this discussion that we would have staff wise just so we're matching some expectations here?
9:27 – 9:3320 turns
I guess I'll put this all out at once and people can jump out of their seats. Odor control on AgTube, to me that's number one. That's what the wine industry is telling us is number one on their list and I think we cannot ignore that. Setbacks is a way to try to address that Parcel, you know how much you could do on a parcel is is a third way to try to address that But odor control on egg too. They're just they've required it elsewhere There are technologies and and for me that's number one
I Think at this, you know, I think we're actually moving into an area I might be wrong and I'll look to mr. Gazoni for this but now these are items that weren't on our It does say it's open for whatever we want to talk about with cannabis, but I'd also be very worried about somebody that was in Ag 2. That this isn't something that we had scheduled to discuss and I'm not sure we've heard from these folks today, but I still think I could see some sort of buffer, but Ag 2, I just don't see outdoor Odor control working, but.
Well I would just counsel first of all I appreciate both that both of you who essentially gave us in Carpinteria a regime of 100% odor control. Hopefully that will be implemented through our permitting as quickly as possible and it is kind of interesting that that's what folks want But I would counsel you to think through what that means. What that means in Carpinteria is that all hoop operations will have to cease, and what I'm questioning is whether that is the trade-off that you want in Ag 2 because the trade-off then people are gonna be coming in with applications for a lot of greenhouses. And are the same people who are worried about hoops, then also gonna be worried about a flurry of rush to the counter on greenhouses because that's you need a greenhouse to do effective odor control.
So they're really linked and I think we should think that through.
Supervisor
Hartman?
I think that's a really good point, have given it some thought because I think hoop houses have an advantage of being more flexible over time. You build greenhouses and the market changes and you're sort of like Carpinteria was with its greenhouse overlay flowers gone. What do you do with all this decaying infrastructure? On the other hand, I believe that landfills and wastewater treatment plants and other things do have odor control. And again, siting can do it. And I think the place to put the onus is on the cannabis.
The new people coming to this I would like to make a comment on the fact that this is an area, an industry rather than on the people there. People are smelling this in Buellton. They're smelling it in various neighborhoods, flying flags and that's not right.
Okay well you've made a very salient argument and unfortunately know where Supervisor Adam is on this one too, or I think. So I think you're in the minority on that one. Let's
everybody get on record then.
Yes, I think we're all on record that I don't support voter control in Ag 2 and Supervisor Hart?
Is there a setback approach then that might achieve some of that and get us partly there?
Yeah, I mean, I'd be more interested in where we could address the issues and be responsive. You know, I haven't completely figured out whether all the thing over hoops is a proxy war for marijuana or all this stuff over marijuana is a proxy war for hoops. It's number one. So you know, I also think we shouldn't We're going to do this without regard for what we might do on hoops.
So if the Planning Commission would please send us something on hoops so we could act on hoops, that'd be real nice because that's kind of the interplay. There's a question We could address this either through hoops or through the marijuana ordinance. There's two ways to get at it. Yeah,
I saw staff wanted to kind of weigh in on the setback issue maybe
Well, I'm not sure. I really want to weigh in but...
I
would love you to
weigh in.
I think if the purpose of having a setback or a buffer is to deal with odors it's going to be very, very big. Okay. We're talking a mile or more. It's not gonna be something small that you could deal with on a parcel basis.
All right. You would like to recommend a mile?
No, but I mean one of the big purposes of the setback is to deal with the odor. Then I put forward two other ideas and that is we limit how much cannabis can be grown on a parcel, a percentage of the parcel and that we have a cap on unincorporated county wide 500 acres. All
right. I want to see us figure out Where we're going first, and how many people we get approved. We have three through the system right now. Personally I'd rather, I'm not saying I'm opposed to that in the long run. But I think like Supervisor Williams said, we're two and a half months in on the coastal side, and we're still in baby steps on the inland. So before we do anything like that, I would rather see us wait and see what happens first.
9:33 – 9:3916 turns
Then I would like a statement about what I tell people in the wine industry in the San Ines Valley. And what I tell people in the tourist industry, given the odor from outdoor groves. Tell me what I should tell them?
That's for you to decide. You don't want me to start crafting
your speeches for you, believe me. They have a lot better jokes. But tell me, what is the reasoning that we're using? I want the logic.
Because to be honest with you right now, I want to see what's the real effect. And we're talking about two months in or three months in, the wine industry is coming and telling us that people aren't coming to visit. Well where's our TOT numbers? We don't know what our TOT is. What if our TOTs up and they're telling us that visitors are down? You know, we have to have some basis in fact, I can't just go based on three people come in and say that their business is hurting.
We have nothing to judge that on. I'm sure the wine industry in their world, in their snow globe, they would love for nothing else to be out there. Of course you don't want something that might affect your business in a negative way. I understand that but we live in a society where everybody's making different decisions. You'd have to figure out what you want to tell them. I know what I'll talk to them about. Okay,
I have one request then that the supervisors who haven't been out there take a tour and see what's on the ground out there.
I've been on many tours. I'm not sure which tour you would like me to go on.
I think Ms. Laslett would offer one.
Oh, I didn't really like the tone of her email too much so I doubt if I'll be going out with her.
You know me, John. I'll go wherever you want me to go. I will visit.
That's what it takes. I'll visit. OK. So does staff have proper direction? Mr. Gazzone, are we OK?
And I'll just kind of say for anybody who's been watching closely for a while, I in the past have been very partial towards What you could say is anti-market caps on either total acreage. I requested cap in Carpinteria, you guys gave it to me or a percentage parcel size. I'm less into that ladder these days because part of the question is what do they do with the other part of the parcel? And a lot of these folks are not, If we did a 50% parcel size restriction, they'd be growing cut flowers on the other side or avocados. But that's obviously having issues and I guess I just feel like my heartache is that none of us got everything we wanted in the original agreement. We already debated this in the original agreement.
I do have concerns about the scale of some of these operations and I do think, you know for those of you that criticized Dennis, you should know that he has been very vigilant on these state applications. And two requests for state applications that were enormous size came through and They came through at the end and he was understandably suspicious of whether they were truly a non-conforming operation.
And his suspicions meant that we didn't concur, and because of that those operations dropped their state permit request. There is some vigilance going on out there that should be cited.
Supervisor Hartman just wants to get further clarification on provisional licenses, so.
Yes and I just was very supportive of what Supervisor Williams said about making sure that we don't, if it's not approvable we get them out of this process. And Supervisor Adam isn't here but he often says you know is that a staff member you'd stand in front of the train for? And for me Dennis Blazanich is that person. He's been fabulous in this process and fabulous in educating all of us about something so complicated And I'm just very, very appreciative and I know all of us up here feel that way.
Yeah when I think of Dennis, I used to be a basketball referee and at the end of the game I'd have one team complaining that I was helping the other team while those people were yelling that I was helping that team so I know where you're at because if you got both sides kind of complaining about you then you're doing something right OK, so we've got everything I think wired down Dennis. So I just
before you make a final motion here, I just want to point out that if you are going to take up the action on the notification of the agencies for the provisional licenses to give our office that authority to notify them. So just as
that was yes, yes, yes, yes. OK, let's get emotion or real motion so we can get this wrapped up. You can't do it, okay. Das? This is gonna take some creativity. I will
9:39 – 9:436 turns
move the seven recommendations that we have asked for. The exploration of further restrictions on Smaller Ag-1 zoning in the inland portion and the authorization as is in staff recommendation.
Mr. Chair, and I think you wanted to add broader noticing of the EDRNs so that everybody in the EDRN's captured.
Okay we're gonna make this vote first Is there a second on that? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, and then Ms. Hartman if you'd like to make a motion. Thank
you for indulging me just one more time I move and there will probably be no second but that we have odor control on Ag 2 lands.
Okay um no second so but valiant effort good job um so That ends item one. All right, that only took 12 hours of our day. Let's get to item two! Let's get item two. Thank you everybody. Let's take a five minute break while everybody... They gotta get out. We're not gonna get anything done.
Thank you.
9:46 – 9:482 turns
Good morning.
All right. All right we have other business to attend to believe it or not. We're going to go to if we could please keep it down. Deputy clear the building. No, I'm just kidding. All right, let's go to item two Mr Fay.
9:48 – 9:512 turns
Thank you Chairman Labanino members of the board. My name is Larry Fay. I'm an environmental health services director Santa Barbara County and I'm going to take a very short amount of your time to go over a number of recommendations we have for updates to certain provisions of Santa Barbara County code dealing with hazardous materials and hazardous waste generators Now given you've been through a long afternoon already, I think I can limit this to one slide. Woo!
I can do that in one slide. One slide. I have some more behind here but we'll go through one. Okay. Essentially what we're looking for is board to repeal chapter 15 article 7 of the Santa Barbara County Code. This is actually a provision of county fire code dealing with administration of hazardous waste laws. We have talked fire department they've concurred with us on this. This is good or they're good with it we also want to repeal Chapter 18 articles 3 & 4 those are also outdated sections of County Code dealing with administrations of Regulations around underground storage tanks and hazardous waste generators and adopt a new Chapter 18C Article 3 which incorporates all the various provisions of the hazardous materials regulations that we're responsible for under the California Unified Program Agency.
Santa Barbara County Environmental Health is the county CUPA. Fourth, and this isn't really related to hazardous waste but while we're in here digging around I'm recommending repealing Chapter 18, Article 5. That's a section of code that deals with infectious waste and permitting of generators of infectious waste. It's a program we've not administered since the mid-90s. I don't know exactly when we terminated it. It is now done by CDPH.
And finally some minor amendments to Chapter 24 that aligns administrative fines and penalties with the new section 18C and repealing those sections of Chapter 18, Articles 1 and 4 and Chapter 15, Article 7. And that concludes my presentation and any questions from the board? Seeing no
lights on. Can I get a motion? Oh do we have any public comment? 70 speakers. So moved. Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Passes unanimously. Thank you, Mr. Faye. Item 3.
9:51 – 9:539 turns
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, item three is from the sheriff to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of a resolution increasing the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office fee for live scan ink print fingerprinting and that requires a four-fifths vote.
No pressure, it's four fifths vote and there's four of us here. So-
In the interest of time we can go through the presentation or we can just answer any questions you have in regards to this.
Does anybody have any questions?
I guess I have just one.
Supervisor Williams.
Obviously I want you guys to be able to do cost recovery. Correct. And that's what the case you're making. Does true cost recovery by raising this, does that also help make it go faster? Because obviously you just heard a debate that background checks is important to us and live scans are sometimes a part of that. And so will true cost recovery also help More people obtain live scans in an expedited fashion.
The live scans are submitted to the DOJ and the FBI, so they determine how long it's going to take for that particular section of the background to happen. What we do is we provide the service of actually rolling the fingerprints and submitting them. So we have no control over how long it will take for them to process.
That's no good. Okay, Supervisor Williams? Still support staff recommendations. Second. Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? None. Passes unanimously. Great job. Sorry you had to stay. Hopefully we provided you some entertainment. And if I'm not mistaken, I see County Council coming back. So do we have another item?
9:53 – 9:5810 turns
Item four.
Okay, I'm sorry. Okay. Yes item for
Sure 11 e no members the board item 4 is from planning and development. It's a hearing to consider recommendation or anything SEP V Koyama utility scale solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage facility project Is located south and southeast of the town of Koyama and adjacent to the Kuyama solar array project site in the first district
Okay, miss black
Well, mr. Chair, I didn't think I'd Be the only one here, including my staff not being here. So there they are. But given that there's nobody... Don't tell
me this got before... This happened too early for you.
Okay. We will try to make this quick. Okay, thank you Chair and Supervisors. My name is Joe Dargill and I'm the planner for the SEP-B Koyama Utility Scale Solar & Battery Energy Storage Project. The project site is outlined in red and is a vacant 20 acre parcel zoned Ag 220 located in the Koyama Valley rural region approximately 1.9 miles south of Highway 166 and 4.2 miles west of Highway 33.
Surrounding uses to the northeast and south are primarily agriculture. Primary access to the area from Highway 166 is via Kirschman Road, and from Highway 33 is from Foothill Road. As shown on the screen, the site is located directly adjacent to the existing 327-acre Kuyama Solar Array site to the west. Proposed activities would be limited to the 20-acre parcel as an existing 21 kilovolt PG&E transmission line abuts the property which would be the connection point to the grid.
So this slide describes the ordinance amendment that allowed utility scale solar development in the Cuyama Valley and the associated environmental review as part of that project. The current project includes a request for both a general plan amendment and a conditional use permit. The general plan amendment is required to place the utility scale solar photovoltaic overlay designation on the parcel. The approval of the proposed project would bring that total acreage to 347 acres within the county.
The conditional use permit would allow construction of three megawatts of solar panels, and three megawatts of onsite battery energy storage. The photo you see on the screen is of an existing solar array in Palmdale, California that was developed by the applicant's affiliated company and is an example of what the developed site would look at at the site today.
This slide summarizes the class one impacts identified in the programmatic EIR that was previously processed and the 17 subsequent development standards that were incorporated into the LUDC for utility-scale solar projects in the county. In review of the proposed project, there were several site studies that were completed which included air assessment and biological assessment and cultural assessments.
Based on these assessments and summarized in the supplemental documents prepared pursuant to CEQA section 15168 no new effects were identified and therefore no additional environmental review would be required. The North Board of Architectural Review conducted conceptual review of the project. There were no substantial comments made by the BAR or by the public, and they asked for the project to return for preliminary and final approval after approval by the Board of Supervisors.
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on November 7th in 2018, and at that hearing an additional condition was added to the project which required Between 3.5 and 6 inches of clearance between the bottom rung of the site perimeter fence, and a ground surface for wildlife passage. The planning commission voted to approve the project 5-0 at that hearing.
As proposed in condition, the project would comply with the requirements of the LUDC and be consistent with the county comprehensive plan. And because the programmatic EIR has already been certified and no new effects could occur or no new mitigations are required, no new environmental document is required. Your board's motion should include the following. Make the required findings for approval of the comprehensive plan amendments and conditional use permit, including CEQA findings. Determine that as reflected in the CEQF findings, the product is within the scope of the previous program EIR and no subsequent EIR shall be prepared.
Approve and adopt a resolution amending the comprehensive plan to add the utility scale solar facility overlay to the 20 acre site. That concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you may have.
Supervisor Williams?
I'm not sure at what point, but it's sometime before deliberations. We'd recommend ex parte disclosures even though there's not a large crowd here on this item.
All right. Let's do ex parte first.
9:58 – 10:0316 turns
I've spoken to no one about this particular project beyond staff, but I have in the past had conversations The solar developer about more solar in the general vicinity. So previous to this particular project, I had conceptual conversations about it. I've also had conversations with multiple people in the community about that conceptually not about this particular project.
And the down the road I visited the first site and was much involved in that when I was on the planning commission but nothing on this site.
I have nothing to report supervisor hurt OK is there any public comment no public comment OK bring it to the board Supervisor Williams
lab real concerns about this project
My concerns
are that it's not a lot bigger. That's my principal concern. So let's reject it? No, that's how we're going to change in the South County. We're not going to let the perfect be the enemy of the good anymore. OK. That's not our MO anymore. So number one, I think this has advantages for for the community and what Koyama is going through. We're a critically overdrafted basin up there, so we do want some ways to transition some ag land to a non-water using And so this has community benefits that go beyond the renewable energy. But of course, you all know that I love the benefits of the renewable energy.
I think the reason why it was only three is because of the transmission restrictions? Is that generally, no they still have excess capacity from the transmission just what they could get PPAs for.
Supervisor Williams to the chair that is correct. They're limited to 600 acres based on the PG&E substation limitations. But we still have
a little bit of capacity still
left? Throughout the county in Quiama Valley, we are limited to 600 acres but the applicant is not limited. The applicant would be limited to that. So of the total 600 acres there are 327 that are currently developed So this brings the total within Cuyama Valley to 347. Right,
so let's hope somebody comes with an application for 253 soon but I do think that it is also good to see that they're making allowances for wildlife passage and to make it a good project in multiple ways.
Is that a motion? I'll move to approve. Okay, Supervisor Hartman.
I'll second. I just had a technical question. Do we have a definition of utility scale solar that deals with how many megawatts?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. The definition of utility scale solar is actually defined by whether or not the energy is used on site Not necessarily the size. That's pretty good. The bag watches produced from that facility
OK, that's all I needed to know thing.
So is that
a second? Are you seconded or you first seconded it first? OK alright so we have a motion and 2nd all those in favor I I anybody opposed no carries unanimously. Books are being closed. That means we're going to adjourn to Tuesday February 5th. Back here in Santa Barbara. We will see you then.