BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 July 16, 2019

UnGovr Transcript

iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.
  1. PendingQueued for transcription.
  2. AIYou are hereAuto-transcribed and summarized; not yet human-verified.
  3. VerifiedReviewed and corrected by a person.

0:01 – 0:022 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:10 · ≈ 9:01 AM

Yeah. Good morning everybody. I'd like to call this meeting of July 16th for the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order. Mr. Clerk, can I get a roll call please?

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction2:48 · ≈ 9:02 AM

Mr. Williams. Here. Mr Hart. Here Ms Hartman. Here. Mr Adam. Here Mr Lavinino.

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈24s recited, not transcribed
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:54 · ≈ 9:02 AM

I'm here. Please rise and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance

0:03 – 0:0912 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:20 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Can I get a motion to approve the minutes of the July 9th meeting?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:23 · ≈ 9:03 AM

So moved.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:25 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:27 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Moved and seconded all those in favor aye any opposed okay passes unanimously Let's move on to our honorary resolutions. If I can get a motion to approve A1 through A4, please?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:44 · ≈ 9:03 AM

So

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:45 · ≈ 9:03 AM

moved. Aye. Any opposed? All right great. Let's move on to A1 Mr. Clerk.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction4:00 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Chair Labnido, members of the board. Item A1 is a resolution sponsored by Supervisor Williams. This is a resolution of accommodation honoring La Esperanza Santa Barbara Elite 2003 Girls Soccer Team as the winners of the International Copa Vallarta Tournament in Santa Barbara's sister city of Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and if the team could come on up to the podium.

Team and coaching. I will read the resolution into the record. Whereas soccer is an important national pastime enjoyed by numerous Santa Barbara residents, and whereas the La Esperanza Santa Barbara Elite 2003 Girls Soccer Team is a group of top athletes who attend three local high schools and two of the local junior high schools in Santa Barbara And whereas the team raised over $17,000 to travel and compete in the international Copa Vallarta tournament in Puerto Vallarta Mexico in May where they not only benefited from learning about another culture. They also volunteered at a local orphanage. And whereas Puerto Vallarta Jalisco Mexico became a sister city to Santa Barbara in June of 1973 And whereas the FIFA World Women's Cup 2019 recently occurred in France, with United States women soccer team winning.

And whereas women should be treated as equals to their male counterparts in all professions and particularly in sports. Whereas in 2016 five prominent members of the United States women national team filed a complaint with the Eagle Opportunity Employment Commission against their employer, the United States Soccer Federation for being paid considerably less than their male counterparts.

And whereas the members of the La Esperanza Santa Barbara Elite 2003 soccer team have a bright future ahead of them. That has begun with winning not only the championship in their age bracket, but most goals scored and also won the goalie penalty tournament. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes the La Esperanza Santa Barbara Elite 2003 girls soccer team for their incredible achievement passed and adopted today by the board.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:26 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Who scored the most goals? Oh, it's a team effort. I'm sorry we're not supposed to single anybody out. Coach come on up.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:38 · ≈ 9:06 AM

There's no I in team dude. Well thank you for honoring us here and the girls had a blast. It was a great experience for them And we are looking at going again next year and seeing how that goes. And just thank these girls for playing an awesome game, and thanking their parents for going and allowing them to go. Thank you guys. Awesome.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:03 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Thanks. All right fantastic

let's move to item A2 please.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction7:16 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board item A2 is sponsored by Supervisor Hart. It's a resolution proclaiming the week of August 4th 2019 through August 10 2019 as National Health Center Week in Santa Barbara County and Van Duranoso is here. Van come on up. Is Doug Metz here today also? And Polly Baldwin and anybody else you'd like to have come up I will read the resolution into the record. Whereas, the Santa Barbara County Health Department has been providing medical services since 1926 and has operated the health care for homeless program in the county since 1989. The public health department's five healthcare centers and three shelter-based clinics have provided high quality affordable comprehensive primary healthcare in our county's underserved communities.

And whereas the Public Health Department health care centers are a healthcare home for over 25,000 people. Every day the centers provide a wide range of services beyond primary care including vision, behavioral health, pharmacy and other medical specialty services to meet the needs and challenges of county residents. One in every 17 people in the county gets their care at Santa Barbara County Healthcare Center And whereas healthcare centers reduce overall costs of care by helping manage patients' chronic conditions, keeping them out of costlier healthcare settings like hospital emergency rooms.

And whereas the healthcare centers are on the front lines of emerging healthcare crisis providing access to care for veterans addressing Epidemic and responding to public health threats in the wake of natural disasters. And whereas the National Health Center Week offers the opportunity to celebrate the dedicated staff, board members, patients and all those responsible for their continued success and growth since the first county healthcare centers opened their doors more than 40 years ago. Now therefore be ordered and resolved that the County Board of Supervisors does hereby proclaim the week of August 4 through 10 2019 as National Health Center Week in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.

0:09 – 0:119 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed9:35 · ≈ 9:09 AM

Good morning, Chair and members of the board. Thank you Supervisor Hart for this opportunity to recognize the critical work that our health centers do as evidenced by the excellent results from our recent HRSA audit We have a tremendously talented and committed staff in the health centers who provide direct patient care, and who provide the infrastructure support. This team put their best efforts daily to protect the health of our patients and our community by preventing disease and health conditions as well as promoting wellness. So I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce you to a group of our staff.

CommentNadia BedoyaProposedself-stated10:23 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Good morning everyone. My name is Nadia Bedoya and I am a Medical Assistant for the Pediatric Department.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed10:32 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Good morning, my name is Miriam and I'm an AOP2 with the Public Health Department.

CommentCatherine CardenasProposedself-stated10:40 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Hi, my name is Catherine Cardenas. I'm a pediatric nurse practitioner at the Franklin Clinic where I work with some amazing providers, back office staff, front office staff. It's really an honor to serve the county and the community in this way. And our patients really appreciate the excellent care that they get at the clinics. Thank you.

CommentTessa HolsibusProposedself-stated11:06 · ≈ 9:11 AM

I'm Tessa Holsibus. I'm a nurse for the specialty clinics at the Santa Barbara Health Care Center, thank you.

PresenterSkip Simanskyboard chairProposedself-stated11:14 · ≈ 9:11 AM

I am Skip Simansky. I serve as the board chair. I've been there since the origination of the board. Thank you.

CommentDoug MetzProposedself-stated11:32 · ≈ 9:11 AM

Hi, I'm Doug Metz. I'm very proud to present the folks who are on the front lines examples of the dedicated staff from both Santa Barbara and the Franklin Health Care Centers and we appreciate this recognition Thank you very much All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed11:46 · ≈ 9:11 AM

right,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8611:58 · ≈ 9:11 AM

let's go to item a three please

0:12 – 0:183 turns

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction12:00 · ≈ 9:12 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item 3 sponsored by our chair Supervisor Lavinino is a resolution proclaiming the week of July 21 through July 27 2019 as pretrial probation and parole supervision week in Santa Barbara County and our Probation Chief Tonya Heitman come on up with your team and I will read the resolution into the record Whereas during the week of July 21 through 27, 2019 probation parole community supervision officers criminal justice and juvenile justice professionals in communities all across America will join to celebrate pre-trial probation and parole supervision week. And whereas the probation department today consists over 320 dedicated professionals working collaboratively with other agencies and community partners to deliver evidence based programs to adult juvenile offenders While focusing on the enhancement of safety, reduction of recidivism and protection of and compensation to victims.

And the promotion of crime prevention services intervention, rehabilitation, and restorative justice principles. Now whereas probation officers and juvenile incitational officers provide an efficient and cost effective use of public resources by supervising nearly 356,000 adult probationers and approximately 31,000 juveniles statewide. Within Santa Barbara County, locally supervising approximately 3,600 adults including realigned officers and those under pretrial intensive supervision. Offenders, pardon me, as well as 411 juveniles and managing approximately 600 cases in the intake process at any given time. Whereas during the probation department's 110 years of service, probation's role has evolved dramatically. And the department serves as an integral partner in local law enforcement and the criminal justice system.

Probation department staff displays a high degree of professionalism, commitment, and pride in the work they perform for the courts, in the institutions, and in the community while striving to guide and direct offenders to become productive and successful citizens. Santa Barbara County Probation Officers and Juvenile Institution Officers dedicate their lives to offender rehabilitation and community safety in order to improve the quality of life for all of our citizens. And whereas, the Santa Barbara Superior Court Pretrial Services Division has embraced as evidence-based risk assessment instrument In evaluating a detainee's eligibility for pre-adjudication release in an effort to ensure public safety and to reduce recidivism. In partnership with the Probation Department, the Pretrial Services Division has employed greater pretrial supervision conditions to aid in that effort.

Now therefore we have hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors in the County of Santa Barbara and the State of California hereby proclaim It's pre-trial probation and parole supervision week, and recognizes these officers for their significant contributions to making Santa Barbara County a safer place to live. Pass it adopted today.

CommentTanya HeitmanProposedself-stated14:59 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Good morning, Chair Labanino and Supervisors. I'm Tanya Heitman, Chief Probation Officer. Thank you for the opportunity to join with other community corrections agencies across the nation in recognizing the important work of pretrial probation and parole officers. The field of community corrections has rapidly evolved in recent years, and the sworn officers within the probation department have been hard at work adapting to these changes. And even now they're in the midst of planning for additional reforms and legislative changes.

It's an exciting time, but it can also be very challenging. I'm proud to be able to lead a department that's committed to serving the community and sees change as an opportunity rather than merely an inconvenience. Our officers recognize that while not easy this work is very much worth doing well. And they're also very aware that our relationship with those we serve can be an important factor that propels them toward critical changes Our officers are assigned primarily to three divisions, adult, juvenile and institutions. With me today are three officers who will introduce themselves and tell you a little about their assignment and how it fits into the broader mission of the department.

CommentLeslie StammProposedself-stated16:13 · ≈ 9:16 AM

Good morning Board of Supervisors. My name is Leslie Stamm and I am a Senior Deputy Probation Officer assigned to the Santa Maria Juvenile Court Services Unit as the juvenile intake officer. In this role, I'm responsible for reviewing all new law enforcement referrals and determining whether they are forwarded to the District Attorney's Office for consideration of filing of juvenile petitions.

In considering whether intervention by the juvenile court is needed or if the youth's needs can be met informally, a face-to-face meeting with the youth and their parents are made. The goal of the appointment is to gather information about the youth and family utilizing an evidence based risk and needs assessment. This tool is used on youth currently supervised by the juvenile units in the Santa Barbara, Santa Maria and Long Polk offices.

Based on the risks and needs a case plan is developed with the youth and family with attainable goals for success whether the youth is new to probation Or currently being supervised, the youth and their parents or guardians are provided with referrals to various community organizations for participation in evidence-based programming. These programs focus on drug and alcohol counseling, family counseling, mental health services, life skills, positive peer relationship, and trauma based programming.

By utilizing evidence-based program, which focus on the risks and needs of use. The probation department's goal is to provide youth and family with the necessary tools to create a successful future away from the criminal justice system. In addition, deputy probation officers must also be able to identify and recognize the difference between mental health issues versus criminal behavior. And ensure the youth and family are referred to the appropriate mental health treatment programs.

The ultimate goal of the probation department is to divert low level offenses to community based programs while providing intense supervision to more serious cases. Thank you

0:18 – 0:223 turns

CommentDavid SilvaProposedself-stated18:35 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Chairman Lavagnino, members of the board. Good morning. My name is David Silva. I'm a senior deputy probation officer for the County of Santa Barbara assigned to the Santa Maria Juvenile Hall. In my current assignment at the juvenile hall, my role is multifaceted. I am responsible for the implementation and facilitation of evidence-based programs such as moral reconation therapy to detain youth I also work closely with the Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara to work with youth to provide essential programming such as jove noble and reasoning and rehabilitation.

I work closely with parents, grandparents or guardians of the youth detained at the juvenile hall I meet with each visiting family during the designated visitation times to answer any questions, provide information pertaining to school attendance, upcoming court dates and an overall summary on their progress based on the incentive behavior management program.

I use my bilingual skills to communicate with families, which are Spanish speaking, to provide the necessary information they need. I am the school liaison. I work hand in hand with Dos Puertas High School staff, which is an accredited high school operated by Juvenile Court Community Schools through the Santa Barbara County Education Office. Our work to address student progress, address behavioral concerns and proudly host school graduations for youth who successfully earned their high school diplomas by successfully completing all the required academic credits while in custody. In fact I'm proud to announce that three juvenile youth have just completed their required academic credits and we're excited to be planning a high school graduation next couple weeks.

Thank you.

PresenterDeputy Probation Officer JosephProbation Department for nearly 13 yearsProposedself-stated20:24 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Good morning Chair and Supervisors. I'm Deputy Probation Officer Joseph Contreras, and I've worked with the Probation Department for nearly 13 years. I am currently assigned to the Adult Special Programs Unit and supervise a caseload of predominantly high-risk offenders. I am tasked with supervising them in the community and supporting their compliance with court ordered conditions in the interest of public safety.

In this way, the role of the probation officer and the criminal justice system is unique. Our department in our department we utilize case planning targeting our clients highest needs for successful reentry to the community and then match or treatment referrals to address those needs. We work with people on our caseloads to take an inventory of those needs.

Such as a need for sober living environment, drug and alcohol treatment or mental health treatment. By linking them with appropriate services and resources we support them in their efforts to be productive and law abiding thereby reducing the risk to re-offend and promoting community safety. Many of the individuals on our caseloads have demonstrated a great propensity for violence and can be extremely resistant to change.

As officers, we participate in extensive training both in field tactics and communication techniques such as motivational interviewing which increases our ability to provide community supervision with a high degree of safety for our caseloads partners and the community I stand here today proud to work for the Santa Barbara Probation Department and the County of Santa Barbara, representing all the men and women in the adult division who provide public service safety innovation and accountability on a daily basis.

With the support of Chief Heitman, we are focused on maintaining high standards for community supervision of offenders and for public service. I would like to thank our deputy chiefs for their involvement and unwavering support of probation services in public safety. Thank you to the Board of Supervisors for your ongoing support and commitment to keeping our community safe.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8622:32 · ≈ 9:22 AM

All right we'll move to item four.

0:22 – 0:3114 turns

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction22:35 · ≈ 9:22 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, Item 4 again sponsored by our chair Supervisor Lavagnino this is a resolution of accommodation honoring Sandy Blair as our Santa Barbara County Veteran of the Month and if Sandy could come on up to the podium? Thank you I will read the resolution into the record Whereas, Sandy Blair enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1993 and served her country for 12 years until a medical condition forced her into an honorable discharge. And whereas, Ms. Blair struggled to reintegrate into civilian life suffering from depression and despair as she was continually told that her military skills overqualified her for the job she was applying for.

And whereas Ms. Blair spent over a year waiting for the Veterans Administration to determine her eligibility for employment training, education services and medical benefits. And whereas during her transition struggle she vowed to make a difference for other veterans caught up in the same predicament. And whereas, after earning her real estate license in 2014, Sandy established a safe refuge for homeless female vets by opening a four-bedroom residential home to allow these women to reestablish a healthy lifestyle, build confidence and feel safe while working towards the common goal of reintegration.

And whereas, in June of 2018 Sandy established WEBS Women Empowered Build Strong a 501c3 with the dream of building a tiny home farming community where women veterans can learn social emotional and professional skills that will help them rebuild their lives. Whereas Sandy Blair has taken the negative experiences she had transitioning from military to civilian life and transformed that experience into an opportunity to assist and uplift others Struggling with the same issue now therefore be hereby ordered and resolved but this Board of Supervisors Because of her incredible spirit and tenacious effort on behalf of other veterans Recognizes Sandy Blair and is hereby honored as Santa Barbara County's veteran of the month passing adopted today

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8624:52 · ≈ 9:24 AM

It's always difficult picking a Veteran of the Month for your district. This one stood out for a number of reasons, but one of the things that I find in this job that a lot of times you'll find a lot of people that it's easy to pinpoint things that we fall short on in this community and there's no shortage of people that call at least my office and they'll point out what's wrong But every once in a while, you come across somebody that sees something that's a problem and decides to fix it.

And so the reason why I chose Sandy was her commitment to seeing something she saw as a loophole in the system of finding eligibility for benefits and folks who were struggling with integration, reintegration into civilian life. Complaining about it, she decided to do something about it. And she is just a strong force in the community especially for female veterans. I know she's got an event coming up that I hope she'll plug and so with that I'd like to introduce Sandy Blair

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed26:08 · ≈ 9:26 AM

Thank you so much, Chair Levinino and Board of Supervisors. I am truly honored, thank you. Operation Webs pretty much like you said stemmed from my personal experience of not being able to have a smooth transition back to civilian life and It kind of developed over eight years of being separated from the military, and what can I do? And after law enforcement and after moving out here to California and having support of my family. I kind of pulled them into my dream of creating a safe space for Women veterans to find that camaraderie and that the support that they need to kind of get their footing back. And so my sisters lived in this county for maybe 15 years now, and I came here just This month, five years ago.

And it's the support and the unity in Santa Barbara County is truly amazing. And at our ribbon cutting for our Orchid Stability Home last month, the turnout was beyond my expectation. And it just goes to show how much Santa Barbara County really cares about the safety and the well-being of their veterans. I think I'm in the right place to do this, and I thank you all for this and the support.

We now have two female veterans housed out of their car and out of the Good Sam Shelter, and we're looking to house our third one with the help of a phenomenal group of people at New Beginnings Santa Barbara County and SSVF, Good Sam, and the San Luis Obispo Collaborative veterans collaborative so just this entire network has been instrumental in making this happen.

And we just finished our fiscal year in June and we're going into our second year now, and we have a tiny house that we're building right now We plan to use that platform to hopefully introduce an idea for Farming Village, for our veteran sisters to be able to rebuild their lives together with structure that they're used to and finding their purpose again. And so we do hope that will create a relationship with many of you in our community. So that our sisters can know that they have more than what they think they have right now, which is nothing.

And so yes in September on September 7th we will be hosting our second annual gala in Santa Maria at the Country Club and our tickets go on sale next week. Which you'll which you'll find on our website where to go purchase those and Again, it will be at the the Santa Barbara Correction the Santa Maria Country Club on September 7th And the tiny home that we're building right now will be there on tour for everyone to experience and see. So, I hope you can all come out and support us that night. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8529:43 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Would you send an announcement of your gala to all of us? We have distribution lists of our own that we could send out. Wow!

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed29:51 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Yes, I could certainly do that. I'll get

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8629:53 · ≈ 9:29 AM

you all their

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed29:53 · ≈ 9:29 AM

contact information. Thank you, thank you. You want to give

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8629:56 · ≈ 9:29 AM

your website

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed29:56 · ≈ 9:29 AM

before you leave? Yes please. So again it's Operation Webs. It's just one operation okay not operations but Operation Webs W-E-B-S Women Empowered Build Strong and it's dot org so OperationWebs.org O-R-G. Thank you again for this honor and have a great day!

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8630:19 · ≈ 9:30 AM

All right Sandy thank you. All right. Awesome. Can we just end there. We've got to keep going. All right. Motion to adjourn by the way just a reminder is next month will be rotating back to first district for veteran of the month. So all right so that ends our honorary resolutions do any board members have any agenda items that they would like to pull a 10

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed31:01 · ≈ 9:31 AM

And I just briefly want to pull A23 just to highlight it, not to have a separate vote.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8631:06 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Okay, A23. And does the public have any administrative items they'd like to pull?

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction31:13 · ≈ 9:31 AM

We request on item

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8631:15 · ≈ 9:31 AM

A9. All right, why don't we start with nine and let's read that into the record please.

0:31 – 0:4029 turns

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction31:21 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item 89 is some community services to consider recommendations regarding a one-time waiver of fees for the use of the courthouse second gardens by Old Spanish Days Fiesta this is for July 25 through August 5 2019 in the first district and we have Barbara Carroll. Barbara?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed31:41 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Good morning everyone. I asked for public comment because it was suggested that I'd be here in case any of you had questions that you needed old Spanish days to answer so here I am and if you do not I would otherwise ask that you adopt the recommendation as it was presented.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8631:56 · ≈ 9:31 AM

OK thank you very much for being here. Thank you. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed31:59 · ≈ 9:31 AM

don't think

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8632:00 · ≈ 9:32 AM

it's going to be a problem.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed32:01 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Great. Thank you so much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8632:02 · ≈ 9:32 AM

All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed32:04 · ≈ 9:32 AM

right. Let's move to 8, Supervisor Williams. Just make a comment I think one of the outstanding issues with set old Spanish days that we want to still work out and then I checked in with the courts about to make sure they were supportive is the ability of Old Spanish Days to restrict some of the space during Fiesta in the courthouse because they have in the past been sued for someone who just a member of the public wandering around during a show who tripped and fell And so that's an ongoing fiscal way. That's a way the county can help without spending any money is to give some site control. So I just want to keep on highlighting that issue, it's one of the outstanding issues.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8632:45 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Okay?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed32:47 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Very good let's move to 810.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction32:49 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Chair Lavagnino members of the board item 810 also from community services this is regarding an application for the California Department of Conservation local and regional planning grant program.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction32:59 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Supervisor Adam. Yeah, I'm just wondering where the information is in the grant application.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction33:08 · ≈ 9:33 AM

The grant application is still being prepared so we don't have the actual grant application complete yet.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction33:14 · ≈ 9:33 AM

Okay, so what you're asking us to do is delegate a blank check to you that we can't see what we're asking for and we're not coming back because what you're asking for A variance from our normal course of action where it comes back here and then we approve it.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction33:40 · ≈ 9:33 AM

I can provide you with some details of the actual grant application, so specifically the project would identify existing carbon stock, model some different strategies to determine their greenhouse gas emissions I just find this really troubling because

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction34:18 · ≈ 9:34 AM

The public cannot be on notice. I don't know how, Mr. Guzzoni is this something that really is something we can do? Is it to adopt a blank application and then have it filled out later and not Have it come back

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction34:39 · ≈ 9:34 AM

for approval? Chair and supervisors, this is the item of defensible delegations when we've addressed before. And in this case at recommended action C a tool that other case law has found adequate as a concurrence vehicle with county council auditor controller and risk manager so it's a policy call for the board if you would wish to put further limitations on it that something you could do today also whether by dollar amount or some other manner

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction35:07 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Okay, well I think that we violated the public notification The moral obligation. I guess we have in my opinion that we usually Go through a public notification process and if we had the application filled out maybe people would have shown up for public comment and and We don't know because we don't even know what we're gonna be asking for and then we're and then we're all tied in you Don't really need to comment on it further.

I Just I guess I want a roll call vote on it because You know, I just am troubled by the fact that were were delegating Not only the application without having seen it, but when it comes back what they're asking for is to just be able to move forward with it and never bring it back to us again. And so I'm out on that.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction36:13 · ≈ 9:36 AM

Chair Love and your members of the board, I did want to make one comment. The timing for submitting this application was relatively tight. It's due on July 31st so to be able to get to the board and get approval to move forward, this was really the only path forward for us.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8636:28 · ≈ 9:36 AM

So that was going to be my question is so the application they didn't announce it until May 31st. How does the state expect us in two months to come up with a grant application for something as Detail does this and have time for us to be able to present it to the public and get input for it. Is there any request for a time extension? I share Supervisor Adams' concerns, I mean it's something that I'm interested in but also I think it's incumbent upon us to be as transparent as possible and let people know what possibilities are.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction37:03 · ≈ 9:37 AM

I mean, I can't speak for the state. Typically they do have pretty tight turnaround times and we do have plans to do some outreach. We're on the agenda to speak at the Ag Advisory Committee to talk and get input from them on this. But it's

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8637:17 · ≈ 9:37 AM

over at that point by the time they get any input on it so yeah but Supervisor did you want to ask or Supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8537:25 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Hart? Could you describe a bit what your process is for planning and what it would lead to?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction37:32 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Sure, so we would be working with planning and development. So the first step of the process would be using a tool called TerraCount to identify the carbon currently being stored in ag and natural lands. That tool can also be used to model different scenarios and inputs like carbon sequestration and determine the GHG reduction emissions that would result from that specific activity.

Then that information would be taken and potentially put into the ECAP as a strategy, as part of the update process. And the ECAP would go through a pretty extensive public outreach process.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8538:16 · ≈ 9:38 AM

So one reason I'm interested in this is its potential way to get cap-and-trade money to agriculturalists for carbon sequestration. And this is kind of creating the groundwork for that.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction38:30 · ≈ 9:38 AM

It is and just to be really clear, the goal of the grant is to preserve ag land and natural working lands. All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8638:39 · ≈ 9:38 AM

right so just for the benefit of everybody when you're talking about a cap today we're talking about the climate action plan?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed38:44 · ≈ 9:38 AM

Correct. Okay Supervisor Hart. Yes, so the way I understand it is that staff is asking for authority to go seek state grant funds to help pay for his staff and consultant work that would give information that would be Included in the future update of the climate action plan that the board will then review and pass judgment on. So what we're really doing is we're taking advantage of state resources to help supplement our local staff's work effort, to get the best available science and information to bring to our board for us to approve at a future date in time. That sounds pretty benign to me. That sounds actually like a good thing. And I appreciate you taking initiative And seek out state grant funds to help us do our work. That's one of the hardest things we have, is trying to find additional resources to bring to these complex problems and I think that's a great thing.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction39:40 · ≈ 9:39 AM

Supervisor Adam? Yeah, I just want to read two sentences out of the resolution. Said procedures require a resolution certifying the approval of an application by the applicant's governing board before submission of said application to the state So that means that we're supposed to approve the application and I would assume that good faith would be required or would require that we fill it out.

Just saying. The applicant, if selected will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the project. So that's in the resolution and so what we're doing here is we're agreeing in advance to enter into this thing that we can't tell what it is because we never filled out the application. So if you want to vote yes on that let's

Roll-call vote 0–0 · 2 under review
Show transcript
just have a roll call. Mr. Ghazani? Chair and Supervisors, just to help with the Board's options. Within the materials there is a description of applying for a grant up to $200,000 and if it would help the Board with this item, the recommended actions could be amended to say submit a grant application in an amount up to $200,000. If the Board would like you could also direct reporting back after Execution of the grant even whether live or in writing to the board because those are options for the board today also supervisor Hartman Let me just ask Supervisor Adam

0:41 – 0:4925 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8541:11 · ≈ 9:41 AM

wouldn't would any of those options bring you along to vote for this

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction41:16 · ≈ 9:41 AM

You know I was out of my mind All right, we have

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed41:20 · ≈ 9:41 AM

a

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8541:21 · ≈ 9:41 AM

motion to move item 810 as

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction41:23 · ≈ 9:41 AM

presented

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8641:31 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Seconded by Supervisor Hart. We'll do a roll call, please.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction41:36 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Mr. Hart? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam? No. Mr Lavinino? Abstain. Passes three ayes one abstention one no.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8641:47 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Okay that then takes us to item A23 I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed41:56 · ≈ 9:41 AM

just pulled this item oh go ahead

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction42:00 · ≈ 9:42 AM

I just pulled this to highlight that the item. This is our public works department moving forward with due diligence needed to construct a debris basin on Randall Road something desperately needed by

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed42:26 · ≈ 9:42 AM

The community of Montecito and shows the county doing proactive action to prevent further flood or debris flow.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8642:38 · ≈ 9:42 AM

All right, do we? And we don't need a separate vote on that. Okay. Can I get a motion to move the balance of the administrative agenda?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8542:46 · ≈ 9:42 AM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8642:48 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Balance passes unanimously. Would you not have a CEO's report we're going to move into public comment. So these are for items not on today's agenda.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction43:04 · ≈ 9:43 AM

You know members of the board we have eight requests to speak and we're going to start in Santa Maria with Dave Clary

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed43:20 · ≈ 9:43 AM

Good morning, Supervisors. Usually I just speak on cannabis so I'm stretching it a little bit here but I want to comment on what was attributed to Supervisor Lovanino's comments at the last meeting which I do consider important. I would take issue with some of the points. His comment to the tenor that most Issues that are possibly job creating tended to be among the wealthiest residents of the county.

And if we just focus for the moment on the Cat Canyon oil expansion of some 700 steam generating wells, You know, there are a lot of us in the general region area that are affected or very concerned. I wouldn't say that most of the people in Sisquauk and Gary are among the wealthy but the issue is a lot broader than our local interests California has led the effort to deal with global warming despite the atmosphere in Washington and we should be part of that. And if this is considered just to be an issue that is mostly opposed by the wealthy in the county, I think we need to look at the worldwide demonstrations by young people who are feel that we are not doing enough to cope with global warming. That's a major issue in the whole Cat Canyon project.

Another issue, at the last meeting if we looked around on July 9th which dealt with the cannabis issue that was the main focus of so many speakers. If we looked around at the audience in that group I would bet, I could be wrong bets or you know you can win or lose That the wealthiest individual was not the owner of the major winery, but a scofflaw grower from Tepeskay Canyon who is in the audience. Thank you very much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8645:39 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed45:40 · ≈ 9:45 AM

We're back

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction45:41 · ≈ 9:45 AM

to Senator Barbara for Ren Strong to be followed by Theodore Foniz.

CommentRen StrongProposedself-stated45:52 · ≈ 9:45 AM

Hello Chair and Council, Mr. Williams good to see you. My name is Ren Strong and by the way tell your mom hello I've ran into her. I'm sure you know we were Facebook friends at one point. I am here to speak to the constituents and to you of course but those that are at home this by the way I'm going to have another three minutes by the next gentleman who's going to pass this on.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8646:19 · ≈ 9:46 AM

We don't do that, so.

CommentRen StrongProposedself-stated46:20 · ≈ 9:46 AM

You don't do that here? Nope

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8646:21 · ≈ 9:46 AM

you're on your own three.

CommentRen StrongProposedself-stated46:22 · ≈ 9:46 AM

Okay well just let you know I'm grateful that we have not had since right before 4th of July not had cloud seeding which that's what you guys call it solar radiation management aerosol injection disbursement shooting aluminum barium strontium in our skies. So i'm grateful that that's not going on leaving out when they leave out of air force bases of Vandenberg Fort Hunter Liggett, I've been in San Luis Obispo by the way. I've spoken 18 times in front of mayor councils but this is about spraying our skies, the dementia and Alzheimer's being on the uprise right? There's a reason so you guys know about this and you're staying quiet. The people at home need to come here and actually fill this room up.

So just let you know, we have 5G millimeter microwave radiation technology too. So what happens when you put metal into a microwave? You know what happens. So that's what's happening to us because we have globalist eugenicists And we have council mayors, council board of supervisors that are allowing this to happen and not speaking up. We have Operation Mockingbird which is the fake media look it up operation mocking bird so we need to understand that our lives are really in danger here.

And this deployment that is going on of this 5G, every 500 feet that they have to put these micro cell towers up is not cool at all. Is not in the best interest of us since we've had depopulation programs going on for a long time. So I like to call out the five top things, poisoning our air, our water, our food. Why and another thing since I have 44 seconds left.

And by the way, look up zero zero five g.com you can find out about it zero geoengineering dot com and you can actually watch a film called Franken skies the movie dot com so these are when we have fluoride putting in our water we got we got roundup that there's lawsuits that have occurred And that are going through but we're still selling this crap in our stores, in these hardware stores. That is the corruption that we're talking about and you all know about it. So since I've spoken in front of mayor councils up in San Luis Obispo, California Coastal Commissions 18 times so we need people to come here and get involved and speak up about these injustices.

So thank you. And if I had extra minutes, I'd be asking you what are you going to do under Senate Report 93-549 to protect we the people? So when we can get other people talk about this, then we can have this happen. Thank you. Yeah well this is really important. All right. That's

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction49:14 · ≈ 9:49 AM

why.

0:49 – 0:5610 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8649:17 · ≈ 9:49 AM

All right. Theodore are

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction49:18 · ≈ 9:49 AM

you gonna speak

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8649:20 · ≈ 9:49 AM

and before it before you come up okay all right

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction49:22 · ≈ 9:49 AM

we're gonna move ahead then to Ed Kolaski

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8649:25 · ≈ 9:49 AM

All right, so the other thing is just we have to do this every time. If you agree with somebody this if you don't don't boo don't hiss don't clap it's just okay. Alright Mr. Klasky you're up.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed49:48 · ≈ 9:49 AM

Good morning I call my talk today Alex switched our drawings But he didn't tell Lori and Valerie who are members of the Board of Architectural Review. We've been trying to remodel our house by locating the second story over the dining room, the kitchen, laundry room and the garage. They ruled that our second story is solely over the garage therefore in violation of guideline 4.7 and you can't do anything about it.

So I think I'm finally getting through to Lori and Valerie. They're finally realizing that they never saw this drawing, that when I tried to present it back in June of 2014, Alex kicked us out and would not let us see this drawing. Instead, Alex submitted our old drawing which was solely over the garage. Our government here wouldn't lie, cheat and steal just to get a few extra bucks would they? And besides all I have to do is make it such that the second story is not solely over the garage.

When it's not solely over the garage to begin with. In other words, I should have paid the extortion payment and just moved on from there and one of our supervisors even suggested that I had many opportunities. Well no one gets hurt with this do they? No one suffers. No one dies. I suffered. My blood pressure went over 200. I didn't know at that time that I was close to dying.

I lost five years of my life coming down here. For what? For nothing. Let me put the other one up again. This is a friend of mine, Joanne. She died. You know they were going to come out in 2014 to stay at our place. Of course you couldn't because they didn't remodel. They were going to come out in 2015 They decided, well they'll go to Vegas instead. And they did.

She contracted a brain disease. She was dead one month later just like that gone. That was the last time I saw her was when she was in Santa Barbara here. So no one suffers? Is this the way it goes? It's not really an important problem. Why is Alice Pujo still there? Isn't it time to do something You know one of the titles was find a problem and fix it. Well, it's time for you to find the problem and fix it Do you expect him that all sudden he's going to do the right thing?

Which nobody is looking anyways Nobody's accountable here especially when we had Janet Wolfe here she looked the other way I couldn't even talk to her She was the biggest problem of all And I think she instigated Alice Peugeot to do these things. And we had Anne Almy, fortunately Janet's retired and Anne Almy has retired. Thank goodness. Please do something. Thank you.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction52:54 · ≈ 9:52 AM

Our next speaker is Lee Moldaver to be followed by Jay Freeman.

CommentLee MoldaverProposedself-stated53:05 · ≈ 9:53 AM

Good morning Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'm Lee Moldaver speaking on behalf today of the Citizens Planning Association of Santa Barbara County 59 years young and getting younger every day. I wanted to remind each of you and we'll probably be sending you something electronically That on Saturday, July 27th from 1 to 3 p.m., three blocks down the street at the historic Pico Adobe, we're going to be at our annual meeting presenting awards for career achievement to two really distinguished individuals that I think most of you up here know pretty well.

The first is Art Hibbets and his family for a multi-generational career In food and fiber working landscapes, sustainable agriculture. And civic engagement where he was a key voice at helping draft the original agricultural element of the general plan in the right to farm ordinance which supports working landscapes today. The other one whom I know you all know because he worked for you for over 30 years.

is Bill Dillon, who is in semi-retirement from the County Council's office where during that time he represented the county in the drive for clean air effective regional governance as Mr. Hart knows Legal counsel with big hearted caring organizations like the State Transportation Commission, the Governor's Office, HCD and our beloved friend Caltrans. He also worked with Fortune 500 companies to make sure that the highest level of safeguards for permitting for on and offshore energy development and transport were followed.

So often, the essential work of the men and women in the county council's office not only to make wise suggestions and innovations in language and policy but also to prudently avoid pitfalls which might get us less than the highest standards or expose us to risk. Those men and women accepted these honorary ceremonies that you begin your meeting with are too often taken for granted and too often ignored.

Bill Dillon's career with the County Council's office has been really exemplary as the Hibbitts family has been in agriculture, and I would hope that all of you who were in town are able to join us at 1 p.m., On Saturday, July 27th at the Pico Adobe to help us recognize the Art Hibbets family and Bill Dillon for exceptional work tendered over long and distinguished careers and lifetimes. Thank you so much for all you do and have a great meeting.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8656:03 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Thank You.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction56:05 · ≈ 9:56 AM

G Freeman. So next speaker to be followed by Paul Boring

0:56 – 1:015 turns

PresenterJay Freeman I'mthem todayProposedself-stated56:12 · ≈ 9:56 AM

Hello, good morning. So you have an agenda item today that's about cannabis regulation but cultivation my comment is not at all about cultivation. So my name is Jay Freeman I'm on the board of the Isla Vista Community Service District but I am not at all representing them today. Three years ago for about a year and half, I was the vice president of the Isla Vista Downtown Business Association. Well during the year and half it was active. I was Vice President of the Isla Vista Downtown Business Association. I attend meetings at the Isle of Vista Community Network regularly.

A month ago a county staff member, Dennis Pisanich came and gave an excellent presentation to us about the current state of the cannabis business retail licensing regulations. And I have a comment on that. So first of all, it is has been updated. So there's now one per planning area, which I think is a great change in comparison to the two per supervisorial district those before but what that means extremely important to the character of how that business operates in the community. We have, we have in our area multiple bike shops, multiple pizza restaurants, we have multiple banks and if you have an issue with one you go to another one which because it is then so important who that one is I was dismayed to hear that the algorithm that was going to be used in order to decide who got that permit was random selection And even further, random selection per person per location which seems like it would immediately open the door up to oh I've got a location that's allowed to have this permit.

I will work together with my business partners to establish a number of separate business entities because the way the rule is written very explicitly person is a business entity and then we can all apply and kind of collect the randomness towards my endeavor. And this is what the general manager of the Alavista Food Co-op, which is one of the few properties in our area that is allowed to...is actually zoned for this purpose. What she calls their lived experience of people coming to them asking and saying well how about you just allow me to sub license from you some space and we will become part of your location and then we will be able to file for this permit? So I would really love to see a process that has more I think there should be more input into who is going to end up being the business that ends up getting the retail license in the area.

Opportunity for people to comment on how this part of it operates I just I see so many meetings about cultivation and I see so very few opportunities to talk about the Retail permits. So, thank you good. Thank you.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction58:51 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Oh Paul boring. It's our next speaker to be followed by Viviana Saavedra

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed58:58 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Can

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8658:59 · ≈ 9:58 AM

you bring the microphone down just a little bit so we can hear you great perfect

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed59:02 · ≈ 9:59 AM

I'm here to talk about an appellate law that was given opinion was written in 2017 regarding camping. I think everyone here has information or knows about this. It's got it's about the homeless, it's about those that are the least of these. It's not about the alcoholics or the drunks that many would like They say they are, because most of them really aren't. And if they are, they've got a worthiness and an unworthiness problem in their life. They've had promise after promise after promise to have second chance opportunities at employment. And the nicest guys in the world that own the businesses that tell them come back next week is just another way for them to feel not so bad about I'm not going to hire you because you're homeless.

These are some of the problems that we all need together to address and find ways to make a better society for all of us, including the least of these. So if I could leave you with one thing, we have parks all over the country. We have parks right here in this county. It seems like parks personnel doesn't want to accept the fact that public land is a park. This law right here addresses public land as a place for the homeless to be able to go and lay their head, sleep, lay and rest.

This land is not shut off at 8 o'clock at night and turned on it at 9 o'clock in the morning. Whatever your hours are that you put on these parks, these parks are public lands from 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. So if we do anything positive I would like to see the legal department of the county to look at this law and adjust the ordinances accordingly to this law. So that law enforcement has a better way of dealing with the problem. They don't have to call us, they don't have to call to see if there's a bed open or not when there just isn't. And I believe that we can do a better job of addressing homeless folks as citizens, your neighbors new and old. Thank you.

1:01 – 1:075 turns

PresenterViviana SaavedraUDW United Domestic WorkersProposedself-stated1:01:17 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Good morning, my name is Viviana Saavedra and I am here today with my co-workers. We are in home care workers representing UDW United Domestic Workers. And you know I was shopping for a birthday card yesterday and it said happy birthday it's your day so you can forget reason and then ignore its evil twin logic well it's not your birthday So please pay attention.

We're in bargaining and bargaining is not going well, and it's not going even as well as several years ago. And so I want to bring that to your attention for a couple of reasons because we are the lowest paid county workers and it's time we do some catch up. So we're asking for that rate increase. And what's truly disturbing is if you treat this program IHSS like a burden, then we also as in-home care workers become a burden. We're not a burden. We're actually a benefit. You know it costs four times more to send people to an institution whether it be a nursing home or a convalescent center. So we are actually saving you money. And you know for every five cents you put in, you're going to get a dollar's worth of return. So I ask you to take seriously the request package and make sure that you're getting accurate information from your staff because that didn't happen the last time.

We'd like it to happen this time, that you get accurate information, that they are calculating your expenses accurately and that number two For the second time, I know we're a female workforce. But we're not dumb. We honestly do know the benefit of pulling our money together and making sure that we can get a good dental vision package with that money. We know that can happen. Have you tried reading a prescription bottle with glasses that are 10 years old? That does no benefit to the caregiver, it does no benefit to the client. So it's really important we remember that those are important benefits which we do not have. We don't have a pension plan with you either Keep that in mind of all those other benefits. We need to catch up.

Also keep in mind, San Luis Obispo County during their last negotiations they got a pay increase, they got dental vision, they got a training budget and lastly they even were providing gloves to in-home caregivers so that they are able to protect themselves and the clients when they do work that is dangerous work. I always remind people two dangerous things Blood, blood products and poop. You know what? We need to protect everybody in this instance so we need to take that seriously. Again, we have a request package on the table you can rise to the occasion treat it seriously. We are women but we are absolutely adamant about this particular package. So I thank you for your attention.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction1:04:14 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Steve Decker

CommentSteve DeckerProposedself-stated1:04:20 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Chairman Lavallino, members of the board. My name is Steve Decker and I'm speaking today not about my position in the cannabis industry. I'm speaking to you as a citizen of this county. I am 32 year resident here. I came here in 1987. Came here with my two small children to raise by my previous marriage. I was starting a new life. I was hoping to prosper in this county and fast forward 32 years later it is a hell of a difficult thing to prosper in this county.

Back in the early days of the 1990s, we had a crisis in this county with water supplies. And it was one of the reasons that was inhibiting economic growth on the south coast and other parts of the county. I formed a committee to get state water approved in South County and around the rest of the county. And we were successful. I'm very, very proud to say that supplemental water supply that dumps in the Lake Kachuma got us through the last drought and that was a wonderful thing. But we had adversaries to that concept of having a balanced water supply that fought vociferously and some of them are even in this room today. I remember them well. Good people. They had their positions but they opposed having balanced water supplies for everybody And my little quick story is about the woman, 90-year old lady sent me a dollar with a letter saying I lived here all my life.

I can't afford with the high water rates to water my plants. I'd have a bucket in my shower to water my plants. So this is the types of things that inhibit prosperity, inhibit quality of life and so forth where people oppose Advancements in our systems. Fast forward 32 years later, here we are again with a watershed moment about new industries in our county and so forth and industry that's offering to pay very high wages better wages than average And we're having resistance to it again.

Some of the concerns are valid, but they are misplaced because they don't understand the provisions in the ordinance that take care of their concerns. So all I'm doing here today as a citizen with 32 year history of being in this county knowing how it goes what happens and so forth to push forward get things working right, get good jobs in the county. Let's prosper. Let's let it grow. Thank you.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction1:06:51 · ≈ 10:06 AM

That concludes public comment.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:06:53 · ≈ 10:06 AM

Okay, very good. So that closes out our public comment which will move us to our departmental agenda items for the day. Can we read in departmental agenda item one?

1:07 – 1:1120 turns

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction1:07:06 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Chair Lavendino, members of the board. Item number one is for planning and development This is regarding the Patterson Avenue Holdings new office appeal filed by Paul Bradford of the Planning Commission's December 5 2018 approval of that case number 16 DVP 13 in 16 BAR 154 this is in the second district we have a request to continue this item to September 10th

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:07:30 · ≈ 10:07 AM

All right, very good. We have a departmental agent request to continue this item. Can I get a motion to that effect please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:07:38 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:07:39 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Alright we'll hear that on September 10th.

Let's move to item number two please.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction1:07:50 · ≈ 10:07 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item number two is from the Sheriff's Department. This is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an extra help services and retirement waiver for the sheriff's office.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:08:03 · ≈ 10:08 AM

Good morning, Chair Lavenino, members of the board. Commander Ryan Sullivan on behalf of the Sheriff's Office. This item is to request an extra help waiver for Catherine Dorsey. She was a Department Business Specialist II in the Sheriff's Office who was assigned to the Inmate Services Bureau. She is primarily responsible for billing and rectification of billing for inmate telephone commissary educational tracking for the sheriff's treatment program.

As well as legal research liaison duties. She notified us in early June of her pending retirement, which was effective on July 14th. And we are requesting approval to bring her back in an extra help capacity on a part time basis to continue the duty she's doing but also to train her replacement once we've identified that. We do plan on reallocating that position or reclassifying that position I'm sorry and Supervisor Adam.

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:09:12 · ≈ 10:09 AM

You know if somebody's over there for over 30 years,

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:09:14 · ≈ 10:09 AM

you know, there's there's something called Stein's law that says that Anything they cannot go on forever doesn't exist And so you have a person there that's over 30 years. I mean, you would think that it can hardly be unexpected that this person retires. You know, there's not that many people here that have been here for over 30 years. So you know this is this is one of them and so you know it's I just am amazed every time somebody continues to bring one of these things in.

You know did we not think that there was going to be a time when they weren't with us anymore and start training somebody that could take over?

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:10:08 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Supervisor Adam to the chair, your point is well taken. However this is the only department business specialist two position we have in the county and we did plan on reclassifying that position but we wanted to wait until that position was vacant to reclass it meant to reallocate some of the duties and responsibilities with that position. And we felt like this was the appropriate time to do that when she did retire

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:10:30 · ≈ 10:10 AM

So then we got to bring her back. And then what's the vision? We're going to go ahead and reclassify with her here as an extra help, and then we're going to refill it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:10:41 · ≈ 10:10 AM

Correct. Our plan is to reclassify the position to a lower salary band. This position is also fully funded out of the inmate welfare fund. It does not come out of the general fund. And our expectation is that Ms. Dorsey would fill a short-term need on a part time basis to train and help that person get up to speed.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:10:58 · ≈ 10:10 AM

OK.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:10:59 · ≈ 10:10 AM

That's the best answer we've had

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:11:01 · ≈ 10:11 AM

so far. That is, that's legit. Okay I'll vote for it.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:11:05 · ≈ 10:11 AM

No wonder why you got promoted to commander look at that jeez he's all over

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:11:09 · ≈ 10:11 AM

it! You need to get into sales.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:11:12 · ≈ 10:11 AM

All right can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:11:15 · ≈ 10:11 AM

Move staffs recommendation.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:11:17 · ≈ 10:11 AM

All right. You got a second by Supervisor Adam on it yeah you did do a good job yeah you might as well be on it all right all those in favor aye anybody opposed Fantastic. All right, before we take item three, I'm going to request let's take a ten minute break and we'll be back with item three.

1:16 – 1:271 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:16:43 · ≈ 10:16 AM

Hi. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. You. you You. Hi. Hello everyone. This could go faster, you know.

1:27 – 1:4519 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:27:42 · ≈ 10:27 AM

All right, ladies and gentlemen we'd like to get started please. All right, thank you very much.

We'll move to item D3. Mr. Clerk can you read it in please?

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction1:28:11 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Chair Lavanino, members of the board, Item 3 is from the County Executive Office. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding cannabis business licenses Chapter 50 potential amendments.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:28:21 · ≈ 10:28 AM

Okay so this item was continued we finished up our public comment from last week in the... Got to give a shout out to staff for their ability to continue public comment even after a power outage And very creative. We've got MacGyver on the county staff, so that helped. So we are now moving to deliberations and I don't know if Dennis if you want to make any comments to start?

We'll kick it to Mr. Buzanich as staff. No comments from staff. Okay, I will open it up to the board members. Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Williams.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:29:04 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Thank you, Chair Lavagnino. I don't know how you would like to structure our discussion? I have four issues that I'd like to put on it if they get all mixed up It's a little harder. I think

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:29:17 · ≈ 10:29 AM

why don't you identify those four and then we'll figure out how we want to deal with them

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:29:21 · ≈ 10:29 AM

In our board letter, we had the option of creating a cap on cultivation. We also have some ideas perhaps about odor control. Then we've had a number of letters about boundaries around cities and EDRNs, the irregularity and what we can do there. And finally, and very importantly, conflicts on Ag 2 across different sectors in the different agricultural crops.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:29:51 · ≈ 10:29 AM

Okay? Very good. Let's go to just get some opening things here and then we'll figure out how we're going to structure this. Supervisor Williams? Or

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:29:59 · ≈ 10:29 AM

you want to do opening comments on a larger level and

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:30:02 · ≈ 10:30 AM

then- If you have any. So we'll stack the issues and then we're break this thing down.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:30:08 · ≈ 10:30 AM

I didn't

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:30:09 · ≈ 10:30 AM

organize my stuff that way, but I'll try to adapt. Well how about this? Let's start with talking about caps. You want to talk about that and what that is, what that means, how that's going to affect us? And we can break that out individually.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:30:24 · ≈ 10:30 AM

If I could, in my effort to make the meetings more entertaining I have written something here that I think provides some context plus it gives me an opportunity to speak theatrically.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:30:43 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Are you going to do it in a special voice?

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:30:45 · ≈ 10:30 AM

No, it's just me. That's special enough. Thank you. Consider the lemon. How many dishes, main course, side, dessert, condiment, occasional accoutrement, head nod to Supervisor Farr, or garnish are lemons an ingredient in thousands? What would we do without Meyer or Lisbon lemons? Not to mention oranges, blood, navel and Valencia. Grapefruits, pink and white.

Tangerines and mandarins. What would we do without a wedge of lime in our gin and tonics? Jefferson. Or a twist in our Greyhounds. Key lime pie. And there is a spate of lesser known citrus such as kumquats and pomelos that I will not name each of for lack of time. Suffice it to say that we have all these in our county, if not commercially residentially they could all be gone if we lose control of Asian citrus ciliad and it sounds Catastrophic to say this stuff, but it's really true. And I don't know is Kath Fisher here? Yeah Okay, so so when I get done with my little thing maybe you could talk about this in a serious way for all Lemon orchards must be sprayed before Harvest by state law to protect the state citrus industry and all backyard citrus plants from Asian citrus psyllid the vector of hulongbing or citrus greening disease Once these pests are detected and it is important to note that all detections so far have been in residential trees the secretary of California Secretary of Agriculture will order that each tree be removed if the population of ACP gets out of control It is absolutely within the realm of possibility That nobody will have a citrus tree of any kind at their home or in any any commercial orchards will survive I have heard many other conflicts between ag and cannabis over the last few days.

We must protect the existing ag through the process of the expansion of cannabis. I think we all agree that at the end of the process, all ag should be viable and that we want to preserve the widest possible array of crops in our county.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:33:15 · ≈ 10:33 AM

So I think that falls under item four, which would be conflict of ag. Well yeah as we just identified it so when we get to that point I know Our ag commissioner is here, but I do want to take these in order. So if we could hold off on commenting on that, but we know what Supervisor Adams positions are, at least thought process and we're all going to discuss ag conflicts and what we hear and how we're going to be able to deal with those.

But what I kind of wanted to do was if we can just start with caps and work our way through as I think Supervisor Hartman laid out very well. So why don't we move to Supervisor Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed1:33:58 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Yeah, I think I want to say a little bit to start things off. And the hearing that we had the other day really helped frame the discussion. We've got a lot of different strongly held opinions on both sides and the first thing that I thought about after our 11 hour meeting is a quote from a couple famous British philosophers who said very aptly you can't always get what you want but if you try sometime you find that you get what you need And I think we need to figure out a way to find a better balance point in this conversation. Since coming to the board, I was not part of the original drafting the ordinance. But since being here, I have voted to pull back on cannabis operations, try and put some limits on it, try and find a better balance point.

One of the most interesting things I have learned since coming from as being a city council member to being a member of the Board of Supervisors, is learning a little bit about agriculture. And Supervisor Adam has helped me understand a little bit more. I don't pretend to be an expert on agriculture but the one thing that I have learned for sure is that it's very hard business.

Generations of people have been trying to farm in our county for A very long time, and they have explained to me and spoken in public about the need to be adaptable and flexible. And to be nimble in a changing marketplace. And that's something that is inevitably intertwined with this conversation as we're having folks who are trying to migrate to different crop. There's an impact on existing agriculture and we have to figure out a way to go through that very complicated thicket.

The intersection of farming and residential uses has always been contentious. That's why folks have these very strongly held views, we have to respect the ability of farmers to do their work. And sometimes it's messy and sometimes it's smelly. And yet residential neighbors start off looking at this thing as saying that we want to protect the sanctity of our homes in our neighborhoods. And we're not interested in dramatic change to the quality of our life.

And government policy is at its best when the pendulum doesn't swing wildly from one end to the other. And I think we have to be very careful up here today to avoid that, you know? I think that the pendulum has swung too far toward cannabis cultivation in an unregulated way and I think we need to pull it back but we have to be very judicious and very careful about not going too far the other direction too.

Recently City Councilmember Stuart Kasdan was advising the county from the Goleta City Council perspective and he said when you're in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. I think he's right. I think we do need a county-wide cannabis cultivation cap on both acreage and operations In a perfect world, if we were not constrained by the limitations that Mr. Guzzone is going to tell us about I'd like that cap to be where it was a week ago before we've had a little bit of a rush to the permit process so that we would have time to digest what's in the pipeline. The issues are complicated. We don't have answers to a lot of the complexities of this and I don't really think there's a way that this board here today can get answers to all those questions.

Increasingly understanding that this is not over today. This is the beginning of figuring out the refinements that can make these two industries in our community coexist. I do not accept the idea that there's a zero sum win-lose in this conversation, but there is definitely going to be some change in regard to regulations. Like Supervisor Hartman, I think if you look at these things From the technical specific issues about odor control and the technology necessary for that. There are differences, big differences between the greenhouse operations in Carpentaria and outdoor cannabis. And I want all of our approach to these issues to be science and evidence based. That is going to be particularly complicated and difficult because folks are very polarized on this issue and we don't have basic agreements about facts.

You know, what has started out as concerns has migrated to worries and is now full-blown fear. And it is very difficult to pause and collect ourselves and force ourselves to look at these issues in a rigorous technical way not just Sitting up here and saying, well we have folks who think we ought to have setbacks and buffers. Let's throw out an additional 250 feet or 1500 feet or a mile or two miles in all of my time in local government and looking at land use issues I have never been part of a conversation Where the range of discussion is from 250 feet to two miles in terms of setbacks. That is impossible to rationally approach. We need something, some way to begin to get some science involved and what the differences are about outdoor odor impacts on AG 2 parcels in other parts of the county versus indoor greenhouse regulation of odor control with technology.

Similarly, we need to understand this conflict about pesticides that Supervisor Adams talked about. I don't pretend to be an expert about that. I want to hear from people who understand this better. I want to know that Santa Barbara County is doing the most aggressive effort it possibly can to minimize pesticide drift. And all the people that I've spoken to about this issue No one has credibly stood in front of me and said, we want a policy that allows for pesticide drift to happen. And we want everybody just to turn their head and let what has happened in the past continue on. But what is reasonable and what is practical?

We need people who understand this technology and these techniques at a very fine-grained level to help us rather than saying, well if you step back 150 feet or 10 feet or whatever that's going to solve the problem. The other huge issue that we all have to get our heads around is the prospect That the state of California is going to pass legislation that effectively takes away local control from local governments for hemp cultivation. So while we are consumed, rightly so, and focused in on cannabis regulation if the state government says farmers can grow hemp without any restrictions or regulations Then there are going to be folks who say, okay I can't get a permit to grow cannabis. I will grow hemp in the setbacks that you create. I will grow hemp in the Ag 1 parcels that we have banned cannabis cultivation on and we will find the same odor impacts, the same neighborhood impacts, the same traffic impacts that come from hemp, that come from cannabis.

So I don't have any answers to these things it's unrealistic to imagine you know that we collectively today have a finished product and answers to all those things. So i'm going to be advocating for science-based evidence based process taking our time to do this right. It's really the only way at this point in time I think we can get to a place where folks on both sides of this could at least feel as though They have been listened to and responded to.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:41:31 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Okay, very good. Who hasn't spoken yet? Everybody I guess has. So let's go to... I think Doss. Okay, Doss was first then Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:41:41 · ≈ 10:41 AM

Adam again. Well, I very much agree with the sentiments that Supervisor Hart articulated because at a To me, the hardest part about this has been that the stakes are high on getting it wrong either way. If we don't allow a legal path then we have two major problems. We incentivize the black market which has been a huge vector for crime, for the trafficking of hard drugs, for human trafficking and for pesticides. The black market has been problematic on all those counts.

And if we don't have a legal path, then we also invite hemp to swamp us without any land use regulation. However, if we have the door open too much then the nuisance factor For residences and for other agricultural operations, which I would put it even in a different category than nuisance much worse than that is dramatic. And so I think the difficulty here has been calibrating the right amount that allows a reputable marijuana operators to operate.

To employ people at good wages to contribute tax revenues that help our public services and at the same time it doesn't pose a heavy. Nuisance for neighbors. So some of the things I'll propose today, you know actually came from some of the groups that are critical of cannabis and you might wonder when some members of those groups are doing their best to make me look like the devil why I would take some of those proposals because I just feel like there is an imperative in carpenteria to find a way for us to live together Not support a de facto ban which some people have.

I think disingenuously put forward. They say, I don't have a problem with marijuana in Carpinteria but I support banning on Ag One. Well that's a complete ban in Carpinteria. So I don't support a complete ban but I do support and will articulate after we've gone through these five items some additional ideas that I vetted with county council's office to try to put forward A bait nuisance, that's the biggest.

And get at operations that are not conforming to our rules and are not operating with permits. But to the specific subject of a cap, I do support a cap. I think it's very difficult to figure out what the right cap is because we do have a certain amount in process And we have this quandary of how to measure it. It's been very confusing in carpentry, even though I stand by my cap in carpenteria.

It's been confusing that we have a different measuring system than the state. I've spent hours explaining it to people and most of the time it takes hours for anybody to understand it. So that is something for you all to wrestle with.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:45 – 1:5313 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:45:33 · ≈ 10:45 AM

And I'm going to go to

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:45:33 · ≈ 10:45 AM

Dennis. So, I guess I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:45:34 · ≈ 10:45 AM

would

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:45:34 · ≈ 10:45 AM

be option two under caps a cap calculated separately than the Carpinteria overlay.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:45:42 · ≈ 10:45 AM

Okay so I'd like to go to Dennis at this point for kind of clarification you know I think we started off with the number in Carpinteria thinking maybe it was X and then we ended up with that I think that definition of what an acre or the cap acre meant So before we even discuss whether we support a cap, or we don't support a cap, or how big the number should be, or small.

I think we all need to be saying the same thing when we're talking about an acre. How do we measure it? And how does the state measure it?

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction1:46:15 · ≈ 10:46 AM

Chair Levin, you know members of the board in section 50-677. The board adopted language that said no more than 100, and this is in the CARP overlay area. No more than 186 acres of cannabis cultivation nurseries and micro businesses with cultivation shall be licensed at any one time within the boundaries of Area A and Area B of the Carpentry Agricultural Overlay District as defined by the county ordinance 4529.

And so from that, we've talked in the past with the board and with the public about the difference for how the state calculates canopy of mature plants for purposes of state licensing versus how we might calculate a cannabis operation to be inclusive of all plants. Not just those that are mature and flowering but their entire cannabis operation. So while it was not a change in how we calculated it, I think it was a clear application of the words that the board adopted in chapter 50-7.

That brought us to the conclusion that if you were going to look at it from a series Like a Venn diagram, canopy would be the smallest inside circle of mature plants. That's the state definition. Chapter 50-7 seems to define the cannabis cultivation operation as another larger concentric circle that includes other nonmature plants as well as the processing rooms and other aspects of that cannabis operation that's connected with cultivation.

And then that is another inside of another concentric circle or rectangular or polygon. That is actually the parcel boundaries and so if we think about it as kind of those concentric circles, I think it becomes helpful to think of it. We're targeting in this definition of what acreage is counted toward the Carpinteria Ag overlay cap as the middle circle not the smaller circle of the state.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:48:34 · ≈ 10:48 AM

So then my second question would be then in the EIR When we mention acreage, what did the EIR study?

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction1:48:45 · ≈ 10:48 AM

So I don't have the exact language there but I believe it was 1126 acres were calculated as part of the EIR. Dan gave me the thumbs up. So, so the 1126 acres was taken actually from the registry data and used by the consultants who prepared the EIR and they were non-definitive about whether that was the total cannabis operation or were they utilizing data that Was provided by many of the cultivators, whether that was the you know mature flowering plant or canopy it's in ill defined in the EIR about what they were doing I think the simplest explanation would be. People looked at what they were proposing or what they were already doing in terms of the acreage of their cannabis operation. That's the number they plugged into the registry. The consultant took that data out of the registry and use that in doing their baseline analysis for the environmental impact report.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:49:50 · ≈ 10:49 AM

Okay, so from your perspective because I, and for the public, you know, I just think the smartest thing is to align ourselves with the state. So that regardless if that number is smaller, larger whatever it is and that has to be decided. But I think the first thing we need to figure out is when we bring up a national, I think our definition on a cap going forward on inland should be so when a state regulator is looking at our permit, it matches up with what the state is also looking at. Is there a benefit for that?

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction1:50:32 · ≈ 10:50 AM

Chair Levin, you know and members of the Board of the Public there could be a benefit to that. I'd offer a couple of little caveats and thoughts here. First of all In the state licensing system, cultivation licenses are graded by size. But nursery licenses for example are not size determinate so you could have basically a nursery or where all the immature plants live on a cultivation site is Could be whatever size and so that's part of why we've used this definition of the total cannabis operation. That middle concentric circle as kind of our operative definition of what defines an acre of cannabis operation.

The second part I would warn us about is in 2023, when the state then begins to issue large what are technically in the states parlance called large licenses. Those have no size limit whatsoever. And so that is, you know out there as well. And so as we begin this if as your board considers policy options around setting a cap in 2023 it's likely that all of that is going to change with the advent of these large licenses which are anything greater than 10,000 square feet in a mixed light or indoor environment or greater than an acre in the outdoor environment with no upper limit on those So just as a background, as you consider that policy choice 2023 does change things. Okay,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:52:14 · ≈ 10:52 AM

we're going to Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:52:16 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Adam. I just wanted to follow up so Dennis how does it change it? I mean our county regulations still apply even in 2023. So how does the state what are we getting ready for?

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction1:52:37 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Chair Lavineto, Supervisor Hartman. Our regulations do I think have the most inclusive accounting for the acreage of the operation and that any cap using the methodology that we're utilizing currently in Carpinteria would still function and work well under a 2023, post-2023 environment licensing environment at the state level. So this is where if we have a cap on The mature canopy, the state's definition.

It would run a bit at a cross pattern to what it is that we have here locally. So in the current wording we have in chapter 50, that actually works I think well. My opinion would be that that works well in a post 2023 environment better than if we limit it to the canopy size which is the state's definition.

1:53 – 2:0810 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.851:53:39 · ≈ 10:53 AM

And again, I'm maybe... So the implication is say we did go for canopy and went in sync with the state now for defining a canopy limitation for the cap. What happens then to that in 2023? What's the risk?

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction1:53:58 · ≈ 10:53 AM

So in 2023 most of these folks are going to turn, most of the operators would turn in their small and medium licenses and probably migrate to the large licenses There is no size limit. So I can't sit there and calculate based on the number of medium and small licenses as I do today, as frankly we've done and provided to your board that data over time about the temp size of the temp licensing acreage. I've been able to calculate that based on the maximum utilization of those small and temp licenses issued to any grower in 2023. There is no number associated with those large licenses It's anything larger than one acre or anything larger than 10,000 square feet in the indoor and mixed light environment.

And that presents a bit of a challenge for us in terms of managing it from a cap perspective. I agree with the value of the alignment with the state and that way we would have that ability to stay aligned with the state in those definitions. Well, I'll stop there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:55:04 · ≈ 10:55 AM

I just have a suggestion on this in particular. If folks, because the short run advantage of conformity with the state is significant as what I've heard from a couple of you, if the issue is in 2023, I think we're going to be revisiting this a couple times before 2023. We may even have to revisit it a couple times before 2020 so the I think our ability to convert that cap or it and and I would actually argue that there may be some changes in state law between both between now and twenty three.

And hopefully some changes to federal laws so that we have more consistency between state and federal law. So, I would suggest that if if that's a problem far off we just Put it in our hat to deal with that and convert it if we have to. Okay, so president

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:56:01 · ≈ 10:56 AM

okay well that's a nice segue for me to try and sell my idea here I'm thinking of five year cap of 200 acres of canopy consistent with the state's definition. But we might have to wrestle around with that a little bit because that doesn't mean 200 acres if you use the state's definition and so, the way it was put to me and maybe this is not exactly correct but you could either figure it by canopy which in my mind at that time meant You know if you had hoops, it's whatever is underneath the hoops or if you had a greenhouse obviously It's whatever is inside the greenhouse and it doesn't include that. The main thing is if you have a 300 acre parcel with 10 acres of Plants on it then you don't get 300 acres added to the to the To the cap. And I don't know if that's consistent with or opposed to the state's definition.

Dennis, how does

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction1:57:14 · ≈ 10:57 AM

that work? Chair and Supervisor. Adam. The state's definition is just the mature flowering plants are counted toward those licenses, everything else falls under any immature plants follow fall under the nursery definition which is undefined by square footage. And so we are not in any way, shape or form ever counting the 300 acre parcel total parcel. We're not doing that. We're using that middle circle which is in their project description as it gets submitted to planning and development they say we're going to have 10 acres under hoops and we're going to have a ten thousand square foot processing drying room and we take those we add those together and we come up with what What part one portion of the 300 acres so let's say it's 13 acres total, right?

That's what we've been using up to now and that's what I quoted you out of 50-7. Yeah, I'll stop there. I hope that answers your question

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction1:58:20 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Yeah, okay. But you know my proposal if we can figure out a way to word it so that it's useful and I don't know that you can is 200 acres of canopy for five years and maybe five years maybe it's four years because 2023 cometh And not to exceed 10 acres per parcel or any one operation, no stacking. And after the five years we revisit the cap and adjust as appropriate and the reason for that is because getting, and the reason I said five years is because getting permitted will take two years on a lot of them And so you really got three years to let the whole industry play out in some kind of a legitimately sized way. So we can actually find out what else we don't know yet and take that into account in years down the road plus I know what's going to happen here.

In the next five years, you are going to have technology develop for odor control. There is going to be cultivars or varieties that are less stinky and these peculiar California rules regarding testing and drift That really create the conflict. You know, that's what's creating the conflict is our ability to test into the parts per trillion and The the Concept of drift and I want to talk about this for a minute because the concept of drift is has got to be bifurcated And we don't nobody talks about that today You know, in the ag world, in the application world, drift is something that really should never happen.

Because if you choose the right time and the right equipment and the right mix, there's things that go in the mix, there's additives that go in the mix that can control certain aspects of the droplets or their performance once they come out the nozzle. You should never have drift. If you got drift, you pick the wrong time. You pick the wrong equipment or you pick the wrong materials.

So and we'll define drift for this purpose as like wet droplets that leave the target site And then there's you know what I want to. I started out thinking about this as incidental fugitive material that yeah you know I mean it happens and as one grower told me you know if if I went into a field after a reentry interval and I walked around out there And I came back to my pickup and I blew my nose, and I tested the tissue.

You would find a couple parts per billion or a couple parts per trillion that I was exposed to out there. It's what happens. So these things are in de minimis amounts. But the state, the way that they calculate this stuff when they go to test the cannabis, everything's non-detect. They got the 66 materials that they test for and it has to come up zero. And technical zero anymore, see back when I started this thing you could only test for parts per million.

But now you're out there in these infinitesimal amounts that nobody ever thought of when they created the initial rules that they utilize today. So I really think, and I've talked to Kathy about this, we need to do some more soul-searching at the state level and say, you know what what's reasonable? You know some of these things are unreasonable and they're they're not unreasonable in any other crop And that is what is creating the conflict between cannabis and all the other crops because you can't have a de minimis amount of Stuff. You know there is a de minimis amount of molecules floating around in the in the world That You have to be able to find one part per trillion someplace and not count it as a zero for each and every chemical. The 66 materials that they're testing for are a finite set of materials, and I think they should spend some time and some money looking at this and saying hey which ones of these are really a zero for health reasons or for whatever reason?

And which ones can we stand some residual in? Maybe you make the chemical companies do that, maybe you do it at the state level so you can have a healthier cannabis industry in the state. But somebody's got to do it and you can't just say non-detect because then when you create a non-detect You know you just you just and you have testing on every lot see that's the other portion, you know if you stop testing cannabis then you got no problems.

But you know if if you don't stop testing cannabis And you have non detect, then you have conflict. So that's sort of where we are with that thing and I think that five year time horizon would be a good time horizon to let some technology advance See what happens, see what else we don't know. Because that's kind of where I was the wild-eyed libertarian to begin with and just let it all go.

You know, I wanted to do that in the beginning because you know I like kind of opening things up and just seeing where they go But this became apparent for a variety of reasons that that wasn't gonna work out. Well, and so And I think that's probably a sentiment up here. That's that's found some some majority

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:05:31 · ≈ 11:05 AM

I Think a lot of that what you're talking about we're gonna get to but that's again item four on AG conflicts well, I got your first one on the cultivation cap and OK, well that was the cap. OK so we got that. So that's five year cap 200 acres and he's talking about canopy.

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:05:46 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Chair? Just Dennis here. Sorry. So a couple of things. One of them I did think of just to be thinking about this as we talk about caps and we talk about how we calculate this. So one of the unique characteristics of inland agriculture of cannabis different than the greenhouses is that in the outdoor environment You basically are your total cultivation site and your total licenses, in a sense you're canopy equals all of your plants because fundamentally things more or less get ripe at the same time. And so you're harvesting that whole batch. So everything is more or less mature there might be a three week stagger in there just for staffing and harvesting But in the outdoor environment, basically there's a one-to-one relationship overall.

Greenhouses are very different. So there they have a 16 week growing cycle. Roughly the last two weeks are when it is flowering. That's what's counting as the canopy in those last two weeks but that canopy is rotating continuously in those greenhouses and those who've been in greenhouses you see how that gets played out in the physical environment of the greenhouses So the licensed canopy is actually in a greenhouse environment, a subset of the larger operation in the greenhouse. And so just so you have that as a bit of a perspective. The one last thing I was just going to comment on Supervisor Adams' suggestion.

You used the word no stacking and I want to make sure we're abundantly clear what stacking is and what stacking is not. So in your proposal for the next five years, a cap of 200, you will have stacking. There's no way to get to 200 acres unless we're going to have 200 one acre grow sites all over the county. You're going to have stacking because in even stacking was even anticipated in the original regulations with the 4 acre cap, because with the small and medium licenses. You were only going to be able to get that four-acre cap per parcel.

By stacking at least one medium and a certain number of small licenses. So this whole discussion about stacking is wrong, and we're the only one that stack is just intellectually unfounded.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:08:15 · ≈ 11:08 AM

Okay well let me ask you this how about if we say no stacking beyond the ten acres? Beyond no stacking beyond 10 acres the stacking

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:08:27 · ≈ 11:08 AM

cap. Okay, 10 acres in one location or one operator So so that would be definable That would be knowable that if that was what the board's direction was then then that's something that we could we could enforce technically I'll follow up

2:08 – 2:2019 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:08:41 · ≈ 11:08 AM

on that real quick then so What do we have in the queue? What do we have? What's out there? I mean when we start talking about a number If we don't know what we have

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:08:54 · ≈ 11:08 AM

The chair and

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:08:56 · ≈ 11:08 AM

I know that numbers moving every time we talk about a cap. There's

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:08:59 · ≈ 11:08 AM

a

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:08:59 · ≈ 11:08 AM

big rush for people to

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:09:00 · ≈ 11:09 AM

say okay,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:09:01 · ≈ 11:09 AM

I'm

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:09:01 · ≈ 11:09 AM

in So as of this morning, I looked at it. We have 207 acres applied in Carpinteria Key to that is that only 186 will get business licenses right but that's 207 acres of Applied for land use permits as of this morning

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:09:21 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Mr. Chair, members of the board that's correct and then in the inland area we have 1,587 acres that have been applied for and so that last week it was 1,510. And

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:09:36 · ≈ 11:09 AM

again that's that middle measurement not the canopy which is the small amount. And we don't know what the canopy is? We don't know what the canopy would be.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:09:49 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Mr. Guzzone keeps looking at me, which is not a good sign.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:09:52 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Not a bad sign. As I'm listening to the board's initial comments on this, I wanted to offer just where this will ultimately go. So today the board has broadly noticed for three areas reviewing areas for potential amendment to the current cannabis permitting and licensing regulations. The second item is providing conceptual direction about possible amendments And the third is really very broad, provide any other direction to staff concerning the county's cannabis regulatory program.

And depending on what the board focuses on today Those would get processed different ways if it's an amendment to chapter 50 or some other ordinance That would generally come back to the board for two readings in the future and Would be effective 30 days after the second reading if it's an amendment or a potential amendment to a zoning ordinance For an item not previously considered by the planning commission that would go back to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation before the board would take action on it.

If it involves uniform rules for agriculture, that would go to the county's Ag Preserve Advisory Committee before the board takes final action. And then any ordinances affecting the county's local coastal program would be subject to certification by the Coastal Commission so More opportunities and it might help you as you're shaping your comments today is to how granular how generally want to be.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:11:20 · ≈ 11:11 AM

But while we're doing all that sending things back to the planning commission more applications continue to show up and we can't initiate a moratorium correct? Okay.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:11:30 · ≈ 11:11 AM

So Tara, a couple of terms get used more interchangeably than they should. A moratorium would be a temporary prohibition. The board has the ability at the other end to have not what you're considering today but to have an outright ban and if we have that some parties might become vested and would either receive non-conforming status or an amortization and that's been done before but the board Could go and in setting a particular cap or target, go back in time and say as of date such-and-such. Go back 30 days and that would be essentially the how do you avoid the land rush on these things while things are being processed? So that would be a way to do that. That would not be a prohibited moratorium, it would not be an outright ban, but it'd be a tool you could use.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:12:22 · ≈ 11:12 AM

The Ghazani fix? I think we've looked at this before. Yeah, I think so. I think we've all asked the same questions. So we're going to go Supervisor Hartman, Supervisor Hart, and then back to Supervisor Adams.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:12:33 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Okay I have a few things I want to say. The first is, and these are all focused on the idea of a cap, when Supervisor Hart quoted Councilmember Kasdan about when you're in a hole stop digging. I think that provides some of the rationale for why we want a cap but for purposes of making a record I would like to lay out why I think a cap is important, elaborate that concept.

The first is I think it that we were in a heightened atmosphere where there's a lot of concern because we've seen things growing at a fast rate. So, I think it helps mitigate some of the anxiety. The second reason is that we have a lot of permits in the process and this is an overwhelming Work effort for our county and especially with all the appeals. I think we're kind of overwhelmed in cannabis is Really taking over and so I think it would slow that down a bit It also would give us an opportunity to catch up on enforcement.

That's absolutely key for all of us and it then gives us some time to look at the other conflicts that we're talking about rather than creating new conflicts And then finally as some have mentioned I think Supervisor Hart, we have hemp coming and this gives us an opportunity to think about hemp in the context of marijuana cannabis. So I think a pause or a cap is very important. I believe we have the cap as part of the business license and that gives us authority to act today. When we get into the other land use ideas, controlling per parcel, that is a longer process and I think we might want explore ideas for what to do, but I would like to see us act today. I would like to see us act in a way that we don't create a rush-to-the-door, that we do look back perhaps to last Tuesday.

There are...I'm less concerned about an end date and I think we could even perhaps defer to staff To come up with the methodology, for me it's the beginning date of the cap that's most important because I don't want to create a lot of new rush to the door. And I think if we accept what's already there that is non-discriminatory and does meet legal standards to be defensible.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:15:19 · ≈ 11:15 AM

Supervisor Hart? Well, I think just to keep this in order. I did have a question going back to what Supervisor Hartman asked about the relationship of our land use restrictions to the state licensing and I want to go back to that but I want to just right now flow quickly from Supervisor Hartman's points. I agree completely with what you said. Number one, the cap will help mitigate anxiety. It will make people who do not have cannabis operations next to them Have some degree of comfort that they will not have one tomorrow next to them. It does, and this is extremely important and I want to double down on this point about Giving us the ability to process applications because we have to figure out a way to get these applications through the process faster.

Whatever it takes, and I hope this would be something unanimous that the board would talk about is whatever resources it takes, whatever it takes. The whole system that we've created that is taking multiple years to get through the permit process, we just have to fix that. Everything is falling apart because of that, and we have to get people odor control. We have to get all of the things that folks are looking for much, much faster to people. And I know there's a million reasons why it's easy to wave the magic wand up here and say this must be done but Underwater because of this issue right here so that I think if we need another item on a different agenda To just specifically with a laser beam address that issue. You know, I'm all for that We are doing enforcement but having this cap will give us time to get after the folks even more aggressively and make sure that happens it does give us the time to analyze the conflicts that we're talking about which I As I said before, we need to do this soberly based on science and evidence not just throwing ideas on the dais and going with that.

I agree we should put the cap and started looking back in time to last Tuesday seems perfectly reasonable to me. We had hit a plateau on applications before that date. We've seen a little surge it's not an overwhelming surge. I think it's 70 acres more in a week but still I think it's fair to go back in time. And I too am less concerned about when the cap ends.

I'd look to direction from Mr. Gazzone as about that, because I have no idea how long it's going to take. If I knew the permits were going to get processed in six months to a year, that would inform when the cap oughta end. If it's gonna take two years and another year for appeals through the Coastal Commission, that is a different story. That's why this part is so fundamental. So back to the question that I had, and I do not want to let this go because I want to understand this.

Supervisor Hartman said we have land use regulations that define what somebody's applying for. They put on their permit, this is what we're going to do. We're going to have this many acres of cannabis in this way and I don't understand how the state license governs that or restricts that. And the change in the state license governs that and restricts that in any way. Seems like we're in control, and whatever we decide about that, future changes in state law are irrelevant to the practical reality of somebody getting a permit through our process and defining their operation explicitly. What am I missing?

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:18:42 · ≈ 11:18 AM

Chair Levine, Supervisor Hart. I think you accurately described the fact that the permits that are being issued by our planning department do define in a sense that middle circle and it is expressed in that permit as that's what's being permitted. And then it is the obligation of the operator, the permittee to have the accompanying state licenses. Again whether it's in the mixed light environment in a greenhouse or The correct mixture of small and medium licenses from the state in order to cover that which has got plants on it. And again, for seasonal reasons, for a variety of other reasons, market reasons, they may not plant that let's say 15 acres that was part of the permit, right? They may only plant a subset of that and they would only have to have state licenses to cover that subset.

But if they want to grow the 15 acres, they would have to have the state canopy licenses to match That which was permitted if that's what they are actually growing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:19:50 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Okay, so I think I'm getting it What it is is that our county regulations define the upper limit and the applicant that the Cannabis farmer has to go to the state To put together a package of licenses in that magic process that probably nobody understands except the people who are in this business To match up with our restricted zone. So when the state changes the rules and expands and allows large application or licenses. It's irrelevant to our reality. So I want to make that really clear, make distinctions between the state licensing thing stacking temporary all of those things are irrelevant double underline in relation to our local ordinance that we control our own destiny people Conflate these issues and whip this into a frenzy about the number of licenses at the state level, and stacking, and all those things.

That is really not helping a rational conversation about this. And I want us to be rational about this.

2:20 – 2:3223 turns

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:20:54 · ≈ 11:20 AM

Supervisor Adam? Well now that I've been called irrational. The first time? Come

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:21:02 · ≈ 11:21 AM

on! We get it all the time.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:21:06 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Right. You never quite get used to it do you?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:21:10 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Man,

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:21:10 · ≈ 11:21 AM

I do. Okay. All right well I guess I don't. That was really just in an attempt to say...I don't want the system gamed You know when when I said not to exceed 10 acres per parcel or in any one operation. That's what I meant by no stacking, not some technical distinction about what people did with me because that's really a artifact of the medicinal I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:21:50 · ≈ 11:21 AM

trying not to do that again right well understand how that for lack of a better

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:21:54 · ≈ 11:21 AM

term what's your term that you'd like to use.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:21:56 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Well, I think when we're talking about our local land-use regulations people understand that that's English but when we start talking about the state licensing we lose everybody and it doesn't matter the local regulations are what controls this not the state licenses

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:22:12 · ≈ 11:22 AM

okay Duely noted I will stop saying the word stacking. Well back to your earlier issue about processing permits, I really think that's been a chronic problem here for many many years and so I think we need to I think we can do a number of things. There's a number of things we can do, like get way more people or farm it out or something else to get all of the permits that we get processed in a timely fashion and Either approved or denied and appealed and moved through the process way faster And I know P&D is going to have something to say about that because the applicants bear some Responsibility for that too because there's there's people that don't perform When it's their turn, and so that actually happens too. So you know it's not all our fault But I think there's been a certain I think there's a.

Culture nonchalance so we say about moving those things through and I think there's on the other side, the applicants kind of have become kind of habituated to these There isn't you know, if we if we try to instill a new Desire on everybody's part to follow up and Move these things through I think it would be great for everybody cannabis and everybody else as well So so did I hear A number of acres that anybody because I was the only one I think that threw out at 200 acre camp We haven't come up with a number yet. Okay, because what I heard was last week it was 1440 or thereabouts and then this week it's 1587 is the number of acres that are applied for Ms. Plowman, what do you think is a reasonable expectation for how many percent of those are going to end up getting their way through this process with the permit?

Because it can't be all of them aren't going to wind up with a permit right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:24:55 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Mr Chair, Supervisor Adam. That's a pretty tough question to answer. I don't feel like I could speculate about that, but provided they have a complete application, they could all be approved. They could. Now how that gets through the process and through appeals and whatnot, I don't know what will happen there, but...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:25:24 · ≈ 11:25 AM

I mean, I can tell you I have studied enough of these operations to think that's pretty far-fetched.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:25:33 · ≈ 11:25 AM

That all of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:25:33 · ≈ 11:25 AM

them will get both approved and survive an appeal, you know?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:25:42 · ≈ 11:25 AM

So let's talk about one of the things you brought up because I think this is, to me it's like the most important thing that I've heard from both of you that I hear constantly from the public and that is of how we get through the number that we have. So, we know are those numbers any good or they not any good? Because I know that there's a lot of CUPs out there that pretty slim chance that they're going to get approved but the problem is the person is continuing to operate which drives the neighbors crazy and they never get to a hearing. They're not getting to a hearing.

For me, the first thing I think that I've heard at least two of you support and I would support which means we have three votes for it We need to get something back from P&D that says, through the CEO's office. You know we do have cannabis money out there and I'm willing to spend what it takes to get, you know, we have to attack this thing like we did with the assessment appeals backlog. We had a huge backlog and we just threw every resource at it possible and we said we're going to kick butt on this and we're going to get it done.

I know they are complicated applications and I get that And I know it's a matter of manpower and hours and all those things. But I would like to hear back from you, not...I don't think you can do it now because I know we just gave you four more positions and we just approved the contract for somebody outside to be looking at this. I don't know how many cannabis experts there are out there planning but we got to do whatever it takes. This is crisis mode to get two thumbs up or thumbs down recommendation from staff so that we can get it in the process of the Planning Commission And the board.

Because like I said, I know there's operators out there that are not following the rules. They've got an application in so enforcement is not really messing with them because they're waiting and it's been going on for a long time and it's like we got it. I just got back from NACO which is the National Association of Counties. We are not the only county. We are not the only state that's dealing with all this everybody We had a huge cannabis meeting and everybody was saying the same thing. It's like, hey, the states that had it the hardest are the ones that weren't starting from scratch. They were the ones that started off in the medicinal program.

And then you bring those medicinal folks in and That's that gray area that is really hard to ever get yourself out of that spider web. And so I don't know if you can tell us now what it would take or if you want to work with the CEO's office and bring us back a recommendation in the next month or so, and say hey this is what we really need but we got to think outside the box of how to tackle this problem and I really believe that that's going to take care of a lot of these problems, because I firmly believe that there's a lot of people that are doing the right thing. Have odor control, they're doing all the right things, they're in the right location, everything is fine. The majority of the people I think we have a problem with are folks that are never going to get a permit anyway and we just got to get that decision point and so I'll kick it to you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:28:55 · ≈ 11:28 AM

Mister chair and members of the board first I think it would be important to say what we are doing so everybody has a an understanding of that. We just did receive authorization to hire for more planners and were in recruitment for that we're going to be probably sending out offer letters on some of those next week We have hired two consultants to help process applications, experienced consultants to process applications. The staff has been working really hard to try and get the applications through, trying to work with the applicants to make sure that they're complete.

I appreciate Supervisor Adams' acknowledgement that there are times where an applicant isn't always able to provide all of the data that we need to move the application along. So we are doing everything we can to do that.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:29:51 · ≈ 11:29 AM

Can I interrupt just for a second? I meant it as no reflection on the staff and you guys are doing awesome work and kicking butt. I just know that the workload is this big coming in, you know. And we've given you this many resources. So what I'm saying is, I'll match up the resources for the workload. I just need to know what that looks like.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:30:09 · ≈ 11:30 AM

I appreciate that Mr. Chair. I also wanted to let you know that we are going out. We have an RFP out now to help with any environmental documents on cannabis projects and that's gonna be closing here shortly so we'll get consultants on staff to help write documents. So those are the types of things that we are doing. I would like to try and be able to fill the positions and start moving things through the process, but I'm happy to sit down with my staff and analyze whether or not we think the four is enough because we did add two at the final budget workshop thinking that we needed additional staff.

But I don't feel comfortable answering whether or not we need more today so I am happy to work with CEO's office to come back to see if we do.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:30:56 · ≈ 11:30 AM

All right. Mr. Gazzone, did you want to weigh in?

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:31:01 · ≈ 11:31 AM

Chair, not on the planning resources piece but just to say that as the board is going through these pieces I know several of you have asked me a similar question. On what can the county do? We've had discussions with the CEO's office, Sheriff's Office and District Attorney's Office on how does the Board Proceed in this area to respect the independent function of the sheriff, the independent prosecutorial discretion of the DA and potentially using your own authority to direct nuisance enforcement.

So there are tools out there and it's maybe a handful of tools one would be litigation enforcement some is through the permit process and that's some of the direction that the board can provide

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:31:39 · ≈ 11:31 AM

today. Okay thank you. You guys figured out between yourselves who wants to go first?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:31:48 · ≈ 11:31 AM

I'd like to make a motion so well. Yeah, then I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:31:51 · ≈ 11:31 AM

and I want to comment I mean I I think we need to get this number right there are dramatic consequences for not getting this right? I was definitely more comfortable with Where I thought supervisor heart and Hartman were going to tie it to last Tuesday And here's why I just have a question for the Ag Commissioner how I What is your office's estimate, just there about or range on how many cannabis operations have called you doubting whether they'll get permitted and asking what they need to do to go into hemp? Or getting information about hemp.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:32:35 · ≈ 11:32 AM

The interest list is around 30%.

2:32 – 2:3910 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:32:40 · ≈ 11:32 AM

So I mean you guys get we if we have a cap that's way lower than the ones in the pipeline. We are going to chase them out to grow and hemp where we can't put any setback or CUP requirements or even zoning requirements on them and so we gotta get this right And that means the door's got to be open a little bit, just not too much. And so that's why I just want to urge us to not swing the pendulum too hard.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:33:14 · ≈ 11:33 AM

And to follow up on that, I think with kind of what we were talking about last week, those are actually the folks that are going to go into hemp. So if you've got an Ag 1-5, Wherever we ban cannabis, I think you're going to see hemp. And unfortunately the more buffers we put in and all those things that we make it great for the neighbors. And I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying that those are the holes that's going to be filled by hemp which is going to lead to some serious consequences so. So if we,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:33:49 · ≈ 11:33 AM

in my view, The right cap, we could help enforcement. If we have the wrong cap, will actually make it worse because one of the concerns of our Sheriff's Department is hemp operations that cloak black market marijuana operations and we don't want to allow that to happen.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:34:09 · ≈ 11:34 AM

And we're keeping the two caps completely separate so you have- Greenhouse. Well you have the overlay which is 186 and then we will have an inlet. Supervisor Hart, I mean Supervisor Adams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:34:22 · ≈ 11:34 AM

Yeah, I think Supervisor Williams and your concern about hemp is real. It's the elephant in the room. And at the same time we can't just say well because folks are going to have potentially a path right to farm for hemp. That we shouldn't do anything to regulate cannabis. It's just, it doesn't fit together well. It just doesn't and it's the truth and it's a problem but I think folks are talking to us directly today and what we've heard from people is that they want us to take some steps to better regulate cannabis and I think we kind of have to do that. And then we'll have to work really hard at the state level I'm Maybe in the world that has this standard. And as a practical experience, it's causing huge issues and fear of huge issues. I don't even know whether they're issues yet.

It's to be determined by lawsuits down the road. And that's a terrible place to be and we oughta be able to have with the leadership that we have in Sacramento. We oughta be able to have the ear of people who could understand this and could put bills forward and start advocating for this stuff to help us. I think the cap ought to be back to last Tuesday. I don't think that gives head room, maybe it's not the right amount of head room you're exactly right where is that magic point? I don't know we'll know with a crystal ball in the future. We're just never going to know but you know I want it to be as restrictive as we can because I think the folks who are in the pipeline that's a lot of stuff to process.

not transcribed≈22s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:36:09 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Okay I don''t know who had their line up Usually I'm pretty good at this but everybody's lights are on all the time

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed2:36:16 · ≈ 11:36 AM

now so.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:36:19 · ≈ 11:36 AM

All right we'll go Supervisor Adam first.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:36:22 · ≈ 11:36 AM

First of all, I just want to say how nice this discussion is. This has got to be and this is one of the most contentious issues that I think we've handled and this has been one of the nicest discussions I think I recall on this dais. Second thing is I think we really have to do a little bit more homework on the value of hemp. I don't know if Kathy's got an opinion on this, but I have heard some you know well Large numbers compared to other crops, pretty small numbers compared to what I've heard for cannabis. So cannabis has a much higher value range than hemp and hemp is a field crop that is harvested with a giant combine.

So I'm not sure we should flip out over, you know, everybody's going to raise hemp if they don't raise pot because it's really not the same animal. And if you had a buffer space that was, even if it was a large buffer space, I'm not sure you get your giant harvester inside there to harvest all of that. So, you know, I think we need to do a little bit more homework before we base our decisions on They'll just do the other thing if we don't let them do this. So so that's that's kind of what I want to say there Okay supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:37:53 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Regarding hemp, I just wanted to add that I think it's a good example of The difficulty this board has had because we've had to make decisions without full information We don't know what the state is going to do and yet it may have very Big impacts on what we're deciding today and then we get tangled up in it. But I do agree with what Supervisor Hart said, that we want to fight tooth and nail to keep local control vis-a-vis hemp because I think the decisions that we're making about marijuana will be affected by what happens with hemp. And that's one of the reasons why I think we need a cap. So I would like to make a motion we had with last week's board letter option 2 amend County code section 50 dash 7. To cap the number of acres of cannabis cultivation countywide outside the carpentry AG overlay.

Zone And I'd like that to date back to July 9th, and I'd like To use the methodology that we use in carp. That is the middle circle and and I what we heard was 1510 but I'm willing to leave that open to calculate that

2:39 – 2:4931 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:39:13 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, I think it would be advisable to leave that a little bit open so we can confirm those numbers.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:39:21 · ≈ 11:39 AM

So you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:39:22 · ≈ 11:39 AM

can give the date

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:39:23 · ≈ 11:39 AM

specific? Just not the acreage specific?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:39:25 · ≈ 11:39 AM

You're saying applications accepted as of July 9th? Yes. Okay. And I

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:39:31 · ≈ 11:39 AM

think that's fair and clear and prevents a land rush and more difficulty trying to figure this out.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:39:42 · ≈ 11:39 AM

OK. Any comment on that? Submit Mr. Gazzone.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:39:46 · ≈ 11:39 AM

And I think you understand the motion, but this is not today amending the county code, but directing staff to bring back potential amendments to affect that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:40:00 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Mr. Hart. I'll second that motion. And to ask the question about what were your views about option one. There's option one which is cap cultivation operations, there's option two, cap acreage and there's option three a combination of options one and two. What are your thoughts about option one and two?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:40:28 · ≈ 11:40 AM

For me, we have some experience in the greenhouse overlay with a cap and so I think that is the simplest. Someone once told me and this has made it abundantly clear government is a blunt instrument. The more we can rely on the experience that we already have outside the CARP overlay, I think mirroring that inland or the rest of the county rather. I want to be clear about that. The rest of the county makes our job a little easier.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:41:01 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Very well persuaded. I would second that motion. Supervisor Adam?

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:41:07 · ≈ 11:41 AM

Well, I think that it's a little large. Could we just dial that back just a little bit? There's some agreement up here that all of those acres aren't going to come to fruition. And what I'm trying to do is have a limited experiment, you know, a valid experiment because it's not so small that we can't really tell anything from it but I'd like to dial that back In some kind of reasonable way and then did you do you just can't agree to not to exceed number? I mean, I threw ten acres out there but

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:41:57 · ≈ 11:41 AM

That gets us into land use. I think Per parcel

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:42:04 · ≈ 11:42 AM

yeah Yeah

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:42:11 · ≈ 11:42 AM

No, he doesn't want to answer. So we've talked before about really there's three tracks. We have the land use entitlement. The business license piece for the county, and then the third prong is the state licensing scheme. And we've recommended some separation between the land use piece and the business license piece. We can look at this again and provide you with advice on that between now and then when it comes back. But I think it would be good to start with just this raw number if we had any changes on first reading that were very clear and on the spot. It would still count as a first reading. We'll be glad to look at this and provide you advice on it.

Okay, okay. I think I get it

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:42:49 · ≈ 11:42 AM

good. I have a question about the Applications that are in so basically what I think what I'm hearing is people are like okay? I'm good with the people that applied July 9th But isn't it possible for somebody has an application in right now let's say that they have a 60 acre property AG to and they have an application in for five acres But what's to stop that person to come in and go, man I'd really like there's a cap now.

I'm going to entitle 50 of my 60 acres. How do we stop that from happening?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:43:27 · ≈ 11:43 AM

Mr Chair, I think essentially if you adopt a cap that reflects the total acres that had been applied for on July 9th And that would prove basically eliminate the potential for people to amend their project descriptions at that time. Unless it's business license I would hope that that's true unless its business license. So I want some feedback from County Council because the cap is in the business license ordinance, it's not an hours

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:43:59 · ≈ 11:43 AM

OK

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:44:00 · ≈ 11:44 AM

in the land use code so perhaps Mister goes only could weigh in on this but It's true, people could amend their applications. They could unless we and I don't know if this is possible said that the applications are in or set the way they are and we're not amending them in terms of increasing their acreage And I'm

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:44:24 · ≈ 11:44 AM

that would be helpful. I just want to make sure it's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:44:27 · ≈ 11:44 AM

legal.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:44:31 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Yeah So Amanda raising the same three fingers all day today and that is that I think that in the world of Land use or zoning, you know We've spoken about that before and we had an item on that recently on the AG one parcel so I think That is a separate Then what we're talking about right now is the caps in the business license, which need be supported only by a rational basis and applied in a non-discriminatory manner. And the way I translate that would be that so long as it's not a monopoly, and that is that if people fall out of the cap they go out of business and move someplace else somebody else could move in. That seems like a rational and nondiscriminatory approach that is not a monopoly but You know, we've in structuring this. We've tried to keep some separation between classic land use entitlements which are What you do in a zone or what you do in an overlay and have that apply throughout that area?

And what we're talking about today, which is the cap so I think it's good to keep separation between the two

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:45:33 · ≈ 11:45 AM

Okay

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:45:35 · ≈ 11:45 AM

So in English I think anybody should be able to, the most defensible posture would be if somebody wants to amend their land use application in a future year.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:45:46 · ≈ 11:45 AM

I'm not talking about a future year. I don't know how do we legally prevent somebody from because I'm good with the applications that are in but I don't want those applications to now because there's now the new land rush of everybody coming in and going I want to entitle my entire property Dennis, okay. So

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:46:08 · ≈ 11:46 AM

chairs and supervisors so I think the legal advice that you're getting is that we would basically frame this in the same way that we framed 50-7 to and in terms of defining the number of acres. Let me just lay out a scenario though for you because this is again in the business license which is the second step of a process What I hear you saying is a desire that nobody would go in and amend their, the desire would be that they not going to amend their permit application.

But if they did, and they were to get theirs through. They might use that as a tool and they might weaponize that process to eliminate competition. And so I have provided some sense to the board in the past Arbitrary ceiling and I get the policy decisions. I'm not debating that but but there there are and could be ways between The permit application and the eventual business licensing Where that cap then gets applied where people could take advantage of some bumping up of their of their land use entitlement As a part of that, so I want to just be clear that that could happen

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:47:31 · ≈ 11:47 AM

right And one last follow up on that too is because it's basically a race to the end. So you're going to have folks appealing, one grower appealing another to try to drag out his application process I would believe.

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:47:47 · ≈ 11:47 AM

When it comes to winning in business, I guess we have seen ample evidence where people are willing to do anything and say anything and do anything in order to do that as we have seen in this process by multiple parties.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:48:03 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Okay, so I just don't want a bunch of unattended consequences which is all we seem to get every time we make a decision on this. There's a whole other group of people that are like what the? Okay, Supervisor Hartman. All the lights are on again.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:48:16 · ≈ 11:48 AM

We've already had experience with this however with a cap in the greenhouse overlay. So where do you see new problems or different problems that we haven't dealt with coming in with this cap that were proposing?

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:48:31 · ≈ 11:48 AM

Chair Levin, you know Supervisor Hartman. We actually haven't seen this problem yet what we have are 207 acres of applications in the in the land-use permitting process and This is now this in our current structure This is not even a problem yet because they haven't been able to get out of that land use permit process and now with the appeals and whatnot that gets stretched out longer And so we haven't really confronted this issue about what people may do in these waning days as they try to, basically the old tragedy of the common thing that we all studied in school would be that you'd want to gobble up and possess as much as you could. And take that under entitlement as quickly as you can in the idea of acing out your competition. And so I would just suggest that there's some concern here that we don't have this experience yet.

We know what's coming, and the question is only whether it's coming sooner or later.

2:49 – 2:5419 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:49:39 · ≈ 11:49 AM

We have a list in rank order, don't we? Of when the permits came in. They're being processed at different times but we created an eligibles list so as they fall out we go up to that cap. I mean, I'm not ready to throw out my hands here and say we can't do this so help me.

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:49:58 · ≈ 11:49 AM

So that is why we actually provide you with option number four. We don't have that list today. What we have is the list of how they've come in to the planning department as they've applied for their coastal development permit or their coastal development hearing, that we have a list of. It isn't necessarily an order by date. Potential amendment number 4 that I presented last week could use and create an eligibles list, but that is not in place today. That would have to be direction from your board to amend the business license ordinance in order to provide and create that eligibles list. And we do not have it currently though in Carpinteria.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:50:48 · ≈ 11:50 AM

I thought we did that last week.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:50:50 · ≈ 11:50 AM

No,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:50:50 · ≈ 11:50 AM

so we'd have to take it up next. Okay, so first we're going to Mr. Gazzone and then we'll move this way.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:51:03 · ≈ 11:51 AM

So as we're sitting here trying to give you some options, Senior Deputy Hartley has a thought that we've discussed before and I think it may apply to part of this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:51:16 · ≈ 11:51 AM

So Chair and Supervisors, one of the options that you could use to resolve some of these issues is how you choose to have the business license selection process. So you mentioned it briefly that you could choose to establish an eligibility list based on approved but not issued zoning entitlements. And from that list those would be the first eligible for business license. And that may stop some of the issues but not necessarily all the issues with permit amendments.

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction2:51:47 · ≈ 11:51 AM

That's

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:51:48 · ≈ 11:51 AM

helpful. All right, Supervisor Hart and then Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:51:52 · ≈ 11:51 AM

Yeah, I think some of the things that are on the staff report items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Had we done those first everybody would have weighed in on those so they inform what we're talking about now. The eligibles list makes perfect sense and it fits well with this. I don't know that we're gonna get this exactly right today but we have a lot of smart people who can put their heads together and figure out what we're trying to accomplish the best way we can. And we may not get everything we want. At the end of the day either

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:52:24 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Okay supervisor Adam, okay. Well you know I think we've already seen the land rush happen and you know My information that we went from 1440 last week to 1587 this week is kind of Proof of that and that's why I wanted to make the number smaller and Don't I don't understand Why we wouldn't want to do something like we did in car for the whole County because you know, you have more applications in carp than you do a lot of bull Property somebody's going to get to the end of their process and not be able to close the deal.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:53:12 · ≈ 11:53 AM

I would just say Carpentry is this big. Oh, I get it the rest of the county's this big and we're going to have the same amount of acreage growing in both if I'm living in carp at that point. I'm like hey, I'm shouldering We don't have to do that, but I think 1587 if that's

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:53:28 · ≈ 11:53 AM

where we are right now

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:53:46 · ≈ 11:53 AM

I think we were talking about

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:53:50 · ≈ 11:53 AM

14. Yeah, but 1510 well, I mean, I think we got

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:53:54 · ≈ 11:53 AM

to exceed

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:53:56 · ≈ 11:53 AM

Well yeah, well that's what a cap is right? But um, I'm hoping that we could get that down. I mean how about a thousand

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:54:07 · ≈ 11:54 AM

well I think you have a vote.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:54:10 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Yeah, well let me just say what worries me is we have to be non-discriminatory. We need to be able to have this hold up legally and I think if we date it back to July 9th and say we want the methodology used that we use in CARP and let you figure it out more firmly because I'm not sure that they've had that opportunity but we've given the parameters. I'm content with that.

I think it's a big step

2:54 – 2:5914 turns

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:54:41 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Well, I'm not sure that does what I think needs to be done in the near term. I wanted to vote for this. I just think everybody's made the case here that we've done some things that have had unintended consequences and now we're not going to undo them?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:55:12 · ≈ 11:55 AM

If I may, so I'm not clear what you're asking for in a number that would be legally defensible.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:55:20 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Besides, we're not done with this issue. There are four issues on here This is just the cap the other things you're talking about odor control conflict between ag Think we still have those to tackle so all we're doing right now Is the first thing we decided to talk about which was a number for the cap and whether we wanted it?

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:55:37 · ≈ 11:55 AM

And the part that we don't know what we don't know yet and things keep popping up Did you ever figure out whether that rumor that I heard about the? Avocados is true

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed2:55:49 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Supervisor Adam through the chair. Yes, we're starting to see phytosanitary shipments being rejected Because of the presence of pests in the shipments

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:55:57 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Okay So I'm saying this is this has got a catastrophe in it if we haven't already had it and we don't know See so that's why I want to I'm really You know, this isn't just a accommodation of everybody. I mean do we have to accommodate everybody? Mr. Gazzone That's gotten in the queue so far or is that just a it's We can move the target and there is no vesting prior to actual reception of a permit

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction2:56:32 · ≈ 11:56 AM

The short answer is yes, that there's no vesting until the case law generally discusses a business license and substantial reliance which is generally cash or liabilities on that. So people do not vest to zoning or expected zoning. You vest to a building permit and substantial reliance on that. So that's really what you're looking for so the board has discretion in this area

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:57:00 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Well OK so again I'm going to ask for some reduction of the size of this thing because I think that we've seen that land rush already happen. People are coming in with speculative permits to see, because they're worried about us having a cap. And so I think that there's a bunch of that that's probably fluff and I just love to see us get back to something. I mean, I came in with 200 and I'm ready for 1,000 here. So I don't know if anybody wants to meet me part way?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.852:57:36 · ≈ 11:57 AM

My if I may jump in my question is how do we be nondiscriminatory about which process, which ones we process first and not get into legal trouble.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:57:47 · ≈ 11:57 AM

Well, I think the perm the the process itself. Is the is the filter right? I mean the process if you get through the filter, I mean just like carpentry It's no different than carbon area. If there's 207 acres worth of Permits applied for and there's only 186 available Then when they exceed 186 acre That's it right everybody else that's in the queue has to wait until something happens to come back around am i right

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction2:58:25 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Chair, that was how we were planning on processing them. Basically as they came out of the permit system we would process them in sequence from there and then once you got to the 186th acre everybody else was

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:58:41 · ≈ 11:58 AM

outside of that. The difference is in Carpinteria we established a cap almost a year before the cap was exceeded We're talking retroactively the difference between perspective and retroactive.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction2:58:59 · ≈ 11:58 AM

Well, that's not discriminatory it's retroactive but it's not discriminatory and nobody vested So I'll tell you, we've done so much to other industries in this county. This is just with the level of risk here to everybody else. I mean, I don't get why we wouldn't wanna act in a, I think prudent way to just limit this thing and I think I'm coming pretty far but maybe I'm not. Supervisor Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:59:34 · ≈ 11:59 AM

Yeah, in a perfect world if Mr. Ghazani wasn't sitting there I'd have a cap that said we're done and people can't back feed in under that cap. That would give the most relief to everybody, it would calm their anxiety but here we are in a real world with legal counsel telling us this is probably the most defensible way to do this and so-

3:00 – 3:0621 turns

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:00:03 · ≈ 12:00 PM

Is it not defensible to have a cap that's smaller than the number of applicants that we have in the queue right

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:00:11 · ≈ 12:00 PM

now? I think I'm hearing two different questions. One is, what's the size of the cap? And one is would it continue to attrit or could people apply to fill the available space as people drop out? So those are two different issues. Again, the vesting is a function of a building permit and substantial reliance which we generally don't have yet or we have in only isolated conditions so the board has discretion in this area. I had cautioned before against having a cap. That's what I would love to have because I think that solves the problem.

not transcribed≈13s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:00:56 · ≈ 12:00 PM

You know, they don't get a permit and then there's not somebody back filling that and causing another new problem that we don't see today. But that isn't an option. So you're- but in my mind what you're saying is that you're just throwing a number out there that isn't based on anything. Except a number that is a compromise, political compromise. And I'm hoping we stop doing that stuff. I think what we need to do is have it based on something. Some reasonable real life reason why and putting it back in time a week is a reasonable starting place for having a cat. That's that is defensible. We were Going along with a certain process, people made investments at expectations. We've got a way to process those applications hopefully faster and then we get through that and we deal with ineligibles list of people in a rational way moving forward as opposed to just saying well the number oughta be 500, it oughta be 1,000.

What if it ends up being 20 off of that number where we find the balance point? It just seems completely arbitrary.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:01:59 · ≈ 12:01 PM

Okay, we had a motion on the floor by the way. So we've had a lot of discussion. I think it's time to get to item one of all this.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:02:10 · ≈ 12:02 PM

I'm trying to find a compromise here. Let me just ask one more question. Does our cap have to have an absolute number or can we say that the door is closed As of last July 9th, last week. And whatever number that is actually permitted, that ends up being our cap.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:02:32 · ≈ 12:02 PM

Mr. Ghazani? I'm trying to think of a way to phrase it differently to get where you want to go which is to reflect back to last week as the number but avoiding something that sounds like the door's closed which sounds like processing moratorium which is not what you're proposing So I think you're trying to use a number that, you know is based on last week's number Which is I think you could do that You know if you if that was the rational number that you wanted to come up with X hundred acres X thousand acres But you would not be closing the door If people fell out of that queue others would be allowed to spring up in and fill that number.

CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:03:17 · ≈ 12:03 PM

Supervisors, on a practical matter even if we gave planning as much staff as Supervisor Lavagnino talked about there's still some there is a capacity issue of how much planning can process so in reality at some point in time you're going to look back and say have we reached the cap? Have we met this 1410? And my one thought perhaps for the board as a point in time in the future you can have us come back and say how many have we processed And you can decide at that time, is that the right cap? Because if we come back in two or three years and we only really have processed because some people have fallen out as Supervisor Williams said it's going to happen. You can tell us was that the right cap and would you like to revisit it?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:04:02 · ≈ 12:04 PM

So without saying the door is closed I think the rest of your statement of moving forward with where we were July 9th is your motion.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:04:15 · ≈ 12:04 PM

We're going to be using the methodology for canopy that we're already seeing that middle circle.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:04:23 · ≈ 12:04 PM

There's a motion out there are we okay with that

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:04:25 · ≈ 12:04 PM

motion? It sounds good I think that you're looking for whatever acreage that would be stated, staff would come up with that acreage stated in the proposed amendment that would come back for first reading at the next meeting. Supervisor Williams

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:04:53 · ≈ 12:04 PM

We ready to vote man there was lights on all over the place now we have a motion nobody has a light, okay? What did we need

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction3:05:00 · ≈ 12:05 PM

a second or

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:05:00 · ≈ 12:05 PM

yeah? I was kind of waiting for a second. Oh

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction3:05:02 · ≈ 12:05 PM

you're

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:05:02 · ≈ 12:05 PM

waiting for a

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction3:05:04 · ≈ 12:05 PM

second, okay?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:05:07 · ≈ 12:05 PM

All right so we have a motion and a second I

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:05:09 · ≈ 12:05 PM

Well before we vote, I'd just like to say you know, I'm disappointed because I really did want to vote for this thing and I was really...I thought that we would be more given everybody's speeches. I thought we were going to be more protective of ag than that and I think we haven't been quite protective enough of existing ag for me To to move ahead with it so

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:05:35 · ≈ 12:05 PM

we don't know where it is yet because we haven't talked about. We haven't talked about any of the restrictions that you're that you want to talk about. We'll see if we're going to get to but it could be 1500 acres that don't touch anything. I mean, well they won't be I mean come on Oh, I know. But we haven't discussed odor. We haven't discussed buffers. We're just coming up with a number. Well

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:05:57 · ≈ 12:05 PM

you know maybe if we'd have done it backwards and I knew that we already had a good amount engineered in but I'm afraid that I'm going to just lose these things one by one and then at the end I'll just have given it all up for nothing.

3:06 – 3:1118 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:06:17 · ≈ 12:06 PM

Totally not a fan of caps. But based on what I look at, I want to be fair to the entire county and if carpentry has got a cap At some point as long as it's a legitimate number, it's well defined which I'm a little bit struggling with right now but It's not my first choice, but in the interest of trying to get everybody together and agreeing on this and me buying in. I don't really feel it's because I do respect the fact that you're going with a number that I think is based on something.

I thought when I got here that we'd be in a different place but I'm struggling with not. I really don't want to support it, but I also don't want to leave you guys hanging out there like you're pushing this and without everybody on board. So I know that there's times when in this we've all had to kind of move in a direction that we're not comfortable with. I think there are a plethora of unintended consequences, but there are if we don't do anything either so I'm going to struggle with this one, but we've got a motion. Let's let's

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:07:39 · ≈ 12:07 PM

have a roll call tonight

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:07:41 · ≈ 12:07 PM

ask for

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:07:41 · ≈ 12:07 PM

a favor That we move through all the rest of the items because it makes it's a critical difference for me otherwise, I just gotta vote no so I'm sorry guys. I didn't do.

not transcribed≈36s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:08:12 · ≈ 12:08 PM

I don't want Confluence so anyway supervisor hard.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:08:32 · ≈ 12:08 PM

Yeah, and I think that is makes sense The other thing that I would suggest to you is that this didn't start today We started on Tuesday last week when we when we talked about egg one and we banned egg one Cannabis cultivation under 20 acres and we put a CUP on you know over 20 acres So we're not You're winning You're getting know what you're looking for.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:08:53 · ≈ 12:08 PM

No, I'm not winning no because that right there is for urban interest That's not me he's a guy. That's not me well. There's I helped you guys Solve your urban problems. Yeah, that's what

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:09:06 · ≈ 12:09 PM

happened all right right there Okay, we've got a motion and a second let's call the roll

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction3:09:13 · ≈ 12:09 PM

Mr.. Williams aye mr.. Hart miss Hartman I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:09:21 · ≈ 12:09 PM

Say it was your motion, I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:09:22 · ≈ 12:09 PM

hope.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:09:24 · ≈ 12:09 PM

But I hear Supervisor Adam and just want to say that I think protecting existing businesses is always the first rule, protecting existing agriculture. And my whole reason for being involved supporting this was to give a high value crop to existing agriculture never anticipated this conflict so I'm hoping we can work our way through this during the rest of today's discussion and I'm so grateful that you've brought this up.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction3:09:51 · ≈ 12:09 PM

Mister Adam. Mister Levin you know I passes for the war

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:09:57 · ≈ 12:09 PM

okay. So surprise

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:10:01 · ≈ 12:10 PM

waves well, I'm just trying to get this rain train back on schedule here good luck with that odor control is enormously important to carpentry a to eliminate the conflict there so that we can achieve a community where we can live together and have prosperity in the ag sphere but also have a reduction and or elimination of nuisance for the residential sphere. And so to me moving odor control up in the process through permitting is a no brainer.

So on item two, on page three of the staff report demonstrate odor control operations during the business nice application process I would like to move Option one, to move up odor control requirements. Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:10:58 · ≈ 12:10 PM

Supervisor Adam?

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:10:59 · ≈ 12:10 PM

Mr. Guzzoni is that without risk?

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:11:12 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Chair and Supervisors, I had spoken before about classic vesting which is a function of a building permit and substantial reliance on that. So there is a potential that somebody who was going to install and operate an odor control system and does so with the building permit would later come in with the potential unintended consequence of saying I'm vested That's a risk. I'm informed by planning that that may be less risk than it sounds in terms of the practice of who has actually pulled the building permit for odor control, and you may want to hear from planning a little bit more about that.

Ms. Plama?

3:11 – 3:1915 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:11:56 · ≈ 12:11 PM

Mister chair members of the board supervisor Adams. So the question has to do with whether or not the issuance of a building permit. And some odor control has been installed in the Carpinteria Valley. And it is going to be addressed as part of those applications that have been, that's part of their non-conforming status and that will be legalized as they move through the process.

So I'm sorry did I answer the question? Exactly

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:12:41 · ≈ 12:12 PM

what is the question? Well no not really. It's really a legal question right? It's sort of a separate question of whether anybody is actually applying for an electrical permit or I

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:12:55 · ≈ 12:12 PM

think the two are related. I think that the bare legal standard is building permit plus substantial reliance creates a vesting issue and my understanding is that many or most of the odor control systems installed have done so without a building permit to trigger that problem

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:13:14 · ≈ 12:13 PM

Well yeah but if you make somebody apply for a building permit, I mean if you make somebody put the odor control in prior to your making them go get a permit. If people go do things without permits, you can't help that. But if you make somebody do something and then they don't have a permit the next thing they'll hear is well you didn't have your operation permitted properly so we're not giving you a permit.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:13:47 · ≈ 12:13 PM

We want in our carpentaria this is not there's not a difference of opinion between the pro-cannabis crowd and the one that is critical cannabis We want odor control effective enforced odor control as quickly as possible.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:14:08 · ≈ 12:14 PM

Supervisor Hartman.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:14:12 · ≈ 12:14 PM

I agree, I worry about them investing and then for some reason in the business license we find maybe they don't meet the qualifications, felony whatever. I don't know some of those then what do we do? We're sued because they've relied and they've made a significant investment. If it were voluntary, I think we don't get into that problem. I know Mr. Gazzone has suggested that perhaps we could direct enforcement of nuisance complaints against the legal non-conforming growers and I don't know if that's an additional option? That's my next

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:14:48 · ≈ 12:14 PM

motion but at very least I'm just asking. I'm not

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:14:53 · ≈ 12:14 PM

against it, Doss.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:14:54 · ≈ 12:14 PM

Just help me out. If the board has real heartache from this then at very least immediate that the requirement should trigger as soon as the CDP or CUP is issued. At very least. That's a quarter loaf but it would at least move it up in time frame.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:15:21 · ≈ 12:15 PM

Well, and I would like to see as part of that you talk about a second half of the motion or your next motion. But I think we could tie those two together that folks are operating outside that were legal non-conforming that have either haven't paid their taxes or any other myriad of issues. Do you want me to go through those? Let's do

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:15:42 · ≈ 12:15 PM

it. The other things I would like to do as part of this is to number one, which we could take action today to formally withdraw consent to operate by letter to both the state and the operator for any expired temporary permits. So an immediate nuisance abatement legal actions be taken by county council's office in CARP overlay against known odor vectors, especially in proximity to schools.

I just think that, and then the last one is that to, and this is an idea that came from some of the folks critical of marijuana. Require that by the day after Labor Day any non-conforming operation in the coastal zone must have voter control to continue qualify for the Article 10 exemption. So those are my three proposals, maybe for now because the last one is a little more complicated. I'll put in a motion an amended item two that means that they demonstrate odor control operations during cannabis business license as soon as the CDP or CUP is issued.

Plus that we formally withdraw consent to operate by letter both to the state and operator for any expired temporary permits. And that we initiate nuisance abatement legal actions against known odor vectors, especially in proximity to schools. Second? Mr. Gazzani.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:17:34 · ≈ 12:17 PM

Chair, I understand the motion and the concern that I had raised before in response to Supervisor Adams' question about vesting out of order would be removed by the revised motion whereby the demonstration A voter control would occur only after having the land use entitlement in hand. And by that changed motion, that would keep the Land Use Appeal Structure for the Planning Commission and the Board still engaged so you wouldn't have a backwards or end run. So that would take care of that proposal. And again this is coming back for action by the board. I'm going to skip to the third item, which is nuisance enforcement.

Which is something that the board may direct county council to file in accordance with code of civil procedure 731 for nuisance and abatement or injunction. And that is something that my preference would be that if the motion maker we consider a revised motion, which would be to increase enforcement through including through nuisance And rather than directing that right now, they would preserve the board's ability in closed session to receive my recommendation case by case on a decision to initiate litigation. And I think you would look to the CEO's office or planning and development to tee up potential enforcement cases, the most problematic wherever they are by school. Send them to us and we will do the workup and preserve the board's authority to make a fully informed decision case by case.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:19:05 · ≈ 12:19 PM

I think I want to recourse essentially to explain this. I want a recourse for when sheriff's enforcement doesn't have a criminal issue, but P&D can't ameliorate the odor issue. Another path is this hammer right here sitting in front of us.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:19:24 · ≈ 12:19 PM

And then one of the discussions we've already had with CEO's office, who has been properly aggressive in having us come up with options for them is how do we accomplish this in a way that does not get underfoot of the district attorney's prosecutorial discretion so that we make sure that a civil action we're taking does not in any way impinge on District Attorney Dudley's prosecutorial discretion. And there's a vehicle to do that and I'm comfortable that we could do that but I just want you to be aware we've had that discussion already.

3:19 – 3:2522 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:19:55 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Okay,

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:19:55 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:19:56 · ≈ 12:19 PM

Adam has

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:19:57 · ≈ 12:19 PM

I just want to ask a question. Are we are we are we done after this item? We're going to talk you were talking CPS.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:20:04 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Yeah, still got two more. We got we got boundaries and then we've got AG interface. Yeah, okay.

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction3:20:12 · ≈ 12:20 PM

All right.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:20:13 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Okay

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction3:20:14 · ≈ 12:20 PM

sure

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction3:20:15 · ≈ 12:20 PM

Chair? Yes, Mr. Buzanich. Sorry just a point of clarification on the motion that was made. I want to reassure the board and members of the public on the issue of canceling attempts that have already filled out an application and have that accepted by planning and development. That action has been taken at the end of the amortization period for the coastal zone back in May As well as the end of the amortization period for legal non-conforming in the middle of June for the inland portions of the county. Those actions have been taken by the County Executive Office.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:20:53 · ≈ 12:20 PM

My issue is to cover ones who are submitting applications but aren't moving them forward in a timely fashion with the state and if you don't have a permit right now at the state, you shouldn't be operating, right? So we should make sure that they don't operate. And so that's the issue. In addition to it being the law, it also is a real potential issue for nuisance because if you're the type of person that's going to operate without a permit, you might be the kind of person who's gonna operate without odor control.

I would say there's a correlation there.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:21:40 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Okay, so we have a motion. Mr.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:21:43 · ≈ 12:21 PM

Ghazani? Just for the middle piece of that motion which I think was amending the county's Article X if I understood that correctly and just for context that provides an amortization period for legal non-conforming uses of medical marijuana cultivation those periods have run and then at section 1003 C2 There's a but which is that if you are in the process of applying for permit, then despite the expiration of the amortization period, you're allowed to run. And I think what you're describing is so long as you have odor control in place and then that would create some of the same issues we've talked about with a potential building permit or not and I'm just underscoring

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:22:30 · ≈ 12:22 PM

that. I didn't put that in the motion because I thought that might need a little more explaining but that'll be my next motion. So

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:22:37 · ≈ 12:22 PM

that's your official motion? And is that your official second? All right. Do we need a roll call? Supervisor

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:22:47 · ≈ 12:22 PM

Adam, I'm going to vote for this because I'm going to be a county supervisor and I'm going to help protect your people but I hope you'll be a county supervisor and protect my people when it comes around

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:23:01 · ≈ 12:23 PM

That is called a shot across the bow, by the way.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:23:06 · ≈ 12:23 PM

Well it's a shot across the bow or you could say it's a quid pro quo. I'm going to go with shot

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:23:12 · ≈ 12:23 PM

across the bow because the other one is illegal. All right so Mr., oh so all those in favor? Aye. Anybody opposed? Good. All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:23:24 · ≈ 12:23 PM

OK, the control. Yeah. The other part of that that I thought to have separate in case people don't understand it is to require one. I'm just going to pass around these sheets so that people can read them is to require that by the day after Labor Day that any nonconforming operation in the coastal zone must have odor control to continue to qualify for the Article 10 exemption. So we have an exemption for non-conforming in Article 10. We have criteria for that, and so my proposal would be to amend Article 10 If one is continued to qualify for the exemption that they would have to have some kind of odor control. This is obviously not as strong of a protection as someone would have in permitting, but it is an idea brought to me and my Carpinteria Cannabis Commission which is a group of people who Four neighborhood advocates that are critical of marijuana and four growers that we meet every month to try to deal with some of the enforcement issues and some of the other issues, odor control issues.

And one of the members brought this idea to us and County Council and I worked on a way that was the safest way to do so. Drafted by a local attorney in the Concerned Carpentrian's letter as well. They didn't have the ordinance in Article 10. So instead we're looking at article 10 as being the best vehicle for this.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:25:15 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Mr. Ghazani? Chair and supervisors, and I understand that this would be a direction to have staff bring back the proposed amendment to Article 10, uh, as per that process I'd outlined earlier, that this is not in action today but directing staff to bring back a proposed amendment to Article 10.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:25:30 · ≈ 12:25 PM

And I second the motion.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:25:32 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Thank you.

3:25 – 3:3224 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:25:35 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Okay. Um, all those in favor?

CommentSteve DeckerProposedself-stated3:25:38 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Aye.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:25:39 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Any opposed? Okay passes unanimously. I think we now move to boundaries.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:25:49 · ≈ 12:25 PM

Did we do concurrent processing? That's item three. So, um, uh, I've moved option one in concurrent processing to help again

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:26:02 · ≈ 12:26 PM

that we did that last week. No,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:26:04 · ≈ 12:26 PM

no.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:26:04 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:26:05 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:26:06 · ≈ 12:26 PM

So you might want to spell out the motion a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:26:09 · ≈ 12:26 PM

little bit So this is again another one of the four things that we could do today to make odor control happen faster and stronger by processing business license applications with the land use permit application. Of course, you can't issue the business license until the land use process permit is issued.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:26:36 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Okay?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:26:37 · ≈ 12:26 PM

And we have a second from

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:26:38 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Supervisor Hart. All those in favor- Mr. Gazzani. Again I was just listening. I believe this is direction to bring back the proposed amendment at that upcoming meeting of the board. Correct.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:26:50 · ≈ 12:26 PM

Another odor control cannabis meeting. Awesome. All right. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:27:03 · ≈ 12:27 PM

do we need a motion on four and five? What are four and five now? This is the eligible list and they broaden definition of hearing officer. Move 4 and 5. Second?

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:27:21 · ≈ 12:27 PM

Mr. Gazzone. So, I think I just cut off the CEO saying there's some different menu choices under each both four and five so if you could just focus us on... Yeah there's option one in two

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:27:30 · ≈ 12:27 PM

and four option one in two and five

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:27:34 · ≈ 12:27 PM

yeah option one in four and option one in five okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:27:40 · ≈ 12:27 PM

very good all right all those in favor I. Any opposed? Okay, passes unanimously. All right now we're on the boundaries. What time is it? 1230 all right so if you're here for CCE it's going to be after lunch. So boundaries Supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:28:10 · ≈ 12:28 PM

This is an issue because the way we currently have our ordinance drafted, if you're an ag operation adjacent to an urban-rural boundary or an EDRN, you have to get a CUP. I'm mindful of what Supervisor Hart said about having something that's consistent or evidence based. Right now the boundary that we have is very irregular and I've got I have pictures that, I don't know how to exactly do this correctly but here's Los Alamos for example and there's you know these are permit applications and what you see is there's very little boundary here.

And then there's bigger boundary where the CUPs are required in pink. So we don't have a consistent boundary around these areas and it's kind of haphazard depending on how the land was zoned. Oh, thank you! Thank you! So this is Los Alamos and you can see CUPs are required in the pink but in that yellow dot to the right you can see that there's... We don't have 1500 feet or whatever we would like so I think we would have a better system if we had something consistent. I don't know exactly what that should be but I think we should have something that's more consistent and requiring a CUP within a certain bandwidth around these areas

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction3:30:03 · ≈ 12:30 PM

Supervisor Adam. What's the zoning on those parcels? The ones where the dots are have got to be AG 2. Well, that gets solved if we put CUPs on all AG2. So what

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:30:25 · ≈ 12:30 PM

happens when you put CUPs on all AG2 is That thing is going to come up for approval in the year 2025 because we already can't get through what we're dealing with right now and we could hire a freaking army of people. All of our most of our applications are on egg too, and we've got how many applications? 170 I think so you got 170 that then need to go through planning the CUP Then they got to go to the Planning Commission because you're going to get appealed. Then it comes to the Board of Supervisors, I understand what you'd like to do but that's just a logistical impossibility if not nightmare scenario.

Supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:31:17 · ≈ 12:31 PM

so that that gets us into a number of issues, but I would like to say that Cups on everything is a burden for us in the county cost wise it's it's a burden for the applicant and It's a burden for the neighbors who have to go through this process. So I it's a really blunt instrument I wish we could find something more tailored more more scalpel than sledgehammer

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:31:47 · ≈ 12:31 PM

Well, it'd be nice to see so around. So is that an urban boundary line? I mean what so okay, so what you're saying is 1500 feet from an urban boundary line, you would require a CUP. Well before I would be able to support something like that, I'd have to see a map of every location and kind of see because that might be one instance and you've got maps for all of them.

Okay, so that's built in Mr. Gazzone.

3:32 – 3:3912 turns

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:32:19 · ≈ 12:32 PM

So some of these, I don't know if it would save the board or preserve some options to just come up with a list of things that you would be sending to the planning commission rather than deciding on 1,000 feet or 1,500 feet. Because if the Planning Commission considered a buffer of you know, a buffer an additional buffer greater than 1,000 feet They've touched it and then under the planning and zoning law. You can act on that You'd want it broadly and then likewise with Supervisor Williams motion on amending article X That's something that we had sent article X to the Planning Commission the first time around so my recommendation We receive a report on that And then sometime on all of this I think would be good to just talk about the date that all of this is coming back Okay A little

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:33:04 · ≈ 12:33 PM

side note too for the public is, from what I understand and it's not that much of a bigger impact on the applicant to go to a CUP because what we require in cannabis for an LUP is very close to a CUP. The impact is on us. And the cost on us and the time on us. And every time we put another project into a CUP, it's another crappy operator that has a CUP that gets delayed from getting that thumbs up and down that I'm interested in. So I see what you're moving at here, and I like the idea of, I mean, I can see how it's inconsistent. And there could be a sliver there where a parcel pops in and doesn't have to do a lot of oversight.

I just don't it's that unintended consequences that I'm worried about

CommentLee MoldaverProposedself-stated3:33:57 · ≈ 12:33 PM

yes. Oh,

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:33:57 · ≈ 12:33 PM

well III Enthusiastically endorse sending this to the Planning Commission. I only wanted to define the problem problem. I don't have a Solution

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:34:06 · ≈ 12:34 PM

okay supervisor Hart and I agree with the idea in the principle of having the planning commission look at these issues because I'm looking for an evidence-based Science based solution. You know, I see what the map says. I'm not sure that the giant Areas to the south of Los Alamos that are on this map. Is that the edge of the map or is at the edge of the parcel?

What we actually have in place right now isn't necessarily rational. I'd like them to look at all of that and say, let's come up with something that works.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:34:38 · ≈ 12:34 PM

That's a reverse side of this is so that's an EDRN, I'm guessing. Those purple ones, the purple or pink whatever that is does require CUP already. Is that what that map shows us? Really if you're doing a grow down here in the bottom-right, a one acre grow, Does that really require a CUP? Well is that the edge of the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:34:56 · ≈ 12:34 PM

parcel or does it go down another three inches on the page, I don't know.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:35:00 · ≈ 12:35 PM

So we're always talking about how to restrict it but does that guy really should he be getting a CUP to grow there you know what I'm saying so I mean we put in a lot of restrictions already and now we're not covering the ones that are closest to the public but we're requiring something even stronger And I think we did that in a lot of areas where we said not only the EDRN, but anything touching an EDRN and we're getting so far out.

And we're not effectively talking about that you could actually be closer with more impacts and have less

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:35:35 · ≈ 12:35 PM

OK. And this is where we haven't been right. This is where it gets super complicated because it is site specific. It is meteorologic and you know, it is topographic. And so when we just draw lines and circles around things that looks pretty on a map looks consistent doesn't necessarily have any relation to reality on the ground. And you know, we could put CUP's on everything which doesn't work to get that site specific analysis but then we choke up the system. We don't get any finish line. So there's attention constant tension between these two things And the Planning Commission is the better place to vet this than

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:36:08 · ≈ 12:36 PM

up

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:36:10 · ≈ 12:36 PM

here. So I think that where this is headed is good, I would just say that we should put some preferences into this because There may be some advantages to CEP in terms of our discretion. But the more of them we have, the more it slows down the process and for nuisance abatement a long process is not good as we've seen. be able to, without entitling folks, be able to move up nuisance. But you guys were worried about moving that up too much for to expose the county at a legal fashion if you pile on a ton of ton of CUPs then we're going to wait longer and longer in Carpinteria for the permits that promulgate this stringent odor standard and so Please don't do that to me in an overly broad way. I mean, I think we should be telling the Planning Commission that we don't want CUPs on everything because that would grind this to a halt but we want some criteria where we have a targeted use of CUPs to minimize that conflict and I would also urge to get a property owner out of the requirement meaning The CUP is only required if the grow is within the 1500 feet.

If people can get away from by moving the grow away, that's what we want to help protect other ag and residences so that I would ask us to definitively send to the Planning Commission our desire A setback as a way to get that the CP only be up applicable within a certain set back to allow the grow to be moved away which would accomplish our art are in

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:38:21 · ≈ 12:38 PM

this Mister chair. I just had a question. Members of the board, I think what would be valuable is to have the discussion about what you want to achieve and let staff and the planning Commission identify the tool Because I'm not sure the C U P is the right tool because I'm not sure it gets you that much more than the CDP other than a public hearing and right now what we're getting is.

Public hearing anyway, because these applications are being appealed so if we could talk about what your objectives are in terms of what you want to see happen like whether it's a setback or with some distance

3:39 – 3:448 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:39:06 · ≈ 12:39 PM

Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:39:07 · ≈ 12:39 PM

and bring that to the commission.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:39:10 · ≈ 12:39 PM

And then while you're at it, I would say that if we get that, if that's where we're moving inland, I would like to have some targeted use of a CUP in the CARP overlay in Ag 1. This has been a struggle for me because I don't want to slow down enforcement. I don't wanna slow down odor enforcement, but it is something that both the city and a lot of residents have asked for.

And so again, I don't want a situation where everything requires a CUP. But if there was a criteria-based targeted use of the CUP then that I think would be maybe valuable.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:40:08 · ≈ 12:40 PM

Okay. Let's work it this way. Supervisor Adam, you're up first.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:40:13 · ≈ 12:40 PM

Well, you know if we're going to do 1500 feet around something then we need 1500 feet around wineries and other cultivated agriculture. And this is why I think the CUP was the right tool, because you can tailor it to the existing uses neighbors have already. If they want to put it out there in Cuyama someplace and they have no neighbors then fantastic But, you know if they're up against a winery. They're up against a lemon orchard an avocado orchard You know it you they have to have buffers that can be requested by the Planning Commission or us and the neighbors get an opportunity to make sure that everybody thinks about what the And again, in a few years these things are likely to resolve themselves. I think that a lot of these things are going to resolve themselves Both on the, I have a tremendous confidence that in five years they won't have the varieties that they have now.

And if the motivation is on the industry in proportion to the complaining, odor would be number one for them to get control of and that would probably be my guess is one of the easier things for them to breed for. So I expect they're working on that and we'll make progress. And in five years, that won't happen. But the other problems are still going to be with us unless we can get the state to change some of the rules like we were talking about before.

So I think it's really prudent if you want to do 1500 feet around those assets then I think we should do 1500 feet around all of the assets

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:42:34 · ≈ 12:42 PM

Okay, just to let you guys know I see this as a problem. But I think a bigger problem right now is getting through the backlog and getting through the queue, and giving staff more to work on. And going back to the planning commission which means this is gonna be another two meetings at the planning commission or three meetings. And they already have more than we've got way more work for them to do than they have time to do.

And I just can't support giving them any more work until And so I get this and I know that that's a problem but. I think we can tackle this in the future, but I can't support it right now. Greg? Go

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:43:22 · ≈ 12:43 PM

ahead. It's lucky the government is not going to go away any time soon.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:43:26 · ≈ 12:43 PM

Yeah. Well, I think you raise a great point and I think that it's up to the planning commission to also weigh in on how they're going to manage this workload. That they are part of this, they're part of the team, They need to figure out how this can be done. And so if we're going to entertain additional CUPs and additional processing stuff, let's make this rational and make it actually work not just you know make something that isn't gonna be achievable. And I would challenge everybody to if we're gonna look at numbers and setbacks and buffers have that be based on science not just numbers not a round number you know what how do you do that? When it really is site-specific, meteorologically driven. It's not an arbitrary number that we're pulling out of our hat.

I don't have an answer to that. Wouldn't prepare to begin to guess at that and I wish the Planning Commission and staff good luck. Dig deep, find other places and examples and let's apply the best experiences been aimed at this problem in other places and see what we can come up with. But I'm not giving it, not assuming that there's a right answer to this either when it comes back.

3:44 – 3:5214 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:44:33 · ≈ 12:44 PM

Well I think the cap helps relieve some of the anxiety and I agree with Supervisor Lavanino and Supervisor Williams that our priority has to be processing what's in the queue. However, I think that this is very there's a lot of disparity here Every piece of land is unique and while I think scientific evidence-based is great, government again is a blunt instrument. And I don't think we know and can possibly determine how to prevent any kind of nuisance.

So I think I would like to see some kind of a buffer around our urban rural boundaries And so I'm happy to let it go back and find its place in the queue of our workload. But I just wanted to make sure people understand that this is an important issue in my district. We have 40 permits, and only three are CUPs, I believe, in my district. So that's an issue.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:45:41 · ≈ 12:45 PM

Yep. OK. Is there a motion or do you want to just I'm not sure if we should leave that or do we move on to us. Oh, Mister is only then CEO me a son to the 40 oh me a Sato and then Mister is only that's the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed3:45:56 · ≈ 12:45 PM

way you're laughing before you move on. I just want to make sure if you're going to you've said a lot of different things. I think the gist of it is what you're expressing. But I just want to make sure the planning director has clear direction and what she'd be looking at which would be conveying

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:46:19 · ≈ 12:46 PM

This yet.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:46:20 · ≈ 12:46 PM

Mister chair members of the board what I hear is that there's a desire to address the disparity that we're finding around the urban world boundary line in terms of how close grows can be if their parcel if And so there's a question about whether or not we could add a buffer area around these urban boundary lines that would result in sort of pushing away the cannabis grows, separating them further.

So that's what I understand you want to achieve. And I think a buffer, if that's what you want, a buffer is probably the right tool. A change in the permit type may not be the right tool but if I understand what it is you're trying to achieve then I can research this with my staff and figure out what the correct tool is. Did I get that right?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:47:26 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Yeah so my concern is if we do a buffer To do a buffer, you're not going to ban it in that buffer are you? You would say you would need a CUP correct. Well okay so what I'm thinking though is if we don't normally ban something we say okay you probably need a CUP but if we do a CUP we're basically doing the same thing that we're doing now in that area almost.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:47:50 · ≈ 12:47 PM

We're

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:47:51 · ≈ 12:47 PM

very close except we don''t have the hearing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:47:53 · ≈ 12:47 PM

Right I'm just not sure requiring a C UP is going to get you necessarily what you're looking for

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:47:59 · ≈ 12:47 PM

And then the other option would be a band. But this person that you're talking about already has an application in and is already going to be processed before I understand what you're trying to do. I just don't know how we get there, but anyway, so you're saying send it back to the Planning Commission for more.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction3:48:15 · ≈ 12:48 PM

Mr. Gazzone. So I think that the front end of that motion will be basically directing the planning commission to study and report and then as broadly as possible state the items that you are looking for. And they would ask that even though you've From Supervisor Williams on Article X, that Article X be part of that for the odor controls because that is something the Planning Commission should look at.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:48:38 · ≈ 12:48 PM

Supervisor Hart? Well I think for me the connection between this consideration of a buffer or setback or whatever we're going to call it is tied to odor control and so I think it's really important to recognize there's a difference in odor in outdoor cannabis operations Amount of harvest time that's involved in two crops a year versus the greenhouse operation that is constantly flowering and emitting odors. So I think there needs to be a lot more understanding of what that means before we go down this path, and that's what I'd like the Planning Commission to dig into very carefully. And to understand something that's happening four weeks a year is fundamentally different than something that's happening every week of the year. And something that's outdoors with dispersal of air, all those meteorological site-specific conditions are part of the conversation about what is a buffer about?

Why are we doing a buffer? What is the distance of the buffer rather than drawing lines. Somebody dig into this and bring back some science that says this is how far odors drift. This is what the concentration of odor is like at a distance. This is what the experience of people is with these situations. Right now is a great time to be driving around the San Ynez Valley because my understanding is it's harvest time in the cannabis business and folks can go smell for themselves. I did that over the weekend and it's quite revealing, and I would love to have a cross section of people bring their noses to this problem and experience themselves. And then share that information because the experience seems to be very subjective all over the place.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:50:15 · ≈ 12:50 PM

Supervisor Williams? What I'm hoping for is that this is not sort of either a blank check or a punt. Either one, I think would be kind of the wrong action to take and so I am hoping that we give some guidance to the planning commission that We don't want them all to end up being CUPs because what that does to the process. Should we say we don't more than 40% end up being CUPs or 30%. I think there's some kind of guidance we should give to get somewhere. Because remember, if for instance in the Article 10 amendment by the time it's through the Planning Commission and to the Coastal Commission, it's going to be long after the date that we set. Right. It's it's sort of frustrating that nimble the lack of nimbleness of our process and so I'm just hoping that we get slightly more specific or give a little more guidance to the Planning Commission here

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:51:31 · ≈ 12:51 PM

which scares me because I'm not going to support in any way because I don't want to pile on anymore work but The only thing that would be fair is if you are going to say that there's a buffer around it, that you're going to eliminate some other properties that were tagged as needing a CUP. Let's say like bordering EDRN. But when you really look at the property, the guy's growing two miles away from anybody but we're still requiring a CUP because that's what we did because we thought that was the right thing to do. But in reality it's not.

So the only fair way to do it, I would think is and I just think that's so much work. And unfortunately, that's basically requiring them to look at each and every property and make a determination which we don't have the time right now in the staff to do. So that's why I can't support changing the process. I think we have a process. It's flawed but anything we do is going to be flawed and I just assume keep moving and trying to get through this backlog that we have.

I won't be able to support it. Supervisor Hartman, you want to make a motion?

3:52 – 3:5810 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:52:48 · ≈ 12:52 PM

I do want to give priority to what we have in the pipeline and particularly in the greenhouse overlay zone where it's so concentrated in such a small community. But, the next step for me would be to get more consistency and you raise a good point. A buffer that is consistent. Again, I don't think we can do an analysis site specific and design a permit That would be a CUP what I believe Supervisor Hart is asking for evidence based on odor. So, I think we have to use the instrument we have which is probably a ban, a buffer within a certain distance and then if you have a parcel beyond that distance and you can cultivate then Maybe we're easing the permit requirements. Maybe that could be an LUP instead of a CUP, so I just like to give general direction.

The Planning Commission is gonna do what it wants to do but this is the problem and I think we've defined it in greater detail as we've spoken.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:53:56 · ≈ 12:53 PM

Okay, so was that a motion? Yeah can you articulate what word? What what direction we're giving them.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed3:54:16 · ≈ 12:54 PM

What I'm hearing from Supervisor Hartman, and that is that you'd like the Planning Commission and staff to address the issue of odor problems around the urban rural boundary. And to look at tools that might include a ban, a buffer, higher level of permitting, maybe different types of growing that happens there? Maybe it's mixed light that happens there, where you can do odor control.

So that is broad enough that we can go back and look at what the... I think it's not wise to make a decision on the exact tool in a meeting like this. That I would prefer to have it general and let us try and work it out with the planning commission and do some research.

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction3:55:08 · ≈ 12:55 PM

Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:55:09 · ≈ 12:55 PM

Yeah, I agree 100% of what Miss Plummer just said and I would also add into that conversation looking at the drying techniques involved in inland ag too because there's a lot of odor that comes from that step in the process and so add that to your toolbox

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:55:27 · ≈ 12:55 PM

And this includes the discussion in Ag 1 in the coastal zone of whether to, with some criteria, expand the CERP requirement. That would be part of the discussion.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:55:42 · ≈ 12:55 PM

Supervisor Williams I don't know what your... Could you elaborate because I didn't fully track? I think I agree but I didn't fully track.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed3:55:49 · ≈ 12:55 PM

Well I mean I am Because it is something that is such an important priority for so many people, I've wrestled with whether CUPs are good or bad in the coastal zone. I think if you apply it to everything, it's bad because it slows it down. But I could imagine a criteria under which we expand the CUP requirement on Ag One and the Coastal Zone. If we're going to have this discussion, I just want that to be in there too.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:56:28 · ≈ 12:56 PM

Supervisor Adam. Well, I hate to say this but if can we add the Planning Commission taking a look at buffer zones for or other suggestions for Protection of I mean we're jumping ahead to the conflicts here but for existing agricultural operations because that would That would solve that issue for me. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:57:00 · ≈ 12:57 PM

I think we really do need to go back to the Planning Commission and we've defined some of the problems, and I think the conflict between different agricultural crops is a very key one. I would like to add one thing to the mix if I might. I've talked to a number of people. It's important that the various growers of crops be included in this process, and so one option would be to hire a facilitator that would work out of the Ag Commissioner's office and in parallel or giving advice to the Planning Commission have an opportunity to be educated and talk to one another, and see if they can come forward. I did talk to Claire Weinman of Shipper Grower. I talked to Larry Sarlouse. I talked to John DeFriel. I talked to Sharon Merritt. There's somebody else I'm forgetting but this seemed to be a process that would enable...

One thing that Claire Weinman said that struck me is that many growers of other crops are busy growing their other crops and they don't fully understand this very complex cannabis ordinance set of ordinances. And so if we would have that process to enable people to be educated, to look at what we know scientifically about possible taint of grapes or not, what we know about how it affects tasting rooms or the experience So I would like to have that process so that we can get the best advice from our agricultural community and not just expect government to do it.

You're our only agricultural person up here.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:58 – 4:0425 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:58:57 · ≈ 12:58 PM

That's why she wants to get another one, to help us. Supervisor Adam. Okay, Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:59:08 · ≈ 12:59 PM

I think it's a really good idea.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:59:09 · ≈ 12:59 PM

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed3:59:10 · ≈ 12:59 PM

It's important.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:59:11 · ≈ 12:59 PM

So I like that idea but let's separate it because I don't like the boundaries. I can't vote for the boundary set and send back to the PC but so what you're advocating is and I would include in that like Ag Advisory Council. So what you're saying Are we hiring somebody? Because you know how long that takes. I mean, we're going to be six months down the road before we get somebody. Can't we identify somebody, Supervisor Adams?

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction3:59:36 · ≈ 12:59 PM

I can nominate Kathy Fisher because she understands the issues and we're already paying her. I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:59:44 · ≈ 12:59 PM

like

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction3:59:45 · ≈ 12:59 PM

that idea. Okay.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.853:59:48 · ≈ 12:59 PM

And the Advisory Committee didn't want this assignment and I think we need to identify other

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:59:54 · ≈ 12:59 PM

stakeholders. Kathy or do you have it in your bandwidth to take this and deal with it and bring in the affected community, and everybody discuss issues together?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed4:00:08 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Mr. Chair and other members of the board matter-of-fact I appreciate your comments but we're already working on something like that as we speak.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:00:15 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Figured. Kathy is always three steps ahead of us so that's good yeah okay so so we don't really have to We've given her direction. That's not a that's not

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction4:00:28 · ≈ 1:00 PM

a motion, Mr. Ghazani. So, Chair, I think I'm just distinguishing for purposes of the Brown Act that the Ed Commission is reporting she already has an outreach going and this is not occurring through formal direction of the board?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:00:39 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Correct.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction4:00:40 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Good.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:00:41 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Is that okay? You want to hear more about it?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:00:46 · ≈ 1:00 PM

At some point but not today.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:00:48 · ≈ 1:00 PM

Okay

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:00:49 · ≈ 1:00 PM

great

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:00:49 · ≈ 1:00 PM

all right so that's enough thank you okay so really all we're moving right now then we go back to boundaries And shoot, I don't even remember where you guys are at. You wanted to go everything? Go back to the planning commission to talk about buffers, boundaries and add conflict- An article X. An article X for odor control, okay good. You made the motion. Did you second it? Okay let's do a roll call.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction4:01:21 · ≈ 1:01 PM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Mr. Hart? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam? Aye Mr. Lavineto?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:01:28 · ≈ 1:01 PM

No

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction4:01:29 · ≈ 1:01 PM

4-1 Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:01:32 · ≈ 1:01 PM

So Oh for me, I'll tell you why because I've watched Planning Commission meetings lately and I really think we're going to get through the queue sometimes before my kids buy a house and have children So I remember, I hate to talk about the ad hoc subcommittee because it's a touchy situation. I think it was the second meeting in the Ad Hoc Subcommittee when I asked then Planning Director Diane Black Are we hiring people right now to take on this onslaught? Because I see like a year or year and a half down the road, we are going to be deluged with Planning Commission stuff, permit applications.

And it happened. So and we're just now maybe it was because the Board of Supervisors did not provide the adequate resources. And I think we have all decided that we will Provide those resources. So with that we finished up with item three

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:02:45 · ≈ 1:02 PM

Emotion, sorry so one of the ideas I brought up last week that we haven't put in a motion or or sent is to require Meteorological data and or wind study at the discretion of the director And the reason why I say at the discretion of the director Is because in some cases there's going to be three grows close enough to have one win study. I want the director to have that discretion to require that in an application and the purpose of this is for us to have some information in cases where there are nuisance complaints but people don't know Of the of the problem if we have several wind studies. I mean you can see conceivably do 3 for all of Carpinteria right? You could probably cluster in Carpinteria We'd have some better understanding of where the origin of odor is assume, you know in case All the other moves we have done hasn't solved it Okay.

And the cost of a wind study, just so that you know what we're asking people to do is about 9500 bucks. Okay.

4:04 – 4:0824 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:04:05 · ≈ 1:04 PM

I'm not sold on a wind study just because of the fact that I think you'd have to have it second by second when changes, conditions change, what happened? I never know if you're ever going to be able to point the finger at somebody. I like the fact that we have odor control being required. I am just not sold on a

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:04:23 · ≈ 1:04 PM

wind study. Mr. Buzanich had something to add to that. So,

CommentSandy BlairProposed · by introduction4:04:27 · ≈ 1:04 PM

so I don't want to add to the complexity of the discussion you're having now but I just do want to point out to the board that there are some other residual actions on the staff's recommended actions. I think what we were just doing involved recommended actions b and c. Second and third bullet points that are up on the screen currently for the folks in the room That you provided us that conceptual direction that we were going to come back You also provide some other direction around County zoning things including the county zoning ordinance including article X But it would be helpful just to have a motion on on a through A&D then Just so we have a complete record Okay let's get

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:05:05 · ≈ 1:05 PM

back to the wind study first. Well before we finish, thank you for bringing that up but Supervisor Hartman?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed4:05:11 · ≈ 1:05 PM

Yes considering how many times I've said evidence-based in science... You're going to look real bad if you don't vote for this one buddy! Thank you very much. I gotcha, I gotcha at evidence

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:05:19 · ≈ 1:05 PM

based. Second, I'll second your motion. I'm gonna start like an evidence based lunch here in a minute so alright. And you get

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:05:25 · ≈ 1:05 PM

cranky if you don't eat so we better hurry. I just wanted to ask, it would be within the director's discretion and I just wanted to ask the P&D Director if you had any insights into wind studies. Would they be helpful or is it too variable? Or is it something we need to look at?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed4:05:44 · ≈ 1:05 PM

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, I don't have a lot of personal knowledge about wind studies but I do understand from some interactions with the growers that in some cases understanding how the terpenes are traveling might be beneficial so I don't think it's a bad thing to have as a possible tool that we might want to use in certain circumstances.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:06:11 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Okay, so is that a motion, Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:06:14 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Yeah I think I made a motion and Mr. Hart seconded it. Okay, roll

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:06:16 · ≈ 1:06 PM

call.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction4:06:19 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Mr. Hart? Aye Ms. Hartman? Aye Mr. Adam? Mr. Lavendino?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:06:28 · ≈ 1:06 PM

No

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction4:06:29 · ≈ 1:06 PM

4-1

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:06:29 · ≈ 1:06 PM

Okay we're gonna go to Supervisor Hartman before he leaves though I want to point out that Mr. Sciatillo has been seated in Andy Caldwell's seat all day so I don't know what that means but it's a nice spot. I

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.854:06:49 · ≈ 1:06 PM

just wanted to go back to public comment and Mr. Freeman asked about retail, I've been now getting a lot of questions and so I would ask Mr. Bozanich if he would walk us through at the next meeting if we could get it agendized just what does the process look like? What opportunities are there at the pre-qualification level to ask for You know, community education or what we can do and what we can't do without getting into legal trouble. And just so everybody understands because there's a lot riding on this and everybody should have the same foundation. And we can get notice out that they can watch that hearing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed4:07:29 · ≈ 1:07 PM

And Supervisors our long range agenda we plan to come back to you tentatively on August 20th just to let you know.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:07:37 · ≈ 1:07 PM

Okay. So we're good? Okay. We're not done with the meeting, we're just breaking for closed session. So Mr. Allen.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction4:07:46 · ≈ 1:07 PM

I think we needed a motion on recommendations A and D.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:07:50 · ≈ 1:07 PM

Very good. Dennis brought it up and we still forgot it. All right. Recommendations A through D or- A

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:07:55 · ≈ 1:07 PM

through D. I move items A through D.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:08:03 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Moved and seconded. You're talking about these items that are up here, correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed4:08:06 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Yeah. That's A, B, C, and D in staff report. Those are exactly the same. All right, all those in favor?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:08:16 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Aye. Anybody opposed? Passes unanimously. Okay Mr. Gazzone closed session. Can you all hold your seats for just 30 seconds please?

4:08 – 5:033 turns

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction4:08:25 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Go ahead. Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board has agendized to consider two matters of existing litigation. The first is the Southern California fire cases. Second is the Sopani Group versus County of Santa Barbara. You also have conference with legal counsel for one matter of significant exposure to civil litigation and one matter of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. My estimate is that we would be back by 2 o'clock.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:08:49 · ≈ 1:08 PM

Okay, we're going to come back no earlier than 2. Hi.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed4:11:09 · ≈ 1:11 PM

You. Good morning. you Hi. Thank you. You. you You. you Hello. Hello everyone. Music The Hello. Hello, everyone. . . . . . Hmm. you You. Thank you.

5:06 – 5:1319 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:06:58 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Hello, we are back. I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gazzone can I get a report out of closed session please?

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction5:07:06 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board was agendized for four matters. Two matters of existing litigation first Southern California fire cases. The second Subani group versus county of Santa Barbara. You also had one matter of significant exposure to civil litigation and one matter of deciding whether to initiate civil litigation. There are no reportable actions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:07:27 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Okay, and then as a matter of cleanup let's go back to A-19.

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction5:07:36 · ≈ 2:07 PM

On A- 19 that's from Human Resources considering recommendations for performance based salary adjustment for the county executive officer and effective 2017 the Brown Act requires a verbal report before final action on any potential compensation increases for defined local agency executives which in this case includes the county CEO and I The matter today is for the county CEO And one item is a 2.5 percent performance based salary adjustment effective July 15th 2019 The other is a one-time lump sum retention incentive payment of $2,500 and my recommendation is that the board revote that item 819

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed5:08:13 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Okay,

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction5:08:15 · ≈ 2:08 PM

and I will read it into the record a 19 from Human Resources consider recommendations regarding a performance based salary adjustment for the county executive officer

CommentLee MoldaverProposedself-stated5:08:23 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:08:26 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Moved and seconded, and that $2500 retention is per policy of the county for those who have been in their position I believe five years. Okay, very good. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. So that brings us back out to item D4.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction5:08:50 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Item four is from Community Services. It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding fiscal year 2019-20 special tax levy for the County of Santa Barbara Community Facilities District number 2002-1. This is our community plan and for the County of Santa Barbara Community Facilities District number 2004-1 Providence Landing 3rd and 4th districts

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:09:13 · ≈ 2:09 PM

Good afternoon, Chair Lavinino and members of the board. I'd like to introduce you to Stephen Fung. He is the Cost Analyst for the Housing and Community Development Division and recent CPA for a brief presentation on the two community facility districts in the county. Thank You Ryder

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:09:32 · ≈ 2:09 PM

Good afternoon, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. Today you will be receiving a presentation on Orca and Providence Landing Community Facility District's Special Tax Levy for Fiscal Year 2019-2020. The Community Services Department annually coordinates changes to the special tax levy for Orca and Providence Landing community facilities districts. And for Orchid CFD with the adoption of this resolution, parcels within the CFD will be increased by 3.2%. Per the CFD's original resolution, the special tax is to be adjusted annually by the greater of 2% or Los Angeles CPI which in this case was 3.20%.

And for Providence Landing CFD with the adoption of this resolution Parcels within Providence Landing will remain at $672 per parcel, the same assessment as the prior year. Providence Landing has a balanced budget and adequate fund balance. As such there is no need to increase the levy at this time. Staff's recommendations are as follows. Receive the administrative report summarizing the proposed fiscal year 2019-2020 special tax levies.

Adopt the resolution levying the special taxes And certify the list of all parcels subject to the special tax levy, including the amount of the tax on each parcel and direct the clerk of the board to file a certified list with the county auditor. And determine that the levying of the special taxes are not subject to CEQA. And that is the end of my presentation. Staff will be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, are there any questions from staff?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:11:04 · ≈ 2:11 PM

I mean for staff. Seeing none, any public comment? No request to speak. Supervisor Adam?

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction5:11:17 · ≈ 2:11 PM

Well, I won't be supporting the motion because I have never been satisfied by the explanations that I've gotten about how each one of these parcels is specifically benefited. It's all spread throughout the community and we shouldn't be collecting this tax it was set up improperly I think and so I won't be supporting And that's as to the orchid fee not Providence landing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:11:56 · ≈ 2:11 PM

Yeah, I'd like some explanation. Chair Labanino to Supervisor Adam. This assessment was part of a condition development from 2002. It was voted on by the board and every year we adjust it for CPI. It funds police services, fire suppression, flood parks and a little bit for administration of the CFD. So every year we come before you to assess the CPI increase and each parcel within the CFD's boundaries.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:12:27 · ≈ 2:12 PM

So you're beefs with the O2 board that they should have never made this a condition? Right.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction5:12:31 · ≈ 2:12 PM

I mean, it's just an improper collection from one parcel and it's benefiting others. You can't tell the difference between what that money does. There is nothing special for each one of

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction5:12:45 · ≈ 2:12 PM

those parcels. Go ahead. Mr. Kuzan. Chair, Mr. Razorson. And I end up every now and then saying pretty much the same thing which is Mellow Roos, which is one of things we are talking about here was a planning tool back some 15-20 years ago It does not require precision. It does require there to not be a supplantation of services otherwise occurring in the theory 15 years ago was that but for this tax those services would be diminished for those parcels and it's not a tool that we presently use

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:13:12 · ≈ 2:13 PM

Okay, very good Sarah motion to move staffs recommendation

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.855:13:18 · ≈ 2:13 PM

so moved

5:13 – 5:1512 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:13:22 · ≈ 2:13 PM

Second second You need your thing by the way, somewhere around there. All right let's get a roll call.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction5:13:31 · ≈ 2:13 PM

Mr. Williams? Aye. Mr. Hart? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye! Mr. Adam? No. Mr Lavinino? Aye Passes 4-1

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:13:39 · ≈ 2:13 PM

Okay let's move to item number 5

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction5:13:44 · ≈ 2:13 PM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Item five also from community services is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the consumer price index adjustment for fiscal year 2019-2020 library special tax rate for county service area number three. This is in the second and third districts.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed5:14:03 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Good afternoon once again chair and supervisors I will once again introduce Stephen Fung to give this brief presentation Thank You Ryder

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed5:14:12 · ≈ 2:14 PM

Good afternoon Chair Lavanino and members of the board. Today you will be receiving a presentation on the CSA 3 library measure L special tax levies for fiscal year 2019-2020. The Community Services Department annually coordinates changes to special tax levy for CSA 3 libraries by Los Angeles CPI, and for fiscal year 2019-2020 with adoption of this resolution parcels within CSA3 will be increased by three point eight percent.

The Los Angeles CPI for the 2018 calendar year This increase will result in total assessments of approximately $203,000 and a $1,000 increase from the prior year. Staff's recommendations are as follows. Adopt the resolution that confirms the report and increases the fiscal year 2019-2020 library special tax rate in CSA 3 by 3.8% and determine that adoption of the resolution is not subject to CEQA.

In addition, I want to bring to your attention that we found a typo on the resolution on Attachment 2 which referenced the prior fiscal year instead of the current year. We have since corrected the typo and have provided an updated resolution to the Clerk of the Board prior to this meeting. And that concludes my presentation and staff will be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:15:25 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Is there any public comment on this issue?

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction5:15:27 · ≈ 2:15 PM

No request to

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:15:28 · ≈ 2:15 PM

speak. Can I get a motion?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.855:15:30 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Move staff's recommendation.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:15:33 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Second. Do we need a roll call or we were good. Okay, all those in favor aye any opposed. Passes unanimously. All right let's go to item number 6.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction5:15:46 · ≈ 2:15 PM

Chair Lavagnino members of the board Item number six is from community services as well it's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the community choice energy updated feasibility study results

5:16 – 5:2511 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed5:16:04 · ≈ 2:16 PM

Good afternoon Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. We're returning to you today to provide you an update on Community Choice Energy or CCE as it's known and to provide some options for the board for consideration. Ashley Watkins who is the division chief for the Sustainability Division will make a presentation. Pacific Energy Advisory our CCE consultants couldn't be here so we do have Jen Krieger here. Jen was the staff person who spearheaded this effort so Jen is here for any technical questions We have Tom Habashi, who's the CEO of Monterey Bay Clean Power. Tom is sitting up front as well as J.R. Killegrew. And JR is the Director of Communications and Energy Programs for Monterey Bay Clean Power. So with that I will turn this over to Ashley.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:16:52 · ≈ 2:16 PM

Good afternoon Chair Lovenino, members of the board. During today's presentation I'll provide some quick background information on CCE, review the results of the most recent CCE feasibility study, analyze some options for the Board's consideration and then take Board direction on how you'd like to move forward with Community Choice Energy or CCE. As a refresher, CCE enables local governments to purchase or generate power on behalf of their communities and set some customer rates.

These activities have typically been conducted by the investor owned utilities. With CCE, the IOUs are still responsible for delivering that electricity purchased or generated as well as with billing customers. Customers who do not want to participate in a CCE program can opt out and stay with incumbent utility. CCE programs are typically created to achieve certain policy goals such as providing greater control over local energy decisions, increasing the amount of renewable energy delivered to customers, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, providing the opportunity for Local renewable energy projects which can also help with resiliency issues, as well as generating funding for sustainability programs such as incentivizing adoption of electric vehicles.

Sometimes CCE programs can also help customers save money. Those bill savings can be used to be spent on other goods and services which can stimulate the economy. There's some jobs that could be created through CCE as well, typically jobs that relate to running the CCE program. There may also be some job creation and economic stimulation It comes from the energy programs or sustainability programs that the CCE offers, typically contracting related jobs.

It's difficult to achieve all of these policy goals, so defining which policy goals are most important can really help determine the best path forward with CCE. I also wanted to mention that the ability to achieve some of these policy goals hinges on whatever the current regulatory or market conditions are as well as the fiscal health of the CCE program. We have a bit of history with Community Choice Energy here in Santa Barbara. The board first directed staff to explore regional interest in CCE back in 2015.

Staff presented the results of a tri-county CCE feasibility study to the board in October 2017, and at that time there were no financially viable options for CCE at a regional level. Since that time Ventura County and its cities have moved forward with joining Clean Power Alliance. And the cities of Morro Bay and San Luis Obispo have joined Monterey Bay Community Power or MBCP.

Several other cities in SLO have also taken steps to join MBCP, while the County of San Luis Obispo and the City of Atascadero have deferred action to date. A follow up study for Santa Barbara County and all its eligible cities was conducted by Pacific Energy Advisors or PEA with positive results presented to the board in July 2018. In response, the board directed staff to move forward with formation of a CCE joint powers authority or JPA with interested cities.

Staff conducted outreach to all the cities within Santa Barbara County, but only south county cities committed to forming a CCEJPA. Shortly after formation plans began several issues emerged that raised concerns regarding the applicability of the previous PEA study. Staff decided that Staff decided to pause formation plans and asked PEA to take a look at updating the feasibility study to assess the impacts of several things.

Expected increases to exit fees that are typically charged to utility customers, When they depart to a CCE, changes to PG&E and Edison generation rates. Those generation rates are what a CCE compares itself against and these rates have been fluctuating quite a bit recently. Increased competition due to direct access program which is sort of similar to CCE. It's operated by private companies and And then accelerated state renewable and GHG free electricity goals. And then finally we also asked them to look at the lack of North County participation and its effects on the feasibility study.

The updated feasibility study looked specifically at the county as well as the cities of Santa Barbara, Carpinteria and Goleta. PEA modeled a local CCE program that would provide cleaner electricity than PG&E and SCE at competitive rates. The electricity mix was modeled at 85% GHG free which assumes 75% GHG free for Edison territory. And 100% GHG free for PG&E. And the reason for that is that we expect that SCE will be offering around 50% GHG free at the time of a local program launch, and that PG& E would be somewhere around 100% GHC free energy.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:23:04 · ≈ 2:23 PM

I have a question on that. How did those percentages differ from what the state has mandated PG&

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:23:12 · ≈ 2:23 PM

So the state has actually mandated all load serving entities, so CCEs as well as utilities. You need to get to 60% renewable energy by 2030 and then GHG free 100% by 2045.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:23:29 · ≈ 2:23 PM

So on that side of things I'm thinking if you stayed with PG&E you're still going to get those benefits correct? Everybody has to be there no matter what.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:23:40 · ≈ 2:23 PM

Everybody has to be there by 2030 for renewable and 2045 for GHG-free. And just to clarify, so renewables refers specifically to the state's definition of what qualifies for the Renewable Portfolio Standard and then that's usually solar or wind and then GHG free includes solar, wind as well as large hydro and nuclear. So over a 12-year study period, the study looks at estimates for the cost to purchase power, costs to operate the CCE, any costs obtained financing for startup and operation. And then it also estimates funds needed to establish a reserve fund that can help mitigate any sort of increases in power costs or IOU exit fees.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:24:36 · ≈ 2:24 PM

One more thing before we leave that slide. So that just caught my attention a little bit when you said 85% is GHG free and we get to count nuclear, but we're closing down all the nuclear facilities here so basically we're going to say it's okay to get nuclear as long as it's not in California. It counts as renewable or it counts as GHG free but we got to get it from somewhere else.

So we're kind of nimbying the nuclear a little bit

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:25:05 · ≈ 2:25 PM

I mean, I understanding part of the reason why they're closing down Diablo is cost related.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:25:09 · ≈ 2:25 PM

No, I get all that it's just it's funny that you can't count it. The state of California won't let you count it as renewable but we were okay with like alright let's get it as long as you got a nuclear facility in state of Washington or something will bring in the power.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:25:23 · ≈ 2:25 PM

The other place that people are getting GHG free is large hydro so it's not all nuclear

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:25:29 · ≈ 2:25 PM

which California doesn't support either yeah all right

5:25 – 5:3915 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:25:38 · ≈ 2:25 PM

So in the updated study, PEA finds that a local CCE program remains viable under the revised conditions. However, the financial position of the CCE program is less favorable. If the CCE program were to set rates equal to the IOUs Operating margins are expected to turn positive in the third year of operation as opposed to the first year in the original study.

In addition to that, initial startup financing wouldn't be paid off until Year 11 versus Year 2 in the original study. Because of those early year operating losses, the initial financing for the program will likely require some form of credit enhancement provided by the county as well as other JPA members. PEA estimates costs of up to $9 million to launch and begin operation of the CCE.

All CCE programs establish a reserve fund to help protect against increases in energy costs or utility exit fees. Industry standard for that reserve fund is to contribute 4% of operating revenue on an annual basis, Ultimately moving towards a target of having 40% of your total operating revenue. In the case of the CCE program that was modeled by PEA, to keep rates equal to those of the utility, the reserve funds are below that industry standard of 4% for the first several years of operation.

And the target for that 40% fund balance doesn't reach 40% until year 11. So those factors could have a couple of different outcomes, you know one would be that it could take time to actually launch Sustainability programs or local energy projects. And then you'd have less cushion in that fund balance, especially in the first few years to weather those price shocks like an increase in exit fees from the utilities or higher energy costs.

The financial reserve and financing challenges could be mitigated by charging higher rates. If the CCE program were to design rates to fully recover costs and fund the financial reserves using those industry best practices, PEA estimates that CCE rates would need to be about 3% higher on average than the IOU generation rates at least for the first four years of the program then they would drop down be either equal or lower to the IOU rates.

The financing challenges could also be mitigated by offering electricity service to residential customers first before offering it to lower margin commercial customers because of the way that residential rates are structured there is More opportunity for financial margin. So that would allow the CCE to have a little bit better financial position, although I would mention that while the majority of customer accounts in the territory studied are residential they only make up about 26% of the total electricity historically delivered by the IOUs so you're losing out on Carbon free benefit for the remainder of those customers.

In addition to a local CCE program, the board could also consider joining an existing CCE program. Clean Power Alliance is not interested in adding any jurisdictions To their CCE until 2022 and they'll likely focus on other cities within LA County. However, Monterey Bay Community Power or MBC has expressed a strong interest in unifying the Central Coast under one CCE program. And they'd be willing to rebrand with a more central coast theme.

They've been in operation for about 18 months. I think service began in early 2018. They originally launched with the counties of Santa Cruz, San Benito, Monterey and their unincorporated cities. And as I mentioned some cities in San Luis Obispo have since joined or have taken some form of action to join. I wanted to point out one error on the slide. Monterey Bay Community Power, as of February I believe had 57 million in their reserve funds they just gave me an updated number. As of June, they actually have around 70 million in their reserve fund. So if you compare that to the numbers that you're looking at in the CCE study that was done for a local program, we get to 77 million in reserves funds in 2031. So there's something to think about.

They do currently contribute about 2% of their revenue into local energy programs. I believe that they may be changing how much they actually put into those local energy programs once they hit their target reserve. Their target reserve amount is actually 50% of operating revenue. They also have programs available that they've launched. Specific examples of sustainability programs include offering a net metering rate for customers with solar on their roofs, A little bit more than double what the utilities offer.

And they also have a program that pairs local jurisdictions with engineering, design and contracting support in an effort to establish more microgrid projects. There's no cost to join Monterey Bay Community Power but we would need to provide some funds to update their implementation plan. The implementation plan is a CCE's Sort of outline for how they will serve customers and so they need to update that plan and submit that to the California Public Utilities Commission for certification.

We'd also need to provide some funds to update their JPA agreement to include the county of Santa Barbara. They're estimating that costs would range to around 5,000 to 7500 to cover those updates. The next couple of slides analyze the options available to the board for consideration. We've included the option of not moving forward with a CCE program, but for today's discussion we'll focus specifically on option one, a local CCE and option two joining MBCP.

So costs to stand up a local CCE program are substantial in comparison to joining Monterey Bay Community Power We've included costs, estimates for a residential only program as well as a program that serves all customers. We estimate that if we were to form a JPA with cities that we wouldn't be able to launch until 2022. That's primarily due to the time it would take to negotiate a JPA agreement.

If we decided that we wanted to go county only, I think we could probably get to 2021. But I think our risk Would change slightly in that scenario and we'll talk a little bit more about it, that in the next slide. A local CCE program provides the most control and the most opportunity for local control but that local control is slowly being eroded at the state level.

They are as CCEs are proliferating they're starting to want to exert more control Over CCEs, trying to level the playing field between CCEs and investor owned utilities. And so we're seeing efforts to exert more control over CCE's. That local control is going to be further limited as you move towards a JPA with more members like you would have with Monterey Bay Community Power.

With the local program, rates would either stay the same or be slightly higher if we were to go the route of trying to recover all of our costs. As opposed to staying at rate parity with the utilities. In the MBCP option, they estimate that for 2021 rates would go down in both utility territories. But rates are going to fluctuate based on market conditions as well as the potential for IOU exit fees to increase.

In terms of job creation, we think that there's minimal job creation in both scenarios. Primarily jobs created to run the CCE program and as I mentioned earlier some job creation related to the contracting industry if you've got local programs that are incentivizing things like building decarbonization. As I mentioned earlier, there's two ways to look at the greenness of energy. Renewable or GHG-free.

The local CCE program is modeled to provide cleaner electricity in terms of renewable content when compared with Monterey Bay Community Power's default option. However a local CCE's electricity mix is ultimately going to depend on what that JPA board decides Once the JPA is formed so that could change. I did also want to mention that Monterey Bay Community Power Also has an option for opting up to 100% in-state renewable energy 50% solar, 50% wind So that's an option for the board to consider How

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:36:47 · ≈ 2:36 PM

does that work? Okay, so they're gonna tell us they're gonna give us a hundred percent how come we can't get that now? I mean nobody can get that. How do you how do you get a hundred? So they're going to provide 100 percent wind or solar to all of us in the Monterey Bay plant who request

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:37:05 · ≈ 2:37 PM

it. It would be dependent on who opts into that, you can request to opt-in. It

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed5:37:10 · ≈ 2:37 PM

would cost more to do to get that. What's that? It would cost more to get that mixed. Yeah okay alright

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:37:16 · ≈ 2:37 PM

so the other thing in that box I don't understand is how come if we're in no CCE we're doing better With better renewable percentages than if we moved to Monterey Bay. I

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:37:25 · ≈ 2:37 PM

thought that was an upgrade. You're correct, you're doing better in terms of renewables but not in terms of GHG free so it's really sort of comes down to that definition. Well in

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:37:36 · ≈ 2:37 PM

PG&E territory I am at 99%.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:37:38 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Right you are at 99% and you are doing slightly better.

CommentLee MoldaverProposed · by introduction5:37:43 · ≈ 2:37 PM

Okay.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:37:43 · ≈ 2:37 PM

I think it ultimately comes down to, as you mentioned earlier, ultimately everyone's going to have to comply with the Renewable Portfolio Standard. Maybe the benefit with Monterey Bay Community Power is the programs that would be available immediately upon joining.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:38:03 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Explain those to me real quick.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:38:06 · ≈ 2:38 PM

So right now, as I mentioned they've got the increased net metering rate that they pay to customers with solar. They've also got the micro grid program and then as I understand it each year The policy board That's part of the JPA makes decisions about what programming they will fund on a yearly basis so whoever is Whoever from our board that would have a seat on the JPA Board would have a say in developing what that looks like for future years.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:38:44 · ≈ 2:38 PM

Supervisor Williams? Well, I'd just love to know a little bit more about the microgrid program. So this is essentially an opportunity for Business owners or government to do some smaller scale distributed generation and some batteries, and have a tariff on it or something? Tell me what.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:39:08 · ≈ 2:39 PM

My understanding is it would be rate-based back to the customers, but I'd let Monterey Bay Community Power speak about it in more

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:39:18 · ≈ 2:39 PM

detail. When you do talk, I'd love to hear about that and I'd love to hear your projection of where you'll have your renewable mix in the year that we potentially would join 2021 because obviously that's probably better than it is right now.

5:39 – 5:466 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed5:39:38 · ≈ 2:39 PM

If I may, Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors, I wanted to clarify a little bit on the percentages that you see on the screen in the top row. The difference between the renewable and the GHG-free. These are projections for 2021 assuming that would be the year that generally a CCE program under each of these three options would launch or would not. And the under the option to for for Monterey Bay community power and I certainly can they can speak to it in a bit as well.

But 34% renewables where they are as of today, I have not seen projections public projections for where they would be in 2021 but they do have a commitment to be 100% GHG free or carbon free. Whereas option three, the no CCE alternative. That is what the utilities have publicly filed that they would be at in 2021 and both in terms of their RPS compliant renewables and their GHG free content.

So they're both projecting to be ahead of where the RPS requires that they be by a wider margin than where Monterey Bay is above the RPS requirement today.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:40:51 · ≈ 2:40 PM

So in terms of local generation, we think utility scale solar projects which are those that feed directly in the grid. That the path to those is a bit longer and less likely in the short term. That could change if we address some of the barriers that have been identified as part of the strategic energy plan process. distributed generation which is on-site generation. Those projects we think that there's, that that's much more likely for a local CCE program but that really again would depend on the financial health of the CCE program Local programs are a possibility with both options.

But again, the financial situation of the CCE is going to drive whether and when the JPA decides to move forward with offering those local programs. With Monterey Bay Community Power they've indicated that the programs that they offer Would be available to customers immediately upon joining. We estimate that fiscal risk would be high if the county were to go this alone.

If it were to form a JPA with other cities, that risk would be spread amongst those cities. In the Monterey Bay Community Power option, again the JPA shields member agencies from some risk. I'll let County Council chime in if they want to clarify what risks might not be covered and that risk would be spread across a larger number of jurisdictions. Additionally, because Monterey Bay Community Power has substantial reserves and revenues they would be in a better position to withstand those potential price shocks like the exit fee increases and increases in generation rates that we spoke of earlier.

In closing, we are seeking your board's direction on whether to move forward with option one, continue engagement with interested cities to form a JPA to create and administer a new CCE program. Option two, discontinue formation of a new JPA and instead join an existing JPA, Monterey Bay Community Power Authority, to provide a CCE program Or option three, discontinue JPA formation and not implement a CCE program at this time.

Staff is available to take questions and Monterey Bay Power is also available to answer questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:43:47 · ≈ 2:43 PM

All right, questions from the board? Supervisor Hart? What is the status of the other communities in our county in relation to joining Monterey Bay Power? Where are they?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:43:58 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Thank you for bringing that up because I actually wanted to make the board aware of a couple different things. So, I think there is potential interest in joining Monterey Bay Community Power from the cities of Carpinteria and Goleta. The city of Santa Barbara has a CCE subcommittee. They've been exploring forming their own local CCE program that would serve the city only.

That City Council subcommittee Seems to have a lot of support for that option of forming its own CCE program. And so if the city were to go that route, again forming our own JPA we'd have fewer members to spread risk across and fewer members to spread costs across. Guadalupe recently agendized MBCP as a potential option to move forward with CCE. They deferred action until the county has made a decision, the same has happened in Santa Maria and there hasn't really been much response from the City of Solvang or Buellton in terms of what their plans would be for CCE.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:45:10 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Thank you. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:45:13 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Well, I just to check. I've been trying to check in with city staff and of course cities staff cannot answer where the subcommittee will move to but what they did articulate to me was where that their previous calculations have been in their previous You know strategy on this too is I'd I don't want the city not to be able to proceed because we didn't do it with them.

And they are a significant load and partially because of. It essentially I just feel like we ought to at least make sure that both of us can proceed forward in some form But that the calculations had not included us in their last calculations, or they had not.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:46 – 5:5725 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:46:21 · ≈ 2:46 PM

So I have a couple questions about what's the, and the other ones are maybe in the Monterey area, what's the opt out rate right now? Or do we know that?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:46:30 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Opt out rate is typically less than 10%. It may be lower in Monterrey Bay community power.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:46:37 · ≈ 2:46 PM

Okay. And I'm looking at the PG&E website and it kind of shows you how to, I mean if people want to opt out they can't talk to PG& E. They have to talk to Monterey Bay to opt out correct?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:46:48 · ≈ 2:46 PM

There's multiple mailers that go out to customers at different times. If a county or city were to join existing CC, it might be wise to do some additional outreach to make sure that customers fully understand what's happening but yes they do have the option to opt-out.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:47:11 · ≈ 2:47 PM

Okay, so I was very opposed at the beginning when we were talking about $9 million and those types of numbers at $7500. It's really taken a lot of the pain out of this but it still seems strange to me that we're not getting a bigger bang for our buck. Because what I still can't figure out is how different is this, how different is a CCA than just checking the box on my PG&E bill that says go 100% solar.

because I'm on the PG& E website right now and it tells me it's comparing PG&B bill to PG&Solar choice was 100% renewable which is more expensive and then it goes to Monterey County MB choice which 100% carbon free The PG&E bill and the 100% carbon free are the same. And then if you go to Monterey Bay Prime, which is 100% renewable, it's kind of right in the area where the PG& E solar choice 100% renewable is. So what's the difference between just me checking the box saving 7500 bucks?

And I have zero risk at that point as opposed to medium to low risk.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:48:27 · ≈ 2:48 PM

I think there's a couple of things. I mean, I think number one local programming and the ability to have some sort of voice when it comes to the development of that local programming.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:48:36 · ≈ 2:48 PM

So that's one of the questions I have so local programming do you mean local programming is building local projects here?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:48:43 · ≈ 2:48 PM

I'm mostly, potentially if you're looking at something like the micro grid project. But I'm also talking about things like incentivizing building decarbonization or incentivizing transportation. Monterey Bay Community Power has a program that they're operating in their original territory to increase the infrastructure for electric vehicles. They were able to use some of their funds to leverage additional funding from the Energy Commission.

They do have the ability to access public goods funds charges from the state, to be able to develop additional energy efficiency programs. So you have a lot more flexibility when it comes to the programming.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:49:28 · ≈ 2:49 PM

Well, maybe and that's something for Monterey Bay to answer as well because I'd be really interested in hearing about that part. Because when it comes to really actually building renewable projects locally, I know how it is when we try to build anything locally. I'm not counting on any renewable projects. Okay, but I think we're maxed out there already on what we can almost close no

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:49:50 · ≈ 2:49 PM

or

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:49:50 · ≈ 2:49 PM

not? No. So you guys are willing to build projects in Cuyama?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:49:55 · ≈ 2:49 PM

Absolutely. All right, man we found a spot. I mean this is an issue at the same time as Cuyama is going to have to over time reduce pumping dramatically and so in some ways it... And that is a painful, painful exercise for the economy of Cuyama

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:50:22 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Wait a second, and that's based on a state law about groundwater management. Yeah,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:50:29 · ≈ 2:50 PM

I mean the pain is either now or later pain right you know but the the pain would be decreased of course by more solar investment which there is as I understand it still room in the distribution network for more and definitely plenty of landowners that are willing to lease land for it.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:50:56 · ≈ 2:50 PM

Okay Yeah, interested. If you could just state your name and position.

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated5:51:05 · ≈ 2:51 PM

Good afternoon. My name is Tom Habashi, I'm the Chief Executive Officer with Monterey Bay Community Power. I jotted down a few questions here that you've asked earlier but I want to start with the last question first which is we do match our rates with PG&E exactly but we do have at the end of the year provide rebate for the customer just to give you a very quick Understanding of our financial picture, at least for this fiscal year that will end September 30th.

We are estimating that our revenue will be somewhere around $250 million. Our cost total cost will be about 175 million dollars leaving us with about 75 million dollars net margin that 75 million will be split in three ways 2% of our operating of our mark of our revenue, which is about 5 million dollars its programs so that Money is dedicated program, even if we don't spend it rolls to next year.

Somewhere around $13 million of that 75 will be given back to the customer in form of rebates that is going to be equal about 5.6% of the total revenue so basically At the end of the year around November time frame, whatever the customer paid us throughout the year. Multiply that by 5.6 and that becomes a rebate that goes back to the customer to lower their bills. Finally, the larger chunk of that dollar figure which is 50 plus million dollars will go into reserves.

By the end of this fiscal year, by September 30th we are anticipating that we're going to have $95 million in our reserve fund which equals somewhere around 55% of total operating expenses. Our target is 50%, not 55 so we pretty much Going to be above target by the end of this fiscal year. We can go up to 75% if we want to or as low as 30%. We'll see how it goes, of course if next year in 2020 will be bringing in San Luis Obispo as well as Morro Bay. If we are bringing in a group of cities and agencies in 2021 including The four cities in San Luis Obispo that already approved resolution and if you are, if you were to join us then there will be the County of Santa Barbara. Then we're probably going to need some of those reserves to build up by the year 2021 That perhaps give you just a quick picture about our finances.

You asked questions about nuclear power, I want to let you know that we don't have that in our mix. We do not source nuclear power only renewable resources or eligible renewable resources which by the way some of them do have greenhouse gas emission by fuel biogas. And large hydro, that's it to make up 100%. Roughly in the last two years we've hit a target of 102% of carbon free in our service territory.

Program funding as I mentioned earlier it's been set at 2% of revenue total revenue. In the first year of operation it was about three and half million dollars second year is about five million dollars We spend some of it, we still have quite a bit left and we have a number of programs that we can talk about for another half an hour if you folks have the time.

And finally just quickly about the mixed resources for 2021 We are always at the state required renewal portfolio standards. We meet that percent with California renewable resources or ones that could be scheduled into our grid, and the rest we get from Lodge Hydro. That's been the stated goal. However, we have customers that did ask for 100% eligible renewable Namely The aquarium they don't like Dams and therefore they don't like anything. That's hydro you said

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:55:33 · ≈ 2:55 PM

dams not Dems

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated5:55:34 · ≈ 2:55 PM

dams

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:55:35 · ≈ 2:55 PM

I really thought he said dams. I'm like, whoa

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated5:55:37 · ≈ 2:55 PM

And Therefore we have 100% Eligible renewable resources serving Serving the aquarium if any of the cities and In Santa Barbara required that they want to be served only with eligible renewable resources We'll definitely will do that. We'll just buy more of those resources Just cost a little more so you should be okay If you if you find what we're spending a little bit more, we'll we'll do that otherwise if you go with what's available Then we are or you are at a hundred percent carbon free resources.

And last thing that I wanted to share with you is the opt-out where less than 5% total opt out either by load, or by number of customers, or by demand.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:56:32 · ≈ 2:56 PM

And that's residential and commercial?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated5:56:34 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Yes Very good. I'll stand by to answer any questions, if you have any question about what programs are we offering then more than happy to ask JR to step up and talk about it.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:56:49 · ≈ 2:56 PM

A couple more questions. Now I think this is more for Mr. Gazzone or staff or somebody but so who's responsible for the maintenance and replacement of transmission lines? Is it still PG&E has to cover all that?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:57:00 · ≈ 2:57 PM

The utility is still responsible for transmission and infrastructure.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:57:03 · ≈ 2:57 PM

And then what happens, so I'm trying to figure out what are you said medium to low risk? So where does the risk come in because if I have none with not with the way we are now well Where's the risk come in?

5:57 – 6:0520 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:57:22 · ≈ 2:57 PM

So I think you know They do have substantial reserves to cover those potential price shocks, but...

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:57:33 · ≈ 2:57 PM

So that's what it is. Market fluctuation

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction5:57:35 · ≈ 2:57 PM

of rates? It's more based on market fluctuation. I mean, I do think there's some looking at just purely legal risk. I don't know if Mr. Gazzone wants to talk about that. We'll

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:57:47 · ≈ 2:57 PM

let Mr. Gazzone tackle that one. What's our legal risk, Mr. Gazzone?

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction5:57:52 · ≈ 2:57 PM

Chair and supervisors, I think that in our workup with the Auditor's Office and CSD we had a couple fingers up in the air. One for market risk, one for regulatory risk, a form of legal risk if the market changes. PG&E as one provider right now has a bankruptcy ongoing. It's not clear how that will work out. And then we divide the world into contract liability, which a joint powers authority may shield its members from. Or tort liability, which actually passes through to the members and those would be your basic liabilities.

Okay and then,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:58:31 · ≈ 2:58 PM

shoot I had one more question that really worried me and I gotta think of what it is now. All right it'll come to me as we go

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:58:39 · ≈ 2:58 PM

to Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:58:39 · ≈ 2:58 PM

Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:58:40 · ≈ 2:58 PM

I had a question or two for Mr. Habashi. If I understand it right, you were saying that your reserves are in the $50 million range now going up to $90 million at the end of the fiscal year?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated5:58:52 · ≈ 2:58 PM

As of May 31st, I believe it was about $70 million and by the end of September we expected it to be 95.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:59:03 · ≈ 2:59 PM

And as you add these additional cities and counties, your reserve requirements will go up. So you'll continue because you were on track without adding those other counties to get to the point where you had met your reserve requirements and The money that was being allocated for reserves and keep that internal to the program, to increase programs or increase rebates to customers. Whatever the board was to decide, right?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated5:59:28 · ≈ 2:59 PM

Yeah once we reach the target level of reserves, the idea would be to take all the net margin and spread it between programs and rebates unless the board tells us- Right. Depending

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:59:41 · ≈ 2:59 PM

on the policy

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated5:59:41 · ≈ 2:59 PM

of the work force

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed5:59:42 · ≈ 2:59 PM

So then let me understand, help me understand how long it's going to take to get to the place where you are now. How much longer will it take to accumulate enough reserves to accommodate the increased number of customers? The reason I'm asking and go all the way to the end so maybe you can answer shorter than I can ask it which is You're on track right now to be able to significantly increase programs and or rebates to customers. We're going to stall that by joining in, how long will it take to get back to that place so we can have a sense of how long it'll take before the rebates come back to us? So that we can theoretically raise the renewable content and keep everybody cost neutral, or have a significant investment in local projects along that path.

So are we talking about two, three years? What are your

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:00:29 · ≈ 3:00 PM

expectations for San Luis Obispo in the next year? Luckily, given where we are today and the anticipated increase in demand when we bring in San Luis Obispo, Morro Bay, then the four cities after that and the county if you folks were to come along. We're going to be there in 2021 so when you join will be at more than 50% of operating expenses even with At that point, we can do whatever we want with any net margin that we have.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:01:05 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Okay and that's great news. That really helps this equation and sweetens the pot. So will you anticipate getting to a place where we could have 100% renewable GHG portfolio? And have that be cost neutral to SCE customers and PG&E customers in our county as an option As opposed to increasing investment in local programs or giving customers rebates. Would that be a third choice in that portfolio, potentially?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:01:38 · ≈ 3:01 PM

Certainly we're hoping to be able to do more on the renewable side. We're going to do it most likely with long-term arrangements. A signatory to three different agreements now, all of them are between 15 to 20 years long. All three combined constitute somewhere around 22% of our total demand. All of them are renewable resources when solar plus storage we About to engage in negotiations with five different suppliers that we've We requested. We put an R4 out and got proposals, and now we're going to engage in negotiations To the extent that we get All what? We are out to get roughly we're gonna go to roughly about 40% of our total demand will be coming from long-term Long-term supplies all of them start in 2021 just around the time when you when you come in so we are increasing our portfolio of renewable resources solar and wind specifically and still Looking even better because believe it or not.

Yeah, when we did the calculations based on short term arrangements that we can make The folks that live in the Southern California Edison didn't have that much of a margin. It's very slim as you probably got from Ashley. However, when we engage and buy into long-term resources those come out cheaper than the short term market plus attributes that will bring the renewables that we need. So generally I think By going into long term arrangements, we should be able to not only meet the RPS but also save money that will at least bring the Southern California Edison folks a parity with Southern California Edison.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:03:41 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Okay, thank you. And then what is your sense about the ability to invest in local distributed renewable energy projects, the microgrid projects in our county and particularly in the Edison territory of the whole county? What is your sense of that ability? That's something, we have a significant resiliency problem in South County being at the end of both electrical plugs. Both Edison and both PG&E. And so that resiliency problem in particular is acute down here in Santa Barbara-Galita Carpentria.

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:04:16 · ≈ 3:04 PM

Yeah, I think as soon as we heard from PG&E that they will begin to look at shutting people off for three to five days at a time. We immediately thought that we need to be looking at all the facilities that we have in our service territory do an inventory Especially of fire station police stations hospitals any facility with a critical load. We have a lot of ag as you probably have some Here in Santa Barbara and those folks use Refrigeration, and they definitely don't want to see the power out for three five days in a row so we are Running an inventory of all those customers and we will be going out there and talk to them one by one. To see what we can do in order to put in a combination of solar plus batteries or even just batteries, Handle the resiliency problem what we will try to do with that program is to the best extent that we can make it happen.

We'll make itself funded So if we can recover some of the cost of putting these resources at the customer site Via a rate slightly rate increase then we will do that this way that program will eventually fund itself in the long term once you join and And between the time between now and 2020 21, which is when we actually begin to serve your customers We will be talking to you as well As long as we are able to recover The last question is about governance.

not transcribed≈23s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:06 – 6:1928 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:06:12 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Additional cities are joining that may have to be revisited the cities above 50,000 people have a vote counties. Have a single vote

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:06:22 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Yeah, it's gonna

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:06:24 · ≈ 3:06 PM

continue

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:06:25 · ≈ 3:06 PM

yeah That seems to be the preference of our board each county will have a single vote each city about 50,00 will have a single vote and Then we lump in the smaller cities together in twos and threes, and they will have a single vote. There's no percentages to the votes, it's just one person, one vote. We have 12 people on the board today with the addition of the folks from San Luis Obispo that added one more seat.

If you were to join, then you will have a seat. A permanent seat. If the entire county joins or all the other cities would join, then Santa Maria will have a seat, Santa Barbara will have a seat, and then the rest of five cities will probably be put together in two different seats. So it would have five seats on the board if the entire county were to join. The County of San Luis Obispo also, if they all joined along with their cities, they'll have four seats Currently the county of Monterey has five seats and the county of Santa Cruz has four with all the cities, of course. And San Bernardino has two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:07:36 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Thank you.

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:07:37 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:07:39 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Thank you. Your discussion about microgrids in the light of power shutoffs really got my attention because the utilities, the investor-owned utilities are just saying we're shutting down good luck and the county is saying we don't have really the funding to go out and provide generators and even figure out where they all are needed so that to me is a very powerful argument I had a couple of questions though, not just comments. The first is I saw in the letter that went to the City of Santa Maria that a name change would be in order so we could identify with it if in fact we joined, so it's not just Monterey?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:08:23 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Yeah, I think that there is something that our chair recognized would be needed. Now that we have six cities in San Luis Obispo and potentially the county of Santa Barbara and other states from Santa Barbara, we actually have locked in A whole bunch of domain names, all of them had a bunch of CCs in them. Because eventually if we go into a name change it will be a Central Coast something.

But Central Coast will be the dominant theme in that name.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:08:58 · ≈ 3:08 PM

And back to governance, I think you described the JPA board but you also have a level of staff people and advisory. Could you discuss that a bit?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:09:10 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Sure we actually have two boards not one which is quite unique in our world. There's the policy board which is made up of elected officials and the operations board made up of city managers as well as executive directors. The policy board meets four times a year On quarterly basis and they handle great redesign budgets things of that nature very high level and basic policies that we've entered into when we started operation.

The operations board handle a lot of the day-to-day stuff that we do, and they meet eight times per year. So between the two boards we get one meeting a month. We have an advisory board or advisory council that's made up of folks that the policy board appointed. They are a little bit more technical, they get a little bit more involved. Most of their involvement tends to be in the program side and they help us there quite a bit. They meet once a month, we have a Risk Oversight Committee, not the risk that you're accustomed to but it's ENERGY Risk Oversight Committee and that is a committee of the staff really, so it does its business behind closed doors.

Just to look at the energy risks that we face and look at everything that we do, look at the market, look at all the different risks that we need to be dealing with. And we also have an executive committee made up of three policy board members, two operations board members, and finally we have audit and finance Committee that's made up of two operations board member and one policy board member. I think I got a moment.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:10:56 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Thank you, I'm not sure I can remember all of that but we if we did join and we were on the board we would have an opportunity for someone to be appointed to the advisory committee is that correct?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:11:09 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Of course yeah it depends right now we have the advisory council Apportioned is the same way as each one of the boards. So if the county along with all the cities were to join in, then you would have five people that you could appoint to the advisory

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:11:28 · ≈ 3:11 PM

board. One of the real goals we had or hoped for was jobs, local hire. How have you addressed that?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:11:41 · ≈ 3:11 PM

Our goals or our objectives are very clear and they're probably number one, two or three in JPA. One is greenhouse gas reduction, two is lower rates and three is local jobs and local investments. Obviously anything that we do on the transportation side of the aisle as well as the building side which we are focusing on heavily as things that we need to do in order to reduce greenhouse gas We'll bring in local jobs, anybody to go and change appliances in your house, turn them into electric that requires special different skills. And that means jobs for somebody that can do that work.

If we do any local generation and we're about to engage in negotiations with One supplier for something a little less than 30 megawatts of utility scale. That's going to be done locally. It's been recommended to be put in Monterey County, so that's- And

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:12:46 · ≈ 3:12 PM

local hire requirements you mean? Or

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:12:50 · ≈ 3:12 PM

placement

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:12:50 · ≈ 3:12 PM

of this facility?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:12:52 · ≈ 3:12 PM

That probably will be a difficult thing. If we are doing utility scale, asking for local hire from the contractor or the developer that will develop that resource will be probably a showstopper for them because a lot of times they really have to go wherever they can find the talent that would be able to do their installation. Making sure that they are paying prevailing wages is an absolute for us.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:13:18 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Is that an open question? I mean, is that decided? Is there no preference for people locally however defined in our service area if it were the five county area.

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:13:33 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Yeah, generally what we do is for example if we are hiring staff to work with us. If we're hiring consultants, if we're hiring support, we spend probably the first year of operation a little over a couple million dollars and a lot of the service that we need, a lot of the support that we need, we get it from local folks so it's local consultants, local lawyers, as long as we are able to have a decision or to make the decision on who to hire.

When we go out and assign a contract for power supply, it would be difficult for us to tell those folks that will develop that supply wherever they're going to develop it to tell them that you're going to have to hire some people locally but we definitely tell them that they need Pay prevailing wages a lot of them. They actually have to bring people even if they put something locally they Sometimes bring the labor from elsewhere

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:14:34 · ≈ 3:14 PM

I just have two more questions. I think one for you and one for Ashley that the one for you is Do you have the largest facility? Renewable energy facility in California in Kern County, did I hear that right? Solar

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:14:52 · ≈ 3:14 PM

plus storage and we contracted for that and it's going to be located in Kern County It's 150 megawatt of of solar facility plus 45 megawatt of storage. We also contracted for one in King County for 150 megawatts of solar, plus I believe 40.5. And we've done that in conjunction with Silicon Valley Clean Energy and we're working again with the same agency to negotiating another five different contracts and probably we're going to be going for something a little larger this time around.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:15:26 · ≈ 3:15 PM

And then my last question, and I'm not sure who. But if we decide we want to move forward today what off ramps might we have if conditions change radically in the world around us? Are there any?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:15:42 · ≈ 3:15 PM

Yeah, I mean there's a couple different potential off-ramps. If once the board were to adopt a resolution requesting membership in NBCPA's joint powers authority and adopted an ordinance that time in between then and negotiation of the JPA agreement we could pull out at that point in time I believe without any sort of fiscal consequences Once we join the JPA, if we decided to pull out before MBCP had purchased any power on behalf of our constituents I believe again we could pull out with only being on the hook for those costs associated with updating the JPA agreement and updating the implementation plan.

If Monterey Bay Community Power has procured energy for our customers and we wanted to pull out at that time, the process would be to provide I think it's six months notice to the board. The board would have to vote on whether they would allow us to leave and then at that time they would go out onto the market and look to see what they could sell that energy that they procured for our constituents If they were able to sell it without a loss, there'd be no fiscal implications for us.

If they sold it but it was at a loss we would be responsible for that. I don't know Tom if there's anything

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:17:17 · ≈ 3:17 PM

else? Actually is quite correct and what I do want to add is I know that this is you're voting on an agreement but in effect you really voting to give your customer The people that live and do business in this county, a choice. Sort of like you're opening that door to the cage and you're telling the folks in there or the bird in there, you can stay in there if you want to, it's your choice. You can fly away if you want to, or you can fly away and come back and go into that cage. They have all three choices. It's exactly what will happen here once we give That customer choice is going to be pretty tough for you to take it back on your own.

You can certainly make that choice for the facilities of the county, and you will be rightfully to do it if you want to. It's just once you give that choice to the customer they will be coming back here saying why are you pulling back? We like what we have. If we want to get out then we can get out on our own.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:18:20 · ≈ 3:18 PM

So individuals can opt out? Of course. Okay, are they under the same time frame to opt out or let's say I start Not at all. I'm a customer, I'm going along four months and I'm like man, I don't like this. I want PG&E, I can opt out. Here's

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:18:36 · ≈ 3:18 PM

the options that you have. Two months before we enroll the customer in, we'll be sending two notices. Two months before, one month before then after we enroll the customer in, one month after and two months after will be sending phone notifications letting them know if you want to opt out Here's your opportunity, opt out free and clear. If they roll along and they don't opt out, and any time after that doesn't matter when, anytime after that they call us back and say I went out residential customer pays $5 one-time fee commercial customers pay $25 one-time fee.

Okay? They can go back to the cage anytime they want. Supervisor Adam

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction6:19:25 · ≈ 3:19 PM

Well, first of all Jones concern that I shouldn't say that supervisor Hartman concerned that the operators will shut down won't be addressed unless you nationalize the grid. You know you're not going to the problem is the grid it's not the generation right?

6:19 – 6:2521 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:19:50 · ≈ 3:19 PM

I believe microgrids are a way to increase resilience so that you can keep operating power, especially if you have local storage. Yeah,

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction6:20:02 · ≈ 3:20 PM

you have to have local storage if you're going to do that. That's big bucks. You know for me this is an arbitrage scheme. You're going to go out and buy power, and you're going to sell it. And if you buy high or buy low and sell high, you can make money, and then you can do whatever you want with it, and that's great. But if you lose, we just heard, you know, if you buy high and sell low, then we're in trouble, and you're not going to be responsible for the money.

I just wonder if this is anything but a scheme for people to manage and skim off some of the money. How much does the Monterey Bay management pay themselves?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:20:54 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Roughly, if you take all of our payroll for last year it came to about 1.75% of the total operating revenue. This year it's likely to be closer to 1.9%. And in the next budget and when we budget at the top step for everyone And we assume that everyone is going to be there, which of course is not the case. But for next year, the budget's likely to be somewhere around 2.2% of total operating revenues?

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction6:21:28 · ≈ 3:21 PM

OK, so you're on a pretty fast track.

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:21:32 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Raising

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction6:21:33 · ≈ 3:21 PM

the money to be up with us at 54%. Yeah

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:21:36 · ≈ 3:21 PM

yeah. So I don't know if going to 2.2% is a fast track but I'll take that.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:21:42 · ≈ 3:21 PM

You know what PG and E's are? I'm sorry do you know what PG and E's

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:21:47 · ≈ 3:21 PM

are? I know that the equivalent position that the PG&E has is making $11 million which is more than twice as much as my entire staff

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:21:59 · ≈ 3:21 PM

Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:22:19 · ≈ 3:22 PM

Maybe a hypothetical situation, but one you might have real ones to draw from in response. If we were to be able to get a local project for at least Santa Barbara County, but I'd probably be happy with San Luis Obispo 1-2 that was close to price competitive With your current energy mix, are you likely that is local renewable generation? Would you be likely to recommend that to your board?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:23:00 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Absolutely. If it's twice as much as the market, not likely. If it's within the 5% range, very likely if it's within a 10% range then we have to think about it. It's a very responsive

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:23:17 · ≈ 3:23 PM

answer, because I would say that is my real priority. To me this all looks better than doing our own except the local generation and the partnership with the city of Santa Barbara. And if at very least we have a potential to have a board where we do some local generation then that partially ameliorates my issues.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:23:47 · ≈ 3:23 PM

But I don't think this excludes us being in a partnership with the city of Santa Barbara. They just need to join with us, that's our partnership.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:23:56 · ≈ 3:23 PM

Well, I mean in their defense. Okay. I'm happy to be partners. In their defense, I think they are really taking very strongly the mandate to do renewable and to do local generation which is all the things

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:24:13 · ≈ 3:24 PM

that- And when they build local generation inside the city of Santa Barbara- Every parking lot. I will believe it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:24:20 · ≈ 3:24 PM

They already have actually. Oh, I forgot we have somebody from the City of Santa Barbara. If we're gonna get into defending you know I think that what the city of Santa Barbara is doing is bold and yeah and innovative And I wish them all luck in the world You know I don't know that we have that capacity and have that that choice But I and I don' know you know who's going to make the right bet in the long term but they're betting on their ability To make it all work And you know to their credit. It's going to take them longer to get up to the revenue Reserves that Monterey presents earlier, but they have local control 100% low control and so they don't have to you know They're not one of 13 on a board That's very diluted in terms of local control, so I appreciate Supervisor Williams asking the question directly You know what are the chances of us having some?

Local production benefit because that's something that's very important to us But what but it comes your your partnership comes at a cost of dilution of our governance Correct

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:25:17 · ≈ 3:25 PM

nine

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:25:17 · ≈ 3:25 PM

million dollar costs. Well, I'm not talking about the voting one of one of them saying there's another part of that Yeah, and you're right That's the flip side of it doesn't cost us nine million dollars to get that control correct

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:25:29 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Right okay, so we're gonna go to public comment how many speakers do we have today? Thank you very much by the way. I appreciate you being here.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction6:25:36 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Five requests, three minutes each. So we'll start in Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell to be followed by Jeanne Sparks.

6:25 – 6:314 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed6:25:49 · ≈ 3:25 PM

Chairman Lavinino, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. As you know, I don't threaten the board but I'm going to warn the board if you think you've got a debacle with marijuana wait till this hits the fan. The bottom line here is your staff did not give you a PUC report that is warning communities about this because we had vertical integration and franchise models that spread risks and costs among tens of millions of people and these plans are blowing that up And the bottom line, they say we're going to have money for this and money for that. The only reason they've got money is because they're skimming money off the price of electricity that would normally go to PGD. Yes, part of it was profits but part of it was taxes.

Our region's going to lose $1 billion a year because Diablo is closing as a result of projects like this. And I've sent you correspondence on that. You know, I feel like you guys are walking around a used car, you kick the tires, the hood goes up and thought wow that's a convenient feature! The bottom line is this is not what you want. You want independence, you're not going to get it because you can't afford it and they don't have a magic wand here that they're going to be able to afford to build micro grids. That's money coming out of your consumers pockets so don't pretend here that this is a money making machine for renewable energy. You're taking your consumer dollars and redirecting them at your whim thinking that, wow this is so easy.

Why did we let PG&E in Southern California Edison do it all these years? Well guess what they're both facing bankruptcy and they're facing bankruptcy not for power generation but for power distribution. Do you actually think that you're not going to have to pay for the power distribution slash delivery when you're using their power lines? How stupid can you get to think that they're in bankruptcy and you're not going to have to pay for it? That your customers are just going to be able to charge whatever you want, and PG&E or some ethereal is going to have to pay the $22 billion dollars in lawsuits.

I know you took umbrage at that Supervisor Hartman but it is stupid! They're not getting sued for a dam failure or Diablo leak. They're getting sued for the cost to deliver the power and you have to pay for whatever it costs for them to deliver the power. None of that's going to change. All of the costs get passed through to your customers, don't pretend otherwise. I'm

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:28:55 · ≈ 3:28 PM

going to count that as an opt out. One for Andy. All right, that's a probably safe bet.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction6:29:01 · ≈ 3:29 PM

Jeannie Sparks in Santa Maria then we'll come back to Santa Barbara for Michelle Sevilla

PresenterJeanne SparksSanta Barbara County Action NetworkProposedself-stated6:29:09 · ≈ 3:29 PM

Hello, I'm Jeanne Sparks representing Santa Barbara County Action Network. SBCAN is in favor of joining with Monterey Bay Community Power. We see benefits in terms of less expensive clean energy, investment into local energy generation and the possibility of creating a microgrid. I am here to say that there's a great amount of support not only in the South County but also in the North County for this proposal.

And I personally want to say what my husband and I have done. We have installed solar power on our home, PG&E limited how much we could install We wanted to generate more and become a producer for our neighbors, but we were limited in how much we could do. And then they only gave us a little tiny bit of money for the power that we generated. A non-profit like this one that we could join with could incentivize individuals like myself to generate extra power for their neighbors.

by paying a more reasonable rate. That is just one of the ways that they can incentivize local power. They could also pay into many projects, but I won't go into all of that. I just wanted to bring it to a personal level. Also becoming energy independent is important for many reasons, most of which I think you probably recognize, but one of them that we should be thinking about is when the grid goes down elsewhere or when it has to be taken down because of the possibility of starting fires And if one of those grids that supply us goes down, we need to be able to keep our power. With a microgrid, we could do that.

If we had local power produced here it provides more resiliency and it helps us to keep going when other areas go down. In 1976, Amory Lovins wrote the book Soft Energy Paths. I read that when I was in college and I thought my goodness, I can't believe how amazing that is. He was talking about this exact same thing. This is not a new idea. This has been around a long time and it's about time that Santa Barbara County who's a leader Michelle Sevilla, to be followed by Michael Chiacos.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:31 – 6:396 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:31:42 · ≈ 3:31 PM

Thank you so much. Again, my name is Michelle and I want to also personally introduce myself. I'm here representing Assemblymember Monique Limon. I also just responding to what your staff was saying. Our office is aware of the attacks on CCAs or at least looking at trying to make it harder for communities like ours to establish our own CCA but our office is monitoring them and interested in protecting Your ability to choose whichever way you decide to as far as CCAs go.

And I was also requested by a constituent who wanted to be here today, so completely taking off my uniform on behalf of Monique but the constituent recommends that To establish your own CCA because this particular constituent has been researching CCEs in Santa Barbara for their master's thesis at UCSB and is now a doctoral scholar, and has been fighting for labor rights.

They encourage that joining or creating your own CCE would allow more control for supporting local labor and local generation of power. So they just encourage that you consider a more locally oriented program. But of course, feel free to contact me again putting on my hat for Monique. Feel free to contact me we are interested in protecting what direction you would like to go to so thank you.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction6:33:18 · ≈ 3:33 PM

Michael Chiakos before our final speaker Robert Perry

CommentMichael ChiakosProposedself-stated6:33:23 · ≈ 3:33 PM

Good afternoon, my name is Michael Chiakos with Community Environmental Council and as you know for over 10 years CEC has strongly advocated for an in-depth and honest look at community choice as a powerful tool for securing our clean energy future. And we even helped to jumpstart the process as a funder in the original feasibility study And today is a really exciting time. With the results of these feasibility studies in hand, we feel that the best path forward is to join with Monterey Bay Community Power. This option will be quicker, less risky, less expensive and easier than launching our own program.

Given the current realities of the latest study as well as the fact that the City of Santa Barbara will likely form their own program We believe a county run program with limited partners will prove to be too risky, with tighter margins and less opportunity to launch meaningful programs. On the other hand as we've heard Monterey has quickly built strong financial reserves and is already offering meaningful programs particularly in accelerating electric vehicle adoption.

As well as modest programs to build solar for low-to-moderate income residents, enhance payments of solar customers, and to pilot renewable energy microgrids. Should the county join with MBCP, we ask that additional revenue is not put into rebates but is to put into developing new renewable energy projects and programs that make it easier for our businesses and residents to adopt clean energy technologies.

We also request that our region is offered 100% renewable energy default and that programs emphasize building local renewables, both in our world-class utility scale solar resource in Kiyama as well as feed-in tariffs and net metering programs for South County which is at the end of the transmission line. Also, to develop programs to continue supporting transportation electrification and renewables-driven microgrids.

So at CEC we're very excited about the opportunity to join Monterey Bay Community Power in a community choice program that would unify the five Central Coast counties. Our communities have more in common than any other part of California and by joining together we could be a very powerful voice to expand clean energy options for our residents and businesses.

This partnership would allow us to make it easier to offer meaningful programs at scale that make it easier for the Central Coast to address the climate crisis. Thank you.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction6:36:02 · ≈ 3:36 PM

Robert Perry

PresenterRobert PerryEnergy Research for the World Business Academy and I'd like to voice my supportProposedself-stated6:36:08 · ≈ 3:36 PM

Good afternoon, my name is Robert Perry. I'm the Director of Energy Research for the World Business Academy and I'd like to voice my support for option two and also join in with the Community Environmental Council's recommendation to use Monterey Bay organization joined their CCE That said I am concerned that The South County being in a separate utility service area may not.

Get the kind of attention and resources that it deserves. And I would urge the county to really take a hard look as part of the implementation plan, update exactly what direct actions Monterey Bay intends to initiate with respect to engaging Southern California Edison to serves the needs in southern Santa Barbara County. Specifically, the resiliency needs and the dire need for local renewable generation.

I also echo Supervisor Hart's concern regarding the communities in South Santa Barbara County, and I would urge the county to work with Monterey Bay to bring all the communities together as part of the CCE. I think in South Santa Barbara County being where it is at the end It's critical that the communities work together with local renewable resources to maximize the resiliency of the area.

The state of California has done us no favors by splitting the county between two service territories and I personally believe that the state should answer to that, they should be a part of the solution and The county, the cities and our state representatives need to go to the state and tell them you've created this problem. You should help us fix it. And in that regard I'd like to submit to the board a short summary of a legislative proposal that's going to be forthcoming that would actually Legislate community participation and engagement in energy planning and development, and I've got five copies here. I'd like to present it to the board for their consideration Thank you,

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:38:49 · ≈ 3:38 PM

thank you All right, so let's uh let's bring it back to the board for deliberation are there any other questions of staff or staff Do you have anything that you heard during? I think this is a tough for me a tough to figure out which path

not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:39 – 6:454 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:39:29 · ≈ 3:39 PM

I feel that the values of our county are aligned with using more carbon free energy. I feel like where people are, both in their values and where people want to be in their lives is a cleaner energy future. And this is one of the most substantive ways that we could move to it. That being said, I have been a critic in the past of some of the gimmicks that some CCs have used to offer on paper cleaner energy but without changing things.

But I believe that Monterey is on the right path. I feel like they could do more and if we were on their board, we could help encourage them to do more but they do not have any unbundled recs which is in my view of the fundamental way that people can dishonestly represent that electrons are cleaner when they're not And it looks like they're moving towards more longer-term contracts, which is the substantive way you can get projects actually built.

And that's really important. If we're just skating off of the short term dregs of the energy market then we're kind of doing what Andy would be criticizing us for. It is my intention that our moves should help build more renewable energy, not just sort of skate off a temporary aberration in the energy market. For that reason I hope going to use this opportunity since we're still debating it to really ask Director one more question so you've been so patient with us.

Do you view building some energy that that the Monterey Bay community power actually owns as a way to insulate future risk? Obviously right now it's cheaper to buy contracts from people than to build at your own but The energy market has ups and downs, and so is that something that you are also looking at in terms of owning some facilities?

GuestTom HabashiChief Executive OfficerProposedself-stated6:42:17 · ≈ 3:42 PM

It's not cheap as it is what's possible. Since we've been in operation only for 18 months, we don't have a credit rating yet. You can't really go out and And bond for a project that we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars to build utility scale until you get to a point where your investment grade. So are we contemplating? Yeah, we definitely want to start with the micro generation island generation.

Then eventually, I would say probably five years down the road will be the right time for us to begin contemplating investment and direct ownership and control of projects.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:43:05 · ≈ 3:43 PM

Again that's a very responsive answer and I suppose if I were To decide which of these paths I'm comfortable with. I am comfortable with both, but I just have the sense that there may be more comfort on this board with the Monterey Bay Community Power arrangement. Is good in many respects, and the only weakness of that I could think of is local generation. But if Monterey Bay Community Power is open to contracts that are close to rate competitive, that has local generation, that does a lot to ameliorate my concerns.

I think we should still check in one more time with the city as our partner. But, but I would be comfortable embracing the Monterey Bay Community Power proposal given that it's less financial risk and that we have the opportunity to help our constituents Control their power more through the community programs and the solar incentives and micro grid incentives offered.

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:44:50 · ≈ 3:44 PM

I am risk-averse with the taxpayers' money and therefore, I think option one is riskier. It has the advantage of more local control but as my third district chief of staff Jefferson Linton continually tells me that the local jobs, local generation under option one because of the financial Payback period or get building up the reserves is 10 12 years out at best So we're not going to have that and I think we've got a better shot at it for me Good paying jobs and local hire is extremely important And I think the financial health of Monterey Bay clean power is very attractive It's been extremely well managed from all that. I can tell and I think it would be Supervisor Hart.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:46 – 6:504 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:46:01 · ≈ 3:46 PM

This is the best choice right now at the moment because of the lower risk and the faster delivery. I really appreciate the local cities and the community environmental council on other organizations pressing on this issue for a long time, being patient going through a lot of process with our staff and our staff going through a lot Looking under the hood, if we're going to use the car analogy that Mr. Caldwell used. There's a lot I would like to respond to what Mr. Caldwell said. First of all, I don't think that the utilities that have managed energy supply in California have done a great bang up job as evidenced by PG&E being in bankruptcy. So I don' know if that's the goal we should be shooting for. I think we can do better than that and From a simple behavioral science standpoint, the power of the opt-in as opposed to the opt-out is a huge leverage point in regards to transitioning to renewable energies on a scale that's sufficient to meet the challenge of climate change.

Having everybody opting into our renewable portfolio or being in when not having choosing to opt out Just with human stickiness to decisions keeps people in the right course, as opposed to individual customers choosing to select renewable energy. And the numbers you see in terms of opting out of these CCDs are a fraction, tiny fraction compared to the number of customers who are opting in. That's just human behavior and reality and this is an opportunity to take advantage of that and make a significant dent on greenhouse gas emissions in our county.

CommentTheodore FonizProposed · by introduction6:47:45 · ≈ 3:47 PM

Supervisor Adam, I Just think this is completely beyond the scope of our duty and I don't see With all the stuff that's going on That's within our wheelhouse and should be things that we focus on. I don't I don't think it's appropriate for us to be doing this at all

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:48:06 · ≈ 3:48 PM

All right, so You guys made it real easy for me last time because you were pushing the Santa Barbara nine million dollar solution and That was an easy no. When you talk about whether it's local or not local, if you really look at climate change and global warming and all these things, I feel like it's a global issue. Monterey is local in the grand scheme of things.

It's not in our backyard but it's pretty doggone close. So for me it was an easy no to join, to create our own. Now on the other side I know my friend Andy Caldwell feels very strongly about this as you can tell but the way I look at it is everybody here knows that I'm a supporter of the oil and gas industry and whenever projects have come up I've always said you know I'm all for transitioning and I support the oil industry And I like the ideas of renewables and I do see us, I just want to give us time to transition. The problem is we really don't have the dollars at the county level to move to renewable energy. We don't have being by ourselves it's not something that we've done in the past and I don't really see us in the future without something changing dramatically.

I think this is an interesting concept and I didn't want to be the first ones into it. I was just on the website, and I saw that Placer, Sonoma, San Mateo, Mendocino, Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Benito, Alameda, Humboldt, Santa Clara, and Yolo are already part of CCEs. I went onto the PUC website and says that about 20% of California's load Under community choice aggregation.

It says our actions today ensure that community choice aggregators can form and expand in a timely and expeditious manner. So they're not completely opposed to CCEs, even on PG&E's own website it gives you a lot of information about CCEs. They've accepted the fact that they're here. They talk about, they give you great charts for rate comparison. And they're very, very competitive. In fact it's the same price actually.

So the final thing for me was to make sure that anybody that doesn't like this can opt out. And it looks like on the website, it's very simple. Go in and opt out. We've spent $600,000 already on this. 577. Well counting today's meeting probably

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction6:50:59 · ≈ 3:50 PM

costing us 23,000.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:51 – 6:5515 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:51:06 · ≈ 3:51 PM

So I don't want to just flush that money, and I think for $7500 we do have off ramps down the road in case somebody convinces me otherwise that this is a terrible decision. And I don't have to do this because I see there's three votes for I think it's the right decision because I do feel that we have to show people, the folks of us that are oil and gas supporters also have to show that we're looking to that transition. And I want that to happen and I would like for us to build renewable energy here. I'm not really sure. I know Supervisor Hartman focused a lot on the jobs. That would be great.

But I'm going to give you the argument that generally we get stuck with and that is it's not that many jobs. When they're green jobs, it's always elevated as opposed to an oil and gas job but they're construction jobs, they are high paying jobs so I'm all about that but that's not my biggest argument. My biggest argument is to get to that transition period and Believe it or not. I will be supporting this and I'm interested to see where it's going to go supervisor

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:52:26 · ≈ 3:52 PM

Herman Supervisor Williams, would you make the motion and I could make the second?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:52:35 · ≈ 3:52 PM

I Will move that we That we go down the path of Working with Monterey Bay clean energy and join their CCE

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.856:52:47 · ≈ 3:52 PM

And after a long hard slog and a lot of work by CEC and many others, Ashley and our Jen and our whole team I second. I

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:53:01 · ≈ 3:53 PM

think we're going to need a roll call. Chair?

CommentStephen FungProposed · by introduction6:53:02 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Yes Mr. Chairman. Just since we're dealing with an ordinance on this I'm understanding the motion to be staff's recommended actions A B2C and D which are the options for option two.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:53:17 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Okay, Supervisor Hart. That is correct. I'm looking at the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:53:21 · ≈ 3:53 PM

options right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:53:21 · ≈ 3:53 PM

now and that is correct. He doesn't follow

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed6:53:24 · ≈ 3:53 PM

the rules very well. I was ready to say yes, sorry.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:53:28 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Alright Mr. Allen would you care to call the roll please?

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction6:53:31 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Mr. Williams.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:53:32 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Aye.

CommentMichael ChiacosProposed · by introduction6:53:32 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Mr. Hart. Aye. Ms. Hartman. Aye! Mr. Adam. No. Mr Lavinino. Aye Passes 4-1

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:53:38 · ≈ 3:53 PM

Alright so we are now adjourning to Tuesday August 13th in Santa Barbara Oh, that's right. Everybody is going on vacation. I'm going to San Diego. Oops! Music