BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 November 5, 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.

0:00 – 0:001 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed0:20 · ≈ 9:00 AM

Good morning.

0:03 – 0:058 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.863:37 · ≈ 9:03 AM

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We're having a few technical difficulties. But I think we're going to start and as we run into technical difficulties, we will deal with those as we move along. So I'd like to call this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors to order. Madam Clerk, can I get a roll call please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:00 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Mr. Adam? Mr Williams? Here. Mr Hart?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:04 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:05 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Ms Hartman?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:07 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Here, if you could all

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈31s recited, not transcribed
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:09 · ≈ 9:04 AM

please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Can I get a motion to approve the meeting of October 15th, please?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.834:38 · ≈ 9:04 AM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:40 · ≈ 9:04 AM

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Quick announcement as far as agenda management goes. We are switching a few of the items so that we will hear item Is it five, six? Item 6 before item 5. And so item 6 will be heard as we regularly go through the meeting. Item 6, I'm sorry, item 5 will not begin before 1 o'clock after lunch. So earliest you will hear item 5 which is retail cannabis will be no earlier than one o'clock this afternoon, okay?

I think I confused that as much as I possibly could. So do we have a CEO's report today?

0:05 – 0:074 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:42 · ≈ 9:05 AM

Good morning, Chair Lavenino and board members. We have a couple of items. One is just to let the public know that there is a meeting being hosted by Southern California Edison on Thursday at the Earl Warren Showgrounds on the Public Safety Power Shutoff or the De-Energization Program. That begins at 630 and the presentation begins at 7. Again, that's being hosted by Southern California Edison.

And also we wanted to let the public know that you heard a presentation about Census 2020, and the Complete Count Committee just launched a website for the countywide census outreach campaign at santabarbacountysensus.org We encourage everyone to visit the site, register to receive email updates. Request a speaker to a community group, access material and fact sheets that are both in English and Spanish. New information will be continued to add as we get closer and just remember that the census is all online in 2020. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:39 · ≈ 9:06 AM

All right, thank you very much. Madam Clerk do we have any changes, corrections to the agenda today?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed6:44 · ≈ 9:06 AM

Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board. I have one quick request announcement this morning and we had a late request from the department to continue administrative item number 32 to our December 10th agenda. And this item is from Public Works. It is to consider recommendations regarding adopting parking restrictions and stop controls in the first second third and fourth districts. If we could just add that to the balance motion that would be great.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:14 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Supervisor Adam. Yeah, why don't we just move that now? Okay The

Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.867:23 · ≈ 9:07 AM

motion to move a 32 I mean too well to reskip to continue it So moved moved and seconded all those in favor aye Anybody opposed okay. Thank you very much so Let's move on to our honorary resolution. We only have one today to present it's a Very special one. Item A1 please. Oh, can I? Okay. Sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed7:53 · ≈ 9:07 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Administrative item number 1 is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Stacey Janus of the General Services Department as the November 2019 Employee of the Month in Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Stacey Janus to the podium and anyone else you'd like to join with you

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.868:13 · ≈ 9:08 AM

And while you're coming up, can I get a motion to move A1?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:16 · ≈ 9:08 AM

So moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.868:17 · ≈ 9:08 AM

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed8:22 · ≈ 9:08 AM

I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Stacy Janice, EDP Office Automation Coordinator working for the General Services Department is hereby recognized for providing outstanding and dedicated service to the County of Santa Barbara. And whereas Stacey demonstrated great commitment, enthusiasm and dedication during an extremely difficult enterprise-wide project to convert the county to five digit dialing. And whereas Stacy led the effort to communicate with customer departments Gather system database, coordinate vendor activities, prepare project schedules, produce over 2,000 designation cards, design marketing documents and schedule contractors during the implementation. And whereas Stacey and team completed a project five years in the making and planning on time and under budget all the while completing normal day-to-day activities Such as service call processing, work order processing and assignment in coordinating with telecom vendors.

And whereas Stacy consistently displays incredible dedication to the organization. Stacey is the intake person for requests of the communication division which includes telephone, wind DSX security, public safety radio and audio video. During recent emergencies, the Thomas Fire and Flood event Stacey provided loyal and dedicated service to the organization and community by working long hours at the EOC in the logistics section. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Stacy Janice as the Employee of the Month for November 2019 passed and adopted today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed10:07 · ≈ 9:10 AM

Mr. Chairman, members of the board, it's quite an honor to be here today to recognize one of General Services' outstanding employees. I was thinking this morning that long time county employees often get recognized just because they've done a good job over the years and just day in and day out, and Stacy has done that. But recently she was in charge of And she worked many, many hours and it was very, very complicated.

And it seemed flawless. I mean, it just, I came in on Monday, my phone work and it's all can be attributed to Stacy's work. There's one little tidbit that I found out about Stacy. She works at the EOC, she lives close to the EOC. She's usually our first communication person there. But she has worked on an EOC shift when level one activation has been called since 2007, that's pretty amazing so.

So we owe a lot to Stacey and I'm really proud to be with her today for this recognition.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed11:36 · ≈ 9:11 AM

I only have two hands. They wanted to surprise me with this and I'm glad they didn't so I had time to prepare a little something, so I wouldn't stand up here and fumble. Chair Lavinino, members of the board, fellow employees, friends and guests, I am truly honored and overwhelmed to be here. Never in a million years when I started as a temp employee 31 years ago did I expect to be here once let alone twice.

There are many, many, many people to thank. This did not happen with me alone. There were two project managers, ten NEC engineers and technicians, four third party vendors, telephone coordinators and IT staff from around the county. Over 150 people helped make this happen. I would like to thank Jessica Malenik and Rob Lever for the ICT Project Management Office for their persistence and creativity. Rob came up with the Matrix-like campaign that we did.

The CSB TV office for the PSA service announcement that we did, Ian Dickens, Stuart Johnson and Chris Rosino for the website and the four digit to five digit converter that was available to everybody and still is if you need it. What else? And to all the county departments for their understanding and cooperation we could not have done this without anybody. And finally, to my supervisor Carl Thornton who is not here today for entrusting me to lead this project and for just being an awesome boss.

I feel it's important to do my job to the best of my ability. I take great personal pride and satisfaction in doing the job to the best of my ability. Those who know me best know the last 18 or so months of my life have been fairly challenging. I would not be standing here today without the support of my co-workers, friends and family. I am more grateful than words can express and this recognition means the world to me. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8613:45 · ≈ 9:13 AM

All right, Madam Clerk are there any administrative agenda items that the public would like to pull?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed13:54 · ≈ 9:13 AM

Yes, Mr. Chair and members of the board I have one request from the public and that is item A11.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8614:02 · ≈ 9:14 AM

A11? Okay, and I think Supervisor Adam you're also A11 any other items? You already had 32 taken care of. Supervisor Hart? 1231, Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed14:15 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Just wanted 29 for- 29, Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8614:17 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Hartman? Nope. Okay and I'd also like 35, A35 so let's start with A11 Madam Clerk if you could read that in.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed14:29 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Chair Lavagnino members of the board administrative item number 11 is from community services it is to consider recommendations regarding the amended Monterey Bay Community Power Authority joint exercise of powers agreement and I have one request to speak on this item and that is Andy Caldwell. Andy?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8614:45 · ≈ 9:14 AM

And Andy, before you come up can I get a motion to move the balance of the administrative agenda please? So moved.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8314:51 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8614:52 · ≈ 9:14 AM

Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. None opposed they pass unanimously okay Mr. Caldwell.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed15:00 · ≈ 9:15 AM

Chair Lavagnino members of the board Andy Caldwell representing Colab. I actually followed the Monterey Bay Power Authority around the region and debated them in front of certain bodies. They gave me more than three minutes, and I didn't go into San Luis that much but the county of San Luis actually did a thorough staff report on what this means, and I feel like most of the other jurisdictions including yours did not.

And if I had to characterize this to somebody Hasn't been paying attention and doesn't understand the concept. I would tell them that the county basically is in the verge of creating a startup that doesn't even have a credit rating to get into the electric generation business, electricity generation business in the midst of the two largest utilities in this state on being on the verge of bankruptcy.

In the midst of power safety shut offs. And in raging infernos that are gonna create even more liability for those near bankrupt companies. And what people don't seem to understand is that it doesn't matter where you get your power from, because the utilities are still delivering that power and they're gonna have a problem delivering that power being on the verge of bankruptcy.

I did a show on this last week, somebody finally did the math to underground the wires and the majority of the wires and or to harden be over $500 billion. And so the state of California thinks they can threaten to take over the utilities because of the power safety shut off. But where are they going to come up with upwards of half a trillion to three quarters of a trillion dollars to take over the infrastructure? Because what that ends up, right now people are sharing the cost between the rate payers and the stockholders. If the companies go bankrupt it just leaves the ratepayers.

This is a bad time to be involved in electricity distribution and or power generation startups Finally, the paperwork that you guys are signing or have signed it that you could still get out of

0:17 – 0:2411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed17:24 · ≈ 9:17 AM

commits the county. They blew apart the vertical integration and the franchise model of the utilities but they're replicating it. The minute you sign that document, you are on the hook for the power they're going to buy for your constituency. And the point is, when the utilities go bankrupt if they do and or the mandates keep going the way they are it's gonna be harder and harder for you guys to compete for that power on a realistic cost basis.

So we think this is really one of the dumbest ideas I've seen in 30 years as a county watchdog.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8618:05 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed18:05 · ≈ 9:18 AM

you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed18:07 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Supervisor

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8618:08 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Adam?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed18:11 · ≈ 9:18 AM

Well, I got two and a half points. One is California is the sixth near as we could figure this morning most expensive market for electricity in the United States. And I would say to you that this time it would be an extremely risky thing to make long term contracts And the odds that something happens where our potential electricity prices fall, and then we end up upside down on this thing is pretty high.

The second point is I'm really skeptical about the liability. I know that we've been assured that there's no liability, but I have people that are telling me otherwise and so I can't quite square it in my own head. But then, so I won't be supporting it. And then just a sideline here on the state taking over the power grid. If you think that deferred maintenance is bad on the roads wait till you have the State of California running the electrical grid. I cannot imagine a more horrifying prospect I asked about two years ago Caltrans how much deferred maintenance was on State roads and the answer was 70 billion dollars.

So You know, and they still work pretty good actually so if if they defer the the maintenance on the Electrical grid like they do everything else. I think that we're in for some pretty pretty rocky times Supervisor Hart

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed20:19 · ≈ 9:20 AM

Yeah, I think that I would tell the story different than Mr. Caldwell and Supervisor Adam. The community choice energy story is more than ten years old. Communities around the state have been asking to have a better say, a larger voice in how power is acquired for their customers. There are many customers who want green renewable energy and they want that option and they want to have their local governments Provide that option for them because the public utility private sector regulated Public utilities have not made that option available for consumers. So, for 10 years folks in other parts of the state have already taken advantage of this new opportunity and are making those purchases and have demonstrated financial viability And in many cases savings over the existing cost structure of the publicly And here we are late to the game trying to get that option available to our customers granted the energy utility marketplace right now is extremely volatile.

But that has nothing to do with the Evolution of community choice energy that has to do with poor decision-making by those the corporate elected officers of those boards who have made decisions long poor Long term planning decisions that has put their infrastructure into a deficit. So we're talking about the private sector regulated private sector entities that have not properly invested in maintaining the infrastructure for electric lines in the state of California making us vulnerable to Thank you.

Regulatory scheme has failed us and has not delivered safe, reliable green energy. So we are trying to do something different. We are trying to demonstrate a model that can improve upon that situation. It isn't completely new. There have been municipal power operations across the country for many, many years. In our county, the city of Lompoc has a municipal power operation. So it is certainly debatable and fair to ask questions about this process but it is not fair to characterize this as an overly risky dangerous decision being made without complete information going forward. And I think that is simply why we are where we are today and I'm confident that we will be able to improve upon the situation although it will take some time for the state to figure out The larger issues about how power is going to be delivered in a changing climate and with the threat of wildfire.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8623:06 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed23:07 · ≈ 9:23 AM

Williams? Well, I think that it is hardly fair to blame the lack of infrastructure investment of the utilities on community choice aggregation. That's one of the whole reasons why we have less faith In the utilities is the lack of investment that's taken place. The CCAs have actually been more criticized in the past for too many short term contracts, and now Mr. Caldwell is criticizing them for long-term contracts. The right procurement is a mix thereof To hedge your bets and still create the right incentives for investment in alternative energy.

And as a county's representative to Monterey Clean Power, I will continue to push for a mix thereof. That's the wisest choice that hedges your bets. The goal is not to allow rates to rise more than they would with utilities. But at the same time to procure a higher amount of renewable energy That's what I'll stick to because that's really been the direction that this board has gone

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8624:25 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Okay, can I get a motion to move a 11 please

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8324:27 · ≈ 9:24 AM

so moved?

0:24 – 0:2713 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8624:31 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Second second moved and seconded roll call please

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed24:34 · ≈ 9:24 AM

mr. Adam Mr.. Williams

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8624:36 · ≈ 9:24 AM

hi

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed24:37 · ≈ 9:24 AM

mr. Hart all

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8624:37 · ≈ 9:24 AM

right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed24:38 · ≈ 9:24 AM

miss Hartman chair Levin you know

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8624:40 · ≈ 9:24 AM

I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed24:40 · ≈ 9:24 AM

motion passes 4 to 1

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8624:42 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Okay, let's move to a 12

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed24:46 · ≈ 9:24 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, Administrative Item Number 12 is from Community Services, Behavioral Wellness and General Services. It is to consider recommendations regarding the exclusive right to negotiate for purchase of county-owned property on Hollister Avenue with the housing authority of the County of Santa Barbara for the No Place Like Home development project.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8625:06 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed25:07 · ≈ 9:25 AM

Hart. Yeah, I just wanted to pull this item off to draw attention to it It's the beginning of a process to potentially deliver an affordable supportive services housing development for Residents who are experiencing homelessness in the South County? It's where there's going to be a lot of outreach to the neighborhood I know that mr Polanski from the Housing Authority has already begun that outreach and has talked to a number of neighbors and Is setting up a community meeting to have more input from folks, but there are some important stories to tell about this project. This is a critically needed element in our social safety net providing affordable housing with supportive mental health services to individuals who are suffering from homelessness.

There's a lot of controversy and discussion about this at the state level and local communities. This project will get a lot of scrutiny from everybody involved and I know our staff will have answers to questions that people have and be able to tell and explain. And if folks want, take a site visit out to Pescadero Lofts in Isla Vista, see the operation of a facility that's similar to this, and really just have every opportunity to understand Appreciate what is involved in this work and what this project could mean for the community. And how it can best integrate concerns, if there are some from the community into its design. So again, this is the very beginning of this project. We are simply giving authority to the housing authority to have a site control for this site.

And then to begin the process of applying for grants and The land use entitlement process. So welcome any input from folks in the community and the neighborhood who are advocates or otherwise interested in knowing more about it, Mr. Polanski. Dr. Gleghorn from behavioral wellness are available as well as my office at anytime to answer any questions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8627:02 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Good job. All right. Do we need a separate vote on 12? Going to be okay there? Okay let's move to A29.

0:27 – 0:297 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed27:12 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number 29 is from General Services. It is to consider recommendations regarding authorization to solicit a request for proposals RFP from design build entities DB's for the new Koyama fire station 41 project number 8751 And this is in the first district and we do have Todd Morrison available from general services in North County if the board has any questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed27:37 · ≈ 9:27 AM

Supervisor Williams? Great, I did give a heads up to the fire chief about this. I hope they passed it on. Policies of attempting to build net zero energy buildings when possible. And that, especially given the concern from the PSPS of air quality impacts associated with firing up of institutional diesel generators which the APCD director indicated last week immediately worsens our quality by 24% the minute one of these happens.

My hope is we don't contribute to another one, and if there is need for backup there that we do so by battery solar mix. Especially given the fact that there's some property we own out there. Ms. Peltz?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed28:31 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Supervisor Williams through the chair. The Fire Station 41 will be zero net energy. We will be using our policy. All our new development will be using the zero net energy policy.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed28:48 · ≈ 9:28 AM

Great. And what about, has it been determined what the backup energy need would be there of the station?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed28:57 · ≈ 9:28 AM

I don't believe so. I don't think it has been determined yet.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed29:02 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Just, I hope that if you feel that you need additional direction on us not to use diesel generators and try to figure out some solar battery backup, you'll bring it to us otherwise you'll do what you do best which is get it done.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8629:21 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Thank you. All right let's move to 831.

0:29 – 0:325 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed29:28 · ≈ 9:29 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Administrative item number 31 is from probation. It is to consider recommendations regarding approval of an additional 551,832 of public safety realignment funds and the transfer of 3,051,832 to general services for the design and construction of a mental health rehabilitation center. Supervisor Hart?

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

Yeah, I just also want to draw attention to this project. This is something that has been long time planning the Department of Behavioral Wellness and I know my predecessor Supervisor Wolf and her staff are very involved trying to advocate for this project. This is a critical need for the county we need a facility to be able to step down services get folks out of the jail provide for them those folks who are It's pending trial and otherwise involved in the criminal justice system in a more appropriate health centered setting. This funding has been allocated from the Community Corrections Partnership process. I know there were some initially, some questions from members of the Community Corrections Partnership about the staffing model for this project and I spoke with Dr.

Gleghorn about that maybe she can come up and And just quickly review that this initial facility, while it's going to be constructed to hold 16 beds will actually be staffed and opened with only eight. And I think that is the staffing plan in the amount of money. While this isn't a discussion today about that staffing level and that funding source maybe just an opportunity for you to clarify that so that everybody is transparent and clear about what we're getting into.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed31:03 · ≈ 9:31 AM

Yes well the Supervisor Hart through the chair. The staffing model, the way this CCP budget is constructed we are accessing both funds to design and build a facility as well as I'm Additional operational funds in the past and received those. So we're now up to an annual amount of $1.1 million for operations, which will which will fund eight beds. Now we are Continually looking for other opportunities to have funds for this purpose. There may be things out on the horizon because the state is re-evaluating how they are funding various services, so we'll keep looking at those but at this point This is sufficient to fund eight beds and we are building a facility with eight rooms that can do double occupancy So we can easily scale up as funds become available for additional clients

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed32:23 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Great thank you very much for that clarification. All right

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8632:26 · ≈ 9:32 AM

we need a separate vote on that are we good? No. Okay, that takes us to our last one which is item A35.

0:32 – 0:3710 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed32:33 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board administrative item number 35 is from Public Works Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District it is to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Monica Debris Basin Operational Improvement Project this is in the first district and there is a four-fifths vote required on this item

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8632:51 · ≈ 9:32 AM

okay I just wanted to highlight this one and I know it's in your district, Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed32:56 · ≈ 9:32 AM

It's okay you can highlight it.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8632:57 · ≈ 9:32 AM

Yeah all right because a lot of times we make these trips to Washington DC with our staff and sometimes when the fruit or the harvest comes in, I just want people to remember that there was a lot of sowing that was going on beforehand and especially two staff members Scott McGolpin and Tom Fairam. It's important when you go to DC, and Don Gilchrist is a, I think this is one of the reasons why he's worth every penny, is that it's important to go see our congressmen and our senators.

But what's more important Is really getting to know the person way deep back in And at Natural Resources Conservation Service, that was actually the case. We were walking through this big building with you see these staff members inside these large departments surrounded by maps and charts and paperwork. And they all know these two guys. They all know Tom and they all know Scott. And so when we need something those relationships that are built are very valuable.

I just want to remind everybody that the Army Corps of Engineers spent over, I think $110 million during the debris flow here in Santa Barbara County. And so this is another instance where we're getting another $5 million to construct a better way to remove debris out of this debris basin. So just wanted to congratulate you two and I think Mr. Fairam has somebody he'd like to introduce as

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed34:40 · ≈ 9:34 AM

well. Mr. Chair, members of the board, I think it's really important that we recognize one gentleman. I asked him to come here today, Doug Tays. I told him that you might have a question for him but that was just a front to get him here. Doug and I started working in 1990 after the Painted Cave Fire and we built the Mariagnacia Debris Basins. I've known Doug since then. And after the debris flow, we had a meeting in Carpinteria and Doug is in the audience. What are you doing here? Well, I live here.

So what are you doing at night? And so we ended up hiring Doug Extra Help to help us with Santa Monica and the other projects that we had, and his expertise and the knowledge of NRCS really helped us that. His heart's in Santa Barbara County, and so I attribute that as much to Doug helping us through this process as well. Note that this project is 100% federal.

It's one of the few ones that are 100% federal because it was operational efficiencies that were being improved from the original design. So we're very pleased and thankful that Doug could help us on that, and maybe we can talk him into staying around a little longer too.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8635:43 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Well, and the only question I have is at 4.7 million if you round it up to 5 million it makes it a lot easier for us to do the accounting so it would be helpful just kicking a little bit extra. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed35:55 · ≈ 9:35 AM

Well, I also wanted to take the opportunity to indicate that Tom and his team last night presented a workshop on the design of the Randall Road debris basin. That you guys were gracious enough to take a chance on and invest over $5 million worth of acquisition and costs to retain the engineering firm. And I want to repeat my thanks, my personal thanks to this board. Each and every one of you and my district's thanks. There was a lot of people there last night.

It was really clear from the workshop and the timetable that county staff had It was very clear to the residents the seriousness by which the flood control district and this board is taking Addressing infrastructure issues, and it really made a difference to my constituents And I appreciate Tom for making that happen

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8637:01 · ≈ 9:37 AM

All right. Thank you very much, and thank you for being here today With that can we get a motion to move items 8 12 29 31 and 35 please

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed37:12 · ≈ 9:37 AM

So moved second

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8637:15 · ≈ 9:37 AM

All those in favor? Aye. They pass unanimously. Okay, that cleans up our administrative agenda. It's time for public comment. Do we have any public speakers today?

0:37 – 0:416 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed37:28 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Chair Levenino and members of the board I have one request to speak on general public comment today and that is Ed Kolaski.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed37:44 · ≈ 9:37 AM

Good morning. Good morning, good morning. I finally got approved after almost five and a half years to remodel our house with the same drawing. Just like that! Five and a half years and got it approved with the same drawing that I tried to submit in June of 2014 There was a contention that our second story, which is outlined over there overlaying the ground floor, was solely over the garage.

And I don't know if they ever resolved it. I don't know if they still call that solely over the garage or not. It took Supervisor Peter Adam almost two seconds to recognize that that is not solely over the garage and he did it from an architectural drawing where you have to project one onto the other But I had to deal with Janet Wolfe for five years, and I wasn't even allowed to talk to her. That was our supervisor.

One of the sheriffsmen made a really good remark. He said the system is broken after he heard me talk. And I don't know why is it broken, but it is broken. Maybe that's why my neighbors would say they're all corrupt. Why do I have to come up here and beg For my civil rights? When I have to go downstairs and be kicked out of a meeting, and I paid for. And I can't even show my drawings.

Why can't I find out? Why can't I speak? We weren't even allowed to speak. We were ordered out of the meeting in 15 seconds. And then I had to wait three weeks to find out why we were rejected. Yeah, they said we were located solely over the garage was just a lie. You know if an extortion payment is required it should be published. I had no idea. Was I supposed to give Alex Bujold $2,000? $5,000 with $1,000 due?

You know when you're new to the system you don't know what to do so I come up here and for five-and-a-half years Five and a half years just to get some justice. It's supposed to be liberty and justice for all. Apparently it's liberty and justice for those that pay the extortion fee. You got five members up here, why couldn't something been done with Janet Wolfe?

I mean that isn't equal rights or civil liberties. When you can't even talk to any of the supervisors, you come up here and you repeat the same story over and over and over again. And nothing is done? The system is broken? Somebody needs to fix it. There needs to be some sort of

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8640:56 · ≈ 9:40 AM

interface. Sir your time's up.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed40:57 · ≈ 9:40 AM

Sorry. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed41:04 · ≈ 9:41 AM

And that was our only speaker on general public comment this morning.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8641:07 · ≈ 9:41 AM

That takes us to our departmental agenda items. Let's move right into item number one.

0:41 – 0:585 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed41:16 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number one is from community services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the commission for women annual report.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed41:26 · ≈ 9:41 AM

Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. I am going to, last year the Commission on Women was transferred over to the CSD department. It's been a pleasure working with the group of women on issues related to women's issues. I want to introduce Sigurd Wright, Anna Everett, Yvette Peralta, Judy Weisbart, Suzanne Peck and Tracy Beer to present the annual women's commission report.

CommentYvette PeraltaProposedself-stated42:00 · ≈ 9:42 AM

Good morning Board of Supervisors, staff and members of the audience. My name is Yvette Peralta and I am the new chair of the Commission for Women of Santa Barbara County and yes thank you. Thank you for the support.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8642:15 · ≈ 9:42 AM

You can bring the microphone down a little bit. There you

CommentYvette PeraltaProposedself-stated42:17 · ≈ 9:42 AM

go. I want to thank the commissioners for being here and supporting and also representing their district, and I'm very happy to be here and tell you all about the highlights and the projects that we have worked on during the last fiscal year So I would like to start by saying that the Commission for Women promotes the well-being and equal status of women in Santa Barbara County. And when I say women and girls, I mean anyone across their gender identity and sexual orientation.

And we develop and facilitate and also recognize and recommend programs to women and girls across the county. We collaborate with other agencies. And we also gather and disseminate information that we gather from the meetings that we attend. And we also conduct public hearings and meetings, and we advise the Board of Supervisors whenever we need your help to get things done. The next Slide shows a picture of all of the commissioners during our annual retreat which happened in August of 2019 and That's when I became the new chair and Karen Stein work became the vice-chair, and the way we work is by Having subcommittees, we have the Outreach Committee which is basically the public face of the commission work. And we also have the Policy Committee which is the commissioners who track local state and national legislation affecting women and they also attend conferences and bring back information.

And we also have the Leadership Development Subcommittee which encourages women's participation in community business and political leadership involving women and girls. The Listening Sessions Subcommittee, which are the eyes and ears of the BOS and the constituents. And they do that by conducting meetings and also attending meetings that are hosted and held by community partners. And the Advocacy Subcommittee discovers, supports, and promotes key causes directly beneficial to women and girls in our county. And state, and we have the Veterans Stand Down Committee which makes sure that the annual collaboration with the veterans stand down in Santa Maria goes smoothly. And that we have enough participation and services to provide to our fellow women veterans.

The next slide showcases our collaboration with Cathy Morillo's inaugural Santa Barbara Women's Summit which happened last year in 2018 and you can see there we have in the This picture right here in the middle, you can see Dr. Anna Everett and Suzanne Peck on the left participating in the planning committee of this summit. This was also the first event that I was able to attend when I recently was appointed by Supervisor Labanino to be a representative of the 5th District.

And Dr. Anna Everett was the moderator of the summit so we had representation and collaboration about how many people were able, about 260 people were able to attend and share resources and learn about what each of them did. And also what issues they were Yeah, and Suzanne Peck was also there providing information and just letting everyone know what the commission does.

And on the next slide we have The woman history month events in 2019 we sponsored the summit leading with love and that attracted women across the Central Coast to participate in a day long conference designed to embrace women by sharing stories, building trust and redefining expectations. This event was organized by Touchstone in Santa Maria. It was held at the Radisson, and we had Commissioner Tommy Raska and Commissioner Beer attend. Also Victoria Juarez representing the first district was there as well. And over 225 guests attended the leadership summit in Santa Maria. And some of the commissioners who weren't able to go found women in that community who were able to attend, to take advantage of this event and uplift each other.

Now, let me talk to you about the collaborations with other agencies that we have done. We have the Veterans Stand Down event in Santa Maria Fairgrounds in 2018 and 2019. Actually for the past seven years, the Commission for Women has been supported this effort that is organized by Supervisor Lavanino and his staff. And it's an event to acknowledge and thank Santa Barbara County vets for their sacrifices and service to our community.

The commissioners secure needed products and services from companies and organizations, and donated daily use goods to be able to hand out to women veterans there. This year we collected coats, also some socks, hand sanitizer, reusable bags, and we also distributed resources, pamphlets, flyers from different community partners that we work with. And you can see some photos there from last year and this year.

During this event, we also take advantage of the opportunity of tabling there. And last year, Susanne Pegg was able to work with Department of Media of Santa Barbara County to produce a video and A lot of women veterans were able to share their stories on sexual assault While serving and what was very interesting is that that question was never asked to them They just shared their experience in the military and that came up so we were able to use that video to bring awareness about that matter and this year, we also We work with the TV department and we interview veteran women about their homeless struggles. And also feature Sandy Blair, who is another military veteran who is building tiny homes for woman veterans in the area.

And next we have honoring women in leadership. So in the month of March, we honor women in leadership and community organizations for their outstanding work as you can see on the photo. Some of the staff that planned the veteran stand down were recognized and also a group of therapists who provide our service to the victims of the fires and mudslides in Santa Barbara. And we also had Lideres Campesinas, who is an organization that does a lot of work across the county for female farm workers.

We also had a video that made an impact across the county, and it's the Me Too, the veterans speaking on Me Too. And that video was produced by Commissioner Suzanne Peck and the TB Department of the Santa Barbara County. And Women's Veterans Outreach Program, we were able to hear stories from women vets That we work with about sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military every day. 38% of women military personnel and veterans report military sexual trauma that includes both harassment and assault, and 24% report being sexually assaulted by fellow service persons people. And these are only the cases that are reported.

Was recognized nationwide and received an award by the Women's Commission. And I also have there the Pass the Mic video, which is another video that Susan Peck has been working on. Emphasizes the California Youth Act, which requires school districts to provide sexual and reproductive health education in a comprehensive way to students. And this pass the mic video has students telling their stories, LGBTQ plus experiences and is going to be used in public screening so parents and youth can come and learn about. What this law means and how they can support their youth.

And we also collaborated with Girls Inc, we sponsored their annual luncheon and Girls Inc started their Girls 2 campaign which began a year ago to raise awareness of sexual harassment and violence many young people face. And we would like to invite you to join us in celebrating our first year by taking stand on behalf of the girls. You can take the pledge by going on the link that you can see here on the PowerPoint and the lead commissioners for this The highlight project was Susanne Peck, Victoria Juarez and Dr. Anna Everett. And on the left you can also see Commissioner Gallup-Moore and Everett together with Jocelyn Frye who was a panelist with the Obama administration official and a keynote speaker. And Commissioner Gallup Moore and Everett were also panelists On one of the workshops called Beyond Me Too, Combating Sexual Harassment.

And this happened in December of 2018. And next we have collaborations with agencies in North County. The Women's March, Santa Maria had its first Women's March last year and Commissioner Beer and myself joined the planning committee and I volunteered to Create a website for them to help them publicize their efforts and the things they advocate for. And we are in that planning committee as well this year, and you can see some pictures of how that went and how the website looks like.

And it's also important to recognize the work that Tracy Beer has been doing to represent Santa Barbara County in the state and nationally. She is part of, she is the president of the California Commission, sorry, of the Association of California Commissions for Women. They aim to sustain, strengthen and advocate for women's commission in their work to promote equality and justice for all women and girls.

And Tracy represented us this past year during one of the conferences that was held in Chicago and in Los Angeles. And we are also promoting the Voice of Women in America initiative which is A survey that is being sent in English and Spanish to women across the state to talk or to answer and point out what issues they're struggling with so that we can assess that and be able to serve them better as commissioners.

And next, Our collaboration with the League of Women Voters. And there was a training held last year titled I'm in the Running, What Now? And you can see some pictures on the left side of the PowerPoint here of how that went and we are involved with the League of Women Voters both in South County and North County And now for what's coming up, our efforts for the future is continue to gear up to commemorate the centenary of women's suffrage.

This was an idea that was given to us by Judy Weisberg. She wants to plan a silent march at the county office building on August 26th of 2020 to commemorate everyone all the suffragists who Work so hard and sacrifice many things in order for women to have the right to vote. And having a silent march, and just paying tribute to their efforts is the way Judy Weisbord thought of honoring and we really love the idea and we want to help her organize it and collaborate with her. And we plan on having a banner that just says vote, and that way anyone can join.

I recently went to a conference in San Francisco With Tracy about the Commission for Women and the Status of Woman Committee. And I learned a lot about women of color who also work very hard to mobilize their communities and follow the steps of the white woman who started the movement, and who are often the ones that get most of the recognition. So it's really important to have everyone be aware of who were our ancestors and everything that they did for us to be here and not take that right for granted.

And um... Future activities. This is just a few points that we really want to focus in this next few months, which is add woman and leadership public events in spring. We have countywide if we want to county wide be able to add more women in leadership and also present the past on my public screenings for parents and youth and continue to work with community partners to commemorate Centenary of Women's Suffrage and support CEDA, which is Gender Equity Guidelines in our city. We really would like you to vote and pass that ordinance. And also follow up with school districts about the California Healthy Youth Act and how they are doing with the implementation that it requires.

And we're also planning a public forum of women in politics at Allan Heckel College in February, in Santa Maria. So that's in the works as well and as you can see, we still need three more commissioners. We need two in the fourth district and one more in the fifth district so try to find someone that can join please because we do all our work It's a great experience and to professionally develop and to give back to the community. And last but not least, please give us a like on Facebook if you haven't because that's where we publicize most of the events that we support and sponsor That's all I have for you I would like to open the mic to my fellow commissioners if they have anything they would like to say or add

0:58 – 1:0213 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed58:33 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Well first of all and to the chair and other supervisors I just want to say thank you to Yvette for stepping up to be our new chair. And she did a fabulous job. All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8658:49 · ≈ 9:58 AM

right open it up to the board supervisor Hartman Oh I'm sorry Tracy

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed58:54 · ≈ 9:58 AM

Hi, I want to end. This is an election year coming up this next year. We all believe in equality for all everyone. I hope everyone in this room that is running and not running that we make CEDAW an ordinance for our community because we all believe in equality for everyone. Thank you. Thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8659:12 · ≈ 9:59 AM

you. And today's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed59:12 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Election

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8659:15 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Day if we had, you know, some of the... Yes. Yep. Santa Barbara City of Santa Barbara. Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8359:20 · ≈ 9:59 AM

I just wanted to thank you. We have a number of boards and commissions in the county, but I think yours is the most active, the most focused. And each year the presentations are just extraordinary and this year... Who did the visuals? I mean this, I guess maybe it was a collaborative effort but it was really super presentation. You have such broad reach and I've participated in some of your activities and they're extremely well organized Supervisor Hart.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.8659:52 · ≈ 9:59 AM

Yeah,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed59:55 · ≈ 9:59 AM

I want to congratulate and thank you too for the great report and also want to say thank you for last night Suzanne and Judy were at a pass-the-mic event where the video that Suzanne had produced and directed was shown with the students talking about the comprehensive California Youth Act, the comprehensive sex education conversation. It was really moving to see the students talking about the challenges they face as young teens getting accurate information about sex education and gender identity issues. And there was a really great turnout and a wonderful dialogue and some fantastic speakers so it was another demonstration of the great outreach that you're doing in the community to spread the information that you're out to let people know about.

Thank you for that opportunity.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:00:38 · ≈ 10:00 AM

Supervisor Williams? Well, I've seen from your work in the past year and from the presentation that you continue to take it to another level. And I'm really excited about where it can go from here. Also, I'm very excited about the suffragette march and I'm happy to dress up in the period costume if you are too. So I think that would maybe highlight it a little bit more and maybe the press would pay more attention to it Busted out some replica placards, hassling President Wilson and in period costume as much as we can pull off.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:01:21 · ≈ 10:01 AM

Yeah I just wanted to thank you for all your work on stand down it's been a huge partner and even this year I know it was like last minute and I want to give a shout out to our TVSB crew as well. I think I contacted them on Tuesday or Wednesday of the week before The Saturday, and they had a crew there and did a great job. And we'll be looking at that video in the future.

And Yvette I just want to say I'm super proud of you. I appreciate the commission making you the chair as well but I just think you're such a really good example for other young women in the community and they can see somebody that looks like them that is in leadership and has a great message out there so You know all the work you've done in the community. I can't believe this is a super active commission and the more you do, I think the better it is so thank you for everything that you did was great presentation this year and thank you so much.

Okay with that we're going to still try to iron out some technical difficulties so we are going to take oh I need a motion to accept We're going to

CommentSigurd WrightProposed · by introduction1:02:40 · ≈ 10:02 AM

take a 15 minute

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:02:40 · ≈ 10:02 AM

break and we'll come back to do item D2.

1:04 – 1:071 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed1:04:20 · ≈ 10:04 AM

Test 1, test 2, test, test. Can you hear that? I can hear you. Test one, test two. Test, test. Test. Test. Test.

1:09 – 1:131 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:09:40 · ≈ 10:09 AM

Yeah. Yeah.

1:20 – 1:2616 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction1:20:22 · ≈ 10:20 AM

All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:20:24 · ≈ 10:20 AM

right, thank you. I think we have our technical difficulties under control.

We'll move on to item D2.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:20:33 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board departmental item number two is from planning and development it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the adoption of the 2019 California building standards codes and local amendments to chapter 10 of the Santa Barbara County code building regulations

CommentSigurd WrightProposed · by introduction1:20:50 · ≈ 10:20 AM

Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chair members of the board today I'd like to introduce Jose Barajas He's a supervisor with the building and safety division and Masoud Abul Hoda who is our chief building inspector? I mean official Excuse me Sorry about that. Um, and they're gonna go ahead and present the changes that are required to the building code Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:21:17 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Can you drag that microphone just a little bit closer so the people on TV can hear you? Is it on? That's better.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed1:21:25 · ≈ 10:21 AM

Signs of a newbie. Chairman, members of the board, as was mentioned we're here to present the recommendations for the proposed 2019 amendments to Chapter 10 of the Santa Barbara County Code. So every three years, the State Building Standards Commission updates the California building codes. As a result, every city and county in the states adopt these building standards for building code implementation.

The Building Safety Division under Planning Development is responsible for implementing these buildings regulations. Santa Barbara County adopts state building codes by amending Chapter 10 of the county code. Some of these amendments are administrative in nature, an example of those is extending the expiration of building permits from 6 months to 12 months or exempting say a deck that is less than 30 inches from the ground being exempt from building permit.

Administrative amendments do not require specific local conditions. There are more restrictive local amendments to the code that are permitted based on local geographic, topographic and climatic conditions. An example of this would be applying high wind regions like in the Gaviota Pass areas prone to wildfires or other natural disasters. The following are proposed existing amendments to be recommended for continuation and adoption.

To adopt the administrative changes to the Santa Barbara County Building Code, to adopt the construction requirements for high fire hazard zones, to adopt a destination of high wind regions in Gaviota region, and to adopt the local existing structural amendments. The following are revised amendments. To increase the number of months to begin construction from six months to 12 months, this would also put us in line with SB Assembly Bill 2913 and also to set a minimum threshold of 50% of replacement of exterior finishes or roof framing to trigger fire hazard construction requirements.

The following is a new amendment to require an emergency escape from sleeping rooms in basements, even if fire sprinklers are provided. Staff recommendations are as follow. To consider the introduction of an ordinance case number 19 ORD-7, amending chapter 10 building regulations for the Santa Barbara County codes by adopting the 2019 California Building Standards Codes with local amendments and to read the title of the ordinance case number 19 ORD- 7 and weigh full reading of the ordinance into the record And to continue the hearing to November 19, 2019 for the adoption of a resolution of legislative findings supporting amendments to the California Building Standards Codes and the adoption of an ordinance case number 19 ORD-7.

And to determine that the adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Equality Act. Mr. Chairman, members of the board thank you for your time and we're open for any questions you might have.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:24:41 · ≈ 10:24 AM

All right are there any questions from the members of the board? There any requests to speak on this from the public?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:24:47 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, I have one request to speak on this item and that is Kathleen Rosenthal. Kathleen?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:24:55 · ≈ 10:24 AM

Okay next one all right very good can I receive a motion

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:25:01 · ≈ 10:25 AM

I will make a motion, but I just wanted to say that some of these things. I know they're well intentioned, but I think they're going to increase the cost of some of the housing that gets remanufactured rejuvenated through a remodel or something like that so In that way, you know I don't know if you can engineer a hundred percent safety and You know, I know we're always striving for safety and improvements in safety. And that's great But at some point, I mean here you're gonna be at diminishing returns at some Some point and I know that this is totally out of our Out of our jurisdiction. So we're just here to adopt it And that's fine.

So I'll make a motion to adopt as presented.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.831:25:53 · ≈ 10:25 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:25:55 · ≈ 10:25 AM

It's been moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Let's go to our next departmental agenda item. Thank you very much! Your annual visit is over every three years, I guess.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:26:14 · ≈ 10:26 AM

He's going to come back on another

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:26:16 · ≈ 10:26 AM

item soon. We

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:26:17 · ≈ 10:26 AM

don't want Masoud to sit out for a whole nother year. All

1:26 – 1:3313 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:26:23 · ≈ 10:26 AM

right, let's read the next item in please.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:26:25 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Chair Lavagnino, members of the board, departmental item number three is from fire. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding amending chapter 15 of the Santa Barbara County Code with the adoption of the 2019 California Fire Code.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:26:41 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Chief Hartwig?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed1:26:45 · ≈ 10:26 AM

Mr. Chair, members of the board and Ms. Miyasato, today we are recommending changes to chapter 15, the county fire code in order to adopt the California 2019 Fire Code. I have our fire marshal Robbie Hazard and our subject matter expert Glenn Fidler here to answer any questions and make a short presentation. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed1:27:13 · ≈ 10:27 AM

Thank you for hearing us, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. This will be very brief unlike some of the presentations that I've brought to the board. There are very few changes this year particularly to our amendments so hopefully this goes quite fast. So the proposed ordinate contains fire department recommended amendments to the fire code As with the building officials presentation, the state adopts certain portions of the International Fire Code and then local agencies and government can make amendments due to specific conditions within their localities. And in our case geologic topographic and climatic conditions.

So the 2016 California Fire Code, it will be superseded by the 2019 version and it becomes state law January 1st 2020. And the fire department adopts the 2019 California Fire Code with amendments under chapter 15 of the Santa Barbara County code thereby creating this Santa Barbara County Fire Code The 2019 fire code modifications include this year relocating some code language for increased efficiency and relevance.

There are updates from the International and California Code Committees. There's also consideration for current industry practices, an example of that is our renewed focus on alternative energy. They've created a new chapter for energy systems, solar, wind, and battery backup systems, and that's Chapter 12. And then they maintain consistency with revised state and federal laws. So in some cases, this could be changes to the health and safety code. This could be changes to the public resource code that needs to be reflected within the fire code.

There are no fee increases associated at this time with the adoption of the fire code or permit fees will remain the same. Actions to date, we have sought input from county council along with the office of the state fire marshal. And chapter 15 amendments were made available for review at the county clerk's office on our website and we're sent to over 80 stakeholders on or before October 31st, 2019.

The feedback we've received so far has been mainly from our agency partners particularly Carp Summerland and Montecito Fire Protection District just to ensure that as they go through their ordinance amendments that we keep consistency across the county operational area with the different fire marshals. FIRE has met with business and government leaders to discuss some of the specific changes and to address any concerns. So far there have been none, and as of now there's been no opposition by any of our stakeholders And so with that, our recommended action is that we adopt or we move to adopter ordinance on the 19th.

When we come back to the board and that this action is categorically exempt from CEQA. And if you have any questions, I have Captain Glenn Fidler who is from our planning and engineering department. And he's very versed in the nuances of the code. Also want to commend his staff for how much time they spent pouring through the fire code this year to find whatever little changes could sneak up on us. So it was quite an effort on the part of his staff. So with that, if you have any questions?

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

Great. Are there any questions of the members of the board? Seeing none, are there any public comments on this matter?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:30:49 · ≈ 10:30 AM

Chair Lavanino and members of the board I have one request to speak on this item and that is Kathleen Rosenthal.

CommentKathleen Rosenthal I'mProposedself-stated1:31:00 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Good morning Mr. Chair and members of the board, my name is Kathleen Rosenthal I'm a resident of the San Yanez Valley and I came down here specifically just to support this ordinance revision We believe it will help us up in the valley with our fire evacuations Section 4809.4 in particular That requires the road shoulders to be clear as possible. We have been working with a horse evacuation team up there, and we believe that our road shoulders would be extremely critical to us to get all of our animals out during fire or any other kind of disaster. So we thank the Fire Department very much for working on such a critical issue and updating us to the current industry standards. We hope we can do more with you. And thank you all very much for the time to speak.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:31:49 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Well thank you for being here today and participating. All right, can I receive a motion? Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:31:58 · ≈ 10:31 AM

Make a motion to adopt staff recommendations.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.831:32:02 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:32:03 · ≈ 10:32 AM

Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much. We're

moving to item D4. Should we wait for Mr. Gazzone? I do need county council on this one though. She's coming. All right, let's go ahead and read item D4 in place.

1:33 – 1:3922 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:33:09 · ≈ 10:33 AM

Chair Lavinino members of the board departmental item number four is from Public Works Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation Districts as well as general services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding lower Mission Creek reaches 2B phase two and three and Scott Vincent irrevocable trust and regional E drew junior for partial The acquisition permanent and temporary easements a p.m.. 0 3 7 2 4 5 0 0 4 & 0 3 72 for five zero one seven This is in the first district, and there is a fourth this vote required on this item

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

All right So I have a little script here

the next item on the agenda is the consideration of a resolution Of necessity to acquire by condemnation the fee interest in the real property for the lower Mission Creek project On the property located at 315 Chapala Street Santa Barbara which is owned by Reginald e drew jr.? And 325 Chapala Street, Santa Barbara which is owned by N. Scott Vincent Irrevocable Trust.

Is there any information from County Council prior to proceeding with this hearing?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:34:13 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Mr. Chair and Supervisors I would just recommend doing ex parte disclosures as well.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:34:18 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Okay very good we'll start on this side Supervisor Adam.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:34:25 · ≈ 10:34 AM

I just talked in the foyer out here with Forgive me for forgetting your name, but the trolley guy. Yes. Is that good enough or is it to get a name? Should we get a name? That's you, Jenna. Yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed1:34:47 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Mr. Chair, Supervisors if you have a name or...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed1:34:48 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Reggie

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:34:49 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Drew. Okay very good.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed1:34:52 · ≈ 10:34 AM

Supervisor Hart. Yes some months ago I met with Mr. Drew and his wife and Tom Fairoum to talk about the project and the implications for Mr. Drew's property And we discussed strategies for to get to an amicable resolution and we unfortunately have not been successful with that and Are here today, and then I spoke with mr. Drew and mr. Vincent during the break just briefly about this issue and Here we are to discuss it in full light of day

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:35:24 · ≈ 10:35 AM

supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.831:35:28 · ≈ 10:35 AM

None

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:35:30 · ≈ 10:35 AM

Supervisor Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:35:32 · ≈ 10:35 AM

None but I have personally known Scott Vincent for many years during my time at the city.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:35:40 · ≈ 10:35 AM

OK very good. As we move forward are there any questions of how this will move forward from the board members at this point for county council. All right Mr. Farram can you please proceed.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:36:01 · ≈ 10:36 AM

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. I have two short slides just to put in context the issue that is before you today. This is a site map that shows Lower Mission Creek and basically the lower portions of the Lower Mission Creek project which has been under discussion and construction for many many years is now complete up to the downstream side of US Highway 101.

Completing the phases Reach 2B and Reach 3 require additional right-of-way, which will then connect all the improvements that we've made downstream of the highway and will make them work as a unit so this phase is very critical to complete. The location map above, as you can see just above Highway 101. These are the easements and fee ownership that we're seeking from the owners of the property.

With that, that concludes my discussion and would be available for questions on the project. Any questions on the acquisition process I'll leave to Ms. Pell and the General Services team to answer, and I'll return it back to your board.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:37:20 · ≈ 10:37 AM

Okay very good. Thank you Mr. Farram. Are there any questions of the Board members at this time of Mr. Farram regarding the flood control project? So this is a public hearing to allow the owners of the property or their representative and any person who will be impacted by the project to address the district only on the following issues. One, whether the project is necessary. Two, whether the project is planned and located in a manner that is most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.

Three, whether the property is necessary for the project. Four, whether a written offer has been made to the owner. And five, CEQA. Madam Clerk, are there any letters that are requested to be made part of this record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:38:04 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board. We did receive two letters regarding this item. They are both from Todd Amspoker from Price Postal and Parma. The first is regarding N Scott Vincent irrevocable trust property at 325 Chapala Street as well as the second letter is regarding Reggie and Teddy Drew Santa Barbara Trolley Company at 315 Chapala Street. And they have both been made into the record and available online as well as distributed to the board.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:38:32 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Okay, very good. So these letters will be incorporated as part of the record regarding this project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed1:38:36 · ≈ 10:38 AM

Mr. Gazzone? Chair and supervisors, I had to step out briefly for a work call but I'm back and we'll just mention that the items that the chair went through, the five items that were the subject of this hearing today, four of those come from the Code of Civil Procedure which described the contents of the resolution and what the board should be deliberating about as to the resolution of necessity. And the fifth is CEQA which is part of your action today also.

Okay,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:39:03 · ≈ 10:39 AM

very good. I will now call for a public hearing on this item ask the clerk of the board to please call forward the owner of the property or their representative and any person who will be impacted by the project to address the district at this time Please speak directly into the microphone and state clearly your name and city of residence for the record Madam Clerk

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:39:20 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Yes, Chair Lavinino and members of the board as stated previously we have Reginald E. Drew Jr., as well as N. Scott Vincent Irrevocable Trusts and I do believe they are both being represented by Todd Amspoker from Price Postal in Parma who is available in the audience.

1:39 – 1:545 turns

CommentTodd AmspokerProposedself-stated1:39:48 · ≈ 10:39 AM

Good morning, my name is Todd Amspoker. I'm an attorney in Santa Barbara. I specialize in eminent domain cases. I am going to be talking both about the Vincent property and the Reggie and Teddy Drew properties so I assume I have three minutes for each one correct?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:40:02 · ≈ 10:40 AM

I don't believe we have a time limit on it although that's a very scary thing to tell you but Just go ahead and be as succinct as you possibly can, but get your point across.

CommentTodd AmspokerProposedself-stated1:40:14 · ≈ 10:40 AM

I will do that. Thank you very much. I'm going to first talk about the Vincent property. The property is at 325 Chapala Street. It's a commercial property. There's a commercial building that's been on the property for many years. Lower Chapala Street, as you know right by the freeway, the access to the property and the building is from Chapala Street. There's a large back area of the property that has not improved with the building but has parking, trash enclosure and so forth. The property as you know backs up to Mission Creek.

My client is the owner of the property I wanted to very carefully explain to you what goes on at the property, though. The tenant is called Photothermal Spectroscopy Corporation. They are a local business. They make high-level microscopes for medical and other purposes. They manufacture and assemble those microscopes in the building at the property at 325 Chapala Street.

Inside the building is a rigorous, clean and vibration-free area for these products to be assembled. There are approximately 20 local employees who work at the business. It's a very successful business. They ship these products that cost six figures each to multiple businesses throughout the world. This is exactly the type of local business That your board wants to support in terms of their ability to stay in business as a result of the public project like this.

Obviously, this is important to my client. There's a significant amount of income and rent that is paid every month but the reason this is important is that the Mission Creek project is going to have a significant impact on photothermal's business. And by the way, I do want to say both of my clients appreciate the need for this project. I'm not here asking that the resolution of necessity not be adopted. The project needs to go forward. What I'm explaining to you are the circumstances that are involved In each of these properties and why you should care about it.

And why you should instruct your staff to continue with the dialogue that has already been going on so that these matters can be resolved without controversy, without submission to a jury of 12 people in Santa Barbara. So that's really the focus of my comments. My client and I have met with PhotoThermal, the folks in charge of the business. We've met with Mr. James Clary in significant detail on the county staff with respect to what needs to be done. And I'm not going to go through all those details right now, we don't have time. But there are various things that need to be done with this property so that it can function and so that Photothermal can continue its business during the project and it relates to parking It relates to access.

There's a roll-up door at the back of the business, of the building that is an extremely important feature through which acceptance of raw materials for the products but also the products themselves are shipped out of that roll up door at the back. It's extremely important that area be kept available to the tenant so that the business can be uninterrupted during the project.

The tenant also needs a clean and vibration-free area in which to assemble these products. As I mentioned, we've looked at this. This is a rigorous area that needs to be kept clean and vibration free so these very sensitive instruments can be assembled and tested before they're shipped to customers throughout the world. You don't want to put photo thermal out of business. You don't want to do that if that occurs my client himself the Vincent family will have a significant monetary claim in terms of loss of rent and other circumstances, but photo thermal itself will have a significant claim for loss of business goodwill If they have to relocate, find another property that's not going to be as suitable or if they're not able to continue business as a result of the project.

So what I'm asking on the Vincent property I am very respectfully asking you that you instruct your staff to continue these discussions and to take very seriously the idea that this is a local business, you want to support and you wanna keep in business. That's what the perspective should be of your honorable board with respect to this matter. So we have provided the details of what needs to be done to your staff.

They have all that information, we're available to keep on those discussions. But I would ask you to encourage staff to continue those detailed discussions about what needs to be done to this property during construction so that this very laudable successful local business doesn't go out of business. Now, with respect to the Drew property, that's at 315 Chapala Street. I represent Reggie and Teddy Drew.

As you know they're the owners of the property. They're also the owners of Santa Barbara Trolley Company. You all know Santa Barbara Trolley Company? They operate those red trolleybuses, which take tourists throughout our community. You see them going up and down Garden Street all over town every day. It's an iconic business in Santa Barbara. It's been around for years. And they also employ a significant amount of local residents in order to keep that business thriving.

Mr. Reggie Drew bought this business about 30 years ago. He has taken it from a fleet of one bus to a modern fleet of 15 buses. He is every example of a successful entrepreneur who's taken a local business and made it a great company, an iconic company that everybody recognized. Again, this is a company, this is a business you want to support not eliminate.

315 Chapala Street is a very important property for my client. This is where the trolley buses are stored as you go on the 101 freeway, it's right next to the freeway. Everybody can see all those trolley buses when they're not being driven on the streets sitting there. It not only provides great exposure to the public in terms of the business itself but it's an essential area for the company. The buses have to be parked somewhere, obviously.

It's also 315 Chapala Street functions as a parking area for the employees of the company. It also functions as an area where the buses can be repaired So that they can continue their journeys throughout Santa Barbara. But here's the thing about 315 Chapala that you may not know about, my clients also have a headquarters office. It's located just around the corner on Gutierrez Street. It is a very essential fact of this business that they need to have the parking for the trolleys near the headquarters.

The drivers of the trolley buses report to the headquarters, they go get the trolley. Sometimes there's a problem with the trolley somebody has to come and fix it. It's essential for this business and they've tried it another way before and it didn't work. It is essential for this business that the headquarters are on the same property or within very close walking distance of the actual area where all the trolleys are parked. That's an extremely important issue This project is going to have a significant impact on this business.

During the construction, the property's not going to be usable at all for parking any trolleys, not to say 15 trolleys which is their entire inventory. Those trolleys have to be somewhere. They can't just be taken out of commission for 12 months and put in another location and ruin the business because they're three miles away from the headquarters. It's not going to work.

The property is just simply not going to be usable during construction. But after construction, the amount of property that's taken you see on the bottom there are the red dots. There's not gonna be enough room on 315 Chapala Street after the project is done in order for the trolleys to be able to be parked on the property. So this property is useless to my client in the after condition.

The business is going to have to move and it's going to have to move soon. The project is going to start, as I say the Drews just like Mr. Vincent is not objecting to the project but this is an urgent business need and you don't want this business to be shut down. The business is going to have to be relocated and we can't have any downtime. My clients have met with Mr. Clary for over a year and they've met with some of you and others, but no reasonable offer has been made at this point. I'm not going to iron out and discuss the details of that in this public meeting.

I got involved recently. I talked with my client in detail. I talked with Mr Clary in detail about it. We have given Mr. Clary a written offer that will resolve this entire situation. I provided it to him in writing on October 30th. I don't know when you will be considering that in closed session, I would assume that information will be made available to you.

I encourage you to take this opportunity to take the circumstances that I've described very seriously and to accept that offer from my clients If this isn't resolved and the business can't relocate, that's not a result you want. This is a high-profile business you want to support, not hinder. If this isn't resolved prudently and fairly quickly, my client's going to have no choice other than to make claims in the eminent domain case for just compensation. And it's going to be a significant monetary claim. And I'm assuring you right now Not only will there be a significant claim for severance damage to the property, but there's going to be a significant claim for loss of business goodwill if this business isn't allowed to relocate and function at a new location.

It's gonna be a figure in the seven figures. It is going to be well documented and well supported. This is a successful business but Without the acceptance of the offer that we provided, it's not going to be able to keep its business value. And it's gonna have a total loss of business goodwill. We're not at that stage yet but as what I said at the beginning you don't want this to go to a 12 member jury in Santa Barbara.

You have it within you for both of these matters to resolve these matters amicably and prudently at this point. I would encourage you to do everything you can to have your staff reach out to my clients and me, and for any of you if you want to discuss it we're completely available. You have a great opportunity to move this project along without controversy And most importantly, while supporting local businesses which are providing great products, employ local residents and add to our tax base.

Thank you very much.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:52:34 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Thank you very much. Are there any other owners of the property or their representatives? Or any person who is adjacent to the project that wishes to address the district at this time? Okay. I will close the hearing, the public hearing at this time. Open the discussion with board members. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:52:55 · ≈ 10:52 AM

Well, I just wanted to ask staff a little bit about some of the questions that have come up. Given that this is my district, I do of course support and want to have good business activity within my district. So if the staging and timing in regards to the Vincent property was done in a certain way, can these impacts be minimized is kind of question number one.

And question number two on the question of acquisition of the entire parcel have we reached out to the city Typically, this is an area that the city housing authority has in the past been interested for affordable housing. Obviously we're interested in using as much of the creek setback as possible to insulate the area from flooding. So that's my second question and then my last question is just I would of course go back And I would love for you to reiterate the importance of the project because I think.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:54 – 1:5913 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:54:37 · ≈ 10:54 AM

Chair, in regards to the project itself for the Vincent property we have been working actually with staff has been working out in the field to look at the requests that have been made in regards to what Mr. Amspacher has requested and we haven't put the whole package together yet but we believe we can accommodate or meet most if not all of the requirements on that parcel In regards to the second question as opposed to the acquisition of the whole entire parcel, that has been looked at.

It was not needed for the whole entire project. That was something that we first approached and it is not needed for the whole entire project at the end of what needs to be acquired for the project. In regards to working with the City on housing, we haven't had any discussions as it relates to housing in that location.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:55:33 · ≈ 10:55 AM

If it is not in our interest to have the whole parcel but only the parcel needed for flood control, I do think it would be worth reaching out to the City Housing Authority and the city and understand what their interest is if any in the remainder of the parcel.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:55:51 · ≈ 10:55 AM

Sure that's something we can look into. All

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:55:56 · ≈ 10:55 AM

right any other questions of board members? Supervisor Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:56:00 · ≈ 10:56 AM

the purpose of the project. I mean it talked Tom taught I mean Are we just doing this for kicks and giggles or come on? I want to know what This is a flood control project in it, and it has Substantive benefit for the community in the business community In general unless we want to travel by surfboard again Which we've had to do in that part of downtown in the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:56:25 · ≈ 10:56 AM

past. Mr. Chair, Supervisor Williams as you noticed or noted Lower Mission Creek has an extensive flood history probably the most recent significant event of note was 1995 that clearly caused great impacts to the downtown core of the city of Santa Barbara This project has been in the works since the 1960s and we're just now piecing elements of this together.

The project is continuing from the downstream up, and as we continue these links, we will incrementally reduce the flood hazard, not eliminate it but reduce the flood hazard. But in years past even back to the early part of the 19th century there are documented devastating floods that All right. At this point I'd like to request a motion to adopt the resolution and other recommendations. Requires a four-fifths vote for approval.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:57:51 · ≈ 10:57 AM

I'll move the motion, but I also would ask that include in that what has been requested that staff continue to work diligently to minimize the impacts to the existing businesses. You know, I came into this thinking that this was mainly going to be financial issues like the other one when we saw it seems to me Partially financial issues but partially logistical issues and if logistical issues can mitigate some of the acrimony over it, I think that's in our interest.

And I will include that as part of the motion.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.831:58:37 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Second.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:58:38 · ≈ 10:58 AM

All right let's do a roll call.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:58:44 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Mister Adam. Mister Williams. Mister Hart. Miss Hartman. Chair Lavagnino. Motion passes unanimous.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.861:58:54 · ≈ 10:58 AM

Okay, so this is where we do the switcheroo. Thank you to staff. We are now going to skip item five and we're going to

move to item six and again we will hear item five No earlier than one o'clock and it looks like it might be even later than that because it will be after lunch So we're gonna have this item. We'll break for closed session, and then we'll come back for the final item madam clerk

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:59:22 · ≈ 10:59 AM

Chair Lavinino members of the board departmental item number six is from the county executive office It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding spending priorities due to higher than anticipated Cannabis revenues and there is a forfeit vote required on this item

1:59 – 2:056 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction1:59:35 · ≈ 10:59 AM

All right, Mr. Crapwell? Good morning Chair and Supervisors. The item before you is really the purpose of the item is to seek your board's direction with respect to cannabis tax revenue that the county received in excess of the adopted revenue estimate for last fiscal year. Last fiscal year our budget was adopted assuming a revenue from cannabis tax revenues about 5.4 million dollars In reality, when everything was tallied we received 6.7 million about 1.3 more than the adopted estimate.

Your board on prior actions has taken this money and put it into reserve into a fund balance within the general fund.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:00:18 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Mr. Preple let me just interrupt real quick just for a second question so that's fiscal year to fiscal year right?

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:00:25 · ≈ 11:00 AM

Correct. Okay go ahead So what happens is, there's 1.3 million in a fund balance within the general fund that's sourced from cannabis tax revenue. And so the question before you today is the disposition of use of those revenues. So traditionally, revenues that come in excess of budget estimates go into a fund balance and become available for financing the following fiscal year's budget.

That consideration of that use of those funds is done during your board's annual budget process for the most part, and it's important that that sets the context when your board is deciding how to allocate those dollars in the large context of all the other priorities your board faces each fiscal year. And so that's our typical process. Should your board decide today that to allocate some or a portion of these revenues, it would take a four-fifths vote And our recommendation of course if you want to do that is that it's used for one time purposes as opposed to ongoing purposes.

From the 1.3 though I think it's important that consistent with your boards prior adopted policy on the 18% deferred maintenance funding That the first 18% of that is set aside for that purpose, which would be allocated in next fiscal year. That's about $234,000 out of 1.3, which leaves a net at $1,066,000 that is in question today. Our staff recommends that your board defer use of an allocation these days until next fiscal year but again it is within your board's discretion to allocate that today.

The board report before you identifies five potential one-time uses for these resources. And this is not an exhaustive list, this is what we've heard as suggestions from a variety of sources. There are five potential, I quickly read them and the departments that are represented by these requests are here in the audience today should your board have specific questions on the uses.

Beginning on page two of the staff report The first item is handheld THC analyzers for both the Sheriff and Ag Commissioner. Moving to page three, there's discussion of some park projects within a variety of parks in the county system. Continuing, there's electric vehicle charging infrastructure installation. This is the pay for the installation of existing chargers throughout a variety of locations within the county to support the expansion of the all-electric fleet in the county fleet.

Moving on, there are active transportation projects at a one-time cost of about $375,000. And then obviously it's well documented that we have a plethora of unfunded unmet needs with respect to maintenance of our county facilities and infrastructure. Also contained on page three of the staff report is a discussion of potential ongoing uses although we don't recommend that today We thought it was important to inform your board that we have had requests from two departments that actually in total have an annualized cost impact of even more than the $1,066,000 that we're going to be discussing today.

Should your board decide to appropriate money toward ongoing expenses essentially reduces your board's flexibility in future fiscal years so it isn't what we're recommending but obviously at your board discretion With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions. And I know the departments that are represented by the request for one-time monies are here in the audience for your board as well.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:04:18 · ≈ 11:04 AM

I have one question. So when we talk about 5.4 or 6.7, that's tax only? Or is that licensing permitting and tax dollars? Mr.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:04:32 · ≈ 11:04 AM

Chair, that is tax only. That's tax only. You know I think, thank you for that question. On attachment A to your board report we do have a more full discussion on the FTE and the allocations between those three uses so we're talking really pretty much with enforcement which takes the first resources off the cannabis tax revenue to pay for that. We have the license permitting kind of function that's paid for by the permit fees and licensing fees And then we have some administrative and tax collection costs that are also paid for them from the tax revenue.

So just a little convoluted, but that kind of creates the entire cannabis program for the county. That's about 28 FTEs. Okay,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:05:19 · ≈ 11:05 AM

and just for the public, I don't think we put that attachment A up, but roughly 13 FTEs in enforcement and 14 FTEs in licensing permitting basically? Correct. Okay. And then do we have what the projected revenue, what did we adopt for fiscal year 19-20? Mr.

2:05 – 2:1310 turns

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:05:41 · ≈ 11:05 AM

Chair, we adopted in the current year budget about 5.6. We're trending a little higher than that so I would expect although it's difficult without enough data points to make a prediction, I suspect that we will at least hit our budget estimate for the current fiscal year.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:05:59 · ≈ 11:05 AM

All right, questions from the board? Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:06:03 · ≈ 11:06 AM

Well I guess that's an issue to me is that we should be revising our estimates to reflect reality as we know it now. I understand the budgeting conservatively when you have a new revenue source and you don't know what the future of it or you don't know for sure what the amount of it is but The estimates that we've had and the actuals have been consistently a wide gulf.

And the estimates that we have had by, in my view those should be adjusted to reality as we know it now because otherwise it diminishes The benefit that the public sees and you know, I think we The primary purpose of course of this tax revenue is the as the enforcement but the secondary Purpose is to help the public And and so I strongly feel that we should be budgeting Budgeting in closer proximity to reality

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:07:30 · ≈ 11:07 AM

Well, I guess my look at that is every other municipality that I see including the state of California and some other states are dealing with the opposite of this. Of saying hey we're going to collect all this revenue and they're having to explain to people why they're a couple hundred million dollars short. And then nobody looks at oh it did create 300 million. They're like hey it was supposed to create 500 million so where's the other 200 million?

Yeah, I want it to be as accurate as possible and. I think a year from now will probably have a better feel because there's more people come online and I think it's really hard to project. And this is something I'm going to be speaking about as we get a little bit further but as we look at the backlog that's at the Planning Commission. It's very difficult I think for our budget director to look and project OK here's who's gonna get approved in here's how that Those dollars are going to come online.

So I'm okay with under promising and over delivering as opposed to the opposite of that, so I'm okay with where we're projected for next year. I think it's important to know that we're probably looking at next year another $6 or $7 million that we're going to be discussing in April and June. So kind of puts this million into perspective. Supervisor Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:09:01 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Yeah, I think philosophically I agree. I think that it's better to be conservative in the estimates and then have a good news story and rational everything on the table conversation about the budget at the appropriate time. You know there's always going to be a catch up. There's variances in every funding stream that we have And to me the best way to make policy is to have all that information available at the same time, have a full range of discussion from all the departments and make the budget decisions during the budget. I think it's great news and it's important to let the public know where we are trending mid-year and to have this opportunity to share that information And let people understand where we are in revenue generating. But personally for me I would prefer that we waited to allocate this fund, these funds until the regular budget process.

Okay.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:09:57 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Supervisor Williams your light's back on.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:09:59 · ≈ 11:09 AM

Well I just strongly disagree as a member whose district feels the most impacts of this I feel like It is just not acceptable, not to feel the benefits. And I'm not wanting Jeff to project more than what's going to be there. In fact, I would say it's not in Jeff's nature. He could not do that and I just simply indicate that we know now from this that we're gonna have more than five and a half in this fiscal year.

And we should be budgeting accordingly when we can. In this list are a number of things that we should have been doing a long time ago, and part of that is the amount that we spend on infrastructure. I think that would Kind of short sighted since it's something that we all agree on, that we should be spending that if we don't do something. I think the biggest priority I see because that's what I hear the most from in my district is the need for the active transportation grants. These are very efficiently spent by public works because they typically leverage community participation Um, where you know a lot of the costs are happening from community action to create some of these pedestrian connections.

And so this would cover some of the minimal costs that are needed to do those. Our parks need more investment and really The opportunity that General Services has to have most of the cost paid for by someone else for electric charging infrastructure, but we just need to cover the installation. That's a great opportunity, and so I just see opportunities here that we can make a difference on things that we know are insufficient in our own infrastructure.

And we should make that investment in a way where people that are feeling impacts from this also see the benefits.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:12:35 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Supervisor Adam? I was going to wait for public comment to make my comments, but it sounds like everybody's just going already.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:12:43 · ≈ 11:12 AM

Yeah okay well I think we're not sure where...it's kind of interesting. It's a beautiful the Brown Act right? We do need four votes and I'm just kind of curious where everybody you know if people think this is a good idea or not a good idea Yeah, we're definitely opening it up to the public. So if everybody's good with going to public comment now, we'll move to public comment and then we'll bring back and discuss it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:13:09 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board, we have five requests to speak on this item. We're going to begin in Santa Maria with Joe Armaderas to be followed by Renee O'Neill. Joe?

2:13 – 2:2119 turns

PresenterJoe ArmendarizSanta Barbara County Taxpayers Association I sympathize with Supervisor AdamProposedself-stated2:13:25 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Good afternoon, Joe Armendariz. We're representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers-

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:13:29 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Joe, hold on a second. Your volume is on extremely high. Am I good?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:13:36 · ≈ 11:13 AM

There's no adjustment there yet.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:13:38 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Okay so yeah why don't you back up about a foot and then we'll be fine.

PresenterJoe ArmendarizSanta Barbara County Taxpayers Association I sympathize with Supervisor AdamProposedself-stated2:13:43 · ≈ 11:13 AM

Too loud? There you go. That's my... You know I learned playing Shakespeare on stage. So I'm Joe Armendariz representing Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association I sympathize with Supervisor Adam, perhaps you put public comment before the staff report. That way you can make a pretense. Look, one of the first questions I would have is what percentage of this revenue comes from medicinal versus recreational? Because if it's all from recreational, I would submit in response to Supervisor Williams that there is no benefit on a net basis. But I also think that there ought to be a nexus between With respect to one time expenditures and the source of funds that make that expenditure possible. And so, I hope you'll allow me to hijack this item for a second because it kind of brings up an issue that I've been speaking with you about over the last several months.

And in fact it's something that Supervisor Williams and I had an opportunity to talk a little bit about on Sunday. And that is this opportunity to leverage certain industries and certain revenue opportunities in Santa Barbara County. To identify higher priority spending obligations or opportunities or priorities, and that would speak specifically to this issue of the electric vehicle infrastructure.

It seems to me that you have an opportunity as a board of supervisors in a county with substantial oil and gas revenues, to be able to leverage those revenues. To be able to make the necessary needed investments in alternative energy Including infrastructure as is being proposed here by your staff. I would remind you of something that I brought to your attention a couple of months ago, and that is in the nation of Norway for example. They are using their oil and gas revenues to electrify their transportation system. And in fact they are on track Electrify transportation system by the year 2025 and they're doing that because they have the revenues from their oil and gas exports. They're not the largest exporter by any standard, but they are a significant exporter of oil and gas.

And so we could here in Santa Barbara County do something similar. We could leverage the value of that commodity, direct the revenues into a more targeted pro-green energy situation or system. And really have, I think a win-win for the county and for our economy and for our society. And just to punctuate that point, I would refer you to what's going on in the state of New Mexico. In the state of New Mexico, where they have a Democrat governor and a Democrat controlled legislature. Because they have seen their oil and gas production go from about a couple hundred thousand barrels a day to just shy of a million. They are now making a free college education available to every resident of New Mexico that wants one irrespective of income. Now it seems to me that if the state of New Mexico and Norway can leverage the value of a commodity that we use every day, then I think we can do something similar here in Santa Barbara County.

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:17:20 · ≈ 11:17 AM

We are going to stay in Santa Maria with Renee O'Neill and then we're going to return to Santa Barbara for Nancy Emerson. Renee?

CommentBruce PorterProposed · by introduction2:17:29 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Renee is not

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:17:30 · ≈ 11:17 AM

in the building

CommentBruce PorterProposed · by introduction2:17:31 · ≈ 11:17 AM

at the moment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:17:34 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Okay, we're going to return to Santa Barbara for Nancy Emerson to be followed by Bruce Porter.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:17:46 · ≈ 11:17 AM

Good morning. Good morning. Nancy Emerson WeWatch. Generally, we agree with the recommendation that allocation of higher than anticipated revenue be decided as part of the annual budget process We continued to advise that the first priority for cannabis funds be making sure the departments involved in regulating the cannabis industry receive the funds needed to do the job right.

The goal is to allow legal cannabis where it can coexist satisfactorily with those living in the areas of the county, where its activities are located. We think only the expenditure $54,000 for handheld THC analyzers for the Sheriff's Department should be approved at this time as it falls under our priority advice. I can't stay for the afternoon hearing. Do I have permission to just make a thank

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:18:54 · ≈ 11:18 AM

you? Sure Nancy, go

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed2:18:55 · ≈ 11:18 AM

ahead. It was just wonderful to see the retail selection process that's coming before you today. It's very responsive to our citizen concerns and to your concerns, and I'm really happy to be able to support the recommendations of the staff. Thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:19:16 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Well your comments were so nice, I wish you were staying. If you could hang around that'd be great.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:19:21 · ≈ 11:19 AM

I need to get back

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:19:22 · ≈ 11:19 AM

to the valley. Okay well have safe travels.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:19:26 · ≈ 11:19 AM

And our next speaker is Bruce Porter to be followed by Andy Caldwell.

CommentBruce PorterProposedself-stated2:19:31 · ≈ 11:19 AM

Chairman Lavagnino and Supervisors, I'm Bruce Porter. I live in Santa Ynez. And I think philosophically we should be spending money on how to mitigate the harm that's caused by marijuana instead of all this other stuff. So let me give you an example. As we have seen from the California Healthy Kids survey that was taken recently, in our schools we are already seeing some of the effects of extra and additional marijuana being available in our county. So I would ask you has anybody On the board, contacted your counterparts on the Board of the Santa Barbara County Education Office or has staff talked to the staff at SBCEO to see what they are seeing out there that's caused by your policies. You raise taxes for yourself but you don't raise taxes for them and this annex or amendment or attachment A that talks about everybody working on Canvas does not include what's going on in our schools.

Now I truly understand that spending general tax money, giving it to a school district is problematic. But you do have the ability where there's an intersection between county government and education. For example in our school resource officers. So not every high school has a school resource officer. They're often funded by districts, school districts. Sometimes they're funded by municipal government. They could be funded by the county.

You have three high schools in this county that are in the unincorporated area. San Ines, Cabrillo and what's the other one? Help me, Regetti. I would ask that you consider because the effects are happening now, they're not happening next year. They are proven by data. I would ask you to take some of this money now and help mitigate some of the effects that your policies are causing.

If you're looking for something else to spend the money on, I've considered listening to some of the students that you've already heard about from Isla Vista. Isla Vista students and residents are probably some of the most poorly represented constituents in Santa Barbara County. And I would encourage you to think about food insecurity there and if you truly have extra money and you want to spend it on something extra let's spend it on some sort of a food bank operation in Isla Vista. Thank you for your time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:21:48 · ≈ 11:21 AM

And our next speaker is Andy Caldwell

2:21 – 2:2811 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed2:21:52 · ≈ 11:21 AM

Chair Lavinino, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. I would urge you to completely and fully resist the temptation to make this a slush fund. Where just things that are completely unrelated to either marijuana and its enforcement, and or the list of pressing priorities. Somehow this money gets spent because it's a slush fund. With all due respect Supervisor Williams I fail to see a connection between green car charging stations and impacts in marijuana on carpentry or otherwise.

I do think the handheld devices that the sheriff has Should be a priority. We would support you releasing that money, but we've always felt that you should hold the budget process Sancro sancte that everything gets evaluated equally Everything gets evaluated at the same time Because you obviously have maintenance debt and pension obligations to deal with, among other things. And you shouldn't be looking through a keyhole on Tuesday in November for whoever managed to get in on the staff report free-for-all for a potential slush fund. Shouldn't have slush funds. You should have established discipline priorities Of how you're spending all your money, including the money from this fund. And with this one we agree that the funds should be directly related to marijuana issues including enforcement and things like that.

Like I said, we would support the analyzers for the Sheriff's Department. But everything else we think should go in a fund and you should make your decisions all at once looking at the broad scope of all the needs in this county including things dropping out of ceilings on employee desks in some of these offices that need to be replaced plus as the sheriff brought up last time You guys have literally upwards, I think between 50 and $100 million worth of wish list building projects and antenna microwave projects in this set the other that you're going to borrow the money for.

And we think again you should be putting all these things down and have a very disciplined strategic long term plan for funding county government. Thank you. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:24:29 · ≈ 11:24 AM

And Andy was our final speaker.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:24:31 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Okay Supervisor Adam? Okay, well I think that hell may be frozen over. You agree with? We what? What's wrong with me? I don't know. Either that or they've really come a long way. I don't know which one. You're a new

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:24:50 · ≈ 11:24 AM

grandfather.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:24:50 · ≈ 11:24 AM

I'm a new grandfather yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:24:53 · ≈ 11:24 AM

Does that mean you don't think we should allocate $234,000 to infrastructure?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:24:59 · ≈ 11:24 AM

No, that's coming anyway because that's not we have to allocate you allocate that if you follow the Rules, you'll allocate that in June You know I just think that You know allocating at the budget time is a very good disciplinary action. We don't know, Mr. Frapwell doesn't know what's going to happen at the end of the year. He knows what's going on now and you know really this is a small amount of money and as far as having the budget process be sacrosanct we do have the four-fifths Vote available to us in case we really did need to do something like that. But I think this is not a massive amounts of money for For you know in terms of our budget and so You know, I'm I'm not wanting to split that up just now now as An enforcement Issue, I think the first priority has got to be enforcement and I think until we get a hundred percent of all illegal operations shut down or Maybe that's too too strict a hundreds a lot You know till we have the whole May Lou under control countywide.

We really need to Direct almost all of this money towards that end because we've got too many operations and I mean, I sit in on the enforcement call occasionally and they got their hands full. There is an awful lot of things going on out there that they can't get to everything all at once. And so there's a pretty wide swath that we're gonna have to get over enforcement-wise They're probably going to need a really good portion of that.

To get across that, so I think we should just hang tight here. I mean, I'm entirely in support of the Sheriff and Ag Commissioner getting THC meters. I think that's a great idea. It's 54,000 blocks You know we want to get reimbursed for that or whatever you know, but I bet mr. Frapp well could find fifty four thousand bucks somewhere in there Allocating this stuff at this time. I think it's it's a little premature Okay, Supervisor Williams.

not transcribed≈5s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:28:13 · ≈ 11:28 AM

Well, I'm super confused I don't know how you can advocate that we spend it on enforcement but then not spend it on anything And spend it on an infrastructure but not spending on anything It's got to be want one or the other and

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:28:29 · ≈ 11:28 AM

This may come as a shock to you, but I actually have money in my checking account. I have not yet spent So, you know that's the way my brain works. That's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:28:40 · ≈ 11:28 AM

easy to do when you're one of the biggest and wealthiest landowners in the whole county. All right here

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:28:46 · ≈ 11:28 AM

we go! Let's take a time out. You know what? I think probably the best thing to do let's do this. Let's go to Supervisor Hartman first then we'll come to you Supervisor Williams. Thank you. All right Supervisor Hartman

2:28 – 2:4414 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:28:59 · ≈ 11:28 AM

Well, let's see. I think there is general agreement that we want those THC analyzers and if this is the way we get them, if we don't have any other options before us then I do wonder about the $234,000 for the 18% maintenance whether that could be sooner rather than later? That is a point that Supervisor Adam is always making. I have lists of things I would like here, for example, that aren't here. So I think there is a Mr. Caldwell's point that there were departments that were able to get things on this list that other departments weren't. I would like to see the small grants for human services back in the budget. I don't think we've got four votes, however, up here to do any pre-allocation other than the two issues that I just mentioned but maybe we could give direction for things we would like to see come back in our budget workshops in April these things that are listed Well I.

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈18s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:30:25 · ≈ 11:30 AM

I'd be willing to spend some on infrastructure, I'd be willing to spend some on enforcement. Our enforcement team does have needs though they should be able to recover these articulated needs through fee revenue. So it should only be needed for startup costs I hope that we will try to create a compromise to move forward today. I think not making a decision is a failure and it makes, and I just feel really strongly about it. I feel the combination, I talked about this when we passed the budget.

I said we should be allocating more to community needs in the budget. And what I heard back was, we'll see if it comes in more than anticipated. And here it is, and it came in more than anticipated. And if we don't do anything that's going to really tick me off. It's gonna make me question this whole game where we severely under budget then we bring it when it requires a four-fifths vote and then we can't get anything through to the community. And it really pisses me off. It' s wrong. We should provide community benefit For from this issue.

And you know so I would just put out there the idea of trying to balance, you know all the needs including Mister Adams that I've heard out there today and maybe split the baby by putting paying for the THC analyzers paying 66,000 for human services grants and then the balance allocating. Two underground parks projects, two underground active transportation, two underground electric vehicle charging.

The full 18% per board policy to infrastructure and the balance to going to start up costs for the enforcement positions that they can recover through fee revenue.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:32:49 · ≈ 11:32 AM

All right so I want to weigh in a little bit too. So I think everybody is in agreement that the THC analyzers, as hemp comes on too. I think there was just, I just read an article. Was it Bakersfield or somewhere where they know it's Kern County? They had a huge operation that the operator says well my field went hot meaning his hemp turned into cannabis but so there was a huge enforcement issue there and I think with the onslaught that we have now of hemp coming on board I think it'll save a lot of time for both the Ag Commissioner's Office and the Sheriff's Department that they're not having to send samples out to labs, that they'd be able to just test right there.

So at 54,000 for three of them, if we need to get more than three, I don't know if they come four in a pack or whatever but we need to have as many of those as we need. One of the things that I'm interested in that I saw, and this is a weird day because Supervisor Hartman's agreeing with Andy and Peter's agreeing with We Watch. And I'm going to agree with something Mr. Schatillo put in his letter that I do believe in the public benefit. That there has to be some, all this cannabis money is not just going to be spent on cannabis issues. That's not, I don't think that's what people expected they want to see.

You know, I think they would hate it if you had If in the future we're bringing in 10, $12 million and all we're doing is working on cannabis, they want to see a benefit from it. So some of the things that I'm, P&D, we just brought in 11 new employees. I want to get this system working. This thing's grinding really slow. Which is going to bring me to another point a little bit about the Planning Commission, but I think we doubled our enforcement dollars or got close to it year over year. We added 11 new P&D employees.

The things I'm interested in seeing get funded as well are as it relates to tax enforcement. There's nothing that's going to bother me more than the guy that's out there, that's growing and selling and not paying their fair share. It's not fair to the other operators. You know, I already heard from my librarian that she was very excited that last year we helped fill their shortfall.

And she's going to be interested in seeing if that's available again. I definitely don't want to get involved in ongoing dollars and then I'm not sure when I looked at those active the grants that you mentioned are those were those generally funded with general fund dollars or State and federal grants are. So it's just for the future. It's a combination of transportation grants, yeah I don't really know how those originally get funded if you could help.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed2:35:53 · ≈ 11:35 AM

Mr. Chair, primarily they're competitive grant programs state and federal dollars and then we also have a small pot here now with the new Measure A program. Okay.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:36:03 · ≈ 11:36 AM

And I just wanted to add if you have a match you're more competitive.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:36:07 · ≈ 11:36 AM

Okay so maybe that's something in April I'd be interested in? I just think that I'm with you that the dollars are there and I think we are kind of...I get what you're saying that you feel like we're shorting it. I really want to wait and see the entire list because I do know libraries are going to be coming in. There's going to be all kinds of ideas, but for people that are just saying hey we should spend it all on enforcement, that's not what I don't think people signed up for. We have a very robust enforcement team right now and another question I have is about the asset forfeiture so we're gonna talk about enforcement When we're out there, all I know is what I read in the paper. And there was a huge, there's been a couple of huge busts where a lot of cash was seized and if Mr.

Frapple, if you could just talk about kind of how that works because I don't want that for talking about slush funds. I don' t want to see that money eventually just going into the sheriff's general fund. That money, if we're going to talk about cannabis funding meaning cannabis. To me, if it was seized as part of an illegal grow, that definitely should be re-injected back into the enforcement team.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:37:30 · ≈ 11:37 AM

Mr. Chair, thank you for that. There's two potential sources of revenue for this Sheriff's Department and DA for two purposes. One is through the court process as these things get adjudicated or going through the court process. The judge can, if asked, Reimburse county departments for costs associated with the enforcement action. So whether that is disconnect field or whether that is destroying cannabis or illegal cannabis, the DA as part of their work with the court can seek reimbursement for the county. That's a direct reimbursement cost.

In addition there is potential for the county to receive asset forfeiture. And that comes in both cash, as far as cash seized in an enforcement action. As well as the cash value of assets that can be seized during the process. Both those take court approval before the county can receive those. We haven't had any of that yet but obviously as you read in the paper and I've read in the paper there is cash sitting there to work through the court process. When that comes in, your board would see that. It would require a budget revision where your board would actually appropriate those funds and put it into a fund balance.

You'd also see that when the department sought to draw that out of fund balance and appropriate so they can be spent. This is something we're going to be monitoring. We've worked with the department to make sure that we're tracking cannabis-related asset forfeiture separate from all other criminal asset forfeiture. I appreciate it. So that'll be visible to your

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:39:09 · ≈ 11:39 AM

board.

GuestHartmanProposed · by introduction2:39:10 · ≈ 11:39 AM

OK.

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

And even if it comes in a budget revision, if you could just highlight it as well so that we're all on top of it and remember what exactly that came from. So Supervisor Adams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:39:20 · ≈ 11:39 AM

Well I was just going to say that I think there's going to be an enforcement curve. You know, you got this thing that kind of got Wild West out of control and Gold Rush and all these other descriptions of this whole industry's inception And then you kind of getting people into the house and getting them permitted and all that. And at the same time, we've got all these people that never really were interested in getting a permit and becoming family of men. And so as we get through those I think you're gonna see a diminished enforcement requirement But I think you gotta, you gotta get through those first. You can't start spending the money. I think we owe the community as much enforcement as it takes to get that job done and then I think everything's gonna kind of It's tough to predict.

What's going on in Other than to say that I think that in time it'll mellow out. Okay, Supervisor Hart and then Supervisor Williams.

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:40:55 · ≈ 11:40 AM

Yeah, I just see cannabis revenue as general fund revenue and if we're going to allocate this extra general fund revenue, I guess the question could be asked well where else are we trending ahead in general fund revenue? Do we have additional Sales tax revenue, do we have property tax revenue? Do we have transient occupancy tax revenue? At what point do we just decide we're going to have two budget cycles during a fiscal year and we'll do halfway so that we can capture these additional revenues and allocate those funds to worthy important community projects and get those things into The public so the public can enjoy them and that's a reasonable policy question, but it's a resource time staffing focus.

Governments have landed on is that it probably makes sense to do that once a year in a budget process and so to me The the prudent thing to do all of these things are worthy. All of these things are important Some of these things will be funded and other things will be funded In time in context with the proper vetting and analysis from staff and input from the public about how they want to spend this revenue To benefit the community and that is best done in their regular budget process. Even the $54,000 for the THC analyzers I am sure the Sheriff's Department and the Ag Commissioner can find $54k in their budget. I'm sure the Sheriffs' budget is overdrawn as it is today.

So I think there's no need for us to do anything now. I think this is a worthy conversation and it's great to underscore and put a highlight On the fact that this particular general fund revenue stream is doing better than we anticipated, and that's good news.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:42:43 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:42:44 · ≈ 11:42 AM

Well if that was the case then we would just say no to every budget augmentation that comes to us once or twice a month which we allocate on a routine basis larger amounts than this as an A item as amendments from departments. I think there's a real logical inconsistency here. We're treating this money radically different, which is to say somehow we shouldn't touch this and if we don't touch it then I would say that for me that starts radically altering how I view this policy.

And I will amend my motion just give it a try and say OK then let's just allocate. The other half, and so I make a motion that we would allocate the handheld THC analyzers at 54,000. The human services grants of 66,000, 100 grand for parks, 100 grand for electric vehicle charging, 200 for active transportation and the full funding of the infrastructure and maintenance that leaves about a half million unallocated.

2:44 – 2:5325 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:44:12 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Mr. Gazzone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:44:13 · ≈ 11:44 AM

Mr. Chair, I talked briefly with the budget director both in this hearing and beforehand that if this is a motion that moves forward one vehicle would be to delay or to trail this item just so they could come back with a completed budget revision and have one stop shopping today on it. So maybe these are conceptual motions right now but you could complete a budget revision today with and have the clarity that you probably want. Ms. Maison?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:44:37 · ≈ 11:44 AM

That's when the recommendations in the board letter to do just that.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:44:41 · ≈ 11:44 AM

OK there's been a motion.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:44:43 · ≈ 11:44 AM

I will second just so we get a vote on this because we need we would need four votes.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:44:48 · ≈ 11:44 AM

OK and I'm going to tell you why. I think I think look came in higher than expected it's not that we're ignoring it. We're in November already April is six months away when we're gonna actually have the big picture and be able to Figure out where all this is going. I really seriously doubt if we would be able to take this money and really stick it on the street in the next, going over the holidays and have it out on the street any sooner than March or April anyway. So I like the ideas that are here although the charging stations I have an issue with just because I don't think we're going to flip over our fleet for another five or seven years.

And I think I do agree with Mr. Chatillo that if it is cannabis revenue, probably should be a public benefit and not just a county benefit. So you know, I just want to see all the other possibilities that are out there. And i'm not saying we don't spend the money, I just want... You know, if maybe we had a full menu, I'd be okay with it. I just don't have the whole picture And so I don't want to spend the money and then have my librarian come and beat me up two weeks from now, and say well shoot. I needed 150,000 and I don't have it.

So we have a motion and a second. I agree with you in theory but not in practice. So let's call the roll.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:46:23 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Mr. Adam? No. Mr Williams?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:46:25 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Aye.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:46:26 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Mr Hart?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:46:27 · ≈ 11:46 AM

No

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:46:28 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Ms Hartman? Chair Lavanino? No. Motion fails, wonderful.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:46:34 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Okay so I think the direction do we want to give staff direction now for April of what how we want to see the cannabis money spent is that okay to do Mr. Gazzone?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:46:48 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Chair yes you'd be directing staff to come back with options in April just highlighting some funding priorities.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:46:55 · ≈ 11:46 AM

I'll start with you Mr. Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:46:58 · ≈ 11:46 AM

Well I would like to see some benefit to our early childhood education work. It is a need out there, Like to see these active transportation grants funded because it is what one speaker suggested. Has anybody checked in with their school districts? And I have and parents, and this is one of the things that comes up. There are infrastructure both in our parks right and right here that need to be addressed. And I continue to think it's vital for our library services.

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:47:48 · ≈ 11:47 AM

Thank you. Well, one principle is can we leverage the money? Can we get more out of the money than just the amount that we allocate and I think that's possible with active transportation. I'm very active in the Santa Ynez Valley working on safe routes to schools education program and trying to get people So kids can be healthier and more independent. So I'm a strong advocate, Caltrans is going to be focusing more on active transportation. I think there'll be money available so that's very, very important.

I serve on the Kids Network, ACES and focusing on early childhood. I think that is the county's responsibility far more than K through 12. So I'm eager to think about that as well. And I would like to emphasize again, the small grant program through human services. I know that the county itself we don't give so many grants directly to non-profits but I think the Human Services Commission Small Grant Program that we in hard budget times had to take away is a really good way for non-profits to be able to come in for small grants and It means a huge amount to them and they can again leverage that with charitable donors. So those are some of my priorities

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:49:07 · ≈ 11:49 AM

Supervisor Hart? Yeah, I agree it would be wonderful to have the small grant program for human services back in the budget. That is leveraging dollars taking our county tax dollars and having local nonprofits raise money privately and leverage the impact and benefit to the community for those dollars. Similarly, the active transportation program at the state level is a great grant opportunity that the next funding cycle for Is coming up in the spring. I would hope we would have some really great projects to compete at the state level. It's the last time, I think that we're going to be effective competitors for that funding cycle because the census is gonna put us into a different category to compete against. We'll be competing as the larger counties in the state and our competitiveness will decrease in that regard.

So this is sort of our last chance to really hit that program hard on City Santa Barbara has been enormously successful I think they probably raised 30 40 million dollars in active transportation grants So there's local expertise on how to do that how to be effective and I hope you know that our County Public Works Department is Staffing up to be able to and maybe even hiring a consultant to help us Be more effective and more competitive if we can spend $100,000 and get back 10 or 15 million dollars in active transportation programs. That's a great investment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed2:50:30 · ≈ 11:50 AM

Supervisor Adam. Enforcement and maintenance, and we're almost out at 12. We're almost what?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:50:40 · ≈ 11:50 AM

That's why I gotta talk for another five minutes so we can hit it right on the button. No, I'm just kidding. Now, I think I already discussed mine tax enforcement. So I consider that part of enforcement. And, you know, I'm sure we're never short of people coming to us during the budget cycle and then letting us know what but for me 100% of it has to be spent on one time because I think as we've kind of discussed We don't know what's coming in just like we don't know what's going to happen next year or two years from now this whole thing could go away And I don't want to be caught with a lot of ongoing expenses attached to this, so.

All right? Supervisor, I mean Ms. Miyasato, sorry. Just

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:51:28 · ≈ 11:51 AM

a few things. One is just to clarify the record for the Human Services Commission. I heard three of you talk about bringing back the small grant program. Just to be aware we didn't cut that program prior to three of you being seated. We restructured the program and that was to make it more effective with a lot of input from different stakeholders. So, the end result was a smaller grant program in different categories but we didn't cut it I just wanted to be clear on that.

Directed as a priority these active transportation grants are leveraging that funding and talked about a small grant program or Restoring or providing more funding for that. So if those if that's true for three of you, we will put that as a priority When we come back in April as part of the recommended budget But I wanted to clarify something that supervisor Hart said that spring is the next cycle for these grants And if seed money is with that at the risk of opening this back up if seed money is required Is that something that the board?

Would like to make a decision on today

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:52:36 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Supervisor Williams. Well, that's a great great

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:52:38 · ≈ 11:52 AM

point I mean Greg if we're at the cycles in spring don't we need to match it matching funds to be to be proposing and Shouldn't we give it one more try?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:52:49 · ≈ 11:52 AM

Well, to me the proper way to do it would be to have the project proposed by staff with a defined amount of money that's required and then we would have a budget adjustment for a precise program. And I don't think we actually have to put the money into the grant application to get the funding. We may need staffing assistance, technical assistance to make us a more competitive Grant applicant, but I also think the department probably can find that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:53:14 · ≈ 11:53 AM

money and so perhaps a motion to direct Public works to bring us these specific active transportation projects. Yeah for funding Now in time to use

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed2:53:28 · ≈ 11:53 AM

yeah I think that would be great to have the board get an update on that process And where we are and how what where the opportunities are mm-hmm? I'll make a motion like that second

Roll-call vote Moved by Gregg Hart · Seconded by Das Williams receive and file
Show transcript
Moved by Supervisor Hart, seconded by Supervisor Williams. All those in favor? Aye. Are we done? So I need a motion to receive and file. And that it's not a matter of CEQA. So

2:54 – 3:317 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.832:54:01 · ≈ 11:54 AM

moved.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:54:04 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Moved and seconded by anybody? To file.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed2:54:10 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Second.

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

Okay, moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. Passes unanimously. Mr. Gazzone you have 20 seconds to read in

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed2:54:20 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Chair and supervisors, the board is agendized for three matters today. Two are existing litigation. The first existing litigation is titled In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation which is a multi-district case. The second is the Southern California Fire Cases. And you also have conference with labor negotiators concerning Deputy District Attorney's Association, Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association and Union of American Physicians and Dentists. My estimate for closed session is about 90 minutes.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.862:54:51 · ≈ 11:54 AM

Okay 90 minutes we'll be back. Yeah let's do one 30. I think most people.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:55:20 · ≈ 11:55 AM

Good morning. Hello. The. Music Thank you. Yeah. Hi. You. Thank you. Yeah. Music You. Music you you Hello.

3:32 – 4:112 turns

CommentMusic Music Music MusicProposedself-stated3:32:00 · ≈ 12:32 PM

Hello everyone. Music I'm

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:33:58 · ≈ 12:33 PM

The Hello, everyone. . . Hello, everyone. Music . Thank you. Yeah. you You. Thank you. You. Yeah. Yeah. you you Thank you. you Oh, Good morning.

4:12 – 4:502 turns

CommentMusic Music Music MusicProposedself-stated4:12:23 · ≈ 1:12 PM

Music Music Music

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:13:24 · ≈ 1:13 PM

The Hello, everyone. . Hello, everyone. You. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Music Good morning. Yeah. Yeah. you Mm. Hello. Hello everyone.

4:51 – 4:572 turns

CommentMusic Music Music MusicProposedself-stated4:51:49 · ≈ 1:51 PM

Music playing The The . . . . .

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed4:54:43 · ≈ 1:54 PM

Hello, everyone. ♪ Music I almost didn't because there's nobody here, but might

4:57 – 5:057 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:57:47 · ≈ 1:57 PM

as well. All right, I'd like to reconvene this meeting of the County Board of Supervisors. Mr. Gazzone can we get a report out of closed session please?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed4:58:01 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board considered three matters first existing litigation National Prescription Opiate Litigation. The next existing litigation Southern California Fire Cases. The third item was conference with labor negotiators concerning Deputy District Attorney's Association, Santa Barbara County Deputy Sheriff's Association and Union of American Physicians and Dentists. There are no reportable actions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:58:26 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Okay, so that takes us to item four? Five. Item five.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:58:34 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Chair Lovenino and members of the board, departmental item number five is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding cannabis business license program and potential ordinance changes to chapter 50 for cannabis storefront retail. All

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:58:47 · ≈ 1:58 PM

right.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.864:58:48 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Good afternoon, Mr. Buzanich.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed4:58:49 · ≈ 1:58 PM

Good morning Chair Levinino and members of the board. The purpose of this item today is to provide you some options, a discussion opportunity to consider amendments to Chapter 50 particularly the sections on cannabis storefront retail. By way of background, currently your board through its original ordinance adoption of Chapter 50 and then through subsequent amendments last spring. There's a maximum of one storefront retail operation allowed in six of the community plan areas.

Orchid, Los Alamos, San Ynez, the Eastern Goleta Valley, Isla Vista slash Goleta for those pieces that area not in the city of Goleta. And then a combined community plan area of Summerland and Toro Canyon. Specifically the Toro Canyon area covers the Padaro Lane, Santa Claus Lane retail area plus up to two countywide sites for storefront retail in areas not covered by the community plan areas listed above.

The framework also Requires that there be one application per person, per business location. And those folks that were to apply per person, per business location would have to be pre-qualified. The pre-qualified applicants in the current ordinance would go through a random selection process for each of the plan areas, as well as a seventh random selection process countywide for the non-community plan areas.

And it's important to remind you and the folks at home that all licenses are renewed annually. They can be suspended, they can be revoked, and they could be non-renewed for noncompliance. And it's also important to remember that they are nontransferable. As we were working through to provide you with the amendments that your board requested, we came up with four possible areas of changes but your board is open to certainly freely notice to come up with other alternative amendments that you might like as well.

But just to run through those in summary real quickly establish a criteria based application and site review process including ranking and some kind The specific selection process to replace the random selection process. We'd like you to identify some roles in that criteria-based review process. We would like to require that store, Cannabis Storefront Retail submit a business operations proposal and or a neighborhood compatibility proposal for evaluation and scoring.

And then finally the application probably oughta have some format and submittal guidelines that your board would adopt. So I'm gonna go into these in a little bit more detail. So the current as I noted at the top of the presentation here on the current process is a a basically a prequalification process that is very very basic people if they met the basic criteria of having a property under control.

In the proper zone and then background checks for the individual applicants. That's all that would be required to get on the pre-qualification list. They would then go through a random selection process, drawing numbers out of a hat or some similar system. And that would happen for each of the community plan areas and then the at large placements as well outside of the community plan areas. So the areas of concern here is that members of the public and your board have actually expressed some concerns about the current random selection process may not necessarily yield the best results. And there certainly wouldn't be the kind of community, particularly community focused type of applicants it would really be left to chance.

So a couple options that staff has identified for you to consider. Option one would be to amend the code to create perhaps a three-step criteria based selection process that scores and ranks applicants into the various plan areas. And when going to those selection process components, one would be that they would have an application that has multiple both business operations criteria as well as neighborhood compatibility criteria. That would then be scored.

There would be perhaps the second step That would be in in this option one would be some kind of a public hearing public presentation by the applicants. Perhaps held directly in the community plan area itself instead of at a neutral 3rd site and the 3rd possible step would be a site visit of the perhaps the top ranked applicants so That's obviously modifiable by your board and we'll, as we get into the discussion later be interested in your direction on that.

Second step would be to amend the code to create a three-step scoring process that would create a prequalification process. So different than in option one, you would actually be selecting whoever came out as the top scorer in that step. Option one, they would become the person that would have the right of first refusal to get a business license. In option 2, that would allow some ranked order of their prequalifications and then you could do some things like a random selection process for those people that let's say met a basic score of 80% to the points.

Or 90% of the points, we could set a bar wherever you want it. And then there would be a random selection process out of those highly qualified operations. That's what's different between option one and option two is that you're pre-qualifying them with the score and then it's a random selection for a few at the very end. The other option we present to you here is just to maintain the existing regulations with the random selection process.

Dennis I have a question.

5:05 – 5:2022 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:05:18 · ≈ 2:05 PM

Where's the option where you, you know we either and I don't know if people are interested in doing this in-house or at a third party. I'm more interested in doing it in third party because I don t think we have the staffing to do it but so we send these out right? And somebody ranks them and the winner is the winner And because where I feel like the big problem is going to be coming back, is we send out 100 or let's say 20 applications.

And whoever it is comes back and goes okay here's one, here's two, here's three. And then somehow we go to what I'm really worried about is you got a community meeting right? Well what's four five and six gonna do at the community meeting? Four, five and six are going to be like my gosh we did all the opposition research on these guys. And here's all the horrible things about this company. We really incentivize people that don't get selected if we don't just leave it to here is the winner.

It's really incentivized for everybody else to go after that chosen person.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:06:27 · ≈ 2:06 PM

Chair Levin, almost any of these systems have been manipulated in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes over time. And it's one of the challenges that all jurisdictions frankly in the state of California have found themselves in trying to address not only having some community input process or some criteria based system. And then the possibility of that being somehow manipulated in a way that's deleterious for one applicant and beneficial to another. I'm not saying that everybody does that, but I'm saying that is one of the challenges. So to answer your question directly, if you wanted to have a system like you just represented where basically there's going to be a ranked selection process that basically is determinant of who's going to get the right or first refusal to go get a permit and eventually the shortened business license process.

You're gonna wanna pick number one on this option And then under the next one, which I'm going to come to and I haven't described fully yet. You would want something like option two or option three under this discussion here on the roles in the criteria based because option three specifically would give you a third party contractor review and score. And so if you did option three under two combined with option one under one, you get what

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:07:57 · ≈ 2:07 PM

you want.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:07:58 · ≈ 2:07 PM

Got that?

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:07:58 · ≈ 2:07 PM

No, but yeah I did. I did because I know what you're talking about so last question for I don't mean to get too in the weeds but doesn't the community have an opportunity that let's say we did send it out to a third party comes back here's our number one person and it comes back doesn't the community still have an opportunity to have isn't there hearing at some point that that person has to go through to open the doors

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:08:26 · ≈ 2:08 PM

Chair, there is the process immediately following the selection process. They're going to get in line at the counter planning and development department and they're going to seek to secure their land use permit or conditional use permit which has full hearing and appeal possibilities.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:08:44 · ≈ 2:08 PM

All right so no one's gonna get shoved down anybody's throat without a public hearing?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:08:49 · ≈ 2:08 PM

No

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:08:49 · ≈ 2:08 PM

okay

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:08:50 · ≈ 2:08 PM

however If I may. In the land use context, the things you get to weigh in on are somewhat narrower and so I will be strongly advocating given that three of these six would be in my district that the communities have a role in talking about what would benefit their community, that they're not just Exposed to a company that's coming in and exploiting them, and taking that money out. That they have an opportunity to say these are the things that are important to us. And it differs by community.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:09:24 · ≈ 2:09 PM

But why don't we do that when setting the criteria so that the company knows? I mean if you lay out here is what's important to us. Well, I guess let's let Dennis get through this.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:09:36 · ≈ 2:09 PM

Sure. Los Alamos differs from Isla Vista.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:09:38 · ≈ 2:09 PM

Right, no, and they should. So Mr. Gazzone.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:09:43 · ≈ 2:09 PM

So I think that as you're going through here both for legal defensibility and for ease of application, the more objective and uniform the criteria that are spelled out better on both of those prongs. All right cool

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:09:57 · ≈ 2:09 PM

So the second possibility for your board to consider in terms of amendment Areas would be to really talk about this issue of who's going to be involved. What are the roles in this criteria based process? Well, you know what stop here and make a note something that's unique about chapter 50 of The county code we are very specific In every regard into what departments do in terms of what the applicants are supposed to do.

The level of detail in chapter 50 is quite extensive, and so part of why we're going through these areas now for your board to provide us feedback is so that we maintain that same level of specificity as we make these amendments. So these questions about who and what and when and how are really important for that to maintain that same level of detail. So currently under the regulations there is no specified roles random selection was imagined just to be something where we were prior higher. Price Waterhouse and they would do envelopes all of the.

Golden Globes or the Academy Awards and after they randomly selected somebody. But again, there was a fair amount of concern about neighborhood compatibility issues and then what role does the board and the staff and others play in this? So we identified a few different options under this area. One is, option one would be to include the board or a delegate on a county selection committee for that particular community plan area. Option two would be to create a county selection committee to review and score in that county selection committee would come from a variety of staff from a variety of disciplines very similar to what our compliance team looks like now Perhaps one suggestion and they would review and score those applications With possibly a public hearing for input to the final selection Option three would be to allow a third party contractor to review and score those applications option four would be to approve have the board Have some kind of final approval process And option five would be to maintain the existing regulations.

And there's probably 2A, 2B and 2C on any one of these so please don't feel like you're obligated or locked into any of those. Area amendment area number three for consideration is to require a business operations and or neighborhood compatibility proposal as part of the application. So, as you recall in the existing system it's basically who and where. That's all that you're being asked to submit in order to get on the pre-qualification list. On this amendment area, we're looking at what is possible in terms of adding a level of depth and rigor to the application such that you can make a criteria based selection as Mr. Gazzone was mentioning a moment ago that is both fair and universally applied.

So option one in this area would be to amend the code to require submission of business operations proposal. And some of those things that would be included in that was their relative experience in owning a cannabis related business, records of compliance, procedures manuals, financial planning and perhaps including financial performance, employee training program. Procurement and delivery plan about how they're going to get product in and out of the store.

Communications plan and security plan, just some options there for those criteria areas for the business operations. Option two lays out as the requirement is submit a neighborhood compatibility proposal including customer and community education plans, community engagement plans, and or neighborhood compatibility plans which would include things like design and aesthetics Option three is to look at both options one and two together.

And number four, the ubiquitous maintain existing regulations. Then for option or amendment area number four, the possibility is to for the board to give greater specificity to what the application would look like and what that submittal process would look like. Currently, the existing ordinance has very broad descriptions and very little about specific format. But given that we're going to get into criteria-based determinations, the possibility is you would have these very voluminous application packages that would be difficult to review, cumbersome to manage through the selection process. And so making sure that they have a common look and feel, a common format, perhaps some constraints, we thought that the board may want to consider the following options.

Option one was Have some kind of a limit in the size of the application, perhaps limited to let's say 100 pages or less. Option 2 was to amend the code to specify what kind of noticing and applications submission period there would be. The longer we keep the application period open for example, the more applicants were going to have The more review that will be necessary.

But you obviously need to be fair to allow adequate noticing and adequate preparation of whatever application that they provide based on what you suggest under Amendment Area 3. Option number three here would be to amend the code to require previously identified components, criteria-based components and existing application elements From county code section 50 dash 8. We had already built into chapter 50 rather extensive requirements for what needs to be included, including a series of attestations by the applicant that they are going to be fully compliant at all times and Allowing us to have on regular onsite inspection So just wanting to make sure that your board is instructing us to continue to include those in the submissions That would come out of this amended process and then a couple of other options basically any combination of one two or three or all One two and three inclusive or to maintain the existing regulations I So just to reiterate the other parts about where licensing fits.

So land use permitting for cannabis retail still exists in chapter 35 of the Land Use and Development Code, and no changes of what we've presented today have any impacts on what's happening under land use permitting. Under existing Chapter 50 following the storefront retail selection process, the selected applicant would have 90 days to submit an application to the Planning and Development Department for that land use permit.

Failure to do so would mean we would go to the next person on the list. And the selected applicant may also apply for the cannabis business license at the same time. This was an amendment your board made earlier this summer, where we're allowing now for concurrent processing of permits and licenses together. And the cannabis retailer would also be required, of course, to obtain their state retail license from the Bureau of Cannabis Control prior to them being allowed to operate in the unincorporated area. So this system regardless of the amendments you make today would maintain our three legged stool of compliance one having a land use entitlement in force, having a business license in force and having state licenses in force.

So the recommended actions today is to consider potential changes to the current cannabis storefront retail business licensing regulations, provide conceptual directions to staff on possible amendments similar to those that I've recommended or others. Provide any other direction to staff to amend the county's cannabis regulatory program and then make the CEQA determination that this is exempt.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:18:14 · ≈ 2:18 PM

Do we have questions before public comment or would you rather go to public comment first? CEO Miyasato.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:18:20 · ≈ 2:18 PM

Supervisors, the one thing that we didn't put on the slides is staff's recommendation and I'll leave this because there's a lot of option 1, 2, 3 etc., and if Mr. Berlant just quickly for option 1,2,3 and 4 just say what the staff recommendation is in the board letter.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:18:34 · ≈ 2:18 PM

Sure, sorry about that. Yeah, I forgot to mention so under the first one what I would recommend For the criteria based application is that we consider option number two? To come up with that three-step pre qualification process and then a random selection process and just as a way of making sure you had quality of candidate for that but that you also then Weren't having to rely so precisely on the difference between one point here or one point there, which has got me a little nervous about being able to be that definitive

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:19:13 · ≈ 2:19 PM

with that selection process. As long as they were within, I mean you don't have somebody scoring at 99 and the next one's at 78 and you're like well we're going to still randomly select. They would have to be a percentage right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:19:24 · ≈ 2:19 PM

So so the exact they're just on that real quickly. The example Marin County is put in an 80% floor So you had to have at least 80 percent of this any 80 percent the points on your application in order to even qualify That would be the floor.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:19:37 · ≈ 2:19 PM

Okay

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:19:38 · ≈ 2:19 PM

supervisor Williams Well, I understand a little bit of logic on that I just am a little worried about whether that means that if If there's a community benefit that really is, I mean for me 90% of the question. Whether that gives us sufficient wherewithal to be properly representing that community interest. And I can tell you and I agree with Joan that we should have some Public input on the community benefit, but you know for From for the areas that that people are talking about doing it in the first district It's really specific to me. What would make the difference between it being in the community interest and being at? You know not in the community interest and you know, it's outs It's outside the box to say the least and I just I'm trying to understand whether That would still have an end result where the community interest, if it was strange, would end up being fulfilled.

5:20 – 5:3117 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:20:58 · ≈ 2:20 PM

Chair and Supervisor Williams, I didn't necessarily hear a specific question but I think one of the real next steps critical to this will be trying to figure out the relative weighting of these various components and how that factors into the scoring. And so part of the plan for that would be that whenever this is brought back as soon as this can be brought back With the legislative language changes, we would also bring back some proposals for what that score sheet would look like to come up with that relative ranking. And I think what you're suggesting is there's a lot of things that are going to be important to different board members at different situations but that ultimately in order to pass Supervisor Hartman.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:22:05 · ≈ 2:22 PM

Let's see, I have two maybe three questions. The first is could you describe the outside of community plan areas where there may be two wild cards? Where do we have commercial zoning that would be appropriate for a cannabis retail operation?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:22:23 · ≈ 2:22 PM

So the Chair and Supervisor Hartman, the areas I can think of in my Google map in my brain would be looking at Quiama Commercial District right along 166. Vandenberg Village area and Chasmalia.

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:22:50 · ≈ 2:22 PM

And let's see my second question is about local. Uh, local ownership, local control. I don't see much in here. Uh, I realized there are some legal issues associated with that. However, I know that some do indeed have some preference for local. I certainly would to the extent that it's legal. Dennis, Mr. Gazzone has something.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed5:23:29 · ≈ 2:23 PM

So I think going back to your first comment, the comment right before this one. I think that your discussion of commercial zoning was one example of the rational basis that we would be looking for to help support the record on this if we could tie a preference at the board to something like commercial zoning or other easy-to-nail down objective Criteria on the other idea of local preference. I'll just note that the board in this case unlike with a project labor agreement is a market regulator and not a market participant, so it would be Much harder to have a local preference as a market regulator

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:24:10 · ≈ 2:24 PM

Just one additional be sorry Supervisor Hartman just in the board letter itself One of the things that we think might be able to move in somewhat in that direction, although we'll have to manage this carefully We do identify the possibility of the record of compliant cannabis operations in Santa Barbara County as one possible criteria area that could allow for a local ownership in particular and Based on their compliance record to perhaps receive some points

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:24:41 · ≈ 2:24 PM

Yeah, although that means maybe cultivators would be getting into retail. No. Okay one final question the community meeting one idea that might be an alternative to what you have here is is that there be a community meeting early in the process so that the community has an opportunity to articulate some of their needs, wishes, desires. And then the applicants could take that into account and the community may not weigh in on the final proposal but at least they get a voice. So that's just an option I have. I like

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:25:18 · ≈ 2:25 PM

that a lot better because that way you can craft your application to your community. Right? I think that makes a lot more sense. The whole local thing to is I think you have to be very careful how you define that news local and it are they just hiring somebody that is local, you know that what what I'm more interested in too is and when we get to developing the criteria. And I guess if this is coming back will develop the criteria or because one of things for me with local as I would like to see actual Are we not bringing it back? Are we bringing it back? What did, I'm sorry.

No, I was just going to say, I would like to see local product. Not that we're mandating it all has to be but I would like to see that as some weight given too that they're actually helping ourselves here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:26:11 · ≈ 2:26 PM

Supervisors just a little bit on process today So you've asked us to come back with some options. We have some options We were hoping that after today we would have enough to write the ordinance and bring the first reading back to you Based on your discussion today if you so, we were hoping you would get to the conversation of what our criteria You'd like this to use otherwise This will drag out probably till the spring as far as getting a first reading done.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:26:37 · ≈ 2:26 PM

So we're setting criteria today

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:26:39 · ≈ 2:26 PM

If at all possible. The one exception to that was Supervisor Hartman's suggestion of having community input, really that would be to define those criteria I'm assuming because it's community compatibility issues but as Mr. Gazzone said we're trying to provide, when we come back to you we'd like an ordinance that has some kind of consistency in it So that's the art of all of this is providing something with some consistency that we can apply and yet meeting individual neighborhood compatibility standards But we are looking for greater discussion by the board today

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:27:17 · ≈ 2:27 PM

Okay supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:27:18 · ≈ 2:27 PM

Adam you know, I'm just a little uncomfortable with this whole thing because I Realize this is a special subject matter For a variety of reasons But I also wonder what other projects will be applying this logic to at some other time. I mean, you know when somebody wants to put a grocery store in should they have a community meeting first as part of the deal and then if it's not good enough for the community or they don't shake them down hard enough or whatever It just seems like a slippery slope and I don't like it.

Supervisor Hartman?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:28:06 · ≈ 2:28 PM

Well, I appreciate as always that you're trying to get us to think through is this precedent setting what are the implications down the road that we're not considering at this moment In this case though, it's the only case I know of where we're saying six or eight throughout the entire county. So we've already set a limit and I think that takes it certainly out of the category of grocery stores and probably even other things like bars and so-called vice things.

I do believe this is a case unto itself and there is a tremendous value that because we're limiting it, there's a real windfall to the people who get these licenses. And then the question is what will they offer to the community especially in light of what we're learning about the public health impacts and education responsibilities and all of that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:29:09 · ≈ 2:29 PM

Supervisor Adam. Then you know that argues for I think in some respects just letting it go. And I hate to say that because it's a theoretical idea, I'm not suggesting We let it go, but as a thought experiment here. It really argues for letting the thing go and then at the same time having public health department reaching out to everybody they can get hold of and saying look how bad this stuff is because you know that the health ramifications of this stuff were I would say not known At the time, and I think we're learning some stuff that we don't like right now. And we're likely to learn you look confused. Yeah. You talking

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:30:10 · ≈ 2:30 PM

about vaping?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:30:12 · ≈ 2:30 PM

Well yeah, I'm talking about vaping and I don't know what the vaping issues are caused by just yet. I think we know that there's vaping issues but we don't know what they're caused by and whether Accidental or intentional material that was introduced or it's Whatever all else. It is that we don't we don' t know enough about it yet We're gonna find that stuff all out eventually You know, that that stuff is going to get studied and there's gonna be a lot more information in five years but I worry a lot about the precedence of Getting the public involved in the application to do something anything even though it's this and I get the special nature of this and then unique nature of this. And you know we created that of our own Free will you know, we we made the six location thing so That's that's artificial and we could we could adjust that So it wasn't so valuable.

I mean, I don't know why we'd want to hand six people that kind of value frankly

5:31 – 5:3912 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:31:35 · ≈ 2:31 PM

Supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:31:37 · ≈ 2:31 PM

I was going to just get it to public comment, but I have to say that once the genie's out in L.A., they had lots of different retail operations and then they try to walk it back and people have entitlements and it becomes very difficult so I'd rather work it slowly out rather than in one big bell swoop.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:32:02 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Okay. Let's let's go to public comment and we'll come back for I know this board's going to have long discussion about criteria and whatnot so.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:32:10 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Chair Levin you know members of the Board, we have separate requests to speak on this item. And we're going to start in Santa Maria with Linda Tunnell to be followed by Renee O'Neill. Linda?

CommentBruce PorterProposed · by introduction5:32:26 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Chairman, Supervisors. I just wanted to express my support for the recommendations from the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis in their letter to you. Renee O'Neill is not in the building so thank you.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:32:42 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:32:43 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Okay we are going to skip Renee and go to Megan Souza and then we're going to return to Santa Barbara with Nancy Emerson. Megan?

CommentMegan SouzaProposedself-stated5:32:53 · ≈ 2:32 PM

Good afternoon. My name is Megan Souza and I've been a cannabis business operator in San Luis Obispo and northern Santa Barbara County since 2010, and I have recently been awarded a dispensary operator permit for the city of San Luis Obispo And I strongly encourage the supervisors to vote to remove any amount of randomness from the application evaluation process.

Because doing so will result in the most experienced, qualified and appropriate operator for that area. was given a leg up because of the application evaluation criteria that San Luis Obispo City Council implemented. I hope that you guys will do something similar and create application selection criteria that does things like benefit applicants who have a history of of doing community benefit activities, applicants with a history of compliant experience in the industry with a local history.

And also since poor people and people of color have historically suffered the consequences of cannabis criminalization which was Originally motivated by racism and classism, it would be great if we could benefit those applicants who are disadvantaged through this process by giving extra points for applicants who are, for example, at or below median income. Or, for example, are black or Hispanic.

And application evaluation criteria like this will force Commercial property owners and investors to partner with the small local operators that are the most qualified and deserving of these very valuable applicant permits. And lastly, I just want to encourage the board to go with a third party consulting firm option Having been through two cities' application processes now, Morro Bay and SLO, things went much more smoothly in SLO where they stuck to the third-party consulting firm's scoring.

Whereas in Morro Bay the city is being sued because they started with a third party consulting company Went another direction and ended up with the fire chief and police chief, and a city finance director being the permanent review committee. And the police chief and fire chief are quite capable of evaluating security plans and fire safety plans But for an overall cannabis application, and mine were like over 300 pages.

So certainly these are dense and I don't see a way of keeping them under 100 pages. And if the county doesn't have the manpower to do it, go for a third party consulting firm, highly recommend it. That's all. Megan Souza, Megan's Organic Market. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:36:01 · ≈ 2:36 PM

And I was reminded that Nancy Emerson is not here this afternoon. We are going to Jay Freeman to be followed by Devin Wardlow. Jay? Right now,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:36:12 · ≈ 2:36 PM

right now.

PresenterJay Freemanthat body here today and while I am voicing isProposedself-stated5:36:18 · ≈ 2:36 PM

Hello, my name is Jay Freeman. For required disclosure I'm on the board of the Isla Vista Community Services District but I'm not representing that body here today and while I am voicing issues of others in our community ultimately I'm speaking on behalf of my own. Again, I'll point out why both myself and others in Isla Vista care so much about this issue. The direction taken by the Board of Supervisors has been to essentially create local monopolies similar in many ways to private utilities or service providers For which often franchise fees are collected and careful negotiations are performed only without the vast majority of the oversight and surrounding process that is associated with these situations. To directly respond to Supervisor Adams' concern, I'll remind how much design was put into the business license process and interaction requirements for e-scooter companies.

This isn't unless you do let it go the same as a grocery store. Isla Vista is a very young community. I believe our median age is 20.5. This means that a lot of people in our community lack the admittedly painful benefit that comes with experience that helps insulate us from predatory for-profit companies, a situation that is easily demonstrated by looking at our housing market where a number of first time renters are systematically being taken advantage of by landlords who stretch what is reasonable with people who don't know any better. We thereby have an extreme concern that Isla Vista, at least locally here in Santa Barbara County is almost uniquely enticing as a marketing target by any company or individual that would push whether overtly or indirectly for unhealthy usage habits among our population.

So I largely agree with the staff proposal. I don't personally care about whether it's pre- or post-selection. The two separate review processes, a county selection committee and third party consultants make sense to me. And I have no opinion on the exact timing. I also think your staff has come up with some useful baseline criteria if maybe a trivial set that mostly maps what these companies needed to be demonstrating before anyway. However, I think the crux of this entire issue is in these specific criteria. And I can tell you that some of the asks that our community has been most consistently excited about, employee and operator equity, local product sourcing and local ownership are not currently on the list of what would be considered as part of neighborhood compatibility.

Meanwhile, and maybe much more importantly there's no detail on what to consider consumer and community education which is arguably what brought us to the table in the first place. Again due to concern that our first time user community is ripe for exploitation. Sadly, while it is my understanding that you are being asked to make a final decision on these criteria today I do not have a concrete proposal or anything to give you at this time. The reason for this is that while the last Isla Vista Community Network meeting we had a few weeks ago was an explicit intention for us to set up a local committee for us to discuss what we wanted out of this process Supervisor Hartman had thought would be more useful to organize such a discussion after meeting today which delayed local involvement however we are all very excited to meet and work on this and generally I always argue it's better for county staff working on these kinds of processes to engage with local community groups before Not after decisions are made by the county.

I was thereby quite happy to hear the back and forth between Supervisors Lavagnino and Hartman about local input, and hope you move to include criteria from the community. Regardless, I thank you for at least moving in the direction of the merit-based process. I continue to believe that the pure random selection processes were broken with per person per property being gammable by LLC stacking and peer per property becoming informal auction in the community for who can bribe the most property owners to sponsor their applications. If we're going to establish local monopolies, we need to be careful about to whom we grant such power, and it's at least clear you care. Thank you again.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:39:13 · ≈ 2:39 PM

And our next speaker is Devin Wardlow to be followed by Ben Condren who's our final speaker.

5:39 – 5:5212 turns

PresenterDevin WardlowPublic Affairs for Coastal DispensaryProposedself-stated5:39:20 · ≈ 2:39 PM

Hello, thank you County Supervisors. My name is- Devin can you bring it down? Sorry. There you go. Hello everybody my name is Devin Wardlow and I am the Director of Public Affairs for Coastal Dispensary. I commend the county supervisors and county staff for their dedication to ensuring that cannabis in Santa Barbara County is done correctly. I have four points that I'd like to raise for your consideration. One, merit. I recommend the county adopt a strictly merit based application process to ensure fair competition between local and large multi-state operators. I advise the county not to incorporate any aspect of a lottery system as such a system will make it harder for local businesses to compete.

To Supervisor Williams' point, as a small operator it is difficult to make the community benefits investment if it is left up to lottery. As a small operator, I am more than willing to make the investment up front of what will be needed and what I think will be best for the individual communities. But if there is any chance of a lottery it's very hard for me to make the case as a business to make that type of investment without a sure bet that I'm going to be graded purely on merit That's one. Two, internal selection committee. I recommend the county create an internal selection committee comprised of county staff from a variety of departments to review and grade the merit-based applications as the City of Santa Barbara did. I understand there are concerns regarding liability for the county and I want to emphasize Utilizing an outside consulting firm has not reduced liability for the cities that have utilized them.

For example, San Luis Obispo, the city of San Luis Obispo as you just heard, they utilize an outside firm and they are in no way in their selection process. Number three, site visit. If the county chooses to have an additional step in the merit-based selection process I recommend a site visit interview for the top three applicants per community plan area where the county can see the application come to life and ask direct questions on all aspects of the application and the property Number four, local component. I'm very glad to hear a lot of discussion around local today.

As an applicant in this process, I can tell you that there is a significant amount of interest from non-local large multi state operators. In order to ensure that the cannabis industry of Santa Barbara County reflects the community in which it serves, I ask the county supervisors to direct staff to ensure that there be a local component or at least an SP county residency requirement to be a required component of the merit based application.

And to some of the points that were mentioned earlier, to include a local component and the community benefits in the application process is the ability for when the applicants can make their case as to why and what community benefits they will make. So even though I would recommend, as the previous speaker just mentioned, it's good to have dialogue about these.

The way a merit-based process works will allow every applicant to really put down all their ideas on how they can do the best for the community in which they're applying. So that should serve that component, just community benefits broadly but there needs to be in place very specific point allocations to local residencies or local control meaning Folks that have operated cannabis companies in the Santa Barbara County, things like that.

So overall I really appreciate everything the county's done. I'm very impressed with this county, with the staff how everyone has been so due diligent on making this a really successful process. So I appreciate everyone's time and look forward to continuing to work with you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed5:42:51 · ≈ 2:42 PM

And our final speaker is Ben Condren, Ben?

CommentBen CondrenProposedself-stated5:43:03 · ≈ 2:43 PM

Hello, my name is Ben Condren. I work on licensing and compliance in the California cannabis industry. I wanted to speak about the upcoming retail selection process in the county. Specifically, I wanted to point out some concerns regarding the utilization of an outside third party consulting firm to conduct the selection process. Utilizing an outside consulting firm would not reduce liability for the county, nor will it seamlessly facilitate the process either.

Cities that have utilized outside consulting firms such as City of San Bernardino, Modesto, Pasadena and as has been mentioned, San Luis Obispo all of them have experienced various issues in their selection processes as a result. It is in the county's best interest to control the process for vetting their future business partners rather than outsourcing this responsibility to an outside consulting firm.

One of the most well-known of these firms, HDL Companies, they were recently the subject of a three part series published in Marijuana Business Daily, a leading cannabis industry news source. The firm was dubbed the Kingmakers of California Cannabis and described as an embodiment of the divide between political and business forces jockeying for positions to affect the size and scope of California's cannabis industry.

A prominent cannabis industry attorney, Omar Figueroa, was quoted as saying they have a mercenary attitude in it for the money not about the success of small businesses. It's all about getting those consulting contracts and They don't care about establishing a successful system. And another industry representative anonymously said, be prepared for time delays, be prepared for spending substantial money up front. Be prepared for a sense of arrogance and empowerment. Be prepared for it to be a cumbersome process and with no guarantees to even get heard or through the phases.

And again, it is in the county's best interest to control the process for vetting these businesses as they will be your future partners in the county. This rather than outsourcing it to an outside consulting firm. Thank you. Thank you,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:45:19 · ≈ 2:45 PM

so that closes public comment? I'm going to ask CEO Miyasato because my main reason for sending it outside and I haven't really heard from anybody else but Do we have the staffing? Have we estimated what this would take to do, how many applications we're anticipating. Have we looked at that yet and determined what it would do to our staff?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:45:46 · ≈ 2:45 PM

Chair Lavanino and Supervisors, I don't have a precise estimate but we do not have the staff. And that's why I asked Mr. Buzanich to go through the recommendations and didn't quite get there. And that was the staff's recommendation is not to quote unquote send it out to a third party just for them to control the process. What we've said is we would recommend doing two things creating a county selection committee to review and score on neighborhood compatibility in some of the things we've listed But also needing a third party consultant to utilize for viewing business pro forma plan components, because we do not have that expertise within the county. And so we were recommending to do both of those things.

We have not outsourced this process, we would not but we would need assistance in helping us.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:46:29 · ≈ 2:46 PM

So that almost sounds like it could be a two track system where, I think when we talked about neighborhood compatibility which sounds like everybody's number one issue and that needs the public input. The pro forma and those types of things don't really need the public input. We could actually receive applications and be sending them out to be reviewed at the same time holding a community meeting Us coming up with our own score for a neighborhood compatibility matching those together and coming up with a final score.

So OK supervisor Adam. When you say us did you mean me? Yeah, I Have a 10-foot

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:47:07 · ≈ 2:47 PM

pole in my office and I will

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:47:09 · ≈ 2:47 PM

not be touching

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:47:10 · ≈ 2:47 PM

this

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed5:47:10 · ≈ 2:47 PM

way If it pleases you I could Okay, so starting on page 4 of the presentation I'm okay with option 1 amend the code to create a three-step criteria based selection process that scores and ranks applicants in plan areas. And then page five of the presentation. Option three, allow a third party contractor to review and score applications. Page six, option three both options one and two.

And I would like to add parking evaluation While they're talking about scoring. And then page 7, option 5 all options 1 through 3. That's what I've got for now.

not transcribed≈14s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:48:44 · ≈ 2:48 PM

All right, let's just go right down the line. Supervisor Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed5:48:46 · ≈ 2:48 PM

I'm using Supervisor Adams' criteria or structure page four. I would opt for option one. I want to have the most experienced qualified applicants and not have a random process. I would also...I don't know if this is the place to talk about it but I think that we should consider dropping out the two floating locations that don't have linkage to community plan.

That presents the potential of more complexity than I think it's worth and six is a lot for the county. Page five, I would opt for option two creating the County Selection Committee and I could see the role for a consultant as Ms. Miyasato described having supplementing the work of staff from a technical standpoint but the staff committee driving the process in making the evaluations.

Page 6, I would propose integrating both options 1 and 2. And I would love to see something in this area related to encouraging more worker equity and worker protections. I know the state legislature has just passed AB 1291 which Requires cannabis operators that have more than 20 employees to have a labor peace agreement. I think that is a good idea and makes sense as a statewide standard of having 20, but I think we're a smaller county. We're going to have smaller operators. I think a threshold of 15 employees would be more appropriate for the size of our county and the size of the operations. That we're having. I'd also like to see the plan include specific criteria describing the staffing plan of the operator, you know obviously this isn't something that's locked in but it would be excellent to see A lot of thought into that from an operator, you know giving them, giving us some confidence that they have thought through that process about how many employees are going to need.

I'd also like to see them demonstrate a inclusive hiring process reaching out to disadvantaged communities Trying to have the workforce more accurately represent the county demographics. As the person spoke to us, historically disadvantaged communities abhorred a disproportionate weight of historic cannabis regulations and this is an opportunity to help evolve that and be more equitable.

And then I think it'd be great to have something in the business license at the year-end review, to kind of look back on the status of the labor peace agreement and what has happened in that negotiation. Because the beginning part of the process that they will engage with the union and The union have access to their employees does not necessarily result in a negotiation and an agreement for those employees. And having that check-in after the year to report back on the status of that provides a feedback mechanism to that effort.

And then as far as the last page, I guess what is it? Page 5.

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

5:52 – 6:0724 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:52:28 · ≈ 2:52 PM

I'll start with agreeing with Supervisor Hart. I don't believe Vandenberg Village, Kiyama and Casamelia are good options for cannabis retail. I did have the opportunity to be in a community meeting in Vandenberg Village last week about 250 people and asked for a show of hands how many people wanted a cannabis retail in their community and there were Everyone said no except three out of 250 about.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:53:00 · ≈ 2:53 PM

These were the same people they didn't want the methadone clinic or the affordable housing?

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:53:05 · ≈ 2:53 PM

No

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:53:05 · ≈ 2:53 PM

those are different. Okay

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.835:53:10 · ≈ 2:53 PM

But we're trying to put a tot lot across the street and it's a very small commercial area. And if I mean, it was pretty emphatic and I'll be here. I promised I would put that point forward emphatically that they don't want it there. In terms of the first issue, established criteria based application review. I would go with option one. I don't think there's any...I take the points that were stated about The randomness favors large outside people. I think it's much better to say this is what we want and do it, but I think there is some room for where we have the community meeting and perhaps we could move it earlier in the process and that might make sense and resolve some of the issues With regard to the roles, I didn't see what CEO Miyasato said but I agree with it.

That is that we would have an outside consultant with limited technical role to help us manage the process but I do think the qualitative assessment is best done internally. But I would say that I'd rather not have... Chair Lavineto, I don't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole myself. As far as the scoring, I think Supervisor Hart raised some good points to the extent that we can prefer local and Union jobs or well-paying jobs, as well as the toll on people of color of cannabis and how we incorporate that. I don't know, I'd like to look and see what other jurisdictions have done but I think this is a hugely compelling argument that somehow we incorporate that into how we look at some of these projects.

Let's see, I think that and the public health. There is education but for me the public health aspect of it there hasn't been a huge amount of research in this country because we didn't have cannabis and research institutions that get federal money can't do this kind of research typically but we do know at least preliminarily that pregnant women are at risk. We see what's happening with lung disease that nobody can quite And then there's vulnerable young people, this can trigger psychosis. And that is of huge concern to me in Isla Vista. So public health, not just general education but public health education and figuring that out as a major piece of this is important in terms of the criteria. And then I agree with Supervisor Adam and Supervisor Hart on option five How the application itself looks

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:56:26 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:56:27 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Williams Well, I just wanted to maybe before I comment because most of my Positions are identical. Mr. Hart's What are the community plan areas? Give me that review one more time. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed5:56:50 · ≈ 2:56 PM

Community plan areas include Summerland slash Toro Canyon, which effectively for commercial operations is Padaro Santa Claus Lane. Moving up it would then be Isla Vista on Eastern Goleta Valley, Los Alamos, Santines and Orchid.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:57:13 · ≈ 2:57 PM

Then I agree with the point of trimming it down just to the ones in the community plan areas. I think that's particularly if you're not gonna let me spend any of the tax revenue for it, there's no purpose in having the extra one so You know I'll Just be happily trim that down and then I particularly agree with the labor peace agreement and I just want a heavy weighting towards what the community priorities are. And I'm still not completely sure how this is going to work. Do you want us to articulate what we think the community priorities will be? Or do you want us to have, or are we talking about a process by which the community in each case gets to articulate its priorities?

Well, I'll just tell you that The difference between it being wildly unpopular. And maybe acceptable for the majority of folks that I've talked to thus far is the mix 50% food security, 50% convenience. The people in that plan area have been cut off from being able to have groceries and that's the thing that they want. That's their top community priority whenever I talk to folks so I just want to put that out there because Given the experience after can you

not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.865:59:00 · ≈ 2:59 PM

we're we're struggling with so flesh that out a little bit. Well,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed5:59:03 · ≈ 2:59 PM

I mean, I encourage us to just have the public process to confirm that that's what it is but I'm just telling for the folks who are interested, that's what the things that I get. And it moves people by a factor of two. It takes people who are wildly one and two. It takes people who are wildly opposed somewhat opposed or people who are somewhat opposed neutral. People who are neutral supportive. It just changes, it matters.

And I think, I definitely from our experiences before think it's really important to have this process where the community has input and that communities priorities are weighted in the system as highly as our attorneys will let us.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:00:00 · ≈ 3:00 PM

Okay so I liked the idea, I mean, okay. So in my mind, I'm thinking that there's, go ahead. So, I think that means

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:00:13 · ≈ 3:00 PM

option one for the first, for the review ranking and selection process. What I suppose we would In order for this to happen, I'm ambivalent whether it would be a third party consultant or a county selection committee.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:00:36 · ≈ 3:00 PM

But I think we can do a hybrid. I mean, I think that's kind of what we're talking about is that the consultant would do the technical side of looking at the financials and those types of things and we would come up with based on a community meeting We'd be able to define what the neighborhood compatibility Would look like Am i right?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:00:57 · ≈ 3:00 PM

I think based on the community meeting, we would have a better understanding of what neighborhood compatibility looks like. But what I just asked Mr. Gazzone was when we end up writing this ordinance do we need to define community benefit? Or and I think it goes back to what he had said earlier that it has And so. We'll be through this discussion will be trying to have that but at the end we will need to write the ordinance with some information with some language.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:01:32 · ≈ 3:01 PM

I mean not I won't prejudge the process, but I'm just give a prediction I'm starting to get up if you want me Criteria three for for option two having some Customer community public health education and and a neighborhood can build compatibility plan And the And I would suppose that I support the Option 3. Of the application format and submission guidelines.

I guess, I wonder too in terms of a third party staff hybrid if you obviously have more than one vendor to look at.

not transcribed≈29s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:03:13 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Right? So Dennis why don't you just take a minute and kind of regurgitate back to us what you heard and what we can expect moving forward.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:03:25 · ≈ 3:03 PM

Okay,

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:03:26 · ≈ 3:03 PM

so under the area. And I'm sorry to interrupt but instead of saying like option one option two really just spell out what the process is so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:03:35 · ≈ 3:03 PM

use real words okay? So under the whole idea of the criteria based selection it was clear consensus around amending the code to create a three step criteria based selection process. So there would be determinant of who would be the first person eligible for a permit okay? And that the discussion centered around having early community input into that process.

And then there was general consensus around on this area separate, but in this area around deleting the two wildcard operations licenses. Under number two, which was what's the process? Where there does seem to be some consensus around using both options two and three. Which is to create a county-wide selection process particularly to look at the neighborhood compatibility components, which is what we'll get to in a moment. And then using perhaps a third party vendor around the more objective criteria review of the business components and its applicability.

Under the discussion about whether to allow business ops and or neighborhood compatibility. It's clear that everybody here wanted both added in together so that there would be the two components, and again assess the other way. Listed in additional criteria under that option to around the neighborhood compatibility proposals were concerns around parking, staffing plan, workforce plan that is more proportional to our community.

Idea of local staff public health education on this I did have one question. Supervisor Hart mentioned labor protections and then noted about the state legislation that has been passed and signed by the governor about requiring the Labor Peace Agreements. And then you mentioned something about looking at that before renewal, so that was what my notes were. The question I just had is the mechanics of that, would they be required to get points for example by having a labor peace agreement in place or would that perhaps come later?

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:05:52 · ≈ 3:05 PM

Well I think it's both because the first thing would be a lower threshold of 15 employees instead of 20 employees. So that they would have to agree to have a labor peace agreement But then the second part of that is just because you have a labor peace agreement and you're basically allowing access for the union to communicate with the employees, doesn't necessarily mean that you're going to agree to a contract with the union and the employees. And that's the place I think where you can't require that but you can require a report back on the status of that negotiation.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:06:31 · ≈ 3:06 PM

Okay, thank you. Can I just ask on that point? Why if the state just passed 20 which would be like the standard the gold standard why would I'm Just want to know why we would think we would go to 15 That's a great

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed6:06:44 · ≈ 3:06 PM

question and I don't think I wouldn't consider that the gold standard I would say that's the statewide compromised. Okay, and that our smaller County could have a Closer to the gold standard other counties have gone as low as like City of Long Beach. I think has two County of LA has 10 All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:07:02 · ≈ 3:07 PM

So, and then just to wrap up what I heard was that on the area of the format and submittal package and requirements and notification that your board had consensus around all three of the options presented limited sized application noticing specific noticing and application submission period which will be hard-coded into the ordinance and then also hard coding in They identified criteria components and the application elements that already exist in 50-7 a reference back to that

6:07 – 6:1316 turns

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:07:36 · ≈ 3:07 PM

or 50-8. Sorry All right, so I guess timeline to talk about would be the next thing

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:07:45 · ≈ 3:07 PM

Before we before we move off of that if you go back to require business ops and Add parking he did he did you see it? I was listening for that. I missed it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:08:00 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Mr.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:08:01 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Ghazani?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:08:03 · ≈ 3:08 PM

Chair and Supervisors, and as part of this before you talk about the timeline we would work with CEO's office and also provide you a legal opinion on some of these criteria to make sure that As yeah as you've gone out We've given some of our concern about market regulator versus market participant objective criteria And we'll take a scrub on those and we have a running start at that Okay

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:08:24 · ≈ 3:08 PM

supervisor Hartman

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.836:08:25 · ≈ 3:08 PM

So I just want to make sure because I think I think all of us are most in. These these criteria I have five and local whatever we can do in terms of supply chain or. And then workforce peace agreement or whatever we can do to ensure good paying jobs and the right to organize. Were there any others beyond those?

not transcribed≈20s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:09:13 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Can't imagine that there would be

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:09:17 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Supervisor just so that we come back with language. That's acceptable to you at this point We work with County Council's office, but it seems like in the discussions about neighborhood benefits It's not just neighborhood compatibility But neighborhood benefits it seems given something that miss supervisor Williams said word You'd be looking to have us look at criteria that addresses gaps and neighborhood services or amenities And I think that would be a that's right

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:09:44 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Otherwise, I just ask to be taken out

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.836:09:48 · ≈ 3:09 PM

Well, I think it's a process I mean my sense is and we might ask somebody who's been through this process in the public To comment but that there might for example be a community meeting people would talk about and various applicant potential applicants would hear that And then their application would be describing a process by which they would address some of these needs and we could evaluate that according to what we've heard.

not transcribed≈9s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed6:10:25 · ≈ 3:10 PM

That's true supervisor, but since when you said we would be the staff committee and the staff committee primarily I'm just trying to get to Again that if one person hears something at a meeting and puts those in the application another person does not hear those same things We don't want to end up in litigation or issues going on not that we would but we don't want so I'm trying to get to Some kind of language and I'm just giving you a forewarning. I'm trying to get to some language that would get to this objective criteria That would be applicable

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.836:10:56 · ≈ 3:10 PM

Right, and in all honesty Supervisor Williams I didn't understand what you were getting at. Were you describing Summerland and what you want to see or what you think you have heard there? In terms

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:11:12 · ≈ 3:11 PM

of- I don't think that I have done a process that's as comprehensive as we should do as part of this. And so I could be wrong. There could be other gaps in services that come up More important, but from the sample that I have talked to thus far. That's the big issue and I guess the way I view it is unless it's something that makes a difference for community benefits and gaps in services.

I don't want to do it. But I don't, I think that we've done our part otherwise you know so I hope that it is something that this process will give the public a chance to articulate what's in their Interest what the gaps in services and what the gap of what the community benefit would be And that that be part of their criteria objective criteria of the applications To ensure that we have a greater level of public support For for such a for such a business.

Okay supervisor Adam, then we'll go to Dennis I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:12:38 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Well, I'm just wondering what Supervisor Williams means by you don't want to do it and and you you made the Statement that you'd like to be taken out if you didn't get that does that mean that you don't want the first district to have its Its location.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:12:54 · ≈ 3:12 PM

Well, I won't go there now because it seems to be that we've articulated what this I'm just trying to figure out how

not transcribed≈15s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

6:13 – 6:1919 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:13:22 · ≈ 3:13 PM

How that gets terminated, see if I didn't want mine. If I said I don't want my fourth district or if I wanted yours how would I get that? Or how could I auction off mine? Let's

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed6:13:35 · ≈ 3:13 PM

not

CommentMusic Music Music MusicProposedself-stated6:13:35 · ≈ 3:13 PM

go

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:13:36 · ≈ 3:13 PM

there.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:13:36 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Is it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:13:36 · ≈ 3:13 PM

optional?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:13:37 · ≈ 3:13 PM

I wouldn't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:13:38 · ≈ 3:13 PM

support something that doesn't address community benefits.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:13:51 · ≈ 3:13 PM

Let's go to Dennis first and then I'll come back to Supervisor Hartman.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:13:54 · ≈ 3:13 PM

So Chair, Supervisors, I think in the staff report the area in which I think we're talking about just so it has some connection with back to what we've said is really part of a community engagement and local involvement plan that a company would provide To say here's how we're going to be in the community. And I think that's, I believe in this idea of community benefit for gap, you know, to solve gaps in service. It really is about this community engagement process because every communities can be different.

What I want to be, I think it would be helpful just to look at the context of what's going on around the state of California and in fact in other jurisdictions. Part of what I'm also hearing is a bit of what sounds a lot like the social equity programs that many other jurisdictions have put in place, Additional businesses additional guarantees for certain portions of the population and other things and I would just suggest that While there are many different iterations of that and staff will do You know all the deep dive to look at and analyze those to find something that we can legally put in place I will just say, just in general those social equity type programs are really difficult to put into that objective uniform kind of system that I think we're also trying to create.

I realize this is a balancing act. I've got the input. We will find a place to do that but I want to just mention that in the context of what we've said today in the staff report and where I think we can go and what's happening out there outside

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:15:52 · ≈ 3:15 PM

of Santa Barbara County. So I'm going to make a pitch. Now, I understand Vandenberg Village is, you know, Chasmalia, Vandenberg Village already got three in your district. So I understand that. But when you talked about community benefit, I wouldn't want to open a cannabis retail in Quiama, right? But there might be somebody that does and if it can bring a community benefit there I mean, why are we just automatically scratching Koyama at this point? I'm just curious. No one's come to me and said hey, I would like to open one there but you do have traffic coming from Taft and it's close to Kern County. I don't know what Kern County's cannabis rules are or not but I haven't heard anybody say they don't want it there.

I'm just throwing it out

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed6:16:49 · ≈ 3:16 PM

there. If you want to put a little marker, or just in case, I'll ask everybody. I'm going there tomorrow. OK. So I'll try to cover the whole township and ask everybody.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:17:02 · ≈ 3:17 PM

I sure you could. OK, yeah. Six, seven, it's fine. It's just I didn't really see a good reason why we're tossing that one out. We probably won't even get an application but who knows? Okay, so Dennis you kind of got your feel do we have any idea timeline when we would think maybe this might come back to us

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed6:17:28 · ≈ 3:17 PM

So what we've penciled out and I did talk with Miss Hartley prior at the beginning of the thing just to see if it didn't sound too weird given given the clarity of the direction You gave us a which very much appreciate. I think we could probably come back on December 17th for a first reading at least we'll we're gonna make a valiant effort to come back for a first reading But that first reading will have both the legislative language and some draft Scoring sheets because I think in the interest especially given this conversation that your board was just having I think seeing those scoring sheets and how that gets broken down and How the relative weighting of those points might work out?

Is either I think we need your feedback on that. That does not have to be hard-coded into the ordinance However, this rest of this will be in terms of the criteria areas But the score sheet will be a could be a tool that's a work in progress But I think it does sound like we would all benefit from having that score sheet in place with that ranking

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:18:31 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Cool minute might be Might be wise to start penciling out some community We know where they're gonna be right? So it might be good to, instead of I'll get all the way to December and then figure out okay we need to go do community meetings. And then we start scheduling them after that so

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:18:51 · ≈ 3:18 PM

Mr. Gazzone? I don't want to always be the slow guy on this discussion but We are juggling a few other cacti at the moment and if we could push this past December 17th, December 19th a little bit further out to do the analysis that would be helpful even if its a couple weeks.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:19:08 · ≈ 3:19 PM

All right, December 25th. How does that work?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed6:19:12 · ≈ 3:19 PM

I gave up on boss of the year. That's how you busy

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed6:19:14 · ≈ 3:19 PM

perfect. He's got some free time right

Roll-call vote Passed Moved by Joan Hartmann move Staff recommendations, and we've given Dennis enough information to deal with
Show transcript
there Okay, so Okay, we'll do it first week of January or whatever our first meeting is. We'll turn it over to the new chair Let you carry this flaming ball Alright So I need a motion to move Staff recommendations, and we've given Dennis enough information to deal with. So staff recommendations anybody? So moved. Moved by Supervisor Hartman Second, Supervisor Hart. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We will be adjourning. Oh, Supervisor Hartman

6:19 – 6:202 turns

ElectedJoan HartmannSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.836:19:58 · ≈ 3:19 PM

has- Just one thing. Dennis and Johanna you've done a terrific job. This has been really super. A lot of effort has gone into this so thank you Johanna.

ElectedSteve LavagninoSupervisorProposedvoiceprint 0.866:20:08 · ≈ 3:20 PM

Yes big time. Alright let's adjourn to Tuesday November 19th in Santa Maria.