UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:03 – 0:1015 turns
I'll call to order the January 28, 2020 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Mr. Lavinino? Here. Mr. Williams?
Here
Ms. Hartman?
Here.
Mr Adam? Here Chair Hart?
The next item of business is the approval of minutes of January 14th, 2020 meeting. Is there any discussion? Can I please get a motion to approve the minutes?
Move for approval.
Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor say aye. Oppose and abstain. Matter carries unanimously. CEO Miyasato, is there a CEO report today?
No report this morning.
Thank you. Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to the agenda?
Chair Hart and members of the board, I just have one quick announcement this morning. We post an addendum to the agenda on Friday and the posted agenda is amended as follows with a closed session adding one item from the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors sitting as the Board of Santa Barbara Fund for Public and Educational Access. And if you had any questions on that, that was posted online and it's also available in the back of the room.
Thank you. At this time, we'll now go to our resolutions to be presented. Can I get a motion on items A-1 and A-2? All those in favor say aye. Opposed and abstain. The matter carries unanimously. Will the clerk please read item A- 1 into the record.
Chair Hart and members of the board, Administrative Item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Ian Mather of the Fire Department as the January 2020 Employee of the Month for Santa Barbara County. And if I can have Ian to the podium please? And anyone else you'd like to join with you? Whereas, Ian Mather began his career with the county in 2015 as a firefighter with the fire department. And whereas, Ian is the liaison for the Santa Barbara County Firefighters Alliance and has helped to procure over 500,000 in donations for the fire department over the past four years. And whereas, Ian acts as a role model leading by example and setting the bar high as he mentors new firefighters assigned to his shift Conducts training and continuing education with the UCSB student EMTs, and serves as an instructor for low-angle rope rescue operations for the Firefighter Recruit Academy.
And whereas Ian is always looking for ways to improve himself, works well with everyone around him, and displays compassion and patience with those with whom he works and serves. Rania, along with big brother Caden recently welcomed their second son Zane to their growing family. Now therefore be it hereby resolved and ordered that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Ian Mather as the employee of the month for January 2020
If I could, Mr. Chair and members of the board say a few things about Ian. First of all, I have to tell you and I'm not telling you anything you don't know but trying to recognize a firefighter for work that they do in the course of their duties and beyond is slippery at best. And in fact if I made it voluntary we probably wouldn't get anybody so sometimes as much as I think it's an honor, I get a look occasionally as if what are you doing to me?
So, but with that said Ian does stand out and many of the firefighters that we recognize in our communities say I'm just doing my job. Ian isn't just doing his job. Ian says, what else can I do besides my job? And that's really what sets Ian apart. Ian is part of programs that require extra work and extra training, extra certifications, water rescue, USAR, our search and rescue program. And then as he got involved in those programs and realized that there were needs and tools out there that were above and beyond the things that were required, and some of the things we could provide in our budget. He said let me go out and find some of those items.
The Firefighter Alliance in Santa Barbara has been very instrumental in funding some of those items. Susan Petrovich, the chair and Mary who serves as the executive director has been very supportive Where I met Ian was on the alliance. He is the advisory board member, or advisory member for the board in the Firefighter Alliance advocating for not only the needs of the county fire department but also the needs of other departments within Santa Barbara County.
His wife Rania, sons Caden and Zane. She has her hands full and of course I'm reminded often that for Ian to be as successful and to give as much as he does beyond the job requires a huge commitment from his family. And so I want to thank Ian, congratulate him. I don't think there could be a further seat in the back than we have filled back there, but he has his co-workers here and some of my staff. So on behalf of the County Fire District thank you board and then thank you Ian for the hard work and the dedication you have to the community of Santa Barbara.
0:10 – 0:139 turns
I'm going to keep mine real short because like Chief said, we don't do this to get up in front of people. So state the board, thank the chief, thank all the chiefs and my fellow firefighters. Just do it because it's what we need to do and get things done so thank you.
Thank you again for your great work. Will the clerk please read item A2 into the record?
Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. Administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Donald DeNoyer as Veteran of the Month in Santa Barbara County.
Is Donald here today? I didn't see him. Okay, you know what, let's just go ahead and read the resolution. We'll read it in and whoever has the month of February will
move to the next district. And then maybe I'll also be able to bring Donald back at that time but go ahead and let's read the resolution today.
All right, Chair Hart, members of the board. I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas Donald DeNoyer served our country with distinction for 32 years in the United States Army and whereas Donald DeNoyer was deployed numerous times in 2003 to Guantanamo Bay, in 2004 to Afghanistan, and he also provided domestic assistance during the LA riots and the 2016 flooding in Louisiana. And whereas Donald DeNoyer is a highly decorated soldier receiving over 43 different awards, including three Army Accommodation Medals and 13 Army Achievement Medals. And whereas during his entry back into civilian life he was shocked at the lack of progress being made in reducing bullying in our school system. Whereas in typical Donald DeNoyer fashion, he tackled the issue head on creating the anti-bullying and mentoring program Called We All Rise, and whereas the program was certified by none other than Harvard University.
And was set out for a trial run at Santa Maria High School where it was responsible for dropping the bullying rate by 80% in just three years. And whereas Donald's program is now excelling in over 50 schools throughout the country. And whereas Mr. Denoyer has also written a book entitled Be Good, Be Kind, Be Nice, Be A Superhero. That is used to help elementary kids learn how to interact with others. And whereas Donald is also a multiple discipline black belt, a famed MMA ring announcer and has also appeared in over 50 films with his latest being a collaboration with Nicolas Cage called Memoirs of a Fighter about the issues veterans face on a daily basis. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors has committed to our country and our youth, Donald DeNoyer is hereby being honored as Santa Barbara County's Veteran of the Month, passed and adopted today.
And I'll make sure, Donald, that we're going to recognize him in a public forum at some point in Santa Maria and make sure that this presentation's handed out to him in style. So thank you.
Thank you Supervisor Lavinia.
The next item is the approval of the administrative agenda. Do any board members want to pull any items off the administrative agenda? I think Supervisor Hartman, you wanted A12. Okay.
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
And Madam Clerk, is there any request from the public to remove items from the administrative agenda?
Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. I have requests on Administrative Items 1, 7 and 25.
Okay would you please read those items into the record?
Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. As previously read into the record item A1 is from Supervisor Hart is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Ian Mather of the Fire Department as the January 2020 Employee of the Month for Santa Barbara County and we are going to go to Santa Barbara for Susan Petrovich. Susan?
Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. I'm here on behalf of the Santa Barbara Firefighters Alliance. I am a president of the alliance and I just would like for you to know how much Ian has done to provide liaison between the troops and the alliance Because we raise money to buy equipment that the budgets do not otherwise provide for the city and county fire departments.
And those requests for equipment come directly from the field forces, not from the administrators. We want to provide equipment that will Help save their lives, help save the lives of the people they're working with. And the people in the field know best as to what they need and what will make them more efficient and make everyone safer. So Ian has been working with us for years on that program. And then he noticed I think particularly during the debris flow and There are other things that they need in the field to just make their jobs easier. And he and others came up with the idea of a support dog, so we have bought the equipment that that support dog will need.
And he also has been an advocate of a program, internal program among the firefighters of mutual support. So if someone is obviously stressed, obviously needs personal help and just wants to talk, they have a mentor that they can work with. And we've been supporting that program as well, as well as the Ed Ease Program. The free counseling that is not in any way connected with the county or the city government. So Ian is more than just a firefighter, he is a real trooper and he has done a great deal for himself and for his fellow firefighters in making all of us safer and keeping them healthy. Thank you
Thank you, Ms. Petrovich and thank you for all the members of the alliance for the partnership that we have with you in helping our first responders and particularly for the trauma services that are available. Next item is item number seven.
Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. Administrative item number seven is from the Auditor-Controller. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Auditor Controller's report on the external monitoring reports of county departments for July 1st 2018 through June 30th 2019 and I have one request to speak on this item and that is here in Santa Maria and we're going to Andy Caldwell. Andy?
Sarah Hart, members of the board. Andy Caldwell representing CoLab. We're not exactly sure why this report is on the admin calendar. There's I think at least a dozen issues listed from the auditor controller as it affects environmental health and our public health department on this. I anticipate that they're going to tell you part of the problems is they inherited a dysfunctional program.
But that too should get public scrutiny, and I'll tell you why. And this is a super, super sore spot in the community. This is one of the issues or one of the programs that started CoLab 30 years ago. We were paying fees. Tremendous, hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees and the program wasn't getting done. That was 30 years ago. It went from public health to fire back to public health.
And year in and year out the business community pays the fees. And year in and year out for 30 years the program isn't being done right. I've talked to fire guys, probably none of them in the back but previously because they haven't had it for a while. As far as engine companies getting the information that they need because part of these programs are about public safety and We complained last year when you went to 100% fee recovery. Because we said when the county had skin in the game, there still was no oversight.
How much oversight is there going to be when it's a 100% cost recovery? So we asked the question and it's a legitimate question. If a fee payer pays a fee and the program's not getting done should they get their money back? This is a business transaction. The business community is required to do something, the county's required to do something. If the business community failed you would fine them.
What happens when your staff fails? And what happens if they fail not year after year but decade after decade? This is something that we wish that the board would be more active because there's a lot of fee funded programs. And again, we're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars and in some cases cumulatively if you talk to APCD, EHS and the planning department it's millions of dollars.
And the question is, is the public getting what they pay for? Is a regulated community getting what they pay for? And is public health being protected by these, for these programs if in fact they're being mismanaged? And again, I'm not casting blame on this department per se but it's been a 30 year fumble. Thank you.
Chair Hart and members of the board, we are moving on to administrative item number 12. This is from the county executive office and it is to consider recommendations regarding a county pre-trial felony mental health diversion program January 1st 2020 through December 31st 2022. And there is a forfeits vote required on this item.
Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. I ask that this be pulled because I would like to hear more about it. It's a wonderful new program, I think a tremendous addition and eager just to learn more about the details how it'll be implemented.
Supervisor Hartman and members of the board. Is this on now? This is a grant from the Department of State Hospitals. I believe it's an effort on their part to ascertain whether or not there are alternative ways to deal with people who have either been found incompetent to stand trial, Currently, if somebody is charged with a felony and they're dealing with mental health issues to that degree.
They become the responsibility of the state in the Department of State Hospitals. The challenge is that very often what happens is that they sit in jail waiting for a bed in the state hospitals to open up. This grant will make it possible for up to 18 people over the course of the next three years. In conjunction with partnership with the district attorney's office and the public defender's office, to select individuals for diversion, for treatment in the community rather than waiting for a bed at state hospitals.
There's an evaluative process to this, it's pretty extensive as you've seen in the board letter. Pretty extensive reporting requirement not only for the people who are selected for the program but for those people who are selected and don't complete it so that the state can evaluate what's working and what doesn't. And I suspect that the long range intention of this is Are there community based alternatives to sending people to state hospitals that are in this situation?
If I might follow up, so this is a pilot program that the state is funding. How many other counties are participating?
That I don't know. I believe it was, I don t want to guess on the number. It was a handful of counties and we were selected as part of a competitive process.
And I assume that the level of cooperation across the different departments was one key aspect in.
It would not have worked without behavioral wellness, without the public defender's office in particular. The district attorney's office and the public defender's office are directly involved in setting the criteria. Behavioral wellness is providing the staff and identify the step down housing. And this actually ties into two other grants,
0:23 – 0:2710 turns
one of which you'll hear about next week. And one of which you'll probably hear about in a couple more weeks that are going to come together and really a pretty exciting opportunity in terms of finding alternatives to jail for the mentally ill.
The people who will be evaluated for participation in this program, will they already be in the jail or What place they go after 9-1-1 and the sheriff's deputies go and you determine it's a mental illness?
This particular grant, they will probably be in the jail. They will either have been found to be incompetent to stand trial or there will be an application process that is underway to declare them incompetent to stand trial. And if the criteria developed between the DA's office and the public defenders identify an individual as being suitable for attempted diversion, they will be taken out of the jail and put into the community facilities that I described earlier.
Well, thank you. I just think this is a tremendous opportunity for the county and I commend everyone who submitted the grant and succeeded in getting it. One of the most heart wrenching things I experienced as a supervisor is contact from families who have someone in the jail whose disintegrating and not getting the treatment that they need. And so this is really cutting edge and I'm so excited to see this. And thank you for all the hard work, all the staff who've submitted this application and we'll be eager to hear more about it. Thank
you. Thank you for highlighting that Supervisor Hartman. And Mr. Malikian, I really want to appreciate your work as well too. I know it's taken a lot to bring all of the departments together and this is a really important moment to recognize Santa Barbara County's leadership on this important issue. Mr. Gazzani did you have something that you wanted to add?
Chair and supervisors, it's just a procedural piece on this. And that is that this is also an example of sometimes these grant opportunities are available and the county needs to be more agile in getting them. And this is one where in order to get in on this, the board is authorizing delegation to complete the contract and CEO's office, as I understand it would report back in a agenda item of the actual plan that goes out the door. And that's how we can actually comport with the government code and also be agile enough to obtain these opportunities. Thank you.
I just want to thank Dr. Gleghorn. I know she's in Santa Barbara and she was in the audience for this item if the board had any questions.
Dr. Gleghorn is there anything you'd like to add?
Yes so can you hear me? Okay, great. So this opportunity was available to our county and 10 other counties so the top 11 counties in the state who refer people who are incompetent to stand trial to State Hospital. So we were the 11th county on that list and were able to apply for these funds that are being administered by the Department of State Hospitals. Typically these six people per year will be in jail or in the puff, or in state hospital trying to come back and step down and be diverted from that level of care.
So we're excited to begin this opportunity, and it's also an opportunity Other folks who are on the verge of being declared incompetent for felony charges away from the criminal justice system. So we're very pleased to have all of our local stakeholders involved and look forward to bringing this specific plan back to the board.
Thank you, and we look forward to hearing more about the Prop 47 grants next week. Can I please get a motion to approve the balance in the administrative agenda? Is that the last item? We have one more, okay excuse me.
0:27 – 0:3310 turns
Chair Hart and members of the board, yes. I'm sorry we have one more administrative item pulled from the public and that's administrative item number 25. This is from the sheriff it is to consider recommendations regarding acceptance of a donation of $19,000 to support the sheriff's canine program. And there was a fourth this vote required on this item as well and we're going to Santa Barbara for Sergeant Jarrett Morris.
Good morning members of the board and thank you for allowing me to take this moment to speak. As all of you know, this past week we lost one of our beloved canines, Canine Chop. He was only two years old when he suffered an unexpected medical emergency and passed away in surgery. I'd like to take this moment to thank the board and the community for their continued support during this tough time for our agency and the K-9 unit.
Community members have sent in cards, called to pay their respects and have sent in monetary donations to the Sheriff's Benevolent Posse Project Deputy Dog and the Santa Barbara Special Enforcement Team Support Foundation. Just like the donation to be accepted today, CHOP is paid for with a donation from a gracious community member. The sheriff's canine unit provides specialized law enforcement in both patrol And we would not be able to do so without donations like these. I appreciate your time, thank you.
Thank you, Sergeant Morris. Can I get a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda?
So moved.
Motion's been made. Is there a second? Motion has been seconded. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose and abstain. The matter carries unanimously. Now is the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Are there any requests to speak on the items not on today's agenda?
Chair Hart, members of the board. Yes we have six requests to speak on general public comment today and we're going to begin in Santa Barbara with Ed Kalaski and continue in Santa Barbara with Jay Johnson. Ed?
Thank you. Oh excuse me. Would you put my picture up? It is up Mr. Klaski Okay, thank you. There's a saying on the top of the public defender's office or the DA's building says law is the voice of the people and justice makes it heard. That certainly hasn't happened here. It's been six years since I've been trying to remodel my house. I didn't ask for the government to rip me off.
With nonsensical responses by Alex who had a 64 page report describing our project as being having the second story located solely over the garage when clearly it is not solely over the garage. He was responsible for that. He alone was responsible for that decision. He alone was responsible for not letting us show our project. There are seven members down there, one of which he is the chairman.
He didn't let the other six members see our project. Yet he ruled that it's solely over the garage when clearly, it's not solely over the garage in violation of 4.7 if it were solely over the garage. He kicked us out of the meeting in 15 seconds. He didn't let us speak. This is our civil rights, a meeting we pay for? We're not allowed to speak at? I didn't ask for our government to rip us off. It is up to you.
The Board of Supervisors to make the decisions as to what goes on downstairs. We shouldn't have to come up here and beg for our civil rights. Is it because we elected officials like Janet Wolf? Who would not only not let us proceed with remodeling our house, she wouldn't tell us why. And as a representative of our second district, She wouldn't even talk to me after she made the decision at the board meeting.
We went through all this appeal process for what? Nobody understood at the PC what was going on, they just read the report that went on downstairs. You know, we added 300 square feet to a 400-square foot project. 300 square feet added! Alex said we made no changes. We didn't do anything. And we got to live with this. Isn't there anyone there that can do anything? I had a tape here, I don't want to take the time for it.
Alex laughing and making fun of me downstairs. I was glad to hear from Anita downstairs. Yeah, she called me afterwards. I have that on the tape here too. Mr. Klasky your time is up. Well one last point. Anita called me to tell me that we made no changes on our project. She wasn't allowed to see the drawings that we submitted. I went into Ryan Cooksey's office and he's working on our old drawings three weeks after the decision and he wasn't allowed to see our new drawings until I complained about it
Thank you, Mr. Klosky.
Thank you.
And we're going to stay in Santa Barbara with Jay Johnson to be followed by Robert Hanson.
0:33 – 0:394 turns
Morning ma'am, morning sir. My name is Jay Johnson and I'm here to talk about what goes on in front of the admin building it is like a zoo you have tents drug dealing if you brought your kids to work You would be embarrassed. There are people at the Sunken Gardens that have dogs, family, infants, children, just normal humans. But you have parties in the front, drug dealing, tents, people huddled up.
It is embarrassing if you walk by shopping carts on the sidewalk, dirty clothing, fecal matter in the front of the admin building. You drive by or walk by on a Saturday, you would be highly embarrassed. You have employees that are afraid They can't even park their bicycles in the front like they used to. They have to bring them in the building because of theft.
This is the admin building, this is the city of Santa Barbara. You have the police department less than two blocks away and this is going on every day. How can you do this to your employees? They're not protected. It's just wrong. I mean, I even have...I'm homeless and I even have employees that I know here that complain to me and ask me what can we do? There is a lot you can do.
You bring the boys in blue And you have them patrol it. It doesn't take a minute, it doesn't take two minutes. It just takes them being there in their presence. This goes on all weekend, every day, every night. I mean, it is like going to McDonald's. You just wait in line and get your drugs. Everything that's bad. It shouldn't happen, it should not happen. You drive by here on a Saturday or walk by I wouldn't recommend bringing your kids but this should not happen at all.
Thank you Mr. Johnson
And our next speaker is Robert Hanson, and to be followed by Andy Caldwell back here in Santa Maria. Robert?
Marijuana! Anyway, I went to the debate last night and I think Laura's going to win just on that issue. It's almost like Trump in the wall. And impeachment is a disgrace. I mean they signed a pledge book it's a disgrace. I'm not proud to be an American watching this trial. Last year Andy Caldwell on one of his shows was talking about affordable housing and saying that you know we should Build on surplus military land or forest, and there's surplus state land.
Right now the governor has got an exploratory State Land Fairgrounds More rain center there. Was there a few issues? Oh yeah, there was. Well it's better than what's happening right now around the county building and also people were mentioning to me about the porta potty behind the building here for the safe parking program. It was overflowing. They were mentioning that Cottage Hospital said do not go in that porta potty.
Well if they're going to have whatever-whatever, there needs to be four porta potties out there and really clean them up and all. It's kind of a disgrace right now for the last couple years. Dawson, other city supervisors have gone along with this program of opening county funded homeless freedom warming center at 35 degrees. I had a sign last night held it up.
It said 32 degrees is freezing. 38 degrees is what you have your refrigerator at. And 35 degrees is what the County Funding Homeless Freedom Warming Center is opened at, it's called The Trigger. They don't open until 35 degrees. You know there's laws in this state that you can't have your pet outside? So county supervisors, get some gumption and go back to the 40 degrees. It used to be 40 degrees.
And it's sick to see what's happening. 35 degrees, they open up the Freedom Warming Center. The reason why it's called Freedom is a person with the nickname Freedom froze to death. What is 35 degrees? How about if you're old? How about if you're young? 35 degrees, get it in there DOS! 35 degrees! Shameful!
0:39 – 0:4811 turns
We are going to return to Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell, to be followed by Renee O'Neill. Andy? Mr Chair
I was just going to give some information and background as to what Bob is talking about. Obviously you know that we fund the Freedom Warming Centers for a certain number of bed nights per year. There have been conversations about expanding those bed nights, which of course would mean that we would have to allocate more money to expand those bed nights. But I don't actually think that's the stumbling block right now because That recommendation would come to the board if we had agreement from the sites to be willing to take them more often or at a higher degree weather.
So, at this point, To my knowledge, the conversation is still among the Freedom Warning Centers themselves whether the sites are willing to be open more often at higher degree weather. I agree with Bob that we should be open more often But we do not force these sites to be open, we only fund them if they are willing to be open. And so we need to have that and promote that conversation with the sites themselves.
I met recently with the Executive Director of the Freedom Warming Center to have that same conversation and had the same information from them. That they are very strained with existing sites that they have, and they do not have identified facilities, churches, other community center buildings that would be available. And raising the threshold to the 40 degrees would nearly double the number of times that the facilities would open, Commitment from the community, so if there are members of the community who know about facilities and want to communicate that to the Freedom Morning folks. That conversation could continue.
Yeah, if Bob or folks in the community can come up with sites that are willing to do it at 38 degrees or 39 degrees or 40 degrees I think this board would be willing to hear a budget request but we need the sites before we can do that.
Next speaker is Andy Caldwell to be followed by Renee O'Neill. Andy?
Chair Hart, members of the board, I'm Andy Caldwell. I understand the prohibition about talking about agenda items during public comment and I'm not going to talk about agenda items but I do want to compare and contrast things that have happened in the past with this board And again, I don't know how many of you were even on the board when these issues came up. I don't think that many of you. So for instance there was a big huge controversy with Naples going on for over 30 years about whether or not you can convert ag land to housing on the coast.
But today the headlines were that Mark Shatello and Gaviota Coast Conservancy have filed a complaint that somebody plowed, they disked the ag land at Naples. So what is it, is it ag land or what is it? There's no conservation easement over that land. So you let them build houses or let them grow crops. So I don't know why that wasn't dismissed out of hand. Then we had a house across the road from the Bacara up on Anole.
This was the greenest house that was ever proposed in the county of Santa Barbara. And it got denied because some people from the freeway would be able to see it, and people up above on the hills above it could see it. Because it impacted view sheds ordinances. What is your view shed ordinance? Is it sank or sanked or not? Do some green projects get a pass and other quote unquote green projects not?
Then there were oak trees. Kendall Jackson got raked through the coals for taking out oak trees, even though they had a mitigation plan to replace those oak trees on a 10 to 1 ratio. That kicked off the Oak Tree Crisis, the Oak Tree EIR, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent and then lo and behold we haven't had an Oak Tree Crisis since. But again are oak trees sacred or not?
Wineries, we went through all sorts of hullabaloo that wineries can't serve food with wine. Even though when you serve food with wine it can lower the potential for driving under the influence because the food mitigates that but we won't let wineries make food. Then there's finally oil spills. You have an oil spill on land or you have an oil spill offshore, what do we do? We count dead birds or soiled birds because birds are sacred.
Well all of these issues are coming up later on your agenda. Are you going to have double standards? Some people said the board didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all. Few shed policy food serving policy. Land use policies regarding AgZone land. Is there a standard? Do we have equal protection, which is a constitutional requirement? Do we have equal protection under the law? Thank you. Thank
you Mr. Cargill.
And our next speaker is Renee O'Neil to be followed by Ron Brett who's our final speaker. Renee.
Good morning Chair Hart, and Happy New Year to all the supervisors. I also want to welcome Barney Melechium our new Assistant CEO which I'm looking forward to meeting and working with here in the near future. My name's Renee O'Neill from Tepeskay Canyon. Considering the state of this nation and the problems we're facing throughout the world, and the fact that it's January where we just celebrated Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday.
I just wanted to say I hope and pray that this year 2020 gives us clearer vision, improved awareness, and a greater perspective on what's truly important With that said, I wanted to just give a couple of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s quotes. The time is always right to do what is right. The ultimate measure of a man or woman is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands in times of challenge and controversy.
Nothing in this world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. A nation or civilization that continues to produce soft-minded men purchases its own spiritual death on the installment plan. I'd revise that one to say, soft minded and or unethical men and women. Honorable Supervisors, you swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.
And the state of California's constitution against all enemies foreign or domestic. As we begin this new year, I just wanted to read a couple things from Article 1 in hopes of reminding everyone of their rights. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life, liberty, acquiring and possessing and protecting property. And pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
The people of the state of California find and declare that all of the following is true. Criminal activity has a serious impact on the citizens of California, and the rights of victims of crime and their families in criminal prosecution are subject of grave statewide concern. There was a couple more but I think basically, I just want to say. I really hope we focus on the things that are truly, truly important to all of us.
Thank you Ms. Sundale.
And our final speaker is Ron Brett. Ron?
0:48 – 0:5313 turns
Well thank you very much for allowing me to speak and Measure up to all the other problems that are happening. I just got an issue that I want to talk about, and I don't know where to go with your county building department here in Santa Maria. They're very difficult to deal with. They've lost paperwork of mine. They've refused to return phone calls. I'm not new at this business. I've been doing restaurant expansion industry for 50 years and that's quite not true because I'm six months or 60 days shy of 50 years, a half a century. Done somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 restaurant projects in my life all around the state, all around the country.
This is not the worst building department I've dealt with, but they're very difficult to contend with on a personal level. This project that I'm trying to get done for a client is in Buelton. We've been operating and trying to get a permit since September of last year. Gone through four plan check corrections I know that these are professional people that work in the building department and they can find a reason to send plans back for plan check. But I'm at my wits end, I don't know what to do. So I'm coming to you just to complain.
So then I've done that, I don't need to go any further so if there's anything you need to ask of me, I'm ready to answer any questions.
Well, thank you Mr. Brett if you would get in touch with the supervisor in your district we I'm sure they'd be happy to help you. Thank you.
I'm sorry You did mention Santa Maria and Buellton at the same time so I don't want to Step on Supervisor Hartman
says okay at two three four West Highway 246 It's called Eddie's grill And it used to be, it's been vacant for years. It used to be a blockbuster video site. The building is there. It's a tenant improvement which is a pretty minor thing from my aspect. Is it in
the city of Yuleton?
It is in the city of Yulton but this county building department is the one who does a plan check review. I see okay
Sir, you can contact your board office but also if you could leave us your card we'll follow up for you.
That would be great, I leave you a card. I'm retired, I don't carry your card anymore. I only do projects for people I like with two criteria. One, I want to sleep in my own bed at night and I don't want to catch a plane and get on it. Well
actually- Talk
to that guy right
there. Our assistant director for planning is right there and he can help you. And again just to clarify the city built new contracts with us for some services.
Thank you Mr. Brett. Before we start the departmental items let's take a brief break so we'll be back at 10
o'clock. Yeah.
0:57 – 1:1310 turns
Yeah. Yeah.
Convene the Board of Supervisors
meeting. The next item is Department Item 1, will the clerk please read that item into the record?
Chair Hart and members of the board, departmental item number one is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a first quarter update on cannabis compliance enforcement and taxation fiscal year 2019 through 2020
All
right, staff ready for presentation? Mr. Malikian are you going to present this item? Thank you.
Chair Hart, members of the board good morning and thank you for the opportunity to present the information on the first quarter this fiscal year related to cannabis items. In the months ahead there was a little bit of a delay with this one because of the transition that took place in our office and we will bring you the second quarter report in much closer proximity to the end of the fiscal quarter.
Today we just want to talk very briefly about previous board actions. I'm going to walk you through the status of the land use planning permits as well as business licenses, bring you up to speed on enforcement efforts and tax revenues. And then talk a little bit about emerging issues and challenges and take any questions that you may have. Today, you're just being asked to receive an update on the status of the land use permitting and business license and tax collection information. And determine that this is not a project under CEQA.
I'm joined here today by my colleague Stephen Yee from our office as well as representatives from the Planning and Development Department in the Sheriff's Office to answer any questions that you may have. And Stephen is going to walk through the first part of this presentation. Mr. Yee,
thank you.
Thank you Barney. Good morning Chair Hart and members of the board. I'd like to begin today by providing some background and context on our county's cannabis program and specific actions your board have taken leading us to where we are today. You'll recall that in 2016 your board prohibited commercial cannabis operations. However, pre-existing operations were given legal nonconforming status as long as they were operating under the state's medicinal laws prior to January 19th of 2016.
In 2018 your board amended the land use codes thereby establishing zoning development standards and permitting requirements for cannabis operations. Also in 2018, your board adopted a cannabis business license ordinance. The business licensing review process requires application review by a team of interdepartmental staff that reviews documentation, performs site inspections and conducts compliance checks.
This past year, 2019, your board provided conceptual direction on possible ordinance amendments which included the adoption of a merit-based retail storefront selection process that staff will soon be commencing. Also in 2019, your board directed staff to return during budget workshops this April to present funding options for potential uses of the fiscal year 18-19 cannabis tax revenue surplus.
The following table provides the status of all land use entitlement applications submitted for processing to the Planning and Development Department through the first quarter. Applicants had submitted a total of 173 applications. You'll notice that 15 land use permits have been issued, while 67 are still pending. The pending applications are either being processed by staff or staff is awaiting applicant action to address deficiencies.
30 conditional use permit applications have been submitted, however none have been approved to date. Three coastal development permits have been issued but 28 are still pending. Coastal development permits are akin to land use permits but for operations located in the coastal zone. Not included in this table are six land use permits and two coastal development permits that are pending.
They've been approved but appealed prior to issuance. Appeal permits are subject to an appeal hearing conducted by the county's planning commission, and possibly an appeal hearing conducted by your board. With the two caps on cultivation that are now operational in the county's Inland Area and Carpinteria Ag Overlay District, it's important to underscore that the acreage associated with all proposed permit applications having been submitted exceeds both caps respectively.
The cap in the inland area is set at 1,575 acres and a cap of 186 acres has been established in the carp ag overlay. The bar chart on this slide really illustrates the increase in permit volume being processed by planning and development from the first quarter of fiscal year 18-19 to the first quarter of fiscal year 19-20. Again, a total of 173 applications have been submitted through this first quarter versus 20 through the same period last year.
Your eye will likely be drawn to the number of land use permit applications pending. Last year, staff was processing 11 and as of this most recent reporting period, staff was processing 67. Last year five conditional use permits were being processed whereas staff is now processing 30. A year ago, there were no coastal development permit applications having been submitted. The staff is now processing 28.
And finally 23 development plan applications are being processed whereas two were being processed one year ago. At the state level, operators in our county held a total of 1,164 state licenses with the following regional breakdown. The San Ynez Valley, Carpinteria and Lompoc regions hold the most numbers of state licenses in Santa Barbara County. Please note the data presented here is as of January 8th 2020.
This next slide shows the acreage by region associated with the active state licenses in our county. State licenses represented 270 acres countywide, with the San Ynez Valley, Lompoc and Carpinteria regions again leading the way. To remind your board and the public, the criteria that an operator must meet in order to obtain a state provisional license in this county is as follows. They had to have held a state temporary license.
They had to have submitted either a permit application accepted for processing by planning and development or obtained a land use entitlement and submitted a complete cannabis business license application. And lastly they had to have submitted a state annual license application along with all required documentation. And with that, I'll turn the presentation back over to Barney.
Thank you Steven and going forward as part of reviewing our ongoing process, the state provisional licenses are good for one year and the State Provisional Licensing Program is good through January 1st of 2022 There are currently 133 state provisional licenses slated to expire within 60 days, that is in the middle of March. And staff is going to undertake a review of those licenses in conjunction with working with county council to develop a process to ensure that the rights of the applicants are maintained. However, we are going to look at those cases where enforcement action has been taken or those operators whose licenses are due to expire who may not have reported any fiscal activity. May not have taken steps towards advancing their land use permit as required and we will ultimately report back on that status as well.
Currently, the business license process. Just a reminder that the board recently authorized applicants to be able to engage in both the concurrent processing of land use permits and business licenses. Currently we have 25 business license applications underway. We've issued five and one is due for renewal. One of the upcoming challenges as we work through this process will be to develop, again in conjunction with the County Council, a process for reviewing those business licenses that come up for renewal to ensure that they're still in compliance with applicable laws and paying taxes as appropriate.
The resale storefront selection process, as Stephen previously mentioned. Our plan is to come back to you on February 11th and show you the projected timeline for what we intend to do, as well as to share the scoring sheet for evaluation. Cannabis enforcement activity maintained at about the same level number of enforcement actions. Some of the volume is down slightly because of the nature of the investigations that were underway, but the activity level remains fairly constant and in a minute I'm going to talk about change in focus of our enforcement team efforts that I think are gonna bring some different results.
This is a graph that shows the cannabis tax revenue. As you can see, we're up 63% from first quarter of a year ago and 23% from last quarter. We should know as we watch the second and third quarter come in how this is going to trend out but so far this isn't a positive revenue direction. Going forward, some of the focus that we want to undertake in both the CEO's office and in conjunction with our partners in planning and development is to make sure that applicants are encouraged to make use of the dual-use process. That will not only expedite the permitting process but allow us I think to have a more assertive screening process for who's actually involved in this business.
Ensure that applicants who are appearing before the Planning Commission are in full compliance with all requirements. That's another issue that we're working with county council on. As I already mentioned, we're reviewing provisional licenses that are due to expire. And we have, we're one of three counties that's been selected to participate in the state's track and trace beta test along with Monterey and Yolo County.
Which will be a measure of the status is moving to bring their track and trace system that is something that's a bar coding system that basically tracks plants from From when they first emerge out of the nursery pots to when they are processed and sold. And we're going to be part of that system, it's a critical component of the tax audit which I'll talk about in a minute.
Going forward, we certainly have more than two challenges that are listed. But the two biggest ones particularly in carpentry are the issues of odor and we're pursuing not only the legal inspection process but we're pursuing some technology discussions that I hope to be able to come back to the board and talk about at a future date that I think are going to be very helpful.
And the second thing is to select a tax compliance auditing firm. This board did vote funds for that as part of the budget, we have been waiting for the state track and trace system to come online. As I mentioned it hasn't done that yet and will be having some discussions with the county tax collector as well as a couple of auditing firms to see if there's some steps we can't take even before the track and trace comes online.
We have restructured to some degree our internal approach to cannabis licensing and the issues associated with it. The Cannabis Policy Group is made up of the CEO's office, Planning and Development, Agriculture, and Sheriffs. To meet really to discuss at a 30,000 foot level policy issues related to cannabis. Secondly the affected departments you're going to meet on a monthly basis now with county council team. To review all of the legal aspects of the different things that we're talking about so that things we can address things before they become significant issues. And lastly, the cannabis enforcement team focus is going to be more focused on particular operators or on themes of violations.
Either odor or non-payment of taxes or those kinds of things in a way that I think is gonna bring some more appropriate and effective results. And with that, I'm open to any questions from the board.
1:13 – 1:188 turns
Thank you, Mr. Milliken and Mr. Yee for the presentation. Supervisor Williams has a question.
So you are entertaining the question of whether to hire the audit firm before Track and Trace is in place because Track and Trace is taking too long. Am I reading between the lines correctly? Well, I want to say that as a vital. When we allocate money in a fiscal year budget, We hope it doesn't normally take seven months to get started on something, especially something so crucial.
I think the reasons for the delay are understandable but given the circumstances we've got to move forward with urgency. And you know, you might remember back in October when we looked at some of the folks who did not report any financial activity or reported that they had no financial activity. That our enforcement team visited those that had expired temps to make sure they weren't in operation because someone Reports that they had no financial activity should not be growing plants.
So I would hope and want to hear today that we can repeat that, and have staff either our enforcement team or our P&D code enforcement to make sure that these operations are not Currently operating if they're reporting that they have no financial activity Is that possible and you need to read it that is
possible and Desirable, and our intention is to move forward in that direction. That's part of the review of that we're going to start with those hundred and thirty three provisional licenses and also look at the Look at the people who did report no activity
And just, I don't want to be all negative because Uh, reported no activity. We're also ones that our enforcement team shut down in the last year or so. That's I mean. In that case, of course they didn't pay taxes because we shut him down so so I don't think that number should be thrown around as a way to criticize your work or or our enforcement team because in some ways it's a sign of real progress though.
You know there's The numbers that you have there, there's more folks that our enforcement team shut down than there are folks in active cultivation. So that says something in and of itself. So I guess it says that there is vigorous enforcement. I just hope that extends on to checking that the folks who aren't paying taxes are not operating.
And Supervisor Williams, thank you for acknowledging the work of the enforcement team. Because they really, between the Sheriff's Office and the Agriculture Commission on Planning and Development, I had a meeting last week with state officials from CDFA, California Department of Food and Agriculture who were incredibly complimentary about the cutting edge efforts of our enforcement team compared to other entities in the state.
And when I referred to sort of making the enforcement efforts more focused, that was exactly one of the areas that we wanted to look at is this issue of non-payment and determining why. And one of the things we'll be doing is working more closely to draw a tax collector into this effort as well. Thank you.
Supervisor Hartman?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three areas of inquiry. The first has to do with non-storefront retail and we're focused very much on retail and have caps in a process but the non storefront retail what is the process that kind of came around? I know that there've been places in Orkut and now Vandenberg Village What kind of public notice, what kind of review, what kind of appeal process?
How does that affect areas?
Supervisor Hartman I'm going to go out on a limb a little bit here and then I'm going to look to Steven to bail me out probably. But non-storefront retail refers to delivery and I believe we have one of those licenses in the unincorporated area of the county.
1:18 – 1:2822 turns
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, that's correct. We have licensed one operator in Vandenberg Village. They had to obtain a land use permit and then they stepped through our business licensing process. There is another retail non-storefront operation in the permitting process and they're trying to obtain a land use entitlement.
And can you just describe then is it just a 300 foot notice and what kinds of security requirements? Again, I don't remember this being something that we discussed much as part of our ordinance discussion at the board. So I don t know as much as I'd like to about this.
Sure, Supervisor Hartman through the chair I can speak to the security requirements. So similar to cultivators and actually all other licensed types we require security measures in the form of fencing lighting and surveillance in our sheriff's office reviews those operations they perform site inspections there And again, it is similar to our other business license types.
For cannabis or just generally?
For cannabis,
yes. Is there any limit on the concentration, how many there can be?
Supervisor Hartman to the Chair, I don't know the answer to that. I don' know if that's spelled out in the ordinance.
Okay, thank you the other area of inquiry and I think you touched on it a bit but it has to do with The legal non-conforming and they expand Beyond that they're coming in for both business license and land use my impression is that we're processing through the land use but But then they may not be eligible for the business license and it seems to me peculiar to have those two out of sync Could you speak to that?
Yes, Supervisor Hartman. Your point is well taken and it's one of the things even though the board authorized that concurrent processing late last year only a handful of people have taken advantage of it. There's a variety of reasons for that prior to that change They did have to have their land use permit before they could open the business license process. We're going to now take some steps, and I think there are some things that we can very easily do them to take advantage of the concurrent processing partly because the I'm going to see if I can paraphrase my my legal briefing that they got the land use permit goes with the land and the business license goes with the user.
By running them concurrently, there's a good chance that we can identify those people that would probably never qualify to get a business license and sort of move them out of the process while still maintaining the rights of the landholders.
Thank you. I guess more to come on that, but I believe my position has always been and I believe many on the board that people who deliberately expanded beyond what their legal nonconforming was basically they have an affidavit for the business license. But if they're slipping in and getting land use permits for there for the land, that is not certainly what I ever intended.
And Supervisor Hartman for clarity I was describing the concurrent process, but your concerns about people moving beyond the footprint of what was in place prior to the January 19th 2016 cutoff date is correct. And starting with those 133 provisionals as well as the complaints that come in and the tax payments we're going to start moving through those affidavits To the degree that we can and verify some of the validity of them.
Okay, just two more things rather quick. I know that we gave direction for the planning commission to consider a couple of issues. I know they had a workshop. Could you give us any schedule or what you project going forward in terms of some of the conflicts with agriculture and some of the issues that we asked them to look at?
I might look at Director Plowman to ask for some help with that.
Mr. Chair, members of the board so we did have the workshop last Wednesday and we are actually continued that workshop got continued to this Wednesday where we hope that we will be getting a pretty clear direction from the Planning Commission on the types of ordinance amendments they want staff to draft and bring back to them for consideration About four and a half hours of public testimony, so they received a lot of information. They've got some good ideas that they want to pursue So I imagine it'll be we'll be in working on that for a few months and then I mean maybe it'll take us a month to prepare a draft for them And then we can bring it back to them, and then we'll bring it to the board I did want to let you know that the Ag Commissioner also came and gave a briefing on the working group that had been addressing the pesticide use in the conflicts with traditional ag.
It was informative, the people from her working group are going out into the community and starting to talk to their own colleagues about how to work more closely together with other agricultural operations And also that the Ag Commissioner is looking at different research institutions and talking to them about a study with regard to terpenes and the potential for that to impact other crops.
So hopefully we should be back here in a few months with, to the board with some changes to the ordinance.
Thank you. I had just one final comment, I started looking at some of the issues that other counties are having especially ones that don't have a lot of money for enforcement and our county has been on the cutting edge and we've had lots of issues arise but compared to other counties I think were ahead of the game so thanks to everybody who's worked so hard on this
Thank you, Supervisor Lavenino. Thank you Mr.
Chair. Well and I do want to welcome Barney. And I also appreciated Dennis Buzanich and all the work that he did but I kind of welcome just, I always think it's good for a new set of eyes and I think with you coming on board we're just getting another perspective and I think that'll help as well. A couple of questions, one is would have to do with P&D. One of the things that I'm concerned about is one of the slides indicated how over prescribed we are for applications as opposed to the cap and it's a real concern of mine that we have a strategy or Someone's going to get left out, obviously. And I just want to make sure that we're covering all our bases and making sure we've got a system in place. So if you could speak to that, that'd be helpful.
I'm going to again ask Director Plowman to talk about the process, but one of the underlying assumptions of that oversubscription is That some of those people are going to fall out and so we want to keep the queue going. Part of my educational process was to learn that even as we fill up The planning department is legally obligated to continue to process permits
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Levin, you know, Mr. Malekian is correct the applications come in we're required to process them and so what we will do is take them through the process You know it could be an approval of a land use permit It might be subject to an appeal likely at this point And then they will have their entitlement So that they can wait to see if a space opens up with the business license. Because people will be dropping out potentially, if they don't re-qualify and then those people with the entitlements can be in line to receive that business license.
Okay, but is there a process by which you're looking at two different applications and determining we're going to work this one or we're going to work that one as we get near the end of the cap?
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino, we are working on the applications and trying to prioritize them by date of submittal so that the people who have been in the process and making an effort to get their applications complete and comply will be moving forward first for those business license applications.
Perfect, thank you. The question on enforcement on slide 15. We have the same number of enforcement actions, but I noticed that the confiscation was drastically reduced and I'm curious if there's a reason for that or I'm just curious, it seemed like a huge fall off. And I just didn't know if there's a-
1:28 – 1:3719 turns
But specifically, it was the nature of the investigations that they were doing and the complexity of them as well as issues related to the growing season. Okay, I think we welcome your input.
Good morning, Ward. Acting Lieutenant Green with the Special Investigations Bureau, obviously cannabis team. To answer your question, CEO Malekian is correct in what he's starting to say. End of the year, it's the seasonal time of the year. It's a big slowdown on top of that you have the holiday time. We also sent a lot of our enforcement team to school that we were catching up on so this time of year is more of a natural slow down so it was an opportunity for us to give some of our people some of the needed break vacation time frames as they work very diligently and hard throughout the year and because the Canada's time has slowed down
Okay, thanks. So it's cyclical.
Sir.
The sun goes down the plants don't grow. Yeah. Okay I think I just wanted to ask you.
Yeah no I just wanted to add something because these guys will also had the we're willing to go and check out and some small operations that were part of Odor spike in Carpinteria during that time period. So it's also because they were dealing with some operations that were smaller in size but larger in impact because some of these were even backyard grows, not professional grows, personal grows but that were against You know, the rules growing in backyards in neighborhoods. So you know they went out as training exercise to do things like that and so it The positive impact may very much be much more than what it looks like on paper.
Okay, thank you. Other questions I have are related to the tax and something I'm very concerned about. So track and trace, so that timeline is that's going to come to us? We're looking at the MOU right now, I'm assuming. And do you have any idea when that's coming to us?
The Supervisor Glavigniel, the short answer is no. Probably not for 60 to 90 days. The state and I'm not quite sure of their rationale now wants to do this beta test that I referenced earlier with the three counties. There's a meeting in Sacramento in mid-February to learn about that process and to launch it sometime mid to late February. They indicated that it would be a 60 day trial.
We will be identifying a significant number of our licensees to be followed on this track and trace beta test. But then what comes out of it, or what comes after that 60-day trial is concluded is not clear yet. I should know more after the meeting in mid February.
Okay, thank you. So yeah the tax compliance audit for me is huge and the sooner we get moving on that the better but because one of the things that I've start to come to realize is that I think we have another built-in almost loophole in our ordinance on the tax side of it, which is that and maybe through some of our own doing unknowingly is that when we don't allow processing onsite Cultivator can cultivate, and if he has multiple license with a processing where he's also a processor. He could sell it to himself at a very drastically reduced price and then process it in a place like Lompoc where there is no tax or there's a very low tax.
So we would have a lot of the impact without any of the revenue. Which is something I would like to see in the tax compliance audit to see if that's really happening. And if it is, obviously we're going to have to do something about that. Another thing is are we, so there's 34 operators who reported zero gross receipts and I know that number might be inflated but if we see somebody that hasn't said I have zero receipts.
It would almost seem to me, and I know we've got to do investigations and everything. But at least a phone call saying, I am the legal cannabis compliance team. And we are curious as to where your receipts are might spark without having you do a huge investigation. Are we reaching out at all to those that have reported zero?
Supervisor Labagnino through the chair on my list of tactical considerations that's at the top.
All right. The last thing on taxes is, I think we did overlook at the beginning. We overlooked the tax collector's office and were late to the party in bringing them on board which is a huge mistake in hindsight but they are key to how this progresses in the future and I would welcome their joining in as much as they possibly can. This thing only works because I don't have the breakdown, it would be really nice to see who's paying what.
But anecdotally, I believe that most a huge portion of the tax is being paid by very few carpentry growers and a lot of folks up here in this neck of the woods are not paying anything. And not only is that not fair to the county, it's also not fair and an incentive to those people that are paying to try to figure out another way around the system so. Lastly, I just want to talk about odor and that at this point. And what's happening at the planning commission is it, I thought it was very interesting to see that out of 271 complaints 234 of them were related to odor.
And probably a majority of those are coming from in the carpentry area would imagine with legal non-conforming so And if talking with some of those that are following the rules, they're very concerned also that they would like to see enforcement taken on some of the legal nonconforming that isn't joining in. Which I know odor is also very hard to track but is there an ability on our end? Well, I guess what's the status at the planning commission right now when that, that's the question you asked? Okay, when does that odor component come back to us and After the next-
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino. It's going to take us a few months to get through the planning commission process and then we'll be bringing it back up to the board.
Okay, thank you. I'll be very
excited to
see
that. And Supervisor Lavagnino if I could just add, and I don't want to get too far out in front of some of the things we're doing. But there is some very interesting technology out there in terms of ability to identify both quantity and source of odor. And we're going to be pursuing that in the next few weeks ahead.
Okay, my last, and this one's just a comment. I know the rest were all kind of questions but I just think when you look at what's been issued with 15 land use permits and three coastal development permits Since 2018, I just want people to understand. Sometimes I read the public comment letters and they're like you guys are handing these things out like candy and everybody gets one.
I think if you talk to the people that are going through the process that can be further from the truth. If you've seen planning commission meetings, they are going through exhaustive hearings. I still think that the big problem is the folks that were there before with the non-conforming. I welcome everything you can do to get those folks to a hearing so that we can give a thumbs up or thumbs down and kind of end this thing, so that's all I've got.
Are there any other questions for staff? Madam Clerk are there public comment requests?
As Chair Hart and members of the board, we have three requests to speak on this item. And we are going to begin in Santa Barbara with Mike Palmer to be followed by Graham Farrar. Mike?
1:37 – 1:479 turns
Hello, Board. I'm Mike Palmer, a board member of Carp Growers. I appreciate the time. You guys covered a lot of this but we are focused on securing our land use permits and business licenses. However, the permitting process especially in carp ag overlays is extraordinarily difficult and we appreciate staff's diligent work through the process. In some cases, we've submitted our applications over a year ago and we still don't have our initial approval from staff due to the extreme complexity.
And of course this doesn't include the timing of getting through board appeals and the planning commission appeals. Additionally in Carpeteria, we are working hard to refine our odor control systems. Carp Growers has retained SCS engineers to visit all of our farms and help recommend additional best practices. We recognize this is an important issue for the community and we're working to problem solve every day with the help of experts.
We do recognize that there are still negligent operators and support tougher enforcement on legal non-conforming operators who are not making the same efforts, and not following the rules. We also welcome tougher enforcement on tax compliance. We estimate carb growers have paid over 80% of the county tax revenue so far, and we'd like the opportunity to walk staff through the nuances of how taxes are paid and through what licenses And how that operates. All legal non-conforming operators should be operating on the same playing field. In conclusion, please continue to support the staff efforts to get compliance applicants through the pipeline so the full set of county standards can be applied. Thank you.
Mr. Palmer?
And our next speaker is Graham Farr in Santa Barbara and then we will return to Santa Maria with Renee O'Neill. Graham?
Hi, my name is Graham Farrar. I'm here as a farmer, a cannabis farmer in Carpinteria as well as the president of Carp Growers and I've come here to speak from a unique vantage point, I think, as the only operator in the county who has both a fully entitled and business license, the annual permit farm as well as a prospective farm. And from that vantage point I can confidently say that the entitlement and business license process is extremely rigorous. What the community should want and what the county should want is as many operators Out of the legal non-conforming side and into the entitled and business license side of the process. If there's any shortcomings in the process that is not with our entitlement in the ordinance, it is on the legal non conforming side.
And to that end we fully support additional oversight regulation and enforcement on legal non conforming operators that are not following the rules that we have in place. Additionally, fully support additional oversight and an audit on the tax side. Everybody in this county who has a cannabis business should be paying their fair share of taxes. That was the deal with the county that was the deal with the community and everybody needs to be doing their part.
Running a cannabis business in Santa Barbara is extremely onerous. It has immense amount of regulations and an extreme taxation. As an operator, it's not the system that I would have wished for but as the rules we have and everyone needs to follow them. By way of analogy if you were playing soccer it would be a lot easier if you could pick the ball up and run down the field but that's not the rules and no player nor referee would tolerate that and we shouldn't tolerate it here either. Thank you very much.
We will now return to Santa Maria with Renee O'Neill, who is our final speaker.
Chair Hart, Supervisors, we the people wish to express our appreciation to Santa Barbara County CEO's Mona Miyasato, Assistant Barney Melekian, Fiscal and Policy Analyst Stephen Yee, In regard to what Graham just said, also our enforcement teams that were so successful in shutting down a bad operation in Carpinteria last night. My plaudits to all of you. Regarding Director Plowman's comment on working on applications by date I think that's a valid Way of doing things, however I would caution that the folks who have been dragging their feet repeatedly continually come up on the state record saying.
No response from applicant, I have the exact wording for that here in my letter to you. But you know what I'm talking about where they drag their feet repeatedly and do not come into compliance with the ordinances. Those people should be put at the bottom of the list in my opinion. In addition, I would like to see the licenses of all legal non-conforming growers rescinded That have falsified their applications and or violated county, state and federal laws.
I'd like to see the licenses of growers revoked that claim they have no gross receipts. Supervisor Lavinino, regarding your track and trace system, I thought you might like to know that last September state authorities inspected farms near us for the required state tags. The night before their inspection happened, the growers that traffic through my property were in a flurry of activity. Caravans of people going up late at night very unusual and we're there until 1130 that night.
So the next day when this team of state inspectors came by I asked them what was going on? And they said we're going up to inspect the farm for tags and Now I understand why there was this flurry of activity last night. Because this grower was scrambling to have his people put tags on plants at the very last second. Anyway, this goes on all the time and it's the amount Truckloads of product that I see going out of there that I know these people aren't paying taxes on is just appalling. So, I'd really appreciate it if we could get some action in Tapiskaya on these illicit non-conforming growers. Thank you for your
time. Thank You. Any other comments from members of the board or questions? Can I get a motion? We have A and B and the staff recommended actions.
Well, if I could make a short comment first. I just want to say that as I've said many times we're in the grand experiment and we're watching the evolution occur and some of it's going okay and some of it leaves some to be desired but we're moving through it and that's what's gonna happen and it'll take years for it to shake out But there'll be some uncomfortable events on all sides, but we're working through it.
So I will move a staff recommendation.
Second. Motion's been made and seconded, yeah? And I'd just like to add too that kudos to the enforcement team. My understanding is that the state does recognize this as the best in the state, Illegal product than all of the other counties in the state combined. And that they're looking at us and saying this is the model that they would like to see replicated throughout the state, having the resources to have the folks doing the investigations and making the enforcement actions. I want to thank the Ag Commissioner for convening the collaborative discussion process. I know that that started off rough, but people have developed relationships between traditional agricultural and the cannabis farmers that is going to pay big dividends. And them taking ownership of that process and going forward and talking to other of their constituents and bringing people together and having direct conversations about these issues is really important to finding a positive resolution.
And I'm excited about the idea of the state perhaps participating or other entities in a scientific study about terpene migration and finding out more on the science standpoint. And then to Supervisor Adams' point about things that could be better, we could use more state cooperation with the track and trace process in our audits. And would love to see our own tax collector helping in that regard too with our local efforts. So we've got things that we need to work on. And we're going to, and I really appreciate this comprehensive presentation.
So all those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. Oppose and abstain? The matter carries unanimously. Looking at the time it appears that we are probably going to get to item three after lunch and after the closed session items. So we'll do item two and then we'll break for closed session. And then it looks like we'll probably be back about 1230 to begin item three.
And I can put a more precise time, I think on that one when we conclude this next item. So Madam Clerk if you'd read D2 into the record?
1:47 – 2:0212 turns
Chair Hart and members of the board, departmental item number two is from public health. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding micro enterprise home kitchen policy and direction.
Good morning. Good morning, Chair Hart and members of the board. We are here to present on the micro enterprise home kitchen operations. Our recommendations include that your board receive and file a report and provide the following directions to us regarding implementation of the program. That you direct staff to prepare amendments to the current Santa Barbara County Code authorizing micro enterprise home kitchen operations. To be permitted at food facilities in our county, and to return to the board for further considerations or to direct staff to take no further action at this time. And determine that the proposed actions are not subject to California Environmental Quality Act.
With me today is Larry Fay, our Director of Environmental Health Services to do the presentation.
Thank you Dr. Doronoso, Chairman Hart, members of the board. You might ask, what is a MECO or Micro Enterprise Home Kitchen Operation? In good bureaucratic language it's we can't resist taking something simple and making it more difficult. It's basically home cooking for the public. AB 626 and AB 377 established this new category of food service facility that you could think of perhaps as an expansion of the cottage food operations that have been around the state since 2012.
Under these laws, the county has the ability to authorize the health department to administer a permit structure for people to prepare in their home kitchen certain potentially hazardous foods. This is something that has not been allowed in the past. It's always been a barrier to folks looking to enter into food business and It gives us some opportunity to consider. Now, when we talk about a microenterprise home kitchen, we're talking about small scale operation that would be able to provide direct food sales to consumers from a home-based food facility.
That can either be dine in, it could be take out or the microenterprise home kitchen operation could do delivery. There are caps. Micro Enterprise Home Kitchen is limited to 30 meals or meal equivalents per day and no more than 60 meal equivalents per week. Limits on process, food has to be prepared, cooked and served in a single process. There's no allowance for preparing foods, cooling them, holding them and reheating them.
That's one of the critical factors that we look at, and we think you may be able to do this in a more safe way. One of the major problems we run into food facilities is when you start cooking, you want to cool stuff, you want to hold it, you want to reheat it, you have a lot of opportunity for violations That control process that would reduce the opportunity for microbial growth and foodborne illness. The other limit here is a microenterprise home kitchen could only, anyway $50,000 a year in gross sales from a microenterprise home kitchen. That's the same cap that we have on cottage food operations and it kind of provides for some level of consistency.
Microenterprise home kitchens would be administered by Environmental Health The microenterprise home kitchen in the law is considered a single family residence for occupancy purposes of state housing law or building and fire codes. It does provide for modifications Allowances for use of domestic type appliances as opposed to requiring the full bore commercial applications that would be necessary in a regular permitted operation.
The microenterprise home kitchen is an opt-in bill, the county would have to take an affirmative step of authorizing by resolution or ordinance for the health department to administer a microenterprise home kitchen program. And it is if the county decides to opt in, the county is opting in for the entire county. The cities would not have the opportunity to opt out of microenterprise home kitchen.
So as we said, we're seeking policy direction should we seek an ordinance authorizing microenterprise home kitchens in Santa Barbara County? There's really only two options in this. We could do nothing. Do nothing means they're not authorized. Some counties in Northern California have been so opposed to this that they adopted resolutions saying, No we're not going to do this. Well it's really not necessary. Doing nothing would not allow it. The second option is to authorize it and of course as I said before that would include all areas within the county Why would we not opt in?
Well, that's easy. There is no change for us and by not opting in, in theory we would not be opening up kind of quasi-commercial operations in otherwise residential neighborhoods Not opting in would, as I said, one of the challenges a lot of folks have in getting into the food business is the cost of entry when you're moving into a full-blown commercial operation.
If we don't opt in, we are continuing to maintain that high barrier to folks. Not opting in does present a fundamental question for us about enforcement of all of the folks that are already out there doing this kind of thing and we'll get into that discussion a little bit here. Why would we opt-in? As we've already indicated The opt-in does provide a certain amount of opportunity for people to explore their ability to move into a world of legal food production.
It may provide some benefit to disenfranchised communities, stay at home moms, people who otherwise can't get out into the workplace would begin Enable us to enforce more uniform food policy across the county. Not just in the current commercial restaurant world, but also into the home kitchen and home cooking. And for me maybe most significantly is it does create a pathway for compliance For all of those existing folks that are already out there doing this in kind of an underground world.
And you need only look at Facebook Marketplace or various other platforms to see just how much of this kind of home cooking is going on in the community. The reason why we wouldn't consider this, probably the one that might be most significant is the implications for cities. Normally city county zoning would have a say in where restaurants can operate in terms of zoning what kind of hours they need to keep things like parking requirements all that goes out the window with a micro enterprise home kitchen as I said before it's a single family residence for purposes of occupancy And the second part of that is if you had a lot of microenterprise home kitchens in the neighborhood, would there be impact? I think the question that was raised as we talked to some city planners about this is, is this the next Airbnb kind of thing and the short-term rental stuff.
As I said, if you can go to Facebook Marketplace, you will see these kinds of things all over cheesecake. Cheesecakes up there, you might think of that as cottage food. Well because of the fact that cheesecake is not shelf-stable like a lot of other things it's not a qualified cottage food product Barbecues, I think everybody's seen the pop-up barbecues. I've got a neighbor down in Los Alamos that every quarter or so has a big neighborhood chicken barbecue and I usually make sure I'm out of town that day.
You'll see a lot of these kinds of meals ready to eat that folks have put together and sell through those venues. When I say it's a pathway to compliance And as I said, a lot of this stuff is going on. This is an illustration of a facility that we were engaged with Santa Maria Code Compliance a few years ago. This one was actually in operation in a home garage and it was supporting a mobile food facility. They weren't working out of a catering kitchen but this is the kind of thing that is pretty commonplace For people that are cooking and preparing food at home.
It's pretty pretty dismal and came to our attention because of the fire that popped up from all of this stuff that was cobbled together, so at least we would be in the places for an initial inspection. We'd be looking at required food Not just food safety certification, but the manager safety certification. And they would be subject to an annual inspection from us if you got into a microenterprise home kitchen as opposed to this sort of thing going on out in the community.
And I think Vaughn had a couple things that she was going to add before we get down to questions.
Yes, thank you Larry. We if the board directs us to opt in and develop this program we fully intend to not only engage our community members on what it would look like to get the permit And we would do heavy community engagement. On the other side, because the cities will not be able to opt out if the county opts in, we would also engage communities, cities to help us develop those guidelines. The county does have, we can create limitations so it is not one program that fits the whole community. So per se, we can do a lot at the local level. And understanding local control, we will be engaging cities in that conversation and design of the program.
Director
Adam? Could you give me some examples of things that we could do in one community but not in another?
Larry?
Supervisor Adam to the chair. I don't know that I could do it one community as compared to another, but I think things that we could do would be to limit because there's some the law still leaves a lot of Things that are kind of vague. I think one of the things we could do is say, OK, we're only going to permit one microenterprise home kitchen in a single family residence. The law doesn't say you can't have multiple MECOs in a residence. I think we could say that in our local code. I think we could say if you already have a cottage food operation, we can't also do a MECO.
We could ask for verification if it's a rental property It's consistent with your rental agreement on the property to be able to operate from that. But I think what we would put into our ordinance would be applicable across the county. One thing that did come up when we met with the city planners on this was a question of public works fog requirements. So normally if you have a restaurant, they'll require a grease interceptor through their fats oil and grease program.
And they're wondering whether a microenterprise home kitchen would trigger the requirement for that. And if so, could that be something that they could impose? I don't see anything in the law that prohibits the requirement with the kind of basic sanitary standards that FOG is intended to cover. But those are the kinds of things I think we would discuss with the cities. And to the extent that we could put something in our ordinance that would address city concerns, we would do that but I think it would have to apply universally. That was the example
that I was thinking of- Supervisor Adam? Well, what I'm trying to answer is a question that you might have different fog requirements in a rural area than an urban area for example. I mean, disposal of grease might be appropriate to be different in different areas of the county.
Yeah that's true and there's different entities that accept the sewage and so you have to get involved with all of them and stuff. Mr. Gazzone had some comments, I'm sure he was giving me the eye.
Chair and supervisors. I think public health had a good summary on the express exemption of these from standard zoning authority. The statute at section 114367.4 includes, shall not prohibit the operation of or impose any other restriction on these facilities as long as they do two things. One of which is no signage and the other is compliance with local noise ordinances.
So we would, if this is a direction the board would want to go in. We would look at that chapter of the health and safety code and see if there were any real exceptions from that general exemption from zoning. But it's a pretty broad exemption from zoning as long as it's in a single family residence.
Yeah, and I can see that causing some problems with the sewage system. And that having to be addressed at some point but generally I support the deal. I think it's pretty good and we'll give you an opportunity as you say to get some people in the door and give them some food safety training. Trying to chase all the illegal operations around. And it may result in more people eating better quality food and that's a good thing, so.
Supervisor Hartman?
2:02 – 2:0814 turns
I agree with Supervisor Adams assessment had a couple of questions. How well has our cottage food industry ordinance worked? This is essentially an expansion of that at the time, I remember we were concerned that we might have an over concentration in certain areas that it would lead to parking and complaints. Have we learned anything from that that might give us some guidance here?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. The cottage food, call it an experiment if you want. From my perspective has been largely positive we have about 300 cottage food operations either class A registered folks or Class B that actually hold a permit from us The only complaints that we have received, just to back up a second. The class A's are really other than registering with us nothing happens with them. We don't inspect them. There is, we are actually prohibited from inspecting them unless there is a complaint and reason to believe some kind of food adulteration is occurring.
The Class B's hold a permit and we do an annual inspection of those. The only issues that have come to our attention related to cottage food have been complaints from either amongst cottage food operators that somebody's producing something that is not cottage food. When we learn of that, we check and verify and remind them that they are limited to the things that are on the approved list.
Or we find things in the marketplace so the Class B cottage food operators can do indirect sales. So they could be at a local store that specialize in locally produced goods and things. And when we're doing that inspection, sometimes we will see a product that's labeled as cottage food and in fact it's not something like pickling. It's not something you can do in a cottage food operation and we've had that occur. So we then get back with the operator and say look if you're going to do this you've got to go down a different pathway. Discontinue that and you're back into compliance. So it's been relatively easy for us to administer. We haven't had any food-borne complaints that we could attribute to Cottage Food. In fact, I don't think that there has been a single food borne outbreak confirmed across the state from Cottage Food operations.
That one has been a manageable thing. I have not heard of any concerns raised about parking traffic or any of those kinds of issues.
And then we've had an issue in the special problems area with homestays, concerns about the impact of that. So would special problems areas raise a flag for the oil and grease and the additional demands on the waste treatment?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair that would be one of the things that we would be evaluating when we're looking at a home is proposing a Home kitchen operation if it's on an onsite sewage system We would have to verify that the system has capacity for the post in increased load and the change in the wastewater Characteristics that we'd expect from that kind of operation they may need to upgrade a system To be able to get a permit to do that Or they may be in an area special problems area where we couldn't do it because of other restrictions That would be part of the review
and As we do with home well, we started out with homestays to actually do a Web search to see identify people who are advertising but didn't have them the proper permits. I'm not sure if we're doing that Anymore, do we do that with cottage industry? Would we anticipate doing that here so that we actually get compliance? I
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. We're not mining data right now looking for existing illegal operations, and it's not something that I had planned to do. And I think Dr. Duranosa can speak to this a little bit but our thinking on this would be to really focus on a public outreach effort to make people aware that the law is out there. And the law is really an opportunity for the folks that are currently operating, to get into and get out of that kind of underground situation and operate in a legal framework. Can they
get a special sticker then? That says I'm in compliance?
I think part, if the board directs us to create this program. I think part of the outreach is not only pulling home cooks who are currently doing it but it's also raising community awareness that hey, if you buy food from a home vendor they should have that insignia or you shouldn't buy food or meals From run of the mill on Craigslist or on Facebook without that protection. So we see this as a huge community outreach on both sides, the consumer as well as the vendor.
Yeah, my final comments I think having some imprimatur that says they have a permit is a good thing. I think that's a great idea. And I thank you for reaching out to the cities. I think partnering with the cities and understanding what their concerns are. I do see the letter from the city of Buelton. Did we have other letters from cities on this in our packet? I didn't see any,
okay. We did not but Larry and his team did engage cities and specifically the planners so that we have been in contact with the cities throughout this process.
Are there any other questions of staff? I have a question about the timeline. What would you imagine the time being for the implementation of this effort?
So we've added around a reasonable timeline, given that we'd like to engage the cities in developing this program with us as well as our communities. We're imagining that perhaps we can come back to the board at the end of July.
Okay, thank you. I look forward to that Thank You dr. Dorino so and mr. Fray the mr. Fay for the presentation Are there any requests from the public to speak on this item madam clerk?
Yes chair Hart and members of the board I have one request to speak on this item And that is here in Santa Maria Bobby Thompson
2:08 – 2:1511 turns
Ms. Thompson, we kind of figured you were here to talk about this
item. Self-explanatory. Good morning my name is Bobby Thompson and I am here to encourage Santa Barbara County to opt into AB 626 the homemade food operations. AB 626 allows cooks to apply for micro enterprise home kitchen operation permit to sell food made in their home kitchen. I am a certified professional food safety manager, as well as the Santa Barbara County representative of Cook Alliance, a food advocacy group.
Once permitted, the name of my business will be called Chef's Pick of the Day. When my elderly mother no longer was interested in cooking for herself, I decided to cook healthy meals for her. This was the start of chef's pick of the day. My business plan will include utilizing locally grown produce seasonally and economical cuts of protein to prepare home cooked meals to senior citizens.
I will deliver the meals to residents of nearby mobile home parks. This permit will build healthy, resilient communities and create economic opportunities for the people that need them the most. Cooks from underserved communities primarily women, immigrants and people of color will use their skills to generate extra income or incubate a new food enterprise.
Many existing home cooks will be able to openly access business education and training on safe food handling practices. Finally, this permit helps protect consumers and improve public health standards. Home food operations must be inspected by local health inspectors and operators must follow a set of health training and sanitation standards. For these reasons I support the implementation of AB 626 micro enterprise home kitchen operations in our county. Thank you for your leadership in helping bring this opportunity to cooks and their communities.
Thank you very much for the comments, we look forward to your trying your food. Supervisor
Hartman? I gather this is for residential areas but we did hear a comment earlier on another topic about wineries and serving food and I just wonder if this is applicable.
Supervisor Hartman, through the chair. This actually is a question that came up with our meeting with the planners a week or two ago and I'd have to dig into it a little bit more but I think what we because the micro enterprise home kitchen is a single family residence for occupancy purposes. I think somebody at a winery that has a home at the winery could be a MECO and do meals in the home.
But I don't think they would be able to do meals, I'm sure they would not be able to prepare meals at the winery in the tasting room. So what I could see is them being able to do special members pairing or something like that but it would not open the door to begin doing food service that's otherwise not allowed by zoning in the wine tasting room itself
Okay, would anyone like to make a motion? Are there any other comments? Director Adam.
Yeah I think that's really something that we've made a grave mistake on and hopefully that can get fixed at some point. We should allow wineries to- Well you know I think that becomes more like a restaurant operation and they need a heavier level of permitting. Obviously, but for us to just tell everybody no I think is unreasonable and hopefully we can get that started somehow.
May I respond? Yes, Director. I agree with you and I think maybe the ag tourism discussion will bring that to the fore for us once again.
Well, I don't know if we need three people to direct staff to take a look at where and what vehicle that would come back to us. But I just wanted to weigh in on that as well and say that's something I'd like to see fixed as well.
Director Williams? Well, I just want to chime in and say I support the opt-in approach. I think we're unleashing a spirit of entrepreneurship in our community by doing so but providing rules to make sure that safety is respected. The kind of services that are provided are myriad, but particularly valuable I think for people who are homebound or people who just had babies or other services. And in an age when one of our biggest problem is how many people are commuting during peak hours?
This is a line of employment that your traffic trips are at least off peak, or partially off peak. So there's a logic to working out of your home. I know there could be possible conflicts so obviously an ordinance should address some of those but I think that it's important that we move in the direction where This comes out of the shadows so that it can also adhere to basic public safety.
Supervisor Adam? I would make a motion that we adopt staff recommendations A, B1 and C.
2:15 – 2:188 turns
Second.
Motion's been made and seconded, any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose and abstain the matter carries unanimously. And with that we will take a break for closed session and come back at 1230 for item D3. Mr. Ghazani did you have something you wanted to
add? Chair and supervisors I just wanted to announce the agenda for closed session today.
Thank you.
The board is agendized to consider two matters of existing Litigation one is sent in as River Water Conservation District Improvement District 1. The second was added on Friday, and that is the Board of Supervisors sitting as the board of Santa Barbara Fund for Public and Educational Access concerning the PE capital endowment litigation which is Superior Court case number 19PR00156.
You also have three real property negotiations, one for one parcel at 14730 Calle Real in Goleta. Another negotiation concerning one parcel of open space in the Orkut Hills area and then a third negotiation concerning six parcels about one mile southwest of Orkut.
That's all for today.
Thank you. We'll
be back at 1230 ♪ Yeah.
2:21 – 2:381 turns
Thank you. Hi. Music you the board. Hello, everyone. Yeah.
2:45 – 2:501 turns
you the board. Hello.
2:54 – 3:121 turns
Yeah. Yeah. you the board. You. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah.
3:18 – 3:292 turns
you the board.
Hello, everyone. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
3:35 – 3:4535 turns
Meeting the meeting of January 28th,
2020. Will county council please report out from closed session?
Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board considered two matters of existing litigation. The first concerns Santa Ana's River Water Conservation District Improvement District number one. The second involved the PE Capital Endowment concerning the Santa Barbara Fund for public and educational access. We also had conference with real property negotiators for three sets of parcels. The first at 14730 Calle Real in Goleta.
The second, open space in the Orchard Hills area. And the third was six parcels about one mile southwest of Orchid. There are no reportable
actions. Thank you Mr. Gazzone. Next item is department item number three. Will the clerk please read the item into the record?
Chair Hart and members of the board, departmental item number three is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding Juarez Adam and Farley LLP on behalf of George and Cheryl Bedford Adams, Broadwell Joseph and Cardoza LLP on behalf of citizens for responsible wind energy in California Native Plant Society appeals of the Strauss Wind Energy Project conditional use permit and variance case numbers 19 APL 33.
19 APL 34, 19 APL 35, 16 CUP 31 and 18 VAR 2. And this is in the third and fourth districts.
Thank you. Supervisor Adam did you have something?
Yes I have decided to recuse myself from consideration of the Strauss Wind Energy Project because my brother Richard Adam is a partner in the law firm that represents one of Concerning the Political Reform Act, I do not have any financial interest in this matter. Concerning Government Code Section 1090, this item does not involve a contract. I am focusing on what sometimes is referred to as common law bias.
Although the law is not clear that I must recuse myself because of my brother's employment, I do not want my participation to distract from the board's consideration of this project. I make each recusal decision case by case and I might make a different decision in the future.
Thank you Supervisor Adam, we'll see
you
next
week. So I just want to make sure you're going to stay around for the hearing though correct? Okay.
Well the first item on our agenda is a discussion about the request for continuance and our ex parte communications so let's start with the ex parte communications and it looks like we'll start with Supervisor Williams
On numerous occasions, I have spoken with both BAWA, which is the applicant and one of the appellants. Both their attorney and on more occasions their local business manager. So again, I have ex-party disclosures for both sides of the debate.
Supervisor Hartman?
I and my Chief of Staff have had numerous communications with BayWa, and a site visit as well.
Supervisor Lavinino?
I met with Daniel Duke and Florian Zerhusen on August 21st. My chief staff did a site visit with Daniel on January 22nd. Other than that it's just all the phone calls and emails we've all received.
And I met with Daniel Duke in person, in my office on May 2nd and August 21st. And I spoke to him on the phone on January 21st to talk about the issues that the appellants had raised for this hearing. I also met in person with Ms. Citron and other representatives from the Audubon on January 24th to talk about their concerns about the project. And then I talked on the phone with Chuck Huddleston from IBW on January 3rd.
And talked about the project labor agreement elements of the project. And I spoke with Martin Rodriguez from the Ironworkers on January 21st and January 26th about the local hire elements of the project. Director Williams?
Mr Chair, if you have to include ex parte communications with people who are witnesses, I have more disclosures or do I just do it for the appellant and applicant?
Mr. Gazzani? Chair, answer is my recommendation in this area is to provide ex parte disclosures on any communication that you've received that might be relevant to any of the parties so that they would have an ability to address those in their presentations.
So on at least three occasions, I have had communications with Audubon. On several occasions, communications with Sierra Club. On one occasion, a communications with the Iron Workers, Martin Rodriguez being their business manager and let's see if there is anybody else out there that I- If there was someone else, it was probably CEC Community Environmental Council.
Okay?
Any other expertise?
Mr. Chair, I've also had conversations with the San Ynez Band of Chumash Indians about the project and also with IBW Chuck Huddleston.
And
that reminds me, I've also had conversations with the Sandy Nez Band of Chumash Indians.
And I did as well and did a site visit with them to the project site. Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, and I as well talked to the Ironworkers, IBEW, the San Ines Band of Chumash, the Barbarainio Band of Chumash and numerous groups at UCSB that have an interest in this.
Lots of ex parte communications on this item. So we're going to start off with having planning and development present the appellant's request for continuance, and then we're going to have comments from the appellants, the applicant, and the public about that request for continuance as a separate discussion here. The board will deliberate on that request for continuance, and then we'll have a full presentation about the project with presentations from the appellants and the applicant and the public as well.
Folks who are wanting to speak only to the question of a continuance. You may have submitted a speaker slip and we have that, but we don't have a distinction between whether you want to speak about the continuance or you want to speak about the project. So when we get to that phase if you would just come up and line up if you want to speak to the continuance item. If not, we do have your speaker slip and we will call your name when we're talking about the main item if we get to that. So first up is Planning and Development's presentation about the request for a continuance.
Ms. Plowman?
Mr. Chair, members of the board, Mr. Zorovich is going to present the memorandum.
Thank you, Mr. Zorovich.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the board. So on January 9th, we received a request for continuing this hearing item today from one of the appellants, Adams, Broadwell, Joseph and Cardoza in response to that staff prepared a memorandum. We feel that the information that's related to this has been made available. There is no undue hardship related that we see for not going forward with this hearing today.
We follow the processes that we have and so we're recommending that this item not be continued today.
Okay, thank you any questions for staff? All right let's have the appellant who is requesting the continuance And I guess we'll give you three minutes, thank you
Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair, Board of Supervisors. My name is Andrew Graf. I'm an attorney with Adams Broadwell Joseph N Cardozo. I represent a coalition of labor unions and organizations whose members live work and recreate around Santa Barbara County. I've asked for a continuance today because we have also appealed the Center for Central Architectural Review Board's decision and that is currently on appeal before the Planning Commission. We believe that it would be proper to consider all Approvals for this project concurrently and that to do so would not severely prejudice either the applicant, other appellants or members of the public.
We also believe it would be procedurally proper to consider those appeals concurrently in that the land use and development code requires That the design review be considered before the conditional use permit and variance requests are approved. Given the order of activities that are required under the Land Use and Development Code, this is also supported by the procedural requirements that are found in the CBAR bylaws which require that permits for development go through design review approval before a conditional use permit is approved. And then lastly, a continuance request would ensure compliance with CEQA's procedural requirements in that preliminary approval of the project prior to certification of the supplemental EIR would be premature and avoid conflicts.
It would be best to consider all of the approvals concurrently. And so we ask that you continue this matter and set the hearing for a date appropriate where all approvals can be considered at the same time.
Thank you, Mr. Graf. Are there any other appellants that want to speak to the item in continuance? Yes sir.
3:45 – 4:0721 turns
Good afternoon Richard Adam. I represent George and Cheryl Bedford who own the residence adjacent to many of these wood turbines. So the Central Board of Architecture Review reviewed this project, approved this project a few weeks ago inappropriately in our view This is well after the Planning Commission made the findings that are the subject of this appeal.
As was just said, the CBAR decision's being appealed by at least two parties, one of which is us. Those appeals are going to go before the planning commission at some later date. We do not have a date for that hearing yet I don't believe Kathy, do we?
Chair Hart, members of the board. Mr. Adam we do have I think we've targeted February 26 for the planning commission hearing.
Okay so it's a month from now depending upon what the planning commissions does this matter may be in front of this board again The results of the CBAR appeals could very well change the project That would of course change the appropriateness of any decision that you might make here today. In other words, the parameters of the project haven't been stabilized yet. And they won't be stabilized until that matter goes through the whole appeal process.
A hearing today is putting the cart before the horse. The better course of action we believe is to wait to see what happens at the CBAR appeal. The planning commission's either going to send the matter back to CBAR or For further review, which is what I think should happen. Which would cause the project potentially to change or they're going to approve the CBAR's decision and an appeal of that matter is going to be heard by this board. We see no reason why that shouldn't be heard concurrently with appeals that are in front of the board today. It hurts nobody to wait.
In fact, the applicant can't start any process without the CBAR finalization And so I think what we're saying is that it's really inappropriate to hear these matters without also hearing the CBAR appeal.
Thank you, Mr. Adam. Any other appellants that want to speak to the continuance? Opportunity for the applicant to speak. Mr. Gazzone did you want to speak now or after the applicant? Okay, applicants representative.
Good afternoon. I'm Julie Jones from Perkins Coie on behalf of Strauss Wind, the applicant and first I want to point out that the order that is being followed now with the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors Acting first on the conditional use permit and the variances for the project is exactly the process that was used for the Lompoc Wind Energy Project. The original project about almost ten years ago, which was challenged and was upheld by the court. The process and the substance of those decisions by this board.
And also that there's nothing in the bylaws or in the LUDC that indicates that CBAR is supposed to finish first and these major decisions to be made by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors are supposed to follow that. CBAR's purview as was established back for the LWEP is fairly narrow in terms of what they examine, particular structures. And what you have before you today is big picture issues having to do with compliance with the LUDC and the technical constraints that mean that as a matter One would not move turbines off ridgelines, one would not try to control the color of turbines. And that really the decisions that CBAR has to make while important really apply only to a small part of the project and finally that the project cannot afford delay at this point it is as I'm sure you've heard.
On a very tight time schedule and the project would indeed be severely prejudiced by having to put off this hearing. And not have the Board of Supervisors make its decision today.
Thank you Ms. Jones, any questions from board members? Mr. Ghazani.
Chair and supervisors just for context at this point before you consider this action what you're doing right now is within the boards procedural rules for land use hearings at resolution 91-333 and your considering a continuance which is discussed on page 8 of those rules The standard is that you may grant a continuance for good cause and you have discretion in this area.
The prior speakers have discussed what's in some of the different county governing documents, the land use code at section 35.82.060D4 states that design review is required so I agree with that. The county code at section 2-33, decimal 12B for Bravo states that central board of architectural review must occur before a permit is issued. And I think that's going to be the gist of your deliberations right now, is what is the timing that we're talking about? So under the county code final CBAR approval is required before permit issuance. And then within the central board of architectural review guidelines, we have two different statements.
Statement one is that final BAR approvals are required before permit issuance. And later in that page, it's the final approval is required before approval of a permit. So on the CBAR guidelines I think you're faced with a conflict between two different sentences. And I would offer that it is within your discretion to resolve those as well as the other two guidances that I just provided to you.
I think the most sensible reading of this is that C-bar final approval must occur before a permit is issued, but it seems hard to have C-bar final approval before a permit is approved.
Okay, thank you. Is there any members of the public that want to speak to the continuance? All right, well then the matter is to the board. Supervisor Hartman.
There's no discussion, I move denial.
Okay there's a motion is there a second? I'll second.
Supervisor
Williams.
I've been in local government for a long time now nine years on the City Council and this three or seven years on the City Council on these three years on the Board of Supervisors and The entire land-use process goes Land use permit first, design second. It's a bifurcated process. This is normal and we don't delay one so that we can bundle them.
Any other comments to the motion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Oppose and abstain. The matter carries unanimously. We'll proceed and if the clerk has some items that she wants to add to the records this is the time to do that.
Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. I just would like to note for the record any documents or letters we received by the clerk afternoon on Friday January 24th that will need to be voted on by the board to be made a part of that record. I will begin with number one a letter from Jonathan Ullman of the Sierra Club received on Friday January 24 at 12 27 p.m.
The second was a letter from David Chipping Conservation Chair from the San Luis Obispo Chapter of California Native Plant Society received Friday, January 24th at 2.08 p.m.. The third was a letter from Karen Allsland received Monday, January 27th at 10.32 a.m. Fourth was a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife received Monday, January 27th at 1.32 p. m.
And last, we have the applicant Daniel Duke's PowerPoint that was received yesterday Monday January 27th at 1.42 PM and if the board would like to take this matter up.
Is there a motion to add those items to the record? I'll make that motion. Motion's been made and seconded, all those in favor say aye. Aye. And the matter carries unanimously. Next up we're going to have a staff presentation for 15 minutes. Mr. Gazzani you have something else you'd like
to- Chair and supervisors just since we have some participants who are from out of town, I would just note that all the documents that clerk of the board has just discussed are also posted on the county's website. They're available at the clerk of board counters north and south. But they are available on the Granicus website.
Thank you. We'll first have our staff presentation for 15 minutes, then we're going to have presentations from all three of the appellants, the California Native Plant Society, Citizens for Responsible Energy and Mr. Bedford. Ten minutes each for a total of 30 minutes. Then we will have a presentation from the applicant for 15 minutes. Then we will have public comment, and then there will be time for rebuttal from the appellants and the applicants. And staff comments in the board deliberations.
So we have a lot of people here I think who want to speak this item so let's get started. Ms Plowman?
Mr. Chair, members of the board as was announced earlier we have the appeal of the Straus Wind Energy Project there are three appellants and today we have Kathy Pfeiffer, Aaron Briggs and John Zorovich from the energy and compliance division that will be making the presentation and being able to respond any questions you may have.
Thank you Ms. Mullen. Mr. Zorovich are you going to start for Mr. Briggs? Ms. Pfeiffer
Good afternoon, Chair Hart, members of the board and members of the public. Today we have to consider three appeals, the Planning Commission's approval of the Straus Wind Project. I'd like to give you a brief description of the project and then generally go over the appellant's issues and staff responses. Strauss Wind Energy Project is located approximately four miles southwest of the city of Lompoc in a relatively remote area.
This is the same location as the Lompoc Wind Energy Project site that was approved by the board in 2009. The 7.3 mile transmission line, in the yellow line here running from the wind turbine site which is in the shaded area to just south of the city of Lompok where it will hook into PG&E's facilities. The applicant originally proposed a wind project that consisted of 30 wind turbines and would generate 102 megawatts. The blue and green shapes on this slide represent the proposed location for the wind turbines, the purple areas represent areas to be graded.
On November 20th of last year, the Planning Commission approved a modified project that was the environmentally superior alternative in the projects environmental document. The modified project would generate 98 megawatts with 29 wind turbines, six of which will be 427 feet tall and 23 of which will be 492 feet tall. The modified project is generally the same as the originally proposed project but it differs in a few ways. It eliminates two wind turbines that would have removed 382 oak trees.
It adds a new smaller wind turbine in the northern portion, and it moves all grading out of the coastal zone. Because the Lompoc Wind was a wind energy project and located at the same site, the county prepared a supplement to the Lompoc Wind EIR. This slide summarizes the review process of the Straus Wind SEIR that it went through. A final SEIR revision letter summarizes the environmental impacts of the modified project.
The final SEIR identified seven class one impacts for the modified Straus Wind Project. Five of the class one impacts are associated with visual impacts, mostly from the wind turbines and transmission line. Two class one impacts are associated with biological resources, removal of oak woodlands and potential bird and bat fatalities due to collisions with wind turbines.
This slide lists the resource areas that were identified as having class two impacts. There are 80 mitigation measures throughout the final SEIR that reduces these impacts to an insignificant level. Two beneficial impacts were identified, generation of renewable fossil free energy and reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. The project helps California meet its plan of having 100% fossil free energy by 2045.
The final SEIR considered seven project alternatives, four of which are listed here. And these were carried forward for more analysis. The planning commission's approval included two of the alternatives. The modified project layout, which eliminates again removal of 380 oak trees by eliminating the two turbines and an alternative transportation route which moves the majority of transporting the projects large components to reduce the impacts to the city of Lompoc streets and intersections.
Three appeals were received on the Planning Commission's decision of approving the project. Combined, there are a total of 25 separate appeal issues. This slide lists the issue numbers for each appellant that is described in the board letter. In order to be concise I will summarize a few of the major issues of each appellant in the forthcoming slides. However we are here to discuss any of the appeal issues and answer any questions your board has.
The Bedford's appeal is covered in issues 1A through 2A in the board letter. Appeal issue 1D asserts the alternative, citing wind turbines below ridge lines did not have sufficient analysis for why it was eliminated from further consideration. Staff responses at the final SEIR discusses a number of reasons this alternative was eliminated. Those reasons include increased grading and increased impacts to biological resources.
The SEIR explains that it is uncertain if moving wind turbines off ridgelines benefits birds and bats. It appears citing considerations that may benefit one species, may put another species at higher risk. The SEIR discusses that the wind is strongest on ridges, and that wind turbines located lower down cannot take full advantage of the wind resource. Placing wind turbines lower down the slope would affect the energy generating capacity of the project and reduce the project feasibility.
With these reasons, the final FEIR adequately explains why this alternative was not selected for further consideration. Appeal issue 2A asserts the project conflicts with visual standards and policies of Santa Barbara County's Land Use Development Code and Comprehensive Plan. Staff response is that the LEDC's Ridgeline and Hillside Development Guidelines provides flexibility and discretion to interpret and apply the guidelines, to better serve the interest of good design.
In addition, the comprehensive plan visual policy states that the height scale and design of structures shall be compatible with the character of the surrounding natural environment except where technical requirements dictate otherwise. Technical requirements do dictate the design and placement of wind turbines. Taller wind turbines allow for fewer wind turbines to generate a certain amount of energy.
Wind turbines located along ridgelines capture the most wind. It's not feasible to screen the wind turbines due to their heightened location on ridge lines, however, the project is not viewed from many public locations due to the project site's relatively remote location, the distance from public viewing places and the intervening topography. Appeal issues associated with Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy are listed as appeal issues 3A through 12B in the board letter.
Appeal issues 3A and 3B assert that the SCIR must be recirculated because it added significant new information regarding Golden Eagles and groundwater. Staff response in Appeal Issue 3A regarding golden eagles is that golden eagle occurrence on the site was well documented in the Lompoc Wind EIR, which was summarized and incorporated by reference in the Straus Wind Draft and Final SEIRs.
Additional golden eagle surveys were conducted by the applicant as part of obtaining a take permit from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife A summary of those additional Golden Eagle surveys were incorporated into the final SEIR. These additional surveys enhanced the information that was already included in the draft SEIR, the impact classification did not change as the impacts resulting from bird and bat collisions with wind turbines remain significant and unavoidable in the final SEIR even with mitigation.
Staff response to appeal issue 3B is in regards to groundwater. Additional information regarding groundwater was submitted during and after the draft SEIR public comment period. This information was included in the final SEIR, and it did not identify a new environmental impact. Instead, the additional information confirmed a potential class 2 impact to groundwater and supported a modified feasible mitigation measure.
Accordingly, recirculation is not required. Appeal issue 5B asserts that the final SEIR failed to adequately analyze collision impacts on birds and bats species, including golden eagles. The appellant states that the final SEIR failed to use new information on golden eagles to assess the severity of the project's impacts. Staff response is that the analysis of golden eagle impacts is adequate and consistent with CEQA.
The final SEIR impacts Bio 1 and 7 through 12, analyze direct and indirect habitat effects. Nest disturbance and potential avian collisions with the project's wind turbines and transmission line. The relevant risk assessment cited by the appellant is a software tool developed and used by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of issuing a federal take authorization under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
The applicant will provide the EGLE survey data with the application to the Fish and Wildlife Service for a take permit after the project is approved, as is the typical practice. The project's condition approval 38 requires the applicant to attain take authorization for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to operation of the project. Appeal issue 12A asserts the planning commission findings in the statement of overriding considerations are not supported by substantial evidence.
Staff responses at finding 1.8 states that significant and unavoidable impacts to visual and biological resources are acceptable due to the benefits of the project. Benefits include generation of renewable energy, offset of fossil fuel emissions, promotion of agricultural viability. Additional tax revenues and benefit to local economies through construction work.
In looking at the calculations that back up the estimated amount of carbon dioxide emission reductions, staff has revised the amounts that identified in findings 1.8. Staff recommends that the estimate in finding 1.8 of the 73,000 to 200,000 metric tons to be revised to 60,000-73,000 metric tons. The higher 200,000 estimate is based on national average electricity emissions. However using California specific factors is more appropriate. The calculation for the 60,00 to 73,00 is based on California and PG&E data.
This revised finding is included in attachment one of the board letter. The third appellant is the California Native Plant Society. Yes? Could you
4:07 – 4:128 turns
elaborate that a little bit more? I mean, GHGs are global so why are we using the California specific standard? Just could you, I didn't, I understand what you're saying but I don't quite get the logic behind it.
Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. I'm going to do my best to explain it. It's that California has more renewable energy in their mix and so the US doesn't. And so if you use it on a US scale, the benefits of this project adding two, the national adds more. I don't want to say as much to California since it already has so much. That explain? If it doesn't, I can definitely call on our consultant here who'd probably do a much better job than me like that.
Would you go up there John?
You're using different universes for comparison but I don' understand why California when it's a global issue
I'm John Davidson with Aspen Environmental Group. There's different methods for doing it, we chose one that is relatively conservative and focused on California. If you look at the types of greenhouse gas emissions emitted across the United States based in the power generation sector there is a lot of coal and oil burning so if you take renewable energy compared to the national average associated with generating 1 megawatt of power There's a lot more coal in it. When you look compared to California, there is less coal and less oil, so less greenhouse gas emissions already in our power generation sector. Therefore we are displacing less if you compare it to that basis.
Another thing that makes our number more conservative is that California has a goal to get to carbon-free in the energy sector by 2045. So, that means every year between now and then there should be less carbon emissions to displace so we've averaged it over that time period. It will displace more carbon emissions next year if its built but it'll be displacing less twenty years from now because we'll have less carbon in the power generation sector in California
He did a better job, huh? He had more time too. So yeah. All right. Ms. Pfeiffer. Thank you.
Well I'll make a point. I mean it is somewhat I agree that this is the number we should use, simply because it's a more modest. But saying that it's not an emission reduction because that's what's already mandated is false logic, right? To comply with a mandate requires action. This is an actual action that will reduce those emissions. So saying it doesn't count just because In my view, modest to the point of being very overly modest. But I agree that you should use this number even though I think it under counts the impact.
Thank you. All right, I'm almost done. Two more slides. No, take your time. All right. The third appellant is the California Native Plant Society and they had five issues that are outlined in appeal issues 13A through 16A. Appeal issue 13A asserts that the final SEIR underestimates the impact to Gabiotta Tar Plant. And that 1.2 million individual plants would be impacted and over 80% of the total population would be indirectly impacted.
In addition, the appellant argues that the three to one compensation ratio identified in the final SEIR is inadequate to support issuance of an incidental take permit by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Staff responses at the final SEIR analysis is based on acres of occupied habitat rather than individual number of plants. As an annual species, Gaviota tar plant numbers fluctuate from one growing season to another dependent on rainfall or other environmental considerations. Thus as analyzed in the SEIR loss of occupied habitat is more reliable and meaningful means of quantifying impacts.
Regarding the mitigation ratio, the three to one ratio would reduce impacts to less than significant and is consistent with past county and California Department of Fish and Wildlife practice with other rare plants. The slide summarizes staff recommendations and this concludes our presentation. We're here to answer any questions and we have a great team of biologists and others here. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Pfeiffer. Any questions for staff at this point? Okay, next we will have presentations from each of the appellants. Ten minutes each from the California Native Plant Society. Let's start there.
4:12 – 4:232 turns
Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to provide testimony on the Strauss Project this afternoon. My name is Nick Jensen, I represent the California Native Plant Society or CNPS. I am the lead conservation scientist for CNPS and I hold a PhD in botany. CNPS is a statewide environmental organization that promotes the conservation, appreciation and use of our rich botanical heritage. My organization is the foremost voice for California's native plants and habitats.
When it comes to botanical diversity, California is a place like no other. Our state has more than 6500 native plants over 30% of which occur nowhere else on earth In fact, scientists rank a large portion of California as one of 36 global biodiversity hotspots. This means we stand hand-in-hand with other globally significant habitats like the Amazon Basin or the forests of Eastern Australia.
The reason I'm here today is because of a single plant named Gaviota tarplant, a yellow flowered member of the sunflower family that must feature prominently in your decision today Gaviota tar plant is endemic to coastal Santa Barbara County. It grows nowhere else on earth. The epicenter of its existence is the Straus Project Site. More than 99% of all individuals of this species that have ever been documented anywhere in the world occur on this project site.
My organization, CNPS, developed the system for ranking California's rare plants. This system is used by California's governing bodies and the gaviota tar plant is ranked at our highest level of concern. A small number of the plants that we rank have risen to our government's highest level of concern and have been listed as state and federally endangered. Gaviota tar plant is one of those species.
Species such as Gaviota tar plant are not only important from a local or regional perspective, their conservation is part of our collective heritage. The conservation of this species is a global conservation issue and the Strauss Project represents an existential threat to this species. On your agenda today is the final environmental impact report for the Straus project.
I'm not here today to debate the scientific facts found in the EIR. In fact, the botanical survey work presented in the report is thorough. I also do not oppose the spirit and goals of this project. In the face of the crisis of climate change it is clear that we must act fast to reduce our carbon footprint and pivot to a society powered by renewable energy.
My organization does not oppose outright the development of wind power on the project site. Although the project's botanical work was thorough, its analysis of the impact to the tar plant is deeply flawed. If built as proposed this project could place Gavia Tar Plant at risk of extinction. I'm here to offer solutions that can ensure the development of wind power on the Straus Project Site proceeds while ensuring the conservation of this species.
Honorable Supervisors, we don't have to choose between the survival of an endangered species and clean energy. With modifications to the existing project, we can turn a potential battle into a success story for all involved. First though I'm going to try to help everyone understand why the EIR's analysis is flawed. All the conclusions in the EIR rely upon a calculation of the acreage of Gaviota tar plant that will be impacted.
This calculation ignores indirect impacts, the sheer number of plants that will be lost and the quality of habitat that will be affected. As is required by CEQA, the county has drawn a conclusion about the level of significance of these impacts. Rightfully, the AIR then must do all that it can to minimize and mitigate for these significant impacts. But what happens if this initial analysis, this foundation is undeniably flawed?
Well every conclusion that follows it is also flawed. So let's look at these a little bit closer. First the EIR only takes into account the direct acreage of direct impact to Gaviota tar plant. The only calculation provided is that. So this is flawed since the analysis ignores the sheer number of individuals that will be eliminated by the project grading. Because Gaviota Tar Plant is an annual plant, as was mentioned in the staff report, number of individuals that are present on the site varies from year to year.
But the sheer number of plants that will be eliminated cannot be hidden or ignored. Habitat for between 500,000 and more than a million plants will be destroyed just by the project's grading. This is many times the number of plants that occur in all other populations of the species. So, the number of plants that will be eliminated on the project site outpaces all the other populations of that plant.
So an analysis of the impacts of Gaviota Earth Power Plant and any associated mitigation measures that are adopted must take into account not only the acreage impact but the number of plants that are also lost and the quality of habitat that is being affected. Simply put, the acreage of direct impact is only a part of the story. Second, the EIR essentially ignores and fails to quantify indirect impacts to that species, to the Gaviota tar plant.
This folly has been well characterized in comment letters submitted to you by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, my organization, CNPS, Adams-Broadwell, and others. Scientific literature characterizes indirect impacts associated with development activities quite clearly When you build a road through or develop within a rare plant population, degradation of this population will occur for some distance from the area that is actually affected. This occurs for a variety of factors including loss of pollinators, spread of invasive species, changes in hydrology and microclimate.
Habitat fragmentation alone causes increased edge effects. in CDFW, CNPS and others have recommended setback buffers in which indirect impacts must be considered significant and unavoidable. We contend that a scientifically justified minimum buffer distance of 200 meters must be incorporated into the analysis of impacts. This minimum buffer must not be used for on-site mitigation purposes.
Because of these inaccurate conclusions, considering the level and severity of impacts to Gaviota Tar Plant. The EIR makes flawed conclusions about their magnitude. The EIR concludes that impacts to Gaviota Tar Plant are class two, essentially significant and avoidable through mitigation. The county has been told by CDFW, by CNPS and others that this interpretation of impacts is oversimplified, underestimated and not defendable.
How can the county in good faith conclude that these impacts to this endangered species are class two when they haven't even been characterized correctly in the first place? Furthermore, how can the county claim to have adopted mitigation measures that are sufficient to reduce these impacts to less than significant when the proposed mitigation itself is experimental and no one has any experience mitigating impacts to this species?
When I first looked at this EIR, I was confused as to how the county could consider these impacts as class 2. Anyone who has ever reviewed EIRs has seen cases like that. When you have exceptionally severe impacts to a species and you really just want to approve it, why not just issue a statement of overriding considerations and go on your merry way? But you can't really issue a statement of overriding considerations in this case.
Why? Because if the county admits that impacts to this species are not fully mitigatable, which is the only logical conclusion in my mind. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife can't issue an incidental take permit and the whole thing falls apart. A primary requirement of the California Endangered Species Act is that in order for the department to issue a take permit, the project must meet the legal standard for fully mitigated per Fish and Game Code Section 2081B section 2.
I'm left with many questions and you should be left with them too. Why is the county willing to risk the defense of a tenuous EIR, with tenuous conclusions that will have grave impacts to an imperiled species? Do you really want to approve a wind project that could push an endangered species toward extinction? Is that cost worth the benefit? Why not just reduce the project's impacts to Gaviota-Tarpon? Why not do a small redesign to reduce its impacts while still harnessing wind power?
A basic tenet of CEQA is that a project must evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to reduce the level of impact to important resources like Gaviota Tar Plant. The EIR did this much for impacts to things like oak trees, and that effort was great. CNPS and CDFW have pointed out that a revised project design that removed turbines from the central portion of the Gaviota Tar Plant population would not only significantly reduce direct impacts but also reduce indirect impacts as well.
A project alternative that eliminates turbines N1 through N5 has been suggested to the project proponent many times. The adoption of this alternative is not only required by CEQA but is also one that my organization could live with. My organization, we have met with Daniel Duke of BayWa last week and on the phone before and I'm happy to report that we agree on many things actually and that's a good thing.
We agree that the project site must be managed and conserved in perpetuity for Gaviota Tar Plant We agree that the project is a necessary component of our state's renewable energy portfolio. However, CNPS concludes that this project cannot be approved and allowed to proceed as currently designed. We strongly urge the county to require an alternate project siting that reduces impacts to Gaviota Tar Plant.
California must continue to be a world leader in the development of renewable energy, but this must not come at the cost of an endangered species and the risk of extinction. Thank you for your time.
Thank you Dr. Jensen. The next appellant is Citizens for Responsible Energy, and then Mr. Bedford's representatives will follow them.
4:23 – 4:342 turns
Welcome Chair, Supervisors, staff, members of the public. Again my name is Andrew Graf and I'm here on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy. We're a coalition of individuals and labor organizations whose members live and work in Santa Barbara County. Before I turn to the issues at hand, I'd like to first address some comments regarding our participation in this proceeding.
We have a long and well documented history of participation in permitting and regulatory processes for power plants and other industrial facilities throughout California. Through these efforts, we have successfully secured design changes or conditions of approval for individual projects to protect public and worker health and the environment. Like you, we want clean projects and good jobs.
We support the development of clean renewable energy technology including wind power generation but only when the proposed development is properly analyzed and carefully planned to minimize the impacts on public health and environment. Through this appeal, we seek to address the issues we have raised on their merits and to ensure that the project is good for both the environment and the local economy.
Regardless of whether there is a jobs agreement, we will not walk away from the many important environmental concerns that we have raised. On that point, the final supplemental EIR does not serve as the informational document needed to inform decision makers and the public of the potential environmental consequences before the decision to approve the project is made.
Does not disclose, analyze and mitigate to the maximum extent feasible. The project's significant environmental impacts. We've submitted comments and responses to staffs report but today I will be briefly highlighting five reasons why your county The county should uphold our appeal. First, the county is required to recirculate the draft supplemental EIR. California Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA guidelines 15088.5 requires that the county recirculate a draft supplemental EIR when significant new information is added to an EIR after the public comment period closes but before certification.
There are three situations in when this happens, a new significant environmental impact for the project or proposed mitigation. There's a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact that is not reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Or the draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment was precluded.
Here, the county added significant new information after public review but before certification showing one, that a significant new impact to a newly disclosed groundwater resource. The draft SEIR identified the Gavia Sacate Formation as the underground formation for ground water resources whereas SEIR identified the upper Monterey formation, but no public comment period was permitted after that change.
The county also proposed a new mitigation measure which required to reduce this new significant impact to groundwater. The draft SEIR identified that the project would use reclaimed water for construction purposes. But the final SEIR switched to allow for the use of groundwater for construction purposes. The county did not recirculate the SEIR when it made this significant change.
The county should also, in order to avoid impacts to groundwater, should require the use of reclaimed water as a feasible mitigation measure instead of using the county's limited groundwater resources. This was what was originally contemplated in the SEIR but changed afterwards and constitutes significant new information requiring recirculation. Also, the original draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate that the public had no meaningful way to review and comment during the public comment period. It identified a new groundwater source, four new well locations, two newly disclosed ground water studies, new ground water impact analysis, and new construction water source mitigation measure. None of these were in the draft EIR and provided an opportunity to comment on.
For each of these reasons standing alone, they require recirculation. Next I'd like to move on to the EIR's failure to analyze with a sufficient degree of analysis that's required under CEQA. Require that an EIR be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to intelligently takes account of the environmental consequences. The California Supreme Court in Sierra Club v Fresno just explained that this question of law does not involve any deference to the county.
First, the county failed to analyze mortality rate of special status avian and bat collision impacts. The CEQA thresholds to keep in mind for these impacts is that the project would substantially reduce or eliminate species diversity or abundance. Or that this project would substantially limit reproductive capacity through losses of individual habitat. Here the county added substantial amount of data regarding special status raptors and bat flight patterns, but did not analyze that data. Staff claims that there was no standard methodology for conducting a collision risk analysis, but a standard methodology does not excuse the county from conducting an analysis. In any event this is not true, there are two separate guidelines that can be followed.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service land based wind energy guidelines. And the CDFW's California guidelines for reducing impacts to bird and bats from wind energy development. The county also failed to analyze indirect impacts on the Gaviota tar plant. I want, CNPS did a good job about identifying it but I'd like to piggyback on what they said in that the FSCR does not analyze the indirect impacts of the Gaviota tar plants. The analysis is conclusory statements that the indirect impacts are minor while it identifies the types of indirect impacts such as isolation, fragmentation and pollinator impacts.
It fails to analyze them. Substantial evidence was submitted by our experts, CDFW, CNPS showing that and others that the indirect impacts are significant when analyzed. And an analysis is critical because it informs the mitigation measures. The failure to analyze each of these biological resources impacts standing alone renders the EIR inadequate as a matter of law. However, even if the final SEIR's discussion is sufficient, the county lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions that the project has mitigated each of these impacts to less than significant.
The county has also failed to analyze decommissioning impacts. SECA requires an analysis of the whole project from construction to decommissioning, but here the county failed to analyze the project as a whole, failed to analyze consistency with its own land use plan and violated its own energy element of the comprehensive fan by failing to do the analysis. The county admits, and quote, although a full life cycle analysis has not been done for this specific project. It states that even though policy 5.1 of the energy element requires that the county consider the full lifecycle events including reasonably anticipated adverse and beneficial environmental health and safety effects on an energy source beginning from its development and adaptation continuing through its end.
Substantial evidence shows that this required analysis is not speculative either. The decommissioning plan in the county's possession shows it is not speculative because it identifies the activities that would be completed. A decommissioning analysis has also been conducted by the CEC for power plant projects. Finally, the CEQA guidelines section 15093 requires that an agency adopt a statement of overriding considerations if the proposed project identifies significant impacts that are unavoidable or cannot be substantially lessened.
The statement must include specific reasons to support its action and must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. The renewable energy produced by the wind energy project will be relatively small. Wind projects only accounts for 4% of the county's strategic energy plan goals for renewable energy. There are no enforceable conditions on this project that would require it replace gas fire generation, and Senate Bill 100 already accounts for implementation of renewable energy through to 100% by 2035.
In addition, there are a number of class one impacts with this particular project. There's mortality of birds and bats due to collision with turbines, impacts to woodland and tan oaks, a number of impacts to aesthetic and visual resources, and the use of groundwater instead of reclaimed water. In conclusion, the county has failed to comply with the law by mimicking required analysis and failing to recirculate the draft SEIR. Also, the county lacks substantial evidence to support its conclusions.
We urge the board to direct staff to re-circulate a revived draft SEIR that includes all the new information included for the first time in the final SEIR, an analysis of the significant impacts that is missing And further analysis of the project's more severe significant environmental impacts. And lastly, we urge the board to grant the appeals and deny the conditional U permit and variance requests until after considering a revised EIR. Thank
you. Thank you Mr. Graf. Next appellant will be George Bedford. Mr. Adam?
4:34 – 4:434 turns
Mr Chair, Board of Supervisors Richard Adam for George and Cheryl Bedford. Two of the other appellants stole quite a bit of my argument.
I'm not going to repeat
them, but I will say we concur with their assessment. I'll talk about two of the problems associated with this EIR that I don't think have been addressed. The first is the fact that the EIR contains an insufficient project description. Under CEQA, EIRs have to contain a clear and comprehensive project description. This requirement is foundational otherwise the public doesn't know what the actual effects of a project will be.
Here because of the enormity of these structures, the placement of these turbines which are 50 stories tall is critically important. However, the SEIR says the following and this is a quote. The final locations of individual turbines would be subject to adjustment known as micro-siding until the time of construction. It goes on to state that micro-sighting adjustments would be limited to a 100 foot shift of the location of the footprint analyzed in the conceptual grading plan.
100 feet is 33 yards, I put everything in terms of football fields. These turbines are being placed on steep, steep hills, In the wrong direction could make the turbines much more visible and equate to significantly greater visual blight than that which has been presented in the SEIR. The staff report admits that a shift could cause the turbines to be up to 25 feet higher than currently proposed, that in itself is big. But our calculations indicate that due to these rapid elevation changes, a change of 100 feet could result in a 50 to 55 foot height increase.
That's another five and half stories. The fact that we don't know where these turbines are going to be placed with any degree of certainty makes the visual resources section of the SEIR problematic. Likewise, a 100-foot shift towards the Bedford residence could create a significantly greater noise impact than that which has been analyzed in the SEIR. Under the current SEIR, the noise thresholds at the Bedford residence is right on the edge of acceptability.
It could change that significantly, 100 feet can obviously change that significantly. The staff response states effectively the movement of a hundred feet in any direction would produce only minimal changes to noise impact. Specifically it states that staff and this is a quote recognizes the noise impacts could change slightly as the project continues to be refined.
And this just highlights the point. We don't really know what impacts will occur as a result of the shift because the project is still being refined. If a project is still being refined, it's not stable which is what's required under CEQA. Here's an analogy If an appellant owns, or an applicant I should say, owns 50 acres on a hillside and proposes in Santa Barbara County to build a 5,000 square foot house on any given point on that acreage. Santa Barbara County is not absolutely going to issue approval saying sure feel free to put that house anywhere within 100 feet of that proposed area.
It's not going to happen. Why? Because among other things, we have a right to know where the roof line is going to be in relation to scenic viewing areas. This fundamental because we have a right to know how many oak trees or other species exist within that 100 foot area. Because we have the right to know what the actual impacts of a project would be and we can't until we know where that footprint is.
It'd be preposterous to think that Santa Barbara County would issue approval of such a proposal, but that is exactly what's being proposed here. A 100 foot shift is a 100 foot shift. It's wrong and it's objectively contrary to the requirements of CEQA. Next, the EIR Deferred Environmental Assessment and Potentially Necessary Mitigation. And this dovetails with the last point. For obvious reasons, the requirement that an applicant adopt mitigation measures based upon the results of some study that takes place in the future conflicts with CEQA. Why? For the same reason we just discussed because this approach hides potential impacts of the actually approved project.
But here the SEIR defers both basic environmental assessment and potentially necessary mitigation measures. There's many examples of this within the confines of the EIR, but I'll give you a couple to illustrate the point. Mitigation measure bio five. States the following, the applicant shall retain a county approved botanist to conduct appropriately timed pre-construction surveys. That is surveys that haven't been conducted yet but are going to be conducted after approval for sensitive native plant species in all areas to be disturbed. So these studies, surveys haven't been done yet.
It goes on to say this, and this is another quote. If a federally listed plant species is found on or near the area to be disturbed by the project, the US Fish and Wildlife Service will be consulted and the project will be adjusted. Again, this is all taking place in the future. It's crazy to me that we don't have these studies set in stone at this point before this board's approval.
Mitigation measure BIO 6, somewhat similar. Quote the project owner operator shall retain a qualified botanist to prepare a gaviota tar plant mitigation plan again in the future and shall obtain incidental take permits and biological opinions for impacts to gaviota tar plants. Mitigation measure bio 11A, the applicant shall retain a county approved biologist to perform a wildlife survey in the future prior to ground disturbance. Why don't we have these things at this point? These are just a few examples of where the SEIR deferred environmental assessment and potentially necessary mitigation.
Again, for obvious reasons where this board to approve the project despite the fact these studies and assessments have not been conducted. It would clearly be a violation of CEQA. There's multiple other problems associated with the SEIR in consistency with county LUDC provisions, policies among others but I want to finish with this. The size and scope of this project cannot be overstated.
In its history, Santa Barbara County has never approved any structure, let alone 29 of them, remotely as tall as these structures. I don't think, as I was thinking about it last night, there's a 50-story tall building in the entire Santa Barbara County. We have never to my knowledge approved any project that contains anything approaching the grading magnitude of this project.
Basically, as far as I know this project is unprecedented in this county. We don't think it's too much to ask for the SEIR associated with this project to be done thoroughly and in strict accordance with CEQA. The fact that three appeals of this project are in front of this board should be enough to tell you that something isn't right. At the very least, the public should rightly expect that this project will be held to the same CEQA rigors as other projects that are literally one 1,000th the size of this project.
Thank you. Thank you Mr. Adam. Next will be the applicant, Mr. Duke? And you will have 15 minutes.
4:43 – 4:571 turns
Thank you, Chair Hart, members of the board. My name's Daniel Duke. I'm the Vice President Development at BayWa. We're the owner and developer of this Trouse Wind Project. So today I'd like to do a few things. One, just briefly describe our experience as a company in successfully developing wind projects across the US. Want to talk about the history of this project and how in particular how it fits squarely in line with the policies and renewable energy policies that have been passed recently in Santa Barbara County here.
And then walk through the benefits of this project, because up till now you haven't heard much about the benefits that this project will bring. So I'm going to walk through many of those and then our efforts as a company to really optimize this site to the maximum extent we can to minimize impacts. So with that, BayWa was established or our company was established in 2001.
We're based in Southern California. 2001 is a date that's notable because that's the first year that wind measurements were taken up at the Straus Wind Energy site and it was determined to be a suitable wind project site. In the space of that time, our companies developed or constructed over 14 projects across the U.S., and over 2,000 megawatts. This project has a long history, as I'm sure you're all aware.
Not going to go through all of this but after 2001 when this site was first identified as a suitable location some of the first environmental studies were conducted. That's important because we have now a project that has nearly 20 years of environmental data that's been used to appropriately cite this project which really is unheard of when it comes to land development A previous version of this project, as you guys are aware, 65 wind turbines was approved in 2009. The Lompoc Wind Energy Project. The predecessors of this board then denied the appeals and approved that CUP in February which was later upheld by both the District Court and Court of Appeals.
By 2015, unfortunately there was no win project. Previous developer backed out they surrendered their CUP and LUP and then unfortunately a lot of the benefits that that project would have brought didn't come to fruition. We picked up the project in 2016 reapplied for conditional use permit and EIR is released early in April 2019 approved unanimously by the Planning Commission in November Our expected construction start date is February of this year and our expected commercial operation date, the time we plan to be done with construction and delivering energy is in November.
And these dates are critical for this project. This is a project that fits squarely in line with a lot of the policies and plans that this board has approved since 2009. This dates back to the Santa Barbara County Climate Change Guiding Principles in 2009, 2009 again was a year of note because the Lompoc Project was approved by this board. 2014, the first renewable energy project approved in Santa Barbara County being the Quiama Solar Project.
And then, importantly last year a number of steps were taken that were very important. Number one the partnership with Monterey Bay Clean Power. The approval of the county's strategic energy plan and then again the planning commission approval of our project. As has been mentioned by previous speakers this chart on the right shows the goals in California in terms of renewable energy and getting to that 100% mark by 2045.
So the downfall again of a project that has not come to fruition here in the county is that a lot of these benefits have not come to fruition. And this is data pulled from the EPA at a national level. Over the 30-year life of the project, we're talking about avoidance of 6 million metric tons of CO2. Equivalencies here are 14.7 million barrels of oil. 1.3 million vehicles removed from the road, which is three times more than all the registered vehicles in Santa Barbara County and over 3.3 million trees planted, which is equivalent to 15,000 more than the trees that are impacted by this project.
Other benefits include generation of enough clean renewable energy power 43,000 homes $40 million in estimated tax revenue during the 30 year life cycle of the project putting us in the top 10 taxpayers in this county 150 construction jobs, five to seven permanent jobs once operational. Increased revenue to local businesses, restaurants, hotels, particularly in and around the Lompoc area which desperately need it.
Importantly here as it relates to strategic energy plan this project provides local generation at the end of the PG&E line that provides additional grid resilience. As it relates to the landowners on the site that have been grazing this property in their families for almost 200 years, it provides them important supplemental income to supplement their existing ag operations. Cattle grazing is not what it used to be and this enables those landowners to continue that effort in perpetuity.
So on the other side, the good thing about this long wait again is that we have over 20 years of data to pull from to develop this site. Over 450 technical experts have been consulted 300 studies and 25,000 labor hours. And that's just on the applicant side. It does not count the countless hours that county planning staff, the various boards and commissions within the county have spent reviewing this project and the previous project over time. This covers every issue area that you can imagine for the project from biological resources to cultural, to groundwater, to traffic, and everything that's addressed in the EIR.
Again, unheard of in the development space. Typically for our projects we have one to two years of pre-construction data to pull from specifically as it relates to environmental information and here we have nearly 20 years. So how have we used that information? And this is important. Going into this project in 2016, we had very specific goals in mind. We always with all of our projects try and reduce impacts as much as we can and this project is a good example of that.
There's multiple site constraints that we have to balance for this project and others. And we ultimately have to meet the project objectives, which is to deliver clean energy to the grid. So these are the competing goals and in many ways they're not competing. They complement each other. The first thing we did really is take that 20 years of environmental information and all of the data that we had, and the benefit of a 10-year advancement in wind turbine technology. Say well we can build 100 megawatt project just like that was approved for Lompoc but we can do it with 29 wind turbines instead of 65.
Again, we used the site information to site those turbines and 10 years of advanced technology does a lot in terms of the efficiency of wind turbines so they got a lot more efficient over that ten year period. Some specific areas of the site that I've blown up here just for quick reference. The northwest corner of the site here, the red indicators are the previous Lompoc Wind Energy Project turbine locations and the blue or aqua on the screen are our turbine sites.
The figure on the left side is a northwest corner there was 11 wind turbines approved for Lompoc and we brought that down to four This is a location, particularly as San Miguelito Road ends into Vandenberg there which is the straight white line on the bottom. It's where some of the highest concentrations of gavited tar plant are on the site. We specifically did not put turbines in those locations in large part because of that data.
These are also high raptor use areas as well as some of the locations that are closest to offsite sacred locations of the Chumash. So again, these are the factors we took into consideration when we placed four turbines in this area instead of 11. The figure on the right is the central location of the site where we have our substation and lay down yard. And admittedly there's a lot going on here but you know in essence there's 14 wind turbines that were approved under Lompoc. There's 4, 4 1⁄2 if you count the one on the right that we're gonna construct for this project. Again, a core area for Great Gavi to tar plant There's sensitive cultural resources and wetlands here.
The two square boxes on the bottom of the screen are the substation and O&M building that was approved for Lompoc. We looked at the environmental information, realized that these are permanent project facilities and relocated those out of that sensitive environmental area so the two squares on top of the screen, the green and yellow are our current O& M building and substation.
Southwest corner of the site, this is a location where 21 wind turbines were approved for Lompoc which is in essence almost as large as our entire project site for the Straus Project. And we brought that down significantly to nine turbines. Again, the four wind turbines approved in red there under Lompoc are identified as a high-raptor and avian use area. Again, this is one of the closest locations to Swordfish Cave which is a sacred site.
We intentionally did not build those four turbines. As a result, this project site is topographically very diverse for those that have been out there. This is not a farm field in Iowa by any means and what that means is that there's identified wind resources within certain areas of the site. There are ridges, there are sub-ridges. These are not the tallest by any means in the area. We have Tranquilon Peak and other locations that are much taller But the wind flows from the northwest, and the wind resources are identified on certain locations. These locations have been known again since 2001. You'll notice that a lot of the blue turbines that we're building are right on top of the red turbines, and there's a reason for that because those are the known resources onsite.
Unfortunately it got cut off here but the figure on the right just shows Generally speaking, the way wind production decreases as you go down slope on this site in particular. So we're looking overall at if you move a turbine 100 meters downslope, we're losing 50% generation from that turbine location. So in essence analogy would be this would be like putting a solar project in the shade, if you will.
There are known locations where the production makes sense. Oak trees is another area where we really focus to reduce impacts, and we've done so by nearly 90%. So we had a team of biologists that have literally been on site for the better part of the last three years. A good portion of that was surveying up to 10,000 oak trees in and around the project site in the vicinity.
We are now down to impacting only 225 of those trees, which is 2% approximately of the total inventory. The size class categories here are important because we cherish the big oaks and we're doing everything we can to avoid impacts to those. Over 50%, or approximately 50% of the trees impacted by this project are six inches in diameter and less. And the below shows kind of the progression of our site design to reduce impacts to oaks.
This gives you an idea, generally speaking, The size class categories of the oaks that we're talking about here. The figure on the left shows trees that are generally in that six inch diameter range, taking up an area of maybe 10 square feet, probably as big as the conference table here. So when you have areas of cut and fill that impact a ten square foot area, you can see how oak tree numbers can quickly increase in a small area.
Gaviota Tar Plant, again a very known resource. It was known during the Lompoc project and it's been known for 20 years on the site. An area of focus for us to reduce impacts We have a project site that's 3,000 acres. We have a total impact area of 150 acres which is 5% of the total project site. Much different than other types of development even including solar.
Of that area we've spent 1500 hours surveying 3000 acres. Of that area we have 30 acres of occupied Gaviota Tar Plant habitat or 1% of the total project site. Now we're not discounting the rest of that 3,000 acres. We're committed to preserving in essence all Gaviota tar plant on the site that's outside the impact areas. They'd be subject to a management monitoring plan and that area is not insignificant as you can see on the right. We're talking about 672 acres of designated critical habitat that the Fish and Wildlife Service has designated for this species that will be preserved and unimpacted and over 5.8 million Gaviota tar plants Can
4:57 – 5:0411 turns
we pause the time? Do
you want me to control it now? Okay. This is what the on-site conservation areas look like in concept. So the green areas are approximately 2,000 acres of on-site conservation. The orange are the graded areas. Again, the larger project site is 3,000 acres. So this consists not only of Gallaudet tar plant habitat that's occupied and documented, it includes also going to blue butterfly habitat, wetlands, our oak tree mitigation sites. This is our comprehensive mitigation area for the project site.
In essence, this is a 13 to 1 mitigation ratio when you take just impacts to conservation. So in closing, we have a project here that's been approved in 2009. In our opinion it's a much improved version of that project that was approved. We have an opportunity to double the renewable energy production in this county. It's been subject to rigorous data collection efforts and us using that data to properly site the turbines. We've done I think a very good job of minimizing impacts and balancing the constraints here And we're ready for construction. This is a project that in our internal plan, we wanted to begin construction in April 2019 which is 9-10 months ago and here we are today. In essence, we're ready to go. It's important that this project get off the ground as soon as possible It's been at least 10 years in the making, and I think there's an argument to be said that it's 20 years in the making or more.
And now is the time. So with that, I just ask that this board deny the appeals that are before them, certify the EIR, and issue the conditional use permit.
Thank you Mr. Duke.
Thank you.
Are there any questions of staff at this point? Anyone? Anything that staff would like to add? Supervisor Williams.
So, I want to understand the tar plant mitigation from a staff perspective. What is required of them? Just want to hear from staff on the tar plant mitigation to fully understand what is required of the applicant in the tar plant mitigation plan.
So Mr. Chair and Supervisor Williams, as Cathy had said during the presentation we do have a host of technical consultants here to help us out with these types of issues. And in this case here we have Mr. John Store who worked over the Gaviota tar plan information for us.
Good afternoon, supervisors. Let me see if I can summarize the required mitigation for Gaviota Tar Plant. There are a number of so-called minimization and avoidance measures that are permit conditions of approval that speak to the construction phase of the project. Those include demarcation of work areas, environmental training for the construction crew, and things like avoidance of known tar plant areas.
So beyond the construction phase, as has been mentioned there's a requirement for establishing a preserve compensatory mitigation. And the mitigation ratio that's embodied in the permit condition is three to one and has been mentioned by others that have spoken before me. That's based on the quantification of direct impacts to tar plant habitat. So that's the development footprint times three, that's the mitigation requirement.
And so typically when I've seen detailed mitigation plans it says A ratio over what time frame, so over what time frame is that 3 to 1? So meaning how many years do we expect that to survive in the analysis right. So you know you have sometimes a diminishing ratio over time because some restorations are more successful than others.
Yeah, I think we're talking about two different things. The three to one mitigation ratio speaks to acreage of conservation area, okay? So it's in perpetuity. The conservation area would be held by a third party entity management entity and managed according to certain principles that are embodied in a Gaviota tar plant mitigation plan. And that plan is at the core of the mitigation effort really and in addition to the construction avoidance and minimization measures.
The plan is in its second draft. It's been prepared and submitted by the applicant's consultants. It's been distributed to the Federal US Fish and Wildlife Service, State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the county. So it's been reviewed once, it's come back around for a second time. It identifies three areas on site, it's onsite mitigation proposal. And Mr. Duke showed 2,000 acre I think it was total area.
In which these three preserve areas would be managed for Gaviota Tar Plants. So the management actions would be long term, in perpetuity according to this plan. There's a conservation element to it and obviously because it's managed by a third party entity. There's a research component, there is a technical advisory committee that would be established by experts. Presumably from maybe the Botanic Garden, the university to study the plant further.
Part of the proposal is to have a genetic study because there's some genetic variability, And the plan is, at least from the second iteration I've seen, is well conceived. And it contains all of the components that are required and embodied in the permit condition. Also notably, the area of occupied Gaviota tar plant habitat in this conservation area amounts to six-to-one mitigation ratio which is obviously double the requirement that the county imposed.
I've not spoken with any of the state or federal wildlife folks as to their input on the plan so far.
Can you speak a little bit to connectivity with other populations? I would imagine that one of the reasons why this is a place where you find a lot in it, is that some of the adjacent populations have been on There are 7 recognized disjunct or distinct
5:04 – 5:1214 turns
Subpopulations, if you will of Gaviota tar plant and this is one of the seven obviously. The population that was originally discovered and for which the plant was named is around Gaviota. And then subsequent years it was found to consist of occurrences all the way up to Point Sal. Coho Halama Ranch, now known as the Dangerman Preserve is one of the larger areas. So as far as genetic exchange between those seven populations I would not expect that to occur.
Dispersal with this plant it's not a wind disperse plan. It's dispersed probably by animals picking up the seed in their coats and distributing. But to your point also about, there's been a good point about habitat fragmentation which will occur from this project because of the turbines and because of the access roads. There's already some habitat fragmentation just because of the ranch roads and roads that also lead to Vandenberg Air Force Base. But that does disrupt genetic exchange and it does create some problems with pollinators. I think one of the directives of this research program is to look at how those factors interplay to sustain the populations, and be focused on this population obviously.
Thank you, that's somewhat helpful. Somewhat? Well informed though.
Okay. If there is anything I can add that would make it better- You'll be back don't worry. Supervisor Hartman and then Supervisor Lavinino. Yeah,
I wanted to follow up on tar plant and then issues of noise. So you said there was a 3 to 1 ratio required but we're at a 6 to 1 ratio could you explain that? And then we heard not only fragmentation but the indirect impacts could you talk about that?
Supervisor Hartman, the three to one ratio is I would describe it as an unofficial county policy that's been applied to native habitats and rare plants. Not necessarily state and federally listed plants but rare plants. So three to one is for example the area East Cat Canyon project that you deliberated on recently. PCEC project, ERG West Cat Canyon those projects all had the same mitigation ratio.
I don't know for sure, but I believe that the additional area was they were able to accommodate it for one thing. The applicant was and it may have also been recommended or perhaps required by the state and or federal wildlife agencies in relation to the incidental take permits that they need from those agencies. So they may have required a higher mitigation ratio which is their prerogative of course.
As to indirect impacts, that is a more difficult question to answer. The EIR, the SEIR does acknowledge the existence of indirect impacts to the plant. That is not just taking of habitat and destroying plants. And it recognizes this concept of habitat fragmentation, impacts to the pollinator populations, invasion by non-native plant species. The difficulty is in quantifying those impacts particularly within the scope of an environmental analysis. So it would require long term studies which they planned to do admittedly after the project would be approved.
So the indirect impacts, I think that the correct thing to have done here is to use direct impacts. Use a project footprint to establish a basis for then applying a mitigation ratio and that's where the mitigation ratio comes in as three to one. And then all the requirements for compensatory mediation establishment of a conservation easement and all the other additional components there going into this management plan.
An off-site compensation wouldn't be appropriate in this
case? It's an option in the SEIR if it's not possible on site. Generally, and particularly with a restoration, the onsite compensation is considered preferable because there's a stronger nexus. And you're closer to the impact so you're mitigating in a more intimate way, if you will.
My next and final question for the moment has to do with noise. And so it's not tar plant goes back to staff, I think. And that is the issue of this shift, the hundred foot shift in the impact of noise on the Bedfords. Could you talk about that?
Yes, the noise really changes primarily with function of distance. The further where you are I think we all know the more the noise decreases and so our acoustical analysts looked at it and the shift of 100 feet wouldn't make a significant change over the distance to the house. The house is about 2,000 feet away from the nearest turbine. So if it was shifted 100 feet close directly toward the house would be 1,900 feet So there would be a change in sound level but still very small and well below the thresholds.
Excuse me, but doesn't sound also I mean whether it depends on terrain as well doesn't it? It does. And is there anything more that can be done to protect their home from sound?
Well, distance is the greatest thing you can do. The other one I think would be sound barriers. I don't know maybe someone who's more an acoustical engineer might have some additional ideas but a sound barrier combined with distance is usually what's typically done and I should point out that the noise calculations we did in the IR really represent a worst case situation As you mentioned, terrain affects noise.
But there's other factors as well and the worst case situation here would be where we have relatively light winds at the ground level but high winds higher up that the turbines are spinning because that creates a lower ambient noise level at the ground level which means that the sound from the turbines is not going to be masked as much by the sound of wind and so that's what we based our standard on The sound levels are not high. We calculated them to be in that worst case situation, that all the sound levels of her and the non-participating residents off site were below 43.3 decibels. And if you know anything about sound decibels, that's kind of a very quiet residential neighborhood.
And it was also considered by the fact that when these noise turbines are running, it's a continuous noise. So we adjusted the analysis to focus on continuous noise as opposed to weighted averages where you can have long periods and say there wind isn't turning the turbines and that would reduce the average. We looked at it as the continuous noise source which it really wouldn't be on any given day.
Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you, well I'm going to follow up on that a little bit because I had the same question and do we have a map that shows where the Bedford location is compared to the nearest turbine?
One of the presentations had a site map.
5:12 – 5:1720 turns
Pardon me.
I always hate it when I hit the remote and it does that on the TV. That's when you call your kids, can you fix
this? Which
button did I push?
I've got other questions from other people if we want to keep working on that. Well, I would like to bring up, Mr. Duke, if you could come to the podium. I've got a couple of questions just about materials and that sort of thing. So first question for me is like, if you could cradle the grave Like one of these turbines, how are they made? Where are they made?
What's their lifespan and where do they end up going when they're done?
Okay. So I just went to the bathroom but... I could go to my third question here. I'm not getting very far today. Actually,
I'll bring up your feeling. So this is a question I'll repeat, it's kind of like cradle to grave. Where are they made? How are they made? What materials? What's their lifespan and then where do they go when we're done with them, the turbines?
After the project is over? Yeah. Well, a lot of it will be able to be recovered. The majority of the wind turbine is made out of steel The only thing that currently would go on a dump yard would be the rotor blades. There's so far nothing that you could do, some use it as road material or something for private roads but there is survey done right now and R&D done on how rotor blades potentially could be recovered but that's something for the future. So hopefully by the time this project
What is the lifespan of it?
Pardon
me?
Lifespan of a turbine is generally north of 30 years.
Okay, very good thanks. Then I had a question for staff as I noticed that looks like there's concerted efforts to stay out of the coastal zone. Can you just explain to me why?
Do
you really need
to
ask that? Okay, that takes the cake as the most naive question.
Because the reason why I asked that is shouldn't the Coastal Commission have a policy that encourages renewable energy? Why are we staying out of the coastal zone? They're the ones that should be encouraging us to go into the coastal zone. That's why I ask the question is it seems to me that we should have an incentive to go after renewable energy, not that we have to stay out of their area.
So it was kind of a loaded question but I think I got the point across. Yes, go ahead.
Are you actually asking? Yeah, I'm asking it. Go ahead Aaron. So Mr Chair and Supervisor Lavagnino, it's a good question in this case Originally, when the applicant was looking at a project design, a very, very small portion of the development footprint was going to be located in the coastal zone. Which would have opened the project up to a coastal development permit, subjected the project to the Coastal Zoning Ordinance. Subjected the project to policies within the coastal plan and then probably the largest factor would have been potential appeal to the coastal commission after the Board of Supervisors action.
And so after discussing this context with the applicant, they chose to kind of take their tip of their tippy toe out of the coastal zone and pull the project back into the county's jurisdiction.
Very good and smart decision on your part but You know, like I said, I think the Coastal Commission should look at streamlining permitting and maybe even have some sort of incentive program to continue with renewable energy inside the coastal zone. So let's get back to my other question about looking at the Bedford's property if we have that one yet. Okay so I guess my question on that is You know, some of the concern was raised about what the guesswork is on that lockdown site when we get 100 feet. And I understand what the acoustical engineer said.
But still, I think it would give people a little bit of, you know, they'd like certainty of where that's going to be. So if, you know, if we could say okay on 27 of these, you can move them within 100 feet but the two that are closest to the Bedford, you kind of have to have a lock down spot I'm not sure how many are right next to them.
5:17 – 5:4614 turns
While we're waiting, see if I can put up. There are two turbines, I may not get the numbers right, N7 and N5 are the closest to the Bedford's. About 2,000 feet, one is a little more than that. So I was going to suggest something similar for those sites in the microsiding could be Not allowed to move 100 feet closer, it could be 100 feet in other directions.
Exactly, I think that would be a nice bone to throw so okay. Last question I had was just about fire mitigation and it's a very high fire area and during construction I was just curious if there is kind of a fire mitigation or what kind of plans you have out there in case a grass fire gets started moves towards? It was something that Cal Fire identified as an issue.
Yeah, there is a fire plan during construction. Unfortunately I don't remember the details of it and during operation there is a firefighting procedure too with firefight equipment on site but I don't know the details. The applicant probably knows more than me.
And I have a question if we're still working on the map. So my understanding is that the Planning Commission has a requirement that the adaptive management plan comes back to them for review on a periodic basis, and is the Gaviota tar plant management plan also going to be part of that ongoing review from the planning commission?
Scott White with Aspen Environmental Group. John and I collaborated on the biological resources part of the environmental impact report. The answer to your question is yes, the set-aside areas for Gaviota Tar Plant are subject to a long term management and monitoring in perpetuity preservation. The way that applicant has proposed it at this point, it amounts to, we've talked earlier about ratios three to one. The applicant's proposing essentially a six to one.
Acreage set aside area, and I did want to clarify for Supervisor Williams. We need the microphone up. Apologize. Should I start over? No. Okay. Sounds like yes and no. I did want to clarify for Supervisor Williams that the mitigation for the Gaviota tar plant does not rely on restoration and the point you brought up about perhaps it wouldn't succeed or overtime but instead it's a set-aside of currently occupied habitat.
Great, thanks. Supervisor Laminino had another question too. Okay one more for the applicant and that is what happens if, I guess it's more for staff, I'm sorry. So what happens let's say they go bankrupt, they go belly up, the wind energy thing just falls apart and we're out there with all these turbines? What happens?
So Mr. Chair and Supervisor Lavigne, off the top of my head I don't have the details we can look at the condition but we do have a performance bond that's required to be posted prior to construction with the intent of handling that situation and it is condition number 66 which requires the applicant to develop a decommissioning and reclamation plan that addresses facility decommissioning and abandonment And then we have condition number 67, which requires that financial assurance for decommissioning. Okay. Thank you Mr. Gazzone. It
looks like he wants to jump in. Chair and sir, as just when convenient, we'd recommend the planning go back to the tar plant question for a moment. I think they have a correction. Okay? Mr. Zervich?
Mr. Chair, just to clarify, so at the planning commission hearing, the planning commission had some concerns about the effects of birds and what level of impact would it should a certain amount of level of impact of birds would Would some kind of reporting come back to the commission? And so what they ultimately tell on is revised condition language was a report back from the director to the planning commission. So it wasn't the entire project for reconsideration, it's just a report back on hey we've had an increase perhaps in the effects of bird bat collisions of the project and so it was focused only on the bird bat. It was not specific to our plan.
Right, so as the real time results about impacts to raptors occurs. There are additional mitigation measures that the applicant has to take to mitigate that and that information will be brought back to the planning commission as it changes and as circumstances evolve. And I guess what I was asking about really specifically was this could something like that also happen with the tar plant restoration plan and management plan? And could there be a reporting process on the status of that and how that's going to the commission as well?
Supervisor Hart, I can add a little bit of enlightenment to that, I hope. I mentioned the Gaviota tar plant mitigation plan that's required by one of the conditions of approval and one of the sections in that plan is long term management and then a subsection of that plan is adaptive management strategy. So it employs all that feedback loops and now commonly applied management techniques.
And that's all in a siloed box with the third party independence entity.
Well, not only that but it's overseen by the state and federal agencies. Okay. And there are annual reporting requirements and yes, the conservation easement is overseen by a third party management entity. Okay.
Were we able to get the map for the same, or we can take a break too. It's probably about the right time to take maybe a ten minute break. We have so far 27 speakers that want to speak, so let's take a break and we'll come back in ten minutes and then start with the public comment. We are reconvening the Board of Supervisors meeting. Would everybody please settle into your seats?
Pardon me? The little tool, there we go. Could I please have everybody's attention?
5:46 – 5:5417 turns
That didn't take long.
That's that sort of working. We have a little technical difficulty so we are not going to be able to use the digital clock timer for public comment, but the clerk is going to give us kind of a visual cue when folks are getting close to their time we have 27 speakers slips to To honor that request to speak, and I think we're going to limit time to two minutes per speaker so that we can get through this.
And give everybody a chance to have their say. So let's begin with the public comment.
Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board, we have 27 requests to speak on this item today. We're going to begin in Santa Barbara with Yasmin Ibrahim to be followed by Emily Williams. Yasmeen has left. Thank you, is Emily still there? Great we'll go with Emily and then we'll return to Santa Maria for Steven Skopides.
All right. Hi, my name is Emily Williams. Thank you so much for holding space for public comment today. I'm here representing 350 Santa Barbara. I want to first thank everyone for the work they have done in reviewing this project. I understand that it has been a long and complex process. I also know that the board is just about to vote which makes it difficult to take into account comments today.
I want to start by reading a reorganized short excerpt of a letter that we submitted last week with the following organizations as signatories. 350 Santa Barbara, Food and Water Watch, Sunrise Movement Santa Barbara and the Environmental Justice Alliance The statement reads, we support the building of renewable energy projects in Santa Barbara County as a necessary component to the transition away from fossil fuels. We need renewable energy.
For the undersigned however simply replacing oil with renewable energy is not enough. The transition needs to be fair and just. Approving energy projects simply because they are low carbon while ignoring the social dimensions of their plans runs contrary to the goal of a just and fair transition. Therefore, we don't necessarily oppose but we are unable to endorse the Straus Wind Energy Projects due to concerns about BayWa's lack of a project labor agreement with local union labor and the lack of consultation with all Chumash bands which includes non-federally recognized bands. We fear that the precedence that this can set.
From 350 Santa Barbara's perspective then I just want to say a couple of things. We really appreciate the information that Supervisor Hartman's office was able to provide us over the past couple of days, which clarified how consultation has occurred. While this clarification indicates that the county operated according to state consultation laws under AB 52, certain bands did not even know that the project was occurring. The fact that some local bands feel excluded from this process suggests a more fundamental flaw in the way consultation occurs.
Therefore, this whole comment today is more of a statement that we by the collective we need to be doing better. It's a commitment to pushing for more fair and just inclusion and meaningful consultation for energy projects moving forward. As we all know- Ms. Williams I'm sorry your time.
I'm sorry,
since you don't have
the lights. Sure go right ahead for the last sentence. Thank you.
Okay cool. Last sentence. 2020 as we know is a decade of the transition which is inevitable and yet justice is not. So I just want to say each of our organizations moving forward are committed to ensuring that early on in the process we're working with all different groups, environmental social justice, sovereign indigenous tribes and unions to ensure that all projects have the requirements of a just transition. Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you, Ms. Williams. Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, all I heard was 350.org. I didn't hear what the other organizations were. Ms. Williams? Which organizations were they?
Yes, so 350.org, Food and Water Watch, Sunrise Movement, and the local Environmental Justice Alliance.
Thank you very much. Thank
you.
Okay, we are going to return to Santa Maria for Steven Skobatz to be followed by Karen Kuyper. Steven no longer with us. We are going to Karen Kuyper to be followed by Kenneth Khan. Is Karen no longer with us?
Hello, my name is Karen Kuyper. And recently I read an article in the Independent Magazine about a proposed wind machine project in the Lombok Valley. The wind machine blades are huge and heavy. In order to bring them to the construction site, the government will cut down a whole forest of mature oak trees. Hallelujah! First 1,700 then 600 now I think 245. I was shocked.
A lot of hawks and other raptor birds live in those trees the average person has to get a permit to cut down just one tree but the government with a heavy hand cuts down a whole forest. Those wind machines are not only heavy But are they safe? What will happen if they get striked by lightning, will they explode? Will there be a fire? Has there ever been made a test by an engineer About the speed of a bird in flight, how fast will the blades of the wind machine come to a stop? Or will they stop at all to save the bird or will there be a massacre of dead birds. The condor will also be involved and first we have First they resurrect them and then they kill him.
And so he will be struck by the new electric wiring there, a bloodbath all over the place. The new green deer starts off with a lot of blood. And then we have to have a preacher and pray for the birds for the poor old souls that are being lost and been going up that way? And how much will this cost? Nobody ever talks about, that's the best secret. And how much will it cost to get it here? And where does it come from?
Well-
Ms. Pfeiffer, that is your two minutes, thank
you. I just want to say the poor taxpayer doesn't play with monopoly money. He has to earn the money and some people spend it like it's.
Okay, that all I have. Thank you very much. Our next speaker is Kenneth Kahn be followed by Jean Beedie.
5:54 – 6:0010 turns
Welcome Chairman Haught. Good afternoon Mr. Chair and Supervisors. I'm Kenneth Kahn, the chairman of the San Dines Band of Chumash Indians. The project for consideration today is within Chumash Aboriginal Territory The Chumash have inhabited and been stewards of this land for thousands of years. Following multiple site visits and meetings with San Ynez Chumash elders, county elected officials, cultural resource experts and developers, and the developers, BayWa, we're here today to show support for the Straus Wind Farm project as it is presented. Our ancestors have hunted, gathered and held ceremony throughout the entire project area.
It's a special place to Chumash people. All sacred areas around the Straus footprint were included in our considerations. Point Conception also known as the Western Gate is most familiar to the public Our great, great ancestor Maria Solaris shared that this is where the souls of our loved ones cross over on their journey to the Great Spirit. Tracheon Peak is also in view of the wind farm along with caves and rock formations. We thank all of those involved in sharing their knowledge and in reviewing the project's impacts and appreciate the receptiveness of BayWall and their partners.
No matter where you turn, you can find evidence of Chumash existence. This is true for all of Santa Barbara County. Initially we strongly opposed this project because we felt the impacts were not thoroughly addressed. From day one the tribe was open to finding an appropriate balance between necessary development and its proximity to culturally sensitive areas.
Through dialogue, site visits, supplementary studies, Sanitas, Chumash elders and representatives were able to identify and mitigate a number of factors. Since I'm only limited to two minutes, I'll skip over some of those.
Mr. Conk go ahead and take as much time as you need.
Thank you We now have a clear understanding of the distance between sacred sites and some of the turbines. We have learned about sound, how that impacts areas and the needs of screening were identified and will be provided to help mask low frequency sound and visual impacts. Good faith efforts with Vandenberg Air Force Base apply to areas of potential impact within base boundaries. The earth disturbed for roads, footings and transmission lines will properly be monitored by trained cultural monitors throughout the project. A conservation easement will be created adjacent to identified sensitive areas.
Support to provide programming for education on cultured significant areas will also be provided. The curation costs of all artifacts on earth will also be supported by the developer. Renewable energy alternatives are essential for our community, it's even more vital for our future generations. In conclusion I ask you to support the Straus Wind Farm project. Our county needs to do its part in a race to find balance with renewable energy. This project will also provide much needed jobs and taxes in the region. Thank you for your time
Thank you, Chair McGovern.
And our next speaker is Jean Beattie to be followed by Rosemary Holmes. Jean?
Hi, I live in Megalito Canyon. Live about a mile away from Megalito Park. And everybody talks about saving the environment. This project does not save the environment. We talk about the carbon footprint. Tell me, redoing Megalito Canyon Road completely? And all the metal that goes into those turbines, and all the cement that goes into the ground to hold the turbines up for eternity.
Is that not a huge carbon footprint that you will never recover from? The main problem I am concerned about is the Santa Ana's fault. What does the vibration from all those wood turbines do to a fault and to Mount Trincon, which is a volcano in the past? We have no seismic expert. We have no information from any seismic people about what might happen from all those vibrations. And I would suggest you do that before and look before you leap into this thing.
Thank you very much.
And our next speaker is Rosemary Holmes to be followed by Virginia Suiza. Is Rosemary Holmes here? Thank you, Virginia Sousa to be followed by Larry Bishop.
Chairman Hart and Supervisors, my name is Virginia Souza and I represent the Santa Maria Valley League of Women Voters. We are here today represented by myself to express support for the Straus Wind Project as you've approved it. And I'll read to you just one sentence of a letter dated January 23rd by these organizations. The Sierra Club, the Community Environmental Council, SBCAN, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa Barbara Sea Center, Safe Energy Now, Environmental Affairs Board of UCSB Associated Students, CLEAN Coalition, CAWS, CalPERS, the World Business Academy, The Climate Reality Project, AIA Santa Barbara.
LOACOM, Santa Barbara Standing Rock Coalition, Sweet Water Collaborative, Women's March Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara Permaculture, Mercury Press, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. The Climate Mobilization, Merito, Future Leaders of America and Environment in the Public Interest from San Luis Obispo Coast Keeper. The one sentence is that our county, Santa Barbara County, currently ranks near the bottom of the state's 58 counties in terms of renewable energy. And the county is not on track to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goals. By approving this project an updated version of the Lompoc Wind Energy Project approved ten years ago we have a chance to get back on track and building our clean energy future. Thank you.
Thank you Ms. Susan, congratulations to the league on its 100th year anniversary.
And our next speaker is Larry Bishop to be followed by Karen Harris.
6:01 – 6:0611 turns
Thank you Chairman and Board. I thank the county government so much for approving this and other safe energy projects over recent years. This is a big giant step for our county in protecting our groundwater, air wildlife and our climate. We really need a lot of locally produced safe energy and not importing more polluting energy from the distance. I respect the concerns of the Native Plant Society and others over their concerns about this project. But this project produces a very small fraction of the impacts of our existing oil facilities and other oil facilities that are proposed.
A guy got lost here. So please, look at the big picture. Serious climate destruction is upon us. We the people, our government must do everything possible faster to limit further climate destruction. This project does exactly this. Thank you. Thank you
Mr
Bishop.
Our next speaker is Karen Harris to be followed by Kelly Gray.
Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I am here as a Solvang homeowner wishing to speak in support of this clean energy project for Santa Barbara County. The findings of the International Climate Science Panel have made it abundantly clear that the planet cannot continue at its present course of CO2 emissions without further devastating effects on our Mother Earth.
On a yearly basis, we are reminded here Of drought and fires already impacting our county's land, wildlife and plants. This is an opportunity to be part of the solution. Let us move forward into the 21st century and reduce our dependency on fossil fuel because as you all know there is no planet B. Thank you.
Next speaker is Kelly Gray to be followed by Craig Lewis.
Good afternoon, my name is Kelly Gray. I'm a resident of Los Olivos for the last 24 years and in the interest of time with his permission, I would like to adopt Mr. Bishop's comments to reflect those of my own. Thank you.
Thank you Ms. Gray.
And our next speaker is Craig Lewis to be followed by Jeanette Blevins
Chair Hartman, supervisors and staff. My name is Craig Lewis and I'm the founder and executive director of Clean Coalition which is a non-profit that has focused on accelerating the transition to renewable energy in a modern grid. We're very technical organization we have a lot of expertise around the grid and how renewables can bring resilience, renewable driven resilience to all of us, all of our communities.
Based on my experience, and before founding the Clean Coalition I was a renewable energy project developer. I've worked on dozens of projects and based on my experience in renewable energy and renewable energy project development, the Straus Wind Energy Project is one of the best renewable energy projects I have ever seen. They have bent over backwards to appease the issues that had been brought up.
And I will just say that it is unusual to see a developer bend over as backwards as BayWa has. Now, that's not to say that the project is perfect. It's roses for everybody and in every single respect but nothing is perfect. The Straus Wind Energy Project is about as perfect as the County of Santa Barbara is ever going to get and I strongly encourage that the county take advantage of this.
I know that there's going to be a lot of other comments, so I'll keep my last comment to an area of Clean Coalition expertise which is around renewables driven resilience. The Straus Wind Energy Project will set the stage for resilience for Lompoc and the surrounding communities. In order to have energy resilience you need to have local energy generation. We all want renewable energy generation.
Strauss gives us both it is local. All of the energy that comes out of Straus will be fed into Lompoc. It sets the stage. People that are laughing, they think that it's going up to Marin County. They don't know how electricity works. So it's very important to know that the Straus Wind Energy Project sets the stage for resilience in Santa Barbara County, in Lompoc in particular. And as we get more renewables in Lompoc, it will add the community microgrid effect into the broader surrounding community, ultimately into the entire North County.
Again, I strongly recommend that you support the Strassman Energy Project. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Lewis.
Our next speaker is Jeanette Blevins to be followed by Reverend Jane Quant. Is Reverend Jane? Thank you. To be followed by Bill Mullins.
6:06 – 6:1320 turns
This is my PowerPoint. I'm Reverend Jane Quant from Valley of the Flowers United Church of Christ in Lompoc. And the United Church of Christ is 5,000 churches and has identified climate crisis as the moral issue of our time. I'm very passionate about this. I work hard to be green as an individual. I turn down the straws at the restaurant. I reduce, I recycle, I try to buy second hand. What are the other things you're supposed to do? I'm going to get rid of my Ziploc bags this year which I'm going to really try not use one time used plastic. But ultimately individual responsibility which is important is not enough and we have to be acting collectively. And every city, every municipality, every county, every state, every country needs to be figuring out how they can contribute To the ongoing need for more renewable energy.
I am so proud, Lompoc's this funny little elbow that sticks out into the ocean. I've heard us called other things. We are an elbow and we stick out there and as a result we have this unique resource that we can share to do our little part to contribute to renewable energy in our area. And I say yes in my backyard please.
Thank you Reverend Gwon. Mr Chair, where's your church at? It's way more exciting than my church let me tell you. It's in
Lompoc. And
if we could just refrain from clapping and making noises it just helps add to the civility of the conversation I know you're enthusiastic and people feel strongly on both sides that is silent if you want to do something visually you can raise your hands praise
Thank you. Bill Mullins from Lompoc also.
One
moment,
Bill. Right after Bill we're going to have Katie Davis. Thank you.
I'm sorry.
Go ahead.
Okay. Bill Mullen from Lompoc. This is a good project for Lompok. This is a good project for Santa Barbara County. This is good project for the state. This a good project for the nation and this is a good project for the world. So I would like to thank all the board members for all the wisdom they come from making their decision. A good project, hope you support it.
Thank you Mr. Mullen.
And our next speaker is Katie Davis to be followed by Michael Chiacos.
Good afternoon Chair Hart and Board of Supervisors. I have the actual group sign on letter here signed by 27 environmental and social justice organizations urging support for The Strass Wind Project, the League of Women Voters read some of them. But Sierra Club, the Community Environmental Council, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Safe Energy Now. The Clean Coalition World Business Academy Climate Reality Project, Climate Mobilization UCSB Environmental Affairs Board and A bunch of others, I won't name them all. I'll read briefly from it in support of the project which would provide hundreds of jobs and infuse tens of millions of dollars into the county. Climate action is urgent. Last year, the IPCC released a report by 91 scientists from 40 countries based on 6,000 scientific studies that says we need to transition off of fossil fuels as soon as possible or face a global crisis by 2040.
Here in California, we face rising seas, raging fires, droughts and challenges to agriculture. The Thomas Fire alone destroyed a thousand structures and caused $2 billion in damages. The ensuing debris flow resulted in 21 fatalities and destroyed hundreds of homes. According to the IPCC report, failure to rein in emissions poses large risks to natural and human systems. Some risks may be long lasting and irreversible such as the loss of some ecosystems and we are a biodiverse hotspot that's true.
A subsequent report this year defines as many as 1 million plant and animal species are now at risk of extinction posing a dire threat to ecosystems and people all over the world depend on for their survival. The STRESS project would help the state come closer to meeting that 100% clean energy goal. It's particularly important in Santa Barbara County, where we are at the end of both PG&E's grid to the north and Southern California Edison in the south.
Having power generation in our region will make our grid more resilient and reliable, reducing our reliance on far-flying energy sources transmitted long distances. This would double Santa Barbara County's We support mitigating impacts to the maximum extent possible as specified in the EIR. But we also recognize that if our goal is to protect animal species, ecosystems and our society, we need to rapidly transition to renewable energy sources of energy and our best and most immediate opportunity to do so in Santa Barbara County will have a project going by the end of the year is to approve this project.
Thank
you.
Our next speaker is Michael Chiacos to be followed by Jonathan Ullman.
Good afternoon, my name is Michael Chiokos. I'm the Director of Energy and Climate Programs at Community Environmental Council. And CEC supports renewable energy development in the county and urges the board to deny the appeals. We also had a petition that 290 people signed asking you to do the same. We need to do our part to make sure that California hits our goal of 100% renewables.
Currently, the only utility scale projects we have are the 40 megawatt Kuyama Solar Project and Vandenberg's 28 megawatts. We also have 64 megawatts in 8,650 solar rooftops. This project will single-handedly provide just as much power as all of those thousands of solar projects. As wind has a higher capacity factor, meaning it produces power more often than solar and it's also a crucial element in balancing our grid because unlike solar, wind can be produced in the evening when the sun isn't shining. I also want to point out that wind turbines use no water to generate their carbon free electricity Like any energy project, wind has detrimental impacts which we've heard about. But CEC believes that the project's benefits greatly outweigh these.
Utility scale projects like Strauss are needed if we're quickly going to reduce our emissions in the face of a climate crisis. The biggest threat to flora and fauna is climate change which is altering feeding and reproductive cycles. And we also have this very visceral recent experience with the most devastating impacts of climate change here in our county.
How many birds, how many oak trees and other living things perished in the drought? In the fires? In the floods? The impacts are in the millions and billions not the dozens and hundreds. We ask the Board of Supervisors to deny the appeals and approve the Strauss Project, which has already been vetted by the community and approved by the board in a previous iteration.
Thank you Mr. Charkos.
Our next speaker is Jonathan Ullman to be followed by John McReynolds
6:13 – 6:218 turns
Good afternoon board members. My name is Jonathan Ullman I am the director of the Los Padres chapter of the Sierra Club, which is Ventura and Santa Barbara counties I'd like to just read from a portion of the letter which we sent to you and I'll pass them around afterwards As the oldest environmental organization in California, the Sierra Club is deeply committed to conservation.
Our local chapter has been protecting the Gaviota Coast, our oak woodlands and our region's unique ecosystem for more than 60 years. We lead hundreds of free hikes every year and engage in environmental and climate advocacy and education every day despite the identified impacts on balance We see this project as the best way to advance our conservation goals.
We support staff's recommendation of denying the appeals and approving the environmentally superior modified project, as unanimously approved by the planning commission. Climate change is the challenge of our time. Your decision will help determine whether we do our part in meeting it or not. We urge you to approve the Straus Wind Project. Thank you, Mr. Allman.
And our next speaker is John McReynolds to be followed by Steve Ferry. Thank you. Our next speaker is Steve Ferry to be followed by Anna Citron.
Good afternoon, Chair Hart and supervisors and staff. I'm Steve Ferry representing Santa Barbara Audubon Society. We have been advocating for bird protections on this site for years going all the way back to the Lompoc Wind Project. Straus could have been a much better project. The project does not follow the requirements of the state and federal wind energy guidelines.
The federal guidelines state that, quote, if migratory birds and bats are likely to experience significant adverse impacts by a wind project at the proposed site A developer should identify and document possible actions that will avoid or compensate for those impacts. Such actions might include altering locations of turbines or turbine arrays, unquote. The Straus Wind Farm did not do that.
Raptor surveys should have been done before the turbine locations were determined, not after. Then the survey data should have been used to adjust the turbine locations to reduce the impact on birds. Despite the applicant's claims I believe that the turbines were placed only where they would produce The maximum electrical output and the EIR says that also. In fact, BayWa personnel told me that explicitly on October 30th 2018.
The county should have required that a bird collision hazard analysis be done. BayWa has a bird survey data The hazard analysis software is publicly available on a US Fish and Wildlife website. This decision process that we're participating in today is deficient because the board does not have the collision hazard analysis prediction of the magnitude of bird deaths at this site.
The number of bird deaths should have been considered as part of this decision process. The county should have also hired an expert to assist with the design of the turbine layout. There's been a lot of progress in the state-of-the-art in predicting avian fatalities in recent years. Such predictions aren't perfect, but they're undoubtedly better than not even attempting to design the project to reduce bird mortality.
I hear something beeping. That is your time, unfortunately. Okay, I would like to just say all that being said the project has included some important protections for birds and those are in the documents that you have received and we appreciate those very much and we're proud to have been able to influence a project to get some of those protections in. Thank you.
Thank you for your work on the project.
And our next speaker is Anna Citrin to be followed by John Putney Jr.
Good afternoon, Chair Hart and board members. My name is Anna Citrin, an attorney with the Law Office of Mark Shatillo here representing the Santa Barbara and La Purisima chapters of the Audubon Society. This site is extraordinarily sensitive. It's immediately inland from the Gaviota Coast and the 24,000 acre Dangermont Preserve. It is a biodiversity hotspot And inhabited by numerous sensitive bird species, including the fully protected golden eagle and endangered plant species as well. Given the site sensitivity you should have the utmost confidence that this is the best possible project for the site And unfortunately, because of the flawed process it's really impossible to have that confidence at this point in time. And it's really too bad because I hear pretty much everyone in this room supports the project's goals and would love to have seen this project designed in a way that took into consideration the issues that have been raised today.
A couple of the problems were that the draft EIR was released Before critical surveys were completed. Stakeholder outreach to the extent it occurred happened after the turbine layout had already been determined and it was essentially too late to influence the site design, lest we thwart the project altogether. Now that's not a fair position to put anyone in.
And while as Steve mentioned there are important mitigation measures that were included and Very grateful that those are included and specifically they ensure that the project has to pass muster with the state and federal wildlife agencies, which is important. It could have been a lot better. And what we're hoping for the future is that when an applicant comes forward with a project of this magnitude, that they be directed to do stakeholder outreach early at a time when there's still genuine flexibility in the site design.
And it's important that the draft EIR be thorough, but it's also important that there be enough time built into the process to allow for recirculation of the EIR. Because as you've heard here in our various comment letters that we've submitted reflect this. There are a lot of problems with the EIR that should have been corrected in a recirculated version, that could have been circulated to the public and wildlife agencies and other interested individuals. And this project could've been made better at that point.
We think we've done the best that we can given what we have now but we do think it was a missed opportunity and one that we hope you'll take action to correct in the future.
Thank you. Thank you and Audubon for your work.
Our next speaker is John Putney Jr., to be followed by Ken Huff.
6:21 – 6:2814 turns
Good afternoon. My name is John Putney, Jr., with Ironworkers Local 433. I'm here in support of this project. I think it'll provide a lot of good paying construction jobs and it will provide a good economy for Lompoc. It's windy up there, it's clean and it's free. There's only one machine and basically in every 100 acres. I don't think there will be a huge bird die off.
If an occasional bird or bat is killed, that'll provide something for the possums or other varmints to eat. It sounds like there's been a lot of thought put into the vegetation and the wildlife. I kind of compare it to windmills we did around Tehachapi We were not allowed to leave the roads with our vehicles or equipment because we wanted to protect the normal environment.
I hope you approve this, and hopefully someday there will be maybe some solar fields in all that extra acreage between the windmills. Thanks.
Thank you Mr. Putney.
And our next speaker is Ken Huff to be followed by Leroy Scolari.
Good afternoon Chair Hart and Supervisors, Ken Huff representing Santa Barbara County Action Network. In November of last year, our board voted to support the project. They were briefed on the major findings in the environmental document and it was their judgment that the benefits far outweighed the significant negative impacts. They also expressed concerns about the lack of a project labor agreement and a lack of consultation with all of the indigenous tribes.
But again, the benefits of the project and urgency of the project led the board to support it at that time. Expressed our support in a joint sign-on letter with 27 organizations at that time and before the Planning Commission. The board hasn't met since these appeals were filed, but I've reviewed the staff reports. I've listened to the presentations today and while the appeals raise important issues, the responses are reasonable and thorough.
SPCAN encourages your board to deny the appeals, certify the EIR and approve the CUP. Thank you
Thank you, Mr. Huff.
And our next speaker is Leroy Scolari to be followed by Martin Rodriguez.
Hello I'm Leroy Scolari one of the landowners involved in the project might say as far as the City of Lompoc and the North County is involved has been stated here before but I'll restate it We're at the bottom of the PG&E grid. This project will feed into the bottom of the PG&E grid. If the power should be shut off to the north of us, City of Lompoc and so forth could still be the recipient of this power.
My family has been operating cattle ranching operation on this site for over 120 years It has been continuously grazed. Some drought years overgrazed. Gaviota tar plant has flourished, and it will continue to flourish. But I would urge you to support this project. It has been well scrutinized, and I believe that this will make it possible for those of us In the cattle ranching operation, in relatively small operations as far as cattle operations go.
This will certainly give us the funds to enhance the viability of these operations. Thank you.
Thank you Mr.
Sklari.
And our next speaker is Martin Rodriguez to be followed by Kate Griffith who's our final speaker. Martin?
Good afternoon, Chair Hart and Supervisors. I'm Martin Rodriguez, Business Agent Local 433 representing over 400 members of Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo and Ventura County. You know I had a prepared statement full of job statistics economic forecast tax base percentages but I decided that's what you have staff for so I watered it up in I'm going to speak frankly on why we should permit this project and deny these appeals and
move on to the next one. So that being said, I'm here today to reaffirm that union labor is in the house and they do support this project And if BayWa along with Strauss Energy are true to their word, over 70% of this work will be performed by the safest most highly skilled craftsmen available. This project offers something all the community can agree on. Clean energy, new tax revenues for the county, career opportunities.
And it sends a strong signal that Santa Barbara has a welcome mat open for more projects such as this. If the environmental community Is to keep their credibility intact, they would be behind this project as well 100%. Especially if they're truly sincere in their quest for sustainable economy. A seamless transition from fossil fuels to renewables. I would think that our duly elected board of supervisors would see the need for this project and more utility scale of this nature.
In light of Diablo Canyon shutting down, And this new regime in Sacramento putting our oil and gas industry between a rock and a hard spot. I think this is the right thing to do and permit this project, and let's get this thing built. And as far as mitigating, the ones that need to talk to you is the ground squirrels who has designated this tar plant and the cows who were quickly receding in that area. So in the Bedford residents, they're right there next to the largest rocket blast-offs in the world. You know what I mean? So this noise issue, that's nonexistent. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez and thank you for bringing your local 433 members too.
And our final speaker is Kate Griffith
6:28 – 6:3915 turns
Good afternoon and thank you for allowing me to speak before you today. I'm an 18 year resident of the Lompoc community, and during this time, I've worked continuously for the economic vitality of our county. Regarding the Strass Wind Turbine Project, I've submitted an email on June 7th and gave public testimony on November 20th in opposition to the project. Today I'm back to add to the three appellants and the Audubon Society's Testimony to remind you of the project's public health risks and cultural landscape degradation with two questions.
Would you allow this project to blemish the cultural landscape of Santa Barbara and the other wealthy communities in the county? High voltage power lines will be allowed to pass by, or excuse me. Excuse me. The visual impacts of wind turbines and high voltage transmission lines and a substation will adversely impact Lompoc's economic vitality especially in the tourism sector. Lompoc is well established as a wine destination with dozens of tasting rooms. These local businesses all depend on the continued desirability of the Lompoc Valley as a tourism destination.
Lompoc's agricultural and rural cultural landscape is part of the allure. It will be compromised by 29, 50 story turbines on the ridge and a one acre substation. And a 7.3 mile 115 kilovolt electrical transmission line in the bushed. Second question, would you allow this project to introduce a public health risk in Santa Barbara and other wealthy communities in the county?
High voltage power lines will be allowed to pass by homes and through neighborhoods. Yet electromagnetic radiation can be dangerous to biological systems. Placing the substation and electrical high voltage transmission lines within close proximity of Lompoc Southside neighborhoods. And along Miguelito Canyon Road is a public health risk that will result in legal battles for years to come.
As you vote today, please let your conscience consider my questions honestly. Thank you very much.
Thank you Ms Griffith. Are there any questions of staff at this point? We also have rebuttal from the appellants and
If I have a question for the applicant, I guess I'll ask as they come up for rebuttal. So-
Okay, Supervisor Williams did you have a question?
Well, I did have one question so all seven of the mitigation measures in the findings are still applicable correct in terms of the mitigation measures for impact spurs.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Williams, all mitigation measures in the EIR and carried forward through to the conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Commission are a part of the project.
And I mean these are pretty extensive. They're pretty interesting if anybody wants to take a look at them from the audience page A2 on the attachments that are for findings on the website. It seems to me, because I started reading this after I heard from one of the appellants about the need for supplementary analysis after conditions have changed. So what it seems to me that the appellant is Is doing is saying that conditions have changed because of the adoption of mitigation measures.
Typically, you don't hold the mitigation measures against a project. Mitigation measure is meant to be a way to deal with some of the impacts that are cited in an AIR not a pretext to require additional environmental analysis. Is that not correct?
Supervisor Williams, that is generally correct. I believe Mr. Adam went a step further and was arguing that we were deferring mitigation and not analyzing the impacts of the project now but that is just simply not the case.
Got it. Okay,
thank you.
All right, well the first appellant is Mr. Jensen from the Native Plant Society. If you would come up, you have five minutes for rebuttal.
Thank you once again for allowing my organization to present our concerns. And I'm going to bring a little, I'm going to focus a little kind of heavily on not really what my organization has said but what one of the responsible agencies that is responsible with providing a permit for this project, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife says. As you know, as you surely know, if you approve this project it's not – the green light is not lit for this project.
The project still has to receive their incidental take permit from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. They have to obtain a favorable biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Part of the incidental take permit will be recording of conservation easements. These things take time, the scientists and planners and folks who do this work for those agencies are careful and their word I would dare say even though I have a PhD in all that Should weigh heavier on your decision-making process perhaps in mind because they are the the agencies responsible for That are entrusted with making sure that our plants and wildlife Continue to exist in the state of California So I'm going to read for you a couple of sections from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's letter.
That was that is dated January 23rd it was approved by you just a few minutes or a few hours ago for admission to the record Reading from their letter, at this juncture in the process we believe it is essential to reiterate the need for the final supplemental EIR and county permit to include one project alternatives to reduce the magnitude and extent of impacts to tar plant. Two additional analysis to address impacts beyond the immediate graded footprint and three Mitigation in the form of an adaptive management plan for tar plant that contains measurable standards and monitoring for areas outside the grading footprint.
They further address reasonable alternatives, things that CNPS also supports. CDFW strongly recommends the county consider alternatives that avoid tar plant locations while also achieving most of the project objectives. Now, I'm going to scroll down a little bit. The letter is good. Honestly, I can say that the letters written by CDFW are some of the strongest plant-centered letters that I've ever seen written by the department.
That should weigh heavily on your hearts and your minds. So there's been... we've brought up and others have brought up the idea of indirect impacts and how they aren't adequately addressed in the EIR Their letter from just a few days ago. As part of our incidental take permit analysis, CDFW compiled a list of over 70 references that were used in the process of evaluating impacts to Gaviota tar plant at this location.
CDFW considers published scientific literature in the valuation of impacts to the species and does not believe we have overestimated impacts or misled the public or decision makers on the extent of impacts. Rather, CDFW believes it is important to undertake an effort to quantify impacts beyond the grading footprint as a good faith effort at disclosing the full range of impacts from project construction and operation that is supported by scientific research.
The lack of such mitigation is problematic when available scientific information indicates that there would be project activities that could result in adverse effects to Gaviota Tar Plant outside of the project grading footprint. Later on in the letter they address, they say CDFW believes that there is substantial evidence in the literature to develop a more robust analysis of impacts to and mitigations for Gaviota tar plant beyond the grading footprint.
This is the letter written a few days ago by an agency tasked with providing an incidental take permit to this project. Now does it sound to you like they're ready to issue that permit? It doesn't sound like it to me. I would also like to address, so of course we, I railed on it before the idea that the analysis only deals with direct impacts. So you've heard from CDFW on indirect impacts. I'll let that go to bed but I've also addressed the fact that population level impacts to this species are huge And there was a little bit of talk earlier about the other populations of tar plant that occur.
So these are numbers, once again from our responsible agency CDFW in their comment letter on the draft EIR. So remember, there will be one up to 1.2 million plants of this species directly impacted by this project and I'll read out to you the, is that five minutes already?
It is it goes really fast, I'm sorry.
Would you allow me 20 more seconds? Sure. So the six other populations of this species, one's called the name... I'll read the names and the number of plants, the maximum number that have ever been documented. Lion's Head, 611 plants. Point Arguello, 750 plants. Point Conception, 10,000. Hollister, 1,101. Santa Ynez Mountains, 700 plants. Gaviota, 1200. Think about the scale of the impacts.
Thank you Dr. Jensen. The next appellant is Mr. Graf from the Citizens for Responsible Wind Energy.
6:39 – 6:5713 turns
Thank you Chair, Supervisors. We want what most people in this county want and that's sustainable projects and good jobs. We are equally committed to building a strong economy and a healthier environment. And we're participating in this proceeding because the workers and there's families that live and recreate in this community and possibly even work on this project. Will suffer for the same unmitigated impacts that we and others have identified with this project. Projects like this one can significant, with significant adverse impacts can degrade the environment in ways that restrict future development opportunities or lead to actual construction moratoriums.
We support the kind of projects that allow for sustainable growth and development and continue construction employment. CEQA expressly provides for this kind of balancing. We have raised a number of issues with that. The draft and final SEIR addressed significant, did not disclose, analyze or address mitigation regarding the impacts to a number of biological species, groundwater air quality through decommissioning analysis.
The county is required to recirculate a draft EIR based on the newly disclosed information. I'd like to address also the indirect impacts of the Gaviota tar plant. The three-to-one mitigation ratio, compensation ratio is based on the direct impact. It's calculated based on the occupied habitat that meets that three to one ratio and And included within that number that is presented, is all the plants that will be indirectly impacted. By CDFW's estimation, that would be almost the entire population of Gadiotar plant would be directly and indirectly affected by the project. The problem here is that county did not analyze the indirect impacts. The fact that it may be difficult to quantify does not relieve them of their obligations under CEQA to perform the analysis.
Again, this is critical because it informs the mitigation. The three-to-one ratio here if indirect impacts were analyzed could require offsite mitigation which has not been explored in any further detail and is not included in any of the draft tar plan plans have been submitted to the county. In summary, we ask that the board uphold this appeal and recirculate the draft SEIR for recirculation. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Graf. Next appellant is Mr. Adam representing George and Cheryl Bedford.
Just a couple quick points and then I'm going to allow Mr. Bedford the balance of my time. Number one, first despite staff's assertion to the contrary there are in fact deferrals of both studies and implementation of mitigation measures resulting from those studies. I detailed some of those. Mr. Storer in fact, the applicant's own consultant provided further evidence of that fact today.
Number two, the applicant spent a lot of time talking about how much better the project will be than the last project 11 years ago. The fact that a project 10 years ago, a different board made a different decision regarding a different project with more turbines that are 120 feet shorter really should be irrelevant. What's in front of the board today is this project and this SEIR.
Finally, I've got a question for staff or anybody else from the appellant side. Somebody made mention of around 425 oak trees being removed as a result of this project. Does that number encompass all the oak trees within 100 foot circumference around the turbines? It encompasses the grading footprint?
Mr. Adam, really you should be addressing the board and we can ask questions of staff-
Okay maybe you could ask that question. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is George Bedford, Chairman Board. Thank you for having me here. If you notice I got a bunch of arrows in my back right now but that's fine. I can deal with that. There was a couple of assertions here that this amount of power was coming to the Lompoc City of Lompoc I don't believe that's true, so someone up there on the board can ask that question. I believe it's going to the Northern California Power Agencies that are up in Northern California. So what's the benefit and what benefit does the county get as far as a little check mark from the state of California for the clean energy that we're sending up north?
And it's nervous talking in front of you folks. Believe or not-
Don't be nervous. You're doing great.
Well, except I lose my train of thought.
Take your time.
But it's just frustrating when my wife and I bought that ranch in 1994, 94-97, and we decided we'd like to live up there. And yes, I knew there were rockets going up in the Lompoc Valley, okay? I've lived there since 71. So I knew that no matter where I moved, chances are I was gonna hear a rocket. I did not know if I built my house, I'd have to listen to 29 wind turbines circling around buffeting against their tower.
Especially when we went to build the house, the county required us to lower the ridgeline of our house by 18 inches so that no one from the county road could see it. Now that seems kind of ludicrous, but I guess my real question is if there's a wind project up there how many of you think you would like to invest in a housing project right next to it? And that's where my wife and I are kind of backed into this project.
So what do people like us do when you folks all of a sudden say in a rural area, we're gonna put 29 industrial wind turbines right next to your property. I feel for everybody in this room but for Cheryl and I it's very personal. For the rest of us were looking at a philosophy an idea, for us it's personal. And that's all I've got to say. And you were the only people we could really talk to, to make a change in it or make something happen that mitigates George and Cheryl.
And that seemed kind of crazy that you would ever do that because right now I'm sitting here looking at four faces and I think the minds have already been made up so I'll cut my time short and say good afternoon and thank you for what I am hoping was attention.
Thank you, Mr. Bedford, you were very articulate. That brings us back to the applicant, Mr Duke. You have 15 minutes since everybody else had five and there are three of them. Mr Chair? Supervisor Lavendino.
If in those 15 minutes you could address this I don't have to ask a question after if you could address what's your commitment to local labor. Appreciate that.
And I'm not going to take 15 minutes to rebut, so I open up to questions. But if I were to close my eyes and I would think of a project of any kind, particularly this project, then I could envision a project that had zero impact to any plant or animal species. Not even a single gaviota tar plant hurt, not a single bird at risk of collision. A project that's tucked away and not a single neighbor could see it from either a private view or a public view.
In essence kind of that perfect project. The problem is that really only exists in my imagination and all of our imaginations right? It's just unattainable, but I guess what I'd like to say is that we have worked tirelessly for a better part of full three years to take each one of these issues. And while we can't be perfect when it comes to gavity tar plant for example, we recognize we're going to impact gavity tar plant. But without this project, we're not going to be able to conserve 2,000 acres of habitat for this species and do innovative things on site.
To address things like indirect impacts over time right so I understand that there's concerns about indirect impacts were gonna be tracking things like vector management. So we're gonna track the way cattle disperse seed throughout the site. We're going to do things like pollinator studies, to see how bees and other insects pollinate Gaviota tar plant. And if there's impacts to pollinators, how that could be an effect to Gaviota tar plant over time. We're gonna do things like eDNA testing where we're gonna actually test the DNA of insects to determine if pollinators are getting impacted by the wind turbines. These are all things that we've committed to in our mitigation plan that the county has seen.
All of this is going to get reported back to a technical advisory committee made up of agency representatives, probably county representatives, experts in the community. And that will be reported back to them and adaptive management actions will be taken to address those. Those are all part of our mitigation plan. Again we're not away from any public view or private view.
But I think it's safe to say that there is fundamental property right issues involved here and that Leroy Escalari who you heard talk recently, his family has been up there for 200 years. He has the same right to do what he wants on his property As others in the community and neighbors have to do on theirs. And they want to see this project built. There's a reality in cattle ranching that if this project were to not move forward, cattle ranching up there may not exist.
Their generations in the future may turn to other forms of economic uses of the property. And we've seen that throughout the county, right? But to have 3,000 acres of contiguous property that can stay in cattle ranching and produce renewable energy is a really good thing. And it's a really good thing for Gabby to tar plant. CDFW recognizes that this is a really good thing for Gaviota Tar Plant. Even Nick and the CNPS folks recognize that the conservation benefits that come with this project are all good.
The disagreements come with the nature of the impact themselves, and I think there's There's uncertainty as to the nature of these indirect effects, as acknowledged by CNPS, CDFW, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and even the county's consultants. The types of indirect effects that have been brought up are things like Will the weather patterns behind wind turbines change in that the fog layer or precipitation content in the atmosphere change behind a wind turbine to the point where it actually impacts whether plants can utilize that fog layer to grow?
That's an indirect effect that's been cited by CNPS and others. But we're going to have a hydrologic study done as part of our adaptive management program that's going to test that because that's not been tested, and that's why it's hard to quantify some of these indirect effects. Those are the kind of things we're talking about. Or will this project bring additional sources of water that will then attract Argentine ants which are competitor pollinators?
Things that we're going to look at, but that's the level of detail that we're talking about here. But when we look at single issues with this project, we start going down this type of a road where we're talking about Argentine ant monitoring. There's a bigger picture here and that's what we're gonna bring. We're gonna double the renewable power in this county.
I think it's, I think in November maybe last year, There is a project approved here in this building, these county buildings to put rooftop solar on parking and to change the light bulbs to energy efficient light bulbs. What we're talking about here is magnitudes greater than that. I applaud the county for everything they've done for renewable energy over the last decade plus.
Improving transit systems, rooftop solar, these are all great things but what we're talking about here is 100 megawatts of clean energy so. I'd like to touch on the agency coordination piece for a minute because that's important. So it's correct statement that conditional use permit does not give us the green light to start construction tomorrow. There's other boxes we have to check. These are consultations that we've been involved with for, again the better part of three years working with these agencies. US Fish and Wildlife Service is in a position to issue their biological opinion on the project eminently so they don't have any concerns about Gaviota Tar Plant at this point that haven't been addressed. CDFW, we're going to be receiving an install take permit from them for Gaviota Tar Plant as well.
At this time, we don't anticipate that being delayed or the project construction being delayed because of that. We're addressing their concerns directly. So there's a distinct path in terms of the state permitting process that they have that's separate and apart from CEQA, and I think that's really important to understand. That there's a CEQAs standard that needs to be met in terms of how projects get mitigated. CDFW may have a different standard and that's okay.
You know, like John Storer said six to one mitigation as opposed to the three to one that the county has. Another way to look at it is that we've literally surveyed every single square inch of that property and these ratios we're talking about are related to acreage. When we look at the individuals that are impacted by the project, we're talking about 223,000 impacted directly by the project and again 5.8 million that are going to be conserved.
Right, so that's we're talking like 2526 to one mitigation ratio. If you're looking at the individuals now granted that's within some of these indirect impact areas which again there's an unknown there as to whether these plants are going to be impacted but we've we have a team of experts team of expert botanists that consulted with expert botanists that concert consulted with additional expert botanists and they're all providing input into this process. So again that list of experts were talking about have all fed into the design of this project and the design of the mitigation.
So I wouldn't be nervous to move forward with this project on the fact that you don't have the information to do so, because that's not the case. So I guess I'd end there, on the labor front we've made a concerted effort from day one. Again in an ideal world would we reach out to every single stakeholder group in the entire county and get their blessing and approval on a project of this magnitude? Again, that's only in your imagination. That just doesn't happen. We can't get the support of the project from every single group. Union Labor is a group that we really focused in on and we recognize the value of connecting union labor to good projects like this. And that's why you have folks like Martin Rodriguez coming up here and saying we're not worried about worker safety like the folks at Adams Rodwell claim They don't seem too concerned about that.
So, we have a high commitment to union labor on this project. We don't have a PLA but we're doing everything we can to get union workers on this project. Again, we've made our best effort when it comes to all of these issues. Gavita Tar Plant, birds, every issue that you can think of on this project, we've really made the best effort that we can and I think at the point where The concessions, the negotiations are over. We really need to build this project like Martin said it's time to get to work because we don't have any more time. We don't have anymore resources to dedicate to this.
We really need to get to work so with that I'll end for now. If you're happy to answer any questions, we've got a group of experts here-
6:57 – 7:0412 turns
I just
have one and that was, you know, and I know we struggled with getting the map up. But from what I heard that there were two towers that are the closest to Bedford residents. And I'd like to hear today that there be a commitment You know, as you said there's micro siding but they would not move any closer to their residents and what's proposed right now.
Yes let me address that directly but let me speak to a couple points on that so Turbine N7 is approximately 2,000 feet away from the Bedford residence again this is obviously a private residence we've done numerous noise studies as has the county In this regard, the mitigation measures in the ER that you have before you require us to not only do pre-construction noise measurements but also post construction noise measurements. And if we don't, if we go above the 43 decibel level, we have to implement noise control mitigation as part of our mitigation program that's all in the EIR.
In addition to that, there are topographical features in this area that likely have natural screening from noise. We're talking the Bedford residence sits up and over a hillside from Turbine N7. N7 is not on a prominent ridgeline. It's actually set down in a bowl on the north side of the project site. In addition to that topographic feature, there's eucalyptus trees and natural vegetation screening between the two.
So, back to microsiding quickly. The reason microsiding is mentioned is that ideally we set every turbine, we don't move it. I mean, that's the reality because everything we do is based on a defined site plan. Micrositing flexibility is allowed because there are situations during construction where there's unforeseen circumstances. We start digging a foundation and we come across a sensitive cultural resource area, a burial site. We come across unstable soil in a certain location. We've done a lot of work. Like I said, there's been a lot of data that's gone onto this but There's still an unknown once you start digging, and so the flexibility is important. That being said I think on this wind turbine site we can create that flexibility away from the home rather than towards it.
But I just wanted to, I don't mean to belabor this point but I wanted to describe it a little bit more clearly.
Mr. Bedford also asked about some clarity regarding the customers for this power, whether it's going to Lompoc or to Northern California. Could you speak to that?
Yeah, so this was addressed by a couple of speakers. But in essence we have a part purchase agreement which is a contract to sell the energy to Marine Clean Power, CCA. So again dating back three years, we approached Santa Barbara County and you all were contemplating the formation of CCA. We would've loved to have joined that partnership but it just wasn't there yet, right?
And as all renewable energy projects do, we need to have a commercial contract. That's a commercial contract that has nothing to do with where the electrons actually flow within the grid. So it's an accurate statement to say that the power generated here is going to flow directly into PG&E's grid at the very south end of PG&Es grid and into Lompoc, right? Into the Kiso controlled grid. And we have a interconnection agreement with PG&A so the actual electrons blow right there in terms of the power purchase that is with Marin Clean Power or clean energy.
And then Mr. Adam asked questions about the number of oak trees and how that was calculated.
Sure, that's the limits of disturbance. The 450 number I don't know where that came from but the oak tree disturbance numbers are again 10,000 oak trees calculated throughout the entire canyon The grading limit disturbance that's created by civil engineers is overlaid on that. And then, that's field verified by certified arborists and staff. So there's 225 trees that will be impacted by this project.
Thank you. I think with that if there aren't any other questions we'll go to our staff. Thank you Mr. Dukes. Any final comments from staff?
Chair Hart and members of the board, we probably, let's see. We already kind of hit on the noise issue right? Because we did pass out a map that shows where Bedford- Yes, I think
Supervisor Lazano has some
clarity from this year. Okay so if you have any questions on that more we're here to answer but I think we were going to talk about the oak trees also, there's 225 and 150 are slated to come out of San Miguelito Road with some improving of the curves. 60 with the transmission line and I think something like five with wind turbines. So after the planning commission approved the one that moved the two wind turbines that saved almost 400 oak trees, I think there was like five being taken out. All coast live oak trees, not tan oaks. There was another kind of comment about not working with the tribes and not reaching out to them.
If you guys look at your attachments to the set hearing board letter, the last attachment has our mailing labels. And you will see that there are over 30 organizations or individuals I should say Associated with Native American Indians that we sent that out to. We reached out in the final SCIR. On pages 4.6-2 and 3, we describe all of our reaching out with Native American Indians and reaching out to the Native American Heritage Commission who asked us to reach out to six tribes. We did hear telephone calls from a couple of them, but nobody asked anything much further.
Freddie Romero we've met out with them a number of times on the site and we also with AB 52, we sent out our correspondence with Ms. Julie Tumamot and we did not hear from her. So if you have any other questions on that we can answer but I think that's it for us right now, we're here for questions.
Thank you, Ms. Pfeiffer. I think this brings us to board deliberations. Supervisor Hartman since this is in your district would you like to begin?
7:04 – 7:205 turns
This is a very significant project as everybody has discussed for Santa Barbara County, but also setting a tone as we go forward. I'm very much influenced by people particularly at UCSB who are saying we need to have a just affair transition to renewable energy for equality purposes, but also to build a coalition that we really need to transition fully to a renewable economy. So I'm glad to hear that the tribes, the various Chumash and other indigenous tribes were consulted and I think we've done a good job reaching out to labor. I hope we can do better in the future but I think this is a good first step There were some questions about the life cycle and I see a lot written about that so I did some research on my own. How does the life cycle of the turbines compare to fossil fuels?
And it turns out that the Energy National Lab for Renewable Energy has done dozens of studies and then condensed and distilled what they say, and it turns out 90 to 95 percent less greenhouse gases are produced by wind turbines when you look at the whole life cycle. So I think that's really important, that's a direction that we need to go. The other point I'd like to make is that The key issues really are – we have two class one impacts. One is visual, and the other is biological. And the biological is the tar plant. We've heard a lot about that. And then the other is the birds and the bats.
I am much concerned about the biological impacts of global warming. We're clearly now in the sixth great extinction And we hear daily about impacts to birds. Populations have declined about one-third and I saw David Attenborough's program about global warming, and there's just a heart wrenching scene about bats that are falling out of trees because of the heat.
And then flying foxes 11,000 because of the heat. So we're headed towards a very different world and we really need to focus on how we're going to make this transition. And this is the best project that we have before us, and I think as was said by the project applicant it's not perfect but it's the right direction. And we clearly have to make a step in this new direction so I am very supportive and When the time comes, I'd like to make the motion that we do approve this project and that we deny the appeals.
Thank
you Supervisor Herman. Supervisor Williams? Well, I'm just going to briefly give you the perspective because one of the arguments used on this has been involved statewide clean energy mandates used by both sides of this. So I want to give you the perspective of that as when I represented you in the legislature, I was the lead co-author for Senate Bill 350 which Established many of the goals that we have now and was a precursor to the one that required 100%.
A lot of people treat it as if when we pass legislation, and don't get me wrong. Getting legislation that has that ambitious of goals and has consequences because of that. Is it easy to get done, but it's not like we're waving a magic wand right? It's not like in the people treat it this way. People go up. Oh, we're going to just get that energy now. It doesn't work like that, right? The legislators can't just decide one day to magically for this stuff to happen.
Projects to make that happen. And as we've heard discussed about, there's really no such thing as totally zero emission if you look at life cycle. So there is always a scale of desirability in different kinds of projects and what unfortunately our county has done in the past Talk a lot about how we should be doing these things, but. Doing not a whole lot about it in fact you know our rules generally been hostile to renewable energy development particularly solar and So we have created this situation where everyone or most people in the county really agree about the values of local generation, agree about renewable energy. And it's all sort of been theoretical concept but then they force people in inland counties to actually do something about it, right?
And that's environmental hypocrisy, right? And we're all environmental hypocrites to an extent. And I actually think that's okay to talk about because sometimes admitting your own hypocrisy is the first step towards being a moral human being. But as I think it's incredibly important to face up to that reality that it's not right For us to somehow just talk about it, vote for it, vote for the policy of it. And then expect people in San Bernardino County and Kern County to build all the energy for us.
In addition to it being hypocritical, it's also less desirable for those goals because those have dramatically more environmental consequences both because of transmission and because let's face it they have lower environmental standards in some of those other counties. From a larger level, I think approving renewable energy is important for us to get over that environmental hypocrisy. And I'm also happy to hear from a lot of environmental groups that sometimes have had an easier time supporting projects in concept and a harder time supporting projects In practice, because they're very good at assessing and mindful of the environmental consequences of these types of projects. And to have a large number of them say this project is a good project with significant environmental mitigation I think says a lot.
And of course, it is vital that we continue to push for the highest standards to minimize environmental impacts and maximize labor standards. And I think that very much is true that this project has an enormous amount of good mitigations that uphold this county's high environmental standards. And I think the project's almost there with labor standards. I think it could get a little bit better, but I think it is already let's just say substantially better than the other energy projects that we see coming to the county in terms of its commitment to labor.
And you know for anybody who's worried about those standards being enforced, I got to tell you. You know I've gotten to know these guys right here a little in the last three years and they're pretty tough enforcers on these mitigation Agreements years after we debate it, these guys are still making sure that these folks have to adhere to it. And so I have a great degree of confidence earned by seeing how hard ass they can be that the standards will be enforced in the long run.
For me, the bottom line is you gotta weigh those impacts. And as Supervisor Hartman pointed out There are impacts to not implementing the state's clean energy goals. And those impacts are illustrated by recent collection of data on the average mean temperature rise in parts of our county over 30 years. Now, the parts of the county, to be fair, are on that side of the mountain and this project is right on the other side of the mountain.
But that analysis indicated that over a 30 year time frame, the mean temperature has risen 2.4 degrees Celsius. Okay? And if you extrapolate out that That it would, in the next 30 years be a total of an 8 degree rise in Celsius. Now I am not an expert botanist but my understanding of botany and biology is that an eight degree Celsius rise over a 60 year time frame is catastrophic.
And I think some of the slides that indicate how long this project took to be enacted illustrate to me As a society, literally dithering while our hills burn and our plant and animal populations perish. And our society gets to approaches a much worse place. And so I think it is imperative for we as a county to say that Approve renewable projects that make a reasonable and to the maximum extent economically feasible.
With sufficient mitigation, that we will approve renewable projects and this a denial today will for the first time in a long time send that signal to the world that we mean business about renewable energy.
Supervisor Lavinino.
Thank you, Mr Chair. So this is a weird day man. This project places 29 structures up to 492 feet tall and for Rich that's a football field and a half right? Okay on ridge lines. Along a scenic highway in the middle of a prehistoric archeological field, which happens to be in what CAL FIRE identifies as a very high fire hazard severity zone. While eliminating 225 oak trees has the potential to have negative impact on the rare Gaviota tar plant.
Along with an unknown number of raptors, golden eagles and common birds and bats. I mean this project checks all the boxes of what you would assume would get crushed at the Board of Supervisors. Any one of those would just be, this thing's done. So it's difficult for me because projects I've supported in the past have been denied or excessively conditioned and those in my opinion, and I know this isn't what the others will say but in my opinion they had far less environmental impact.
I argued for those projects with the same arguments that I heard some of the supporters today, saying that my projects would create jobs. But back then, I always heard well, those are temporary construction jobs. Those jobs don't count. No matter how many times I heard from labor that all of our jobs in construction are temporary. We need those jobs. And then I argued that with prior projects we need the revenue right? We need that revenue. That was argued today.
But back then, I was chastised because you can't monetize land use. So things have changed a little bit and I had to smile when I read one public comment in particular that stated that the rider was okay with the visual impact because for her the turbines represented the beacons Of man's progression and symbols of energy independence. And I like that, but it also reminded me that's the same logic people that I know view the offshore platforms, right?
So I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But I'm going to stay consistent today and vote to support this project as I've supported energy projects in the past. I mean, I was really disappointed with some of the environmental groups today that came in and said. The impact was too great. One of them was 350.org so I went to the website and it said we must do everything we can to stop all oil, coal, and gas projects.
And I understand that, but then you can't also come in and argue against a wind project. All energy production, you can't have energy production without some sort of environmental impact. So we need to embrace an all of the above approach to dealing with our energy portfolio. That includes wind, it includes solar and as hard as it is for people to accept, as we transition, it also includes fossil fuels for now.
So in conclusion for me I'm able to make the finding that reducing our GHG emissions and moving to a cleaner economy outweighs The unavoidable impacts of the Straus Wind Energy Project. And for the one gentleman that I wish I had your credentials as a PhD man, you're way over qualified for anything we're dealing with. But when you talked about DFW and CDFW may or may not scuttle this project I can't imagine the damage that that would send to the citizens, at least of this county.
That we hear everybody talking about you have to, we've got to move to this new clean technology, greener technology and And for them to step in at some point and say that, for some reason we weren't going to do this. I think it would be the call to battle climate change is hollow and would make something we always try to avoid here which is make perfect the enemy of the good. So this is by far not a perfect project but I think it is a good project.
I think we all wish there was something different about it, but I'll be supporting today.
7:21 – 7:2614 turns
We had a couple things that came up in our discussions that I wonder if we need some additional conditions and if staff needs some extra time to craft those. One was the commitment from Mr. Duke to make sure that if Tower N7 was relocated as part of the micrositing strategy, it would be away further from the Bedford residents. I don't know if that requires a specific condition. And then I'm interested in seeing the Planning Commission have an annual report on the status of the Gaviota Tar Plant Mitigation Plan for at least five years. Just bring a report back, explain how there's public transparency of that process to the community so people can see what's going on in that regard.
A comment and a request, I would hope that the developer continues to work with union contractors to have more certainty with the additional contracts that have to be led on this project. To have as much local hire union labor as is possible. I would've preferred this project had a project labor agreement and would've preferred that consultation to happen at the very beginning. I've been expressing that to Mr. Duke at every meeting that I've had with him. And this may not be the last time that this item is at the Board of Supervisors, given the potential for additional appeals. So I would hope that he would continue that work. So Mr. Gazzone do we need a break to add conditions like that or?
Chair and Supervisor, we had talked with planning during the prior break about being ready to address the two particular towers. And I'd like to just hear from them but my recommendation will be if they don't have the letter, excuse me, the language ready right now that we do take a short break. We'd like to hear from them.
Can I ask a question of the matter first? Well, first of all, I very much support the idea of bringing the tar plant back as a report. I think that would be important to continue the accountability and agree with the point about labor too. There's still some things up in the air, and I hope that the applicant will continue their commitment just because it's the right thing to do.
But I would want to understand if they have to change the siting farther away could that have consequences that could increase Parts of the analysis including endangered species or either the birds or the plant species.
That's a good question, Supervisor Hartman?
I think Mr. Gazzone wants to say something and then if I could after he does? Okay, well I think it's within the hundred foot but the question I had was the monitoring reporting on the tar plant. If I remember correctly when we're talking about the birds will there be a multi-agency committee that's overseeing the adaptive management? I just want to understand how the process works, the different oversight reporting monitoring and whether there'll be new commissioners. Whether that's the best or whether it's agency experts or how it fits together?
Scott White with Aspen Environmental Group from the Biological Resources part of the EIR. And yeah, there is an adaptive management plan adopted as a mitigation by the Planning Commission. It's designed to dovetail with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Golden Eagle Take Permit, and the applicant is in the process of working with the Fish and Wildlife Service on that take permit. It is a requirement in the EIR that they obtain that.
And the adaptive management plan Is patterned after similar language that's been used for other projects in the issuance of take permits. So it would be a combination of county planning staff and the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
And so you could fold the tar plant into that, and then report publicly to the Planning Commission say?
My suggestion on that would be at the Planning Commission hearing, the reporting on the BIRD adaptive management was pulled into an annual report to the Planning Commission itself. And I don't have the exact language in front of me of how that reporting to the Planning Commission would work but it might be as simple as adding the words and Gaviota tar plant to that one that's already been done.
That sounds like an elegant solution, but Mr. Gazzone you had a comment? And then
Supervisor Lavanino. Just talking briefly with planning and I think that a short maybe ten minute break would allow them the time once we understand the flavor of the bean on those two items. And that would allow them if we don't have slide capability they could read it onto their record and we'd have it on the tape for great clarity along with the condition number.
Okay, Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you Mr. Chair and I think when I was thinking about what I just said I also want to put an olive branch out there for those that had to come a long way on their own journey, to get to a place to think that this was a good project and sign off on it. Even though it didn't meet all of your maybe your organizations hit every single one of those. So I know for some it was difficult to get there.
It was for myself as well so Point out those that didn't get there, because there were a lot that got there that made it very difficult for them. So I appreciate that.
Thank you for that. We are going to take a ten minute break to have staff work on the
conditions we just talked about.
7:50 – 7:563 turns
Hello, everyone. Yeah. All right, there we go. We'll reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting and bring it back to Mr. Zorovitch, Ms. Plowman or Ms. Pfeiffer, Mr. Briggs. Who wants to take this one? The collective work.
Chair Hart, members of the board. In answering Chair Hart's question for maybe massaging some of the conditions or something like that to get a couple points across we've come up with some language that you see on top of the screen here And so with the Gaviota tar plant, one was going back to the planning commission for a five year period. Annually we can add to condition number 16 and it would be the last paragraph of the monitoring. So the very last one and let me read it into the record? The director shall submit a report on the implementation of the Gaviota tar plant mitigation plan to the planning commission at a public hearing annually for a five year period. The reporting shall commence one year after the wind turbines become operational, or as soon thereafter as practical.
Is that what we want? Okay. And then for the one with the micro-siding and not moving any wind turbines closer to the Bedford's residence, we've created a new condition number 103, the last condition of the project. During the micro-siding process for the wind turbines, the final location of WTG N5 and N7 shall not be any closer to the current location of the primary single family home located at 4026 San Miguel Road. Then as depicted on the site plan approved by the Board of Supervisors on January 28th, 2020.
Thank you for that clarity and all that extra work to make it clear. I appreciate that. Supervisor Hartman?
7:56 – 7:588 turns
So I would like to make the motion that we adopt staff recommendations A through D, that we deny the appeals. Make the required findings, certify the final supplemental environmental impact report and grant de novo approval of the Straus Wind Energy Project and that we include this new condition.
Is there a second? Second. Supervisor Williams is seconded the motion any discussion of the motion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Oppose and abstain? The matter carries unanimously. Thank you all for your attention and your work on this project. Our clerk would like us to revisit item A2 to continue it to next week so that the veteran of the month can be here to receive their February 11th, okay.
Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. I received a request to continue as previously stated item A2 that was previously approved by the board and if we could just bring this item back to the board and revise the motion to continue it to our February 11th hearing.
So moved.
Second.
Motion's been made and seconded all those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed and stand?
And whoever has February as Veteran of the Month feel free to also have another veteran I'm sorry, that's right. You're doing
emergency preparedness? Right, I'm sorry. We can do both. There is opportunities for double dipping. We'll now adjourn to Tuesday February 4th 2020 in Santa Barbara. Thank you all for coming.