BodyBoard of Supervisors
MeetingRegular Meeting
Date📅 March 17, 2020

UnGovr Transcript

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

0:03 – 0:1026 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:49

I'll call to order the 17th 2020 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Will the clerk please call the roll?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:56

Mr. Adam, Mr. Lavinino, Mr Williams, Mr Williams Can Santa Barbara hear us? Mr Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:11

We are here

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction4:12

Thank You Miss Hartman And Chair Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:17

I am here as well.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction4:18

Here, let the record reflect that Supervisor Adam is absent and Supervisors Hartman and Williams are participating in Santa Barbara.

Pledge of Allegianceceremonial · click to expand · ≈9s recited, not transcribed
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:26

At this time please stand and join the board in pledging allegiance to the flag. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:35

pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:57

Is approval of the minutes of March 10th, 2020 meeting. Is there any discussion? Can I please get a motion to approve? So moved. Motion's been made. Is there a second from Santa Barbara? Second. Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Any discussion? All those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye Well we need to do a roll call excuse me I'm sorry Madam Clerk you want to read the roll?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction5:24

Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:25

Aye

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction5:26

Mr. Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:28

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction5:28

Ms. Hartman?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:30

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction5:31

Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:32

Aye

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction5:32

Motion passes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:34

We would normally have our CEO report right now, but we're going to trail that for a few minutes until we get everybody here Are there any announcements or changes to our agenda?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction5:46

Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. I have a couple quick announcements this morning. First on Friday we posted an addendum to our agenda amending administrative item number nine from the county executive office to approve budget revision requests and we added an additional budget revision request 0006819 In addition to that change, we also amended the administrative agenda to add administrative item number 14. This is from Public Health. It is to consider recommendations regarding the ratification of a declaration of local health emergency and ratification of the proclamation of local emergency regarding COVID-19.

I would also like to note for the record on Administrative Item No. 11 from General Services, this is to consider recommendations regarding renewable energy systems financing at Santa Barbara County Veterinary Campus in the 5th District. This is not a four-fifths vote required, this is just a majority vote. And yesterday we did receive a request from the department to continue departmental items number two and three. Departmental item number two is from the county executive office, it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on cannabis compliance enforcement and taxation second quarter fiscal year 1920 approval of the memorandum of understanding with the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

And departmental item number three is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding storefront retail cannabis selection procedures within unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County. And my last announcement this morning is that we are requesting to move administrative items number one and two, which are resolutions to be presented sponsored by Supervisor Lavinino. Administrative item number one adopt resolution accommodation honoring Joan Amate upon his retirement from the Behavioral Wellness Department After 25 years of faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And administrative item number two from Supervisor Labanino, to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Becky Padeno upon her retirement from the Santa Maria Cemetery District after 13 years of dedicated service.

And we are just requesting to move these from resolutions to be presented to honorary resolutions. And staff is available if you have any questions regarding those announcements.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed8:13

Thank you Madam Clerk.

The next item is the approval of the administrative agenda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed8:20

I'm just curious for the public if we do have, and I know our schedule is fluid. But on items two and well especially on item three, do we have a scheduled date for that or is that still in the mix?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed8:38

Supervisor, we would like to bring that back in May. But we have scheduled community meetings right now in April. We can continue those community meetings because what we're asking you on item three is to approve a score sheet so we can go ahead and have the community meetings first, the score sheet. We wouldn't be scoring people until after that. So we're looking potentially if we can't do it in April to bring the item back in May

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed9:03

Thank you Madam Clerk?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction9:06

Excuse me, Chair Hart and members of the board. I did have one final announcement and members of the public will see at the bottom of their screen we are allowing a call in for public comment today on any item on our agenda or general public comment and the phone number to call and give your name and number to be called when the item is up is area code 805-568-2240 again that's 5 6 8 2 2 4 0 so please give that number a call and give your name and number and the item you'd like to speak on. And we will try and incorporate that into our agenda today, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed9:48

Thank you very much.

The next item is the approval of the administrative agenda do any board members request to pull any items on the administrative agenda? Seeing no one are there members of the public that have requested to pull any items on the administrative agenda?

0:10 – 0:2426 turns

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction10:06

Chair Hart and members of the board, I have no request to speak on the admin agenda today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:10

Okay can I please get a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda? So moved. Motion's been made is there a second? Seconded. Any discussion? Roll call please.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction10:21

Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:23

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction10:23

Mr Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:27

Aye

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction10:27

Ms. Hartman? Aye. Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:31

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction10:32

Motion passes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed10:32

Thank you, now's the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on our agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak on items not in today's agenda?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction10:44

Chair Hart and members of the board, yes we have four requests to speak on our administrative agenda today. We are going to begin in Santa Barbara with Ed Kalaski and then we're going to return to Santa Maria with Andy Caldwell. Ed?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 5Proposed11:04

Thank you. Good morning and there was snow on the mountains. Okay I call my talk today What is the requirement to simply remodel your house? One would think it'd be simple. But must one contribute to the Alex Peugeot Fund in order to get the right to remodel your house? It would seem so, sadly. And how long is this going to persist? You know, we had our corrupt supervisor Janet Wolfe here and Anne Olney both of which retired.

But we now have Alex Peugeot still here. I didn't sign up for this kind of treatment. It's been over six years since I started this project. I didn't ask to get ripped off. This was not my idea. I just wanted the remodel in my house. Something that's done everywhere, very simply. I have friends out of state that do it instantly without hesitation. Why is Alex Peugeot still at the Board of Architectural Review?

Is he there simply to collect a little extra money on the side from contractors? You know, I thought it would be very simple. All you had to do was follow the rules, do what the board requested and we did that. My architect did that. He thought that after four meetings, by the fifth meeting we were a shoo-in. We would have complied with everything they had requested.

But no, Alex kicked us out of the meeting! Wouldn't even let us show our drawings to the other six members. This is the way you run your business? One guy down there decides what he wants and that's a contribution? Why couldn't we even show our drawings to the other six members? We had a for sure show in. It would have been simple, it would have been easy. I wouldn't be here for six years complaining about the corruption downstairs.

Somebody needs to do something about it. He needs to be removed. He couldn't even come up with a legitimate idea to reject us. I don't know if my drawing is showing or not. He ruled that it's solely over the garage. Clearly, it's not solely over the garage. He couldn't even think up something that would make sense. It's nonsense. When we appealed to the PC, they couldn't make sense of it. Nobody could make sense of it This is liberty and justice for all.

This is why we pay our taxes to the Board of Supervisors, to the County of Santa Barbara To be run efficiently and corrupt, is that it? My neighbor got approved in two weeks. He didn't know why. He thought he had a hard time getting it passed. His contractor told him, yeah, it took forever to get past the Board of Architectural Review. No, he must have made a generous contribution. Of course, he didn't know he made a generous contribution. But that's the way life is here in Santa

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:17

Barbara. Thank you for your time. Appreciate that. Your time is up. Thank you.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction14:21

Chair Hart and members of the board now we will return to Santa Maria for Andy Caldwell. Andy?

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated14:29

Before you start that talk, are you still doing the medical one later? Yes. After public comment we're going

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:35

to

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated14:35

go back to the

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed14:35

CEO's report.

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated14:36

I'm Andy Caldwell and I'm representing CoLab. We're really concerned, not so much with some of the normal protocols people should be doing every year about handshakes and sneezing into your sleeve and things like that. But what the San Francisco counties have done is absolutely unprecedented. It's almost a form of martial law where they've told You can only even go to work if you are working in some quote unquote essential industry.

Now I know the Bay Area's got more money than most other parts of the state, but we all know that most people are one paycheck away from being homeless. And even though the governor has said, well we're going to not let anybody be evicted or we're not going to let anybody. We're even going to put the homeless in motels and hotels. All of this stuff's going to cost somebody money. If they have no employees those businesses are shut down and most small businesses have a 3-5% profit margin.

And so I'm sure as heck hoping the rest of the state of California doesn't follow the Bay Area's issue. And I've listened to the presentations here, I have also listened to presentations that were one that was done to Cottage Hospital and the bottom line is this disease is extremely fatal to older people with underlying conditions. But there's a lot of research out there, even some of the research I've heard presented to your board that indicates for the vast majority of people at least 80%. Some people say up to 90%, you're going to have a mild flu like condition or no symptoms at all.

And the question is, to what degree did this flu outbreak? And that's ultimately what it is. It's a viral flu that's respiratory in nature or at least with respiratory complications. Is it worth crashing our economy? All I've heard is panic and induced hysteria versus telling people the vast majority of you this presents no serious health threat. And one of the things I've not heard your board talk about is what does this stock market crash do into your pension?

I'm wondering if you should have an immediate meeting as to whether or not you need to start laying off staff. Because you were barely making it in the booming economy that we've had in the last three to four years. Again, they're crashing our economy people are hoarding there's nothing wrong with our supply chains. There's a lot of reason that leaders should be asking for calm and also be looking at the trends in China.

China's new cases have flatlined, how did that

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed17:41

happen? Thank you. I'm quick we have additional public comment.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction17:47

Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. I just wanted to announce that during this time when we understand that participation in the Board of Supervisors meetings in person is difficult. We are accepting public comment via email to be read into the record and our next public comment is from Teresa Stevens PhD. Dear board members, I am speaking for my family today. We live in Ventura. My husband has worked in the planning and development department and spends most mornings and sometimes whole days at the public counter on the second floor. He's been doing this job for many years because of exposure to the public and sick co-workers he brings illness home and then I get sick. He is over 60 and we both have underlying health conditions from prior bouts with swine flu H1N1 influenza which have had lasting respiratory effects and familiar heart disease.

As you know, none of the staff who work at the second floor planning development or building and safety counters work behind a screen of any kind. These staff are breathed on, sneezed and coughed on, share ballpoint pens and pencils and touch all sorts of things when the public comes in to submit plans and write those big checks to the county for their permits. Moreover, the droplets go the other way when staff are sick. In my opinion there is an appalling lack of management support for staff when staff are sick and they have to stay home. I've also recently learned that only five or so laptop computers exist for the entire P&D staff, but the managers all have one. My husband has also mentioned that county management would not accept staff wearing masks at the public counter.

Is this true? By the way if someone is coughing on me a mask will protect me unless a drop of lands in my eyes. Please avoid a repeat of the Thomas fire and mudslides, wherein county management insisted all staff come to work even through all roads from Ventura were closed. And those staff couldn't get there. The Thomas fire mud slide demands placed on staff force most if not all Ventura based staff to use vacation time or sick time while not sick or vacation time. While managers are staying home in more than comfort with their laptops and paid full salary or given administrative time, including those managers who live in Ventura. Therefore, in light of this current pandemic and to protect the staff and the public I request you take immediate action as follows.

One draft and bid out immediate construction contract install barriers Like those at the banks, at the P&D and B&S and other public counters to prevent spewed droplets from covering the staff and our public. A good contractor should be able to install such a thing in a week or less. To provide ample supplies of non-latex gloves N95 masks protective eyewear alcohol based hand sanitizer tissues and soap and water At the public counters throughout all county buildings and encourage staff to wear use everything staff should also be given Wide latitude to break from public counter duties to hand wash anytime they feel it necessary. Three, provide alcohol-based spritzer or bleached wipes for staff to use on keyboards, computer monitors, computers, computer mice, phones, counters, or surfaces.

Can be cleaned immediately if a sick staff member or member of the public contaminates the area. Four, install cleaning checklists at the front door 5. Require all sick staff to go home immediately and advance them sick time leave immediately, clean with bleach or alcohol after they go. Better yet, give six staff administrations paid time off until they are well enough to return. Six, pass an immediate ordinance to promise to pay for coronavirus testing that may be required of staff who become infected or their family members. Seven, strike a deal with the county's health insurance providers to eliminate cost-sharing COVID-19 treatment for affected staff and their families if under the same health plan to eliminate financial burden. Eight, purchase and make available laptop computers in case staff need to work from home.

Better yet, enter the 21st century and swap out box computers for laptops for all staff this fiscal year and ramp up VPN connections. Nine, finally if you refuse to do one through eight close all public counters until peak transmission subsides.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed21:29

Thank you Ms. Stevens if you're watching. Thank you Jacqueline for- Mr Chair? Yes, Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed21:37

I just thought it would be, this would be a good time to announce that the public counter planning and development is closed as of 8 AM this morning. The P&D director sent out notice yesterday afternoon. They've established a drop box at reception so that they can keep on accepting paper materials and applications. And they can also receive plans via email and via the county's box account And provide comments and corrections electronically on building and safety submittals.

And in a more limited manner on planning submittals, so they can do appointments via telephone go to meeting or Skype. So the employee's spouse that made public comment obviously this is a concern of the department since Closing the public counter for two weeks.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed22:37

Thank you, Supervisor Williams. We have some additional public comment here?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction22:41

Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board I did just receive an additional public comment for general public comment from Lee Heller and I will read that now. Chair Hart and members of the board, I urge the Board to direct the Public Health Officer to mandate the closure of all restaurants other than for delivery or takeout in addition to mandatory closures of all bars, wineries and other gathering places. There seems to be a notion that we should wait until the number of identified cases is high enough to justify such closures.

But we have had so little access to testing that there is certainty that we have many more cases that have been identified. By the time those cases are confirmed, the spread of disease will be even greater. The whole point is to prevent greater spread, to protect our vulnerable community members and flatten the curve so that our healthcare system can manage the load when it does arrive. We owe this to our health care providers and first responders. We can do better than Governor Newsom's guidance by making this mandatory, but we need the Public Health Department to make this finding so that the cities can take action. Mr. Colwell is misrepresenting the health impacts of this virus. He clearly is not licensed to the Cottage Health presentation on COVID-19 from March 12th Even mild infection may involve serious symptoms and it's not just the elderly that are at risk.

As Italy's experience makes clear, people in their 40s and 50s have been seriously affected as well. The state and federal government are providing financial support to workers affected by closures. This morning's presidential press conference confirmed this. The economic costs will come one way or another. Thank you

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed24:14

Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Hiller. Now we'll go back to the CEO's report. Ms. Miyasato could you begin the

0:24 – 0:397 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed24:21

presentation? Thank you Chair Hart and Supervisors. So in Santa Barbara today we have Dr. DiRenoso here with her team to give an update but here in Santa Maria we also have the CEO of Cottage, I'm sorry, of Marion or Dignity Hospital Sue Anderson And I'm not sure, Dr. DeRinosa how you'd like to handle this? Maybe you can go first and then Ms. Anderson can give an update as to what her organization is doing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed24:48

Great. I'd like to give the board a few updates. First of all, I know that you had a preview of the website and I want to give you an update that it is fully launched and is containing key information and updated on a regular basis providing information such as the number of tests The number of and links to all the latest guidance from the federal government as well as the state government.

So specifically, if you were to go to publichealthsbc.org under the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department daily status, you will see that as of yesterday March 16th we have 128 tests collectively done in our county with 31 negatives and 96 pending, and one positive. And I'd like to also give a current status report late last night around in the evening 1030 ish we received notice that we have a second confirmed case Staff at that late hour went out and began their investigations. So around 6 o'clock this morning, we have some brief details. It is a person in the 50 age range and it is not a From our first blush, it does not look like a community transmission but a close contact transmission with unknown case in San Luis Obispo.

I shared yesterday at the press conference that we as a community have convened a work group to really look at with the limited available of testing, how can all, we all, the healthcare providers be on the same page in terms of criteria for testing. And with that, I'd like to invite Paige Batson our Deputy Director of Community Health to talk about that joint document.

Good

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed27:18

morning, thank you for having us here today. So in an effort to meet the demand of the community for testing we collaborated with our health care partners with public health department over the weekend with Cottage Health, Lompoc Valley Medical Center, Sansum Clinic, Santa Barbara Neighborhood Clinics and Dignity Health To come up with a strategy on how do we prioritize or triage for testing.

Because the goal here is to try to identify those that are truly candidates for testing, so do they have symptoms? Are they in a high risk category? So that was our attempt to make that happen. And so the end result of that is we arrived at a triage tool that will be used by our healthcare community to screen individuals, to determine if they need testing and this test will be administered by a licensed healthcare provider.

In addition, Collectively determined what we would do when we have all of these individuals that do require testing, but how we would prioritize their testing. So the group came up with a tiered approach and that tiered approach really would allow for individuals who are hospitalized or severely ill or healthcare workers or individuals living in congregate settings.

Health care partners would look work with the public health department to find a mechanism to prioritize that testing. I need to say that there is sufficient testing available in Santa Barbara County, we have sufficient testing kits. We have multiple labs coming on board, commercial labs including the public health labs, Ventura and San Luis Obispo as well as the state lab to help us prioritize and process testing. So we're happy for that but there is still a need for us to continue to prioritize our testing resources.

Additionally, I just want to emphasize that on March 5th the Department of Managed Healthcare directed full service commercial and Medi-Cal plans to waive cost sharing. So what that means again is that individuals who have insurance or Medi-Cal they should not endure any cost sharing in order to have COVID 19 testing services provided to them. So with that, I'll pass it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed29:56

back to Pond. So we acknowledge that with stories in the media that our community is worried and wants to know about the availability of testing so you have a preview what I'm about to share So this morning we plan to disseminate information to our community about testing and home care information. And so I'll briefly gloss over or highlight what's in that document that will be widely distributed to our community. So essentially, this is again a recap but in more daily language for our public.

And this document was created jointly by the same group of people that Paige just shared. So even though we anticipate more availability of tests in the coming week to assure vulnerable patients and those most at risk will receive testing, we are asking the public to assist us with thinking through some questions so asking do you have a fever I'm And should not go to any healthcare facility to ask for testing at this time. We're asking that all community members follow these instructions so that again, we can reserve the most, we can protect the most vulnerable residents in our communities so that they can be tested, so that they can get the care that they need.

We also included in our guidance that information about Technology, my computer just froze and this is why you need hard copy when you have something. So with those questions, we also are building the capacity of our residents to further think through the questions. So if any of the above questions are yes, we want to alert our community members that contact your health care provider and let them know that you may be a candidate for testing and give the community a heads up that the provider will further triage by asking questions such as Are you 60 years or older? Have you traveled to one of the affected areas? Have you come close contact with someone who has COVID-19? Do you have lung disease? Do you have medical condition like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer?

Do you have a condition that lowers your immunity? Do work with healthcare or residential care facility? So these are all the questions that dialogue. That will go on between the patient and the provider so that there could be a ruling out for other sources of illness prior to testing. In our document to the community, we also cover testing what to anticipate and a really detailed list of home care while the community member is homesick or recovering.

So with that, that concludes our update and we are open for any questions.

not transcribed≈16s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed33:34

We also have additional, we have Ms. Anderson from Marion Hospital here in Santa Maria. Welcome Ms. Anderson, thank you for being here.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed33:43

Thank you, hi. Yes, Sue Anderson, President at Marion Regional Medical Center. I also brought with me Dr. Kevin Ferguson. He's a pathologist and the head of our lab services at the hospital and works throughout both counties, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara. And he's been on the task force that was set up quickly over the weekend with the county to Get lab testing criteria set up. One of the things I just a comment, I ran into one of my nurses the other day and I said hey how's it going? And she said one of our directors and she said you know what this is what we were trained for. We're ready and another nurse up on the floor.

Said to me a day ago said, you know I everything in the world around me my kids are home. Everything seems so out of source but I come to the hospital and it's business as usual we're taking care of people like we always have and always will. You know, I mean it's not we take care of people with infectious diseases all the time. Some of the questions I thought people might have, our supply chain is good right now. We have what we need. We have enough masks. We have enough equipment and supplies.

Corporate structure, and we've been in close contact with them on a daily basis. And they've assured us that we have supply chain to get us the masks we need, the scrubs we need, everything else that we need. We have limited visitor access to the hospital. We put in, and that's a daily kind of updated type of thing but we are limiting patient visitors. We are preparing for a surge in census if that were to happen. We have adequate number of beds. And as I said, in supplies right now so we're in good shape. We're also though CDPH is coming out the Department of Public Health.

We're working with them today actually to do it over WebEx I think where they will sign off on a couple of expanded areas we have where we plan to do additional testing so that it doesn't clog up our emergency department. One of the biggest issues we've had is the lab testing. It's taking considerable amount of hours to get any results back and days to get results back. In the meantime, people don't know what their situation is and for that I'd like to turn it over to Dr. Ferguson because he can talk a lot better about the testing.

CommentKevin FergusonProposedself-stated36:25

Again, my name is Kevin Ferguson. I'm the medical director at Marion Regional Medical Center and also Royal Grande Community Hospital and French Hospital Medical Center. So I would echo what my colleagues had said but I would amplify or really clarify the testing situation There is no local testing for COVID-19 in Santa Barbara County. We are relying on the Public Health Department in San Luis Obispo County and the Public Health Department in Ventura County to test our most vulnerable patients and our most at risk patients, and they've been gracious to do so. But their ability to test Santa Barbara County patients is limited. And we've been told that we have to go to the private sector to get the bulk of our testing done. The big commercial labs that are doing this testing that you've heard about in the news, Quest and LabCorp are the two biggest.

They appear to have a turnaround time of three to five days depending on the case. Our other reference laboratory Arup in Utah stopped accepting cases because they were overloaded with the number of cases. So we're in a very tricky time period now for the next, I would say two to three weeks as the commercial labs ramp up capacity. And as the local labs start to get the release of what were called FDA emergency release kits that we can run on our local platforms. We're hoping to get those in the next two to three weeks but it's really a day by day situation as those tests are manufactured that could be run locally. So right now, we really are relying heavily on large contract labs that are outside of our area. And so the testing is therefore not completely in our control.

The other rate limiting resource that we have is a number of actual nasal pharyngeal swabs that we use, we use those to collect the specimens. Those are in somewhat short supply. We do have enough to take care of our hospitalized patients and we have algorithms in place I know my colleagues in Santa Barbara talked about. The scoring tiering system, which is in use and it's very good. We have an additional step at Marion Regional Medical Centers where we make sure that the testing that is referred to our local public health departments in Slough and Ventura County are the highest priority cases. So we are judiciously guarding that resource. We would like to open up more testing for the community but right now we don't have a capacity so I do think that we should at some point report back to this group.

I don't know if there's going to be a task force set up or anything like that, so we can talk about how we can generate a larger sort of coordinated effort along with our colleagues down in Santa Barbara City for more widespread testing when that becomes available. But right now, we're asking that if you don't have a fever and respiratory symptoms, that you don't seek testing.

Encourage to talk to your healthcare provider if you have anything else going on. But really, we are most interested in testing our most vulnerable populations people over 60 that are symptomatic that have fever over 100.4 and respiratory symptoms. That's our target population right now.

0:39 – 0:4915 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed39:27

So as you can see, testing that's our biggest concern right now. And the turnaround time is like we said days so it's really not a good situation on the testing side.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed39:41

Thank you Ms. Anderson and Dr. Ferguson. We appreciate you both being here and helping us understand the situation particularly here in Santa Maria. Supervisor

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed39:52

Lavenito. Thank you, Mr Chair. I'm just curious what direction you would give to somebody? What's the protocol? Do they just go to the ER or should they give advance notice so that they don't come in and expose everybody in the emergency room? How should somebody present themselves for a test?

CommentKevin FergusonProposedself-stated40:09

So in this, and particularly in this situation, communication is key. So advanced notice is great. A lot of providers have been very good about doing telephone consultations. It's nice if we can get some information over the phone. And then sometimes we have directed patients who are symptomatic or vulnerable or at risk to our emergency rooms in the area. We have done that. Sometimes we're able to swab patients in our outpatient settings In our urgent care centers, that's been one thing that we've done. We've even swapped patients in their car like you see and that is to protect our healthcare providers and make sure they have the proper protective gear can collect the sample get the information that we need in expedite testing. So communication is key I will call first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed40:51

Right? And also just so you know we are screening people as they come into the emergency department lobby and masking them if they're exhibiting symptoms and all to protect our providers and our caregivers.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed41:07

Are there questions in Santa Barbara? Supervisor Williams.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed41:18

I'll let our public health director first, she had a comment first.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed41:28

Hi, I just want to clarify the comment that Dr. Ferguson just made. So yes we send our tests to Ventura and to Sloan but that has not slowed the turnaround time for critical cases in addition to that we are In a partnership with a private lab, and we anticipate that within two weeks the public health department can also run our local tests for critical cases.

And Ms. Batson has some additional information.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed42:09

Another key player for us in the testing arena is the viral and rickettsial disease lab, which is at the California Department of Public Health. They are ramped up to test seven days a week and we have the ability and have had the ability to prioritize testing seven days a week to get it to them. And they have a much quicker turnaround time and that's at least a day sometimes You may go into day two, but overall we have at this time the capacity to prioritize testing and submit to them. So this situation as we've all said is rapidly evolving and we anticipate that expanded testing will occur by also including our lab in the mix. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed42:55

Thank you Dr. Dorenoso and Ms. Batson, Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed43:01

So I had a couple questions. One is, my understanding is that you formulated this new protocol on testing to make it more clear for doctors whether they should test or not and if You know, I looked at it as a very clear point system. You either meet the criteria or you don't and so I think that is a reason that the public should be more reassured that we will be number one testing more people but still conserving resources for the ones that need to test the most. That is the object of the protocol correct?

And then I think the other question is, are we doing enough to force social distancing in places where people gather? Meaning if advice from the state and federal government is that we shouldn't be having In general, more than 10 people. Thankfully even in this big room we're only about 10 people so I guess we're meeting that criteria. Is there a way to make that happen in a more uniform and accountable manner?

Closing down some types of businesses or should we be, I was trying to think of what else besides closing down certain types of businesses could be productive in this manner. Should we be enforcing a dramatically reduced capacity for people in a given building or room? Every room and building has a capacity and We were putting that into a fifth or a fourth of the capacity if that would be better to reduce the amount of contacts that people have. And then I just wanted to ask Paige to repeat the information that you did last night at the press conference about how the disease is actually transferred because I think people don't understand that well, that it's transferred by droplets.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed45:39

So I'll let Ron speak to the first part of your question and then.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed45:43

Okay, Supervisor Williams through the chair. Those are great questions that you pose with the governor's recent guidance for seniors or older adults age 65 and older to be self-isolation and the closure of bars and reduction of restaurants by 50%, but as of last night is total So those are guidances that we as a public health department are grappling with and so it's top of our agenda today for our policy group of experts. We will be weighing We will be looking at what the Bay Area counties are doing in terms of enhanced community quarantine is the term, and what LA County is doing in terms of reduction of enforcing social distancing I believe for less than 50 folks in one room. So those are all The local jurisdictions are doing that we will be reviewing and debating today.

And we will definitely come back to the board for guidance once we land on several recommendations,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed47:01

Paige? Just as a follow up I would just urge you to take some additional mandatory measures whether that's certain businesses or whether that's a ratio And I know you need to balance it with the fact that if you purposely tank the economy, people will suffer and some people will perish from that as well. So I'm not urging a total shutdown of the economy but I am urging stronger mandatory steps.

not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed47:40

Supervisor Williams, in answer to your second question on how the virus is transmitted. So if we think back to the principles of social distancing, we want to slow the progression of the virus getting transmitted to other people. We need to consider that Why social distancing would work in this case is because the coronavirus is spread via droplet. And what that means is that the drop, the virus, the particles are much more they're heavier than those particles of measles or tuberculosis and so what that means is that it would only when someone coughs sneezes It would not travel any more than three feet So it would fall on the surface if somebody coughed and sneezed. And so if somebody is six feet away, they would not be able to inhale the virus or of the particle, the droplet in essence, if someone coughed.

That doesn't mean so that's why social distancing works but in concert with social distancing we also have to emphasize environmental cleaning and sanitation because as I mentioned, And the droplet falls on a table in the right condition. That virus can remain on a surface anywhere from a few hours to a few days, hence why it's so important to wipe down surfaces and also hand washing. Handwashing cannot be overstated enough because as individuals touch those infected surfaces or contaminated surfaces then they proceed to touch their eyes nose and mouth and this virus lives in mucous membranes and that's how persons become infected.

0:49 – 0:5512 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:23

Supervisor Hart,

CommentDiane PenceProposed49:24

may I? Thank you. I just wanted to second what Supervisor Williams has said about considering additional measures and ask you to look at San Diego County as

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed49:34

well. Supervisor Lavinia, do you have a question?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed49:42

Not so much a question as just an observation. First of all, I think it's probably a good time for us to thank all the healthcare workers and especially our county employee. All of our, everybody in healthcare but yeah I will say especially our county employees. I mean, I guess that's who I'm representing so and I just, I know that there have been long hours not just folks in public health but others in our CEO's office, County Council's office.

Put in many hours on this, and so I want to say thank you. And I think the other part of this that I want to stress also is I know elected officials have been asked many times on social media about what my direction is or what my opinion is. This is a really good time for us to make sure that all decisions are made by those that are qualified to do so. And so when we might have individual concerns, we might have individual biases or preferences.

I think the wise decision at a time like this is to make sure Folks that are qualified public health officials, those who are in the public health arena to be making the decisions that affect us. And so I for one will be lining up behind those folks with those qualifications and urge calm and just a level head while we continue to follow the path that our public health professionals lay out for us. So that's my comment.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed51:16

Thank you, Supervisor Lavinino. I had a couple questions for Dr. Del Rinoso. I want to congratulate you on the collaboration that you have developed with all the medical partners in creating the testing protocol and I know that's been significant work bringing everybody together and getting everyone on the same page. And I am curious about the expert policy group that you mentioned, that's helping the public health department make decisions about additional interventions. Is that the same group as the collaboration or is that a different group of people? Could you tell me more about that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed51:54

Yes, so our policy group consists of... So there's several concentric circles. So my policy group consists of my health officers. I have two and Ms. Batson, our emergency preparedness, our county council, our chief financial officer, Our EMS Director, did I mention County Council? Yes. County Council CEO's office and that's rattling at the top of my head. And in addition to that we are in lockstep with our CDPH colleagues. Dr. Ansork as Health Officer is guided by the CCLHO group which are state and I am guided by my colleagues So we're making this, these decisions with support and with other experts around the state weighing in and as our sounding board.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed53:02

Thank you. And are there strategies that we are implementing to reach out to people who are experiencing homelessness to help prevent the spread of coronavirus in that community?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed53:15

Yes. So in our department operations center, we have a unit looking at just homelessness and in addition to that I believe that the EOC has stand up a homelessness group as well to look at how can we best support our shelters and our staff out in the trenches supporting the homeless community?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed53:40

So we are communicating the urgency and the need to do social distancing in the Freedom Warning Centers and additional shelters throughout the communities.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed53:50

We are, Chair. And actually Terry Nesich is there if you could say a few words about that?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 9Proposed54:05

Good morning Chair, members of the board. I'm not sure if you can see me or not but yes we have convened a group early on which consists of our Community Services Department as well as Behavioral Wellness with our homeless service providers to get them out additional guidance. We have been receiving a number of questions from them as well and that is what Dr. Dobernoso spoke to working directly with the homeless group within her department operation center To get them additional guidance and we are actually working on that today.

In addition, we have deployed 12 wash stations for hand washing to make sure that everyone has that availability out into the community. I believe we have a release going out today which actually lists those locations and we're working to get additional stations out into the community as well. More to follow today, but we are in direct conversation with our community providers and working very closely with them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed55:05

Thank you for that information. Is there additional efforts that are going on to protect people who are in the jail?

0:55 – 1:0613 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 7Proposed55:18

Yes, we have been working very closely with jail personnel to address any exposures, disinfecting of surfaces etc. So we have maintained a very close collaboration with them as we have in the past for other infectious diseases.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed55:36

Thank you very much for that too. Are there any additional questions from any of my colleagues? We have public comment here I think it's Santa Maria and clerk.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction55:47

Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. We have one request to speak on the CEO report today and that's Andy Caldwell. Andy?

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated55:59

Chair Hart, members of the board, nothing I'm going to say is meant to undermine the mortal threats especially to the older people with underlying conditions but One of the things, I watched Dr. Fitzgibbon's presentation at Cottage Hospital. She's an infectious disease expert and one of the things she described is that the Diamond Prince's boat was a bucket.

And that there could be lessons learned from that, because it was basically an enclosed community. And as we all know or believe this disease can actually infect people or incubate in people for upwards of a week before anybody knows they had it. Well so I've been reading the stats on this. There was 3,700 people on board. 17% or 634 people had the virus and seven people died, all of them elderly.

And it's been estimated that if you looked at that as a bucket or as an enclosed community, the true fatality rate would have been 0.5. But the bottom line is over 3,000 people experienced nothing And again, what I'm concerned about is the panic in the community. And I'm also worried about us going from an abundance of caution to overkill. Where is the plan if the government shuts down businesses? Where's the plan to help those people buy food?

By medicine. Sure, Governor Newsom can say we're going to make sure nobody gets evicted for failure to pay rent and I don't know how that does with the people that own those properties as far as what's the plan for their recovery bit. Most people again are one paycheck away from having nothing. So before Doss Williams or the Bay Area, or anybody else starts saying we're going to go over abundance of caution. Unemployment is not the same thing as a paycheck.

It's a fraction of a paycheck. What is your plan to help people that are one paycheck away if we do this for two weeks, six weeks, or eight weeks? Before you start pulling triggers out of an abundance of caution. The bottom line, the other question I have is that 80 plus percent of the people that did have it with mild or no symptoms at all are they now immune?

Do they have a natural immunity right now? And again should that be a message that's being sent out there? Like I said, I feel like there's been too much panic in our community which is leading to hoarding. And that is with people with the supply chain and before an economic crash. You could literally start inducing rioting by cutting people off from their work and their monetary supply to buy basics.

And I think you need to take due caution that the panic response isn't turned out to be worse than the virus. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed59:35

you, Mr. Caldwell. Is there anything else Ms. Anderson or Dr. Ferguson would like to add?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 8Proposed59:42

No, thank you unless you have any other questions.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed59:45

Thank you and thank you for being here to help spread the word. I appreciate you being here to provide professional information. Mr. Caldwell talked about panic, I don't think anybody's panicking. Everybody is engaged and fully committed as you described. You are executing the plans that you have developed over many years. And your people are trained to do, same thing is happening in South County. The Public Health Department is actively working the plan that they have been developing for many, many years and doing the work that they have been trained their entire careers to do. There isn't a sense of panic. There certainly is anxiety in the community. All of us feel that.

People internalize that in different ways. One of the most important things I think is opportunities like this to get out the information to So I want to remind people that the Public Health Department has a website that has a lot of information. It's very well vetted and it can be found at publichealthsbc.org, that's publichealthsdbc dot org. We also have a call center where people can call in and get information directly from public health department. That number is 833.

688-5551, there is a lot of information that is circulating on the internet of varying quality. There was some emails that went out mass distribution lists over the weekend that turned out to be hoaxes so people should be very careful about where they get information about what to do but fundamentally the message is still very simple if you are feeling symptoms stay home.

If you are older, please stay home. Wash your hands regularly and disinfect surfaces regularly and practice good public health social distancing hygiene. That is the best tools that we have available to stop the spread of this virus and return things as quickly as will be possible from effectively doing that. All the public health professionals are saying the same thing in these briefings, and it's up to us to act on that advice. So thank you all for being here. If there aren't any other questions from my colleagues, Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:02:01

There is just one more because I think this was mentioned by the head doc at Marion is that we don't have In county testing resources, but we have it's been expensive of course. But we have maintained a partially capable testing lab and in my understanding is that the goal is to try to get that back up so that we can expand our testing resources. Is it not?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 6Proposed1:02:31

So it's actually a partnership with the private lab. We have the machines and they have the staff, so it's really a public-private partnership and we're anticipating it'll take about two weeks and then we will connect with the state for those lab kits.

CommentKevin FergusonProposedself-stated1:02:53

And again to clarify that should be reassuring? Yeah, it is reassuring. That's what I talked about. I said we're in a one-two week Kind of tricky period here and that we anticipate there's going to be much greater capacity, not just locally but also in the commercial laboratories. The FDA has rapidly approved a variety of platforms for this testing. So this is gonna look very, it's gonna be very different situation in the next three or four weeks. But we just need to really restrict testing in this immediate period. And so that was what my comment had to do with right now.

In county, we're not able to test very many patients. We have gotten great support from our partners in San Luis Obispo County and Ventura County. The sickest patients, the most vulnerable patients, we are able to get those test results back within 24 hours but we have only a limited number of spots on those runs so that's why we have to guard it so judiciously. So for the next couple of weeks, that's where we really need everyone to stay calm. I like that statement. If you're sick, stay home. And if you are symptomatic, if you do have fever and respiratory symptoms, call your doctor. We do have folks in emergency departments that are ready to take care of you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:04:03

Thank you Dr. Ferguson for that additional information. One thing Supervisor Adam asked me to relay to the larger community. Unfortunately he's not able to be here himself but as a large farmer, he is in the process of delivering the food that we eat. And he is hoping that agricultural employees who are well and healthy can continue to work. They're a critical part of the food supply chain, and I know that he intends to be practicing social distancing at his businesses to make sure that everybody is safe who's doing that work. But having those folks continue to be available to get the product Critical supply chain that we rely on to so he did want me to mention that specifically All right. Is there anything else than anybody would like to add before?

We go to the

CommentDiane PenceProposed1:04:58

next Have a question Thank you We my question broadly is how is this affecting County departments and county services? We heard about the Window at planning and development we can see all the seat unavailable. We are practicing social distancing But what else is the county itself doing or will we have a website that people can consult to see changes in our policies?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:05:31

Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. This is Mona here. So the departments have started to implement their continuity of operations plan meaning they are continuing to provide essential services. And we asked them to do it in a safe manner for the public and their employees, and for non-essential services to look at alternative ways of providing them. So we talked about what the planning department is doing by having them drop areas for plans and taking appointments over the phone etc. Public works is doing the same many of our departments are doing that. We are not in the same situation as the Bay Area counties, so again there is no shelter-in-place here. We're following the lead of our public health department but departments have started to look at other ways of providing service and we are just recently I asked departments to provide me a list of how they're providing services Differently and we'll get that out soon.

As you know, even today's meeting the clerk of the board We posted different ways of contributing to the meeting and we asked our departments not to attend unless they Were essential members to provide input to the board so we are looking at different ways right now And that will just accelerate in the next few days

1:06 – 1:201 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:06:44

Thank you, I think this concludes this item. Thank you Dr. Vonda Donoso and Ms. Batson and Mr. Ferguson and Ms Anderson. Thank you both for coming and everyone providing this information. I think it's been very helpful to the public. Thank you. Let's take a ten minute break and then we'll come back for the departmental agenda. We are ready to go and reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting. Madam Clerk, did you have an announcement?

1:20 – 1:2528 turns

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:20:24

Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board before we continue with our agenda today if we can get two separate motions first on departmental item number two. We did receive a continuance to request for continuance on this item and that is again from the county executive office it is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on cannabis compliance enforcement and taxation second quarter fiscal year 1920 And if we can get a motion to continue that item to next week's agenda, March 24th on the administrative agenda.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:20:58

Can we please get a motion? I'll make that motion. Thank you, Supervisor Lavenino. Is there a second?

CommentDiane PenceProposed1:21:06

Just a question, do we need public comment on that?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:21:11

Chair Hart and members of the board, we can request to ask any members of the public who are here to speak on the continuance itself.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:21:21

Is there anyone in either Santa Maria or Santa Barbara who would like to speak on the continuence of these items? Seeing no one up here in San Maria. Okay, the motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor with a roll call,

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:21:38

please- Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:21:40

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:21:40

Mr. Williams?

CommentDiane PenceProposed1:21:43

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:21:43

Ms Hartman?

CommentDiane PenceProposed1:21:46

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:21:46

Chair Hart? Aye. Motion passes and additionally chair Hart and members of the board if we can get a motion to withdraw departmental item number three from the county executive office this is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding storefront retail cannabis selection procedures within the unincorporated areas of Santa Barbara County and this will return to the board at a later date

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:09

Is there any public comments on this item? Anyone here in Santa Maria that would like to speak on this item about a continuance. Anyone in Santa Barbara? Okay, can I have a motion to continue this item? I'll make the motion to continue the item. Motion's been made and seconded. Roll call please.

CommentAnd Chair HartProposedself-stated1:22:29

And Chair Hart, members of the board just for clarification, this is a motion to withdraw this item. It will return at a later date.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:35

Thank

PresenterAndy CaldwellCoLabProposedself-stated1:22:35

you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:39

Aye.

CommentAnd Chair HartProposedself-stated1:22:39

Mr Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:42

Aye.

CommentAnd Chair HartProposedself-stated1:22:43

Ms Hartman? Aye. Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:46

Aye

CommentAnd Chair HartProposedself-stated1:22:46

Motion passes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:22:47

Thank you and we have some additional ways that folks can make public comments to our meeting today We are having folks send emails if they would like, and we will read those emails into the record I believe on the TV screen there is an email address there posted And we also have a number that can be called or we are calling in. Madam Clerk, would you describe how we're adding additional opportunities for public comment today?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:23:18

Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. We have added additional opportunities for members of the public to participate in our meeting as we understand it is difficult for some members of our community to leave their homes during this time and as you'll see there is a scrolling reminder to members of the public to call into the Clerk of the Board's office at area code 805 568-2240. Again, that's 568-2240 and if you'd like to make public comment you can leave your name number and which item you'd like to speak on and we will call you at the appropriate time You can also submit public comment letters to be read into the record or not. Please clarify that when you are emailing the clerk of the board, and that is at sbcob at countyofsb.org, and that is the clerk of the board's email address.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:24:15

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. Gazzone, the governor has issued additional orders regarding Brown Act compliance with local governments. Could you help explain what that means for our operations?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction1:24:28

Chair and Supervisors, one of the executive orders from Governor Newsom was Executive Order N2520 on March 12th. And concerning the Brown Act it went to clarify and expand the ability of local governments such as the County of Santa Barbara to hold meetings by teleconferencing And to make those meetings accessible by phone or otherwise. Essentially, it removes the requirement for the physical presence of supervisors, CEO, clerk of the board, or even members of the public and provides and encourages alternate ways to participate which is some of the things that your clerk of the board just described.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:25:08

Thank you Mr. Gasani.

The next item on the agenda is departmental item number one. Will the clerk please read this item into the record?

1:25 – 1:324 turns

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:25:16

Chair Hart, members of the board, departmental item number one is from general services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Northern Branch Jail NBJ construction costs, contingencies and funding requirements and this is in the third districts. And I would also like to remind the board that there's a four-fifths vote required on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:25:36

Thank you very much. Ms. Pell, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 10Proposed1:25:39

Good morning Chair Hart and members of the board. Today I'm joined with Skip Gray. He's joined me today and he's going to provide an update to the board on the Northern Branch Jail construction thus far.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 11Proposed1:25:54

Thank you, Mr. Gray. Chair Hart and members of the board, thank you very much. I'm going to start out with a brief project history for the Northern Branch Jail. Way back in 2008, the county secured a conditional AB 900 phase one award from the state of California. That award would have reimbursed the county up to 56.295 million towards the construction of the jail.

The phase one reimbursement was limited to 75% of eligible expenses for construction of what at that time was a 304 bed facility. In October of 2011, the Corrections Standards Authority announced Phase 2 to the AB 900 Jail Construction Financing Program. And that increased the percentage of the project that is paid from state conditional awards from 75% in Phase 1 to 90% in Phase 2.

So the county applied for that phase two funding and relinquished the $56 million AB 900 Phase 1 award in order to apply for it. And that was for a conditional award of $80 million, and increased the scope of the project to 367 bids. Excuse me, beds. In January of 2013, the Board of Supervisors entered into a jail construction agreement with BSCC, the Board of State and Community Corrections for that AB 900 phase two project. And again, that provided $80 million towards the cost of the project.

In April of 2016 the bids for construction of the jail, both the site improvements and the construction were opened. And both of those bid packages unfortunately were significantly exceeded the engineer's estimates by a significant amount. The construction contract was about 17% above the engineer's estimates So overall, the project budget had to be increased from $96.1 million to $110.8 million with at that time a 3.6% contingency. In June 21st of 2016, the board approved a $110.8 million project budget with a target completion date of September 2018.

And today the project is approximately 98% complete. The current estimated substantial completion date is now sometime in June and projected occupancy in September of 2020. See from the pictures that we're almost there, getting closer. It's looking pretty good on the inside. So we've had a number of issues, which is why we're in part. We're here today In addition to give you this update project has experienced delays for several reasons a number of them one of which in June of 2019 Rosser International the principal architect and engineering design consultant for the project ceased operations and they left the job before their end of their contract So we scrambled, and minimal interruption actually in architectural services occurred. We were able to get another architect on board fairly quickly but there have been delays and added costs as a result of Rosser leaving the project In addition, the earthwork subcontractor very early in the job refused to execute a subcontract with SJ Amoroso Construction, our prime contractor after it was awarded.

And that caused some delay as we struggled to get another earthwork contractor. There has been inclement weather that impacted the critical path construction sequencing. The contractor has struggled a bit with the coordination of the work. And there have been a number of material procurement delays and numerous design changes necessitated by either design errors and omissions or regulatory agency compliance, BSEC and the state fire marshal.

So there is a need for additional contingency funding. There are numerous change orders and contract extensions have resulted in the need for this additional contingency. The final total costs of the project are now estimated to increase from the original amount of $110.8 million, to a total ranging between $119 and $121 million. We have an immediate need of $5 million in additional contingency for this fiscal year And additional project funding request will be made in the upcoming fiscal year 2021 budget process.

So today we're asking that you receive this update from staff on the progress of the jail project. We ask that you approve the attached BRR's budget revision request to increase appropriations within the general fund and authorize funding in the amount of $5 million from the jails operating fund, to address the anticipated funding requirements this fiscal year for the project.

We'd also ask that you reauthorize the general services director or her designee to approve additional change orders to the county's contract with Amoroso for a contingency amount up to five million dollars bringing the total project authorization for change orders to 10.4 million and as always we ask that you find this project is exempt from CEQA and We would ask that you ignore the last page of the presentation which wasn't supposed to be there

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

1:32 – 1:3625 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:32:09

Thank you, Mr. Gray. Are there questions of staff? Supervisor Lavenino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:32:14

Thank you and I think this one's for Mr. Gazzone. So we did require this architectural firm to part of the contract I believe was with them to provide insurance. Can you just kind of talk about what our chances of backfilling this $5 million is?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction1:32:37

Chair and supervisors, so in the board agenda letter we provided a summary of the discussion at our recommendation. The Board of Supervisors directed litigation against Rosser and that is the tool in which to bring in Rosser's errors and omissions policies that exceed $5 million. I would say that a case where we have both design errors and a walk away, I am confident that we will be seeing if not all, a large chunk of the money that we're talking about today come back to us through the litigation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:33:14

Okay, so it's my understanding that we wouldn't see that money in this fiscal year. So this is more kind of moving the money from one fund to the other and then hopefully backfilling this with our litigation once litigation is complete. That's accurate. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:33:30

Any other questions from Santa Barbara? Supervisor Hartman?

CommentDiane PenceProposed1:33:37

Thank you, Chair Hart. What are the implications of taking this out of our operating fund if we open in September?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed1:33:50

This is Mona. Is Mr. Frapwell there in the audience?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 12Proposed1:34:01

Supervisor Hartman to the chair. There are funds, sufficient funds in the operating fund to essentially loan these monies toward the project As Mr. Cozzone mentioned, we do expect to receive that back and so this is really a timing issue. There is a possibility if the county's not successful in getting reimbursement from the Arizona Mission Insurance from Rosser that we may have to extend The operating plan funding for up to additional two years. I don't expect that to be the case, I do expect that there will be sufficient monies coming back to replenish the fund.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:34:50

Any other questions from Santa Barbara? Are there any requests to speak from members of the public? Yes, Madam Clerk.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:34:59

Chair Hart and members of the board we have no requests to speak on this item.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:35:02

Okay thank you and there are no requests from folks in Santa Barbara? Okay well thank you then. You know obviously it's less than ideal when a project goes over budget but in the context of the size and scale and complexity of this project and particularly in light of the complexities And uncertainties of having the architect leave the project. I think it's actually pretty remarkable that the cost has not gone up more, it's about a 10% increase over the bid amount. It's certainly taken a lot more time than that. That's not been a 10 percent increase in time but it's been a 10 percent increase approximately in the cost of the project.

So I think that is ironically pretty good management fiscally. I know that staff has been working really hard with the contractor and everybody involved to keep this moving forward as best they can with all these different circumstances, so thank you for that work. And we look forward to being operational later this year. Let's not put a date or time on it. It'll be ready when it's ready and we want the building to be done properly and be a public asset for many years, so thank you.

Is there a motion?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed1:36:14

Motion to move staff's recommendations.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:16

Motion has been made, is there a second? Supervisor Hartman?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:36:23

Second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:25

Motion has been made and seconded. Roll call please.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:36:28

Mr. Lavinino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:29

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:36:30

Mr Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:32

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:36:32

Ms. Hartman?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:34

Aye

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:36:35

And Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:36

Aye

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:36:36

Motion passes

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:36:37

Thank you very much Next item is department item number four. Will the clerk please read that item into the record?

1:36 – 2:0415 turns

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:36:49

Chair Hart and members of the board, departmental item number four is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding two appeals filed by Busy Bees Organics Inc., case numbers 19APL30 and the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. Case number 19 APL 31 of the Planning Commission's November 7, 2019 approval of the Busy Bees Organics Cannabis Cultivation Project. Case number 18 LUP 496 and this is in the third district.

And I just have one matter of business to take care of before we continue with our hearing Chair Hart and members of the board. And we had quite a few number of documents come in We've passed our noon deadline for land use appeals on Friday. And I will begin with public comment letter from Sharon Merritt, Agriculture Advisory Committee. It was received on Friday March 13th. Public comment from Dave and Lil' Clary received Monday March 16th. Public comment letter from Rob Solomon received Monday March 16th.

Received Monday, March 16th letter documents of evidence from the applicant. From Amy M Steinfeld from Brownstein Farber Shrek LLP received Monday, March 16th a PowerPoint presentation from Laurel Perez representing the applicant to this morning Tuesday, March 17th an additional PowerPoint presentation received from Mark Shatillo This morning, Tuesday March 17th and a public comment from Sam Rodriguez received this morning, Tuesday March 17th that were just distributed to the board. If I can get a motion to approve those and accept them into the record?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:38:32

Is there a

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:38:33

motion- I'll make

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:38:33

that motion to accept these items. Thank you Supervisor Lavinino. Is there a second? Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed1:38:43

I'll second.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:38:44

Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye with a roll call.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:38:52

Mr. Lavinino? Aye. Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:38:59

Aye

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction1:38:59

Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:00

Aye thank you. Jeff would you like to begin the presentation I see you have Mr. Clemon, Mr. Peterson here too Thank you, Chair and members of the board. Excuse me just one second, Mr. Gazzani?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction1:39:14

Chair your call on the timing but I just want to remind you that we need the ex parte disclosures also.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:39:20

Okay thank you. Let's do those after the presentation is that okay? Okay thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed1:39:32

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. We do have Deputy Director Dan Clement is here with us as well as Steven Peterson, Senior Planner on the project. He'll be presenting the item today, as well as we have Catherine Lehrer that's available. We'd like to excuse Director Plowman. I know she is really wanting to be here today and has much agreed for not being able to make it but we do excuse her for not being able to make it today. And so with that, we'll turn it over to Mr. Peterson for the presentation.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed1:40:05

Thank you, Mr. Peterson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed1:40:07

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the board. This morning it's my pleasure to present to you the appeal of the Busy Bee Organics Cannabis Project. I'm going to start off with a general overview of the project and then speak to the appeal issues raised by the applicant and the appeal issues raised by the project opponents or appellants. First of all, the project site is located about a mile west of the city of Buellton just south of Highway 246 and north of the Santa Ynez River It's located in the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan area in the 3rd Supervisorial District.

On this map you can get a sense of the surrounding area of the project. The project site is owned Ag 240, as is most of the surrounding areas and it's surrounded by agricultural uses. The Santa Ynez River running along the south end of the project site and some rural residential uses as well. There are also two EDRNs in the area. Those are shaded light green.

You can see to the north of the project site, we have the North Highway 246 EDRN. It is not directly adjacent to the project site. Highway 246 is on its own separate parcel. Additionally there's the West Buelton EDRM which is located to the east of the project site about 1,000 feet away. And the project site is a 62 acre parcel. Thank you. Background on this project, it was approved as a land use permit by the director in May of 2019. That approval was appealed to the planning commission and the project went before the planning commission on two occasions October 30th and November 7th.

At the conclusion of which, the Planning Commission did deny the appeal and approved the project 5-0 while applying several conditions to the project. That planning commission approval was appealed and now the project is here before you at the Board of Supervisors. The project description as originally proposed by the applicants and as approved in the land use permit was for a 23 acre cannabis operation, 22 acres of which would be outdoor cannabis cultivation.

And one acre of nursery processing and storage areas under this proposal all 22 acres of the cannabis would be grown under hoops. There would be eight full-time employees, 16 additional seasonal employees during harvest times. No limit on the number of annual harvests under this proposal. Three existing buildings on the site would be converted to cannabis use.

And two new 3,000 square foot cannabis processing structures would be constructed. Additionally a 1,000 square foot well pump shade structure and the hours of the project, hours of the operation would be 7am to 4pm Monday through Saturday. This map shows us the original site plan Whoa, wow it makes the whole screen dark. Okay Highway 246 is here. No yeah that's let's see if I can do it on here yes North is to the left on this map.

I really don't want the whole thing to go dark when I press the arrow, but on the left side of the map you've got Highway 246. On the right side of the map you have the Santa Ynez River. Okay, the mouse there we go Okay, so we've got We've got highway 246 right here. You can see the 22 acres of hoops shown The Entrance to the parcel is located right here off the highway 246 Here are the two three thousand square foot processing buildings that are proposed?

The existing residence that's on the site Is here This slide is designed to help you compare the project as it was approved as a land use permit originally, which is on the left hand column. The director approved LUP. Then the center column is the planning commission approved project. As I mentioned they did place several conditions on the project. First of all, they limited the acreage of cannabis allowed to 18 acres down from 22.

They reduced the acreage that could be covered in hoops from 22 down to 5. They also dictated where those hoops should be located on the property and they wanted to require hoops placed along the east and west property lines of the parcel. Originally, the project allowed on-site drawing but the Planning Commission approved it to prohibit any on-site drawing.

Handling of the product which had not been addressed under the original project was conditioned by the Planning Commission to require flash freezing or boxing and shipping of product within two hours of harvest unless vacuum sealed. And the original project Did not limit the number of harvests per year. The Planning Commission conditioned the project to prohibit staggered harvests and finally, the planning commission imposed a condition requiring re-review of the project after two years by the planning director to consider the efficacy of the conditions And to then provide a report back to the planning commission.

On the right-hand column, you can see the applicant's current proposal. This is kind of a hybrid version between the originally approved project and the planning commission conditioned version. It calls for 22 acres of cannabis, 14 acres under hoops. Hoops would be in areas A, D, E and F of the site which we'll be able to look at on a map shortly. The applicant proposes allowing drying on site if it takes place in a sealed building with odor control filtration.

The applicant also proposes having a variety of options available to them for handling of the product, including flash freezing, boxing and shipping or drying in a sealed building and no time limit for how soon the product needs to be shipped offsite. The applicant is proposing three harvests per year and the applicant is proposing eliminating the requirement for the two-year re-review.

This map does show us the different cultivation areas Area A and B are the ones that might be visible from the highway. The other cultivation areas are out of view. This provides you with an idea of what the property looks like at this time as viewed from Highway 246, which is the only public viewing area to this property. You can see that there is an existing landscape buffer in place.

It's about three rows deep of a variety of different species which are slowly maturing. This is the landscaping plan and existing landscape buffer area. is present along the east north and west property lines. The only additional landscaping that is proposed is a placement of some olive trees right here, which you see marked in green in front of those two new processing buildings.

The olive trees are Mature now and being moved from right here where they're shown in black So they would be transported over to here otherwise, we would be relying on the existing landscape buffer To screen the project This picture gives us a sense of what the landscaping will look like from Highway 246 after five years when it's grown to more full maturity. And you can see that the project would be more fully screened at that time.

Today we're addressing two appeals on the project. The project applicant appealed based on not being comfortable with four of the conditions that were placed on it by the Planning Commission, those are the conditions related to the reduction in Acreage of hoop structures and location of the hoop structures, reduction in overall cannabis area of the site. Some planning commission conditions directed towards odor abatement and the requirement of the two year re-review by the planning director.

I'm going to run through their appeal issues briefly one by one. In addition, we have an appeal from the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. They provided a lengthy letter outlining their appeal issues and we summarized it into seven issues to highlight for you today. Those issues involve Transparency of the process. The extent of public involvement in the permitting process, the adequacy of the county CEQA review, whether or not the findings could be properly made and the consistency of the project with the comprehensive plan, the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan and the Land Use and Development Code. And I'll go through those seven issues briefly individually as well.

First, appeal issue number one for the applicant. They are appealing the condition that hoop acreage be reduced from 22 acres to 5 acres and that those hoops be placed along the east and west property lines. The Planning Commission's intent here was to reduce the visual impact of the project, and to potentially protect the cannabis from pesticide drift from neighboring agricultural operations.

The second appeal issue from the applicant is the reduction in the cannabis area from 22 acres to 18 acres. The applicant is concerned that the Ag Preserve Advisory Committee determined that 22 acres of the site should be cultivated in order to be consistent with the uniform rules, and they're concerned that going under that would endanger their ag preserve status.

The Planning Commission was intending to reduce project impacts by reducing cannabis acreage here. We could do 18 acres of cannabis and four acres of another crop, and still stay at the 22 acres of overall coverage. The Ag Preserve Advisory Committee was taking a look at the constraints that exist from the presence of the Santa Ynez River there in that riparian corridor in coming up with the 22 acres.

The third appeal from the applicant was related to odor abatement conditions placed on the project by the Planning Commission. These were Related to handling of the project of the product after harvest requiring the freeze drying and. The quick shipping off site. And prohibiting drying on-site as well. So. The board has the discretion to determine which odor control measures are appropriate for this project.

The fourth and final appeal issue from the applicant was related to the two-year planning director re-review of the project. There are existing processes for cannabis projects to be reconsidered, Under our existing rules, first of all we have the business license renewal process which happens yearly. And during which time multiple county departments review the project and the business license can be suspended or revoked at that time.

In addition, any land use permit of the county can be revoked if the conditions that were applied to it are not being followed appropriately. So there are existing processes for reconsideration of the project periodically. Moving on to the appellant's appeal issues. First, they were concerned regarding a lack of transparency or adequate public involvement in the county process. I can let you know that all legal noticing requirements were properly fulfilled on this project.

On six different occasions mailed notice was provided to the 23 surrounding neighbors within 1,000 feet. This occurred when the land use permit was approved. Twice when the project was considered by the Central Board of Architectural Review. Very extensive cannabis website which provides the public with information on all of the pending cannabis projects in the county and the details of their project descriptions and where they are in the approval process.

Moving on to the second appeal issue from the appellant. There was concern that the county CEQA review was not adequate, particularly as related to considering terpene and pesticide drift. The Board of Supervisors did certify that the program EIR was prepared in accordance with state CEQA guidelines and And 30 day statute of limitations to challenge the adequacy of that program, EIR has expired.

Speaking to terpene drift specifically, that was addressed in the PEIR as a component of the air quality section when considering odor impacts of the project. And terpenes were considered as biogenic volatile organic compounds in that context and it was determined that the impacts would be unavoidably significant. Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations was adopted by The PEIR also did include mitigation for that impact, which were the requirements that cannabis projects provide odor abatement plans.

As to the issue of pesticide drift, CEQA analyzes the impact of projects on the environment not the impact of the environment on projects And pesticide is regulated by the California Department of Pesticide Regulations, which does not allow any pesticide drift onto non-target crops or non-target private property. These rules are enforced by the County Ag Commissioner's office here and the ag commissioner has been working collaboratively with Folks in the agricultural industry to prepare some new guidelines for pesticide applications, which might aid the pesticide applicators in what sorts of issues to consider when doing their applications and how to work together with their neighbors.

In doing so. Appeal issue number three. The appellant was concerned that APAC, the Ag Preserve Advisory Committee did not review the compatibility of this project with neighboring agricultural uses. But indeed when the APAC considered this project reviewed it and found it to be consistent with the uniform rules in January 2019 they Looked at the entirety of the uniform rules in doing so one component of which is section 2.1 point 1 principles of compatibility Which does consider this project's? potential effects on other AG preserve contracted properties in the area So that was considered Appealed issue number four The appellant felt that this application should have been processed as a conditional use permit because the site is adjacent to an EDRN.

But as I discussed earlier in the presentation, the project site is not directly adjacent to an EDRN. Highway 246 sits on its own separate parcel so there is a separation of about 300 feet there. Appeal issue number five is regarding the project's consistency with the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan, the Land Use and Development Code and our comprehensive plan policies.

Provided as an attachment to the board letter was a detailed policy consistency analysis. And I'd be happy to speak to any of those individual issues should the board desire Appeal issue number six was related to finding 2.1.1, which stated that adequate public or private services or resources are available to serve the proposed development. The appellant was concerned that the portable toilets that were proposed for the project were going to be provided under the federal H2A farm worker housing, sorry, Farm Worker Employee Program.

But that program is not permissible for use under federal law by cannabis projects. That's actually correct, so the H-2A program has been Removed from this project and the Restrooms will be provided by the applicant directly There are both permanent restrooms and temporary portable restrooms. The h2a program would not be involved and the restrooms both permanent and temporary Would be subject to the approval of Environmental Health Department of the county as they always are with these cannabis projects The final appeal issue from the appellant is in regard to finding 2.1.2, which states that the subject property is in compliance with all laws regulations and rules and they were concerned that the Cannabis operation on the site had expanded from its original existing non-conforming size and was therefore not in compliance with the law.

However, there has been no notice of violation on this property and the land use permit was approved in May 2019 authorizing the existing cannabis operation. And normally pulling a permit is what is done to abate any violation, but no violation had been determined on this site. So it is our position that as conditioned and currently this project is fully compliant with all laws rules and regulations.

So today if the board would like to approve the project as conditioned by the Planning Commission, your motion should include denying both of the appeals. Making the required findings for the project including the CEQA findings determining that PEIR is adequate and granting de novo approval of the project, case number 18LUP496. That's subject to the conditions in attachment A.

Alternatively, the board might wish to approve the applicant's version of the project Which would involve a motion upholding the appeal by Busy Bee Organics, denying the appeal by the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. Making the required findings for the project including the CEQA findings determining in the PEIR and was adequate. And granting de novo approval of the project with the conditions outlined as attachment 2B.

If the board would like to do something other than those two options, we'd ask you to please refer it back to the staff so we can revise the conditions appropriately for you and we're all happy to answer any questions that you might have.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

2:05 – 2:2024 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:05:00

Thank you very much for the presentation, Mr. Peterson. At this time let's call for ex parte communications. Are there any ex parte communications? Supervisor Lavenino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:05:13

Thank you Mr. Chair, I don't have the exact date but it was a I can find out and be able to get it by the end of the meeting but I did walk the property this is a couple of months ago with Sarah Rotman so I'm familiar with the property discuss screening and Just the project in general. I also had a phone call with Mr. Jim Youngson, I believe Mr. Robinson was on the phone as well and Amy Steinfeld.

That was just to discuss the issues brought up at the Planning

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:05:48

Commission meeting. And I'll go to, I made a site visit in, I think it was September of 2018 with Sarah Rotman and Brian Robinson. And then last Friday, I met with Mark Shatillo to talk about the coalition's concerns about the project. And then also met that same day with Amy Steinfeld and Bryan Robinson to talk about their issues that they are raising in the appeal on behalf of the applicant.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:06:16

And Mr. Chair, I was also just supposed to have a phone call yesterday with Courtney and Mr. Chatillo but unfortunately that was canceled because of all the stuff going on with everything else.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:06:28

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:06:29

Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed2:06:32

Yes, I did a site visit. I just popped in on the applicant Nate the farmer sometime in September or October and meeting last week Thursday March 12th With Laurel Perez and Amy Steinfeld, and Mr. Youngson from the applicant side. And I had a phone meeting on Monday with Mr. Chichillo.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:07:13

Supervisor Hartman?

CommentDiane PenceProposed2:07:15

Thank you. Let's see, I first met Ms. Rotman long ago and talked about this project about six weeks ago. I had a site visit with her and her agent and then spoke with them also more recently I've met with Mark Shatillo and talked with he and Courtney by phone recently. Talked to Tyler Thomas of Dearburg Winemaker, talked to Art Hibbets and Michael Benedict, vineyard owners and both former county planning commissioners.

There was a forum with about 25 vintners hosted by Karen Steinwalks. Talking about the Santa Rita Hills projects generally. There was also a forum held by the city of Buellton several months ago, again talking about the Santa Rita Hills cannabis operations generally and I haven't had an opportunity yet to meet with the Buellton superintendent of schools but that meeting is scheduled.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:08:20

Thank you very much. Next we'll have the appellant-

CommentDiane PenceProposed2:08:24

Sorry, I also spoke with the city of Pulton directly.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:08:28

Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Next up on the schedule is the 10 minute presentation by the appellant, the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, Courtney Taylor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:08:49

Thank you Mr. Chair, Mark Shatillo in Santa Barbara. Before we get started, just housekeeping here I see ten minutes on the clock here. We were figuring that we would have the ordinary 20 minutes and our plan was to divide that time between myself here in Santa Barbara and Ms. Taylor in Santa Maria. So- I don't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09:13

know where the 20 minutes came to mind or cut 10 minutes is our time so You'll have to figure out your presentation accordingly. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:09:24

Okay. And just to confirm, you'd rather hear from the appellant, the coalition rather than the applicant who's also an appellate? First we had assumed and are bad for not discussing this with you in advance Mr. Chair but that the applicant would probably be the one that would initiate the hearing process. We're fine to do it this way but I just want to confirm that- The order we have is the appellant

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09:49

then the applicant then public comment and rebuttal time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:09:54

Very good. And is the rebuttal time out of the ten minutes?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:09:59

No, you get an additional ten minutes of rebuttal time for both the appellant and the applicant so you will get 20 minutes in total just in different chunks. Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:10:11

very good. Well thank you Mr. Chair then we'll go ahead and get started. Members of the board I'm Mark Schatillo here on behalf of the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. We're an advocacy organization that was formed to protect And promote the well-being of neighborhoods and communities that are affected by cannabis, including Sharon Merritt who is a neighbor. Was the initial appellant at the planning commissioner, is herself battling cancer and has been on medical advice.

Has instructed us to remove her from the matter but We are pursuing this on her behalf and on behalf of the coalition. We're not anti-cannabis, we're trying to get this right, both the process and substance. You need to comply with the law and respect surrounding neighborhoods, surrounding neighbors with deeds and actions, not just slogans and slick PR campaigns. And Busy Bee has done some things right. Pre-planting landscaping and implementing regenerative agriculture come to mind, but a number of problems remain. The illegal expansion of nonconforming uses. The insistence on a land use permit when a conditional use permit is appropriate. The history of conflict ongoing with neighbors and the abuse of the Williamson Act tax credit program.

If I could ask for the first slide. The site is directly across from an existing rural developed neighborhood, and less than a mile from the city of Buellton. Over 100 residences are located within one mile and within the odor footprint. And this do nothing odor plan, devoid of substance requires no action whatsoever until it's causing a continuous public nuisance.

So even with these generous land use permit terms approved by the Planning Commission, they appealed. We wanted term permits but they opposed that. They tried to limit hoop houses to five acres but now they're insisting on 15. The Planning Commission reduced the acreage to 18 acres and now they want to have 22. And finally, the applicant objected to the odor abatement plan on a number of grounds. Initially, they told the Planning Commission that they would flash freeze But now they're asking for an amendment to allow them to store and process fresh buds on site. But if you look at the plans themselves, there's no accommodation, Identifying the equipment that's on site or on the noise plan, the transportation plan lacks its mandatory elements.

And the application itself is given the use and the surrounding neighborhood is very thin. This is a major industrial operation that's not suited to be used for a land use permit and because of the EDRNs across the street this should be a conditional use permit and we'd ask that your board But there are bigger issues, and I'm going to turn to my associate Courtney Taylor in this project. Neither the Williamson Act or CEQA allow you to approve this project. So with that, I would ask that Ms. Taylor be given a moment to be able to get her PowerPoint up on the screen. We can't see any of this here.

Obviously this is, if we could ask the clock, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13:22

This is for technical reasons.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:13:26

Thank you. We're doing our best to accommodate.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:13:30

Sounds like we have success.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed2:13:33

Excellent.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:13:36

Morning, Chair Hart, Supervisors. So Courtney Taylor, Law Office of Courtney Taylor representing the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis on this appeal. So just setting some quick context. Busy Bee, you've seen a few maps this morning already. But it is located where that blue star is located. Every star you see here, all the red ones are pending cannabis permits all along Highway 246 and Santa Rosa Road in the Santa Rita Valley.

So again, looking at the actual Busy Bee Project and their proposed acreage loosely aligned with some of the more close projects. There are two new projects pending in the lower right corner that are not on here. This is a particularly concentrated area along Highway 246 where the Busy Bee Project is proposed west of Builton. Just setting some quick context when we're talking about odor, want to make it clear the wind rose and the direction that the wind does come from west to the east. This is based on actual wind data from an adjacent site and is not based on air mod or some of the artificial air modeling data. So this is a much more accurate depiction of what the wind patterns look like around that site.

So I'm going to probably skip some of these things due to timing, but want it just impress upon your board that there is a trend to look at past project treatment with regard to future projects. And people are looking at this project today to understand how the board intends to treat future cannabis projects and the direction you give to staff In terms of your feelings and beliefs of how cannabis projects should be treated. So this is only the second project in the county, it's the first on Act Two, the first on Williamson Act, the first what we would argue adjacent to an EDRN, and the first and one of the few in the San Ynez Valley Community Plan which does make it unique.

So again, I'm going to go fairly quickly. Want to make it clear too that these permits run with the land. There's a lot of statements that are made about specific operations and certain techniques that will be used that do have odor impacts and other impacts to adjacent agriculture. That are not in the land use permit. There's a lot of references to the business licensing process as an annual renewal process that will catch some of these issues.

There is no authority in the business licensing process to amend land use permits, so these are permanent entitlements they do not run with the operator. They will create vested rights unless term limits are applied. So future operators will only be bound by the four quarters of the land use permit. So to the extent your board chooses to further condition the project, we would implore you to please put those conditions in the permit itself so that future operators of this project are also bound by those requirements.

Okay, so turning quickly to CEQA. So your board must comply with CEQA you all know and understand that here we have a programming IR and subsequent project review using a CEQA checklist Subsequent use of a PEIR can only be relied on to the extent impacts were covered in the PEIR. So when we have impacts that weren't in the PEIR, we have a problem and project level review is required.

New impacts that need to be reviewed for this project could be substantial changes that have occurred which result in significant effects not examined in the PEIR. Effects that are substantially more severe, that's very important to recognize and new information which was not available at the time the PEIR was certified. So our biggest issue is with regard to APAC So the PEAR specifically stated, and you can see the quoted text in italics there. That APAC would be the body that would ensure compatibility with ag uses. That would be the reviewing body to ensure no conflict with ag parcels that are adjacent.

And that compatibility review was the mechanism to reduce impacts. The APAC uses the uniform rules to enforce Williamson Act, and within those rules there's this compatibility review. That Stephen mentioned in the summary. Compatibility review only applies to the extent a use is considered compatible. Compatibility review looks at these three factors, specifically long term productive agriculture capability. Will it displace or impair ag operations? Or significantly remove adjacent contracted land from ag operations. Of note, the board when applying these principles on appeal must consider impacts on non-contracted lands.

So, I'll try to explain this very quickly. But essentially the uniform rules can classify cannabis as either a principal use or compatible use. The board ultimately amended the uniform rules to treat cannabis as a principal use despite APAC and P&D staff recommending it be deemed compatible in which case it would be subject to review under these principles.

That did not happen. So the PEAR and staff's recommendation said let's deem it compatible, make sure this happens consistent with the PEAR. Instead, the board amended it to a principal use which only the state can mandate which uses are principal. The board county cannot mandate which uses are principal. Only the state can do that. So it's not treated as a compatible use today.

The review is not happening at APAC, then to further clarify this issue on January 1st of this year the Williamson Act was actually amended to require it be treated as compatible use. So today APAC is not reviewing projects for compatibility which I think would deal with a lot of the issues you're seeing on these appeals. This is a big change from the PEIR.

It is creating this issue that you heard about earlier where the applicants are applying for acreage and having to increase it to meet the principal use requirements because it's not a compatible use under the uniform rules now. And the uniform rules run afoul of state law. Just for context, most of the cannabis projects are under Williamson Act parcels. We have a severity of conflicts with regard to the pesticide issues. I think everyone's very clear that we have numerous documented episodes including with this project with a neighbor that I understand today has still not been resolved.

We have a letter from the AAAC talking about this and then we have letters from Grower Shipper that are talking about intrinsic conflicts with neighbors. We have the turfing issue that you guys have heard all about, there's a letter in the record. Land use incompatibility is a secret impact that needs to be studied prior to project approval. That's all I got.

2:20 – 2:316 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:20:48

You made it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 16Proposed2:20:50

Sort of.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:20:51

Thank you. All right next we have ten minutes reserved for the applicant. Ms. Bresk?

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated2:21:02

Good morning, we are so pleased to be here. I'm Laurel Perez with Suzanne Elledge Planning and Permitting Services representing Busy Bee Organics, the project applicant. A project that has been referred to as the gold standard for outdoor cannabis cultivation. And we are very proud to be before your board today with a unanimous vote of approval from the County Planning Commission.

Sarah Rotman and Nate Diaz would have loved to have been here today, but given Sarah's existing health conditions she was advised by her practitioner to stay at home so they will be watching anxiously from home. The notion that the project was not reviewed with neighboring community compatibility in mind is just patently false. Here we go. The Board of Architectural Review, the APAC, county staff, the County Planning Commission carefully considered the project's compatibility with surrounding uses in the San Ynez Valley Community Plan policies. The projects incorporation of 100 foot buffers, dense layered landscape screening Development of a model MOU to avoid concerns of conflict with off-site conventional farming practices. Regular testing on the property proving that chemical overspray is not occurring, a model odor abatement program.

The fact that the property is not located within or adjacent The farm cluster down the highway is one mile from the city of Buellton and is an existing operational farm. Set it apart, and help to ensure compatibility. This is a family farm consisting of third generation family farmers who live on the property. This is their home. Sarah and Nate are very proud that Busy Bees is a female and Latino owned and operated operation with no outside investors. They are farming only 1 3rd of the property. Busy Bees is committed to ensuring odors from their farm are not a problem off-site. Nate and Sarah, as we've heard, got an early start on screening and beautifying the property by planting more than 4,000 trees around the borders and within the property.

And installed the most water efficient system available in California. They employ local farm workers and are fully track and trace compliant. As you can see from this image here, we're over a mile away. The site's over a mile away from the city of Buellton. And from these photos, the existing landscape screening consists of 1,000, oops excuse me. This is the letter from the city of Buellton. In fact, the city manager came and spoke at the planning commission hearing for the project confirming that the city of Buellton does not object to the issuance of this permit. The applicants have demonstrated a deliberate consideration for neighboring uses through the voluntary application of an odor control program. With the tiered approach, and this by the way is adopted in one of the conditions of approval.

And these components are not proposed for revision. Again about a half a mile away from the nearest cannabis cluster and over a mile away from the Pence Vineyard and Tasting Room. These are photos of the existing landscaping, as staff has shown you. It's a layered approach to provide the ultimate amount of landscape screening possible from Highway 246. And in an abundance of caution, Busy Bees retained three independent odor experts to study odor and air quality. All three studies came to the same conclusion. Odor is not an issue. We have with us today Melanie Borsage, an odor expert and chemical engineer who's here to address your questions should you have any. Melanie performed two separate three-day assessments using a nasal ranger testing odor at 77 locations throughout Buolton.

You'll also hear from Nathan Eady with SCS Engineers, if we have time about his firm's odor and VOC analysis. CESB was also engaged in creating a model of the air flow and the project's potential to generate odor. SCS engineers collected air samples and sent them to trained odor experts for screening. And also conducted odor samples in the community, and concluded that Busy B is not a source of nuisance odors. And that VOC emissions from the project do not indicate the presence of potential health concerns to employees or downwind receptors.

Early on in the review process, Busy B offered the following tiered approach to addressing verified odor nuisance which the city of Builton has also commented on. And these measures have been incorporated into condition 15 of the land use permit. In response to the one issue of conflict with respect to potential chemical overspray which occurred on a very windy day. Busy Bees provided their adjacent neighbor with a model MOU that protects the neighboring landowner and And his lessee's chemical spraying that is lawfully conducted will not be held liable in the event of an over spray incident on the busy bee property. In fact, the most significant recommendation that came out of the AAC group that convened to identify measures Issues of conflict between conventional farming and cannabis emphasizes that regular communication between neighboring farms is probably the most effective measure that can be taken.

This is precisely what Busy Bee does, and as a result there have been over 70 letters of support from the community in support of the project. It's worth noting, by the way. Let's see if I can... Oops! Wow, I got really far ahead of myself. That the property to the west is a vineyard and there have been no issues of conflict with respect to the vineyard. This collaboration has been essential to Busy B's success.

And you can see here these are neighbors that are immediately adjacent to the property in support of the project Okay, go ahead. In my 30 years of practicing land use entitlement I have never seen a more robust thorough exhaustive review of a land use permit. The issues of community plan consistency, consistency with the cannabis development standards and design review have been thoroughly vetted.

Now on to our requested changes to the conditions of approval intended to address and resolve conditions that impair agricultural productivity, are infeasible or require redundant review. Condition three, while well-intended it doesn't work. It is impossible to limit the amount of hoops on site to five acres and also provide hoops along the entire eastern and western boundaries of the property.

It also just creates an impractical and infeasible farming scenario to have fields partially hooped. So we proposed revisions to this condition that would help improve farming practices, however, And we recognize the value of hoops. Believe me, this is not an easy give. They're an important farming tool protecting crops from wind, chemical overspray and pests but based on the community's concerns about protecting visual resources.

Particularly as viewed from Highway 246, the applicant is willing to eliminate hoops completely on the two fields closest to Highway 246. That being Fields A and Field B. And again allowing hoops in the lower portion of the property that are not in any way visible from Highway 245. And this change that we are suggesting today would result in the following language change that you see on your screen.

Condition four, the planning commission reduced the total acreage of cannabis from 22 acres to 18 acres. The problem with this is that it would introduce a second commercial ag product on the property in order to be compliant with the requirement from the uniform rules that a minimum of 22 acres of this prime land be cultivated in commercial ag use. This requires two different teams, two different skill sets on a single parcel. It would be cost prohibitive and it's not practical.

Busy Bees is an organic cannabis farm. They're not interested in farming other products, and we ask that your board provide the applicant the ability to farm 22 acres of cannabis. And by the way, the 22 acres that's approved it, the 22 acres that we're asking for includes the acre of greenhouse so it's 22 acres total. Condition 15, we are concerned with the way this condition is written as it would impair ag operations. There's timing requirements in here that we're concerned we might not be able to comply with getting all product off site within two hours for example. So you have the suggested changes in front of you they've been provided in your packet and With respect to avoiding staggering, there's quite a bit of confusion about what exactly that means.

What we're suggesting is compliance with that intention but let's define it and by the way the Planning Commission approved land use permit allows for three harvests per year. What we're suggesting is that we then define no more than three harvest per year each for an approximate two week period which meets the intent of avoiding staggering. Condition 25, we understand the intention of this condition but it's redundant given the annual business license review. It involves an unprecedented level of review.

The business license review involves an unprecedented level of review by five county departments. To ensure that the operation standards are adequate to maintain health, safety and general welfare. A business license can be denied if these findings cannot be made on an annual basis or if the operator is engaging in a conduct that constitutes a nuisance. Your support of Busy Bee sets a high bar for other outdoor cannabis cultivation and provides an example of a project that is worthy of community and board support. And we ask that you carry forward the commission's unanimous support for this project, and consider the changes we suggest to the conditions. Thank you very much. Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:31:17

you Ms. Perez. Are there questions from the board at this point for staff? Okay let's go to public comment then. Madam Clerk?

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:31:31

Yes, Chair Hart and members of the board. We have ten requests to speak on this item. Six here in Santa Barbara and four will be via the phone. And we're going to begin in Santa Barbara with Paul Ekstrom to be followed by Blair Pence.

2:31 – 2:3719 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:31:52

Mr. Ekstrom?

CommentPaul EkstromProposedself-stated2:31:54

Good morning, Supervisors and staff. I'm a 50-plus year resident of Santa Barbara County. My name is Paul Ekstrom, as you know. I urge you to support the Busy Bee Appeal. The March 6th appellate letter from Mark Ciotillo clearly states the reasons for the appeal. If this project is approved, this would violate CEQA and set a precedent that would be detrimental to the quality of our county.

Sharon Merritt has had to step back due to her health. The Santa Barbara Coalition is continuing this effort to protect land use compatibility in our county. Our county is known worldwide for avocados, grapes, berries, wine etc. Why rush to allow one specific crop to threaten what we grow? In addition, our schools, neighborhoods and tourist destinations are adversely threatened.

Look what is happening in Carpinteria Valley with their odor issues and the avocado compatibility. Please support the appeal and protect our county. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:32:57

Thank You Mr. Exrum.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:32:58

Our next speaker is Blair Pence to be followed by Diane Pence.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:33:04

Mr. Chair? Just a point of order. Supervisor Lavendino? Just a question for staff from Mr. Gazzone, usually the appellant has to make their comments during their presentation. So I'm just curious how we're going to handle public comment because usually if an appellant comes they're not allowed to make public comment so just curious how that works.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:33:36

Mr. Gazzai?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction2:33:37

Chair and supervisors, I haven't worked through the membership on Sand River Coalition. Supervisor Lavinino is correct that our county's practice has been that members of the group use their time within the time allotted to the applicant or appellant. The board has discretion to provide this time but if you do so, I would recommend providing equal time to either side.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed2:34:02

All right, I have no problem. In fact, obviously I want to hear from Mr. Pence but I think that is something that we need to address some way that if you're part of the group and I believe Mr. Pence is part of the group of responsible Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis that this be counted as part of their time to allow if the other side wants just to make it fair.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:34:29

All right, are there other views in Santa Barbara?

CommentBlair PenceProposed2:34:35

I'm speaking as a neighbor.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:34:37

Just one second Mr. Pence, Supervisor Hartman you-

CommentDiane PenceProposed2:34:41

Yes, I think Mr. Gazzone said that it would, I would like to hear from people we aren't overwhelmed with comments today and if we could give both sides the opportunity that would be my strong preference.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:34:57

Okay, well I think there's a consensus that we go ahead with the public comments. But maybe we'll keep running time of the Pence's comments on Mr. Gazzani.

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction2:35:08

And Mr. Chair just in light of that it probably helped the clerk as we're accounting for time on each side if someone is speaking as a member of the applicant team or as a member of the coalition that they just identified and we can keep track at the end and do a clean up. Good idea thank you very much. Mr. Pence?

CommentBlair PenceProposed2:35:25

Wait, so point of order. Are you saying that any words that I say now will be deducted from what the attorneys can say-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:35:30

No we're actually adding time for the other folks to compensate for your time. All right

CommentBlair PenceProposed2:35:35

thank you very

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:35:35

much. You will not be deducted.

CommentBlair PenceProposed2:35:37

Thank you. Chairman Hart and members of the board well here we are once again ignoring greater community issues. The last time there were 23 deaths during the mudslides This time, the threat of the coronavirus. This is the amazing clout of the marijuana industry. Our cannabis ordinance was passed in emergency session. Now we're ignoring federal and state directives to hear an emergency appeal. And we're ignoring our own county's declaration of a local emergency.

Our planning development staff are not even six feet apart. What is the urgency here? You have sufficient evidence of disagreement amongst many experts, and that's sufficient to conclude that we don't have all the answers yet. The Planning Commission and the Ag Commission have both requested that you put on the brakes. Instead, you're flooring it. Putting all these people at risk today only confirms the recklessness of this board's action in support of industrial scale marijuana.

Having already expanded her non-conforming use to maximum capacity without censure by the county, Busy Bee is already reaping the rewards of an illegal operation. Do you really think that she won't plant again without this approval? You really think that this reckless approval will cause the county tax receipts to soar? I guess the real question is do you take us for fools?

Thank you.

2:37 – 2:4513 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:37:20

Next speaker is...

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:37:22

And our next speaker is Diane Pence to be followed by Kelly Rangel.

CommentDiane PenceProposed2:37:31

Well this is fun, I just have one question before the time starts please if you would? Just for clarification on the last discussion of the board there are multiple community groups in Santa Barbara County Some of them are supporting cannabis efforts. Some of them are supporting citizen efforts, the people who have lived and worked and had businesses in the county for many, many years. So I think it's very difficult to discern who makes up what group? Who are members of what group? So I'm just putting that out there because- Thank you for that, Ms. Bates. Why don't

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:38:10

you just start your comments,

CommentDiane PenceProposed2:38:11

thank you. Yeah, thank you. With the CDC recommendations and our governor's directive on public meetings, many of us are community residents now will not be here to speak today but would like to contribute. For that reason I'm speaking on behalf of those of us living in the valley as well as Carpinteria. Our lives and livelihoods have been abruptly battered with unfettered proliferation of pot growing in our neighborhoods. Unfortunately, we are only seeing the early impact of the extensive growths planned for the San Ynez Valley. I do not, I do want to go on record that I'm not against pot but allowing operators to obnoxious skunk smelling product in areas where people live, go to school and tourism friendly revenue and tax.

Generating crops like avocado and grapes have long been farmed. These new pot operators have no vested interest in our community or the land other than to their own economic windfall. Residents, school children, legacy businesses in the Buellton area continue to suffer from the impact of the existing over expanded Busy Bee Pot Grove. The stench from this operation is notable as far as the Avenue of Flags, which is our main street. And a location for many businesses, restaurants and tourism related activities. Children at the two schools less than a mile away from the grow have reported respiratory complaints and headaches to the high school medical staff. Additionally these noxious odors are very discernible and impact tourists.

Visiting the 20 plus tasting rooms, wineries and wine related businesses nearby. Recalling of course that tasting wine is 80% olfactory. The Santa Rita Hills we now have over 20 pending or permitted grows most stacked and located next to one another. The currently planned concentration will be close to 200 acres a pot in just the areas between Highway 246 and Santa Rosa Road. The stench is held in the air by our almost constant Marine layer.

This parcel sits directly at the gateway to both the Santa Ynez Valley as well as Santa Rita Hills, Hawaii and Appalachian. This is specifically designated as a scenic roadway and is squarely located within the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan. Driving by Busy Bee Parcel this morning, the deciduous trees planted along 246 do not shield the activity going on behind. San Diego's Valley is a special place for tourists.

In the letter dated March 6th, which I want to Your appointed Ag Advisory Committee recommended continuing the hearings for Busy Bee West Coast and Center Valley. Caution, moving forward without further information about the impact of commercial cannabis terpenes on legacy ag at a minimum they recommend no odor past the property line term limits on land use permits and releasing legacy farmers from liability for traditional practices.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:41:30

Thank you, Ms. Spence. Thank you. Appreciate that. And I'll

CommentKelly RangelProposed2:41:32

submit this.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:41:34

And our next speaker is Kelly Rangel to be followed by Leah Johnson. Kelly?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:41:46

Chair and supervisors, I would like to read from a letter submitted by Dave Clary and his wife Lillian who live in Tepeskay Canyon. I will start with reliance on the peer in preparation for the hearing on appeal by the following pences. I found one issue that is yet to be discussed. It is that though the county planning and development staffers are relying heavily on the peer as the foundational document that resolves so many issues, that it's really not the case.

I understand that the concept is that if the issue was dealt with with a peer then no further time is necessary to spend on it. Another site-specific EIR needs to be prepared. What I find interesting, though, is that over and over findings of significant and unavoidable Impacts in the pier are simply dismissed. This is critical to this, the board regarding issue after issue in the peer nullifies the peers determination by making a finding of overriding considerations.

I do not know where this list of overriding considerations is but I would like to be directed to it. Because I don't think that you can just nullify the peer by saying, well we don't care. It's not important and go ahead despite these significant and unavoidable impacts. When I read through the appeals over and over, the peer says the above impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable. And the board adopted a statement of overriding considerations. I've yellowed out over and over on every aspect air quality land use compatibility Cumulative impacts, clusters, NOx admissions, pesticide spray.

They continue to just go. Well, we don't care. Overriding considerations, please direct me to where I can read these overriding considerations that are ruining the valley, everyone's homes, agriculture interests for what a few people can make money? This is what the board is supposed to be doing, and I urge you to reconsider this. And- Thank

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:44:52

you Ms. Rangel, your time is up thank you.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:44:55

CUP,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed2:44:56

CUP.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:44:58

And our next speaker is Leah Johnson to be followed by Bobby Fedor.

2:45 – 2:529 turns

CommentLee JohnsonProposedself-stated2:45:06

Hello, my name is Lee Johnson and I'm from Sabata Canyon. I'm not sick, precautionary. I don't, I'm not fond of being violated by the giant Q-Tip so I'm trying to be a little cautious here. I am here to represent Buelton, Sanchez, Sabata Canyon, Tepezcay, Carpinteria, San Rosa Road, all the EDRNs, all AG1, AG2, EDR and adjacent. And those in the areas of visual impact traffic fire and overall safety concerns.

Again it's not my yearning to be here especially during the coronavirus but I found it important to be a visual impact and wasn't alerted until after nine that we could email. The coronavirus will be on your mind for the next six months. Cannabis has been on our minds, mine for the past six months and I wish that I could go 10 minutes a day without thinking about it.

And it's ruined the quality of life, depression amongst others in our communities throughout the county. We're here to make sure that our voices are heard. We support the Pence's, the coalition. I don't envy the boards for having to hear about cannabis over and over again and now the coronavirus but I suspect that this will be a trend. We are concerned about the land use permit terms need to be aligned with the county business license and CDFA permits, which are done on an annual basis. The land use permits should be revoked if the county business license or CDFA permits are denied, revoked, or non-renewed. Term limit, the land use permit should expire after three years and subject to renewal to avoid the potential to vest rights to continue operating under anticipated antiquated permit term despite future revisions to the county ordinances.

Changes in state law and improvements in air pollution control and other mitigation technologies are inevitable. The PER was certified on 2618 based on explicit expectations that the cannabis would be treated as a compatible use for Williamson Act purposes and thus subject to careful review and conditioning by the APAC to ensure compatibility with surrounding agricultural operations. Instead, the uniform rules were amended on 3-2018 to treat cannabis as agricultural production. As such, APAC is not reviewing projects for compatibility with adjacent agriculture despite an assumption in the PIR they would do so.

State law now requires the county through APAC to treat cannabis as compatible and mandates the review for each project's compatibility adjacent agricultural operations. Thank you. Thank you Ms. Johnson.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:48:18

And our next speaker is Bobby Fedora to be followed by Kavanagh Bagby.

CommentLeah JohnsonProposed2:48:25

Good morning Chair Hart, members of the board. I'm speaking in support of Busy B's appeal. I myself am a grower. I've been working with them from the very beginning. One of the specific things that I wanted to bring up today was this idea of legal non-conforming. There is something as you know everything changes all the time. Especially on our end, the goal post continues to just move. So in terms of legal nonconforming and what constitutes legal nonconforming, myself and a lot of the growers in North County have unfortunately come afoul of cadmium. Cadmium is one of the four heavy metals. There's lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium. Cadmium's a problem from Monterey all the way down to Malibu Canyon.

It's a heavy metal as you know the testing is you know sometimes in the particles per billion Particles per million and what's happened is underneath the sandy loam about 18 inches down is something called alluvial shale Which is kind of like a clay so when those heavy metals get in that clay, they're not going anywhere So so when we bought our farm We tested through Agricultural testing services and what we ended up doing was we found that we had some cadmium. And this is not unusual for leafy products like broccoli as well, and what we did was we sprayed with zinc sulfate. And sprayed and then let the natural grasses come up, then mow it down, and then that takes it out.

What happens is it doesn't take such a big drink of those heavy metals, okay? It goes for the zinc instead of the cadmium which helps you pass your test. So I bring this to your attention because it's twofold. One, earlier we were going to talk about taxes and some people were going to say a lot of people didn't pay taxes. A lot of people didn't pay taxes because they lost their entire crop to cadmium which they didn't think was going to happen and that definitely happened a lot in Los Alamos. It certainly happened to me twice to the point now where we've changed our plan to where we're not even going to go on the ground anymore. We're just going to bring substrate in, we're going to bring our own soil. So my point is I just wanted to bring that to your attention because it's an unknown.

It's the heaviest tested thing that there is and there's a lot of mitigating circumstances okay another example would be When I bought my farm, they said there's not going to be any odor testing if you're 1,500 feet from a residential zone. We're five miles from a residential zone and because I'm Ag One we're going to have to do testing. So there's a lot of things that have changed but mostly wanted to bring to your attention that it doesn't seem reasonable that something like cadmium which is proven to cause lung cancer that you test for it, you identify it, you try to mitigate it and somehow that doesn't count in your legal nonconforming so that's my point today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:13

Thank you, Mr. Fedora.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:51:16

And our next speaker is Kavanaugh Bagby to be followed by Marcus Alexandro.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:51:20

Just one moment, we'll pause your time. I just want to tell folks that we're going to cut off public comment at this point. We have folks coming in with additional speaker slips but we're going to limit that now at this point. There's still a lot of people to speak. Yes go right ahead.

CommentKavanaugh BagbyProposed2:51:38

Thank you Chair Hart, members of the board. I'm here today just to show my support for Sarah Rotman and Nate Diaz. I actually purchased the property maybe about a half a mile or so down from Sarah and until running into her in a social function finding out she was my neighbor I had no idea that she was there or that her farm was there. So I think it's pretty ironic or I don't know misconstrued These farms don't blend into the community. Actually, when she invited me out to the farm I got lost trying to find exactly which property hers was because her property looks just like all the others that are kind of along that 246 stretch.

These are good people they're hardworking people they're farmers and they're just trying to do honest work in a new industry Obviously, I still have some people who are not really there yet. But I think given people the opportunity like Sarah and Nate, it's going to prove to be a value to this community and I just wanted to say thank you and I hope you approve the project.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed2:52:43

Thank you.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:52:44

And our next speaker is Marcos Alexandro to be followed by Jack Motter.

2:52 – 2:595 turns

CommentMarcos AlexandruProposedself-stated2:52:56

Hi, thank you. My name is Marcos Alexandru. I have a PhD in environmental science and I'm a local organic farmer on the 246th. I've been friends with Sarah and Nate for years and I'm familiar with their property and their ongoing struggles with appeals and land use permits as an organic farmer and a biologist. I was very excited to see Sarah and Nate use a regenerative agricultural approach on their property from the moment they moved in Regenerative agriculture is a system of farming principles and practices that increases biodiversity, enriches soils, improves watersheds and enhances ecosystem services.

Regenerative agriculture aims to capture carbon in soil and above ground biomass reversing current global trends of atmospheric accumulation. This process can take years, especially when dealing with land that has been managed under conventional agricultural practices which includes the use of harmful pesticides and herbicides. Despite the challenges of this approach, Sarah and Nate were dedicated to restoring their land early on and made a long-term commitment to do so. This type of land stewardship should be applauded and not vilified I'm therefore here today to support my friends' efforts to improve farming practices throughout the county and beyond, and to set standards that future farmers can work towards. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Alexander.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:54:23

And our next speaker is Jack Motter, and then we are going to Santa Barbara with Matt Allen. Jack?

CommentJack MotterProposedself-stated2:54:31

Hello Chair Hart and fellow supervisors. Not to be totally repetitive here but My name's Jack Motter. I have owned and operated a traditional organic row crop farm in Goleta for the last 10 plus years, and I'm currently in the land use planning phase with a cannabis project of my own as well. Sarah and her husband Nate are colleagues of mine, and it has been a pleasure getting to know them over the last several years.

Sarah, in particular, has been instrumental leader in our county for this new industry Organizing multiple public events where cannabis folks can interact, communicate and problem solve on potential issues. She's the exact type of person we need to help establish this industry in a way that will be compatible with our community. I had a chance to visit Busy Bees Operation this summer when they were in full production. From my farmer perspective, I was very impressed with their farm and Nate's knowledge and capability as an organic grower and thought they were doing a top-notch job of outdoor organic row crop cannabis farming.

I admire Sarah and Nate for their entrepreneurial tenacity in this new challenging space, where I have witnessed them work tirelessly to establish this model farm. I believe Sarah and Nate and their project Busy Bee Organics are great representatives of the cannabis industry. I feel that the appellant's appeal should be denied and that Busy Bee's appeals should be upheld and their land use permit granted with the restrictions that they have stated they're comfortable with. Thank you.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:56:08

And now we are going to Santa Barbara with Matt Allen, to be followed by Mark Byers. Matt?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 18Proposed2:56:18

Good morning Chair Hart and supervisors. The lawyer in me knows that Sarah and Nate personally aren't really what we're talking about here today but it's also impossible to get up and talk about a project with two people like that involved without at least mentioning what great people they are And how excited I am to be here today to support their project, which I think is a model project for this county. And a great project for you all to hear about and approve and get going with the rest of these projects behind the line to follow through in similar example.

We've also heard a little bit today about a question about legal non-conforming. And I'd like to take a couple minutes to talk to you about my opinion and legal view on that. Prior to January 2016, medical marijuana was grown here in the county under the Medical Marijuana Safety Act. And the county allowed for this because it was considered cultivated agriculture.

The county defines cultivated agriculture in the LUDC. And in that LUDC, it not only includes planting and growing cannabis but it includes things like soil preparation, irrigation system construction, grading, land prep. And there's a reason for this as you've heard when you talk about agriculture, it's not just planting things in the ground. You have to get the ground ready.

I serve as General Counsel for Central Coast Agriculture. On our farm, we had to remove an entire orchard that had been farmed conventionally and well mostly organically but it had been farmed over the years in a way that didn't suit us. And so after pulling the orchard out, it took a long time to get that land ready to receive cannabis. So, it's not that you simply just walk out there and put plants in the ground. There's a lot of work to be done. The vineyard guys here today will understand that. It takes them three years to even get a crop off their vines.

Farming takes time. It's not just throwing things in the ground which is why the definition of cultivated agriculture includes other activities. People talk about legal non-conforming and say, well you didn't have the hoops there and you didn't have the plants in the ground. But the staff has come out and investigated many of these projects and the staff has found that actually there was work being done. People were tilling the land, they were putting irrigation systems in place. They were grading, they were getting the soil ready to receive the cannabis. And that's what the legal non-conforming standard should be. In fact when the county went to define what medical marijuana cultivation was under the LUDC it said it was any activity involving the planting and growing and harvesting.

And for us, as farmers we understand that activity means getting the land ready and putting in infrastructure. So when you talk a day or if you ask about legal non-conforming I hope you understand that for farmers activities in and around the planting are also farming. Thank you.

2:59 – 3:079 turns

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction2:59:28

And our last speaker in Santa Barbara is Mark Byers, and we will be going to the phone next with John O'Learyn.

CommentMark ByersProposedself-stated2:59:41

Chair Hart and Honorable Supervisors, my name is Mark Byers. I'm the owner of Byer Scientific & Manufacturing. I am here in support of the Busy Bee Project. A document has been entered into the public record with regard to the Busy Bees Organics Project entitled UC Davis on Byer Scientific and Terpenes authored by Dr. Anita Oberholster. While there are inaccuracies in her paper One paragraph stands out as an egregious misstatement of basic organic chemistry. Following is an excerpt from her quote from page 73, I quote, essential oils mainly contain terpenes and in reality, neutralization is masking of unpleasant smelling terpenes by releasing more pleasant smelling terpenes close quote.

The preceding statement is scientifically and demonstrably false. I apologize in advance for the following brief chemistry lesson. Cannabis malodor is primarily caused by terpenoids and terpenes, beta-myrcene for example, this prevalent terpene in cannabis. Based on the structure of beta-myrcene and OMI industry's 30 year knowledge of how plant oils work, OMI was able to select a plant oil with a chemical structure that will react and neutralize the odor produced from beta-myrsine. The overall blend of plant oils found in Ecosorb was determined using the same scientific method for all malodors produced by cannabis. The plant oils are the active ingredients that neutralize odor in the air, and several mechanisms come into play for the Ecosorb to neutralize the malodor.

First it must encounter it. This is accomplished by vaporizing Ecosorp into the air making thousands of small droplets that represent a large surface area and are covered in film with the plant oils. When the droplet is vaporized into the air, the odor molecule in the plant will make contact through adsorption. That's with a D. This is where the chemicals form a very weak bond by van der Waals forces and you can Google that on the outside of the droplet. Once the malodor is bonded to the surface of the droplet, the droplet will then absorb the malodor into the droplet.

Absorption of the malodor into the droplet is related to the solubility of the malodor. Therefore, the plant oils used in EcoSorb must enhance the solubility of malodors in cannabis. Once the malodor's in the droplet it will not be released back into the air. At this point the odor is under control however another mechanism does take place that controls odor namely acid-base chemical reactions The plant oils in the EcoSorb form an acid buffer.

The buffer reacts with many malodors, usually those that are slightly acidic or basic. For example, reactions between natural acids in the EcoSorb plant oils such as carboxylic acids and terpenes found in cannabis result in the formation of organic salt and water. Upon completion of this reaction complete neutralization of the malodor will occur. So clearly, this is not masking. And statements calling it such are misleading and disappointing and certainly call into question various other conclusions reached by Dr. Oberholster. Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:02:32

Thank you, Dr. Burris for the chemistry lesson.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:02:35

And now we will go to John Olren on the phone to be followed by Renee O'Neill. John, you can go ahead.

CommentJohn OlrenProposed3:02:57

My kids would have been a distraction at the hearing in person. I work in agriculture and I'm on a lot of farms every week, and I work with conventional agricultural operations and organic cannabis vineyards all sorts of stuff. And the busy bee operation is one of the cleanest operations out there. There's a lot of pride and they do a great job what they do.

I think it's important to note that they also have the direct support of their immediate neighbors who are conventional farmers. They have support from the city of Buellton, and a lot of the items that are being brought up by the opposition to me seem incorrect and a bit irrational. And I really want to emphasize that it's time for us to make decisions based on facts not fear. And there is still some fear-based opposition out there But it doesn't mean that they're right. And so I urge you to make the amendments that Busy B is requesting and vote 5-0 with the Planning Commission in support of this project. There are a lot of people out there in our community that are making money off this, in our economy. And given recent events, it's really not the right time to actually make a decision that has a negative economic impact on our area.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:04:12

Thank you for your comments and congratulations on being the first person on the phone for our proceedings. It

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:04:17

worked.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:04:27

And I will go ahead and call Renee O'Neill Okay Renee you can begin.

CommentRenee O'Neill I'mProposedself-stated3:05:03

Thank you Chair Hart, Supervisors and public my name is Renee O'Neill I'm calling from Tempe State Canyon first I want to express my appreciation to the county for their effort in making it possible to attend this meeting online especially under the coronavirus circumstances well done I have brought Tempe State Community's cannabis concerns to this county since 2014.

Countywide teams have been involved for the last two or three years, depending on when their regions were impacted. I want you to know I strongly support all efforts made by the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. The findings that were detailed by Mark Chatillo and Courtney Taylor And letters from all residents that have written to oppose this project.

Please, Supervisors set a precedent by denying this project. A substantial change to the PEIR is required because APAC is not reviewing applications for cannabis projects for compatibility with adjacent agriculture. The uniform rules are not in compliance The board amended the project to a principled use, which as pointed out by Courtney you are not allowed to do. Only the state can mandate which uses are principled.

Land use incompatibility needs further review. Apply term limits so the projects do not run with the land. And on closing notes, considering the problems this county faced by almost approving Herbal Angels. It is imperative that the county closely scrutinize all projects and approve strict oversight regulations. Reckless approval of this cannabis application that illegally expanded after 2016 with significant unavoidable impacts will send a precedent And let all growers know that they will be rewarded for their illicit operations and noncompliance.

You are punishing we, the people, traditional ag, our children and our entire way of life by supporting cannabis over public health, safety and welfare in Santa Barbara County. Thank you.

3:07 – 3:1413 turns

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:07:45

We will now go to Jennifer Zacharias, to be followed by Kimberly Brower.

UnidentifiedClerk of the BoardProposed · by role3:08:08

Please mute any devices on your end. Mute if you have a TV or streaming going.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:08:37

We're all waiting on you. All righty, are we

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 17Proposed3:08:50

ready to go?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:08:53

Okay thank you and go. Welcome Ms

CommentJennifer ZachariasProposedself-stated3:08:58

Zacharias. Hi hello there my name is Jennifer Zacharias and I'm here today in support of Tara and Dave's farm Sarah Rotman is one of the strongest, smartest, most inspirational female entrepreneurs that I've ever had the good fortune to know as a colleague and as a friend. She worked harder than anyone I know and has been an inspiration for me both professionally and personally. I've known Sarah for years and have watched her lead a successful global company inspiring her team in multiple offices across the world all while struggling with life-threatening illness.

Most recently I've seen Sarah work tirelessly within our community to build bridges and start important conversations between the wine and cannabis industry. Her drive to collaborate and reach out to all the agricultural businesses in North County is garnering wide support, and it's apparent through many innovative initiatives that she's spearheading and leading the way as an advocate. She's deeply committed to her community and has gone above and beyond to connect and develop relationships with her local business community. Everything Sarah does is done thoughtfully, wisely, compassionately, and beautifully. Farrah is the kind of person you want in your corner, on your team and as an asset to our community. We need more leaders like Farrah in our community.

Thank you very much.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:10:14

Thank you Ms. Zacharias

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:10:23

And we will now go to Kimberly Brower to be followed by Kate Griffith

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:10:31

Just as a reminder for the folks who are listening on their television or watching on their television and listening, when you hear your names called as next in line if you could mute your television so that we're ready to go when you get the phone call. Otherwise, we'll get feedback just like on the radio. Okay great,

CommentJennifer ZachariasProposedself-stated3:10:57

hold on just a moment. Okay, go ahead. Good morning members of the board. My name is Kimberly Brower and I am speaking today in support of Busy Bees Organics Farm. Thank you again, I just wanted to say for your very successful efforts to digitize this meeting during a difficult time in our country and world. My professional relationship with Sarah Rotman of Busy Bees Organics has spanned over a decade.

And throughout my time working in partnership with Sarah, I have come to value her as a passionate businesswoman And empowered female activists and a moral vocal leader within her communities. During her time at Santa Barbara, I have watched her not only grow her passion project into a model business that supports Santa Barbara's local economy and agricultural jobs which may I just state added over 4800 jobs into the county in 2018 But Sarah goes above and beyond by organizing regular educational gatherings to unite and support not just cannabis businesses but all small businesses in North County. It is safe to say that Sarah and her husband Nate have made conscientious efforts to build morally upstanding relationships with their neighbors, and they are constantly looking for ways to improve and aid the people and the community in Santa Barbara.

There's a saying at Busy Bees Organics that you can truly taste the love that grows here And that's because Sarah and Nate have given their entire livelihood to creating a successful, sustainable, organic model family farm that will continue to generate great tax revenue for Santa Barbara County. $6.8 million which was collected during the 2018-2019 fiscal year.

So I urge you instead of criticizing this project in an attempt to make an example out of two vulnerable members of our community That have very gratefully been dragged through the bureaucratic process for the last two years. I urge you to build them up and build this project up by commending their exemplary efforts, thank you for your time today.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:12:55

Thank you Ms

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:12:55

Brower.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:12:59

And we will now go to Kate Griffith to be followed by Paul. And unfortunately, Kate's phone is going directly to voicemail. So we are going to Paul to be followed by Josh. And unfortunately, Paul's line just went to voicemail as well. So I'm going to attempt to call Josh to be followed by Betty. Hi

3:14 – 3:3018 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:14:34

this is Josh. Hi this is Jacqueline calling from the county. This is your time to speak for public comment. OK, and if you. Yep, in just a second and then just mute any devices you have on your end. Thank you.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:14:54

OK Josh.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 21Proposed3:14:57

Hi my name is Josh. I've been working up here at Busy Bee Farm for a few months now. I think September last year and I just want to say it's been a real pleasure working for Sarah and Nate. They've been great kept us busy We've had lots of steady work and, you know, created a lot of revenue for our suppliers up here in Peelton and Santa Barbara. And yeah, just nothing but good things to say about these guys that have provided us with a lot of jobs, put food on the table and pretty much about it. It's been great to work for them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:15:35

Thank you Josh

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:15:42

And now we will go to our final speaker and that is Betty.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 19Proposed3:16:34

Hi Betty, it's your turn to speak on public comment for our departmental committee number four today. Hold on one moment.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction3:16:51

Okay Betty you can go ahead.

CommentBlair PenceProposed · by introduction3:16:54

Okay so my real name is Betty. I know I live in Milton for too many years like 18 years ago So I moved to Fresno to here. And so this is a community nice for living, and I know that for like four or five years that I make. So these are really neighbors, really nice neighbors, you know? They're nice people. I saw the ranches really grow with nine. That she is a more hard person, I saw. Working like always keep it like clean everything and not like organize it and she's watching everything that the products are really organic

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:18:00

Thank you, Betty. Marit, did you have anything else to add? I'm sorry.

CommentBlair PenceProposed · by introduction3:18:06

So this is what they say. You know, I know it.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:18:17

Betty, thanks for your comments. Appreciate it. And you know

CommentBlair PenceProposed · by introduction3:18:21

what they say. Sara, she's like a nice person. A really nice person. Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:18:33

thank you. All right that concludes public comment. At this time we're going to go to the rebuttals and we will start with the appellant who has ten minutes. Okay so we need to load those. We'll start the time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:18:53

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Shatillo here. I'll-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:18:57

Do you want to pause just a second, Mr Shatillo? Let's give it a second to get your slides loaded.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 20Proposed3:19:23

Okay, let me just get to where we're going to kind of finish up. We're freezing through. Okay Mark the slides are up

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:19:32

All right, Mark go ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed3:19:33

Okay thank you we don't have the slides on the screen here so I'm going to start with the S-Y-V-C-P slide visual resources and pick up on two. I'm gonna complete our presentation talk about the general plan issues and some of the other issues and rebut some comments by the applicants. So Board may not approve the project if it's inconsistent with the general plan. There are visual resources policies that are associated with these gateway parcels since we are in the San Ynez Valley Community Plan, their visual policies do not allow creation of hedgerows and massive hedges.

And there is a need for increased setbacks and stepped vegetation, step landscaping. Next slide. More significant I think are the conflicts with the agricultural element of the general plan which seeks to, the number one goal is to ensure the continuation of agriculture as a major viable production industry in the county. And what you've seen through the evidence from the Grower Shippers Association, your own Ag Advisory Committee and the experience that adjacent farmers have had conflicting with the operation that's being proposed here. That the permit does jeopardize the continuation of agriculture as a major viable production industry.

And so the evidence both of the pesticide conflict as well as terpene taint, while that has not been quantified it has been established to be a fact and does need to be considered. And I think supports the conclusion that the board may not determine that this particular grow, the cannabis is similarly situated and therefore Supports the continuation of ag as a major viable production industry. Indeed, it conflicts with it.

So I'm now going to shift to the issue of noncompliance vested rights and expansion of nonconforming use. Mr. Allen is correct that there are larger issues here beyond just Sarah and Nate. The precedent associated with dealing with vested rights has application to all permits that are going to be, that are before the county that have existing grows on them.

The law under both California and the county code specifically allows the continuation of non-conforming medical cannabis grows that were in existence on January 19th, 2016. Under Article 10, those are temporary rights though that are intended to be eliminated once we get through the permitting process. It does not allow the expansion of a non-conforming use and the key issue is next slide to the photographs comparing the three dates. The key question is has there been An expansion from what occurred on January 19th, 2016 and the photographic evidence is very clear that there has.

Mr Allen argues what he would like the law to be however that is not what the law is. The law provides both state and locally that you may not expand a nonconforming use and so The status of the project in January 19th defines the baseline. Any expansion is a non-conforming use, is an expansion of a non conforming use and it is unpermitted. And we have a way to deal with that in our statute but none of those means have been addressed. So as you look at these three pictures on the left is December 2015 there's one hoop house.

aerial photo off of Google Earth is February 2018. And at that point, it shows six greenhouses or hoop houses. One of them is in construction at that point and it's not until August 2018 when the additional expansion occurs. It's clear from the evidence, next slide, that there has been expansion of this field and other non-conforming uses on this property. The attorney for the applicant submitted a letter to the record, I believe yesterday. And really does not rebut the question of expansion of non-conforming uses.

So I think that is an issue that the county and the board has to grapple with. And we'd ask that you do so in the context of this permit. So I'm going to shift to responding to some of the applicants issues and comments. Compatibility is a significant issue, this is not about the integrity and the character of the applicants but really whether this operation is compatible with associated nearby and adjacent agricultural operations.

And that's really the core issue here at they object to condition 15. Claiming that they have owners, the neighbors next door support the project. But they haven't addressed the issue of terpene taint and we have evidence in the record specifically for this project where there has been an issue of pesticide migration or even without migration objection by Busy Bees to the practices of a conventional farmer that lived and They work next door, I don't think they live there. So as to that, there is evidence in the record of a conflict that happened there and then you have additional evidence from the larger agricultural community pointing that there are no cases where they found cannabis operations are working in harmony with other projects. And if you go back to the Williamson Act provisions and if the law is applied properly on this project, there will be a compatibility analysis.

That's the tool Along with CEQA and an environmental analysis of this impact that allows the decision makers and the public both a process to be able to input on these issues. But also, to become informed about how to address and resolve these conflicts. So these issues are not being addressed. The applicant indicated that the design review included a thorough vetting of the project. Well in fact, the CBAR refused to address the hoops in their analysis of the visual impacts.

The odor control plan or odor abatement plan is itself patently inadequate. Looking at the substantive, the plan itself which is in your materials there's really no action that's required until the project reaches the status of being a continuous public nuisance. So if there is an odor complaint, the first thing that happens is the applicant will within three days, within 72 hours get an industrial hygienist on the property to confirm that odors are attributable to the project.

And results in the odors at the individual receptor site and it doesn't exist for, if that odor episode is not lasting for three days no further action is taken. And then there's a various series of platitudes and misstatements. There's reliance on Miss Bosarge's odor assessment, which when you look at that study and we had our meteorologist submit a letter to the record indicating that their analysis didn't identify the time of day which is critically important nor any of the specifics about the samples that were collected. In the area of the project here, you have diurnal changes in weather and in the wind conditions. We don't have a 365-day-a-year strong and steady ocean breezes. That's not the way it works out there, and that's what you're relying on in this odor plan.

And interestingly, the odor plan relies on the fact that Busy Bee Organics, quote, traditionally does not stagger harvest periods throughout the property. And it's ironic that the Planning Commission picked that up and said well let's put that in as a condition of their project approval and now the applicant is saying oh we don't know what that means. So the problem here with this project, with this odor plan, with the set of conditions that came out of this land use permit is Verbal assurances, but when we actually try and get those nailed down as conditions the applicant walks it back and doesn't want to actually employ them. And this voter plan is a good example of how we don't have the kinds of specificity and the direction that's necessary in order to ensure That this project is actually going to comply with the standards that we all want to see it comply with.

We need to go back because of the EDRN, you have a legal basis and obligation I'd argue, to require that this project be processed as a conditional use permit. That would give the decorum to be able to allow these issues to be addressed. So moving then to the last two slides, you have a basis for project denial. And the CEQA requires project level environmental review.

We have changed circumstances both from the uniform rule changes, that is the new legislation and the realization that the county's action in defining cannabis as a qualified or permissible use, principal use on Williamson Act contracted lands is illegal. It violates the statute and it risks Department of Conservation intervening and taking over our Williamson Act program. That alone provides the basis for denial and a requirement that the project be subjected to environmental review process to be able to examine those issues. As we've noted, the project doesn't conform to the general plan or the San Ynez Valley Community Plan. And it's not in conformance with all laws as a result of the legal non-conforming uses in the expansion.

And finally, last slide there is a basis for additional project conditions that the Planning Commission imposed. We would ask that your board if you are going to approve this project we don't think that you legally may do so but if you do uphold the planning commissions Well thought out and appropriate conditions that apply to this project. So Mr Chair, members of the board thanks for your attention. We don't oppose cannabis categorically we want to see the county get this right. This permit, this process, this environmental review and the Williamson Act issues all show that the process has not worked in this case.

So under the Article 10, they can continue to their existing uses as they existed in 2016. And then we can go back through this process. Thank you Mr.

not transcribed≈11s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

3:30 – 3:388 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:30:22

Chair. Thank you, Mr. Chateau. Thank you Miss Taylor's. Next is the rebuttal from the applicant and there was originally ten minutes and I believe Mr. Mrs Pence had additional six minutes so that would give you 16 minutes but hopefully you don't need all that time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:30:42

There was actually all three officers from the 501 C3 from the coalition actually spoke. So technically, that'd be nine minutes- And who's the third officer? Ekstrom.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:30:51

Okay. All right.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:30:52

Okay. But in light of that...

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:30:58

Just one second Mr. Pence. Let's all settle down. How much time do you think you need?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:31:03

So Miss Petrovich and I are going to split the ten minutes, maybe twelve. And then we're going to use the additional few minutes to offer up to Nathan Eady who is here from SCS Engineers. As you recall his firm conducted the VOC study and the odor study and we're just going to provide him for any Q&A that the board is interested in. If not, we will simply stick to our 12 minutes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:31:23

Okay thank you very much

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:31:26

Okay, good morning or sorry good afternoon supervisors. I'm Amy Steinfeld Councilor Busy Bee very excited to be here finally after all these years. I want to quickly just at the outset point out that as you've heard this is an existing farm and the reason that's that is important is a lot of the hypothetical concerns about odor pesticide migration or over spray etc terpenes These actually fears that are set forth in these letters have not occurred over this very long period. Instead, what we've seen is that this operator has responsibly farmed cannabis for this period.

With regards to hoops, this issue was actually extensively reviewed at CBAR. We actually had to go back to CBAR when the county passed its hoop house ordinance. The CBAR team spent a long time reviewing this project, ensuring that the hoops complied with all of the new regulations. They also spent a lot of time discussing the San Inez community plan to ensure that visual resources were protected. That said as we heard earlier, the applicant is ready to give up hoops on the two front fields A and B so not sure that this is an issue any longer.

Second, as you know approval of an LUP is a ministerial act not a discretionary one as Mr. Tello claims in his letter. So the reason why that's important is that the county has to issue the permit if all requirements are met. The analysis was thoroughly analyzed in the PIR but also in the detailed analysis by county staff, the county approved biologists, three odor experts that we've discussed.

In addition, many of the regulatory agencies at the state. The regional board, the CDFA, CDFW. After substantial review by these numerous agencies all concluded there would be no substantial impacts from this project. Second, no additional environmental review is required. There are no significant new impacts and there's no significant new information that's been provided. A lot of what we hear it's not new information. These issues were raised and analyzed in the PIR.

I'm going to start with the claim of pesticide overspray, because I think there's a lot of confusion over actually what happened. So there was one incident over the past five years where I received a call from Ms. Rotman and she was very concerned because the next door neighbor, there was an applicator that was spraying on a very windy morning. The wind was about 40 miles an hour, so as a result I submitted a letter to the company explaining that this was illegal practice. As a result we actually had a very productive conversation with the applicator and at that time we were able to work everything out. They confirmed they would put us on notice and they would no longer be spraying in windy conditions. We're very proud of that result. As a result of these great discussions, we entered into an MOU with the neighbor absolving the neighbor completely and his tenants along with the applicator of any liability if these pesticides were sprayed illegally.

The reason why we've included this in our report is we wanted other farmers to be able to use this language if they were starting discussions with their neighbors. In addition, appellant doesn't acknowledge that there are few project conditions that would also address this conflict. So there's actually an ag buffer, and specifically the PC explained that this 100 foot buffer would minimize potential conflicts. There's also landscape screening which we've seen numerous photos Regarding terpene migration, this is really a red herring. We've seen no evidence in the record to suggest this is real. We understand that the wineries are hurting right now but this issue does not exist. In fact many wineries are now considering diversifying into cannabis and I suggest you check out Frances Ford Coppola's new Cannabis product line because it's a very exciting sort of intersection between cannabis and wine.

Terpenes were explored in the EIR and analyzed. Second, the letter that we've seen submitted by appellant Oberholster is speculative. And as we know speculation opinion etc does not constitute substantial evidence under CEQA In addition, we've submitted the results of an independent study showing that there's been no trace of cannabis terpenes in wine. These are from a certified lab.

Lastly, we also submitted a recent study by Pacific Environmental and what that found was that cannabis...in order for cannabis to actually taint grapes they would have to emit terpenes for over 1,000 days straight. And so as most of us know now, cannabis is grown seasonally and so it's not physically possible For these grapes to be tainted. In addition, as far as land use incompatibly goes, as we've explained there are no existing ad conflicts everything has been worked out.

As far as cumulative impacts go, there's been a lot of discussion of these clusters. It's important to point out that this particular project is over one mile from the supposed cluster. In addition, the PIR very clearly laid out that there would be farms between Lompoc and Buellton. And since that time the board has imposed a hard cap of acreage in the inland portion of the county.

In addition this particular project was actually included in the PIR as part of the baseline. Lastly, as we heard odor is not an issue on this particular project neither is traffic. And as a result there are no unanalyzed cumulative impacts. Another interesting point is that as we've all seen, recently the County Ag Advisory Committee submitted a letter. And in that letter they asked the board to impose three conditions on projects.

One, a release from liability for legally applied pesticides. We did that. Prohibit odor off site. We have numerous settings showing that odor does not reach any sensitive receptors. In addition this project has a very robust odor abatement plan. And third, they requested term limit on the permit. As we have explained that is not necessary because there's annual business license review. The business license process provides ample authority to the CEO to revoke the business license permit if a nuisance has been found or there's an issue affecting the community.

So in sum, I just want to end by saying as a land use and cannabis attorney it's been a great experience to work with Ms. Rotman. We've gotten to know each other quite well because she calls me on an almost daily basis to ask for help interpreting these ever-changing rules both at the state level and the local level. She is a very compliant farmer. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Miss Petrovich to address a few of the remaining issues. And then if you're interested please let us know. And Nathan Eady is sitting in the back and available for questions. Thank you.

3:38 – 3:4410 turns

PresenterSusan PetrovichBusy Bees OrganicsProposedself-stated3:38:05

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Susan Petrovich appearing on behalf of Busy Bees Organics. I just have a few quick issues to address. The APAC their minutes are in the record they found the project consistent with uniform rules. A project and property cannot be consistent if they aren't compatible with other agriculture so all this talk about the APAC Not having addressed it or never addressing it. I don't know about other projects, but in this project is clear from the minutes they did.

Mr Chitillo in his letter and in some of his testimony today obviously is not completely conversant with the history of the property in question or with the statutes and ordinances in place at various times. And I know it's really confusing, but there were different rules at different times big surprise He, in his letter expressed confusion from the affidavit which simply states under penalty of perjury that the farm is a legal non-conforming cultivation site. That's the terminology used, cultivation site, per Article 10.

He doesn't realize that the state and the county have different ways of measuring the square footage of the cannabis, so he was throwing numbers around that made no sense because he doesn't understand that there's a different measuring standard. The state doesn't include the furrows and any trails and access roads that are used in the propagation. He alleges illegal expansion between 2015 and 2018. Well, it wasn't until December 2017 that you adopted the ordinance prohibiting expansion of a legal non-conforming use. And I don't think he appreciated...he doesn't appreciate the sequence of events Finally, actually the county conducted a complete investigation of this property because of Courtney Taylor having filed a complaint about Busy Bees.

So P&D and the Deputy Sheriffs that are part of the Cannabis Enforcement Program Visited the site, examined her records to confirm how long she's been growing cannabis. That's another thing Mr. Chitil got totally screwed up and that is the fact that collectives did have, as long as they had a permit, did have the ability to grow more than 100 square feet per patient.

So, as a result the staff did not issue an NOV and months later in fact they issued the land use permit. And then the planning commission ratified that by unanimously also approving the project. And then finally your board of supervisors had a chance to create past to investigating all operations for which affidavits were filed and in October 2017, your board rejected an ordinance to that effect. You said you weren't interested in trying to reconstruct historical development of ordinances and laws but rather let's get through the permitting process impose a time limit for Operators to submit their applications and let's get the taxes collected so this program can get off the ground.

So, this particular project has been compliant. I do want to close by pointing out that there are some issues raised about harvest and drying restrictions of the conditions as imposed by the Planning Commission just will not work There will be no more than three harvests, there'll probably most years be two because you're lucky if you can get three. But the point is the applicant says we're going to have no more than three for two weeks each. That's it.

I don't even know what staggering means when people told me that they were going to stagger. Also, the drying restrictions. Drying on site is very important because otherwise you've got to transport it off the site to another facility and pay someone else to dry it. They may freeze-dry, they may not but that's really what the farmer has to decide based upon economic and technological conditions. So I'd just like to close by saying that we appreciate the community support. The project is a model for other projects in the queue It's a clean operation, the owners not only manage the operation but they live on the site.

If you have any questions I'm happy to answer them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:42:39

Thank you Ms. Petrovich. All right well that concludes the applicants and the appellants rebuttals now we have an opportunity for staff to comment are you ready?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:42:56

Chair members of the board at this time staff doesn't have any further information to add we're available for questions

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:43:02

Okay, would the board like to take questions now or take a break? What is your preference?

CommentDiane PenceProposed3:43:12

Why don't we take some questions and then a break and then deliberations. How would that be?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:43:17

That works for me, okay. Supervisor Hartman do you want to start with questions?

CommentDiane PenceProposed3:43:23

Sure, let me start by asking so if you take the hoops off A and off B how many acres of hoops are left?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:43:38

Chair Hartman through the, sorry.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:43:42

Mr. Wilson go right ahead.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:43:43

Let me try this again. I gotta remember what setting I'm in. That's not easy to remember, you're in a lot of places. Supervisor Hartman through the chair. Based on the applicant's presentation today and what they proposed, removing areas A and B would leave it at five acres of hoop structures, and that would be the areas D, E, and F in the presentation by staff.

Thank you.

3:44 – 3:4911 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:44:14

Mr. Gazzani, just one second Supervisor Hartman. Mr. Gazzani has a comment?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction3:44:19

Chair and supervisors, I think Supervisor Hartman's question illustrates some tension right now between the conditions of approval 2B that were submitted by the applicant. With their project description discussing 22 acres of hoops. The original presentation about in condition 3 of 14 acres and today's slide 17 of 5 acres, and that's something that if the board wanted to approve the project and move it forward, it's something that could be reconciled during a prolonged break today but I would recommend having clarity on that as we move forward And any of the conditions as well as the CEQA checklist all match.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:45:02

Okay, thank you very much for that. Supervisor Hartman?

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
CommentDiane PenceProposed3:45:07

Yes, I would have two more questions for the moment. Could you describe again the odor control both the systems and what happens if there are complaints? How that would differ if we had land use controls that is a shorter permit duration vis-a-vis a business license which is reviewed annually

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:45:44

Mister Peterson

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 14Proposed3:45:45

chair heart and supervisor Hartman the odor abatement plan as proposed is would occur in reaction to verified complaints. And it has a Series of steps that would be followed, verification of the complaint. Installation of vegetative buffers and finally buyers vapor phase mechanized odor control system but all of that would only take place if verified complaints were received.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:46:27

Supervisor Hartman to the chair, just as some clarification looking at attachment 2B which is attached to the board agenda letter. Condition number 15 outlines the parameters for the older abatement plan and the implementation of it. And because this property is located within the San Ynez Valley Community Plan area, there's a policy that is in place regarding odor abatement. And because that it's located in that community plan area then there is a condition that was put on to allow the project to be consistent with that policy. And this condition which is condition number 15 and attachment 2B outlines the parameters for the implementation of that odor abatement plan. And it provides for not only the operation, as well as if there's complaints that come.

So this is different than the requirements that's in the ordinance which requires that if you're either need a conditions permit or you're adjacent to an EDRN, you would have to do an order abatement plan. So this condition is related to the policy consistency with the San Ynez Valley Community Plan. So to answer your question, Supervisor Hartman through the chair is looking at condition 15. It outlines those parameters to do that.

To take this further then if there's any issue with that on an annual basis, this would be reviewed under the business license and P&D would have a review role under the business license. If there's numerous complaints or the odor abatement plan isn't being implemented, that would be our response to the CEO's review of the business license on an annual basis. So there's a number of checks and

CommentDiane PenceProposed3:48:06

balances. Excuse me, I just wanted to it's awkward being far away on that point is there any role for the public in the business license process? So if there are odor complaints and they've been verified and the licenses being considered for review does the public have a role in that process?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 4Proposed3:48:36

Supervisor Hartman, this is Mona. They don't have a formal role in that process but we will take any complaints that are provided to us as input.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:48:52

Supervisor Urban, did you

CommentDiane PenceProposed3:48:53

have? Yeah. My final question for the moment is could you elaborate a bit more on the MOU and how that reconciles conflicts with at least your neighbor on the east side and do you have those with others? I gather many of them are Thinking about cannabis operations themselves, but could you just describe that MOU in more detail and how it works?

3:49 – 3:5411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:49:28

Supervisor Hartman to the Chair. I would defer that request to the applicant. That would be an agreement between the applicant and those parties. The department or there are any conditions that relate to that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:49:50

I'm happy to address this issue. So the reason why we don't currently have an MOU with the other neighbor, which is Mosby Vineyards, is that in five years there's never been an issue with pesticide overspray or terpene migration. Ms. Rotman and Nate Diaz have a great relationship with him. He's never requested an M.O.U., but if he requested one, we would be happy to draft one. The reason why we have one with the neighbor to the other side, which is an existing broccoli farmer, is due to the one incident over five years that I addressed. And the reason why we put this in place is because you know we can see from Mr. Sutil's letter there seems to be some fear that a farmer could be held liable even if they sprayed legally.

So we wanted Mr. Mosby and the rest of his team to feel assured that if he was found, and he was currently spraying in compliance with all state and local laws, Ms. Rotman would agree that she would completely absolve him of all liability. And this goes not just to the neighbor, Mr. Amboy but also any tenant farmer and any applicator.

CommentDiane PenceProposed3:50:58

Thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:51:00

Just one little piece of clarification for that too. When you say in compliance with all state and local laws, the law is that pesticides shall not drift. Is that what you mean? Or do you mean that if they apply it in a judicious professional best practices manner and there is still accidental drift that you would not-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 22Proposed3:51:19

The latter is correct. Okay, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:51:30

Any other questions from colleagues? Supervisor Lavenino. Excuse me, go ahead Supervisor Herman you have the floor if you want to just continue

CommentDiane PenceProposed3:51:40

Well, I actually had ceded it but I do have another question and that has to do with the change in rules of the Department of Conservation as they affect the Williamson Act. And I remember this issue or an issue came up and we actually had some difference of opinion and then the Department of Conservation weighed in And at least going forward, to me that would be very important to have the agency interpret its own rule and whether cannabis qualifies or whether it has to be an ancillary use, a compatible use or disallowed entirely.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:52:32

Mr. Guzzani?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction3:52:36

Chair and supervisors, the context for this is that in the county's current uniform rules agricultural use includes commercial cannabis cultivation as an agricultural use. Essentially state law in this area provides two labels either an agricultural use or a compatible use. And we have implementing the act, another portion of state law section 51231 discusses compatible use.

And that was amended in effective January 2020 to say that the uniform rules, a county's uniform rules. May, emphasis on the word may provide that commercial cannabis cultivation constitutes a compatible use. So we had looked at this along the way and the traditional breakdown of may versus shall language in statute may is permissive, shall is mandatory. Permissive meaning the board has discretion on this within its own uniform rules.

As we look at the other definitions in the Williamson Act, both for agricultural use and compatible use. That's really the bifurcation. And at this time, the county's uniform rules properly classify cannabis cultivation as agricultural use. The board could in the future change that, downgrade that per the recent amendment of the Williamson Act to be a compatible use instead of an agricultural use.

But that's the background on this, and the board is currently defensible to treat cannabis as an agricultural use per its uniform rules.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed3:54:18

Thank you Mr. Gazzone. Supervisor Lavinino did you have some questions?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:54:23

Yeah I do thank you. So for staff so a question was brought up first about CUP versus an LUP. And I think this one might be more from Mr. Gazzone. The planning commission, I don't remember how many conditions they placed on this permit. But what are we allowed to do permit wise on an LUP as far as conditioning?

3:54 – 4:0010 turns

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction3:54:57

Chair and Supervisors, so in this area really it's again easy to bifurcate it between a land use permit and a conditional use permit. The board has the broadest discretion with a conditional use permit because that includes a finding that is not present for land use permits. That finding for conditional use permits is that the project will not be detrimental to a series of issues and compatible with the surrounding area. Otherwise, for land use permits the findings to which the board may condition are limited. The first is adequate public or private services. Second is conformity with a comprehensive plan in this case including the San Ynez Valley Community Plan.

Project is located on a legally created lot so not much conditioning there and it's in compliance with local laws, regulations and rules. So the board really, in a situation like this with a land use permit has a limited ability to condition a project. Sometimes land use permits may be conditioned further if there's a document such as a mitigated negative declaration where there's conditions of mitigation in that document but here you're relying on a programmatic EAR. So the board has limited discretion to condition the project and I think the findings reflect that.

But the applicant could self limit

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:56:16

themselves or condition themselves.

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction3:56:19

The applicant can and in this case has offered some changes on the project. Generally, we think that those appear especially if they're a major item appear best in the project description. And that's why I had mentioned before that right now you've got tension between a project description discussing 22 acres. And if the board wants to approve the project. At this 5 acre hoops level my thought would be that the board would you know after deliberating direct staff to work with

not transcribed≈19s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:57:09

So question on hoops, and I don't know. I think Kathy Fisher has talked about this in the past as the Ag Commissioner but And I don't know if staff can weigh in on this but percentage of what you see Hoop wise in the county how much is that cannabis as opposed to regular agriculture? Any idea

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:57:34

Anybody want a hazard guess Supervisor Lavadino to the chair. It would be a very hazard guess to do that, because there's a variety of crops that are being grown with the hoop structures and they cycle in a different manner all the way from berries to cannabis to anything else that they're growing in there. So I wouldn't be able to provide a guess on that but there's wide variety of products that are being grown under hoops.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:58:03

Okay, another question I have is so it's been mentioned by the applicant that P&D was out with the Sheriff's Department. So what enforcement has been done on the property or who has visited the property in

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed3:58:19

the county? Supervisor Lavinia through the chair, it is my understanding and I can speak for planning development. I'm not totally versed on what the Sheriff's Department role is on enforcement of this property. Just a little background, a complaint was filed with our department. We initiated a preliminary investigation into the information that was submitted.

And based on timing with the permit being ready to be issued, the staff that was on the investigation side Didn't complete that investigation or realize that the permit is going to be issued. And if there was any violation of the permit, we'd correct that. So that was P&D from both the planning's permitting staff as well enforcement as a visitor property. We did receive that information in addition the applicant provided a lot of information that we evaluated. There was no notice of violation issued.

The department moved to issuing a permit as that was where it was in the process.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:59:20

And let's

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction3:59:22

see. Mr. Chair? Yes, yes. Mr Chair and board and I think that summarized in draft finding 2.1.2 Open Parent 3 closed parent discussing the properties compliance there is a short version of that discussion in there about a complaint and a close out based on the approval of the LUP.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed3:59:49

Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you. Oh I did one. I'm sorry one more and this isn't just for this project but I Did watch the Planning Commission hearing? and The idea of the board kind of getting involved in odor control So that on an individual basis each The project doesn't have to go through this situation again. I think the planning commission, especially my commissioner is very interested in getting some direction from the board for future projects and I'm just curious from staff how would we do that? What would be the steps for that to be able to happen where they might be able to kick it to us. We come up with the direction and it goes back to the planning commission.

4:00 – 4:059 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed4:00:43

Supervisor Lavinier to the chair. Currently, got a lot of stimulus going on right here. Currently- Always keep your eyes on the lawyer. So currently we've had several workshops with the Planning Commission. The last action they did was to direct staff to bring a request to the Board of Supervisors on older abatement and how to address that. There's going to be, currently the department is exploring a couple options. The first one is going to be when the work program comes before the board of supervisors as far as financing that work program and receiving direction as far Separate order abatement amendments, as well as a full order cannabis amendment package. So that's going to be the first one. The other one would be another avenue would be for the department to bring the request to the board separately and to get feedback in direction of the board on direction on moving forward on any amendments that relate to odor abatement within the ordinance.

And so that's the potential path that the department is looking for is bringing those items to the board for direction.

not transcribed≈6s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:02:03

I would like to see those, obviously the sooner the better.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:02:07

Thank you. Any other questions from members of the board?

CommentDiane PenceProposed4:02:14

I do but I could go after you Chair Hart.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:02:19

No, go right ahead please.

CommentDiane PenceProposed4:02:22

Okay. Did a rough calculation of the cannabis acres proposed on 246. And I came up with 971 acres just on 246, that doesn't include Santa Rosa Road. I'm not sure if my calculation is correct. But the Santa Rita Hills AVA is 2,700 acres. So that if they were all approved would be 36% of the AVA. So I think there are some issues that flow from that and that will probably go into my remarks later, but I just wanted to get whether I have this right. Now our cannabis cap inland is 1575 acres And again, if my math is right and we do have 971 acres proposed then that would be 60% of the cap in the Santa Rita Hills. So my question is, is that correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:03:41

Tough to do that math right in people's heads. I see calculated-

CommentDiane PenceProposed4:03:45

And we can wait until after the break, but I looked at all those red dots and tried to add up the acres and I think that the cumulative impacts are important to understand.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:03:58

Maybe you can just work on that with paper and pen after we take a break. My questions are about the odor abatement plan and what the conflict between what the applicant is asking in their appeal versus what the planning condition conditions. So, the very first thing in the odor abatement plan... Is there way to put number 15 up on the screen at all or is that...?

You can get it through the board agenda. It's attachment 2A. I guess maybe I could, well maybe you better have it.

4:06 – 4:1522 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:06:27

Do we need the slides this much?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:06:30

Maybe not. I don't know, just it would be easier but if it's challenging... All right. We also could take a break now and wait for technology to catch up. Is that a better idea? Oh, we almost have it. Okay so... I have it. Plug it into my computer right here. Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed4:07:19

Chair Hart? Yes. Members of the board. So there's attachment 2A and 2B, and there are slight deviations between the two. So staff has pulled up both of those attachments. So to begin with, the one that is shown right now is attachment 2A.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:07:35

And that's the planning conditions condition? That is correct, Chair. So where I wanted to go was, the very first thing says that applicants should not dry cannabis on site. My understanding is the Planning Commission wanted that because drying cannabis adds odors and so they're philosophically saying we shouldn't be doing that on site. And I think the applicant opposes that it says they need to dry cannabis to some degree onsite. Is that right? That's the conflict?

Sort of, there's more nuance to that. Maybe you Amy should come up and help me with the nuance because everything is going to go from there

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:08:10

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Laurel Perez representing the applicant. A little bit more nuance to that. Presently the applicant Busy Bees does not dry on site and that is in fact what we presented to the Planning Commission in our best management practices and they really glommed onto that and stuck it in as a condition of approval which would preclude Busy Bee Organics from drying onsite in the future once they build one of the two or both of the two new ag structures that have been approved By the central BAR and the land use permit, which would be equipped with the best available technology for filtration. A sealed greenhouse with carbon filtration? Exactly. Presently it's carbon filtration, who knows what may be in the air.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:08:56

Whatever the technology is to limit odor so that's your strategy as opposed to no drying. Correct. There's a conflict there okay And then so all of the other things kind of fall from that. Well, that's not true. Number two is sort of describes only one way that you would process your product and so that creates challenges too. You would not always just immediately flash freeze and use temporary freezers. Is that what you're saying?

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:09:19

That's exactly right. One of the things about this condition as it's written and adopted by the Planning Commission is it mandates that the product leave the site within two hours. We're really concerned about compliance with that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:09:32

It doesn't say that there, though.

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:09:34

Let's just take them one

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:09:35

step at a time here because we've got a lot of them to go.

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:09:37

Flash freezing them in temporary freezers, right? So the applicant shall flash freeze, which precludes the applicant from fresh flower shipping or indoor drying in the sealed and filtration system new building. So we want to keep that option available.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:09:59

Okay, I understand that and then all plant materials shall be either vacuum sealed and flash frozen or shipped off site. There's the two hour limitation that you said is impractical. Right. And then this is the one that's really challenging because it sounds like there's just not understanding between the two parts number four. The applicant should not stagger harvest periods throughout the property and the intention of that I think from the planning commission They didn't want continuously planted crops that would harvest and bud continuously over the whole year, creating the odor rather than having two specific growing seasons. That doesn't seem so complicated to understand but it sounds like the language is problematic.

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:10:40

Well, I think there was some concern on the team about taking that intention of not staggering harvests and better defining it. And that's what we're proposing there. And just again to emphasize the Planning Commission approval included up to three harvest per year so there is no change to that. We are adding that definition of each harvest lasting approximately two weeks which gets to the same intention of three harvests per year not being staggered.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:11:08

Well, there's harvesting and then there's planting. And are you saying that you would plant a continuous crop across the whole property at once and then harvest it all once? Or are you saying you're going to start at the edge of the property and plant, and it might take two months to plant the whole property- The

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:11:24

former.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:11:25

Okay.

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:11:25

So they're planning on planting the crop, the fields, raising it up, and harvesting the fields within about a two week period of time. Okay,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:11:34

thank you. And then this next one, the applicant shall grow genetics that feature citrus pine and flora flavor profiles reducing the potential for the skunk odor. Is that an issue or is that-?

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:11:47

That is not of issue.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:11:48

Okay. And then the limitation on having the only indoor cultivation occurring in the existing greenhouse and having those essential I think for a nursery Not of issue. Not an issue, okay. And then the windscreens and the fans and the tier one and two that stuff that follows there after that not at issue?

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated4:12:08

Not of issue.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:12:09

Okay. All right well that helps me understand the conflict. Okay. And I think that was really my question everybody else asked all the other questions that I had earlier So if there are not any more questions from my colleagues, we will take a break. Let's make it I guess 15 minutes, we'll come back at 1.30. Okay.

4:20 – 4:201 turns

CommentKelly RangelProposed4:20:12

Thank you.

4:30 – 4:457 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:30:01

I'll reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting and we're at the stage of the day for deliberations on this item. Would Supervisor Hartman like to begin? It's in your district.

CommentDiane PenceProposed4:30:13

Yes, thank you Chair Hart. I have a number of things that I would like to discuss and the first is I have received a number of emails despite the Clerk of the Board's best efforts to allow I'm cold up here, we're freezing. Participation by phone it is very difficult for people to avail themselves of that fully so you know that the cannabis ordinance was in fact Much of it during the Thomas fire and debris flow, and now we have the coronavirus. That is something that is of concern to me that people didn't fully get to participate in this process. So I just want to register that as a concern, I'm going to delay this and then allow for fuller public participation at some point, but I'll continue with my comments.

The second general thing is that I don't think there's any question but that the applicant in this case has done many really stellar things. The regenerative agriculture, the security, the water, the screening ahead of time. All of those are things that are very impressive and it is aesthetically at the gateway. It's a very attractive project and set back a fair bit from 246.

I do think however that this project, because it is the first Ag-2 project in this area, it raises a number of really important concerns. The first one I already mentioned about, I would very much like for future projects if not this one to get a Department of Conservation reading on how they interpret their rule That would give me a greater degree of comfort going forward.

The second thing is the issue of cumulative impact. I think if you compare, I have to make a correction at least on my numbers but the Santa Rita Hill AVA is I think about 2700 acres parcels and So I think this would be 971 acres. Now, I may be off a bit but I think it's over 30% would be if we approved all these cannabis and I think that's a big impact on existing agriculture and vineyards.

I also do believe, I think I got the number wrong on the Proposed cumulative impacts or the proposed cannabis operations as they would relate to our cap, but I think it's about 30%. So that's a lot. That's a lot concentrated in one area. It's a lot concentrated in one area where the vineyards have worked very hard since 2001 at least to build a reputation and And I think we must consider very seriously what that means.

Some people say, well it's just scare tactics but wine more than anything has a reputation value. If you look to any business it's not just the bricks and mortar. Reputation value has an economic value and I don't think we've fully considered The concerns are vis-a-vis this industry, the vineyard industry from the cumulative impact of the cannabis that's proposed in the Santa Rita Hills.

The third thing that I really want to mention and I think this is absolutely critical going forward is this idea of legal nonconforming. What that means is that January 2016, what was in the ground was what we agreed could continue. It's not grading, it's not regenerative agriculture, it's not other stuff. If I have a house and I say okay, I'm going to build a foundation And I intend to build an addition. That foundation doesn't give me a legal nonconforming right and I think what's happened in our ordinance is because we didn't clamp down on that We have many, many operations especially in this AVA that have expanded beyond that initial medical legal non-conforming.

And that is the reason why people are so upset And I don't know from between the lip and the cup, in my view there has been a serious slip. And I don't know how to remedy that going forward but I certainly want to register it here because that is something that is very, very concerning to me as these projects come before us. That they think they can be cured by giving a permit When you do it for a housing thing, at least there's a penalty.

Here we're just blessing it. What kind of message does that send? I'll leave my comments there for now.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:36:29

Okay, thank you Supervisor Hartman. Who'd like to go next? Supervisor Lavinino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:36:34

Thank you. Well, I just want to correct one thing, at least on math. I think the ADA is close to 30,000 acres. And there's 2,700 acres planted with 59 vineyards. So just the math is going to change considerably there but I understand the clustering idea but I just wanted to get those numbers right.

CommentDiane PenceProposed4:36:59

Sure, and we asked Jeff and I'm happy to get the numbers and get agreement on the numbers. The bigger point is it's a large percentage of our cap, it's a large percentage of the AVA. And I think we have to come to terms with that.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:37:17

Unfortunately, I don't think it's possible to get clarity on the numbers real time today but that's something that staff can work on in the future. Supervisor Williams?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:37:30

Well, I think that Supervisor Hartman brings up a lot of important issues. One I definitely agree with is wrestling with the level of concentration here and in the west end of Carpentria for that matter. And I do think that the planning commission is essentially With these projects trying to wrestle with that in a manner. I'm not sure whether I think they're wrestling it with it in the best possible manner, but I really do appreciate that they're trying to wrestle with it.

I think your points in particular to me raise the question of certain policy decisions that we should make and why I hope the Planning Commission will not try to wait to have a perfect product to send back to us, but will send us a product as quickly as possible because this...we as a board decided July to change the rules to address such things as setbacks and concentration. And we can't do that until the Planning Commission recommendation comes back to us.

So, I mean, I would propose that is the best way to address these issues rather than You know, take it out on a project that while one of the first is also one of the most innocuous on the landscape. I you know with all the The, you know the hullabaloo about this project and others when I decided to pop in on Nate. I expected fully expected yeah to be not be impressed right?

You could even say that I was leaning against the project in some ways and then I passed it by without even noticing that there was a marijuana operation there. And then when I'm on site, I can hardly tell the difference that it posed compared to the surrounding landscape. And I think that's what we want, right? We want projects that are choosing Do something that makes sure their operation is compatible visually with the aesthetic of the valley. And a project that you can hardly tell is a marijuana operation, is definitely in my mind in that category and so And of course, this gets at the debate over hoops too.

If the farm can do so with a minimal amount of hoops I mean I don't even think people would see the hoops in parts of A and B But because even though it's close to the road, it's so depressed down. There is such a big height difference but I appreciate the applicant being willing to do that and Something that is rational, something that addresses several of our issues.

In particular I have been wrestling with this thing where people in my district want more carbon filtration operations well then I would say then somebody needs to support one that has a carbon filtration so we know it works and is efficacious, and that we can assess if that's best available technology. And this revised project does that. I think the non-conforming issue to me as a general rule is definitely an issue.

To me, an operation that isn't adhering to our rules, that should factor into our deliberation in a de novo appeal. However, this operation was investigated. If our law enforcement personnel felt that they had been lying or that they had proof, they would have brought it to us. There are many cases of operations that have been raided and taken down simply for violating their non-conforming status.

I don't know that, I definitely am of the opinion that intent to cultivate should not mean that you have non-conforming status. And to me that is not a legal opinion it is an opinion of how to maintain the faith and credence of the public right? However, I really think that if both our P&D and our law enforcement have looked at this case. They've not found a case.

It is not for us to arbitrate non-conforming status from the DS. In my view, when somebody's already been investigated. If they hadn't been at all then I might have a different opinion and of course if they had been caught then I would also want to factor that into our future decisions. I definitely agree with some of the issues that Supervisor Hartman has brought up today, but I believe that the proper place for addressing those is in the policy decision that is brought back to us from the Planning Commission.

My opinion is that a small setback requirement Will prevent and address the terpene drift issues in a quantitative and qualitative way. I believe our goal should be for both industries to thrive in the valley, and throughout the county. I suppose I'm leaning towards upholding the Busy Bee Appeal, but I definitely cannot find for the coalition's appeal.

not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈7s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈8s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈10s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen

4:45 – 4:587 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:45:11

Supervisor Lavenino?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:45:13

Thank you Mr. Chair. Well to the first point that was raised about participation, first off I want to thank Jacqueline. You had a rough go as the clerk, and I thought you did an outstanding job. You kind of reminded me a little bit of before your time we used to call into radio stations and request songs Trying to juggle some phone calls, so you did a great job.

And the fact that I had a letter written in one read in by the Cleary's and also Renee joining on the phone. Also received an email from Renee thanking the county for opening it up and allowing people to be able to participate in this manner could have made it easier for I'm guessing we're probably going to be getting requests in the future that people don't want to come to the meetings and they can just watch and call in. So, we'll see how that's all gonna work in the future.

But, I kind of broke this thing into four things for me. It's size of the grow, hoops, odor, and then renewal of the permit. So I'll go with renewal first because for me it's easiest. You can't put a permit on a shot clock with a year or two years that it would be looked at again. There's just no way anybody, nobody in any business is going to want to try to raise money to support a business in that manner.

You have to have certainty. I think we have many controls in place that would if a rogue grower goes off the reservation that will be able to deal with that as it happens but You know, there's no way. First off we see how impacted the Planning Commission is right now I can't imagine us saying okay everybody you just got approved get on the calendar because 18 months from now or two years from now you're going to need to come back in that's just not gonna work size of the property size of the grow I don't think there's that much significant difference between 18 and 22 acres. I will go with whatever my colleagues are okay with there.

As far as hoops go, this is where I disagree with the applicant in that I would not have removed those hoops. To me, hoops are a benefit for a growth site. I know they're a visual impact. But we live in an agricultural community. I remember when vineyards were planted, not everybody liked the looks of those. They wanted open space, they wanted cattle grazing, they wanted open fields. Agriculture means different things to different people. Maybe I'm just used to it up here in North County but we allow our growers the tools to be able to do the job that they need to do and so I would not have removed those hoops. I think it's also a tool to use to possibly defend against pesticide overspray, so you might be causing yourself more problem by forcing folks to take hoops down.

When it gets to odor, I think the odor plan put in is above and beyond something that I would require, I really think that we need to address this though in a broader sense in the future of what are we going to require. I've been actually researching on my own just looking at the nasal ranger, how that works. Other places you know Colorado's uses those quite a bit.

Just think we're going to put ourselves if we don't do this yeah I could see this just having a neighbor continually call And try to get somebody to come out from the county continuously and check, and check, and check. And I'm not sure we have the technology to be able to identify exactly where that odor is coming from. So going with best available technology whether that's the buyer system or the fans or whatever's included in the applicants.

Odor control I think goes above and beyond. I think the fact that the City of Buelton weighed in where they have been basically opposed in the past and weighed in and said that they are okay with this project is significant. The fact that, you know, I know Supervisor Hartman mentioned about that folks are upset because Busy Bee somehow did an end run. First off, there were zero outdoor plants in the ground January of 2016. So if we take that date and say January 2016 whatever was in the ground is what was allowed. Well there's nothing in the ground in January of 2016 because if you had it in the ground it's dead so I know that there's other levels of ground preparation or where you plant or had you planted there in the past?

We can look at that. But we also have to look at, there was a project pretty close and it might be the neighboring property too busy B which is West Coast. They were rejected at the planning commission and they haven't done any growing. So as far as legal nonconforming goes, they've done absolutely nothing. They have an empty field and there were still people opposed.

Which brings me to another point of it would just be easier to hear, I guess that people are opposed to cannabis instead of continually here. We're okay with it we just don't like this project. Because basically what I've heard is folks are saying that, say that also say that it's mutually exclusive with all other agriculture or at least their agriculture. And so there really is you really got to search on the map to find a place to put a cannabis grow that's not going to have some sort of interaction with either other agriculture or Residential or an EDRN, I mean you're driving around this county. You think there's a lot of open space so you try to go build something or plant something somewhere and you realize everybody's got in every place has a neighbor and they all have concerns which they should.

I also think that when we're talking about how many projected grows there are I can promise you, I'm talking to some people yesterday that are in the industry that there are going to be way fewer people in this industry after this economic downturn than there were two weeks ago. So as far as clustering goes, That will be a concern. It's not as big of a concern to me on the first project we're looking at, but it may be down the road. But again, growers are going to grow where the conditions are conducive for their crops and that's why we have 59 vineyards in that Santa Rita area because it's a great place to grow wine. So it might also be a great place to grow something else.

Let's go back. I just want to make sure I'm touching on everything that I have. I also, and I want to learn more about that interaction between wine and cannabis because I do see places in the county where for example in Los Alamos you're driving by and there's a big giant grow and it's under hoops But it is right next to a very nice, beautiful vineyard as well. And I have heard zero complaints from either one of those people so I'm still trying to figure out how that all works.

I think we have a 62-acre parcel here, whether it's 18 acres or 22 acres. I think it fits the size. I think the planning commission was well intentioned with the conditions that they placed. But I believe in speaking with Mr. Gazzone that we probably are better served having whatever decision we make today. Wrapped up in a new project description. I think that'll be cleaner And those are my comments

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:54:28

Thank you, Supervisor Lavanino. Well, I agree with my colleagues if there are still some policy issues that the board needs to address and I think that Looking forward to getting input from the Planning Commission on this process and I appreciate The work that the Planning Commission did on this project their their scrutiny has improved it and I also appreciate the Changes to the project description that the applicant has brought forward. I think the reduction in the hoops is a benefit to the visual quality of the project, and that's an important part of this finding the right balance point in community interests in the Santa Maria Hills and the San Diego Valley generally.

I do believe that cannabis farming and the wine industry can coexist if cannabis is properly regulated, and we've just got to keep working on that to get to that place. I appreciate the fact that the City of Builton has weighed in on this issue and they are supportive of this project as it's conditioned from the Planning Commission. I think that really does speak volumes for that community and their concerns.

The applicants' efforts to work with their neighbors, and to have support from their neighbors is also really appreciated. There's a lot of work involved in that and hearing the story now about Contact with the neighbor regarding pesticide drift and working through that process at ending up with an MOU with the neighbors that clarifies that. And protects traditional ag in their operations, at the same time as letting the cannabis operation exist as well. I thought that was really thoughtful and foresightful. And the Ag Commissioner working in their working group is trying to point folks in that direction as well so it's great that you have that as something to point to.

I don't think there is enough scientific evidence to talk about the terpene contamination of wine grapes. I'm certainly open to additional information about that regard, but I just am not seeing real science that would give me pause at this point. Obviously something that we just want to continue to investigate and I think the Ag Commissioner is working to do some independent scientific studies on that subject and that's really what we need is some independent science.

So I think I can support this project. It's gone through a lot of scrutiny, but I do want to make sure that the conditions that we have work and it sounds like there still is some issues to be worked out between the applicant and the Staff in that regard, so maybe we can have some policy direction on the board at a conceptual level. And then we could potentially break and have the folks work through those issues to get to resolution on the details of the conditions. Mr. Gazzani?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction4:57:16

Chair and supervisors, I think as a starter the board has to pick one on trailing the item today. Allowing us to break into closed session and then coming back in an hour or 90 minutes where the project description condition within set 2B and presentation today by the applicant all match. Or to continue the matter to a future board meeting we could do it either way. I estimate it's about an hour to 90 minutes of work To do that and be confident in the product.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:57:46

Okay, what is the preference of my colleagues?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 2Proposed4:57:52

Well- Make it time certain.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:57:55

Okay. So you would want to trail rather than continue, Supervisor Williams.

4:58 – 5:0322 turns

CommentDiane PenceProposed4:58:05

My preference would be to continue so we make sure we get it right and So that people who would like an opportunity to comment on the change project description have that opportunity Today has been truncated comment

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:58:19

Supervisor Lavinino

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:58:22

If Mr. Gazzone's confident he can get it done in 60 or 90 minutes, we don't know what... I mean, I think our future... I'm looking at... The future is not certain. The future is not certain so... Yeah, yeah, I think

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:58:35

that is wise. I

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:58:36

would rather we're here let's knock it out and if they can get good work done We'll go

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:58:41

to lunch. And I do think it is noteworthy that we actually created a system that provided more opportunity for public comment than our regular meeting process. We have never before had opportunity for folks to call in live in a hearing, so I don't think we really have limited public participation today actually. So that's my preference too, is to trail and come back at a time certain.

Mr. Guzzani?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction4:59:06

Chair and supervisors, so with 90 minutes we're comfortable that we could have the same product we would have in a week in 90 minutes on this. And really it would really help us though in putting this together to understand the inputs that are coming in. You have three different numbers from the applicant concerning acres of hoop structures, 22 acres in the project description, Condition three that they offered, and then five acres in the presentation today. And what I'm hearing from the board is one of the two last numbers but we'd just like clarity so we can draft this right away for you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed4:59:47

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed4:59:50

Do they have the, there was a slide that basically had the slide 17 if you could put that up that would help us walk through it.

CommentDiane PenceProposed4:59:58

And if I might just add, if we can limit the hoops to five acres you would have my vote.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:00:10

Well if I remember right, the starting place is 22 acres. The planning commission conditioned the project to be 18 acres with four acres that wouldn't be cannabis and then also had the five acre limitation on hoops. And now the applicant has offered to not have hoops on A and B. So if we started from that and we said there were five acres of hoops allowed on parcels D, E, and F.

And then did the math backwards, does that have a number that everybody agrees with? It would help me to have the visual. Now we'll get that, I was trying to see if we could.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed5:00:51

Mr. Wilson? Chair Hart, members of the board, that is correct. I think the latest request from the applicants is five acres and then we can bring up the applicant's five acres of hoops, better clarify that. And so we can, on this table that we're showing it indicates the variations of numbers. The applicant today proposed five acres and that would be eliminating areas A and B, and then there would be areas D, E, F, and I think G?

We could bring up that presentation if you'd like to have a visual of that.

CommentBlair PenceProposed5:01:28

Yeah, here we go.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed5:01:30

Think he got it. Chair Hart, members of the board. When we look at the slide that's being shown, the applicants are indicating that they would be okay with limiting it to five acres in the southern area of the project and as I indicated before, that's the areas indicated on the map DE, then areas F and then C. And I think there's a G there somewhere. And so that would be eliminating on attachment B condition three. That one had 14 acres, but going on break we could trail and come back and revise the project description to clarify where the hoops would be located at in their project description.

And Chair Hart and supervisors, so clarification on there's a lot of numbers being thrown around here. So the direction that we're looking for from the board would be 22 acres of cannabis cultivation and out of that 22 acres there'd be five acres of hoops and that would be located in the southern area in the areas that we've articulated earlier.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:02:55

Yep, so 17 acres of outdoor cannabis, 5 acres of hoop cannabis on a 22 acre total grow. That's one flavor of this. Are there-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed5:03:07

So why don't we get hand raise or what do you call it? The

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction5:03:12

nod? It'd be conceptual to staff with those input numbers and then draft it bring it back for final action.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:03:20

Conceptually, I support that. Our colleagues down in Santa Barbara looks like there's four hands for that. Okay?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction5:03:28

And although we're not doing an actual final vote, I would recommend just stating it on the record because we are teleconferencing.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:03:34

Okay, so Supervisor Latham. I'm okay with that. Supervisor Hartman.

CommentDiane PenceProposed5:03:40

Okay.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:03:41

Supervisor Williams? I'm okay. And I am too. What other issues do you want to go through like that, to get clarity for you to draft conditions?

5:03 – 5:069 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed5:03:57

Chair Hart, members of the board. There were a number of conditions that or items that were indicated and I think if we looked at attachment 2B, conditions of approval. If the direction from the board was we could come back with a project description that encapsulates the 22 acres and the five acres of hoop, Using the attachment 2B as the framework of the project description. And so that removes a condition that was put on by the planning commission in regards to that two year re-review.

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction5:04:36

Mr. Gazzani? Inputs, it would be starting with the applicant's proposed conditions of approval to be with the modifications that we've talked about in the project description. And conditions of approval to reflect 22 acres total with five acres under hoops.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:05:00

And is there anything in 2B regarding odor mitigation that is ambiguous to what we talked about earlier? Mr. Wilson.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed5:05:15

Chair Hart, members of the board. I think attachment 2B with the odor abatement is what the applicant had proposed and we as staff prepared and analyzed it. I think it captures the board's intent on odor abatement. It gets

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:05:29

to this issue about the harvest and the staggered harvest and gives that precise language in a guardrails? Mr. Gazzani?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction5:05:37

And then I think just process-wise, if the board's direction was to trail this and then come back essentially in an hour and a half from whenever we start. I would recommend then giving both the applicant and the other appellant an opportunity to just comment on the package that would be prepared and distributed ahead of time.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:05:58

I think those were the issues that I had written down, that remained outstanding. Any other issues anybody else has? Let's see if we can get the screen back from Santa Barbara so I can see anything else from Santa Barbara that you would want staff to work on or at least just discuss before they work on. Okay, I think we have a consensus and we have a time certain at,

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction5:06:27

I think I'm looking at if we are breaking at 2 10 to 15 an hour and a half on top of that. So

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:06:33

345 45 All right, so we are adjourned to closed session but do we need to read the items into The record for closed session. Mr.

5:06 – 5:103 turns

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction5:06:44

Zondi? Chair and supervisors, today the board has agendized for one matter in closed session that's a case of existing litigation in the US District Court for the Central District of California. The case name is French versus County of Santa Barbara. My estimate for closed session, well it doesn't matter because we'll be back in an hour and a half but my estimate is more than 30 minutes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed5:07:01

Okay, thank you very much. Even without a script wow I'm

CommentKelly RangelProposed5:07:06

starting to you Yeah. Thank you.

5:18 – 5:181 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:18:08

Thank you.

5:26 – 5:271 turns

CommentKelly RangelProposed5:26:44

Yeah. I'm

5:34 – 6:172 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed5:34:49

Thank you.

CommentKelly RangelProposed5:38:52

you Thank you. You. Okay. Hello. Yeah. Thank you. You. Yeah. Yeah.

6:24 – 6:342 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed6:24:50

Thank you.

CommentKelly RangelProposed6:28:37

you Yeah.

6:41 – 6:411 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 23Proposed6:41:30

Thank you.

7:02 – 7:1111 turns

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:02:35

We'll reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting. Mr. Gazzani, could you please report out from closed session?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction7:02:48

Chair and supervisors today in closed session the board considered one matter of existing litigation. The case of French versus County of Santa Barbara in the US District Court for the Central District of California there is no reportable action.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:02:58

Thank you. We'll go back now to department item number four. Mr Wilson, do you want to make a presentation of

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 13Proposed7:03:06

Chair Hart members the board during the break and lunch staff worked on preparing a memo with appropriate findings and conditions approval as well as updating The secret checklist to coincide with the direction we see prior to break. I just want to take a moment to walk through the changes. The memo articulates that it'll be 22 acres of Cannabis cultivation with a maximum of five acres that would remain in hoop structures and that would prohibit the hoop structures in areas A and B as depicted In the plans submitted by the applicant on sheet a 103 And then the memo also provides recommended actions for the board to take if they would concur with the revisions that have been changed with one correction on action C. That should be referencing to attachment a which is the Findings so that would be one revision on the memo.

Otherwise, the recommended actions are provided for the board's consideration I want to take a moment to go through the changes that are in strike through underline and the conditions of approval To walk The board through the changes that we made over the break. We did have communication with the applicants and they have concurred with the changes to the project description And so looking on the screen, it shows the strike through underlying changes. What we used as the starting point was attachment B which was the conditions approval that had incorporated the proposed revisions to the project from the, on the appeal for the planning commission.

So the strike through underline changes. Show that there's going to be 22 acres of cannabis cultivation. There is a 2,700 square foot nursery and has a maximum of five acres that will be under 12-foot tall hoop structures. And then no hoops will be erected in areas A or B as depicted on the sheet A103. And then in addition, we struck condition number five and added it at the bottom of that paragraph that is shown on the screen. If you can scroll up, thank you. And that has to do with a buffer and the applicant was in agreement with that being added to their project description.

So just to provide a little context to the board, with these changes the project description that would remove conditions of approval 3, 4 and 5. And condition three was that reduction hoop structures and the project description has been revised now to be a maximum of five acres. And then number four is reduction in planted cannabis areas, it's been changed to the maximum of 22 acres of cannabis cultivation.

And then one other change was condition approval number 15, that has to do with the odor abatement. The applicant had revised that odor abatement plan and I wanted to bring this issue to the board. This odor abatement plan does allow for the drying of cannabis on site, and it provides that variation Harvesting or growing the cannabis. We did strike one area which is regardless of the harvest method used, the crop should be weighed within two hours of cutting. That's a state regulation and will be enforced by the state. We wanted to strike that as something we'd enforce as a county agency.

Otherwise, condition 15 remains the same as indicated in attachment B. We did strike the monitoring requirement but it was revised. I don't know why we struck that. There was a duplication there so we struck out the monitoring aspect of it. And then finally, we did add condition number 35 which is a requirement for them to, the applicant to submit a revised site plan that conforms with the change in the project description today with one change. There is a typo in that too where we want to strike out Jeff Wilson's name and replace that with the...and so that would read to the memo to the board dated March 17th 2020

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:07:27

Thank you Mr. Wilson, we'll take your name off that part of the record. Are there any questions of staff? Any discussion? Mr. Gazzani?

CommentNathan EadyProposed · by introduction7:07:42

It recommended before we broke that you might want to hear, or I would recommend that you hear from both the applicant and the Santa Barbara Coalition as to this revised package. Thank you,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:07:53

appreciate that. I guess we'll start with the applicants since Ms Perez is there.

PresenterLaurel PerezBusy Bee OrganicsProposedself-stated7:07:59

Okay, Mr Chair, Supervisors thank you very much and a huge appreciation to staff for working over their lunch hour to make these changes. We've reviewed everything and they're completely acceptable to us, thank you.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:08:10

Thank you. Mr. Cetillo, would you like to address the board?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 15Proposed7:08:19

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah I feel like The Board's decision here is doing an extreme disservice to the Planning Commission and to the community. You're defying CEQA, you're sanctioning a tax giveaway under the Williamson Act giving carte blanche to the applicant and basically the public here is being kicked in the teeth. On the substantive issues I first got to point out that there was also Condition number 25, the director review provision which I don't think that your board discussed but has now been deleted from the project. The changes from 18 to 22 acres, I'll assume that's in reliance on the Williamson Act interpretation that the board has implicitly adopted as a result of this. But that is an excessive amount Cultivation on this parcel and we would strongly encourage the board to consider going back to what the applicant had originally requested, which was 18 acres.

The issue of processing on site was something that the planning commission spent a lot of time with and the decision that the board made today substantially undercuts the authority of the planning commission and substantially increases the odor footprint. In our view, it's largely a hollow gesture because they're as I noted in my prior comments on the plans. There's no indication of what the filtration equipment is going to be like and what's going to be entailed. And I realize the new condition 35 specifically provides that they're gonna conform the plans to the project. But the problem then is you have a whole other noise impact. And that's where this cut and paste and decided on the fly, and re-decisions that's attended this whole process from the very beginning has made it very challenging for the public.

Probably for the applicants too but as we look at these projects in this form of project approval Very, very disheartening and I think very challenging for any of us to be able to meaningfully engage in this process. The odor abatement plan is changed slightly but that plan is going to entail the use of fans and windscreens. Nowhere has there been an environmental analysis of what the impact of those mitigation measures are going to be. The fans themselves are very loud.

And they're noisy. And secondly, to install windscreens to deflect odor is probably going to involve significant visual and aesthetic effect. So obviously the board knows the direction it wants to go on a restate our objections to the approval and the failure to comply with CEQA. The improper analysis and reliance on the Williamson Act and the process that's gone forward here In authorizing this project to go, to proceed. Thank you.

not transcribed≈12s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
not transcribed≈17s of audible speech the AI couldn’t make out▸ listen
UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:11:28

Thank you Mr. Still. The matter is to the board. Would anyone like to make a motion?

7:11 – 7:1423 turns

CommentDiane PenceProposed7:11:39

I just wanted to make some additional comments and that is, this is really the first appeal on Ag 2 property. I think it reveals some serious problems with the ordinance and I think particularly our policies on non-conforming uses and to allow those to expand and then to bless those with a permit. That is first and foremost in my mind something that needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed soon.

And so I don't think it's fair to put the whole burden on this single project, but I do think that now that we see these projects coming before us one by one. We see the flaws in the ordinance and I'm committed to trying to fix them.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:12:25

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Looking for a motion. Supervisor Lavenino.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:12:34

All right, I will make the motion to staff recommendations A, B, C, D and E on the memo dated March 17th of 2020.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:12:48

Motion's been made is there a second? Wait, excuse me. We have a pause.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed7:12:52

Mr. Chair, Supervisor Labanino just to clarify does that include the changes? I'm sorry yes,

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:12:59

yes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed7:13:00

Which are in-

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:13:01

Attachment A and C instead of attachment B correct?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed7:13:07

Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:13:07

Okay so in C we're changing it to attachment A instead of attachment b.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed7:13:12

Correct.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:13:12

I think that's the only

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 24Proposed7:13:13

And then in the conditions of approval and condition 35 to strike Jeff Wilson's name and replace it with quote

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 3Proposed7:13:21

I kind of like it in there. Memorialize him a little bit, but if that's what he wants we'll go ahead and change it

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:13:28

Okay, we have a motion is there a second? Second. Motion has been made and seconded any discussion all those in favor with the roll call

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction7:13:37

Mr.. Lavinino

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:13:38

aye

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction7:13:39

Mr.. Williams

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:13:41

Aye

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction7:13:42

Miss Hartman Aye. Chair Hart?

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:13:45

Aye.

GuestHermanProposed · by introduction7:13:46

Motion passes.

UnidentifiedUnidentified speaker 1Proposed7:13:46

Thank you very much, we are now adjourned to Tuesday March 24th 2020 in Santa Barbara Okay.