UnGovr Transcript
iHow this transcript is madeUnGovr transcribes the official recording with automated speech-to-text, separates speakers by voice, and matches voices to the seated roster. Names and attributions are AI estimates and may contain errors.Verify any quote yourself: click anywhere in the transcript and the official video jumps to that exact moment, so you can check any quote against the recording.0:01 – 0:011 turns
You.
0:03 – 0:1335 turns
I will call to order the October 6, 2020 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Would the clerk please call the roll?
Mr. Williams?
Here.
Ms. Hartman? Here. Mr. Adams?
Here
Mr. Lavinino?
Here
Chair Hart?
The next item of business is approval of the minutes from the September 22nd and the September 29th special meeting. Is there any discussion? I'll now entertain a motion. So moved.
Second.
Motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, would you please call the roll?
Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adam?
Aye
Mr. Lavinino?
Aye
Chair Hart?
Aye
Motion passes unanimously
CEO Miyasato, is there a CEO report today?
Yes there is Chair Hart and board members. This week is National Fire Prevention Week. There's a resolution on your honorary resolutions today and so with us we have Chief Hartwig to talk a little bit more about fire prevention.
Chief Hartwig welcome thank you for being here
Thank you Chair, Ms. Miyasato, members of the Board. I'm going to make it brief this morning but wanted to give you a little bit of history. Calvin Coolidge in 1925 proclaimed this week every year Fire Prevention Week. So we've been doing it for a long time, and I'm reminded this year especially that the prevention tips don't always align locally the very best.
It's serving up fire safety in the kitchen this year. That's the national campaign and as much as I wish it was Wildfire Safety Week and month and year every year, it's not We can do that as well. But kitchen fires are the number one leading cause of injury, death and destruction In the country annually and unattended cooking fires are the leading cause of that. So we wanted to draw everybody's attention to that specifically this year there's great information out there if you whatever your preferred Google search is but the NFPA which leads our efforts every year has a great information nfpa.org, of course svcfire.com Also has great information as well. So we wanna encourage everybody this year, especially as we start getting into holiday cooking to be very especially vigilant as we do that.
And then if I could, as I leave you just talk specifically about the need to be extra vigilant this year for wildfire safety until we get that first rain. And we're going to be pressed this year and so our hearts go out to all those who have suffered this year in a historic fire season. We're not out of the woods yet, and let's be safe until then. You've seen the press releases, we've had two just recently where we found the cause of two of the local fires we've had and they were both careless. One was a target shooting and one was simply clearing brush off their land and creating a spark. And it's so dry right now especially at this time of year until we get that first rain in the wet season here in Santa Barbara County, thank you. Miss CEO and board for recognizing fire safety week.
And I'm here to answer any questions. Thank you, Chief. And I see we have
Kelly Hubbard too.
Thank you. Good morning, Supervisors and Chair. Just a great opportunity to remind everyone about ReadySBC.org. And so information about preparedness and readiness on that website As well as where you can register to receive notifications from local government agencies if there was to be a wildfire or any other emergency of any significance. And so, if you go to that website readysbc.org, you can sign up, register for alerts. Also, if you signed up quite awhile ago I'd encourage residents to go back.
You can re-login, check your contact information, make sure you have the right cell phone number in there, the right email address. If you've moved update your address those types of things. If you've registered through text by Nixle, again I encourage you to go to the website and put in your additional information because when you register through Nixle that's only your zip code and we don't get your other pieces of information on how to get a hold of you.
Thank you for that. That's so important folks can't be contacted they can't be alerted. Supervisor Williams?
Well I'm off theme also this year though and have like many residents have wildfire on the brain So I just wanted to ask you, we've had some sundowner events. I want you to just tell us about the upstaffing that you've been doing during those events so that people understand that we're more prepared than ever. We've gotten off lightly this year thus far but we're not counting on that.
Yeah thank you for the question Supervisor. On any planned fire event and I say planned fire event but fire weather specifically as we are noticed out of I'd like to funding for us to upstaff in the state responsibility areas, which are really the whole front country, the valley and then the back country as well. So we have a lot of resources available to us. We position those strategically. Sometimes those are resources from out of the area. Very often they're our own operational area resources not just from the county fire department but from Carpinteria, Montecito, Santa Barbara, Lompoc, Vandenberg and then Santa Maria as well.
Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you very much. I just wanted to say thank you to all the firefighters, this has already been an amazingly demanding season and just to remind people our practices in daily life are really important things we can do the rest of the year we can't now. I think we're quite educated on defensible space around our homes. We have a new ordinance we approved this year early last year for 10 foot right-of-way clearance But I think the next phase of education is people understanding what some of the causes, the behaviors that they engage in. And they're not unlawful it's just you gotta think and what the potential repercussions are and liabilities.
I serve on the Fire Safe Council Board and we do have a piece on the website that looks at the past fires and what the causes are. At some point in the near future I hope to pull those out and make an educational piece because I can't emphasize how important this is. I had a neighbor who announced she was going to be target shooting and then I looked and said maybe you shouldn't do that, none of us knew so this is really really significant I believe thank you and I know your starting it takes awhile after the investigations to find out what really was the cause And that kind of gets buried and our chief has been trying to focus more attention on that, and I appreciate it.
Thank you Supervisor Hartman any other comments
Mr.. Chair
yes supervisor Adam
Yeah I was just telling Supervisor Lavinino, you know, I don't know how many rounds I've fired around dry grass personally. Certainly in the thousands, tens of thousands of rounds and I've never seen anything like that and it always, I always wonder if somebody that gets, you know there seems like there's an inordinate amount of fires that get attributed to shooting and I just wonder if they weren't really smoking When they were out shooting and dropped an actual ash on the ground because I just never seen anything like it. And of course, I don't smoke while I'm shooting so maybe that's why I never light a fire.
Thank you Supervisor Adam. Any other comments? Is this at the end of your report CEO Miyasato?
Yes, it's the end of the report.
Okay. Madam Clerk are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
0:13 – 0:161 turns
Chair Hart and members of the board, yes. I have a couple quick announcements this morning. First, I'd just like to remind members of the public of our alternative method of public comment for our board meetings. If you turn to page two of our agenda today if you'd like to make a public comment on an item on today's agenda or general public comment please call 805-568-2240 state your name your phone number in which item you'd like to speak on and we will call you at the appropriate time I'd like to remind the public to please make every effort to be available and mute all streaming devices once it is your turn to speak. And that number will be scrolling on the top of your screen momentarily.
Additionally, I have a couple announcements and changes to our agenda today. Administrative item number 15 is from County Council. It is to consider recommendations regarding an agreement for professional legal services with Rutten and Tucker, LLP for eminent domain proceedings in litigation. And there is a four-fifths vote required on this item. And we have a slight revision to Recommendation A to remove the County of Santa Barbara and replace with the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This should read as follows, Recommendation A approve, ratify and authorize The chair to execute the agreement for professional legal services between the Santa Barbara County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and Attorney Douglas Dennington of the law firm Rutten & Tucker LLP from September 10th 2020 through June 30th 2022 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $150,000.
Additionally I have an announcement on Administrative Item A17 from County Council It is to consider recommendations regarding a revenue agreement to provide legal services between the County of Santa Barbara and Beach Erosion Authority for Clean Oceans and Nourishment Beacon. And we have a request from staff to withdraw this item on today's agenda. Additionally, uh, we have a request from the department to withdraw departmental item number two.
This is from Public Works, Board of Directors, Flood Control and Water Conservation District and General Services. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a resolution of necessity for a temporary construction easement for the Lower Mission Creek APN 037-245-017 number 003784 owned by Reginald E. Drew Jr., in the 1st district, and there's a 4th vote on this item as well.
And as noted earlier staff request withdrawal of this item and all of our previously mentioned changes to today's agenda have been distributed to the board and made available to the public online.
0:16 – 0:195 turns
Thank you Madam Clerk at this time Supervisor Williams has a brief announcement
well on Sunday September 6th We lost a son of the county family, Nicholas Nick Harrow lost his life due to injuries from a tragic vehicle accident. He was 23 years old. Nick's parents are both long time county employees. His mother Lori has been a county employee since 1999 and currently manages the Child Welfare Services Division of Social Services. That's a group of folks I consider heroes.
Nick's dad, Bill has worked for the county since the year 2000 and is currently a maintenance leader in public works. Nick was young, adventurous and brave and had a big heart. He grew up in the community of Orcutt attending local schools and exploring any parks, hills and hidden trails he could find. As a child, he loved nothing more than to ride his bike or scooter with his friends through the neighborhood building bike ramps dreaming of his future and enjoying life.
Nick loved the outdoors. He loved to hunt and fish almost every day after work and on weekends he could be found fishing with his friends on local lakes and waterways. He cherished annual fishing trips with his father brother and other family members. Nick worked as a HVAC technician who are Foot soldiers of our energy efficient future. He was dedicated to his job and often said he would like to one day buy the company from the owner when he retired.
He also dreamed of purchasing land and building his own home on a farm. In addition to his dad, Bill, and mom, Lori, Nick is survived by his siblings Anthony and Ariana His grandmother Sharon, his uncles and aunts Eduardo and Gabriella, Kenneth and Jennifer John and Debbie and Fred and Nellie as well as numerous cousins. An outdoor memorial celebration of Nick's life was held on October 3rd in Orkut.
His family will treasure all the memories big and small from the joy Nick brought to those around him. I know that we all feel a heartfelt sense of loss and sympathy When any person that comes from the county family passes away, and that we reach out in our hearts for Bill and Lori and all of the Harrell family. And for Nick's many friends, and ask that we adjourn today in memory of Nick.
Thank you, Supervisor Williams. Our condolences to the Harrell family. Which brings us to our next item on is approval of the administrative agenda. Do any board members wish to request, to pull any items on the administrative agenda? I think we have already requested poll A1, A9, A11, A21 and A22. Are there others? All right are there any requests from the public beyond those?
Chair Hart, members of the board. Yes we have requests as previously mentioned on A1 and A21. Okay
thank you. Would the clerk please read item A1 into the record?
0:19 – 0:229 turns
Chair Hart, members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Williams it is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the second Monday of October 2020 as Indigenous People's Day in Santa Barbara County and we have Kenneth Kahn requesting to speak on this item.
Good morning. Can everybody hear me?
Yes, we can. Thank you, Chairman
Kahn. Excellent. Good morning, Chairman Hart and members of the board. Thank you for making it possible for us to take part in this hearing remotely and safely. I am Kenneth Kahn, chairman of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians. Thank you so much for recognizing Indigenous Peoples Day, and thank you for identifying the contributions of all Chumash people.
Santa Barbara County encompasses a large portion of Chumash Aboriginal Territory. Today our neighbors and our friends walk where our ancestors once walked. We enjoy the same beautiful coastlines our elders once fished and lush hillsides our elders hunted and gathered. As most of you know The history of this land was not always peace and beauty. Chumash are people of perseverance from first contact our ancestors endured the Spanish period Mexican period and dark termination policies of the American period today indigenous people across the nation still suffer from the impact of colonization lands totally lost or reduced to small reservations Native American history improperly represented in schools.
Serious inequities in Indian Territory that are the result of extreme poverty like in a third world country your recognition of the many contributions and challenges of native people is good medicine and it is the healing that we need. The Chumash people are still here today and we will continue to be here for time immemorial I thank you for taking the time to honor the indigenous people of our community, and I hope you all have a great day. Thank you so much.
Thank you so
much Chairman Kahn.
Supervisor Williams?
I just wanted to thank Chairman Kahn for highlighting this. I've always felt even before I came to the board that this is an important day to commemorate and sponsor this resolution in the legislature and now here. Because I do think that it's relevant for today to remember our history, both its good and its bad, and should affect how we relate with one another, the empathy and understanding that we try to bring in relating with one another.
Thank you, Supervisor Williams.
The next item on the administrative agenda is Item A-9. Would the clerk please read that item into the record?
0:23 – 0:279 turns
Chair Hart and members of the board, Administrative Item Number 9 is from Behavioral Wellness. It is to consider recommendations regarding a service agreement with Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc., Champion Healing Center Mental Health Rehabilitation Center MHRC Fiscal Years 2020 through 2024.
I think Supervisor Lavagnino, you asked to pull this?
Thank you Mr. Chair. I did and I just wanted to highlight this. I think one of my first conversations with Dr. Glaghorn when she got here was her speaking about her vision to bring IMD beds to Santa Barbara County and for the public these facilities provide assessment diagnosis treatment supportive services to people in crisis We've had a history of having to send people in probably the time of crisis in their life and their family lives. We've had to send them to Kern, Shasta and Santa Clara counties for treatment.
I just wanted to highlight today appreciate Dr. Gleghorn's vision. This approach to treatment with tiered now that we're going A more tiered approach to treatment, I think that's an approach that's more conducive to better outcomes for the patient and also much more cost efficient for the county. I also want to recognize that a vision also needs guidance. And so I want to thank CEO Miyasato and Terry Mosnisch for their guidance in moving this forward.
And also a vision needs expert legal advice. And so I want to thank County Council, Mr. Gazzone and all of your team and also the team from General Services. This was a huge undertaking to make this happen and the county's in a better place today. And I think all those families who have people in their family that are struggling with mental illness, this is a huge victory today and a huge step forward into progressing into the future. So just want to thank all those people.
Thank you very much for highlighting this item, Supervisor Labanino. This is a really important moment and I see that Dr. Gleghorn is available. Dr. Gleghorn please would you tell us more about this important project?
Certainly. I want to echo Supervisor Labanino's thanks to all the county partners that have worked with us to make this possible. It has been a long journey, and we are ready to begin services this month. We are going to be bringing the number of clients who are in far-flung counties at other MHRC facilities back home with the hope that being closer to their families and local services and local housing resources, et cetera, that they'll be able to become more independent and return into the community functioning well and with the support of our resources. So again, thank you to all who have contributed to this progress and we look forward to opening.
Thank you Dr. Glegorna. Thank you for your leadership on this really important issue without your persistence and commitment and determination this day wouldn't be possible so we really appreciate that. Any other comments? Okay,
let's go to Supervisor Williams. I hope this is something that the public realizes is a struggle even before Dr. Glaghorn got here. This has been a discussion for 20 years. And to see the county make so much progress on adequately caring for folks, mentally ill folks. It's really inspiring and it's a sea change.
I know that's a view for everybody on the board.
The next item is Item A11. Would the clerk please read that item into the record?
0:27 – 0:3225 turns
Chair Hart, members of the board, administrative item number 11 is from community services. It is to consider recommendations regarding the California Department of Conservation local and regional planning grant program, TerraCount.
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah, my main problem is in the summary text. It's summarized by the summary text point number four develop an integrated natural and working lands component to the county's 2030 Climate Action Plan. I think that that is unnecessary in the extreme and will probably be misguided and misused be detrimental to everybody that's trying to work the land and understands what they're doing. And the people that try to put that together undoubtedly won't, so...
So why don't we have a separate motion for this item? So Supervisor Adam Kim. Vote against it. Would somebody like to make this motion on A11?
Chair Hart I move approval
Okay, motion's been made. Is there a second? Second. And seconded. Any more discussion? Would the clerk please call the roll?
Mr. Williams?
Aye.
Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adams?
No.
Mr. Lavinino?
Abstain.
Chair Hart?
Aye
Motion passes 3-1-1.
Thank you. The next item is item A21 would the clerk please read that item into the record
Chair Hart and members of the board, administrative item number 21 is from fire. It is to consider recommendations regarding an acceptance of a non-cash vehicle donation of $57,000 from the Santa Barbara Firefighters Alliance to the Santa Barbara County Fire Department. And there's a four fist vote required on this item and we have one request to speak and that's Susan Petrovich.
Thank you Ms. Petrovich for being involved in the firefighters alliance and for this wonderful contribution. Look forward to hearing your comments.
Good morning. This is Susan Petrovich. Can you all hear me?
Yes, we can. Thank you. Welcome.
I am the president of the Santa Barbara Firefighters Alliance. The alliance is a non-profit charitable organization formed with one goal to raise money to purchase equipment and services requested by fire department crews of the City of Santa Barbara and the County of Santa Barbara. With streamed budgets our services provide state-of-the-art equipment That wouldn't otherwise be included in a budget.
But we don't just go out and buy the equipment, the firefighters tell us precisely what they need and the fire chiefs must approve the appropriation. Ironically even before COVID hit, we had purchased for the Fire Department washable personal protective gear for the firefighters because they never know exactly what they will encounter when they go to a scene This is lightweight, washable but designed for safety.
The services that we provide also include confidential counseling that doesn't go through any governmental agency so it's completely private no information goes into the firefighters file and it's a service for their families as well everyone has been under a lot of strain but our firefighters and their families have borne a lot more strain than I think any of us.
We're here today to ask you to approve Our donation of this truck. We first purchased the remote command center trailer to serve as an office with laptop stations and places that a table where the crews can sit around and discuss strategy otherwise just basically have an office right there at the fire or the incident if it's not a fire. It's a huge trailer though, and it needs a honking big truck to haul it so that's what this truck will do And we request that you approve it. Thank you, and I'll answer any questions that you might have.
Thank you Ms. Petrovich and thank you again for your leadership with the Firefighters Alliance. We're really grateful and I know that our first responders and firefighters are very appreciative of this additional asset. Supervisor Williams did you have a comment? Okay.
Just wanted to give my personal thanks to all the folks at the Alliance that work to raise this money and that would be Do it to make sure that we all are safer. Thank you. Thank
you again, Miss Petrovich. Are there any questions? All right, thank you on
the next item is Item A-22 with the clerk. Please read that item into the record.
0:32 – 0:3420 turns
Chair Hart and members of the board administrative item number 22 is from General Services. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Buellton Senior Center 25 year lease agreement file number 999 and this is in the third district.
Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you, Chair Hart. I just wanted to thank the fire department and especially the Fire Chief and the staff at General Services who have facilitated this agreement. It is a long-term lease for the Bealton Senior Center that enables them to Raise funds and do planning and renovation. They are a major community, the heart of the community in Buellton, and they provide meals for many, many grateful people. And especially during this time of COVID they have been indispensable so very appreciative of this and thank everybody who made it possible.
Thank you Supervisor Harmon. Do we need a motion for the withdrawal of item A-17 and D-2?
Chair Hart and members of the board, if the maker of the motion on the balance could just add that to their motion. All
right. And could we get a motion for the balance of the consent calendar or the administrative agenda? So moved. Motion has been made.
So we have A15 with the recommendation A slight change from Santa Barbara County to flood control as the clerk read into the record and then A17 withdrawal so I would second that motion
Okay, motion's been made and seconded. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?
Mr. Williams?
Aye.
Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adams?
Aye
Mr. Lavinino?
Aye
Chair Hart?
Aye
Motion passes unanimously
Which brings us to the public comment section of the agenda It's time for members of the public to speak to the board on matters that are not on our agenda Madam clerk are there any requests to speak on items not on today's agenda
Chair Hart, members of the board we have no request to speak in general public comment.
Thank you which brings us to department item number one. Madam Clerk would you please read that item into the record?
0:34 – 0:4118 turns
Yes and chair Hart members of the board prior to
moving on to item number one just for organization's sake can we please get a motion on the withdrawal of departmental item number two this is previously read into the record but this is from Public Works Board of Directors Flood Control and Water Conservation District and General Services It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the resolution of necessity for temporary construction easement for the lower Mission Creek 8 PN 0, 3, 7, 2, 4, 5, 0, 1, 7 number 3784 and by Reginald he drew junior first district. And this item we received a withdrawal memo this morning from the department requesting to withdraw from today's agenda.
Is there a motion to withdraw this item so moved motions been made second and seconded any discussion Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?
Mr. Williams.
Aye.
Ms. Hartman. Aye. Mr. Adam.
Aye!
Mr. Lavagnino.
Aye
Chair Hart.
Aye
motion passes unanimously
thank you and that brings us to department item number one would you please read that item into the record
chair heart members of the board Department departmental item number one is from the county executive office it is a hearing COVID-19 update.
Welcome Dr. DiRenoso.
Good morning chair, members of the board. Today's briefing topics will include the usual Santa Barbara County COVID-19 data and an in depth look at the blueprint for a safer economy, going over our anticipated status as well as reiterating our recent Health officer order amendment. Introducing to you in a little bit more detail the health equity metrics as well as having an in-depth briefing on the Latin X and indigenous migrant COVID-19 response task force, as per your requests in a previous meeting. And we will end with school waivers.
COVID-19 by the numbers in Santa Barbara County, we have cumulative case count of 9,319. Cumulative recovered cases 9,082 and We have 122 active cases. This means that there are still 122 infectious cases in our community. We have 23 currently hospitalized and a total of 115 deaths, which makes that death rate at 1.2%. Over the past 15 days, with the seven day rolling sum of new cases by areas. For the most part we are continuing to see decreases in the majority of our areas. We are seeing four upticks in primarily the North County.
We are seeing an increase in Santa Maria and And in the unincorporated North County South County. We are seeing an uptick in the Montecito Carpinteria area. Over the
past put that a little bit in context. We we had to last week, so it you know I only know this because, you know in elections you have to deal with a lot of statistical work. When you have an N that's almost zero then you're going to have large fluctuations and so people have looked at the numbers in South County Unincorporated all summer long either to draw their own conclusions about of a 200% drop or 100% rise. Well, when the N has fluctuated between 2 and 15 you're going to always have large rises or large falls because the sample size is so small.
That is true but I didn't want to be not transparent by stating that there was an increase With the hospitalization over the past two weeks, we see a range of census from 18 to 26 but overall beginning number to end number with no change. Per Supervisor Adams' request, I've included two slides. This is the daily hospitalized cases since April 29th through October 3rd.
And I want to point out that we are, the bulk of our high census was in the mid 80s within the early part of this summer into July and early part of August. And we are seeing a decrease in hospital census overall. This is the second new graph. This describes the COVID deaths by week of death, so we have the rest line describing the cumulative deaths due to COVID in our county and that stands at I just shared 115 and with a blue bar graphs below showing the number of deaths by the week that it Occurred and so we did see in also at midsummer in July 19 a 12 deaths and early part of August 11 deaths. Those are the single highest day weeks with deaths.
0:41 – 0:5614 turns
Mr. Chair,
Supervisor Adam.
Okay, Dr. Del Ranoso I'm going to be bipolar with you. I love your chart on page six. I think that's a fantastic representation of how we've gone Over the curve we and and I don't know if we flattened the curve or the curve took care of itself but it is what it is, and there it is graphically represented in front of us. And The only real problem I have is that we started about a month late.
And maybe there wasn't any cases. Is April 29th the first case date?
You know, Supervisor Adam I am not sure about that. I know that our first case was March 15th but I don't recall when our first hospitalized case may be and that's something that I can check with our epi team
Well, I'm going to bet that that was probably a hospitalization because at that time I don't think we were doing much testing and you know speculative testing. And I think that people the way people came to our attention was they were admitted and so that may have been There may have been a few cases before that, so the curve isn't exactly complete. But it's substantially complete and I thank you for that. That's a great representation of why we should open up. You've ridden over the hard part.
The second one, I'm not a big fan of because first of all, I didn't ask for the continuous death count. And you know, I think that continuous counts are a bad metric because we don't keep track of anything in continuous counts except COVID. And so this line, you're going to constantly have to be adjusting the scale of this graph which is just going to make the bottom set of data that I wanted.
Flatter and flatter and flatter over time if you keep that line on there for the cumulative deaths. And we don't keep track of cumulative deaths from heart disease or cumulative deaths from anything else, and so I don't think we should be Looking at it that way and for these graphs. I would request that you keep them clean and Keep them on a Representation on a scale see you could make your graph if you had that thing on a 20 scale your lines on the bottom would be Much more pronounced, and you could see trends. And you'd have two tops in your line instead of having them minimized so And to that degree, I like it when it minimizes deaths. But if we're trying to display information, I don't think that's useful to have one parameter on there that nobody ever keeps track of in any other context so that it flattens the other data that we're trying to get to beyond usable recognition.
Supervisor Adam through the chair, I can certainly do that given that we do track the cumulative death on the first slide that I show. So I can definitely take off the rust color graph depicting cumulative deaths.
Yeah and then change the scale for next week's presentation to a 20 and then you're really going to see those peaks and valleys pop. Thank you.
Maybe the best way to do is to have two different charts because when you rely on the first chart with the cumulative cases and the cumulative deaths, the same problem that Supervisor Adam described happens in that instance. So thank you for that Supervisor Adam. Dr. DeRionne Poston?
Because all of the information's in the tails. That big open part in the middle doesn't mean anything.
Blueprint for a safer economy. Last week we issued an amendment, Health Officer Order 2020-12.10 to highlight that outdoor public playgrounds are permissible with guidance. We further clarified higher education as to I have the capacity to be opened indoors at 25 capacity or 100 people, whichever is less. Bars, breweries, brew pubs and distilleries if serving meals to follow the restaurant sector limits as well as wineries and tasting rooms Being allowed indoors if serving meals to restaurant sector limits. And I want to pause and really thank Assistant CEO Nancy Anderson for working with the Public Health Department in reaching out to the sectors, in making sure that these sectors understand the parameters of opening indoors.
The blueprint for a safer economy, as of October 6th we will be looking at adjusted case rates. Something that you have seen test positivity also have seen what is new that I've alluded to earlier is the health equity metric that will be effective today. I believe that the governor will be releasing the numbers At noon, as well as the targeted investment plan which all counties will have to apply or fill out by the 13th.
So this is a familiar table that you have seen with the last row being the newest, and that is the lowest healthy places index quartile test positivity rate. So in addition to the parameters for us to move to tier 3 where disease is moderate We will have to also make sure that our bottom quartile does not exceed 5.25 in the test positivity rate, and I will be going through that in more detail with these next few slides.
Health equity metric, the goal is to reduce and possibly eliminate disparities in the levels of COVID-19 transmission among county residents. It is also to improve all county COVID- 19 data reporting. The state has noted that about 33% of the demographics are missing as counties report them. So there is an increased effort to improve the reporting on race and ethnicity data, as it pertains to COVID-19 cases.
And CDPH will be posting county level data for race ethnicity for tests, cases and deaths. And I'd like to share that our team has been working on providing this data And for the next Tuesday's presentation, I will be going over the demographics for our county with regards to cases, hospitalization and deaths since March 15th. The goal of the health equity metric is also to improve testing positivity rates for the most disadvantaged communities. It will not be used to move counties back to a more restrictive tier, but it could have an impact on us moving to the less restrictive tier.
And the point is to close disparities within all counties. And by that, the counties will be required as I alluded to in the earlier slide, to submit a plan for how we spend our CDC funding on underserved communities in our county. So counties are except assessed weekly basis on Tuesdays. The county must have been in the current tier for a minimum of 3 weeks accounting must meet criteria for the less restrictive tear for prior Two consecutive weeks, this is with regards to us moving to the orange tier.
A county larger than 106,000 in population that we qualify must meet the health equity metric for the same time period and again, the targeted investment plan my department will need to file by the 13th. While we can move to a less restrictive tier towards the orange as our goal, we can be moved back to a more restrictive tier where we started the purple tier. So the county's adjusted case rate and or test positivity has fallen within a more restrictive tier for two consecutive Two consecutive weekly periods, state and local health officials will work together in an ongoing basis to assess.
And when moving to a more restrictive tier, counties will have three days to implement any sector changes or closures unless extreme circumstances merit immediate action. So just wanted to remind your board that we can move forward and we can move backwards. I anticipate that we at noon, these are the numbers that will be announced for us. Our adjusted case rate is 5.8, still keeping us in the red tier.
Our new cases per day per 100,000 unadjusted is 6.4. Positivity rate will be listed as 3.3 and the new health equity metric at 6.7, and this is for the data ending on September 26th. The case rate in graphic form we call this our rainbow chart. Our case rate at 5.8 The increase in rate signifies that there are more cases being identified for our set population of 456,373. Testing positivity on this graph The decreasing testing positivity for the last four weeks means that although there have been more positive cases identified, a much larger number of COVID PCR tests were performed in the current rating period compared to the previous ones. So for this rating period, we see a slight increase in test positivity even though the number of tests performed is higher than the state median.
So what that means is that we are seeing a slight uptick in the spread of COVID-19 in our county. So we perform for this rating period 262 average daily. The state median average test is 216. So our adjusted factor was or is 0.91, so the raw number 6.4 because of the quantity of tests we were adjusted downward to 5.8. Mr
Chair?
Supervisor Adam.
Dr. Del Reno, so can you explain to me the difference in the curves on the graphs between that page? I don't know what page we're on right there that was on the screen last but that and page six of hospitalizations because they're inverted. I don't understand how that could possibly be
So earlier in the pandemic, when we had testing positivity fairly limited capacity and those were restricted to symptomatics. Earlier in the pandemic, we also saw that when people tested positive there was also a quick turnaround time in which they were hospitalized. Many of those who were hospitalized were tested in the hospital as well. As the pandemic has progressed, difference in the people, the age groups getting tested and getting diagnosed as a positive case. So that is reflected in this.
And the adjustment is only what you see in the percentage is really accounting for the numbers that we've been tracking within this framework.
0:56 – 1:0429 turns
Okay, so what that graph reflects is our moving testing protocols over time where we were testing only symptomatic people and then we started testing everybody that wanted to present. And then we started testing only symptomatic people again and that coincides with those two rises, two peaks
Right, and
was the symptomatic people that we were testing. Is that correct?
That is correct but also the testing positive testing positivity percentages are dependent on the denominator is dependent on the volume of being tested.
Well, right. But it also depends highly on what you're cherry picking your test subjects if you're only testing symptomatic people.
So early in the pandemic there was nationally a shortage of tests capacity, correct? And so we were following CDC and CDPH guidelines in prioritizing those who needed to be tested.
Right, and then there was a time in the middle where that graph has a sag in it between the first peak and the second peak where we were testing everybody who presented. Isn't that correct?
Correct.
And then we went back to testing people who were positive or exhibited symptoms, and that coincides with the second peak, and we're still doing that to this day. Is that right?
So with the testing capacity, so the foundation of being able to box in this disease is widespread testing in the community. So that you can identify cases and isolate or quarantine as needed. So this graph also-
Excuse me, excuse me, that's not responsive to my question.
No but if you let
me finish
I would.
Well,
so what I'm saying is
that I'd rather just get the answer to my question instead of your speech. Mr
Chair. I understand there's passionate feelings here and I appreciate Supervisor Adam asking questions but interrupting staff is just not an appropriate way to do this.
Negative, negative supervisor. There's a long-standing tradition of doing exactly that
Okay, Supervisor Adams, Supervisor Williams, Dr. DeRinosu is going to answer the question.
Could you please repeat your question?
Are we testing symptomatic people at this point or not?
We are testing everyone who needs to be tested and wants to be tested whether they are symptomatic or asymptomatic
So you're testing, I'm trying to determine how do we find people for testing?
We find people for testing based on their initiation of wanting to be tested. So in the community, an individual decides that they need to be tested for whether it'd be work, whether it'd be school or whether it'd be a personal desire to know their status. In the hospital before a procedure, before surgery, people are tested. And as a matter of fact, in our community testing the majority of people who come to our community testing sites are asymptomatic.
Right, okay I'm done thank you.
Thank You Supervisor Adam. Dr. DeRanosa please continue
The health equity metric tier progression. So counties with different current status tier, we are in the red substantial tier for us to be able to move to the moderate our lowest bottom quartile again needs to be less than the 5.2%. There is an accelerated progression possible for counties with current tier status. Again, we are in the red. If we meet for two weeks test positivity both countywide and in the bottom quartile of HPI among tracks in our county which is less than 2% and we may progress even though our case rate Is higher than 4. So this is a accelerated pathway for us to be able to move forward even though our case rate is high due to our test low testing positivity.
And I also will be spending next Tuesday's presentation going over in detail the quartile in Santa Barbara County and what it means to us, in terms of census tracts, in terms of strategies and areas. Briefly, Healthy Places Index indicators. They are eight indicators going through economics, education, transportation, social, neighborhood, housing, clean environment and healthcare access. And Healthy Places Index is a public accessible database that one can Google. And to be specific for Santa Barbara County and can take a look at where are the quartiles in our county.
The state is working on a health equity playbook for communities. And so the immediate COVID-19 response strategies that we can undertake is around testing, contact tracing, isolation support and worker protections in Santa Barbara County. We have been doing all of the strategies listed in the immediate COVID- 19 response. Addressing health equity in Santa Barbara County. So given that back in March, we saw early data of cases and progressing to early accounts of hospitalizations Affecting primarily in North County, among the Latino population. We were worried because we did not know much about the demographics of the cases as well as the hospitalizations. Building on the partnerships that we have established pre-COVID times with UCSB, with my cop, with cause in terms of addressing health disparities in our county.
We came forth and we asked our public health need was how do we effectively prevent the increase in cases? How do we prevent the hospitalizations, and how do we prevent the deaths in the Latinx community members. And that was the genesis for We are forming the Latinx and Indigenous Migrant COVID-19 Response Task Force. And I have asked Dr. Melissa Smith to be with us to present in detail the work of the task force.
Dr. Smith, welcome and thank you for your work on this very important element of our COVID response. Welcome.
1:04 – 1:175 turns
Thank you. Thanks again, Chair Hart and members of the board. It's a pleasure to be with you. I am Director of Health Equity Initiatives at UC Santa Barbara and the Interim Coordinator of the Latinx and Indigenous Migrant COVID-19 Response Task Force. I also had the pleasure of serving as chair of the Expert Healthcare Panel for the Rise Guide to Reopening Santa Barbara County.
I'm a family medicine physician And have had a part-time clinical role in the health department clinic in Santa Maria, caring for patients most of whom are farm workers who are indigenous migrant women from Oaxaca Mexico. The COVID-19 pandemic has made it clear that the Latinx and indigenous migrant communities and their families are challenged by unfavorable social determinants of health.
Social determinants of health are the conditions in the environment in which people are born, live, work, learn and play that affect a wide range of health functioning and quality-of-life outcomes and risks. High density housing, crowded transportation, lack of access to hand washing at work or access to healthcare as well as language barriers are all examples of social determinants of health that disproportionately impact this population.
Unfavorable social determinants of health are compounded by inequities due to race and ethnicity, socioeconomic and migration status, gender and sexual orientation. These inequities contribute to higher rates of underlying conditions, chronic diseases which increase people's risk of COVID-19 and related complications as well as higher rates of mental wellness concerns.
Because many of these community members are essential workers, they are on the front line and cannot shelter in place. Farm workers, hospital cleaning staff and service industry workers therefore have greater exposure to the coronavirus. It's important to note that on a national level Black and Pan-Asian Islander communities are also disproportionately impacted by the pandemic We are working to understand what the data is for these communities in Santa Barbara County and to support efforts to address these inequities.
There's tremendous power and synergy in the countywide collaboration of the task force. We have 93 cross-sectoral partners, including community based organizations, the Santa Barbara County Public Health Department and Department of Behavioral Wellness, UC Santa Barbara, Health service providers, elected officials, funders and community members. Cross-sectoral collaboration is essential due to the multiple needs of these communities and the diverse resources and capacity as well as expertise of partners who can respond in a coordinated manner.
Our task force partners develop and share educational resources, provide direct services Collaborate on outreach efforts, develop innovative programs and participate in discussions to inform policy change to address community priorities. Particularly those focused on the needs of farm workers and their families. Because of the many barriers faced by these communities it is critical that trusted community partners lead outreach efforts in order to be effective.
Our task force efforts are focused on centering community voice and leadership. Community capacity building creates robust, thriving communities and promotes sustainable participatory processes that are essential to improving community health and well-being. Such an approach creates a foundation for achieving health equity. The bimonthly task force meetings include vibrant community participation with 60 to 70 participants contributing to our discussion.
Simultaneous translation in Spanish ensures that community voices are heard and that we create an inclusive space for dialogue. Our three working groups meet on a bimonthly basis to foster deep and sustained cross-sectoral collaboration and problem solving in partnership with communities, The farm worker working group addresses priorities through community outreach, increasing access to resources and promoting civic engagement and advocacy.
The mental health and wellness working group provides up-to-date information and resources and facilitates processes that foster support, social connection, empathy and hope. Their subcommittee efforts are focused on emergency safety planning, youth teen support and resources and community outreach education and messaging. Finally the Lumpoc Prison Task Force supports the health and well-being of inmates as well as their families.
I'd like to highlight some of the accomplishments of our task force Our partners have provided public health education and multimedia outreach in Spanish and multiple indigenous languages. Information about COVID-19 prevention, testing, and health services has been provided in flyers and multilingual videos as well as PSAs. This has been shared via radio, television, text, social media, websites and email blasts, as well as through the trusted person-to-person networks of our task force partners.
Details about these resources and our partners are noted on this slide. The Mental Health and Wellness Working Group has created a safety plan to support families who may be impacted by COVID-19, as well as a resource magnet in a booklet focused on youth mental health. Our partners have led outreach efforts to communities and farms with resources such as public health information in English, Spanish and Mexico as well as face coverings and hand sanitizers.
Our best estimates to date on these numbers include outreach to 21 small farms and distribution of 20,095 face coverings and 1,300 COVID-19 prevention kits. According to Noemi Velazquez, our colleague from the Community Health Centers of the Central Coast, for many of the community members that they encountered this was the first time they had received any education outreach or materials.
I'd like to give special thanks to Noemi's team who included colleagues from the Promotoras Network of Santa Barbara County's Education Office, Dignity Health and The Food Bank. And I'd also like to thank our other task force partners who are noted on this slide for their outreach work. Our efforts have involved the collaborative development and promotion of public health department policy and COVID-19 program initiatives, including free access to COVID related care through the Public Health Department, free COVID-19 testing throughout Santa Barbara County, health officer orders, mental health support groups and programs and the Housing for the Harvest Program.
We've developed a strong collaboration with the student and faculty team based in the UCSB Center for Publicly Engaged Research. This team has contributed to the efforts of the task force in many important ways. The task force model has been replicated in Ventura County, and is now emerging in San Luis Obispo County. Our partners have also led successful efforts to protect the health and well-being of inmates at the Lompoc prison.
Regarding our future plans, our efforts will cement a foundation for future collaboration and rapid response efforts to address new challenges that might impact the Latinx and indigenous migrant communities. Our cross sectoral collaboration is an essential and sustainable strategy for achieving health equity in our county. While our immediate efforts have focused on the pressing needs of the Latinx and indigenous migrant communities as they confront the pandemic, our task force is committed to working with other community organizations to contribute to building a broader county-wide health equity collaborative effort to also include Black, Pan Asian, LGBTQ, and other communities.
We are creating a model for promoting health equity aligned with the health equity metrics provided by the California Department of Public Health that Dr. Dorinoso just shared with us, and finally we're planning town hall dialogues with sector leaders including agriculture, healthcare, the service industry among others. I'd like to give special thanks to the Board of Supervisors for your important leadership during the pandemic, as well as your support of the task force efforts.
And I'd also like to thank all of the participants in the task force, as well as the 93 organizational partners that are listed on the final two slides. Thank you so much.
Dr. Smith, I want to thank you on behalf of the board and the whole county for your leadership on this task force and the efforts to promote health equity. As you described, this really is a model. This is exactly what the state's looking for us as counties in partnership with the state to reach out to communities that are disadvantaged and And need additional information and assistance. And the collaboration with all these community organizations amplifies that message, and as you said in many cases gets information for the first time into hands of people who need that and to need to understand what they can do to be safe so we really appreciate your work this is a extraordinary effort Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, I want to echo that sentiment. COVID shows us that we're all in this together. We can't get out of whatever tier we're in until we raise the people in the lowest quartile up and we had a head start in Santa Barbara County with your efforts and this is the first time I've gotten...I've heard about it read little snippets here and there but the first time I've gotten to see the range of activities that you're involved If there is anything I can do personally or in my role as supervisor to be part of this, I am very laudatory of your efforts and this is just incredible. It's not easy to reach many of these populations and you've found and are creating a structure So that we have easy access and communication in the future.
And it's really something to congratulate you on, and thank you so much.
Thank you.
Supervisor Williams? Well, this mission is crucial. While I agree that we have a shared destiny, unfortunately COVID like many other health problems illustrate that we may be in the same storm but we have different sized boats and are disproportionately affected by that storm and so My question is, I've done a lot of grassroots outreach. It's hard to reach a lot of people. I want to understand where are those videos and PSAs airing?
What methods of printed communication are we using? And where are areas that you feel that we need continued progress in reaching.
1:17 – 1:248 turns
Thank you for that question and for your metaphor of the different size boats, I think that for somebody who provides care directly to folks in this community, I think that's very clear to me in many ways. In terms of where media outreach has been done or where the videos have been shared, as I mentioned briefly through various television channels, radio stations, regular blasts. We have partners, there's one group called Mi Vida, Mi Voz which is a wonderful organization that's based here in Santa Barbara that has been doing incredible media outreach and providing information and resources and videos to this population in South County. And it's expanded now into North County.
And then the videos are also shared on our publicly shared drive that we share with all of the task force participants so If we had 93 organizations, we have well over 200 individual participants. All of those individuals have also been sharing the videos and the flyers that we put out throughout their networks so you can just imagine the multiplier effect when you have that many individuals who are using their networks.
I don't know whether Dr. Dobre knows or wants to add anything about that.
No, it's just that. I think what has astounded me is the community members using social media, their personal Facebook, Twitter to amplify the PSAs that we are releasing and what I've heard Is that the PSAs that we created may have originated from the county comps team, but the community members from early on. I remember in April when we were all worried about the spring break and Easter and being able to articulate the dangers of gathering and how to be safe. We developed that PSA and quickly our partners Were able to seize that and translate it into a very culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. And amplified it throughout their social networks, and it took off.
Yeah and just to complement what you're saying, for example if there's a flyer that's been produced about COVID-19 resources partners who speak different indigenous languages have made a message in different languages referring to the flyer and then shared those through their social media networks. And we are actually Starting to track and able to track some of the impact through the social media. So that's something that we hope to be able to provide in the future, that kind of data. But it has been quite powerful.
Great, and then I just want to take the opportunity to highlight one of the causational factors as you have discovered. And that is a solvable problem. It takes time to solve the problem, but more than time it takes political will. I mean in many aspects of health it's just dangerous to be poor if you look at everything from nutrition to opportunities for exercise to other things those are hard to change. But in COVID this biggest factor seems to be housing That is possible to be changed.
And I think all of us have to think about a little bit about our own community's trepidation or antipathy towards housing and how that is obviously presenting dangers as people live in fairly high density communities. for people, meaning a lot of people in the house. Not necessarily what kind of home that you would think is high-density. Often these are single family homes just with 15 residents and while some people do this out of choice it's obviously in many cases an economic driven question as people with multiple different families living in the same single family home in communities throughout our county.
So I hope it causes us to have a little more political will when it comes to housing.
Well, thank you again for your presentation. It's really inspiring and it is great infrastructure that you have created With the Department of Public Health to service in many ways going forward, but it's particularly crucial right now during the pandemic. And I want to thank Dr. Doberioso for her support and leadership and encouragement of this effort. You were right there from the very first beginning idea of this and I think it has served our county very well so thank you.
Thank you. The last portion of my presentation is an update on school waivers. And we have currently 26 schools approved to open K through 6. Since last Tuesday, we have not received additional waivers from CDPH. CDPH is evaluating Carpentria Unified Elementary School, Ballard Elementary School and Santa Barbara Middle School. And we are working with Children's Montessori School in Lompoc for their process.
And that concludes my presentation this morning.
Thank you Dr. Duranosu. Are there questions from board members? Public comments. I know we have public comments, so let's go to public comment
chair members of the board. We have two requests to speak on this item and we will go first to Gloria Soto to be followed by Naira Pacheco.
1:24 – 1:4417 turns
Council Member Soto, welcome.
Good morning Chair Hart and members of the board. My name is Gloria Soto and I am a councilwoman for the City of Santa Maria. I am calling today to share with you a little bit about the Latinx and Indigenous Migrant COVID-19 Response Task Force. It is...COVID-19 has hit our communities In a really tough way and more so in the city of Santa Maria where we're seeing the highest number of COVID cases within our community. And thanks to this task force, one of the things that we've been able to see is the fact of the cross-sexual partners that have really come together The barriers that a lot of our families face when seeking care, when seeking access to programs and services to ensure that they and their families are safe and healthy.
And so the thing that has proven to be incredibly helpful has been The dialogue between Dr. Van de Renoso, our Director of Santa Barbara County Public Health and all of the community benefit organizations that come together to once again share concerns, updates, resources and talk and think through strategies to help address this evolving pandemic. And so I am just calling to share my appreciation for public health being a part of this task force and really helping us tackle COVID-19 here in our communities, especially in the city of Santa Maria. And it's been fascinating to see again all of the community partner organizations come together and strategize as to how we can better support our residents in our community.
Thank you.
Thank you, Council Member Soto. And thank you for your work on the task force and your leadership in Santa Maria.
We will now go to Nyra Pacheco who is our final speaker.
Hello, good morning. My name is Naida Pacheco-Guzman. I'm the Language Justice Associate for the Latinx and Indigenous Migrant COVID Response Task Force that was formed early at the onset of the pandemic back in March and has since grown and developed to host a wide array of partners That includes different nonprofits, community-based organizations, public agencies and certain government offices as well.
And so at this point we have 195 participants on our contact list and 102 partners that are formally part of the task force and receive updates And we meet every other Friday to have one, the public health department director share report back and updates to the community that are most relevant specifically for the populations that we are serving. And then we also have a time for community organizations to share updates as well as our space for our three work groups to share about the work and resources that they are providing And we most recently conducted a survey around the function of our language justice framework and services that we provide for the members of the task force, as well as the sharing of community resources through our online Google Drive.
We wanted to conduct this assessment, this survey, to see how useful this was for our partners And one of the main things that we want to share is that when we asked folks what was the main reason that folks tuned into this meeting, at least our expectation was that people tune in to hear the latest information from the Public Health Department. And that came in at a close second at 25% of our participants reporting that that was But the majority of respondents for this survey actually shared that they tune in to find ways to connect and collaborate with other partners in facing COVID-19. And this was 42.9% of our task force members who shared it. So all of that to say that, that it really emphasizes that highlights the importance of having shared spaces in which all of the resources and efforts that are being created by our organizations and agencies on the ground, that there is actually a space for them to work together and collaborate and not recreate the wheel.
So I am grateful for all of the support that the county has provided us and continues to provide especially in making sure that we can create these organizing and coordinating spaces with language justice integration so that Spanish-speaking community members and organizers can be part of the work. And in the near future, we will be incorporating indigenous languages so that organizers from our indigenous communities can also drive the work that is happening and not just be serviced by it.
So thank you very much, and we hope to continue providing more relevant updates from our task force in the future.
Thank you, Ms. Pacheco and thank you for your work on the task force as well. Are there other public commenters?
That was our final speaker. Okay,
thank you. The matter is back to the board. Any comments or questions remaining? Okay, well thank you very much everyone for the presentation. This is really helpful in illuminating and I know the public will really appreciate hearing this information directly from you too. Is there a motion to accept this report?
So moved.
Second motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?
Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adams?
Aye
Mr. Lavinino?
Aye
Chair Hart? Aye Motion passes unanimously
We'll now take a 10-minute break before we go to department item number three you Thank you. Hello. We'll reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting for October 6th and
the next item on the agenda is departmental item number three. Madam Clerk, would you please read that item into the record?
1:44 – 2:0316 turns
Chair Hart, members of the board, departmental item number three is from planning and development. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis Appeal, the Planning Commission approval of the Castle Rock Family Farms 2 LLC Cannabis Cultivation Land Use Permit, case number 20 APL 19. And this is in the third district.
Thank you Ms. Plowman and Ms. Laird and Mr. Peterson thank you for all for being here. Ms. Plowman do you want to start?
Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the board. We also have Travis Seward, the Deputy Director who's present with us and Mr. Peterson is on Zoom today. This is an appeal of a Planning Commission decision that was heard on July 8th. It is in the 3rd District. And is a project that actually, one of the first projects that came forward that actually conforms to the standards that the board had set in the most recent zoning ordinance amendment to the cannabis program. So with that I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Lair and Mr. Peterson.
And Ms. Laird, if you would pause just for one moment I forgot to ask for ex parte communications that I see all my colleagues are here so with that let's start anyone want to? Anyone have any ex parte communications they need to announce? Supervisor Hartner.
I had a site visit and met with the agent Troy White, the operator Chris Bellamy and a counselor John Wilsack
Supervisor
and I also met with our talked on the phone. I'm sorry with Mark Shatillo
supervisor Williams. I spoke on the phone yesterday with Mark Shatillo and had a zoom meeting with the applicants representatives the week before last. Ex
parte communications in Santa Maria
Yeah, I actually have some and I'm waiting for them to Troy right white. And Chris somebody I'm waiting for the. Bell Bellamy yesterday thank you
thank you.
And I have no
ex parte
on September 30th. I had a zoom meeting with Trey White Patrick Flipson and Chris Bellamy talking about the setting of the project its design And their strategies to reduce impacts. All right, thank you for your patience. Ms. Laird, please begin.
Good morning supervisors. Mr. Peterson will be doing the presentation today. Do we have him on Zoom? All right, ready to go.
Thank you, good morning Mr. Chair and members of the board my name is Steven Peterson and today it's my pleasure to present to you the appeal of the Castle Rock Family Farms Cannabis Project. Next slide please. First starting off with the vicinity map here as you can see the project is located 1.9 miles west of the city of Buelton Just south of Highway 246 on this map, the project site is outlined in the pink-purple line.
This is a 277 acre legal lot. It's zoned Ag 2100. This legal lot is part of the larger 676 acre Williams Ranch You can see that the eastern end of the parcel does extend into the Santa Ynez River corridor. And this parcel takes its access off of Highway 246 on an existing gravel driveway, thank you. This project site is located outside of the Santa Ynez Valley Community Plan area and Application was processed as an LUP, not a CUP because the site is not located in an EDRN. It's not adjacent to an EDRN and it's not accessed through an EDRM.
The site has been under active agricultural production since the 1920s with grazing in a variety of row crops And it is under an active Williamson Act Ag Preserve contract. Next slide, please. Moving on to talk about the project timeline. The project was approved by P&D staff on July 26th 2019 and then appealed on August 5th 2019 by John Wagner before the project Made it to its appeal hearing at the Planning Commission. The applicant did submit a revised project description, which was intended to scale back the project. The revised project description eliminated on-site processing from the project, eliminated the nursery component and reduced the number of structures which would be involved in the cannabis operation from 13 to five They also added screening to shield views of the project from Santa Rosa Road to the south.
And, the appeal went to the Planning Commission on July 8th where it was...where the appeal was denied and the project was approved 5-0. And a timely appeal of that approval was filed on July 20th by the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, which brings us to our hearing today. Next slide please. The project description, the project calls for 22.95 acres of cannabis cultivation under hoop structures. There is no onsite processing proposed. There are no new structures proposed There would be five full-time staff and an additional 15 temporary staff during three annual harvest periods. Those harvest periods would be a month each, so three months of the year you'd have the 15 additional temporary staff.
The project's site transportation demand management plan does call for all of the 15 temporary staff to be transported to the site The project also includes 3.28 acres of habitat restoration along the Santa Ynez River to add native upland riparian vegetation in a 150-foot wide swath next to the river. In addition, there is landscape screening which will hide the project from public views Both from Highway 246, which views the project from the north.
And from Santa Rosa Road, which is across the south side of the Santa Ynez River. The project is fully screened from public views. Finally, the project does not have an odor abatement plan as one is not required under an LUP in the AG-II zone. Next slide please. Taking a look at our site plan map, the three green areas are the three cultivation areas. The one on the furthest east there under the pointer is cultivation area A. That's 16.53 acres in size. Just to the west of that you have cultivation area B which is 4.63 acres in size Further to the west in the middle of the parcel you have cultivation area C, which is 1.79 acres and again all those areas would feature cannabis cultivation under hoops In the purplish area on the map you can see the operations area that's 0.53 acres in size a half acre in size and that would Contain two Structures associated with the cannabis operation, a 320 square foot storage building and a 160 square foot office which would be remodeled to add restroom facilities for the employees.
There's also a compost area in that operations area. At present the site features 27 existing structures and with this Permit six of those structures would be demolished. That would leave us with 21 structures on site and only five of those 21 structures would be part of the cannabis operation. As I just mentioned, two of those structures existing structures are located in the cultivation sorry in the operations area in purple And there are also three water tanks, which are all existing as well.
A 5,000-gallon tank located on the north end of cultivation area A. It's shown as number 37 on the map. And then there are two 20,000 gallon water tanks that are near the admin hold area in the center of the site and those are labeled number 38 and 39. Out of the 21 remaining existing structures, nine of those were not previously properly permitted. And those nine structures will be legalized through approval of this permit and subsequent building permits.
The project features fencing, security fencing individually around each of the three cultivation areas. And that's a six foot tall Deer climb, sorry no climb deer fence. The operations area is also fenced individually and the administrative hold area is also fenced individually. Finally the project features security lighting which would be fully shielded motion sensor activated and set to shut off after six minutes or less.
Continuing on to the next slide Staff did review the issues raised in the appeal and summarize them into eight points. And I'd like to run through each of those eight appeal issues now. First, Appeal Issue Number One. The appellant contends that the county's CEQA review was inadequate Staff responds that the program EIR was certified as adequate on February 6th, 2019 by the board at which time a statement of overriding considerations was adopted stating that the benefits of the cannabis program outweighed the significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.
And no legal challenge to the adequacy of the PEIR was raised before the statute of limitations expired. Next slide please. Appeal issue number two, also related to CEQA. The appellant contends that changes to the uniform rules since certification of the PEIR represent substantial changes to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken. Appellant also contends that changes to their right-to-farm ordinance that have been adopted since the PEIR was prepared Represent new information of some substantial importance regarding new or newly feasible mitigation measures.
And therefore further environmental review is necessary staff would respond that section 3.9 of the P E I R which is land use section anticipated that amendments to the uniform rules based on adoption of the cannabis program would take place Therefore, the board adopted amendments to the uniform rules do not constitute a substantial unanticipated change to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken.
Further, the same methods and techniques for odor abatement that exist now including carbon filtration and vapor phase systems were available feasible and widely known at the time of PEIR was prepared therefore changes To the right to farm ordinance did not introduce new or previously infeasible mitigation techniques that were not available and considered under the PIR.
Moving on to appeal issue number three, also related to CEQA. The appellant contends that the PEIR did not consider pesticide drift issues and their impact on non-cannabis agriculture staff would respond that Pesticide drift is not allowed under the state and federal laws that regulate it. And those regulations existed at the time the PEIR was prepared and are unchanged since CEQA is designed to look at the environmental impacts of a project, not on potential impacts from neighboring land uses on a project.
Moving onto appeal issue number four also related to CEQAs The appellant asserts that the CEQA analysis was deficient because the PEIR did not consider cannabis odor impacts to tasting rooms. Staff responds that the presence of wine-tasting rooms in the county was plainly known at the time the PEIR was certified, significant and unavoidable impacts from cannabis odors were identified as impact AQ5 of the PEIR And that there have not been any substantial changes to the project or the circumstances under which it will be undertaken since certification of the PER that would necessitate further environmental review. Moving on to appeal issue number five, the appellant also related to CEQA, the appellant asserts that the PEIR did not anticipate the cluster of cannabis projects that are located west of Buellton and Therefore, cumulative impacts were not properly analyzed.
Staff responds that the PEIR did assume that there would be concentrations of cannabis projects in certain areas of the county and specifically the Santa Ynez Valley was identified as one of these concentration areas. Cumulative impacts were analyzed in the PEIR and the class one impacts associated with them were mitigated or overridden. Appeal issue number six Also related to CEQA, the appellant asserts that the county's CEQA checklist does not evaluate unique site conditions or special aspects of the project's operations and does not provide evidence to support its conclusions.
Staff responds that section c1 of the CEQAs checklist which was attachment 3 to today's board agenda letter does evaluate unique or special aspects of the project And that evidence supporting the conclusions reached in the checklist are included throughout the record, including the application itself. Supporting materials and the CEQA checklist document itself.
Appeal issue number seven. The appellant contends that the project is inconsistent with goal one of the ag element which you can see written out on the slide Staff responds that the project will continue agricultural use of the property, will not convert agricultural land to other uses. Does not propose new structures and will not result in a reduction of cultivated acreage.
This project constitutes a crop change only. Moving on to our last appeal issue number eight. The appellant contends Cannabis cultivation is occurring on the property and has expanded beyond the limits of the legal nonconforming cannabis area. So therefore, the appellant contends that finding 2.1.2.3 cannot be made. That finding states that the subject property is in compliance with all laws regulations and rules pertaining to uses.
Staff responds that All cannabis was eradicated from this site in 2018. P&D has visited the site on multiple occasions since then, most recently on September 11th 2020 for a thorough inspection and no cannabis was observed onsite. Further this application does not qualify as legal non-conforming nor is the applicant claiming they are legal non conforming That concludes the appeal issues and brings us to today's recommended action.
Staff recommends that the board deny the appeal, make the required findings for approval, determine that the previously certified PEIR constitutes adequate environmental review and that no additional environmental review is necessary, and grant de novo approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. If the board would like to go in a different direction, we would ask that you refer the item back to staff for assistance with appropriate findings and conditions.
That brings me to the conclusion of my presentation and we would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank
2:03 – 2:136 turns
you. Thank you Mr. Peterson for the excellent presentation. Are there questions from staff or for staff? All right, next we will go to the presentation from the appellant. That would be Courtney Taylor representing the Santa Barbara County Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. Supervisor Williams did you have a question?
I can wait until the appellant and the applicant speak.
Okay.
Ms. Taylor? Yes!
Good morning. Thank You Chair Hart, members of the board my name is Courtney Taylor Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us this evening. We're here today on behalf of a talent that Santa Barbara coalition for responsible cannabis. Please proceed to fight you and as you can see this project is one of the many in a cluster west of the city of Hilton and part of a smaller cluster projects they're all on directly adjacent parcel with only one containing a condition at But there is a remaining issue regarding the odor impacts of this project and the cumulative impacts given the adjacent projects proposed. We are not concerned that the project won't be compliant with its permit condition or that the applicants are bad actors, as stated in some of the public comments supporting the project.
We're concerned there is no permit condition that assures neighbors that there will be no adverse impacts due to odors. This project does have approval for four one-month long harvest periods per year Due to harvest cycles, appellant fears plants on this parcel will be constantly going through growing and flowering cycles resulting in year-round odors. As I'll discuss odor mitigation on Act 2 parcels is now feasible after amendments to the county's right to farm ordinance. Skip the next slide and go into slide four please.
For time I'm gonna skip a couple of slides. As a quick secret refresher for the cannabis ordinance a PEAR was prepared and certified Subsequent use of this PEIR to support project approvals is allowed only for project impacts that were analyzed in the PEIR. Additional project level environmental review is required if, among other things, there are substantial changes which increase the severity of the impacts or mitigation measures previously found not to be feasible are now feasible. Both of these are the case here due to changes in law that occurred after the PEIR was certified scenarios which were not considered in the PEIR.
Next slide, please. We haven't talked about this directly previously but understanding that tasting rooms are supportive agricultural uses for direct sales of ag products and the critical role they play as a revenue source for wineries are both extremely important concepts. On-site tasting rooms in ag zones are more akin to farm stands but are unique because the ability to smell the product is paramount and the products are frequently consumed on site many times outdoors.
Approximately 81% of wine sales are generated from the tasting room. It's the consumer's connection to the winery. Without it, wines sold would just be another wine on a shelf competing with other brands. The tasting room really serves a critical function for winery sustainability and success. And in Santa Barbara County, the wineries with the top sales are in Ag 2 zones where odor abatement is not currently required. Next slide.
Some of this may seem obvious, but wine is primarily valued on its organoleptic qualities, smell and taste. Where it's grown, consumers need to smell and taste the wines and the wine qualities are unique to its vineyard site. We cannot simply relocate and rebuild estate tasting rooms. Other wine growing regions have recognized that odor impacts negatively impact tasting room experiences and have environmental review and mitigation to address this.
The PEIR itself only mentions wine tasting one time to compare it with an alternative where cannabis would have had similar on-site retail sales. The impacts are otherwise ignored entirely. Without odor abatement, the odor impacts from this project and the other surrounding projects will negatively impact tasting rooms in the vicinity. Given the dependence that wineries have on tasting room revenues, a material decline in tasting room visits will threaten the viability of the wine industry again Unlike cannabis, cannot relocate.
I'd now like to turn to three changes in law that occurred after the PEIR was certified that trigger project level review of Castle Rock under CEQA and give your board authority to condition this project to mitigate odors. Next slide. The PEIR did not require odor abatement in Act II areas in light of the right to farm productions for traditional agriculture post-PEIR certification. The board amended the Right to Farm Ordinance and excluded cannabis from its protections The PEIR assumed right to farm protection would apply and did not discuss alternatives. With this amendment, odor mitigation is now feasible because the protections preventing odor abatement in Act 2 were removed by the board. This is a substantial change in circumstances and local law triggering project level review and mitigation of the project's odor impacts under CEQA.
Next slide. Second, the PEIR and its alternatives assumed APAC would review projects for compatibility with adjacent land uses This review is referenced repeatedly in the PEIR as the mechanism to ensure ag resources are not negatively impacted by cannabis. A post-PEIR amendment to the Uniform Rules removed this review, no analysis in the PEIR covered this scenario.
Without this review, the impacts of this project to adjacent ag uses including tasting rooms as a supportive ag use were not reviewed by APAP which was a fundamental assumption of the PEIR's analysis and impacts to ag. Another substantial change in circumstances Next slide. Lastly, after the PER was certified state legislature amended the Williamson Act requiring cannabis be treated as a compatible use only.
There's been some confusion why this language is permissive and that has served as the county's legal basis for adopting rules that treat cannabis as compatible. Let me explain. Some counties would prefer that cannabis be banned on contracted lands so the statute had to be permissive to allow other counties to make that determination However, the statute does not permit counties to treat cannabis as an ag commodity not subject to compatibility review by their local APAC.
Thus any determination of eligibility of a parcel by APAC under the Williamson Act cannot be relied upon for project approval and the finding that the project is consistent with all laws. The process being used is not in conformance with current state law. Compatibility review is required by law was expressly contemplated in the PIR and the alternatives, and such review would address the odor impacts to ag and its supportive uses. Skip the next two slides please and go to slide 12.
The cumulative impacts of this project when combined... One more please. With surrounding projects cannot be ignored. 143 acres of cultivation proposed in a smaller area and 570 in this area west of Buelton. Next slide. Like many cannabis projects next to ag uses, this project is contrary to the county's goal to assure continuation of ag as a major viable industry. This applies not only to the project but surrounding parcels. The intent has never been to favor one ag crop over another or force out another industry for the benefit of another. The intent is to integrate and coexist. The county has recognized through its allowance of on-site tasting rooms and ag zones the importance of direct sales for wine grape growers and understands how this fosters the success of the wine industry In light of all this, your board's clear basis for denial is simply the project-specific environmental review clearly required based on the three post-PER changes in law.
that I just reviewed and given the substantially more severe impacts to adjacent agriculture. These changes in law gutted APAC's review of projects for compatibility with adjacent ag and increased impacts, but it also allowed for odor mitigation to be feasible to reduce these impacts. Next slide. We believe lack of odor control in this important region remains problematic and your board has a legal basis for requiring mitigation to address this. It is within your discretion to condition the project to mitigate impacts Cannabis LUPs are not ministerial, they're discretionary.
The ordinance specifically states it sets out only minimum land use requirements and the six required plans for cannabis sites impose clear discretion on the part of the county to mitigate environmental impacts and condition the entitlements on the adequacy of these plans, a hallmark of discretionary permits. With this authority in mind our proposed condition is simple no detectable odors in tasting rooms, tasting areas rather This condition is legally defensible, necessary to protect agricultural and agriculture and its supportive uses.
And it's based on substantial evidence and experience that cannabis odors negatively impact adjacent businesses. If the applicant truly believes the setbacks in landscaping that are part of their project result in no odor offsite this condition should be acceptable and would address the majority of the public concerns you have heard about. Thank you again for all of your time and hard work on this difficult issue. Thank you.
Thank you, Miss Taylor, for your presentation. Are there questions from Miss Taylor? All right then we'll next go to the applicant Troy White representing Castle Rock Family Farms.
2:13 – 2:211 turns
Good morning Chair Hart and honorable board members. Can you hear me all right? Yes, we can thank you excellent thank My name is Troy White with TW Land Planning and Development. I'm the agent for the applicant, Castle Rock Family Farms II LLC. I want to thank staff for their great presentation and their hard work over the past two years on this project. Staff's responses to the appellant's issues were expertly addressed within the board letter and their presentation.
Following our presentation, the product team is available to address any specific follow-up questions that this board might have. I'd like now to provide a broad overview of the project and touch on just a few points that we feel are worthy of the board's consideration. My presentation will be followed by a few closing words from Castle Rock Family Farms Principal, Sean Hecht. Our attorney Larry Conlin with Capello & Noel is also available to address any legal questions. Next slide.
The project is located on the Williams Ranch, a beautiful piece of land that is over 676 acres in size and it's comprised of four parcels. The Williams family, the property owners have deep roots in the community and have been ranching in the valley for over four generations now. Several members of the Williams family reside on site and manage livestock on the property. Ranching will continue with the proposed cultivation activity A small 25 acre portion of the Williams property has always been leased for farming. The supplemental income stream associated with this farming has been and continues to be an important source of revenue for the Williams family. The lease monies help to support the management and maintenance of the larger ranch and related cattle operations.
The small lease area comprising less than 5% of the overall ranch is located far from the highway and has graciously been entrusted to the Castle Rock Family Farms Group to carry on the farming legacy on the Williams Ranch. Next slide. The Williams Ranch has been cultivated for nearly 100 years, and perhaps even longer This aerial photo was taken in 1928. Highway 246 is located at the top of the slide, and the Sanchez River is located at the right.
The proposed project is located on some of the same cultivated fields located between the main driveway and the river that were planted here in 1928. At its essence, the product represents a simple change of crop and will replace lower margin crops with cannabis. The revenue from Canvas will provide greater support for ranch operations on site and will have the added benefit of creating new, and now increasingly potential tax revenues for the state and county. Next slide.
The Castle Rock Cultivation Project was purposely chosen because of its location in a relatively isolated area set back substantially from Highway 246, Santa Rosa Road, and other neighbors. The project site is surrounded by other ranching and farming operations, mountainous terrain and the Santa Ynez River with no immediately adjacent vineyards. It should be noted that the project is located over two miles from the city of Buellton. Next slide.
As we learned in the Busy Bee PC hearings last year with expert testimony provided by SESPI Consulting and SCS Engineers, information which is hereby incorporated by reference. Cannabis odors are virtually undetectable 200 feet from the source. This slide shows the two closest tasting rooms to the north and south within the vicinity of the project. The product's closest wine tasting room, hence is over 2000 feet away. It is also worth noting that all on-site processing buildings have been eliminated from the project. Mature cannabis will be removed from the site the same day it is harvested. There will be no onsite drying of or curing of cannabis. Given the distances and prevailing wind direction from the west, and lack of on-site processing, the Castle Rock project will not result in nuisance food impacts at local tasting rooms.
Next slide please. As shown in this slide, the cultivation area is located approximately 1700 feet away from Santa Rosa Road and 1800 feet away from Highway 246. The northern and eastern project perimeters will be landscaped to limit the already distant views onto the property. The proposed trees and shrubs are native and drought tolerant The project will be adequately landscaped and within five years, we'll reasonably screen the view of the proposed hoops and related infrastructure.
Next slide please. This is a line-of-sight section showing the 1800 foot distance between Highway 246 in the proposed cultivation area. This slide demonstrates that the existing and proposed landscaping will effectively screen the projects. Next slide please. Here's an existing photo from Highway 246 of that view shed. Our project is on the distance horizon. Next slide. Here is an after photo simulation with landscaping of that same line-of-sight view. Next slide.
Similarly, this is a line-of sight section showing the 1700 foot distance from Santa Rosa Road and the proposed cultivation area. Here's that same view looking west from Santa Rosa Road across the Santa Ynez River and other private ag property towards the Castle Rock site in the distance. Next slide please. And here is that same view with a proposed landscaping at year five as you can see the Santa Ynez River and its riparian vegetation dominate distant views from Santa Rosa road looking northwest towards the property The existing and proposed landscaping clearly will effectively screen the project. Next slide, please.
With respect to the appellant's allegations of illegal activity I'd like to set the record straight there is no cannabis being grown on their property currently. Medicinal cannabis was grown on the site legally prior to 2016. The Sheriff's Department has verified with a property owner that illegal non-conforming grow did historically go pro on the property In March 2019, a letter was received from the county for a potential zoning violation due to an alleged complaint that cannabis was being grown within hoops on the property. On April 29th 2019 TW Land P&D spoke with County Code Enforcement Officer Annalise Merlot and it was verified that no cannabis was being grown on the property. The case has been closed Castle Rock was also asked by permit compliance staff not grow in any expanded areas until the county LUP and business license have been issued.
Castle Rock has willingly complied, and in fact suspended all cannabis activities pending issuance of the LEP and business license. Simply put there are no active or pending criminal matters associated with this project. And now I'd like to turn over the presentation to Castle Rock partner Sean Hecht for some closing words. Next slide, please.
2:21 – 2:2610 turns
Hello board. My name is Sean Hecht and I'm a resident of Santa Barbara and a local businessman. My partners and I chose the Williams Ranch property for our cannabis farm based on the site's exceptional location and compatibility with the county's requirements. We have met several times with the prior appellant, John Wagner as well as Blair Pence. Prior to planning commission we made several concessions in an effort to address their concerns and those of the coalition.
The original project had two processing buildings and a nursery area. Although we did not feel these operations would affect anyone all of these uses have been eliminated. We are also now providing additional landscape screening and have agreed to reduce staffing We have engaged with the appellate legal team on several occasions and attempt to resolve the remaining concerns, including as recently as last night.
Those goodwill overtures were flatly rejected. We are reasonable people and have compromised considerably along the way. I'd ask you to reconsider the hardships the Williams family, my business partners have endured over the last two years to get to this point. We have watched closely Planning Commission and the Board deliberate on policy and other cannabis projects.
This project is 100% compliant with county policies. Candidly, we feel like our project is the best cited and most thoughtfully designed of anything you've been presented with to date. On behalf of the Williams family, the Castle Rock family, and my own family please deny the appeal and approve the Castle Rock Family Farms Project. Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentation. Are there questions of the applicants? Supervisor Hartman.
Yes, it was my understanding that in terms of growth cycles in the Santa Ynez Valley as a general rule, it's two harvests a year. Exceptional conditions would be three harvests a year and you can't stagger that it has to be within the 2-week period. It can't be a constant. This is very significant because everybody knows there Ag two lands if they aren't adjacent to an EDRN or an urban boundary. Here I'm shocked to hear that there's four cycles a year and I'd like somebody to talk about that, four different harvests a year
This is Troy White, I can respond. We anticipate no more than three harvest cycles. And that
is what you told me.
Exactly and so you know I'm not sure how four we arrive with four but we anticipate no more than four. You know it's we're looking in between two to three grows per year.
Before I vote on this, I'd like more clarification to how this is buttoned down.
Can I add to that? That can't be used as a way for applicants not to try to keep one age of the crop. I feel very strongly that odor is lessened in impact when you have one age of the crop and not several different ages of the crop because then you have, if you have one age of the crop and you have three crops a year then you just have six weeks of odor in a year.
But if you have multiple ages of the crop as happened with an illegal grow in the area, then you have a far more larger impact.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Williams, I'm going to address the part of it that nails down how many harvests they can have per year. So what they put in their project description is what the total number of harvests that they can have per year because that's the first condition of approval that's assigned to the project, right? So if they had more harvest, they would not be in conformance with their permit.
I don't have enough specific knowledge about exactly how the growers are operating, but I will either have Catherine or Steven Peterson address that question. But these are in hoops, right? So they're weather dependent, light dependent, that type of thing. So my assumption is that they will be having one crop and then they will harvest it another crop and then they will harvest it similar to a busy bee does their work. But I would like Ms. Lair and Mr. Peterson to speak a little bit more to that.
And the applicant if they have something to add.
Mr. Chair, members of the board I can address that question. The project description as written and included in your board letter and materials for today has three free harvests one month in duration. I don't know where the idea for harvest came from
2:26 – 2:3220 turns
Thank
you. Supervisor Hartman, this is Troy White. We are anticipating that they will not be staggered in fact they will be sequential so ultimately we'll have one harvest and three harvests but they won't be staggered month after month after month that they would occur within a two to four week window for each harvest for the entire property.
Thank you and is that enforceable?
It's consistent with our site transportation demand management plan, and so I would argue that it is.
Board of Supervisors, I just wanted to step in real quick. I think I just want to get clarification when I'm reading the project description that says during four annual one month long harvesting planting periods. So I'd just like to take a second to confer with staff to make sure we're giving you the right information.
We have Supervisor Adam I think had a question.
Well, maybe as the only farmer that's around going to shed a little light on how this actually works in the real world you know a lot of times you don't have enough plants you know it may be the going-in plan To plant the whole thing all at once, three times a year. And three times was represented to me yesterday so Mr. White gave me three times yesterday when I did my site visit. So
I
don't know that there was a four anywhere. I never saw a four in print anywhere but You know, sometimes the plants don't come. Sometimes they die and then you've got to replant. Things happen when the rubber meets the road and they're likely to get mixed planting dates and then you're going to have extended harvests And that would be typical of any kind of agriculture, because it just doesn't come out of a mold. They're living things and you can't make them all come at the same time under all circumstances. So their plan may be to have three crops a year and to have two-week harvests but I don't know how They can do that much better than I can because we can't do it that accurately.
Thank you, Supervisor Adam.
Mr Chair members of the board what I'd like to say is that the actual condition of approval now reads four harvests and so if the applicant does indeed intend for it to be three as they have stated then we would change that in their project description and in there in that condition of approval
And Mr. White, is that your intent to limit it to three?
Yeah, that was our submitted... It's consistent with their plans, consistent with their submitted project description. So I believe is more likely just a scrivener's error and so of course we're okay with that revision. Okay,
we'll make that change as you requested. Thank you. Supervisor Hartman.
And could you just, I believe with Busy Bee and the others we did stipulate a two-week period of harvest. Do you? You know, I think this is very significant whether we have odor always or whether we have it during a harvest period that we can predict.
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, I know that we discussed that they would be two-week harvests and we'd have to go back and look to see exactly the way their project description was written to verify that it is actually indeed specifically two weeks but I think that would be hard to regulate that it's exactly two weeks So if you can give us a minute, we can take a break and we can look to see what we did require with Busy Bee so we can ensure that we're being consistent in how we are applying that particular standard.
So if there's any other questions, we'll take those now and then maybe we'll take a break and take a look at what was done for Busy Bee.
Okay let's continue on with the hearing by having... Are there other questions from the board? of the applicants or appellants or staff. If not, well I'll pause give everybody a chance to get their questions out but then we'll go to the rebuttals. Or excuse me then we'll go to public comment. Madam Clerk do we have any public comment?
Chair Hart and members of the board we have one request to speak on this item.
All right let's have that person have an opportunity to speak to us.
Chair Hart, members of the board we are going to Liz Rogan.
2:32 – 2:393 turns
Greetings board. This is Liz Rogan I'm calling in today, thank you so much for your time and energy and these constant appeals that you are dealing with. I am a member of California Women for Agriculture and in watching all these things, I have to agree with Supervisor Adams. A lot of these things, you're talking about agriculture, you're talking about plants. These do not conform linear schedules in terms of exactly two weeks. There can be crop failures, there can be pests, there are so many conditions that change this. So really trying to buttonhole these farmers in these strict squares is not in any way feasible or fair. Cannabis is essential agriculture You constantly, everyone's constantly talking about the terpenes also called volatile oil compounds to make it sound scarier.
Well in grape there is over 75 terpenic compounds. So there's over 4,000 terpenes in the natural world. The thing is why are some terpened okay and others not? Cannabis and wine are compatible. There are multiple winemakers who also have cannabis next to them Another thing to note is changes continually happening. This does affect grapes, it changes the odors so these things are not always going to be the same.
I understand you need to make a decision now and I think this Castle Rock Family Farm has gone above and beyond in contacting and communicating with And essentially, it's just asking for you to continue letting cannabis farmers move forward. The amount of taxes that are coming in are significantly more than grape taxes. It's a much more sustainable crop. It uses significantly less water and barely any pesticides. There is no concern of pesticide drift and Essentially, cannabis has been shown to be basically have many more health benefits than alcohol even though many people don't like to hear that.
So I'm asking you today to go with logic over emotion again let all businesses and small farms continue to grow to build our economy to bring us the necessary benefits to our community in terms of economics and jobs and taxes healthcare We're constantly improving our environment. And I want to thank you for your hard work because I know you have been here for multiple years doing this and it's not easy.
So thank you again for your time.
Thank you, Miss Rogan will now go to the rebuttal time where the appellant has 5 minutes in The appellant, Ms. Taylor, you have five minutes.
Hi. So I just want to quickly address the references to the four one-month long harvest. That has been in a project description the entire time. I have never seen it state three harvests and so I disagree that that was a Scribner's error I just want to note that without the appeal, the applicant would have been entitled to four harvests. So that has been in the project description and conditions of approval from the outset including before the planning commission appeal.
In terms of the board's authority to impose an odor condition, you know, the county cannot argue the permit is ministerial and cannot be conditioned by your board to address these impacts while also stating its approval relies on the PEIR We're going to talk a little bit about the discretionary nature of cannabis land use permits and the post PIR changes in law that I discussed your board does have the legal authority Odor abatement conditions like the one we proposed to mitigate this specific impact. You've seen substantial evidence that the ability of the wine industry and the cannabis industry to coexist is extremely challenging. This project is in an area that is highly, highly concentrated with outdoor cannabis grows that do not have odor abatement plans required.
And there are tasting room nearby. And as I outlined, tasting rooms really are supportive agricultural uses that the county supports. There's a reason the county supports putting tasting rooms on agricultural zone parcels and doesn't only require them in urban and commercial areas. And having a substantial number of these projects including this one without any enforceable measures to control odor on the applicant is very concerning and it will be detrimental to the industry's continued viability in this specific area.
And I'll state it again, you heard from the applicant's agent that they truly believe there are these significant setbacks and landscape buffers that will result in no odor impacts. I love if that's true. I really do. And then that condition that those impacts not happen should be acceptable to the applicant. I'm really unclear why that would not be acceptable unless there are in fact We're going to be looking at a number of issues that are related to odor concerns on the applicant. So I would really like to see they said condition from your board and the one that we propose we would be happy with that address this issue again, you're well in your legal authority to do that.
Thank you.
2:39 – 2:4812 turns
We believe the project's 100% consistent with the Land Use Development Code. We work closely with staff to ensure its consistency. The project is consistent with the CEQA review that county staff has prepared. You know, the issues that Ms. Taylor has brought up in terms of odors we've attempted to work with her and we were buffed And so ultimately, we're prepared to move forward. We're happy to address any and all questions you might have but we ask for your support. We do think that this site is well located substantially away from tasting rooms, substantially away from highway.
It's set back significantly Compared to any other projects that have been reviewed and approved by this board today, we do continue to feel like this is the best cited and most well designed project. And so we respectfully ask for you to deny the appeal and to approve the project. Thank you so much.
Thank you Mr. Wright. And just to again put a point on it your intention is to have your project description limited to three harvests per year, correct?
That's accurate and that's consistent with what we submitted. So I think purely it was a mere scrivener's error so entirely okay with what we originally submitted which was three.
Thank you Mr. Wright. That concludes the rebuttal time. We are now to staff comments. Does staff need more time to make any additions or changes? Ms. Plowman
Mr. Chair, members of the board, so in our review of the Busy Bee Project, their project description said three harvests per year with approximately two weeks of harvest time depending on weather conditions. So it allowed some flexibility for changes to happen in the environment. This project description had listed four harvests per year, but they've now agreed to three.
And they have up to a one-month period for harvest is what they listed in their project description. So, what we will be doing is ensuring that we have language that the applicant can live with and we will bring it to the board and post it in track changes so you can see what the amendments would be. If that is what the applicant is agreeing to and what the board is comfortable with.
Chair and Supervisors, I had spoken with Director Plowman a moment ago and we agreed that a great way to do that also would be to have the slide shown and provided to the Board and the public. And also within the recommended actions that Recommended Action B which is currently make the required findings for approval would begin with So you're going to have a little more back and forth with the applicant, and for my vote I would strongly encourage busy B wording.
Okay, are there other comments from the board? Sounds like we're gonna trail this item for staff to be able to work out these items.
Mr. Chair if you want we could take a 5-10 minute break before the lunch hour and probably could be done.
Let us take a 10 minutes break. Supervisor Adam
Well, so I was going to make these comments a little later but I think it might be better now. And then if there's any traction on some of these suggestions and maybe they can get incorporated during that period as well. You know, I've had a problem with this PEIR since it became apparent that we did not have the capability of synthesizing the information or processing the information that was available to us at the time. And we keep being told that this information was available But that doesn't mean that we were able to predict the consequences accurately.
And so as I've stated many times, drift is not the only source of problems between cannabis and non-cannabis neighbors. And we have the whole waft issue which we've discussed at some nausea. Same goes for the smell issue. As I traveled yesterday to this site via 246, I was absolutely assaulted by the skunk smell of what I was told by our applicants was Busy Bees Cannabis.
And so that is a really important and intense smell. That's not something that normal people would be able to ignore. So the applicant's agents told me that the smell was only gonna be present during harvest, which was two weeks. And they also told me that there are three harvests per year so it's not two weeks but six. And that all said if there was a place that I think he could work this would be it and This location should tend to blow away from the closest wineries. However, I predict from time to unpredictable time the odor will travel in a bad direction and impact other commercial and residential uses. So what I kind of want to suggest here is, and maybe the applicant would be willing to volunteer a condition that their odor does not result in a nuisance to residential or commercial uses within a two mile radius because Support this project If I had that kind of assurance But short of that, I think I have to vote no
Thank You supervisor Adam are there other comments from board members Okay supervisor Hartman
I agree wholeheartedly with Supervisor Adam. The first point I agree with is that we can't really override considerations we didn't understand or that weren't known at the time, and at least you have two of us formally on the record on that point. About the odor, again, I agree there are many fine things about this project. They're kind of stuck in a way of this cumulative impact. We've spent the last days in the Santa Ynez Valley with heat over 100 degrees, with heavy smoke particulates and then it's made even worse by this cloying smell of cannabis. I've had letters and emails and complaints from residents. I have a letter from we all have a letter from the city of Buellton. I want to remind everybody on this board there is no odor control for large agricultural parcels.
It's having a huge negative impact on the residents' well-being, visitors and businesses in the Santa Ynez Valley. It's not imagined, it's not exaggerated, it's real and it's going to get much worse I have here the list in the Santa Rita Hills of the projects that are coming forward. It's almost 800 acres of cannabis. This isn't even adjacent to Santa Rita Hills, our whole cap is 1575. This is half of the cap concentrated on 246 Santa Rosa Road, Santa Rita Hills adjacent The wind blows towards the city. The wind blows towards many people and I don't think we should focus on this project, but we really need to address this. I know there's another supervisor on this board who is now getting some heat because of hemp and it's real! People are experiencing some really significant impacts and we need to look at that.
We can't simply ignore it
2:48 – 2:5915 turns
Supervisor Williams. I understand and empathize with the concerns of Supervisor Hartman, and I do think that we need to encourage applicants and appellants to attempt in all cases to work things out and to revise project descriptions to be more modest. For my part, I look askance at projects that are a high amount of acreage particularly on the limited parcel and am supportive of projects that have a more modest coverage of their site and are more removed from areas of possible impact.
I would love nothing more than a chance to deny a project. To show the board's determination to get this right, but this is not that project. This project site has less potential for conflicts than other places. They have already done what we wanted which is to revise the project to be more Modest and more respectful. I'm disappointed that both sides weren't able to come together, but I appreciate that each in their own fashion attempted to reach that compromise.
And for my part, I think that should be a real something that we continue to look at going further. I mean, for my part, I don't support more than half of the cap going in to one little part of the county. And will very much support revising project descriptions to make that cumulative impact less severe. Oh and to the issue of the harvests, Should be standard operating procedure.
I don't know if two weeks is the magic number, I don't know if it's three weeks. A month seems a little bit long but we need to limit the harvest window to limit the potential for odor nuisance. Just, I'm not even saying it just in regards to this project but all particularly the outdoor projects
Mr. Chair, I guess I'll weigh in as well is- Supervisor Labadiere? Believe it or not, I agree with everybody's position so far. They all make sense and it's a balance. And so the projects like this one for me that are cited on nearly a 300 acre parcel and they're developing 22 acres Six football fields away from the road, as far as the view shed goes. With a, and I have not met with the grower but from all indications of looking at the planning commission meeting are folks that are responsive.
And I don't think this is the project that we dropped the hammer on and One of the concerns I have is we say we don't want to put it all in one area, which I totally agree. But when we spread it out and we try to put it out in the hinterland those folks then say well you know it shouldn't be out here in the middle of nowhere we should put it where Where it makes more sense. If somebody can circle that place on the map in this county, I would be the first one to back you up on that. I have not found that golden zone yet and every place it seems to have to go is places where nobody wants it to be so.
You know, I think on this particular one with a huge parcel small development envelope inside With two miles away from the city limit, we do have protections at the city as far as odor control goes when it gets closer, when it's near a boundary line. You know, like I said, I kind of agree with what everybody has said at this point. But I don't really think that this is the project to make an example out of.
Mr. Chair?
Supervisor Adam?
And I think that this is the reason that we need to revisit the PEIR. And I realize that's not going to occur for this project but and back to the no golden zone That's right, but this is why I think that it's really important to get it right at some point. Because we're kind of groping around in the dark here because we didn't know what we didn't know to begin with and now we're finding stuff out. And if we're locked into repeating decisions that we've made in the past like on Busy B, and I wasn't here for Busy Thank you.
I'm not sure I had my ideas as fully fleshed out as today, but if we don't kind of get a new understanding with the industry that they've got to make sure and not become a nuisance. Because once we give somebody a permit to do what they're going to do then if we don�t make it so that they can't become a nuisance, then if they become a nuisance it's like too bad.
And that's not a good... I don't think that's a good message to send to your existing businesses and residents and I think it's disrespectful at the very least to people who have made Thank you. You know, the best I can do is say today that maybe a good thing for the applicant to do is to volunteer that they'll add that into the permit conditions so they don't become a nuisance. And I think that this site just does lend itself to that because of, you know being out there yesterday really clarified my thinking on that project as opposed to some others.
That I think it does have, as Supervisor Lavanino was talking about Thank you very much. You know, they're not always going to be that. There's a lot of times where people want to cite things that are really going to be confrontational and result in just one user or the other is going to win result ultimately in those situations. And if we can get somebody to voluntarily indemnify the nuisance issue on the front end, maybe that becomes a better precedence going forward than just leaving it alone and saying well, we've made our mistakes. We gotta keep making them because we have to be consistent.
So that's all I'm saying.
Thank you, Supervisor Adam. Mr. Guzzone, do you have something to
add? Chair and supervisors, to respond partially to the legal framework question that Supervisor Adam had within his comment, issuing a permit does not immunize a business or a grow from becoming a nuisance and being enforced against. So going back to the 30s, a lawful business may still become a nuisance by the manner in which it is operated So that protection is out there.
And my next thought on the two-mile condition, which would be potentially volunteered, is that traditionally in this area when we look at conditions we like them to be set up in such a way that they're easy to objectively evaluate or they can be objectively evaluated. So if we have don't be a nuisance within two miles I think that would be hard on planning staff but you may want to hear from the Planning Director on that.
Miss Plummer.
Mr Chair, members of the board. I think as we've learned in carpenteria, there's no way to know where the odor is coming from. We cannot track which grow is the offender. So I think it would be very difficult to enforce on a particular grower with a condition of that nature.
All right, Supervisor Hartman?
Go
ahead
and chair and supervisors, and I think the other part And we're talking about one particular Permit application today that's before you but when we go back to the structure of this We've got really two parts and that is the land-use regime whether it's a land use permit or conditional use permit and then CEQA in A lot of the discussion that I'm hearing today about CEQa Sounds partially like frustration with the land-use regime of wishing that there was the Condition that goes with conditional use permits about not being detrimental to comfort convenience general welfare health and safety of the neighborhood Which is really more of a what type of permit applies to this parcel?
More so than CEQA
Thank you for that clarification supervisor Hart
Yes, I was going to ask if we have ever despite all the complaints we've had about odor enforced on a nuisance claim. And then I wanted to ask given we can't identify where the odor is coming from how we ever would enforce on a nuisance claim and I think that's for you Mr. Gazzone.
3:00 – 3:025 turns
Well I think a nuisance claim, and when we've looked at these working with the Sheriff's Office and with Planning & Development in the Carpinteria area has been problematic in that no one could tell with any accuracy what parcel something was coming from. I think our ideal but non-existent facts would be there's Supervisor Williams.
I think I heard my name called just there. I mean, this is an issue for me. The board a year and a half ago directed the County Council's office to initiate nuisance litigation against possible nuisances And I understand the desire for a 95% or 99%. You know chance of success in force. But the fact that we're not And the fact that we have not initiated it. I think is less of a deterrent than going for 70% or 5050 chance of successful enforcement. So, you know.
Since I. I know this is. A tangent to Since the non-conforming regime is not going away immediately, and these appeals are happening at a snail's pace that we continue to look vigilantly for cases where we have some chance of success instead of overwhelming chance of success. All
right so I think the board has identified concerns and we have this outstanding language issue that staff still needs a little bit of time to refine. So we're going to take a break for 10 minutes and come back at 1210.
And Mr Chair, I just wanted to let the applicants know that will be reaching out to them will be calling them to let them know how we revise the condition language will email it to them and then we'll be able to put it up on a slide for the board in the public and the appellants to read
Let's make it 1215 since you have those extra steps involved. Thank you.
3:09 – 3:131 turns
you Thank you. Hello.
3:14 – 3:207 turns
Yeah.
We'll reconvene the Board of Supervisors meeting for October 6th. We're on departmental item number three and County Council and the planning staff have been working with the applicant about conditions, and where are we now?
Mr. Chair, members of the board, so we do have a revised project description that the applicant has agreed to. It has been revised to read during three annual harvesting and planting periods which will last approximately two weeks per harvest no longer than one month per harvest And then operating hours may be extended to include weekends and are proposed for between 6 AM and 8 PM. And then we've removed the language trying to identify exactly when those harvests would happen, because I think that presents an enforcement issue as well.
It'll make it simpler for the applicant to be consistent with and easier for us to monitor.
Thank you for that additional work and clarification on the matter is to the board. Mr. Ghazani, did you want to?
Chair and Supervisors and my recommendation working with planning would be that if this is the sense of where the board wants to go with this that we would my recommendation be then trail the item so we could go to closed session come back and that would allow time to polish this up and tie in the CEQA findings in the recommended actions all in one spot.
We have Ms. Supervisor Hartman's light is
on? So there is no movement whatsoever on odor control.
3:20 – 3:2713 turns
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, the applicant did not propose anything or agree to anything.
Supervisor Williams? Or do you have more, Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, while we're still on this. I heard Supervisor Williams say that he would not approve future projects to allow such concentration in such a limited area and I would like to ask Mr. Gazzone what tools do we have under an LUP? Aren't we in just the same situation we are right now?
Chair and supervisors, with a land use permit the board has less discretion than with a conditional use permit. The basic findings for a land use permit are the adequacy of services, conformity with comprehensive plan, legally created lot, and in compliance with local laws regulations and rules. I think Sir Razor Hartman's question alludes to the additional finding that goes with a conditional use permit, which is quote. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the comfort convenience general welfare health and safety of the neighborhood and will be compatible with the surrounding area end quote. And that really is the clearest tool available to prevent a concentration.
So I just want to reiterate, we keep saying oh we're going to deal with it. We do not have the tools to deal with it and that is the issue
Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman I wanted to add one thing to the conversation and that is recently the board took action to set a threshold at which point a land use permit is allowed and then above a certain percent of grow on a site it was 51% then you would require a CUP And you should know that actually, that is in effect and it did result in changes in applications.
So land use permits have been revised to reduce their grows to be in conformance with those new standards. So it did have an impact, the intended impact that the board had at that time so I thought that was important for the board to know.
Thank you, Ms. Plowman. We're going to go in order just a second. Supervisor Adam, you're after Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman has the floor.
That's very helpful. What would be more helpful is to see an analysis of what that actually means?
Well, all these conversations can happen and everybody can ask questions at any point in time of staff and get information about what is going on in the way of planning applications and their meetings with planning staff Right now we have an applicant in front of us today. Supervisor Williams?
Yeah, I think that 51%, I seem to remember, I propose that. I am committed to limiting acreage to something more reasonable. I can completely empathize with feeling like your area in the district is the hotspot. That's the way I felt for a couple years. And so it makes you obviously very hyper vigilant on both sides, often sometimes because you want to get this right. And so I very much empathize with that. I will continue to be okay with even on an LUP to ask applicants to revise to have better setbacks or More reasonable acreages. However, in this case Castle Rock already has done that. 0.4 miles from the applicant. That's pretty far.
So I'm not sure that we could have ever come up with a setback that was more vigilant than that. And so with this revised description, I am comfortable with the project description and will deny the appeal and uphold the project.
Supervisor Adam?
Yeah and I realize we're not going to do this today. In fact, we probably aren't going to do it while I'm on this board but I really think you guys got to go back through this PEIR because it just It doesn't address the issues that we've discovered since we started doing this. And these issues of concentration and you gotta come up with some way to evaluate and mitigate the damages to existing residential and commercial stuff in the area, uses in the area.
And I don't know how you do that unless you start again from not from scratch but Just go through this BEIR again and make sure that it puts in all the stuff we found out in the meantime. Because, you know the problem is we know all this stuff now But we're not able to incorporate the mitigations for it because it's not in our history at this point of approving projects.
And it's not, we don't have a mitigation strategy identified for it. So I think the problem here is we're dealing with something that was a first impression and I think everybody understands we might have done a little... I know that I did, I will admit that I did a little too much too fast and You know for that I'm sorry but you know, I think that we have as a board an opportunity to fix that. We just have to choose to do that and we have to instruct staff to do that.
And I'm hoping that you guys will do that.
All right thank you.
3:27 – 3:298 turns
Chair and Supervisors, just as a housekeeping item on this I think it would probably save the board and the process any confusion later. We've got our proposed version of applicants requested change to applicants project description showing on the screen right now and there's been discussions offline with the applicant on that but I think it would avoid any confusion later if we heard briefly from the applicant that the applicant is requesting this change that's shown on the screen and that way if you trail the item, you're working off the Applicant statement on their record.
All right Let's just do that let us will trail the item The applicant will have time to review the proposed new conditions of approval And then we'll go to the applicant when we come back after closed session and have their response to those new conditions More deliberations and the board can decide what to do at that point in time, so we're gonna Supervisor Hartman, you have another question?
Yes. I have an answer to my own question out of the 3 of 23 are over 51% in the current pipeline So that means if you have a hundred acres you can have 51 of cannabis in hoops This does not deal with the concentration problem It is not a solution so to claim that we have one and and then Woe and behold the next time it comes forward. We have no tools that's disingenuous
You know could staff refresh my memory how many applications has this board? Considered in the Santa Ana's value how that valley has there been four hearings three projects approved one withdrawn is that our 2020 Action, I'm not talking about what's in the pipeline. I'm talking about the decisions that the board has made on applications in the Santa Ynez Valley. There's been a grand total of three for does anybody know how many acres we're talking about?
Mr. Chair, I know that there was Busy Bee, West Coast, Santa Rita and Castle Rock.
Yeah so probably 60 acres approximately in the Santa Ynez Valley approved by the board?
Busy B is around 22, Castle Rock's around 22. 60, so West Coast is 50.
Okay, so less than 100 acres so far approved by the board and another project that was withdrawn from the applicant. So some more context to the conversation. All right we're going to recess to close session and Mr. Gazzone could you please read items for consideration?
3:30 – 3:322 turns
Chair and supervisors, today in closed session the board has agendized to consider two matters. One case of existing litigation titled Kirsch et al versus County of Santa Barbara which is a superior court case. And the second conference with legal counsel about anticipated litigation significant exposure to civil litigation. My estimate is that closed session will take approximately 45 minutes.
We will return to item number three when we return at approximately quarter to one. Thank you. At 115, you did the math wrong. Hello.
3:36 – 4:151 turns
you Yeah. Thank you. You. you Thank you. You. Yeah. you you Thank you. Good morning. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Good morning.
4:23 – 4:253 turns
Hi, everyone. We're now reconvening the meeting of October 6, 2020. Would the county council please report out from closed session?
Chair and supervisors today in closed session, the board considered two matters in conferences with legal counsel. The first was a matter of existing litigation, Kirsch et al versus County of Santa Barbara. The second was one matter of anticipated litigation which was a significant exposure to civil litigation. There are no reportable actions.
Thank you, Mr. Gazzone. We're going to return to item number three departmental item number three Miss Plowman.
4:25 – 4:3111 turns
Mr. Chair members of the board so we are not we've had a successful collaboration and we have on the screen they revised project description language and I think this is the opportune time to actually did the applicant verify? The applicant did verify that they accepted this.
My recommendation would be to hear from the applicant, given the opportunity over the lunch break to look at this, that this is the revised project description that the applicant is requesting. Okay. Yes.
So we're going to check that box.
And then would you, Ms. Laird, please put up the revised recommended actions? So we've amended the recommended action. So it's clear that the board did approve some changes to the project description and that's in recommended action B and recommend recommended action C and D so that it's clear that it went from 4 harvests to 3 harvests.
Thank you for that work over the closed session time period will go to the applicant now to hear from Yes, Mr.
White? Chair Hart, fellow supervisors, this is Troy White, PDO Land Planning and Development representing Castle Rock Family Farms 2 LLC. We've had an opportunity to review the applicant proposed revised changes to the project description as drafted and appearing before you from staff. And we have no objections to moving forward with those revisions.
Thank you very much. That is the new revised project description per the applicant and the matter is back to the board. Is there any more discussion or is there a motion? Supervisor Hartman.
Yeah, I have two points I'd like to make. There's much to be recommended about this project. It is a small percentage of the overall parcel. I don't think you can look at it as a percentage of the ranch as a whole But the parcel, it's less than a quarter. It's not an illegal expansion of medical. The physical location is something of a bowl set back from Highway 246 and it's not highly visible and it is insulated by vegetation somewhat from the river.
The Planning Commission did have a 5-0 vote and it worked really hard I know. And I really appreciate the hard work by the Planning Commission to try work with the applicants and bring these projects forward in a way that they may be more approvable by the board. This project does involve a local ranch owner, rancher landowner who's using cannabis as I think this board really intended when we wrote the ordinance, and that is to help existing agriculture stay in business. And kind of a high value crop that can cushion through the ups and downs of the agricultural economy.
So I'm very supportive of that. But my vote, what I would like to do is have an analysis come back about the 51%. Because here's what I have. 102 acres approved in this area, 800 more in the pipeline. Those are 23 permits of those only 3 are CUPs. My hunch is that we don't have a tool to deal with concentration. The 51% isn't going to help us much. We're now over 50% of the cap.
I cannot sit here in good conscience and not continue to raise that issue, so I would like to ask for that analysis. I would like the board's approval if I need to make a motion for that before I would make a motion to approve this project
I'm not sure how that is for our discussion today. We have a land use permit on our agenda, it's been noticed as such. I don't know how we can do that today. Mr. Gazzani?
Chair and Supervisors, Supervisor Hartman's request does not agendize. Any supervisor or the board could request the staff to report back and if that's what Supervisor Hartman is asking for, that's a matter that the board could consider now or after the vote it's your discretion but you're asking staff to report back with particular information.
Thank you. Mister chair. Because of our 8 hour rule. Normally you would ask informational items and you can as a supervisor. So I think it's within supervisor Hartman authority to I support the idea that Supervisor Hartman should be able to have that analysis and that it should inform our future decisions. I feel like this project is in a decent lot and decent configuration to minimize the possibility of nuisance. And they have revised their project description to be more reasonable, and I think that should be rewarded.
4:31 – 4:3820 turns
Are
there other comments? Supervisor Adam.
Yeah, you know after we broke last time I remembered something my dad used to say all the time. Old Dick Adam from beyond the grave here. It's like hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. It feels so good when you stop. You know, this EIR has to be revisited. And I think that the acreage or the percent limitation to a CUP is a good start but I think we need to do a further analysis of how and maybe do some more studies About how odor moves and how far it can travel under kind of normal worst case scenarios. And see if we can come up with some rational way to mitigate these things, and to be able to cite them in appropriate spots. So that they don't harm existing businesses and residences. So I think that's something that needs to be done, and we're not gonna be able to do it now but maybe if we could get direction to staff to start that or maybe you gotta do it next year's budget, I don't know.
But it needs to be done.
Any other comments? Supervisor Labadino.
Mr. Chair, yeah I'm kind of... I'm trying to figure out exactly how to get to what Supervisor Hartman's asking for it seems it's a reasonable request I'm just not sure that this is the vehicle to get that done it almost seems like it's another bite at the apple of changing the ordinance We're I'd feel more comfortable even though Believe me, I don't want to have another, you know the more cannabis hearings what Peter just said about hitting your head with a hammer.
But I think the better vehicle for this would be to come back and agendize that and then have folks be able to speak on both sides of how they feel about that. I feel like we're discussing and I feel for the applicant right now and the appellant because you know we're not really addressing this issue so. Their issue. I think we're all saying that hey, this is a great project but other projects might be a problem or not dealing with other projects today so.
I don't really know what the vehicle is to get done what it seems like maybe a majority of this board would like to do. I'm not even sure that there's three votes to get that done. But then again, like I said, it's not agendized today, so I kind of have difficulty. I just assume get to the issue at hand.
Chair and supervisors, the board has a lot of discretion in this area as to how you want to handle this but the Brown Act does allow the board without it being agendized to take action to direct staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda. And I think that's what Supervisor Hartman is talking about.
Okay well let's have a motion of some sort. Maybe we should take care of the project that's before us, that's agendized, that people have commented on. That others have said is a worthwhile project. Maybe we should do that first and then we can have other discussion after that. Would somebody like to make a motion?
I would move approval of the project as revised.
Okay. The motion has been made. Is there a second? Second. And seconded. Any discussion? Would the clerk please call the roll?
Mr. Williams, aye. Ms. Hartman, aye. Mr. Adam?
No.
Mr Lavinino?
Aye.
Chair Hart? Aye. Motion passes 4-1.
And then Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, I would like to make a motion that we ask staff or direct staff to do an analysis of how the over 51% tool requiring a CUP would affect concentration would limit acreage in the Santa Ynez Valley particularly Santa Rita Hills area. We just heard that nuisance actions aren't a tool. And so you pointed to this as a tool, so before we approve other projects how effective, how much does this tool address the issue that I'm raising?
Supervisor Williams. Well I'll second but I would ask that we not bring it back for hearing unless we determine some You know. Changes that would be proposed from that and you know if I am allowed to Brown Act with you, I'd be happy to make sure it comes back to hearing at that time. Remember any any supervisor we could ask for something in a board letter so I would just say I would second it but for now it should just be informational And if it is causing applicants that are under the 51 already to read their handwriting on the wall and ask for a more realistic amount of acreage. That may be taking place too, and I think that should be part of the thing.
And if I may, I have a question. The Brown Act how can can I partner on a specific project with Supervisor Williams or is he forever connected to Supervisor Lavanino on this? How broadly do you read that?
Am I married to life for life?
So the short answer is no, having talked about part of a topic once does not bind you to another supervisor as a in quotes Brown Act buddy forever. We really look at the facts of what's the contact been but I think that for the particular issue if we're talking about this 51%, that's something that you could talk about And at the risk of making this more difficult for you, I'll tell you that you have a lot of latitude as to what you do today. Supervisor Williams is describing another prong which would be the board providing a reference to staff for factual information or you could direct staff to bring it back as an agendized item. It's your choice
4:38 – 4:419 turns
Thank you very much.
We can put together a spreadsheet that shows how projects have been shifting since the adoption of the most recent amendments to the code. I think it's important to know that there are still projects in flux, and we don't know how they will change because they're still sitting with the applicant and they're tinkering and working on them. I don't think that's a difficult project for us.
I'm happy to provide that to all the board members and have you review it, or I can bring it back at a hearing. But I think really that is the Board's call how you would like to receive it.
Well, I think the information is valuable. I am sure all the board members would find that useful I don't know that we need to presume what the outcome of that is. I think do the work, get the information, share it with board members and we'll see what board members want to do after that. We don't have to decide that today. That's my view.
And I think the board could do this either through direction of the body itself or at the request of a supervisor requesting staff to provide this information. So far you've had a request by a supervisor to provide the information.
How do we want to proceed? I think it's clear the staff is going to do the work and get it to support.
My preference would be informational at this point and not have another hearing, but just informational at this point.
Okay we'll see step one that way we don't need to go past that all right thank you for this. With
us I know we had several people remotely but Deputy County Counsel Brian Pettit was with us and helped us including over the lunch break while the rest of us were in closed session
Thanks everybody for working over lunch. Which brings us to department item number four. Thank you Ms. Plowman, to everybody else. We're okay? Alright. Madam Clerk could you please read item number four into the record.
4:41 – 4:4711 turns
Chair Hart and members of the board. Departmental item number four is from Human Resources. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an amendment to the ordinance setting compensation and benefits for members of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors.
Good afternoon, Chair Hart and members of the board. I am here today to introduce the first reading of an ordinance to amend the current county ordinance number 5090 which sets compensation and benefits for members of the Board of Supervisors. The Human Resources Department is recommending the following changes. Number one increase board member salaries by 3% consistent with direction given by a previous board To tie compensation to the Consumer Price Index for urban areas and to authorize future adjustments to board compensation tied to this same index up to a maximum of 3%.
Our second recommendation is to increase the bi-weekly chair allowance by 3% from $71.18 bi-weekly to $73.32. And to authorize future adjustments to the biweekly chair allowance based on that same October consumer price index as is the basis for salary adjustments and also capped at a maximum of 3%. Our third recommendation is to implement the third and final year of ongoing pension cost sharing pickups.
This is the final pension cost sharing pickup for a total pickup of 2.49% ongoing. Our fourth recommendation is to increase the county contribution by 5.3% for board members enrolled in and receiving county sponsored health insurance. This is the same increase that all county employees enrolled in health insurance will receive Human Resources is also recommending to authorize future adjustments to the county contribution for board members for their health insurance, to match the county contribution received by elected department heads effective in the first pay period of the calendar year.
Our fifth recommendation is to decrease the biweekly automobile allowance paid to members of the board by $2 a pay period to $230 paid bi-weekly, which is the same amount that is currently received by elected department heads and is tied to IRS rates. Human Resources is also recommending to authorize future adjustments to the Bi-Weekly Automobile Allowance to match the automobile allowance received by other elected department heads also effective in the first pay period of a calendar year.
Thank you, Ms. Jeffrey. Appreciate that.
Thank you.
Are there questions of staff? Well, this is always challenging. And would any board members like to begin discussion?
Is there any public comment?
Actually good question. Madam Clerk, is there any public comment?
Chair Hart and members of the Board we have no request to speak on this item.
Supervisor Hartman.
I would like to ask CEO Miyasato, I wasn't here and I believe there was a study done and the Santa Barbara County Board is compared to benchmark counties could you describe that?
Chair Hartman, sorry, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. So in 2015 the board asked for an ad hoc committee of community members to look at board salaries and there was a committee that I was on with the then HR Director Jerry Muth It had the Santa Barbara Chamber. It had Lompoc Valley Chamber. It had a Montecito Bank, it had an HR professional and then a few other people at Taxpayers Association et cetera. And the idea was to look at the salaries because the issue was these are full-time jobs and they wanted to make sure the salaries were set that they're competitive people who could work as supervisors but could have a comparable salary.
So after many many meetings The majority of the committee ended up saying that looking at the comparables of the other counties, they recommended that the board salary be placed at the median or 50th percentile of those comparables. Also in discussion was that many counties look at the Superior Court judges salaries because that's set by the state and look at some percentage of that salary to peg the board member salaries.
So those recommendations were brought forward to the Board at that time, and the Board decided not to take that recommendation but to instead Adjust the board salaries by CPI and the CPI was set Basically to assist with budget. And so there's a Whatever we have in the board that it said, that's what the CPI said which CPI will look at and That was what we continued to do And for today, if we could just let the board members know because it's been a long time. Currently the state of California Superior Court Judge their salary set by the state is $214,000. The board salaries are 100,248 and the median of all the comparable counties.
If you just look at the counties that we typically compare to is 128,000
4:47 – 4:5125 turns
May I follow on?
Yes, Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you that is extremely helpful. I just want to say for myself this job is a very demanding one with a lot of responsibilities that are very diverse if you're somebody kind of was retired like me I was or if you have a business or if you're independently wealthy you could do this and But if you're trying to support a family, if this is your only means, this is not a huge compensation for the responsibilities of this job.
Supervisor Williams? Well I agree with that and I will move staff recommendation.
Second.
Motion's been made and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Mr. Chair, Supervisor
Adams?
Like I'm just going to take my last opportunity to give my logic.
Wait a second Supervisor Adam, I would like to substitute Supervisor-Elect Nelson at this point to make this vote if that's allowed?
I would too! Where the heck is he? You know we got 480 million dollars of deferred maintenance And I think that's an undershot on that. And we got roughly a billion dollars of unfunded liability to our pensions, and if a board of directors of a private company was that far underwater on pensions or especially deferred maintenance They would not be deserving a giant raise.
And I think this raise is giant, but cumulatively it... If you didn't have those things, you'd probably be worth $250,000 or $300,000 a year. I think that those numbers are supportable in an organization of this size, that's well run. But if you got that kind of a billion and a half of unfunded liability with a billion dollar budget, I don't know that you can say that.
And I hope during my tenure here to chip away at that difference, but it's only grown. So I have to vote no again.
Thank you Supervisor Adam. Any other comments? Just for me personally the raise at this moment in time with the COVID pandemic and The issues others are facing, I'm not comfortable with that personally. But I understand that we are not overcompensated and that this has been a troubling difficult thing for many boards over many years and appreciate all the work that staff has done to provide a reasonable solution to it.
Supervisor Williams? Did you have something else? Okay. All right. Any other comments? Any questions? Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Mr. Williams? Aye. Ms. Hartman? Aye. Mr. Adams?
The last no.
Mr. Lavagnino?
I don't think it's the
last
no. And I will vote no
as well. Chair
Hart? On this, on
this. Okay,
there
you
go. Motion passes 3 to 2. Alright
that concludes our business actually we do have one announcement unfortunately from Supervisor Hartman
4:51 – 4:532 turns
Thank you, Chair Hart. The Board of Supervisors would like to close today's meeting in remembrance of public work employee Thomas Charity. Thomas spent 13 years working with the Resource Recovery and Waste Management Division as a vital member of the Collection and Materials Management Section. More specifically, he managed the county's valuable solid waste collection franchise agreements.
In this role, he ensured county customers received excellent waste collection services through a wide range of programs. I had a number of personal experiences with him. One day at a Tanglewood cleanup, we organized by my office. We had lots of people with high expectations and we ran out of container space on a Saturday afternoon and he quickly had two more bins delivered.
Another was at a cleanup at the Ivy Community Center and again, we had a large workforce but the wrong size bin to handle the palm fronds so we needed new containers delivered and again Thomas did deliver. I remember him attending Ivy Community Network meetings during his lunch hour to explain the nuances of regulations governing the pickup of possibly abandoned items.
Thomas was the quintessential public servant, taking his responsibilities to heart, listening intently, participating respectfully, digging deeply into the root of a problem and actively seeking creative and responsive solutions tailored to community needs. Anything he touched had the hallmark of excellence. He was also a devoted father and family man, the Public Works Department and the county will miss his passion and inquiring mind on our most comforting thoughts go out to his family at this time.
Thank you very much for sharing that Supervisor Hartman and we are adjourned in Mr. Sherdy's memory and also Mr. Harrow's memory where next meeting will be October 13th 2020