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.0:04 – 0:1013 turns
Good morning. I'll call to order the December 14, 2021 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk please call the roll.
Roll call, called by Williams'
Show transcript
The next item of business is the approval of minutes from the December 7, 2021 meeting. Can I get a motion?
Move for approval.
Second. All right. Motion from Supervisor Hartman and second from Supervisor Hart. Roll call please.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 Motion from Supervisor Hartman and second from Supervisor Hart. Roll call
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Madam Clerk, are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, I just have a couple quick announcements this morning. I would like to remind the public that the Board of Supervisors meetings are being interpreted and broadcast live in Spanish. We are broadcasting our meetings in Spanish both for Cox Cable subscribers in South County as well as Comcast Cable subscribers in North County.
Members of the public can now view our meetings in Spanish by turning on the secondary audio programming also known as SAP or SAP under their language settings. I would also like to remind the public who are participating in our meeting today of the board's updated methods of public participation. For the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda, please see page two of the agenda.
Members of the public can attend meetings in person in both the Santa Barbara Hearing Room Chambers as well as the Santa Maria Hearing Room Chambers Please note that an additional county health officer order went into effect requiring indoor mask usage for everyone over two years of age regardless of vaccination status. If you attend board meetings in person, you will be required to wear a face covering or mask at all times regardless of vaccination status.
Information regarding how to properly wear a mask has been posted throughout both locations. As a friendly reminder, masks should cover your nose and mouth. Wear the mask from the bridge of your nose all the way under your chin. Tighten any loops or ties so the mask is snug. If you do not have a mask that fits properly we can provide you with one. Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment virtually may do so via Zoom by registering in advance via the link available on page two. After registering you will receive a confirmation email containing important information about joining the virtual meeting.
Once the chair has announced the item you want to comment on, please join the meeting with the information provided. You will be placed on mute until it is your turn to speak. The clerk will call you by name when removed from mute, you will hear a notification that your line has been unmuted. If you're using a touchtone phone, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself if you are using a touchtone phone again, you may need to press star six to unmute yourself Each person may address the board for up to three minutes and this is at the discretion of the chair.
If you have any questions regarding this process, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at area code 805-568-2240 again that's 805 568 2240 Lastly, as the board is aware an item may be added to the agenda after the agenda has been posted and within 72 hours of the board meeting due to an emergency situation and upon a determination by forefist vote of the board.
Please note the clerk of the board has posted distributed and made available to the board and the public an ex-agenda request board letter and associated materials stating the facts upon which It can be determined that the need to take action arose after the agenda was posted for an ex-agenda item sponsored by the County Executive Office, and it is to consider recommendations regarding a ratification of a proclamation of local emergency caused by the 2021 Storm 2 and requires a fourth this vote. And that concludes my announcements for today.
Thank you, Madam Clerk. We're going to go ahead and go right to that ex-agenda item so
the next item on our agenda is to take up the ex-agenda item request. Madam Clerk can you please read that item into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board our ex-agenda request today is from the County Executive Office It is to consider recommendations regarding a ratification of a proclamation of local emergency caused by the 2021 Storm 2. And I would like to note for the record that this does require a four-fifths vote, and prior to taking action on this item to approve staff recommendations, a motion stating that the need to take action arose after the agenda was posted is required. Thank you.
All right. Go ahead and seal me a subtle
chair and supervisors were asking you to ratify the proclamation I issued yesterday regarding the storms. We are still assessing damage, especially on Refugio Road. And we won't be done with that assessment till later today. There is still a light rain that is expected this afternoon. So we are looking at the stability of the roads. And I have Chief Bonner as well as UFC director Kelly Hubbard on Zoom if you have any questions.
All right. Is there any questions from the board? Seeing none, can I go ahead and get a motion for this item?
0:10 – 0:107 turns
I'll move approval.
Second. Can we have a motion and a second? Is there any public comment on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, I am looking to my deputy clerk but I don't believe we have any requests to speak on the X agenda. All right.
Any further questions from the board? Okay seeing none let's go ahead and roll call vote.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay the next item of business is a County Executive Officers report. CIO Miyasato, do you have anything to report today?
Mr. Chair, members of the board I'm just confirming
Agenda Discussionitems moved / continued / pulled, click to expand
so the first motion was the 4th 5th vote to place it on the agenda finance and emergency and then you need a second motion to move staff's recommendation so my understanding was that first motion let
me confirm with the motion yes that was to put them in the agenda now I'll make a motion to approve the item
second
so motion by heart and in a second by Hartman um I'm quickly please call the roll
motion passes unanimously.
Thank you nice catch
Next item of business is COO report.
Thank you, Chair Nelson and board members. I have some happy news to report. There's a couple of items I want to discuss. One is the 2021 CSAC Challenge Awards. And this is early this month. CSAC, the California State Association of Counties announced winners to their 2021 challenge award and they received over 433 entries and the judges ultimately honored 52 programs from 22 counties. We received one of only 21 challenge awards awarded by CSAC for our Cannabis Retail Storefront Outreach Program that occurred in 2020 during the height of the pandemic. Working closely with former ACO Barney Melekian and Steven Yee from my office, and our cannabis licensing division, the program was designed by Gina DiPinto and created a fair and legal process for retail storefront operators to apply while ensuring the community was provided every opportunity to participate and provide input over a five-month period.
The program was implemented with assistance from Stephen, Reese Elstep, Jeff Wilson, Catherine Barnes and Travis Seward from Planning & Development. So that's great. Congratulations to all those who worked on that program. In addition, CSEC awarded the Public Health Department one of 28 merit awards for its Latinx and Indigenous migrant COVID-19 response. The pandemic impacted certain communities more severely than others that we know Public health worked with the community partners to form a response task force to reduce the number of new cases, hospitalizations and deaths in these groups. A multi-faceted ongoing multilingual information campaign dispelled misinformation and fears to help community members protect themselves with knowledge and access to COVID vaccines and testing.
Mobile healthcare providers, vaccinated farm workers and residents in rural communities and organizations like Mycop Health Workers called Promotores also supported community outreach. So congratulations to our nimble, innovative and relentless committed county workforce for those efforts and the statewide recognition. The second announcement is also talking about one of our outstanding leaders from probation.
Outstanding leaders in that field throughout California are recognized by the Chief Probation Officers of California. We're proud to report that County Probation Research and Special Projects Manager Karen Milligan was awarded the South Region Employee of the Year. Each year, regions submit their selections and Chief Probation Officer Tanya Heitman submitted one for Karen. The award committee evaluated submissions from probation departments statewide and selected awardees who demonstrated exceptional leadership commitment and passion for their work Karen joined the Probation Department in 2016 and the impact of her optimism and tenacity was immediate. She holds a BA in Criminal Justice and a Master's in Public Administration, and she serves on the Board of Directors for the Association for Criminal Justice Research.
I think all of us in the county are aware of Karen's work. She does excellent work. We've seen it at the CCP and JJCC, all the reports on data. And so we're pleased to acknowledge Karen and congratulate her for this award. Chief Heitman did you want to say a few words? I know Karen and Chief Heitman are both on Zoom.
Thank you Chair Nelson, board members and CEO Miyasato. Thank you for taking time to acknowledge Karen Milligan and her recent award from the Chief Probation Officers of California. Probation officers across the state are often acknowledged for the very important work they're doing in their communities to provide opportunities and accountability. However it's through the work of staff like Karen that we continue to improve our practices and advance data-driven outcomes.
Karen was specifically recognized for her work around racial equity and inclusion data. But she has also been directly involved in so much more than that, including quality assurance and contract compliance results first motivational interviewing our data dashboards are adult realignment plan and our juvenile realignment plan which you'll be receiving a presentation on later this morning and so much much more.
Karen is passionate about the work we do Her energy and enthusiasm are infectious, but perhaps most importantly, Karen's work product is exceptional. We are very fortunate to have her as part of our team. I want to congratulate Karen and invite her to say a few words.
Thank you, Chief. This was an incredible recognition. I just want to say absolutely share it with a creative and talented team and peers. Of course, none of this would be possible without the leadership of my department, especially that of Chief Heitman, her vision and dedication to transparency as well as, of course, to the county and your board, your commitment to data and advancing this very important work allows me to do what I love.
So thank you so much. It truly, truly is an
honor. Thank you. Congratulations again, Karen. And my last announcement board members is we've been well worth waiting for and that is Toni Navarro was appointed last month as the Director of Behavioral Wellness and I'm happy to report that she's finally taken residence in her role today is her second day. She assumes duties from Dr. Pam Fisher who served as the interim director following the departure of Dr. Alice Gleghorn in June of this past year.
Before we introduce Toni, I want to thank Pam Fisher for her work and leadership in the department over the last six months. She's worked to maintain critical community relations and provision of all services for which we really do appreciate her efforts. As you know, Toni is an inspiring leader with a track record of creating innovative programs in a dynamic behavioral system of care. She has a community-focused approach and expertise in both clinical and administrative programs. She has managed mental health program since 2003 most recently at Tri-City Mental Health in Los Angeles County since 2008 For the past seven years, she has served as a Tri-City Mental Health Authority's Executive Director following six years as its Chief Clinical Officer.
And for the past eight years, she's been an adjunct faculty member at the University of Luverne and she currently serves as President of the California Social Work Education Center's Advisory Board hosted by UC Berkeley School of Social Worker. So we are glad you're here Tony and thank you and if you'd like to say a few words
I would just like to say good morning, Supervisors and Chair. It's wonderful to be here as Mona said day two it's such an honor to be now living and working you know I'm home this is my hometown I am glad to be back but I'm also really honored to be working for a county that has the slogan of one county one future in the behavioral health field equity and inclusion are core values in our system and now having a county, being able to work in a county that holds that as a main core value means that this county's behavioral wellness we can work together with the community. I'm really excited to build the capacity of the community to help us all be well.
Unfortunately COVID has taken quite a toll not only on all of us in our mental wellness and health but also on the workforce of those on the front lines including behavioral wellness So it really will be imperative over the next few years as we all recover and come back to being well, that the community works collectively with us in that to ensure that our services are responsive and that we reach as many people as possible to bring into the system and utilize all the wonderful CBOs and community partners that I've already learned about in just day one. It was quite an eventful first day so thank you again for choosing me and I'm very excited to be here. Thank you.
And that concludes my remarks.
Briefly, Supervisor Hart? There was a lot packed into the report there that covered a lot of important territory so I just want to congratulate all the county departments that were involved in the CSAC awards. Those are really important recognitions for great work. The Latinx and Indigenous Migrant Task Force COVID Response task force is really something to be super proud of and it's great to have the statewide recognition, but I really want to make a point to recognize Karen Milligan because the work that she's doing with racial equity and inclusion providing the data so to give us the foundation to make smart decisions that are based on science and facts is crucially important for us to continue the consensus that we're developing.
public defender Tracy McCougill will be coming early next year with some really solid data about holistic defense. So we are finally now getting to the place where we can speak with authority and clarity on what's going on in the criminal justice system, and that will help us all work together effectively to make the changes that we all want to see—to make sure that the criminal justice system is equitable, fair, and racially neutral to everybody that's involved.
Chief Heitman for her vision and Karen for her really hard work. Thank you Supervisor Hart, Supervisor Williams?
It is gratifying that our staff get great kudos for their work at the CSAC awards I do also want to indicate not just as Greg mentioned but look the process on cannabis retail which has been much maligned by some folks in the community got an award For how transparent and how logical of a process it was. And I think that's important but I also want to spare my best comments for Karen because when I First saw this department's work was when
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 motion by heart and in a second by Hartman um I'm quickly please call the roll
Show transcript
0:20 – 0:2517 turns
I was just elected as a supervisor. I saw her make a presentation in Sacramento and I was like, I am looking forward to working with this probation department at the forefront of progressive change to be responsible to the taxpayer and humane to the clients and using data to make and shape that so I've been, uh, I knew what a rock star we had from that day forward but it's great to see some recognition.
Okay thank you Supervisor Williams. Okay next item is the approval of the administrative agenda. I believe we have a few items are being pulled by the public A11, A17, 44 and 46. I'm pulling A7 and A13, so...
And Chair Nelson, members of the board, my correction, A47 was not pulled for public comment. Thank you.
So what I'm going to be doing is looking for a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda with the exception of A7, 11, 13, 17, 44 and 46. Sorry, I got that wrong.
Just removing 46 thank you.
46 is pulled as well or not no longer pulled? Okay one more time. Approval of the administrative agenda with exception A7, 11, 13, 17 and 44.
So moved.
Second. All right. Roll call vote please.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Second. All right. Roll call
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Item up is item I pulled which is item A7 can you please read that in the record
Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number seven is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the submission of an encampment resolution funding ERF application to the State of California Homeless Coordinating and Financing Council.
Right, thank you and I think we have Mr. Chapman here my concern with this. I think it's great that we're going after this funding and I think more money to address encampments has always been something that I hold in high regard. I was disappointed that the identified sites left out some very important sites that actually fit underneath This grant in Lompoc and I guess I had a question for Mr. Chapchin at the end of the day yesterday about whether we could still alter the application. If I understand correctly, we can't or we shouldn't? Is your thoughts at this point?
Chair Nelson, yes. I think staff spent a considerable amount of time with the cities in crafting this response to the request for funding. I believe you know the areas that that you want more focus on we can still do that with the ARPA money that the board appropriated for encampments so some of this money will free up some of the ARPA money. So it is competitive grant. I think we wouldn't be as competitive and we wouldn't want to lose two and a half million dollars that would be available at this point
So I'm not interested in holding this up. I'm just disappointed that we didn't do more with Lompoc here. I think some of our largest encampments that absolutely fit underneath this grant are in Lompoc and so, you know, in the future I hope staff takes a more We have a discerning eye at the homelessness problem that exists in the Sanez River and adjacent to the city of Lompoc. And hopefully we can move those funds around that we have, but that we've already devoted to encampment strategy to better address that community. So like I said, I'm not gonna hold it up so I wouldn't mind taking a motion and moving it forward.
I was just concerned about the lack of attention on any really important part of our county is being impacted by homelessness.
So I would move A7 that we move the authorization for the grant application forward. Second.
Okay. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 move the authorization for the grant application forward. Second. Okay. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
0:25 – 0:3123 turns
Okay next item on the agenda is pulled by the public and that's Item A11.
John Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 11 is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the re-ratification of a proclamation of local emergency caused by drought conditions. Last action October 19th 2021 and this is the 60 day renewal. And we had one request to speak by a member of the public Floyd Wicks but I do see that he has not joined us on Zoom.
So let's go ahead and get that the end of the administrative items. So Floyd, if you are watching please call or log in and we'll hear from you here. So we'll roll to the next item which is 813 which I pulled.
Chair Nelson and members of the board Administrative Item number 13 is from the County Executive Office it is to consider recommendations regarding the circumstances of the existing state of emergency
We
have no request to speak from the public on this
item. This is just another one I pulled, we are taking the liberty under the Brown Act and under the state of emergency I just wanted to make that clear for the public. I know a lot of different committees that we're on have taken advantage of this It's an optional option, but I think we need to start moving towards what we might consider a new normal. And unless legislation changes, I don't feel comfortable approving the declaration and need for this in the future. So whether my colleagues do that or not, that's another subject, but I just wanted for the record and the public know this will be the last time I'll be approving this.
All right, take a motion on this item? Supervisor Hart? I'll move the staff recommendation. Second. Okay. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 move the staff recommendation. Second. Okay. Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay next item on agenda pulled by the public is Item number A-17. Madam Clerk will you please read that into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 17 is from the County Fire Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding grant agreement number 5GA20114 between the State of California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE, and the Santa Barbara County Fire Department.
This was pulled by the public.
And Chair Nelson, members of the board, we have one request to speak on this item and that is Rene O'Neill on Zoom.
Good morning. Does it work?
It does.
We
can hear you
Renee.
Honorable Chair Nelson and members of the board, I wanted to I'd like to give highly deserved recognition to the County Fire Department and to CAL FIRE for their support of the Tepescay community. Santa Barbara County Fire has done an outstanding job in developing and painting a multi-million dollar vegetation management program grant that will go far in protecting Tepescay residents from massive wildland fires As you know, I've been the Tepeskay Fire Associate Advocate for going on 20 years now.
And I was so proud to have our community become a model fire safe community oh gosh about 12 years ago but here we are and so much work needs to be done and with the threats of all these massive wildfires that repeatedly threatened our community it is Just so wonderful that we're getting this amazing grant. I'm looking forward to working with County Fire, continuing as a liaison between our communities and the agencies. And I also want to thank our Board of Supervisors for supporting our ongoing countywide efforts to make all of Santa Barbara County more fire resilient. My plaudits to everyone. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. O'Neill. Supervisor Herman?
Yes well I just wanted to mention that they came this team is amazing and they came first in the Vandenberg Village area and now they're in Tepeskaya and they really need community activists to get a better sense of what the community is looking for how much of a haircut they're willing to tolerate and Renee has been exceptional in Tepeskaya so really appreciate your efforts
Thank you, Supervisor Harmon. And just for the public this is a grant for $6.5 million so significant opportunity for the Tepeskaya community and thank you Supervisor Lavinino for your leadership in that community and glad to be taking that over for you. So all right we'll get a motion to approve this item?
So moved.
Can I get a second? Second. Second from Supervisor Lavinino. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. Can I get a second? Second. Second from Supervisor Lavinino. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Show transcript
0:31 – 0:3910 turns
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay next item is Item A-44 and that's been pulled by the public and I actually have some comments as well would you go ahead read that item in the record
Chair Nelson and members of the board, administrative item number 44 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman. It is a resolution to be presented today to adopt a resolution in support of the designation of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. And we do have two requests to speak on this item, and they are on Zoom. We are going to begin with Claire Weinmann to be followed by Sam Cohen.
Good morning. This is Claire Wyman, excuse me from the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. The association participated in a public scoping meeting yesterday and left with more questions than answers. We encourage you to better understand what the sanctuary designation would actually mean before expressing your support.
We were concerned that basic questions were not answered yesterday and we're also concerned that some of the questions that were responded to seem to have somewhat evasive responses. As currently proposed, the South Coast is not included in the proposed sanctuary. Why is that? And if it moves forward, that means that the designation would most likely affect the communities and the northern half of the county.
There was a very strong regulatory theme in the presentation yesterday which is concerning since the scope isn't well defined and we already have one of the most highly regulated environments in the world. Based on the information we have available, it strongly appears that the designation would disproportionately burden a portion of the county with additional regulations.
Our nation has a wealth of natural treasures. Even so, it's easy to observe that sanctuaries seem to be disproportionately located off of California. So we encourage you to ask if the proposed establishment is based on science or scientific process. We will continue to gather more information and encourage you to reconsider supporting this initiative in the absence of a better understanding of the extent of the regulatory restrictions that it would involve. Thank you.
And we will now go to Sam Cohen who is our final speaker, Sam.
Thank you very much members of the Board of Supervisors and Chair Nelson. My name's Sam Cohen I'm government affairs and legal officer for the San Dinez Band of Chumash Indians. And we agree that this process is very undefined so you really have two choices. You can not participate in the process and you have no one to blame with the alternate results But for yourselves, or you can participate in the process. And we can honor the Chumash heritage from Atascadero all the way down to Point Conception and even wrapping around Point Conception to the Gaviota Coast.
And we can all work together to make sure this Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary provides a reasonable balance between protecting the environment and also protecting human uses of the environment. So we ask for your resolution of support, and we ask for your continued participation in this process. Thank you.
Thank you Mr Cohen. Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, thank you Chair Nelson. I just in response to Miss Weinman's comment the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary exists in South County and it's been key for a lot of... It helps preserve and provide habitat nursery grounds for fisheries, the whale watching tourism so this is a benefit that we would also like to see in the northern part of our county.
The Chumash Marine Sanctuary is the first national marine sanctuary nomination that has ever been made and led by a tribe. It would protect some of the most culturally significant and biologically diverse and productive areas in the entire world, and designation ensures the stewardship of these waters while maintaining access for commercial and recreational fishing The sanctuary will be something that engages people over a period of time. This starts the process, this is the way to get engaged but I'm very supportive of this and I particularly want to recognize the efforts of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council that worked over many many years towards this nomination And it's Chairwoman Violet Sage Walker, who continued the work of her late father.
He never did see this nomination come to fruition but he died shortly before so she is carrying forward his legacy.
Thank you Supervisor Hartman. You know, I admittedly was ignorant to this issue. When I saw the resolution, I gave a call to Sam Cohen and our local Chumash tribe here in Santa Barbara County and wanted to learn more about what this process looks like and with what the impacts this is. This is kind of an unusual way that we're bringing this forward to the board.
As of this type of resolution, I'm not against the concept. I do have some concerns about what the management plan looks like and I guess this is a kickoff of that. And so I'm interested in moving this forward but at the same time I think that the county really needs to be engaged. We have a lot of assets and plans that can equally move forward with still protecting the environment.
And I'm not interested in a management plan You know, some of the really important work that we're doing with commercial space or with wind energy. And so I really hope that our county can be an engaged stakeholder and I'm not sure exactly how that can be. I'm interested in working with you Supervisor Hartman or any other board members if we need to have maybe a subcommittee to work with this because I think this is going to be really important. The devil's in the details on a management plan like this And I think we have a lot of resources that need to be considered. And sometimes when you have this top-down, something coming from the federal government, I think having that local perspective is really important and I think that we really need to be as engaged as possible in this rulemaking and management plan.
So I don't know what the right action is but I'm definitely interested in us being engaged
Yes, well I think that would be highly welcomed and I would just like to say that the federal government while it may seem far away has really been a pioneer in working with local partners and pioneering new processes. And when I worked for it I was part of that effort so and particularly partnerships and interactions with local governments so I'll take it on to figure out how we can be more involved.
0:39 – 0:4412 turns
Supervisor Williams.
Well I just want to appreciate Violet Sage Walker and the work of her work and the work of her father, and the participation of multiple bands of the Chumash people in this process. I believe that county should be a part of the process and supporting it where we can.
So my question I guess is for the CO, how do we stay engaged in this process moving forward?
Board members we would plan to. You can direct us as our legislative coordinator and we can work with the different departments involved to stay engaged and if the board wants to take a position on future projects we could definitely bring that back to the board at the boards any board member can request that
okay well I'm requesting it that maybe part of motion here that we Along with approving this item, that we direct this to be an item that we track in the Ledge Committee moving forward. And when that management plan comes forward, that the board has an opportunity to comment on that in a meaningful and substantive way. Yes, Ms. Saddlesender?
Chair Nelson, members of the board, we did have a late request to speak on this item by Linda Kropp.
I'm going to go ahead and close public comment on this item.
Thank you, Linda please proceed with your comments.
Hi thank you very much my name is Linda Kropp and i'm chief counsel with the Environmental Defense Center and uh my background includes some of the stretch of coast that would be included in the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. We want to First of all, thank the Northern Tribal Council for all their work to protect this important area. It contains internationally renowned biological and cultural resources will be important to ensure permanent preservation of those resources understanding of their importance We know from our work with the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary all the benefits that sanctuary protection brings in terms of funding, in terms of management, in terms of education, in terms of research involving the community.
As Supervisor Hartman said EDC has been fortunate enough to serve on the Sanctuary Advisory Council at Channel Islands since its inception and it brings together all stakeholders Business, tourism, education, fishing, Chumash. And so it really is a quite a model for collective input and discussion and management. And we look forward to this process. We encourage everyone to participate in again thank you for your consideration.
And that was our final request this week on this item.
Thank you, Ms. Kropp. I understand we have Miss Violet Sage Walker here on Zoom. So, Miss Walker?
Good morning. I would like to just thank you all for having me and bringing this to the table for discussion. My name is Violet Sage Walker. I am the chair of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, taking over the legacy from my late father, the original nominator of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary and I would like to just respond to a couple of your concerns as far as direct communication. I would be happy to have a conversation outside of this meeting about how to become Involved directly with the planning and scoping in the details. And the management plan of the sanctuary, and it would be my pleasure to do that and engagement at this time is critical.
But I do want to really make it clear that this was not a top down program. Something that the community of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo have been working on since, you know back in the 60s when we had our first oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara. And so I'd like to just clarify that this started from a group of people sitting around houses and around You know, like the beach and the campfires and board meetings. And all of this is based on community grassroots support. And so with that being said we were the ones that actually approached NOAA based on their history at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary and other national marine monuments like Papahānaumāinukea in Hawai'i and other examples of how they interact and relate with indigenous communities around the world So it was us that approached them and it was a group of local community led organizations, including the EDC.
And I appreciate Linda's comments and I would be very happy to have further discussion on this and to direct people to participate in the public scoping.
0:44 – 0:475 turns
Thank you, Ms. Sage Walker. So with that can I get a motion or is there any further discussion from the board? Actually, I'm sorry. Madam Clerk actually read this resolution into the record.
Thank You Chair Nelson and members of the board and I do believe this was a part of the balance of the administrative agenda Chair Nelson, members of the board. Just as a reminder, Administrative Item number 44 is sponsored by Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution in support of the designation of the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary and receiving via Zoom today, as you just heard from Violet Sage Walker. And I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Whereas in 2015, the Northern Chumash Tribal Council submitted a nomination for the Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary CH to the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, ONMS. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, and whereas this is an important indigenous-led national marine sanctuary nomination, and whereas the CHNMS would protect Chumash sacred sites and preserve the heritage of Chumash peoples who have resided in this area since time immemorial, and whereas the CHNMS nomination would include the coastal waters of Santa Barbara County And whereas the coastal waters of Santa Barbara County are a national treasure that attract millions of visitors per year for beach going, surfing, fishing, diving and boating. And whereas coastal recreation, fishing, boating and tourism are essential components of the local economy as well as treasured staples of life in Santa Barbara County.
And whereas the coastal waters of Santa Barbara County include the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, CINMS and Channel Islands National Park. Numerous marine protected areas and support uniquely rich biodiversity. And whereas national marine sanctuaries provide enhanced opportunity for conservation of marine resources, research, education and recreation.
And whereas in 2011, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara declared June 8th as World Oceans Day to commend the CIMS for its dedication to protecting our local ocean waters. And whereas climate change human uses and other threats present an imminent need to increase protections of our coastal waters now therefore be it hereby order and resolve that this board of supervisors hereby supports the nomination of the Chumash Heritage National I do believe this was not part of the motion. This is one of the items that I pulled out, so let's go ahead and get a motion to approve this item. Move we adopt
the resolution. Second.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 Move we adopt the resolution. Second.
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously. All
right thank you okay so we have a couple of resolutions that we're gonna read into the record and recognize.
0:47 – 0:504 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board. Moving on to administrative item number 45, this is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Barbara Ann Perez after upon her retirement from the sheriff's office after over 35 years of faithful and dedicated service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County. And unfortunately, Barbara had an emergency this morning as unable to join us. But I'm going to go ahead and read the resolution into the record.
Thank you.
Whereas Barbara Perez will be retiring from county service on Friday, January 7th 2022. Having faithfully served the sheriff's office for over 35 years during which he served as a clerk typist to administrative secretary and administrative office professional senior. And whereas Barbara Perez started her career with Santa Barbara County on November 25th, 1985 as a clerk typist to an inmate records in the main jail.
In 1987 she became a clerk typist three during her 35 years of service. She has worked in various capacities which include inmate records, the Carpinteria Station, criminal records and the operations support division. And whereas Barbara Perez throughout her career provided the employees of the Sheriff's Office positive leadership and professionalism, allowing her to rise steadily through the organization and attaining the rank of administrative office professional senior.
of Santa Barbara County, extraordinary professionalism and sensitive law enforcement service while dedicating her life to the pursuit of justice. And whereas Barbara Perez knowledge skills and experience contributed greatly to the overall professionalism and the goals of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Office as well as the objectives of the county. Now, therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors commends Barbara Perez for her faithful and distinguished service to the citizens of Santa Barbara County, congratulates her upon her retirement, and wishes her continued good health and many years of happiness passed and adopted today.
Thank you. Congratulations, Barbara. 35 years staggering. Yep, absolutely. We're sorry we missed her, and I'm sure she'll get a chance to get this certificate at another time. But we appreciate your service to our county and the citizens of the county. I think that brings us to our next item which is Item A46.
0:50 – 0:5515 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board administrative item number 46 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring county resident Steve Herring upon his retirement after decades of active duty and civilian service in our armed forces, and I believe receiving in person in Santa Maria as Steve Herring and remote via Zoom we have Robin Gromley and Trish Mogulski.
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution.
Thank you.
And if we can get Santa Maria up on the screen. All righty, thank you for your patience and we will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas Steve Herring grew up in a small rural town in Indiana and enlisted in the US Air Force in June 1973. Steve honorably served our country during his 26 years of active duty, where he retired as an Air Force Senior Master Sergeant. And whereas Steve enjoyed Vandenberg Air Force Base and the Central Coast so much that after his military service, he and his family chose Vandenberg Village as their permanent home, and he has been an integral part of the fabric of the community ever since.
And whereas Steve enjoyed his military service so much that after his well-earned retirement, he was called upon to work with his old squadron in the Federal Civil Service Department of the Air Force in December 2000. Among other duties, Steve served in the Space Launch Delta 30 Public Affairs Office for more than 21 years and whereas Steve serves as the President of the Vandenberg Village Association President of the Vandenberg Village Lions Club and is chairman of the Vandenberg Village Park and Playground Coalition. Through this coalition, Steve has worked for years to build a centrally located park and playground tot lot for the young children of Vandenburg Village.
And whereas due to Steve's commitment to community in 2018 he was honored by Santa Barbara County Action Network with their annual Looking Forward Award And whereas Steve will culminate his federal service on December 31st, 2021 and retire from Vandenberg Space Force Base after a distinguished career. He is well known throughout the base and community for his steadfast nature, collaborative spirit, mentorship, and welcoming demeanor. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes and appreciates the outstanding service to country and community of Steve Herringham may he continue to inspire us for many years to come pass and adopted today.
Welcome, Mr.
Herring.
I'm sorry we're having trouble hearing Santa Maria is the microphone on and or can is it possible to get closer?
Can
you hear us now or
maybe that sounds much better thank you
Again, this is a surprise for me. I was coming up here for a different reason and I'm honored. And I thank Supervisor Hartman for all the support she has given me over these few years and yeah, I just don't know what more to say. Thank you very much.
We succeeded in the surprise. We were asked by the space force base to do this and I think they want to make some comments too, but I just want to say almost 50 years of service to the Air Force and now the Space Force and it is country and community. He's really kind of the mayor of Vandenberg Village. He chairs the association there, he's been a leader in working towards their park and playground which will really be a community center I think the new supervisor will find him to be a capable and delightful partner We're so glad to honor you today Steve and we're glad we kept it a surprise
Thank you and congratulations.
And Chair Nelson, members of the board, unfortunately Trish Mogilski had to leave the meeting but she did write us a note and wanted us to relay this message. Congratulations Steve it's been such a pleasure to work with you thank you for your service to our country and community blessings and best wishes on your future adventures and endeavors.
Thank you. Congratulations So our
next item of business will be item, administrative item number 47.
0:55 – 1:0112 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, Administrative Item number 47 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring the Vandenberg Village Lions Club for their tireless efforts to support the community through its volunteer and humanitarian efforts on its 40th anniversary. And receiving this resolution in person again in Santa Maria we have Rob Glasgow and Steve Herring.
Welcome gentlemen let's go ahead and read the resolution of the record
Whereas, charted on October 21st 1981, the Vandenberg Village Lions Club is celebrating 40 years of service to the Lompoc Valley and the club. And the club continues to thrive with a robust membership including three charter members, past District Governor Bill Cady, Lion Steve Strait and Lion Gary Stanley. And whereas, the Vandenberg Village Lions Club reflects the values of lions clubs and its volunteers around the world. Aiming to improve health and well-being, strengthen communities, encourage peace and international understanding, and support those in need through humanitarian services and grants that impact lives globally. And whereas over the past 40 years the Vandenberg Village Lions Club members have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the community, spent countless hours doing volunteer community service projects, and provided support to other community organizations.
And whereas the Vandenberg Village Lions Club long-term commitment to eyesight conservation is demonstrated by their efforts to provide eye exams and glasses to those in need, including in local schools at community health fairs and by recycling and distributing countless pairs of eyeglasses to those in need. And whereas the Vandenberg Village Lions Club continues to support local schools by providing scholarships for graduating seniors, holding student speaker contests, organizing a peace poster contest supporting the Cabrillo High School Athletic Department and the Every 15 Minute Program to Stop Drunk Driving.
Additionally, the Vandenberg Village Lions Club is a strong supporter of the North County Rape Crisis and Child Protection Center The Lompoc Food Pantry, Vandenberg Space Force Base and the Lions Club International Foundation that provides disaster relief and international assistance. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes the Vandenberg Village Lions Club for their tireless efforts to support the community through its volunteer and humanitarian efforts on its 40th anniversary passed and adopted today.
Yes, those words strengthening communities. When I was in graduate school I did research on two communities one that had a lot of civic and community organizations and one that didn't. And what we found was that with such organizations there were far more positive indicators regarding depression rates of suicide truancy divorce crime voting and more So what's really important about the Lions Club is not only does it have members like Mr. Cody, Mr. Strait and Mr. Stanley who've been engaged for 40 years I can hardly imagine the hours that they've contributed but the Lions Club supports with labor love and resources other community organizations so that they can thrive. So the Lions Club is really kind of a meta or uber organization in that it connects the others into a more effective network So our heartiest congratulations and heartfelt gratitude for your contribution to our civic culture.
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman. Mr. Glasgow?
On behalf of all the members of the Vandenberg Village Lions Club, we want to thank the Board of Supervisors for this resolution as a member of the world's largest service organization. All of our members commit themselves to helping our communities improve and to be a better way of life. And it's so proud, we're so proud to be part of Vandenberg Village and to be a part of Santa Barbara County. Thank you very much for this resolution.
Thank you. We did trail Administrative Item 11 from the County Executive Office, and I would like to note for the record that our member of the public Floyd Wicks never did join our Zoom meeting.
All right. So can we get a motion to approve Item A11? So moved.
Seconded.
Okay. There's a motion to second.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0
Show transcript
motion passes unanimously.
Okay, so that concludes our administrative agenda. At this time we will have public comment and now is the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda. Before we get started, we are going to public comment for this general public comment and all other items for the rest of the day will be two minutes. We need to get back on track. So just for the members of the public to be aware.
So Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak?
1:01 – 1:0716 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have nine requests to speak on general public comment today.
All right thank you.
And we will begin...
Before you start I'll go ahead and close public comment.
And we will begin on Zoom with Roseanne Crawford to be followed by Justin Shores. Roseanne?
Ms. Crawford?
And Roseanne, I have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end and proceed with your comments.
There we go. Good morning, Roseanne Crawford. I want to express my thanks and praise for the outstanding job the redistricting committee has completed. There were many moments and setbacks that were very difficult The commissioners were pushed and pulled in all directions. In the end, they did the impossible and they came up with compromise that worked for all areas. In addition to Chair Morris and his board, the support staff and consultants really deserve a lot of recognition for all the hard work in assisting this process around every twist and turn. Thank you. Have a great day.
Thank you, Ms. Crawford.
And we will now go to Justin Shores to be followed by Lydia Kessler here in Santa Barbara. Justin?
Thank you. Justin Shores. I just want to go over the recent emergency order that the governor just put in and also the way that most local Well, Dr. Anzor how he's handling it. I know he came out last week with a scare of Omicron but it ended up not being the case. He's been in charge for two years of this policy in our county and it feels like insanity if you keep doing the same thing over and over and it doesn't work. The masking going into effect for Omicron when there's been zero deaths, it's just a mild cold It seems like the scares are just to tighten down the policy even more of the COVID industrial complex which has been created.
How long will we react to these viruses? Is this going to be forever mask? Is this gonna be forever because I remember it started with a 15 day promise of, hey take some sacrifices and then we'll see how it goes and go from there. What's really bad is what's not being said by Dr. Answorth. There's a lot of data he's giving us but what about all the other things?
What about demographics? Why are we doing wide mandates now and not doing specific focused mandates? Right, looking at demographics needs to be done. Who's getting sick? We know it's North County. We know it's the Latinos. We know that they need vitamin D. They needed to have vitamin D in their systems. We know this. Goleta has had less than 20 cases for two years, 20 cases and we're locking down businesses still. We're still forcing people to wear masks in the rain.
Do you know what a wet mask does? How long do we have to ignore logic Dr. Ansor.
Thank you Mr. Shores. I know many of you already know but we typically have some, I wouldn't call them rules but guidelines that we have here that we ask to avoid applause even though if we agree with somebody. We have a tradition in Santa Barbara County to do hand-waving as we've talked about before it's the So again, it's a guideline and we appreciate cooperation but thank you. That's my announcement. Just
follow your example from five minutes ago.
Madam Clerk do we have the next speaker?
Thank you Chair Nelson and members of the board. We will now return to our Santa Barbara hearing room for Lydia Kessner to be followed by Maria Kessner.
I want to address Supervisor Williams' statement from last month that a, quote, threat to physical force is poison to democracy and poison to our ability to function as an American society. End quote. Does that statement only apply when citizens are commonly petitioning their administration for redress? Or does that also apply to citizens who have had the police and sheriff called on them for simply trying to buy groceries, use public transport or address their local administration?
I wish Supervisor Williams that you could take that outrage at the thought of quote, possible citizen's arrest. Which is a statement as neither lawless nor imminent and apply that same indignation towards the actual lawless and imminent treatment of your constituents who are being denied their most basic rights including those guaranteed by the first fourth and fifth amendments.
When local policy inhibits our ability to, as you say, function as an American society, what actions do the public have for redress? We come before you week after week with vetted scientific studies and personal accounts of how damaging these mandates and lockdowns are to our community. And we get no substantial responses in return. Our public health officers cannot respond to basic questions and they withhold the data they use to justify these draconian measures such as burying the health officer order so deep that you have to search through two other nested versions of it just to find the link to the full order, the one that acknowledges there are even exemptions.
Here's the part that boggles me. People seem to have no problem with the exemptions that allow you to unmask for activities like eating, drinking or swimming. Somehow that's understandable but people with a medical condition, mental health condition or disability that prevents them from wearing a face covering is not? Hypocrisy abounds! Unfortunately, this is subjecting these people to unlawful medical discrimination and opening our most vulnerable up to threats and attacks for just trying to live their lives.
This is a heinous violation of the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act which supersedes any local order. Again, the hypocrisy is in full force as just a few minutes ago, a man was removed from this room for not wearing a mask but Chair Nelson I saw him without his mask below his chin three times before the meeting started not eating drinking or showering
1:07 – 1:1410 turns
Thank you Ms. Kessler. Madam Clerk, next speaker?
We will now go on to Maria Kessler to be followed by Danny Blunk
I can't be more proud of my daughter, articulating what I've been trying to accomplish. And my item today is not on the public agenda and therefore you are notified that you will be violating the Brown Act if you decide to comment since you have a track record of doing so. As we just witnessed again at the beginning of this meeting and the public has not seen Here in the boardroom, a member of the public with medical conditions which makes him exempt from wearing a mask for federal and state mandates and local orders was denied entry and possibly arrested but I don't know about that.
Government is historically the biggest violator of the rule of law. Again you told us not to clap again violation of the First Amendment and the California Supreme Court has ruled on that You comment on our public comments in violation of the Brown Act. You slander public commenters, some of them I'm using a general you here. You condone the MTD bus throwing my daughter off the bus she's moderate to severely disabled With and without a mask, after I thought it had all been resolved and the sheriff is being called.
You deny people with medical disability exemptions to the county building including my daughter when I did contact the County Council they actually conceded that I was in the right bringing my daughter here and she is supposed to have access And you're in violation of the First Amendment, Civil Rights Act of 1964, federal and state mandates, local public health orders, the Unruh Act of California. And probably the Fair Housing and Employment Act. And I am planning on filing a tort claim against the MTD bus to preserve my right to sue the MTD bus for the way they have treated my disabled daughter, and myself as a legal advocate. I'm also protected under the rule of law. Thank you very much for letting me speak.
Thank you.
We will now go onto Danny Blunk to be followed by Dr. Amy Smith.
I come here because I have hope that one of you supervisors will do something for us, with the people who do not agree with these illegal mandates. If you work for the people, you must look at all sides of this story. It has been proven over and over now that these mandates are illegal. It has been proven in the court that Facebook fact check is not real fact check, but merely an opinion. So some of this so-called misinformation may be proved to be true and will be proven guilty of coercing people to do something to their body against their will. Your decisions cannot be made based on propaganda. We need to be listened to because it will soon be proven right, including that the vaccine can cause health problems. We've heard many times that the vaccines are safe and effective and now we have been proved wrong including I would like to start by saying thank you to the head of the public health department.
In 2020, six pilots died. In 2021, 111 pilots died. Is that just coincidence? Now schools want our kids to take the same treatment that are killing younger pilots and more and more people every day. If you're not aware of this it's because you are not looking in the right place. Also where is the emergency? Hospitals are now over-occupied. People are not dying left and right. Omicron seems less dangerous than Delta. We have an invasion of illegal immigrants without being tested or vaccinated, and we the people are being coerced to block our breathing with a mask and to get gene therapy. But where is the emergency? We are in a pandemic fear lies and corruption. Our kids could not go back to school when the majority of private schools opened up during the pandemic because the district failed to file a waiver for them to go in person.
It was proven by a grand jury that this decision was very harmful to the children's mental health and for last I want to read a quote from the-
I'm sorry, that is your time. Okay thank you
Our next speaker is Dr. Amy Smith to be followed by Daniel Lindsay. Amy?
Thank you, good morning. I wanted to address the issue of oversight of the public health department and the failures in my opinion of this body and the lack of willingness to question and examine. And I understand it's a busy time and it's a complicated time but you are the people who are supposed to be asking the right questions making sure All voices are heard from all perspectives. And unfortunately, you might not be aware but this book is very useful. The Real Anthony Fauci, it's RFK Jr., that documents the corruption and capture of science Science production and science publication, as well as social media and media by the big pharmaceutical industry. And what you might not be aware of is that has trickled down even into our local county level at the health department.
make people aware, for example monoclonal antibodies is effective has helped many many people is available but there are not commercials about that all the time on the radio. People have to advocate for themselves and know that that exists in order to demand that treatment and it has helped many many people so why aren't we telling people that? Why aren't we telling people on commercials or traffic signs to make sure their vitamin D status is up? So there's many things that we could be doing better but it requires curiosity and standing up Corporate capture of our health department and I think that also goes into drug addiction issues that affects homelessness in our county And if we're not willing to honestly look it affects comorbidities Again, I honestly think everyone should read this book It's a very good case for the other side of many of much of the information that's been censored.
The United States had 200 2100 deaths per million Compared to other countries like Japan that had Close to a hundred and in Tanzania as low as point eight six deaths per million. Why do we do such a bad job? It's because we're beholden to corporations Thank you for your
time To be followed by Jamie Davin who is our final speaker Daniel I
1:14 – 1:193 turns
And good morning, distinguished board. I appreciate the time to talk with you folks. One of the things I learned as a senior Air Force officer was that sometimes there are unlawful orders presented to us. We have to be able to figure out which ones are lawful and which ones are not. Something to think about during this entire epidemic. The thing that I notice about a lot of folks is Not taking this mask business seriously.
We're told that we have a 99.97% death rate with this particular coronavirus, which doesn't scare me very much at all. And as a result, everybody that wears a mask wears it sort of 50-50. All right? I see it in this room evident by the chair. If this was the Ebola virus, I think you guys would take this very seriously, extremely seriously. You wouldn't hide behind a small mask that is highly ineffective. We talk about science, do everything based upon science.
I have yet to date seen a scientific study underwritten by anybody to say do these masks really work? They seem very sketchy at best. So my question is when does a federal government, when does the state government spend a little bit of the money that they have from the feds to go do a real study on mask effectiveness? If they work great if they don't work why are we subjecting ourselves to this type of thing okay So what it sounds like is we're sort of hiding behind the mask mandate if it meets a certain political agenda, and that is a great concern of mine.
So let's look at the science finally on this stuff and really use some of this money to do that. If we're getting money from the federal government, we should be doing that. What I see however is that the federal government There's a certain degree of fear-mongering going on here, and we've got to be aware of that because of this sort of thing. So I appreciate your time folks, especially you Mr. Hart. Keep up the good work.
I would just like to note for the record, for members of the public who are joining us on Zoom. Public comment was closed at 1029 so I do see that you're using the raised hand feature which is not something we use here for the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors but I did just want to make note of the record that the public comment period was closed at 1029 thank you and we will now go to our final speaker Jamie Dabin.
Good morning. Historically, when a government takes over more control and power over its citizens' lives even under the guise of public health, it is very rarely given back to its citizens. I come to you as a concerned citizen and a parent. Supervisor Williams, I know you have young children. Maybe some of you also have kids or grandchildren. I have a six-year old and an almost two-year old, and it breaks my heart to think that my youngest has spent virtually her entire life without seeing people's faces in public.
It enrages me that my six year old recognizes that some adults or other children are afraid of her if she isn't wearing a mask, or if she coughs or sneezes. God forbid. What kind of world are we leaving our kids? Are my children going to grow up being constantly monitored, tracked and controlled? Will my daughters ever know what school is like being able to breathe fresh air? Will they ever see their teachers or fellow students' faces? Will they live in a perpetual state of fear of others and vice versa?
The decisions you up here are putting forth today will impact generations to come. I don't want this sort of world for my kids. We teach our children to not give in to peer pressure and to be who they are, to stand up to bullies who are discriminating against others. We teach them to accept other people and celebrate others regardless of and because of our differences.
For the party who has prided itself on my body, my choice and equality for all mantras. It is beyond my comprehension how forcing medical interventions is deemed not only permissible but even to be applauded. I have voted Democrat my entire life But the way the Democratic Party has bullied and vilified an entire class of humans and U.S. citizens is shameful and despicable.
The freedoms we lose today are the freedoms that my children are never going to know. How does this end? We are 22 months into flatten the curve. Will we ever return to a day where people can share their smiles freely? Where people can make their own personal decisions with dignity and freedom of discrimination and exclusion? Please make sure that we're leaving a world that we can be proud of, and that our children can flourish in. Thank you.
1:19 – 1:376 turns
That was our final speaker.
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the Board that concludes general public comment for today.
Okay we're going to take a 10-minute break and then we'll be back for departmental agenda. Oh sorry before we do that Supervisor Levin you had public comment?
Yeah I just had a couple of things really quick. I just wanted to thank my colleagues on the board there was some news this week. The City of Santa Maria received a 6.1 million dollar grant from Prop 68 for our soccer field installation and I was told by Alex Posada that the state would have never approved that if we didn't have the million and a half dollar contribution and commitment from the county. The city's also put in some money, so they're in the process right now of the property acquisition and moving forward. So wanted to thank you for that. That was a huge commitment and much appreciated.
And also, I think it's also important to note that this is Supervisor Nelson's last meeting as chair might do something at the end. I don't know. I just personally wanted to say during a very tough and tumultuous year, you've been a voice of calm and reason. To me it was really interesting to watch you because this was your first year on the board which I know can be difficult so but you quickly impressed me with your desire to find consensus and build rapport in this boards poised to tackle some of our most difficult problems as we've heard from and I want to thank you for creating a space that puts a priority on inclusion for all of us.
Thank you and we'll take a 10 minute break. you Welcome back. We go ahead and proceed to the departmental agenda.
The next item is Departmental Item number one. Madam Clerk, will you please read that item to the record?
1:37 – 1:444 turns
Chair Nelson and members of the board, Departmental Item number one is from the Probation Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the 2022 Juvenile Justice Realignment Plan, JJRP.
Good morning Chair Nelson and Supervisors. I'm Chief Probation Officer Tanya Heitman, and I'm pleased to be here this morning to share Santa Barbara County's 2022 Juvenile Realignment Plan. As chair of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council and the Juvenile Justice Realignment Subcommittee, I want to thank my fellow council members for their valuable input into 2022's plan and their participation in meetings and discussions that helped design it.
This plan not only represents a shift from the state to county, it also represents a shift from government to community. Juvenile Justice Realignment affords counties the opportunity to re-envision juvenile justice and the rehabilitation of those youth who commit the most serious offenses. Locally, it also presents the opportunity for our community to better understand the work of their probation department and have a voice in how we move forward.
We are all impacted when youth or young adults harm our community and our community members. When it occurs, we want to do everything we can to ensure that they're able to address the harm done, receive the treatment and programming they need to be ready to return, and be productive members of the community. We want them to return home better off rather than more broken than before.
We realize this is difficult work and can be heart-wrenching, both for the victims as well as those that caused harm and their families. It is only through rich partnerships with the Office of County Education, our community colleges, our medical providers, behavioral health providers, numerous community based organizations, credible messengers, formerly justice involved, and other advocacy groups that we have any chance of success.
I want to thank Deputy Chief Sheehan and her team who worked very hard over the last couple of months to hear from the community, and all of our partners as they refined our plan. It is our hope that we'll be able to continue to build upon the relationships that previously supported our youth while hearing from new partners and community members whose voices have not always been amplified.
While endeavoring to secure more resources, opportunities and partnerships for our youth. We want to make the best use of those already available to us to ensure our youth have every opportunity possible to repair the harm done and reclaim their futures. With that I want to turn it over to Deputy Chief Sheen for the presentation.
Thank you chief chair Nelson and members of the board we are pleased to share with you today our 2022 juvenile justice realignment plan This past July, Senate Bill 823 went into effect realigning the responsibility, care, custody and supervision of youth committing certain serious and violent felonies to the counties. These youth were previously housed in state facilities overseen by the Department of Juvenile Justice or DJJ.
The statute was also amended to allow for any person whose case originated in juvenile court and under certain circumstances and violent crime types to be held in a county juvenile facility until the person attains age 23 or 25. Juvenile court jurisdiction for all other youth remains at 21. As is also mandated by the statute, a subcommittee was established of the Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council or JJCC. This subcommittee has provided input and guidance in the development of this annual plan presented today which outlines the facilities programs services supervision and re-entry strategy for those youth who previously would have been committed to state care but will now remain as a county responsibility The plan was designed around eight guiding principles outlined on this slide developed by the Annie E.
Casey Foundation, a renowned national organization with expertise in the populations and issues critical to our mission, particularly in the areas of strengthening families, poverty and opportunity, and community change. We're going to share a brief three-minute video that touches on these guiding principles.
We all want a world where young people can realize their potential regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender or neighborhood. When young people make mistakes including violating the law in serious ways they should have opportunities to bounce back and grow into responsible adults We need effective responses that keep youth in their own homes and communities, instead of in prison-like settings that disconnect them from school family and support networks.
While moving toward this vision how do we also help the 36,000 young people who are in custody right now? It starts with eight principles. One Lead with values that promote equity and well-being. Many youth face serious obstacles on the road to adulthood, such as chronic trauma. Leaders and staff working with these youth must recognize these challenges and support young people to heal and build resilience.
Two, maintain an uplifting and safe environment. Create settings with natural light and warm color schemes. Dedicate spaces for therapeutic conversations and places to relax and learn. Three, develop staff to build positive and supportive relationships. Leaders should hire direct care staff who enjoy being with young people then train and support them to work constructively with youth and de-escalate tense situations.
Four, provide varied and useful programming. The science is clear. Young people are in a period of rapid learning they're receptive to activities that tap their curiosity teach them skills and let them practice leadership Five, ground practice and culture in knowledge of adolescent development. Research finds that young people respond best to approaches that build on their strengths, develop their self-worth and reward them for positive behavior.
Six, treat family members as partners. Let young people maintain ties to the people they consider to be their family not just blood relatives. Involve family and caregivers in decisions concerning their children, such as treatment plans. 7. Encourage community connection. Welcome organizations and people who are credible and relatable to young people. They can be mentors to youth in custody and support young people when they return home.
8. Incorporate continuous quality improvement. Gather data and input from young people, families and community members then use the feedback to gauge progress and do better. By enacting these principles we can help young people even those in custody get on the right track while we work to bring an end to the youth prison model. Learn more at www.aecf.org
1:44 – 1:595 turns
As Chief Heitman mentioned, a priority in our planning process was to amplify the voices of the impacted youth, their families and our communities in the design and implementation of the realignment plan. Through surveys of youth and families that were previously had been committed to DJJ and those currently in the justice system we are able to hear ideas and feedback that have been embedded in design for 2022.
A community listening forum was conducted in September, which included participation by formerly justice-involved individuals. And input was also received from varied disciplines participating in Kids Network. Several presentations at the JJCC and individual interviews with the voting members were also instrumental in the development of the coming year's plan.
Some of the main takeaways include increased communication, engagement and support for families of youth Committed to the longer commitments. Expansion of recreation and pro social activities. Enhancement of post-secondary education opportunities, enhanced collaboration and individualized reentry planning and practice. Staff development was also emphasized as a key to successful implementation of this program.
Several of the training items listed have already occurred and others are ongoing or scheduled to occur in Youth and staff provided suggestions for a program name, and Peak Restoration Program was selected utilizing four characteristics fundamental to success. Perseverance, equity, accountability and knowledge. As mentioned in the plan we are anticipating two to five youth ordered into the program based on a five-year past review of youth committed to DJJ. The secure youth treatment facility as it is described in the statute will be located within the Susan G. Enfredo Juvenile Justice Center in Santa Maria.
It will be a positive youth development model program focused on the five C's, competence, confidence, connection, caring and character. Interventions utilized are evidence-based and best practices focused on recidivism reduction involving youth and family voice in cross discipline collaboration. Slide six.
Chair Nelson and members of the board, if we could just have a momentary pause while we fix our slides on the computer. Thank you. Chair Nielsen and members of the board, we just need a quick five minute break to fix our tech issues. Okay. Thank you. We'll
be right back. Welcome back. Ms. Sheen?
Thank you, Chair Nelson. Entry into the program involves comprehensive and varied screening and assessment from educational and behavioral wellness partners in the use of the Positive Youth Achievement Tool or PACT to identify the top criminogenic risks and needs in case plans. Cognitive behavioral and pro-social programming is matched to these needs to develop an individualized rehabilitation plan or IRP for each youth We are expecting to house many of these youth in our Trust Unit, which opened in 2019. This unit allows for youth leadership opportunities, additional responsibilities, more individualized choices and increased independence to prepare them for release into the community.
As the youth age and graduate from high school, many will be connected to the local community colleges for post-secondary education and vocational opportunities. Education partners either provide these within the facility or via virtual participation as available. Best practices in reentry planning begin upon day one of program entry. While there will be a hearing set before release to provide the court and justice partners with the details of the release plan, progress hearings will have occurred throughout the commitment to keep all team members apprised.
Identifying engaging natural supports and family throughout the youth stay will be imperative, and a youth development coach is assigned at the onset to assist in maintaining these engagements. And to support and assist youth in accomplishing the milestones set forth in their case plans. Currently, we have one youth committed to Peak Restoration Program with several others moving through judicial proceedings with probable dispositions on the horizon.
As the program is growing, data collection will include general demographics and crime and court data. Evidence-based programs will be monitored and assessed through quality assurance practices utilizing self and peer assessment along with curriculum specific tools. A variety of surveys will be utilized throughout the commitment to assess youth progress and allow for program or treatment plan changes as needed.
Our nationally accredited facility health services partnership with WellPath will provide comprehensive medical and dental needs for these youth. As physical health and emotional well-being is enhanced with exposure to a green outdoor environment, a recent state grant to assist with juvenile realignment will support the development of a large outdoor secure green space. This will include multifaceted sport opportunities, individual workout stations, and outdoor visiting. An initial design is included in the plan.
As the youth age, there will be a need for the opening of a separate living unit within the current structure at the Juvenile Justice Center. We are in the design phase and anticipation of this need and we'll continue these efforts throughout this next year. The current safety and security measures that have been in place at the JJC are aligned with the needs of this population.
expanded training for staff as mentioned previously in the areas of adolescent development and transitional-age youth, and deescalation techniques with—deescalation techniques will support existing operations. In anticipation of future commitments of youth with specialized needs, such as ones presented for youth committed for sex offenses, we have joined the Chief Probation Officer's statewide consortium where counties will be able to leverage each other's county-specialized programs as needed.
Thank you to our internal team that assisted in the development of this plan and to the many youth, families, community members and partner agencies that provided ideas, insight and support. The journey these past six months in the development initial phase of implementation has not only strengthened existing relationships needed to be successful with this very challenging population but it's opened new doors and partnerships that will be leveraged in the coming years.
If there are any questions or comments and thank you for listening
Thank you, Ms. Sheen. Questions from the Board? Supervisor Hartman.
1:59 – 2:0612 turns
So people stay about an average of two years a little longer and so how we don't have a very large population but some will overlap so about what size population are we thinking of that would be there in the future
With our projection of the two to five a year and as you pointed out, Supervisor, with the two-year we're expecting at our maximum over the first few years around five or six youth at one time committed to this program.
I would imagine, you're working to create a really social model so that they would become pretty good friends with each other. And how many staff would be involved?
Supervisor through the chair, it would depend on the classification and the housing. Currently our trust unit is housed with one staff for eight youth but as their needs change and evolve especially with post-secondary I can see us bringing on partner agencies to support those efforts as their needs will divert from some of our younger youth so we'll need to specialize
So will they be mainly unto themselves, separated, segregated from the rest of the population and kind of a cohort onto a group
themselves? Supervisor, through the chair. They'll be with our general population as they age. We are looking at renovating one of our units to open that up for the older youth.
Okay, well I really enjoyed seeing your report and seeing the pictures and the whole approach. Green space and a lot of the positive interactions, the trust, the peak, how to create an incentive structure that helps people learn good behavior and good habits but what I was wondering about is it seemed like they might be kind of isolated but I guess you've explained that's not the case Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Supervisor Hart?
Yeah I just want to echo Supervisor Hartman's comments about how thoughtful this is and how important this moment in time is regarding intervening with juveniles who've made bad choices and these are folks who have made serious offenses and they're... This is an innovative approach where the state is really looking to local communities to take care of our own kids who've had trouble And this is a much more humane approach and it's driven by data and science and experience. Many, many years of doing things a different way, a different model really kind of emulating the state prison model and taking folks who are from our own community and shipping them off to state institutions and now we're bringing them home and trying to do a better job.
And this is sort of the end of the pipeline, or middle of the pipeline maybe is a better idea. We need to do more work at younger ages. to keep folks from being in this situation. I know you are leading advocates for that work and there's lots of people who are partnering this, and this is just another opportunity for us to use all of our community's resources to intervene and to help kids who've made choices. They're really still very young people and have great opportunity to correct their lives and get on at being productive citizens in our community, and this is our chance to demonstrate that we can do this and make it work. And I know you're the right people to be doing it so thank you.
Thank you,
Mr. Chair and I just appreciate all the work that was done on the front end of this one of the things that I appreciate is the time that that excitement spends outside of these meetings with us to kind of get me ramped up because honestly this kind of went against my I mean the way I thought that made sense to me I come from, I guess the old school of it's like hey we've got to let these kids know we mean business and blah, blah, blah. But reality is taking—and I appreciate the education—is taking a kid at the time when this is their most crucial point in their life Disconnecting them from family and their community.
And whether it's work related or whatever, is just not... It hasn't been working. So this is a new approach. I'm glad that we're working with evidence-based programs. I am very excited to see where this goes. As you said, it's kind of what the state prison system when we first started talking about moving our state folks down at the county level The one thing that I had confidence in was the fact that the bar was not very high of what we needed to do to have better results. So, I'm excited about this and appreciate the presentation.
Yeah, and I just want to echo my optimism or the optimism on the board that I personally have as well. Supervisor Hart and I are both on the JJCC and we've got an opportunity to see this coming and be a part of this process moving forward. You know the state has changed the rules and so as permission has always been very adaptive to adjusting in a way driven by data and humanely I'm understanding is part of the consortium that we're gonna be a part of, we're gonna be able to work with other counties especially with the different populations since we're working on such a specific set Thank you.
The state likes to roll things down to local government and then doesn't always send the dollars. And so I hope that we can make sure that we're advocating for the backfill that's necessary to support these programs, so with that Supervisor Williams you have a
2:06 – 2:1414 turns
Sure, just I want to encourage the department for continuing this work. I know it's a good thing that there is fewer youth. It makes it difficult in a lot of ways but it provides us opportunities for full services and hopefully that will make a difference in their lives and make a difference for the public if they don't recommit
Thank you, Supervisor Williams. Madam Clerk, do we have any public speakers on this item?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have no request to speak on this item.
All right. So with that, I'd entertain a motion.
I'll move approval of this item. Second.
Right. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board for clarification, that's approving staff recommendations A through C
Okay.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 move approval of this item. Second. Right. Madam Clerk, please call the roll. Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board for clarification,
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay next item up is departmental item number two. While we change over staff, Madam Clerk will you go ahead and read that item into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the first quarter update on cannabis compliance enforcement and taxation fiscal year 2021 through 2022. Okay. Ms.
Heaton welcome Mr. Yu
Good morning Chair Nelson, Supervisors. This morning we'll be presenting the first quarter of fiscal year 21-22 update on cannabis. I'm joined by Steven Yee and our report today will cover tax revenues for the first quarter an update on where we are with land use planning permits business licenses and how many we've issued and where we are with those, as well as some enforcement updates. And then I'll cover some emerging issues and objectives for upcoming quarters.
Our recommended actions today are to receive our update on the status of the items I just covered, as well as provide any other direction to staff regarding the county's cannabis program and find that the proposed actions are administrative activities of the county which will not result in direct or indirect changes to the environment and therefore not a project as defined under CEQA.
I'm gonna turn it over to Mr. Yee and he's gonna start by talking about our revenues for the first quarter, thanks.
Thank you Ms. Heaton. Good morning Chair Nelson and members of the board. As Ms. Heaton mentioned, I'd like to begin today's presentation by addressing the cannabis tax revenue paid by operators in the first quarter of the current fiscal year. As presented in this chart, the treasurer-tax collector reported a total of 3.1 million in taxes collected from those operators that reported generating gross receipts.
Next slide, please. The 3.1 million collected represents a 25% decrease over the taxes collected in the same quarter of the last fiscal year and also a 17% decrease from the taxes collected in the most recent fourth quarter. Your board will recall that as part of the fourth quarter update staff began signaling that a supply glut was beginning to develop both statewide and locally resulting in price compression of wholesale cannabis product.
Given the information that's currently available, staff's analysis shows that oversupply of wholesale product is still persisting. And we're also hearing the same anecdotally from local operators. In this last bullet references the maturing cannabis industry and the associated supply chain that's still developing. Staff's research indicates that the number of licensed retail locations statewide remains an issue when compared to the amount of cannabis product being produced in addition to demand from consumers.
And the fact that product cannot currently cross state lines due to interstate commerce laws is further limiting the ability of growers in California to bring their product to market. Next slide, please. In this next slide we show the tax reporting statistics for the first quarter. I want to point out that we made a slight tweak to the information being presented here per the board's request.
We previously presented reporting statistics based on unique licenses held by operators at each unique location. But per the Board's request, we now share reporting statistics for total unique operators. Hopefully this is more straightforward and less confusing overall. This chart shows that of the 69 total operators that were expected to report in the first quarter, 46 reported gross receipts.
Another 16 reported zero gross receipts and seven unique operators did not report during the tax collection month which for Q1 was the month of October. However since the October 31st deadline one of these operators have since reported and paid taxes. Next slide please okay Next we'll pivot to the status of cannabis land use planning projects and the associated cultivation acreage.
Your board will recall that two distinct cultivation caps have been established in our county, one in the inland and coastal unincorporated area set at 1,575 acres and another in the Carpinteria Ag overlay district at 186 acres. Through the first quarter land use entitlement applications were submitted to the Planning and Development Department with the proposed acreage totaling 3,173 acres in the inland and coastal unincorporated area while applications were submitted in the CARB Ag overlay for 214 acres of proposed cultivation.
Please note that the proposed acreage can fluctuate while applicants are in the permitting process based on a variety of factors such as project redesigns or changes to proposed cultivation areas. To date, planning and development staff have approved 1,860 acres in the inland and coastal unincorporated area associated with land use entitlement applications. And 122 acres in the car bag overlay.
And I want to point out that operators may apply for a business license upon approval of a land use entitlement. The entitlement doesn't necessarily need to be issued for operators to apply for the business license. And lastly, 543 acres were associated with the issued land use entitlements in the inland and coastal unincorporated areas while 64 acres were associated with issued land use entitlements in the Carpinteria Ag overlay.
One nuance to highlight for the board and the public is that a land use entitlement can only be issued after it has been approved. This next slide speaks to land use planning projects that were on appeal through the first quarter. A total of 22 projects were appealed, 16 of those were appealed to the Planning Commission and another six were appealed to your board.
It's important to note the number of appealed projects because until the appeals are resolved a land-use entitlement may not be issued and an issued land-use entitlement is one critical requirement necessary in order to be issued a cannabis business license Here we provide a summary of business license applications submitted through the first quarter reporting period. To date, we've received applications for a total of 159 licenses, of which we have issued 27.
The information being presented in the column on the far right is new this quarter. It shows that of the pending applications that the business licensing team is busy reviewing, 33 actually have an issued land use entitlement and are therefore potentially eligible for final business license issuance. This means that for all other pending business license applications, cannabis operators must really focus their efforts on obtaining a final issued land use entitlement.
And with that I'll turn the presentation back over to Ms. Heaton
2:14 – 2:2812 turns
Thank you, Steven. This slide is a summary of some of the enforcement that occurred over the first quarter of this fiscal year. The table at the top is the sheriff's team summary. They continue to be busy and active trying to crack down on the illicit market of cannabis. This table shows the number of enforcement actions that occurred of a total of eight. There was 3253 live plants compensated The live plant value was $1.6 million, dried product confiscated over a thousand pounds and also the value of that was 1.8 million.
The Ag Commissioner's Office also continues investigations into worker health safety and pesticide use. They closed one investigation over the quarter and they have one ongoing. in the south part of the county. Planning and Development opened four new cannabis enforcement cases, and responded to 339 odor complaints. 39 of those odor complaints were in the North County, and 300 were in the Carpinteria area.
Those complaints are counted for each individual instance reported even when we receive... So if we receive a complaint that has 10 I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. As you may recall, we joined the California Cannabis Authority which allowed us an opportunity to collect these codes from the operators and gain access into their information that they report to the state.
To date I have two operators that have not forwarded their API keys and I'm working with them to get those so we'll be Fully compliant, hopefully by the end of the year. And we will start detailed data review and establishing protocols for all of the compliance and enforcement associated with that data in early 2022. Moving on to some of the emerging issues that are coming up. As Stephen mentioned earlier, we have over 130 business license applications in process.
So we're working closely with all of the departments and the business license team to ensure that we can process those licenses in an efficient and timely manner We are looking at determining timelines for finalizing acreage issued that will allow for these operations to phase in some of that acreage, following as necessary and then phasing out legal nonconforming operators. So this gets to that sort of use it or lose it provision that we've talked about in prior meetings.
And then the third bullet there Speaks about the operator's request for change in ownership and clarity on license transferability and new entity formation. Specifically, the issue of holding a place on the eligibility list under the acreage cap when changes in ownership occur. We talked about regular review of operators' compliance with our regulations. That's an emerging issue that will continue, and then also the inconsistent definitions of the area of cultivation compared to canopy and acreage between Chapter 50 and the state.
Something that we're looking at so we can determine how much acreage would be affected by these definitions. And this will be coming to you in the spring with a chapter 50 ordinance amendment. So our objectives for upcoming quarters, number one is something we discussed during the last Chapter 50 Ordinance Amendment which is this issue of removing processing activities from the acreage cap calculation in order to allow for additional processing in our county.
We heard from operators and the industry that it has been a challenge to process product in the county because of the cap has been reached, and there are limited processing facilities available. So we're looking at that to come back to your board in February with a chapter 50 ordinance amendment. We'd like to transition the cannabis quarterly update that we're presenting you today to an appendix in the County Executive Office's quarterly budget updates to the board. So, we'll be doing that moving into the future. I think that will be more efficient and effective way to communicate now that our program is a little more mature And then we'll continue with our enhancements in Acela, which is our online business license application portal to facilitate transparency in the form of applicant reporting.
Application renewals, modifications and amendments as necessary. We just launched the renewal module in Acela and we had our first applicant use it. They reported back that it went very smoothly so we're hoping that renewals will become much more efficient as well We're also looking to some Chapter 50 ordinance amendments that would address the acreage definitions that I discussed earlier under emerging issues, changes in ownership, acreage cap eligibility and phasing out legal nonconforming uses.
We'll be using data from the California Cannabis Authority to target compliance efforts and better understand the local industry. I mentioned that as well, and then finally on the Treasurer Tax Collector's Office will continue the financial monitoring and tax audit process utilizing the consulted HDL. And that is currently underway on their collecting data from operators right now, and hopefully we'll have an update on that in the not too distant future.
That concludes our report today and we're here. Mr. Yee and I are available to answer any questions that you might have, thank
you. Thank you Ms. Heaton Supervisor Hartman
Yes, I had a couple of questions. One, I see you don't have numbers on the PowerPoint but the enforcement update where you have the sheriff team summary in the future it would be helpful to see that over time so that we have a better context and I guess no one from the Sheriff is here but are we making a dent in the black market? We have oversaturation of the market Is that from permitted cannabis or is this still black market cannabis? Or what do we know about that?
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I actually spoke to Sergeant Vasquez this morning about this and Making a dent is difficult right now because of the issues we're seeing with the supply, the oversupply. The illicit market is actually quite It's thriving because the prices are much lower and people are willing to sell and buy on the illegal market. In fact, we've seen a couple of our licensed operators actually—they're under investigation for leaking into the illicit market.
We're looking at the bigger picture, which is at the state level. There's several counties that are coming together to try and encourage the state to lower the burden of state taxes, to try and take some pressure off of the legal market in order to get at the illicit market. But yeah, it's still an issue and it's an issue statewide. It's not just in our county.
So I'm having trouble following the logic because if the prices are high, I would think then the illicit market would be very vibrant but if prices are low why not just go legal? So I am just missing a point in the logic
Well, the prices are low for the operators are not receiving as much money. But when you go into a retailer, the cost of actual product has not reduced in any way because there's about I think Stephen and I were looking, there's just a little over 800 retailers licensed in this state. And estimates say that in order to support the 29 million 21 plus people in California that could potentially be consumers of legal cannabis. We'd need like 10 times that amount in retail so they have a corner on the market, so they're not reducing their prices at their retail locations.
Then I had another question. We have now many permitted operators, and I know that our planning and development department is out looking at compliance. And I would like to know in the future what kinds of violations they're finding if we could get a report to better understand Just how our permits and the ordinance is functioning, that would be helpful. And then my final question has to do with the retail. When we talked about community benefit, it's my understanding that Most or all of our retail operators are going to commit 2% of gross to a community benefit pot.
Could you describe a little more about that? Will that be the same in all communities, or what is the process that is being envisioned for that?
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. The retail application process required that each potential retailer supply us with a way that they were going to somehow give back to the community and I I believe all six that were selected as the number one ranked applicant committed approximately 2% of gross sales receipts to the individual community where their retailer will be located.
And many of them gave examples of the types of organizations or education that they would fund. And we have yet to move into how that's actually gonna work and because we don't have any retailers that have been licensed, or even come into the business license process, they're still working on their land use entitlements although two do have approved permits at this time.
Those conversations are forthcoming, but I have been working with B-Well and the Cannabis Prevention Coordinator on how we can take some of those funds and leverage them so that we can do something that will affect, it will be countywide especially around youth abuse and use prevention. And so those funds should be available and we do plan to require reporting on a quarterly basis around that funding and really hold those retailers accountable for that commitment.
So do you anticipate in the next quarterly, well now we're going to fold this in. So at what point will we learn more about the community benefit piece of the retail operations?
Supervisor Hartman thank you for that question I don't have a I'm not exactly sure when the retailers will actually be online. We're hoping that one or two will be here this fiscal year and so we could come back with some update around the education and certainly when we bring it, you know, an ordinance amendment or any other cannabis item, we can touch on that.
But I do think it's something that we'll want to highlight and share because it's something that I think, like you mentioned the community asked for and that we're committed to. And so yeah, we can bring that back.
Yeah. And I just wanted to add too, the education piece is extremely important. I think we're developing some really innovative ideas. So I'm eager to have that come to the board and I'm eager to support that personally.
Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Labadino?
2:28 – 2:3711 turns
Well at the hazard of pulling a Peter Adam I want to try to answer the question that Joan has posed, that Supervisor Hartman has posed is you know is it better for us if price is high or low before trying to knock out the black market my understanding is that when the price is high You've got to really worry about people who aren't even like pretending to be a legal operator.
And I think Frank's team has made incredible headway against those folks and against folks who pretended to be legal non-conforming, at least a lot of them in previous years. But now that the price is really low we gotta worry about people who are ostensibly legal operators Being tempted to put stuff into the legal stream, and it's two different enforcement quandaries.
The best thing is Goldilocks level so that we can both hurt the black market and not tempt legal operators to be less than ethical.
Thank you Supervisor Williams. Supervisor Herman, did you want to respond to that before I go to Supervisor Lavinio?
Just a quick question and that is Again it has to do with compliance and enforcement if we find a legally permitted operator doing that Selling to the black market. What are the consequences? I mean, I Don't have a good sense of our enforcement scheme And at what point you lose you have to lose your license or here
Thank you Supervisor Hartman. In that case, those situations of course are investigated by the Sheriff's Department and then if warranted would be turned over to the District Attorney's Office and then decide how they were going to handle that. The challenge is it needs to go through the process and we can't deny someone a business license until they've been found guilty And even then, there's individual players who are implicated or who are found guilty. Then they can be removed from the operational organization or maybe an injunction against their participation in the operation.
And so that's what we're working with. But we certainly take all that very seriously and Stephen and I In constant communication and recognizing who's being, you know, who's on watch. But we continue to process our business licenses while that is happening and the investigation is going on but we do coordinate closely with the Sheriff's Office and the DU's office.
I'll just make one quick pitch. The cannabis industry in the legal and illegal non-conforming had a lot of gray area coming into our more mature system. And I think it's absolutely essential now that it be black and white to the extent that we can, and that people who aren't going by the rules there are serious consequences. So whatever discretion we have, I would like to understand how we're enforcing it, how we're using that discretion because I fear that there's a lax attitude about compliance and I think this is the period now where our regulations are in effect and we really need to say we mean them.
Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Lavenino?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I think you hit on something. It's the tax strategy, the state tax that has... I remember my first cannabis exposure meeting in Sacramento and their first thing that the state was trying to tell all the counties and cities was whatever you do, don't overtax because you're going to end up creating this big problem. Well, that was right after they had passed there like hugely significant tax. And we're just adding on like the icing on top So, I mean the state's flush with cash. They've got a $30 billion surplus we just heard about.
What are we doing as a strategy? Is it through the Ledge Committee or is it through our CEO's office? Are we teaming with other counties and saying hey you need to rework your tax structure because as I understand it has no relation to what the price they're selling it to. It's just a flat tax which is not making any sense right now.
Thank you Supervisor Lavinio. As you may recall we added a ledge platform, a plank for cannabis this year that you adopted last week I believe so beginning January 1 we'd have the authority to move forward with some of these activities related to state tax there was actually a line in that plank addressing that issue I've met with some counties that are part of this Central Coast Cannabis Forum. They're all very concerned about this particular topic.
It's Monterey, Santa Cruz, Sonoma, Santa Barbara, some cities as well. And so we're looking at a couple of the cities have already taken taken the initiative to pass resolutions So we're looking at the language in their resolutions. I think they cover a lot of the really salient points around what's going on in the industry and and the taxing at the state level.
And so we'll be putting together some bullet points and looking at signing onto a letter with this group of counties based on the authority you gave us with the legislative platform.
Thank you. Yeah, last question for me is I'm just curious if—I know you're bringing a lot back in February and I'm looking forward to those discussions—is part of that also something that's been raised a couple of times now by when we were talking about payment of taxes? And I know we just got another letter, public comment letter where individuals saying that Because of the slow processing of a building permit, it's costing the county about $1 million a year. So I'm wondering if that choke point, what some consider a choke point, I don't know what P&D's interpretation of that would be but is that something we're also going to discuss in February?
Supervisor Lavaneno, we didn't intend to discuss that specific issue in February. However at a staff level I will tell you that we're having conversations around that particular topic. We're working with Planning and Development as well as Fire and Sheriff because it has to do with infrastructure and building permits. I'm working together to determine how we can keep the business license process moving forward, allow operators to phase in some cultivation so they can generate income and then continue with the building process potentially. And so we're working together and I can give you an update on those conversations in February? That would
be perfect. That's good to hear and you know I echo Supervisor Hartman is that you know I support this I don't support a program because it generates revenue for the county. I don't support a program where people are off doing their own thing and circumventing the rules and leaking into the black market, and I understand the pressures that are on folks that are looking to whether or not they're going to continue in business or not but I would just caution those folks as well that for me at least we have plenty of operators out there that are willing to come in, and I know it's a lot different scenario than it was maybe two years ago when the market was great. But anybody that I talked to that had skin in the game, that really looked at this in a long-term commitment, they knew this day was coming.
So those that are financed properly, those that have the right commitment even though they're struggling right now, I think there's some things we could do I want them to know on their side there has to be a commitment that they will follow the rules we have laid down or there has to be consequences. Thank you.
2:37 – 2:4822 turns
Encapsulated this well, there's the problem of compliance and we have. I think the best resourced compliance effort in the state of California. If you look per capita, the resources that we have given the Sheriff's Department and others to go after black market operations and to make sure that our operators are complying. We're not short on the financing of that, and we're fortunate to have a revenue stream that can accommodate But the reality is, the black market is getting traction in the state of California. And Supervisor Lavinino's right to look at the state's $31 billion surplus as a place to reduce the tax burden on industry. It's not here. We're the ones that need to take our revenues and turn it into resources for enforcement. So if we're going to cut our taxes at the local level, we're going to reduce enforcement, and that's counterproductive to the state's agenda.
So we do need to push the legislature to look at that more carefully. But where we do need to continue to work, and I was really encouraged to hear Ms. Heaton talk about the flexibility that we can provide operators going through our permit process is an equally important part of this equation. We can't get people to the finish line to where they can be in business legally and operate properly We're adding to the problem, too. And the letters that we've gotten from operators are calling out for help in that regard. Can we get through building and safety faster? Can we get these permits functional so they can operate and make revenue in the legal market and not be tempted to do things. I certainly don't condone that, that's not the right choice.
Supervisor Lavender was really clear we're not gonna encourage that, that's not gonna happen here but we need to try continue to try hard to do the best we can to clean out the processes that are slowing folks down and get people to the finish line.
Thank you Supervisor Hart. I had a couple questions going back to this slide, the tax reporting slide. And there's seven operators. I know this always comes up, so I just want to get some clarification. So one of them came in after 1031. What's the status on the other six?
Thank you Chair Nelson. I've been in contact with the other six. What's interesting about the reporting is, so we will follow up and send a letter to the operators and let them know that we'll be notifying this state of their noncompliance if they go for two consecutive quarters of non-reporting. So last quarter we had, I think it was 10, I think that did not report When I, when we came back and asked the treasurer tax collector for an update on these seven compared to the ten only one had two quarters that they hadn't reported. So many of these operators are coming in late and then they of course pay late fees and they come in They will report.
I've been in touch sometimes I get, Oh, I forgot or I oh it's just me and I'm you know I'm behind and I'll get it in and so you know I don't have I'm not getting really good excuses. Yeah, it's it's probably creeps up on them. It's quarterly and they
got
there but yeah so so we're hoping that number will continue to go down but I imagine we're always going to see because it's a point in time when we do this report. We're always gonna see a few and then they're gonna come back and report late.
So only one of them has been is a chronic
Only one, yeah only one is chronic and they got their letter last
week. Great. One other question about getting back to the retail cannabis and this kind of occurred to me recently as we have delivery in our county are they paying retail taxes on delivery? How does that work?
Chair Nelson, thank you for the question. Yes we currently have one licensed delivery operator and they are paying the retail tax 6% is the tax rate for retail.
Okay and so that's there located in the count unincorporated area They deliver wherever they deliver, right? So we're not taxing based on where it's received. It's a location of the delivery service. Is that
right? That's correct.
And we have
one in the... Currently just one licensed operator. I believe we have two that have submitted business license applications.
Okay thank you and then getting back to the emerging issues with Removing processing activities from the cap. Can you guys expand on that a little bit more? Has the board given direction on that? Do you feel like you guys are moving forward and what's the timeline?
Thank you, Chair Nelson. We add our as you may recall back in November when we brought the Chapter 50 Ordinance Amendment, we did receive direction from the board to take a look at that and we've since had some internal meetings with planning and development and Council. We think we have a pretty simple solution that would require only an amendment to chapter 50 in order to remove processing activities from the way We're in the process right now. I have my two staff, business license specialists are walking through and determining how much acreage that actually would affect. We think it's a pretty small amount.
Um, and only so that we have that update to you. But ultimately what it would mean was would be that these operators that are currently in the process could now come in and amend or do us as a actually they wouldn't be able to do revision. additional land use entitlement for a processing facility and get started on that process so that could get going. Because currently, as you know the cap is reached in the inland or at least committed for now in the inland area. So that isn't possible at this time.
So we would come back in February with a fairly straightforward and simple amendment to change how we define the cap without changing a bunch of definitions that would affect the LUDC
So thank you for that. I mean, it's really important when you remove any of the levels of disincentives for processing to move forward. We have all the impacts but none of the benefits when we allow processing to leave our area and so I know that's a really important for the entire county. Getting back to this community benefit issue with the retail, those funds, they're gonna be controlled by those businesses right?
Is that because I don't think it's a two percent. That's not the way I understood it moving forward so we understood is that they were making philanthropic you know investments in that community but will the board have or the county have impact on that or say so where they spend those dollars?
Chair Nelson, the the business is responsible and can. The way it's written now would would choose how to spend that money. What we're hoping is that through our licensing process, we'd be able to guide some of that investment one in some education that we can like I said, leveraging countywide and two To be honest, some of the things that some of the retailers specifically highlighted in their applications were concerning around the messaging.
And so we want to ensure that there's some level of like we're using best management practices from the state and from our Be Well folks that work in this area and These who they're contributing to and what kind of messaging they're using around the education is, is the correct information that should be shared with the broader community.
Yeah, I see that as that's again part of their package what they were applying for but wasn't necessarily the control we had. I thought the opportunity that we have for community benefit from the retail locations potentially is that retail tax revenue and so you know it's been a desire of mine for some time to find a way for a portion of that retail revenue to stay in the community plan areas where it's generated. It's very much like a municipal tax Nice to find that as a way, you know, as either budget policy or some type of direction from the board to move those funds in the future towards something along those lines. And so, see you Ms. Otto.
Chair Nelson, we can come back. Although we're not going to be doing another quarterly report except with budget but we can come back to the board and give you some options on what the parameters are for the Board's direction or discretion on how those funds get spent either by the county or by the cannabis retailer. to the community. So we can come back with a fuller discussion for your board.
Yeah, I think it's gonna be important. There's a lot of communities that have been really resistant to retail cannabis in their community and I think being able to point to specific projects and impacts that those revenues and community benefits have had might soften the below if you will. And so that's something I would like to see moving forward That's it for right now. Supervisor Hartman?
Just got to go on the record, I'm not against exploring that but a retail operation is a fairly small burden compared to a carpenteria out on 246, the constant smell so I think we need to talk about it in a different way.
I think maybe messaging might be a little bit need work. I often struggle with that, but I do think it's a conversation that we should have and see what that looks like. I understand it's one county, one future and some of the impacts like we have obviously in the Santa Rita Hills and whatnot. And that's why we really need to be attentive to those communities that have seen some of the biggest impacts moving forward.
All right, I think we have some public comment or do we have any public comment on this item?
2:48 – 2:5613 turns
That is correct. Chair Nelson and members of the board, we have four requests to speak on this item and if you are a member of the public and you have requested to speak via Zoom please log in now to do so. We will begin with Eric Lipman.
Just a reminder, public comment will be two minutes for the rest of today
Thank you. We will begin with Eric Litman to be followed by Renee O'Neill, Eric?
Yes, hi this is Eric Litman thanks for giving me some time here and thanks for this conversation today I work with a large cannabis company Shrine Group that's a vertically integrated cannabis company here in California And I just wanted to kind of recount some of the issues that we've had as a company. We've been in process, it's been a difficult road getting a couple of our farms approved here in Santa Barbara and the cap has been a particular issue for us We just had our second farm approved by a 5-0 vote of the Planning Commission, but it's unfortunate that it looks like the cap is gonna keep us out. So I think that removing processing from the cap which really would continue with the spirit of that cap would be a benefit to us and to the county and would result in these processing activities remaining here in Santa Barbara instead of being outsourced to other jurisdictions along with those jobs.
Our other larger farm that was approved, unfortunately has also been held up for about six months during our tenant improvement phase which has resulted in a near total shutdown and laying off or reassignment of our workers. And this was held up because of a simple electrical permit that we've been trying to get approved for about six months. So, you know, this small thing I mean seemingly small has had some large implications for us and I think also the county by extension because You know, this is a significant amount of revenue that would have been generated for the county because it looks like we might miss our first harvest next year which we were really relying on as a company.
And a lot of our workers were also relying on that so you know that's just an issue and I know you know everybody's over staffed understaffed and overworked But I'd like to, you know try to work with the county and the staff in order to figure out creative ways potentially maybe bring in third parties to review those plans or whatever it may be. In order to get this kind of speed process up. Thank
You Mr. Lightman that is your time.
We will now go to Renee O'Neill to be followed by Joe Phil Borga
Good afternoon, supervisors. I also appreciate you taking the time out of your day and busy schedules to listen to our concerns. I'm going to keep this short. I am just wanting to add my voice in support of the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis I'm in the process of writing a quick note to Angelica and Jacqueline to let them know I've got my public comment already submitted for D4 but i will not be speaking during D4.
I'm kind of running out of steam here folks it was all I could do to get through this portion of our day under the circumstances. Take good care, I hope everyone does well and stay safe thank you.
Thank you Miss O'Neill And I'm going to go ahead and close public comment on this item.
Chair Nelson and members of the board, we will now go to Jofill Borja to be followed by Mark Shatillo who is our final speaker on this item.
Good afternoon, Chair and Board of Supervisors. Choco Borja, just a constituent watching this very critical item. What I'd just like to share is that it's not just a thank you again for your recognition that communities are affected by decisions that you're going to be making as well as the hard work that your staff has been doing in the last few months and last few years in recognizing this critical issue.
We just want to reiterate that there are equity economy as well as environmental benefits in looking at legalized cannabis. And we hope that you do recognize that it's not just a numbers game, though we do have equity. Recognition in these types of decisions and the fact that we have legal cannabis that are willing to do the right thing, not work in the gray or illicit market and provide good paying jobs. To folks of two disadvantaged communities and communities of color in order to combat the illicit market. I think that's something that we should recognize and hopefully support and thrive. And I believe that public health is also a value so I do recognize We have an important role here to listen to our stakeholders, but also recognize that there are families in here and not just companies that need to make the bottom line.
So thank you again and I appreciate your support on this item.
Thank you Mr. Borja.
We will now go to our final speaker Mark Sciatillo.
Good afternoon members of the board. I'm Mark Sciatillo and i'm speaking today on behalf of the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis An organization that's trying to support a responsible cannabis industry. We'd first like to note the importance of the continuing odor complaints and the need for redoubled county enforcement efforts and research efforts to be able to identify the sources of odors. Highway 246 into Buellton was extremely odorous during the harvest season this fall, and through the summer. That's a problem that needs to be addressed.
We wanted to also address the upcoming Chapter 50 changes And a couple of the issues that the board, we'd like to see the board give direction on them. Most important of course is the acreage cap. The third rail to Santa Barbara cannabis policy. We ask that there be no backdoor expansion of the acreage cap in revising the canopy definition and exempting processing you will reduce the amount of acreage under it's under licensed cultivation As each of these existing and pending grows are adjusted for their acreage. So it's important that the county also adjust the 1575 acres in order to ensure that there will be no net increase in the amount of acreage that was approved as part of the existing definitions.
Second, we'd like to see the Board of Supervisors continue departmental hearing hearings on the quarterly reports for increased transparency. These items involve land use matters that are not specifically limited to budget. Thirdly, we'd like to ensure that ask that the board ensure that the Acela process also be transparent for the public as we're trying to move growers into carbon scrubbers in the greenhouse environment provisions to odor plans and it's important that we be able to monitor that from the outside And also to be able to follow the building permit process. And finally on changes of ownership, those should trigger a comprehensive review. We've seen some real problems with Herbal Angels, Helios Day Springs and other corporate spa halls.
Thank you very much Mr. Chair.
2:56 – 2:598 turns
And that was our final speaker.
Okay back to the board. I believe we have a receiving file? Are staff having any comments or additional to add here? Ms.
Heaton. Chair Nelson, no I think we're good. We'll be back in February to address the processing issue
And I also wanted to make one note when we were talking about cannabis education. Today, we approved, I think the Administrative Item Number 2 was funding for three cannabis education programs that we have countywide, I believe in the south, mid-county and north. So we are investing in that already and I think that's with some general fund dollars that I assumed those were coming over from cannabis revenue.
And the last point I really wanted to make was, you know, seeing these declining numbers in the industry. It makes me think about Supervisor Adam who warned us of this that he said farmers do a really good job killing markets as he well knew and so I think that's really important for us to Be careful when we, you know, allocate these funds to make sure that they're not on ongoing projects. As Supervisor Lavigny has been advocating for one-time things, one time expenses whenever possible so that we're more resilient as a county budget wise based on these fluctuating numbers.
So with that
I can't let that one slide. Sorry man. Regardless of the numbers down we still collected 3.1 million dollars this quarter and I think we did what 15 or 17 million last year so You know, yes There's a correction where we're just not skyrocketing off into the atmosphere and we're gonna do 50 million next year But this is still the second largest revenue source in the county at this point So I don't want everybody to You know, chicken little, you know that the sky is falling. There's some things we need to correct like Supervisor Hart said on our inside to be fair and we also gotta tighten up security and we gotta get with the state but the program is in a really good place and we knew this day was coming where the wheat separates from the chaff and we get good operators who are well financed and move forward and those that aren't, aren't so I think we're all good.
So can I get a motion for staff recommendation, receive and file? So moved. As well as the CQA? Second. Second from Supervisor Hart. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 moved. As well as the CQA? Second. Second from Supervisor Hart. Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay at this time we're going to break for closed session. Madam Council will you please read items that were we discussing today
2:59 – 3:002 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have three cases of existing litigation under government code section five four nine five six point nine Arlington versus County of Santa Barbara, which is a superior court case in Ray Boy Scouts of America, which is that versus Delaware BSA, which is the United States Bankruptcy Court case and District of Delaware and in the United States and Judith Zetha versus County of Santa Barbara. It's United States district court case in the Central District We also have multiple cases of anticipated litigation.
Significant exposure to civil litigation, one case. Significant exposure to civil litigation, one case based on a claim that's explained in the agenda and deciding whether to initiate civil litigation three cases and the time estimate is 90 minutes. An hour and a half. So
we're gonna try to be back at two o'clock. Thank you.
4:32 – 4:321 turns
Stop, stop, stop.
4:50 – 5:0119 turns
All right, welcome back. County Council, could you please report out from closed session?
Thank you Mr. Chair. The board met in closed session three cases of existing litigation Arlington versus County Santa Barbara, NRA Boy Scouts of America, that's a bankruptcy case, United States and Judith Vista versus County of Santa Barbara. And there were multiple cases of anticipated litigation, significant exposure to civil litigation one case. Significant exposure to civil litigation one case for the facts and circumstances listed in the agenda and deciding whether to initiate civil litigation three cases.
The board took one reportable action unanimous decision to initiate litigation And the defendants and other particulars shall, once formally convinced, be disclosed to any person upon inquiry unless to do so would jeopardize the agency's ability to effectuate service process on one or more unserved parties. Or to do so would jeopardize its ability to conclude existing settlement negotiations to its advantage.
Okay thank you. So
next item on the agenda is departmental item number three. Madam Clerk will you please read that into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the appeal case number 21-APL17 by the Environmental Defense Center, Surfrider, and the Gaviota Coast Conservancy of the director's determination regarding the Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement IDA periodic review, and this is in the third district.
And before we move on, Chair Nelson and members of the board. We did receive a number of documents after our noon deadline on Friday that will need to be voted into the record by the board in order to be considered today I will begin with a public comment from Stanley W Lamport Who is our project applicant from on Friday December 10th at 321 a planning and development memo with attachment from planning and development staff Monday, December 13th at 11 48 p.m A public comment letter from Janet co-ed Monday, December 13th at 4 12 p. m Additionally from the applicant Stanley Lampert PowerPoint presentation came in yesterday December 13th at 1109 p.m And if we can get a motion to approve those for consideration today,
I move that we admit them into the record
Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Can I get a second? Second from Supervisor Lavinino. Madam Clerk, please call the roll.
Roll-call vote Passed 4–0 move that we admit them into the record Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Can I get a second? Second from Supervisor Lavinino. Madam Clerk, plea
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay before we get started this ex parte communication on this hearing.
Mr. Chair I have none to report.
Yes, yesterday I had a Zoom meeting with Linda Kropp and Brian Troutline and Rachel Condor at EDC.
Thank you. Supervisor Hart? Yes, yesterday I had separate conversations with Linda Kropp, Mark Schertillo, and Stanley Lamport talking about this issue from their various different perspectives.
Okay thank you. And Supervisor Williams?
Last week I was, I talked over the phone and Zoom with Mark Ciotillo and Linda Kropp respectively in two separate phone calls.
Great thank you. And I had a zoom call with Stanley Lamport on Friday. All right and this time staff presentation?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the board. Today we have the appeal of the periodic review of the development agreement that is conducted by myself. Back in 2008, Santa Barbara Ranch Project was approved and then a development agreement was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 2014. And on an annual basis, we review the agreement to determine if the developer is in compliance with that.
And the determination that I made this year has been appealed, as you know. And today we have Chris Schmuckel with Planning and Development who's the planner on this case. We have Nicole Liu, the Supervising Planner and Travis Seward, Deputy Director. With that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Schmuckel.
Good morning, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Chris Schmuckel and today I'm presenting the appeal of the director's determination that the Santa Barbara Ranch developer is in compliance with the Santa Barbara Ranch Development Agreement or IDA. The Santa Barbara Ranch Project is a residential development project approved by the Board of Supervisors in October of 2008 that approved up to 71 lots on the Gaviota Coast.
The project was split into a coastal portion and an inland portion, each with their own development agreement. The coastal portion of the project was never accepted by the Coastal Commission and thus didn't move forward. However, the Board of Supervisors entered into a development agreement for the inland portion of Santa Barbara Ranch. The Inland Development Agreement grants the developer the right to develop the inland portion of Santa Barbara Ranch, provided that they comply with the terms of the IDA.
One of the terms of the IDA requires P&D to conduct an annual periodic review of the developer's compliance and the periodic review for the project occurred from 2015 through 2020 with no appeals filed. The March 2021 periodic review determination was appealed by the appellants on April 9th, The periodic review ensures that the developer is still in good faith compliance with the IDA, and the IDA requires the developer to do the following. To pay $100,000 to a non-profit organization to prepare a creek restoration plan, to pay $300,000 to a nonprofit conservation organization to implement the plan, and to offer all reasonable assistance to the nonprofit to fully implement the plan within three years It also requires them to condition payment of the $300,000 to require the nonprofit to expend the funds elsewhere on the Gaviota Coast if the plan is not implemented within five years and complete a project within seven years.
The developer has satisfied each of their obligations of the IDA that I just discussed Specifically, the developer met their obligations by depositing $100,000 with a qualified and experienced nonprofit conservation organization that's fully independent from the developer. By managing and funding preparation of the Dos Pueblos Creek Restoration Maintenance and Monitoring Plan By having the plan peer-reviewed by the county's biological consultant, which found the plan to be acceptable.
By depositing $300,000 with the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. By entering into an agreement with the organization to use the funds for creek restoration elsewhere on the Gaviota Coast consistent with the requirements of the IDA. In addition, the developer offered all reasonable assistance with the implementation of the plan by providing tours, coordinating with property owners, funding the peer review of the restoration plan, coordinating with other non-profit organizations and hiring additional consultants to do other studies.
Staff identified five appeal issues from the appellant's letter. Appeal issue one argues that there is no evidence that the county has approved an alternative creek restoration project or that on-the-ground restoration has taken place. Appeals issue number two argues that there is no evidence that an alternative project could have been completed by the time freight specified in the IDA.
The IDA does not require the developer to obtain approval of an alternative creek restoration project from P&D, nor to assure that on-the-ground restoration work is taking place. Periodic review is limited in scope through a review of the developer's good faith compliance with the terms of the IDA. As discussed in the last slide, the developers completed their primary obligations of the IDA.
For appeal issue number three, the appellant claims that the director's finding of good faith compliance is not supported by substantial evidence and contends that the IDA requires county approval and completion of an alternative creek restoration project by April 8th 2021. However, the director's finding of good faith compliance is supported by substantial evidence as discussed previously, the developer has complied with all of their primary obligations under the IDA The IDA does not require the developer to complete an alternative creek restoration project, and the intent of the developer's financial contribution for implementation of the creek restoration work was to use it as an opportunity to attract more funds for restoration.
For Appeal Issue 4, the appellant asserts that the decision to issue a compliance determination was not supported by the findings in the director's letter, and that the findings are not supported by substantial evidence. Appeal issue number five asserts that the director's determination was not supported by substantial evidence. However, as previously discussed, the director's finding that the developer is in good faith compliance with the IDA is supported by substantial evidence. The plain language of the IDA does not require the developer to obtain approval of an alternative creek restoration plan or to implement the plan.
Finally, the developer continues to offer all reasonable assistance to the nonprofit in implementation of the plan. Therefore staff recommends that the board one deny the appeal case number 21 APL 17 Make the required findings to affirm the director's determination that the developer is in good faith compliance with the terms of the Santa Barbara Ranch Inland Development Agreement, including the CEQA findings and determine that the IDA periodic review determination is exempt from CEQAs pursuant to state CEQa guidelines section 15378B5.
That concludes staff's presentation and I'm available for any questions.
Okay thank you. Any questions from the board? Supervisor Hartman
I was just curious, were there other environmental beneficial projects associated with this development agreement?
5:01 – 5:1411 turns
Supervisor Hartman, Chair Adams. So besides the Dos Pueblos Creek Restoration Project which was a plan that was created for as part of this project and ultimately didn't move forward there are a number of other benefits that the Inland Development Agreement created and the staff memo that was sent to the board yesterday outlined a few Specifically, it reduces the overall development potential of the legal lots and results in less development that's visible from Highway 101. And allows the county to manage the environmental resources in a manner that could not be achieved if the existing lot on the Santa Barbara Ranch site was developed individually.
And do we know why the landowner revoked permission to do the Dos Pueblos Creek restoration project?
Chair Nelson and Supervisor Hartman, we were not given the specific information as to why. I believe it had to do partially however with the storms that occurred around that time and the need to revise a number of the portions of the restoration plan. Mr. Lamport representing the developer is here and could provide additional information regarding that.
I guess that's all for right now thank you.
Any other questions before we hear from the appellant? All right, seeing none. We have Linda Kropp and Mark Sciatello.
Hi my name is good afternoon Chair Nelson and Honorable Supervisors I am Rachel Condor and I'm a staff attorney for the Environmental Defense Center. My colleague Linda Kropp and I represent our organization and Surf Rider Good morning, everyone. We are joined by and through the Santa Barbara chapter and we're joined by Anna Citron and Mark Shatillo representing the Gaviota Coast Conservancy. So I will be speaking first after which Ms. Citroen will continue and conclude our remarks.
And then Miss Cropp and Mr. Shatillo are also available to answer questions. And proceed with termination of the Inland Development Agreement for Santa Barbara Ranch for the following reasons. First, we believe the intent of the agreement is clear... Ms.
Condor? Yes. A few technical difficulties. Could you mind holding on just one second?
Sure.
Thank you very much. So just to say that once again, we are here to ask for the termination of the IDA for the following reasons. First,
Under the agreement, the developer was to pay $300,000 and ensure that creek restoration took place on Dos Pueblos Creek or at an alternate site on the Gaviota Coast within seven years. Ultimately, the buck stops with the developer to ensure that the terms of the agreement are met. Second, because no creek restoration was completed by the deadline at an alternate location And because the developer did not offer all reasonable assistance to complete that project, the director's determination was not based on substantial evidence.
The terms of the agreement allow the county to terminate the development agreement for non-compliance or it can enforce the developers contract with a nonprofit to ensure the county and the public get the benefit of the bargain. Either way your hands are not tied in terms of ensuring the agreement is honored. But before I get into the heart of our arguments, it bears remembering the place we're discussing and why we're asking the board to hold the line on the terms of the development agreement.
The Gaviota Coast is the largest stretch of undeveloped coastline remaining in Southern California. It is a beautiful and rugged place with a rich history of ranching and Chumash heritage. It is what the California coast used to be in so many places but has now lost forever to development. This region hosts numerous creeks, including Dos Pueblos Creek which are literally the lifeblood of the area with their fresh water making life possible for a multitude of wildlife and plant species including the endangered southern steelhead and many others.
But many of the creeks of the Gaviota suffer from the ill effects of human development like concrete dams road crossings and other harms These creeks still support so much life, yet they need our help. That's why the concept of restoration on creeks in the Gaviota area is not a throwaway it's important for the benefit of wildlife and humans alike. Which brings me to the intent of the Inland Development Agreement itself while a different Board of Supervisors entered into this agreement The board gave the developer a hugely valuable minimum 20 year freeze on development rights. And in exchange, the county received a promise of restoration on Dos Pueblos Creek or on another creek along the Gaviota Coast and that was the key benefit for the county in the deal.
County staff in their memo and in their presentation they cite other benefits that were in section I of the recitals of the agreement But let me be clear. All of those conditions in Section I came from the project description, CEQA mitigation and policy mandates. The only added benefit to the county and the public are those contained in Section 2.02 of the IDA, namely the Creek Restoration Plan and actual creek restoration.
So under that section, the developer and his contractor were to initiate planning and restoration on Dos Pueblos Creek within five years If restoration couldn't be done on that creek, the developer was to condition payment to extend the funds for creek restoration elsewhere on the Gaviota Coast. And quote complete the alternative creek restoration project within seven years unquote.
So we're now closing in on almost a year past that final deadline and there's been no creek restoration carried out on the Gaviota Coast whatsoever. The director in her letter states that a restoration project is still required, but the deadline has passed and so far the county has received absolutely nothing in exchange for giving the developer until 2034 to build its development using 2008 rules which predate the environmental requirements of the Gaviota Coast plan. This development would be the largest subdivision on the Gaviota ever with almost 50 mega mansions So we're asking the board to uphold the intent and plain language of the development agreement, find that the developer has not fulfilled its side of the bargain and begin the process of terminating the agreement.
I will now turn it over to Ms. Citron to continue. Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Good afternoon, Chair Nelson. Is this on? And board members and thank you Rachel. The key question before your board today is whether substantial evidence supports the director's determination that the developer complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of the development agreement. In our appeal we established that the obligations with respect to the alternative creek restoration project have not been met and that alone shows that the developer is not in compliance with the IDA The board letter asserts that the IDA does not require the developer to actually complete the alternative creek restoration project by the deadline, but only requires that it offer all reasonable assistance to the nonprofit to accomplish that outcome. While we disagree with that interpretation, the director determination is still not based on substantial evidence because there is no substantial evidence showing that the developer provided all reasonable assistance with respect to the alternative creek restoration project In fact, of the 12 items listed in the board letter showing the developer's assistance they all pertain to Dos Pueblos Creek not to the alternative.
And this is and the focus as the developer points out is the period between 2020 and 2021 at which point restoration at Dos Pueblos Creek was already determined to be infeasible. The evidence also shows that The developer waited to inform the county that restoration at Dos Pueblos Creek was not feasible until nine months after the April 8, 2019 deadline to complete a project there leaving insufficient time to secure county approval for the alternative location.
To perform the necessary steps permitting getting permission to do those projects and to actually implement the project. This left insufficient time to carry out these tasks. Not only did the developer allocate insufficient time to pursue the alternative project, it also allocated insufficient funds that did not adequately assist the non-profit in achieving its goal.
The record shows that by March 30th, 2021 90% of the $300,000 allocated for creek restoration had been spent on planning site visits and other legwork leaving only 10% available for actual creek restoration. The developer is well aware that $32,000 is not sufficient to fund a Gaviota Creek Restoration Project and should have provided further monetary assistance and other support to offer all reasonable assistance to complete an alternative creek restoration project.
Now in their recent letter, the developer is arguing that the development agreement only requires that they offer all reasonable assistance with respect to Dos Pueblos Creek Restoration and that there is no requirement at all that they even assist with respect to the Alternative Creek Restoration Project. This would let the developer off the hook, and that is not a tenable position. It leaves the county with no recourse to assure the public and the county receives any benefit from the Inland Development Agreement while the developer continues to enjoy the huge benefit of vested rights until 2034.
On the issue of benefits, not only are the inland project benefits listed in the IDA's recitals not benefits conferred by the IDA itself as Ms. Condor explained, these purported benefits of the inland project actually no longer apply. This is because last minute revisions to the Santa Barbara Ranch Project allowed the inland project to proceed without reducing the lot density and the coastal zone.
and the developer later terminated the coastal approvals, and the coastal gridlots remain. This effectively nullified the inland approval benefits that were restated in the IDA. Another point about the original approvals that's germane to today's discussion is that the Inland Project also relied extensively on the voluntary participation of Dos Pueblos Ranch including their provision of the agricultural conservation easement And in 2008, the Dos Poblos Ranch made very clear in a written letter that their performance was expressly contingent on the complete satisfaction of an entirely unreasonable set of conditions.
Knowing that recordation of the ACE was a precondition to implementing a creek restoration project at Dos Pueblos Creek and that DPR's stated conditions had not been met, the developer should have started working on its contingency plan for the alternative creek restoration project much sooner and either reserved sufficient funds to accomplish a viable alternative project or allocated additional funds.
Simply put, the developer has not fulfilled its side of the bargain and cannot at this late date and with most of the resources expended effectuate any meaningful restoration project. For these reasons we ask that the board uphold the appeal, find that the director's determination is not supported by substantial evidence, and begin procedures to terminate the Inland Development Agreement. Thank you very much.
5:14 – 5:286 turns
Any questions from the board of the applicant, appellant? Okay seeing none. The next up is a project applicant. Mr. Lamport.
Ten minutes is going to be very quick. There's a lot to say here and a lot of it's very inaccurate I have the benefit of being the only person who still hasn't retired who drafted the Inland Development Agreement. And a lot of things that you've heard today are not what the Inland Development Agreement says or what the inland development agreement was about.
Santa Barbara Ranch consists of 218 legal lots, of which 125 were developable. At one point the county tried to require those lots be merged for 100-acre minimum lot sizes in a case called Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara. The Supreme Court held that the county could not require that. Facing the prospect of the development of these lots, we work with the county to come up with a project to reduce the amount of lots that could be developed out there. And what you're looking at is Santa Barbara Ranch in its boundaries. Let me just show you...
Okay I'm gonna learn how to do this when the presentation is over. Here are the boundaries of the northern boundaries of Santa Barbara Ranch and it was going to be a 54 lot project. During the entitlement process, the supervisor at the time, Brooks Firestone asked us to approach the neighboring landowner and see if we could acquire land north of the boundary of Santa Barbara Ranch, and develop lots in that area so that there would not be lots located within the view shed north of Highway 101.
That resulted in what we call Alternative 1B which is what the county approved. So we went above and beyond the call of duty essentially by going out and doing a deal with the neighboring property owner to move the development out of the view shed along Highway 101. And so when the inland development, now these two projects were approved together. The notice of final action was never finaled with the Coastal Commission in part because the county had a dispute with the Coastal Commission as to whether or not lot mergers required coastal development permits and that was never resolved. The property was lost in foreclosure and the issue kind of languished.
But there were two development agreements because one was in the coastal zone, one was outside the coastal zone. Those agreements were peas in a pod if you will, two sides of a coin and most of the public benefits were added into the Coastal Development Agreement. The Inland Development Agreement however noted that because we had gone to the effort of creating this alternative and this is what we're all referring to section 1 and I'll break it through kind of quickly The county determined that we already provided a number of public benefits already because of the effort that we had gone to acquire property we didn't control previously in order to create the Alt 1B project. And we were given credit in the Inland Development Agreement for that effort and those things are listed, reducing the overall development potential, making them less visible from Highway 101.
Easier for the county to manage the environmental resources, long-term preservation of agricultural land, a better waste treatment system. We got benefits, we got credit for that in the IDA and that's why it was recited in the IDA. So when we get down to the creek restoration, it was never the purpose that the developer would pay for restoration of Dos Pueblos Creek.
The obligation was to put up money and assist an independent non-profit organization in two stages. $100,000 for a creek restoration plan which was performed on time, which the county found was compliant. They brought an independent biologist. The independent biologists concurred. Next we were supposed to pay $300,000 to a nonprofit conservation organization to implement the plan.
It was the non-profit's obligation to use, this is just I cut and pasted this from the IDA. This is not me paraphrasing anything. These are, this is me breaking out the language cut and pasted from section 2.02 of the IDA The nonprofit shall use its best efforts to fully implement the plan. And we're supposed to offer all reasonable assistance to accomplish this outcome. What is this outcome? This outcome is Fully implementing the creek restoration plan. That was our obligation.
The creek restoration plan required us to condition payment to the nonprofit on three conditions, that if they didn't get the creek restoration plan done, the nonprofit would spend the money elsewhere in the Gaviota Coast. They'd obtain county consent to do that. It was not our obligation. It was specifically called out in the IDA, and I'm quoting the IDA that that was the obligation of the nonprofit and we would condition that. We entered into an agreement with the nonprofit. That agreement was submitted to the county and the county recognized that that complied with the IDA.
The express tent here was that we were going to initiate planning efforts with the money we contributed, with the idea that basically restoration would be based upon funds that would come from elsewhere. So there were four terms. It was never a foregone conclusion that Dos Pueblos Creek would be restored. There were four conditions, one of which was consent of the ranch owners, which ultimately did not occur.
Although we got assistance from the ranch owners up until 2019, the end of 2019 not the middle of 2019. And what happened was Dos Pueblos Ranch North was sold in 2015 at a time that we were completing the creek restoration plan to a new owner. That owner said well we'll work with you. This is not the owner in 2008 that you just heard about this was a new owner and that owner said we'll work with you And we spent years working with them, and we got all the way to 2019. I spent hundreds of hours trying to implement this plan. And what happened in January 2019 is there was a major storm after the fires which completely changed Dos Pueblos Creek. It's unrecognizable from what I knew of Dos Pueblos Creek in 2008.
And we spent a year trying to see if we couldn't salvage a creek restoration plan with that landowner. And finally, at the end of the process I said, you know, we didn't sign on for this and just don't consent to doing it anymore. And that's what happened. We actually asked the county to agree to have an additional year to implement the creek restoration plan in Dos Pueblos Creek. We made that request in 2019 and the county agreed to give us an additional year to carry out the restoration in Dos Pueblos Creek.
So it didn't happen. It wasn't for want of effort, and we were very optimistic for a long period of time that we could pull it off. The non-profit actually got a $220,000 grant in order to do further work in the creek. They were signing contracts to carry out that work. We were very optimistic. And we didn't expect that in 2019 there would be substantial floods and that the landowner would eventually back out.
So it didn't, it wasn't for want of effort. It was nothing that we could foresee. It just happened that way and it was never a foregone conclusion that the creek restoration would occur because there were four preconditions but we worked very hard to try to satisfy those conditions over a period of years. That's what happened out there so the idea that you know some of these things that you're hearing are just not connected with what happened over the last six years when we found out at the end That the landowner for Dos Pueblos Ranch North would not, did not consent anymore. We immediately contacted the county and said hey we don't have consent of the landowner anymore We need to transition to something else.
Our obligation to cooperate, as you saw, was tied to implementing the creek restoration plan in Dos Pueblos Creek. The agreement does not state that there is a cooperation obligation with respect to any alternative location and that was intentional. That was specifically discussed when we negotiated the IDA back in 2008. This is no surprise. We, but we you know so we've not had since 2020 any obligation to render any assistance. We nevertheless have because we were committed to trying to see this thing through in a good faith manner but it was not because we had a contractual obligation to do that and there is no obligation at this point for us to render assistance although we have and the people that we were working with South Coast Habitat Restoration and the Kachuma Resource Conservation District It's We've satisfied all of those.
We paid the money for a plan that was found to be adequate, we paid the money subject to the terms that we were required to, we rendered assistance for the implementation of the creek restoration plan even to the point of getting the county to agree to give us additional time to implement the plan We had director's compliance determinations from 2015 through 2020 that were not appealed, were not contested are now final. And this appeal concerns a determination made after the cooperation obligation had ended So it's, that's where we currently stand. And a lot of what you know I was there so a lot of this was me sort of you know I was there when the IDA was negotiated. I was there when we carried out this implementation. The idea that we were not acting in good faith is not true.
If there are some term of disagreement there is a care provision in the IDA. You're supposed to specify what it would take to comply with the express terms of the ID And we are then, you have to then give us notice of that and give the developer an opportunity to hear those things before you can ever initiate a termination. So on that basis, the director's decision was supported by substantial evidence and there is really no basis for this appeal. Thank
you Mr. Lamport. That's your time. Any questions for project applicant? Supervisor Hartman.
Yeah, I'm looking at section 202A of the IDA. It says developers shall in the event that the creek restoration plan is not implemented within five years of the effective date for any reason And again, the developer shall obtain the county's written consent as to the alternative creek restoration project prior to expending said funds and complete the alternative creek restoration project within seven years of the effective date.
That actually is not exactly what it says. It says, and I'm trying to pull it up if you could give me a moment please. The developer shall pay the sum of $300,000 to a non-profit conservation organization of developer's choice to be used to implement the creek restoration plan. The nonprofit conservation organization will use its best faith effort to fully comply with the creek restoration plan within three years of the effective date of this agreement and the developer shall offer all reasonable assistance to accomplish this outcome."
Then it jumps down and says, lays out the four conditions that That needed to be met. It then says, because what you're quoting is what we have to condition. It says developer shall condition the payment of the foregoing sums which I think is what you're reading to me. Developer shall condition the payment of the foregoing sums to the nonprofit organization To require the non-profit organization to one, expend the funds for creek restoration elsewhere in the Gaviota Coast in the event that Creek Restoration Plan is not implemented within five years of the effective date for any reason. Two, obtain county written consent to the alternative creek restoration project to expending said funds.
And three, complete the Alternative Creek Restoration Project within seven years. So what you're reading is what we were required to condition payment to the nonprofit to do. We did that in an agreement in 2017 and we went through a development compliance review with the county back in 2017. If I remember correctly, that was still at the time when some of the people who were involved in drafting the original IDA had not yet retired.
And we went through this, did we? And we specifically had a conversation with the county. We believe we've satisfied these conditions with this agreement. Do you agree? And that was part of the annual compliance review in 2020 and we got a compliance determination that the agreement that we entered into with CARCD conditioning the payment on these things satisfied the conditions in the agreement.
So it was not our obligation to do those things, it was our obligation to condition payment for the non-profit to do those things and that's how it was written.
Thank you.
5:28 – 5:3410 turns
Thank You Supervisor Harmon any other questions from the Board of the project applicant? Okay at this time I believe we have public comment.
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the board. We have four requests to speak on this item. And we're going to begin on Zoom with Gregory Carpain to be followed by Nancy Tubialo. Gregory?
Yes, hello are you hearing my voice?
Yes we can hear you please proceed thank you
okay thank you Thank you, Supervisors for hearing this issue. I've lived in Santa Barbara since 1970 and one of the areas I chose this home to remain here—I'm an L.A. refugee—is because of its beautiful nature. And so I'm also a member of the Yavio Coast Conservancy Board but today I'm really speaking as a card-carrying human being who Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the public. I love nature and all of the space that's there. I've been involved in this project from the very beginning as have many of us.
And I think that this property is exceptionally important to our public. Me being part of that and that's what I'm speaking from. The developer has not met its creek And acknowledge that and was listening very intently. And I remember the quote, it wasn't for want of effort and appreciate those efforts. However, the goal was not accomplished. And whenever I was in business and something started going let's say south, it was up to me and our company to revisit it, to communicate, to rebuild it, That did not happen.
So the developer has not at this time met its creek restoration obligations or complied with the agreement. Their ample time limit was provided in which to maybe even redo the agreement and revisit it, which has not happened. So I propose ask the board to enforce I believe it allows the development of a huge 49. Pardon me? That is your time.
Hello. Can you hear me?
We can.
Hi, Nancy Tubiolo here. I support the appeal of the Planning and Development Director's determination that the Santa Barbara Ranch developer complied with the terms of the Inland Development Agreement. Any development in the area would impact Naples, including its sensitive riparian watershed and pristine coastline. At least a creek restoration plan would address and mitigate existing and future impacts yet the developer failed to comply. And obviously I prepared this before hearing that argument but I do want to address that too.
I really want to talk mainly about my experience and my understanding of the area. In general, creeks obviously are of significant importance in themselves and in the areas they affect. They're home to ecosystems of native flora and fauna including migrating steelhead trout as was brought up earlier. Especially on such a pristine coastline, creeks serve as watersheds leading to the ocean and so many wonders of nature. The Gaviota Coastline, as we know, home to countless species Seals, sea lions, otters which at least in my experience are so rare in Santa Barbara. Myriad fish and all those who catch them I won't even list the multitudes of species of birds in the area but in just one recent walk along the beach there you know owls nesting in the cliffs a buzzard riding the wind back and forth at the edge of the cliff line pelicans skimming the waves two large flocks of pelicans and a pod of sea lions just offshore peering at us with curiosity This is, it sounds idyllic but it's really typical and we can't take that for granted.
The purity and serenity that epitomize the Gaviota Coast because it's an area still rare in its isolation from human impact really needs to be protected from that human impact. What will happen if these diverse species, if the creeks flowing through and into their habitat are not protected by a restoration plan at the very least to prevent impacts from future development increased human occupation? Surely the developer appreciates the beauty of this inland and coastal paradise as reasons for choosing to develop it, but building homes without heat for protecting the natural environment doesn't fit with maintaining the unspoiled nature of the area. And it would
destroy that- Thank you Ms. Tuviola. That is your time.
We will now go to Marcus Lopez and then we will come to the Santa Barbara Hearing Room for Phil McKenna. Marcus?
5:34 – 5:427 turns
Thank you, County Board of Supervisors. As Chairman of the Bota Lina Chumash Tribal Council I thank you for the opportunity to address this issue with the Santa Barbara Ranch Project at Naples. The Gavioto Coast Conservancy summation is one that we agree with We agree with them, as well as agreeing with the board must enforce a development agreement to ensure that the Chumash receive the benefit as promised in the original agreement Along with other stakeholders, the development of the 49 unit inland Santa Barbara Ranch project under 200 on the 2008 rules is not in our interest. You might ask why? Well, the Santa Barbara Ranch Project has now contacted Barbarina Chumash Tribal Council and a variety of parties In regard to the restoration or the ongoing effects on Chumash cultural resources areas concerned.
Consultation is an important basic aspect of any development in Santa Barbara County. The Chumash belief is that we are part of the flora and fauna that they are our relatives. The Gaviota area is part of our sacred region and this Santa Barbara Ranch project will destroy, underline, will destroy the sacred area of great cultural and historic importance to the Chumash.
Thank you very much my name is Marcus Lopez governing body, governing board representing the Bavarian Chumash Tribal Council
Thank you, Mr. Lopez.
And we will now return to the Santa Barbara Hearing Room with Phil McKenna who is our final speaker.
Mr. Chair and Supervisors, I'm speaking as an individual today. I believe I have a unique perspective on this issue. I was the founding president of the Naples Coalition in 2005 and have been actively involved in opposing the development of Santa Barbara Ranch since 1998. The issue is simple. Did the developer provide creek restoration planning and implementation within the required timeframe?
The answer in plain language, a term of art recognized by the courts, is uncomplicated. They paid for some planning. But no, they did not provide any implementation. Not a rock was moved, a tree planted, a fish barrier removed. Nothing! Even when the developer was given a two-year extension for offsite implementation. Nothing. Assume that the attorneys for the county and the applicant and the appellant all make convincing arguments as attorneys are wont to do.
You may find yourself in a quandary I ask that you reflect upon the will of the people. I have been opposed to this development for over 20 years. Over that time, I was impressed with the public's unanimous opposition to developing Naples. I can confidently state that members of the public unaffiliated with the developers or development have unanimously opposed developing Naples at all public hearings in both written form and public comments.
This statement includes the 42 public comments regarding today's hearing that all supported terminating the Inland Development Agreement You have permission from the public to approve this appeal and terminate this Inland Development Agreement. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. McKenna.
And that concludes public comment.
All right. Rebuttals? The appellant?
Hi, I have a couple points I could make and then maybe my colleagues would chime in with their thoughts as well. Just in response to Mr. Lamport's presentation, I have a couple of thoughts. He stated that they didn't know until late 2019 that Dos Pueblos Creek or sorry, Santa Barbara, I'm sorry, Dos Pueblos Ranch would not participate in the Dos Pueblos Creek Restoration, but we have emails from the county under a Public Records Act request stating that they actually it's in the developer's letter of early 2020 as well. Stating that in mid in June and September of 2019 they had meetings with Dos Pueblos Ranch and they knew that at that time that DOS Pueblos Ranch would not be participating But again, the developer didn't notify the county of that fact until six to nine months later in the March 2020 letter.
And then on the issue of not offering reasonable assistance related to the alternative creek restoration project, that's kind of odd because the county staff still believes that the developer must offer reasonable assistance related to And I believe that's in the director's letter of this year, March of this year. And she also states in her letter of March of this year that a project must be completed even though that was only a few days before the deadline was about to run and as previous speakers have said no rock had been moved So just getting back to the intent of the IDA in the first place, it really was as people have stated, to initiate planning and restoration efforts on Dos Pueblos Creek. No one really anticipated that 300,000 was going to completely restore that creek.
It's a multi-million dollar restoration project. That's well understood but at the point where that project no longer was viable There did need to be a pivot in order to accomplish the requirement that's in the IDA to complete, not start, complete a restoration project at an alternate location within seven years. So we just want to really hammer that home that that was still a requirement and the developer is ultimately responsible. The developer is the one who benefits from the agreement And can't just squarely place the blame on the nonprofit when they were operating with limited funds. So there should have been extra efforts made.
And the subject of this appeal is only this latest compliance letter, we're not talking about going back in time to Dos Pueblos Creek and what happened there. We're talking about what happened between March of 2020 and March of 2021. When there was no alternate creek restoration Completed, approved or completed.
5:42 – 5:504 turns
Thank you, Rachel. I'll just add just a couple more points. From the applicant we heard a lot about how they attempted to get consent of Dos Pueblos Ranch North but we didn't hear anything about whether they were on track to satisfy the other conditions, whether recordation of the ACE was prepared and ready to go, whether the notice of violation with respect to Dos Pueblos Creek had been resolved And we haven't heard anything about Dos Pueblos Ranch South and their role, so we really have an incomplete picture here as to what happened.
I would also just reemphasize that the benefits that are included in the IDA's recitals related to a configuration of the project that no longer exists. And I believe it was attachment F9 to the board's final approval included extensive revisions to bifurcate the project and phase the development such that the developer could proceed with the inland portion and not the coastal portion, and the grid configuration that results in the extensive impacts that were sought to be avoided with the inland project. They remain. Those have not been resolved so just want to emphasize that we appreciate your time and attention to this.
Creek restoration is very important. We're very disappointed that the Dos Cobos Creek Restoration Plan didn't move forward, but as my co-counsel said, the developer should have had a better plan and should have proceeded in a responsible manner to assure that an alternative creek restoration project that is meaningful actually restores a creek could be provided to the public to ensure that there is some benefit in exchange for this extensive benefit the developer received in terms of freezing their ability to implement the Inland Project under 2008 rules for a very extended period of time. So I thank you very much, and I think that's it unless there are questions?
At this time, rebuttal for the project applicant.
Let me respond to the substantive items first. The implementation was supposed to be done by the non-profit, not by the developer. In fact that was a key requirement and our responsibility was to work with the nonprofit to implement the plan which we did. I've got a letter, which we've got years of letters detailing things we did every year to try to bring this plan to fruition.
And the landowner consent was important for the ACE. It was important for satisfying the other conditions. We were working on resolving all those conditions. Landowner consent is the one that made sure that none of the others were going to happen. The first measure of intent is what an agreement says. That's just what it is. We worked very hard on the terms of the Inland Development Agreement, and it said exactly what everybody intended. We spent hours with county council on it. It was very clear.
We did not wait to inform the county in 2019, in 2020 that the deal with the landowner did not go forward. They are referring to a letter that I sent on February 7th of 2020. It followed conversations with the county in which we said, on June 5th we facilitated a meeting with South Coast Habitat Restoration to provide further clarification regarding the implementation. We also facilitated a second meeting on September 4 and had follow-up conversations and meetings with the landowner in this regard It was at the end of those follow-up conversations. We never said, so this idea that we waited six months, that's not what the letter says. That's not what we said to the county and in fact when we found out that this was not going to go forward in Dos Pueblos Creek, we promptly informed planning and development because we had been cooperatively working with planning development over the years to make sure we are in compliance with the agreement.
The frustrating piece of this, and it's sort of that thing that goes unsaid is that the restoration team has been trying to find an alternative site elsewhere on the Gaviota Coast in the last year and had two viable alternative sites. And in both instances those viable alternative sites ended up not coming going forward because of stakeholder opposition. One was through the county One was through another entity.
They were identified, they were viable, the funds could be used for that purpose and stakeholder opposition is the reason why that hasn't gone forward. In fact in some of the conversations I've had with the restoration team the thought was as long as the word Santa Barbara Ranch is somehow associated with the money there will be stakeholder opposition to any restoration that they attempt so again We have offered to assist them where we could, not because we have a contractual obligation but we respect their work. And we worked with them for a long time and we said if they needed help from us, we would do it. The county asked us if we could be of assistance to them. Could we? We said we would. Not as a contractual obligation but just because we've been in a long process with these folks.
They're good people. They're trying to do good work and we were willing to work with them. But in terms of whether an alternative site has been restored, it has nothing to do with lack of effort on our part and everything to do with community or stakeholder opposition to the use of those funds elsewhere on the Gaviota Coast. And I presume without knowing—I'm not going to accuse anybody in the room here—but I assume without knowing that the idea is if there's just never a viable option That would somehow give cause for this board to say let's cancel the IDA because you just can't find anything else on the Gaviota Coast.
The money is still, there are still funds available is my understanding and if people want to fully support implementation of creek restoration on the Gaviota Coast with full-throated commitment for the restoration team to do that I imagine there's still an opportunity out But the way things are currently structured will never cross that line. And the practical side of it is, and as I say it seems like everybody knows, nobody wants to you know... It's always in hushed terms that we hear about it.
Is that the opportunities were there and could not be taken advantage of because of stakeholder opposition. So that's where we stand but that's not for want of effort on our part. Our obligations were fulfilled for years preceding And we fully satisfied those. And there is more than substantial evidence that shows this developer is acting in good faith under the IDA and we ask that you uphold the Director's determination, thank you.
Thank you Mr. Lamport. Back to staff for comments?
5:50 – 5:5612 turns
Could I ask permission just to respond very quickly to that last point because I think it is significant.
Let me go to County Council or maybe Supervisor Hartman might ask you a question here.
Yes, I was going to ask that actually. Was the environmental or non-profit community preventing performance by the developer? And if there, I think I heard a commitment that there's still opportunity here and I think there's a lot of need on the Gaviota Coast for creek restoration. Could we focus attention of various organizations to find a project still at this date?
Thank you Supervisor Hartman, thank you Chair Nelson. So to answer your question first of all it was not opposition by non-profits that prevented any of the alternatives from going forward in fact in the Public Records Act request we did of the county there are extensive emails going back and forth expressing county staff's concern that the restoration projects identified Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the public.
The non-profit was very limited in their ability to identify projects because there was only a small amount of funding available and a limited amount of time, and to actually permit a project that would have I'm here to talk about the Dose Pueblos Creek restoration effort. And I think that the developer should have made sure that they could actually deliver on that plan before they expended all those funds and should have had, again, a more developed contingency plan such that they could actually effectuate an alternative project within the time and with the money.
That wasn't an answer to my second question though. I'm sorry. Going forward, could we get a concerted effort across the board to identify and follow through with the project?
Thank you for reminding me about that question and sorry for not answering thoroughly. So again, I think the trouble now is that there is $32,000 left. And I'm not sure that there is a creek restoration project that we could identify that would be meaningful For that amount of money. Now, if the developer were willing to pony up a considerable additional sum I think that would be a different question but that is not what he has offered.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, members of the board, I think we don't have much to reply to but I did want to just reinforce that we did feel there was substantial evidence to make the determination that they were in compliance with the precise terms of the IDA.
Questions from the boards and then deliberations? Are there any questions for staff or maybe questions? Yeah Dust is still there.
This is a question. So what is the substantial evidence about the alternative restoration project? Or are you in agreement with the developer that there was no requirement to apply reasonable assistance for a backup project?
Chair Nelson and Supervisor Hartman, we have a list of activities and support that the developer provided in response. There is a limited amount of support that they can provide in the efforts to find alternative sites on the Gaviota Coast but where they could assist, they did by providing information and continuing to coordinate with us. Staff did also have regular communication with the non-profit, although it's not required under the terms of the IDA, and regular communications with them about their extensive efforts to talk with governmental entities I want to start by saying thank you to all of our partners at the Board of Supervisors.
All of the payment of the funds and the only thing remaining was to provide all reasonable assistance. We do believe that they still need to provide all reasonable assistance, but again I think as the developer stated there's a limited scope within which they can do that because they don't have specific relationships with the owners so that limits them to providing documentation counsel where needed and our understanding is that
5:56 – 6:015 turns
And Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hertman, I think it's important if you have a question for the nonprofit, I believe they are on Zoom and available if you want to speak with them directly or prompt a question.
Yeah, I have a question staff might be able to answer maybe it's maybe the nonprofit In the agreement says, the intent of subsection and the developer's obligation here under is initiate planning restoration efforts with the expectation that the developers financial contribution will be used to attract other resources to complete their creek restoration project. Were there other resources that money was able to attract? I mean it was or it was just the $300,000 what was spent down.
Chair Nelson, so the nonprofits did attract grant funding. They received a grant from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for over $200,000 I believe that was used to help fund the Dos Pueblos Creek restoration plan. So that aspect of the project was successful. They were able to use it to get more funds in place.
All right, thank you. Supervisor Hart? You don't have any questions but I'm ready to have a conversation. Sure. Well this is a tough moment and this project has a long history and everybody in the room that's here understands that and has their own views about it but here we are with a very precise decision to make and I just struck by the fact that it feels to me like this is failure of imagination and execution and there's just A lot of effort that didn't result in anything of any value and that the Inland Development Agreement was predicated on there being something of value to the public. And I think that's an ongoing obligation, so to me, I can't make the finding that this is in good faith compliance but Mr. Lamport's right that there is an opportunity to cure that problem And it does seem as though, just because of the Alisal Fire that there's lots of creek restoration work needed in the Gaviota Coast and Refugio Canyon and Arroyo Hondo Canyon.
Supervisor Hartman and I were just out at the Land Trust property at Arroyo Hondo. We toured Tehiguas Canyon and there are massive needs in those areas. It's raining right now. I'm sure there are debris flows happening as we speak so I don't think there's any lack of opportunity They're probably now our lack of resources and I would hope that the developer of this potentially very, very large project would be able to dig a little deeper and try a little harder and help a little more. And I would hope that the environmental community could rally and figure out a project that could be funded and executed in a reasonable time frame. It just seems like if there's goodwill and good faith, there is an opportunity here and I think we should take it.
Supervisor Hartman.
Well, I would agree with my colleague Supervisor Hart and the sentence you were reading was focused on the other money but the developer seemed to suggest that the intent was to pay money and but the expressed intent of this subsection and the developers obligation here under is to initiate planning and restoration efforts And then the clause with the expectation. So planning and restoration efforts, and that's really we can quibble about things but that really is the intent of this section of the agreement.
And I believe that reasonable assistance would apply not just to the Dos Pueblos Creek restoration efforts but to the alternative and I think We really are quibbling if we don't think that it would apply to both. So the one creek I think Supervisor Hart left out is Barone Ranch, the Arroyo Camado Creek. We do have dire needs for work on creeks currently. on the Gaviota Coast in the burn area. And I would like to see the parties come together and think about how to address some of those needs so that we can point to a public benefit.
I believe that the county can give the developer notice of its failure to perform, and I believe there is a failure to perform, and the developer would then have 30 days to cure Or longer if that failure couldn't be cured within that period of time. And that's what I think is required here.
6:01 – 6:1023 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair. First off, Mr. McKenna, it's really good to see you. I haven't seen you in a long time. It's good to have you back in here and I agree with everything you said. When we have five or six attorneys each made an awesome point after every single one was done, I agreed with what they said. And it might be surprising to you but I'm opposed to this development.
I find the Gaviota Coast one of the last open space gems of the central coast in all of California. And I totally agree with you that the public would give us that permission to go ahead and deny this, and I think that's pretty much what you're saying is we would have the cover to do that. Well maybe that's what I interpreted. But I don't think that's, it might be the spirit of the way that IDA was written because that happened before I came along. But it's not to me in the letter of what he was required to do.
And so for me, that's kind of what it comes down to yes and it might end up being great anyway that I would imagine there'll probably be three votes to send the developer back and come up with something else which if he agrees to do that, that would be fantastic But I would support staff's determination on this, unfortunately.
Thank you Supervisor Labadino. Supervisor Williams?
Thank you. The intent of this agreement has not been followed through with. You know, I find the arguments of the applicant to be maybe legalistic would be the right term in theology. It's sort of like how can you cleave to the letters without doing any of the intent? And I have a problem with that And I do believe that we should direct staff to prepare the findings to uphold the appeal.
And that will, in my view or my reading it does trigger a meet and confer as the agreement states, a meet and confer stipulation where the applicant has a chance to tell us, the county how this dispute can be resolved. And through that, I hope that we will see creek restoration and actually happen. Because I don't see how it can actually happen without us following that course of action with only $32,000 left over.
Thank you Supervisor Williams. I've got a quick question for County Council. So I'm hearing all this and it seems like The ask is somewhat of a blank check and to the applicant that he needs to write, it seems like a delegation of authority issue. Are we able to condition projects to be able to do something on somebody else's property? I mean isn't that the power of the board?
Mr. Chair, members of the board as a general rule that's correct if you're conditioning a project the focus is the property itself here this is not conditioning a project we are implementing the agreement okay so it's a little bit different circumstance and if the board were to determine that they believe there might be a default, my recommendation would be to continue the item and direct staff to come back with the findings for what is the problem as has been articulated by some of the supervisors. And then that triggers a, then there's a notice of default an opportunity to cure as well as meet and confer opportunity to resolve the dispute between the county and the developer.
So if the agreement goes into default and it's not cured, what happens at that point?
Then the item returns to your board for a termination hearing.
The termination of the development rights?
Of the development agreement.
Development agreement okay.
Not of the permit itself.
Not the permit itself. And, you know, I read through this and I am surprised directions going. I really thought it was frivolous. You know the words on the paper, I think they mean something. I understand that there's intent. It seems that a poet is wishing it said something else and that's why I support the director's determination. I think it's really a legal decision that needs to be made.
I can't get there to think that it's a blank check, that he needs to have this accomplished or he's in default. It's really clear to me that there was an ask for $400,000. $300,000 was supposed to go towards this nonprofit to attract more money and he's satisfied that. I'm disappointed too. I think it would have been great to see the restoration there and I hope that there is an opportunity for more restoration opportunities along the Gaviota Coast but I can't make the findings that the director erred in her determination So somebody wants to make a motion?
Supervisor Hartman.
Oh, okay. Yes I do believe that there was an obligation to have restoration occur and I believe the developer's obligation was to use all reasonable assistance even for a backup project So I believe there aren't adequate findings or demonstrated evidence that there was all reasonable assistance on the backup project, at least not in the record as we see it. So I would move that the county give the developer notice of his failure to perform and the developer then would have time to cure this. I think this is covered in section 1001 of the agreement, this process so that would be what would guide Efforts going forward.
And let me ask a question about
that motion.
Well, let me see if I get a second to second the motion. Supervisor Hart seconded it and Supervisor
would that with that motion be includes inclusive of asking staff to return with the findings? That is typically the way we would do it.
Yes, we would have to comply with county council's advice that we come back
And that's my recommendation that you actually continue the motion would be included continuance and direction to staff to come back with. With findings and a notice consistent with what the supervisors have outlined.
OK, can do it later today or another date?
Mr Chair, I think we will need some time to be able to draft this. Ms. Van Molen, I would prefer not to set a hard date until I can speak with staff about when we think we can come back. So I think the protocol is to take it off the agenda, not just continue it indefinitely. How do you want to handle that?
Mr. Chair and members of the board, rather than continue it, I'd just make a motion for direct staff Prepare the findings and prepare the evidence, and then return to your board. And then the staff can establish what date works for that.
So that's the new motion? OK, and that's acceptable to the seconder of the motion. All right. So I think we have a motion is second. Is there any further discussion?
6:10 – 6:2310 turns
And Mr. Chairman, I'll just add that our office can work with planning and development on whether or not requires any additional noticing when we return
All right, thank you. Okay, Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Roll-call vote Failed 2–2
Show transcript
Motion passes three to two. Okay
Thank You everybody So our next item on agenda is departmental item number four Clerk will you please read that item into the record. Five minutes? Okay actually we're gonna take a quick five-minute break before we get started here. All right, welcome back.
Next item on the agenda, departmental item number four. Madam Clerk, will you please read that into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding case number 21-APL27, Bien Nacido Vineyards at all appeal of the planning commission approval of the Cannarios LLC Cannabis Cultivation Project. Case number 19-LUP116, and this is in the fifth district And Chair Nelson, members of the board. Additionally before we get started with the staff presentation we do have a number of documents received after noon on Friday to be voted into the record in order to be considered today.
First off we have a replacement Exhibit G from Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck that was sent from the applicant Amy Steinfeld on Friday December 10th at 1243 p.m. We have a planning and development memo with two attachments received from Planning and Development staff Friday, December 10th at 4.03 p.m. Additionally we had an applicant response letter from Brandon Gazepke On Monday, December 13th at 1151 AM. A replacement PowerPoint presentation from the appellant Courtney Taylor on Monday, December 13th at noon.
A public comment letter from Renee O'Neill on Monday, December 13 at 429 PM and a PowerPoint presentation from the applicant Amy Seinfeld on Monday, December 13th at 458 PM and a memo from Dr. Jim McCord at Linker from the appellant Courtney Taylor received Tuesday, December 14th at 1.06 p.m.. And in order to be considered for today's presentation or appeal it would need to be voted into the record for
approval.
Mr. Chair I'd like to make a motion and move all of those into the public record please. Second.
So motion by Lavinino second by Hartman. Roll call vote.
Supervisor Williams?
6:23 – 6:3611 turns
Aye.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had a site visit where I visited with Mr. Maldonado and Brandon Gusecki on June 19th of 2019.
It's been a while and then also went out last, then I had a meeting at my office on the 9th of this month. Then yesterday in beautiful conditions, I did a site visit with Courtney Taylor and Mr. Marshall Miller and got to hear their side of the argument.
Thank you. Supervisor Williams?
I met with Courtney Taylor and Marshall Miller on Friday and I believe did a call either on Wednesday or Thursday with Amy Steinfeld and Mr. Maldonado
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman? Yes, last Friday afternoon I did a site visit with Courtney Taylor and Marsha Miller at their property and then immediately drove next door to meet with Abel Maldonado, Brandon Gazdecki and Mr. Maldonado's two sons to hear their side of the story too. It was freezing cold. Supervisor Hartman
I had a Zoom meeting with Mr. Maldonado and then another Zoom meeting with Mr. Miller and Courtney Taylor.
Thank you, and I had a site visit. an area visit with Mr. Marshall Miller and Courtney Taylor on December the 10th, on Friday. As I was exiting, I had a brief discussion with Mr. Gusecki and Mr. Maldonado. Also had a phone call with the two of them yesterday afternoon. So with that, staff?
Mr. Chair, members of the board as Ms. Alexander indicated we have an appeal of the decision to approve the Cannabis Project by the Planning Commission and today we have Aaliyah Vosburgh and she is available via Zoom. She's the planner on the case. We have Joe Dargle Supervising Planner and Travis Seward Deputy Director are all available to answer any questions with that I will turn it over to Miss Vosburgh
Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and members of the board. My name is Aaliyah Vosburgh and I'll be presenting the Yan Nacito Vineyards Appeal of the Canna Rios Cannabis Cultivation Land Use Permit Case Numbers 21 APL 27 and 19 LUP 116. We have the slides up? Thank you. So this slide shows a vicinity map of the project site, which is located on a 431 acre property in the Santa Maria area at the junction of Fox and Canyon Road and Santa Maria Mesa Road approximately six miles east of the City of Santa Maria and approximately two miles northwest of the town of Sisquioch.
The property is bisected by the Sisquioch River and bounded on The property is located in the Ag 2100 Zone District and surrounding land uses include field crops to the north, west and south. Aggregate mining to the southeast and vineyards to the east and north. Next slide please. So this project was considered by the Planning Commission on appeal and on May 5th 2021, the Planning Commission granted de novo approval of the project Following that May 5th approval, minor changes were made to the design of the project to attempt to address some of the appellant's concerns. Those changes include a reconfiguration of the project layout to allow for a 1,000 foot setback from the location of the appellants wine tasting room to the proposed cannabis cultivation, a reduction of the proposed staging area and compost and waste storage areas Next slide.
So the modified project, which includes the changes just discussed is a commercial cannabis cultivation operation that includes 46.29 acres of outdoor mature plant The mature plant cultivation area will include approximately 36 acres of proposed hoop structures and the cannabis nursery area will include approximately one acre of proposed hoop structures. Additionally, the project includes a half-acre transport staging area. This transport staging area is an open area that will be used for weighing and recording, boxing, and vehicle loading for movement of harvested cannabis offsite.
All harvested cannabis will be transferred offsite for processing the same day it was harvested, and there will be no processing of harvested cannabis on the project site. Support structures and improvements under the scope of the project include five 280 square foot storage containers, one 224 square foot temporary office trailer and installation of fencing lighting and landscape screening.
The proposed operation will require 24 regular full time employees and a maximum of 43 additional seasonal employees who would be employed on site for a maximum of 60 days per year. Next slide please. So this slide shows an overview of the project footprint on the subject property. As you can see, the project is limited to the portion of the property that is east of the Sisquauk River and south of the Quiama River with all components of the projects set back a minimum of 200 feet from top of bank.
Next slide. And this slide depicts a more detailed view of the project site with the proposed outdoor mature plant cultivation area shown in yellow, the proposed nursery shown in pink and the proposed transport staging area shown in purple. Additionally there's a compost area shown in blue, a parking and overflow equipment storage areas shown in orange, and the proposed cargo containers and temporary office trailer circled in red.
Next slide. So on May 17, 2021 the appellant filed a timely appeal of the project originally citing six main issues as the basis of the appeal. For Appeal Issues 1 and 3, the appellant asserts that the project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Environment Code and fails to comply with the Williamson Act. In response, staff finds the project was approved in compliance with the applicable policies and standards set forth in the LUDC on the comprehensive plan as described in sections 6.3 and 6.4 of the Planning Commission Staff Report and discussed in the Board Agenda Letter.
Additionally, the AgPERS Advisory Committee reviewed the proposed project and voted to find the project consistent with the uniform rules and compliant with the Williams Act. Next slide. So under the second appeal issue of failure to comply with CEQA, the appellant provided several arguments including one that the PEIR relied on the Ag Preserve Advisory Committee's review of proposed cannabis projects under the uniform rules to ensure compatibility and the amendment to the uniform rules after certification of the PEIR represents a change to the circumstances under which a project is undertaken and allows for new or substantially increased impacts to agriculture.
Two, that amendments to the right-to-farm ordinance after PEIR certification make odor mitigation on Ag Tucson parcels now feasible. And three, that new information of substantial importance has become available showing the project will have substantially increased impacts on agriculture and air quality. In response, staff finds each appeal issue related to CEQA are discussed at length in the board agenda letter. In summary, the PEIR anticipated amendments to the uniform rules and did not rely on APAC review to ensure compatibility.
The right-to-farm ordinance did not preclude jurisdictions from applying odor mitigation measures to cannabis projects at the time of the PEIR certification The appellant has not provided substantial evidence to demonstrate new or substantially more significant effects to agriculture air quality. And finally, the project is within the scope of the PEIR and no subsequent or supplemental environmental review is required. Next slide.
For Appeal Issues 4 and 5, the appellant asserts that the required finding for approval that the project site is in compliance with all laws regulations and rules pertaining to uses cannot be made because the applicant expanded beyond the legal non-conforming status and the applicant or previous property owner unlawfully modified the Quiama River to allow for a low river crossing to the adjacent parcel to the north.
In response, staff finds the required findings for approval of the project can be made. Staff has reviewed available records and has not found record a violation or substantial evidence that a violation exists on the property and upon approval the project will be in full compliance with all laws rules and regulations. Next slide. For appeal issue six, the appellant claims that the applicant has not obtained Next slide.
In response, staff finds the well sharing agreement does not require the applicant to obtain consent or approval from the appellant for use of the well planning and development does not adjudicate private agreements and the applicant has demonstrated that adequate water service So on December 24th, 2021, the appellant submitted a supplemental appeal letter containing additional field issues. In the supplemental appeal letter, the appellate asserts that new information has become available showing that the project will have substantially increased impacts on air quality resulting from cannabis biogenic VOCs contribution to the formation of ozone and change in the change in the Santa Barbara County and SLO counties attainment status for ozone And two, that the PEIR fails to adequately consider hydrofluorocarbon emissions associated with the project's freezing operations.
In response staff finds the formation of ground level ozone was discussed in the PEIR and the PEIRE found that emissions from operations of cannabis activities could potentially violate an air quality standard and result in cumulative net increase of a criteria pollutant including ozone for which the county is in non-attainment The appellant has not produced substantial evidence to demonstrate that potential air quality impacts associated with the proposed project are substantially more severe than those discussed in the PEIR, or that biogenic VOCs generated by outdoor cultivation in rural areas of this county can generate significant air quality impacts by contributing to the formation of ozone or secondary chemicals.
Additionally, fluctuations in attainment classifications do not constitute new information showing this project will have different or more significant effects on the environment than those examined in the PEIR. The PEIR's conclusion that the projects contribution to cumulative air quality impacts would be significant and unavoidable and this conclusion did not hinge on air quality classifications at any single point in time.
And then finally, as previously noted the project has been revised to remove the proposed flash freezer and the project no longer includes freezing operations. Next slide. On December 7, 2021 the appellant submitted a third 137 page supplemental appeal letter. Staff reviewed this supplemental appeal letter and found the appeal issues raised are without merit and provided a response to the appeal issues raised in the staff memorandum dated December 10th.
With that, staff recommends the board deny the appeal. Make the required findings for approval of the project. Determine that the previously certified PEIR is adequate and no subsequent environmental review is required. And finally grant de novo approval of the modified project case number 19LUP116. That concludes staff's presentation and we are available to respond to any questions. Thank you.
Thank You Ms. Fosberg. Any questions from the Board?
6:36 – 6:4313 turns
The way it sounded is that to challenge the project environmental analysis, to challenge it is like the burden of proof shifts and somehow it's a substantial evidence on the standard on the appellant. Is that correct?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. That is my understanding, yes, because this project has is under the scope of a previously prepared EIR to require subsequent environmental review. There must be substantial evidence to demonstrate that there is a new or more significant effect on the environment. I don't know if County Council wants to comment on that as well.
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hartman, that's correct I don't have the section it's there's certain standards that you have to meet if you're going to require more environmental review I can pull that up if you'd like and then we have to have evidence basically evidence of new circumstances information that was not known yes yes
but yeah I wouldn't call about a substantial evidence standard what that shifts the burden of proof it's just there are new conditions that merit further study
Correct. And it's usually the burden would be on us if we were going to require additional review, then we would need evidence to show that one of those things had occurred.
Thank you. Any other questions? Supervisor Williams.
Yeah, I have a couple questions. There is kind of just a question of low density or high density cultivation in the amount So I just wanna understand, is that put in the land use permit or in the business license permit? And it sounds to me like that density of acreage is in the business license permit. Is there anything wrong with putting that in the land use permit as well?
Supervisor Williams through the chair. The Land Use and Development Code does not require us to, or it does not have any policies to restrict the density I believe that is something that is part of the business license application but I can't say with certainty but just speaking to the land use entitlement it is not something that we ask applicants to identify as it's not a code requirement. And so it is, it is not within our project description for that reason.
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman?
I had a question about hoops. The project as originally proposed, I believe had fewer hoops and more were added. I think on the assumption that hoops could better control some of the odor impacts, is that true? Is that a correct assumption?
Um, Supervisor Hartman through the chair. I believe hoop structures provide, I think several benefits. I think it's well accepted that that is the case and that is Potentially some, some odor benefits but I think more so that it reduces the water use demand for because it reduces evapotranspiration. Additionally, it also provides or tends to provide kind of additional screening and I know that there's At times or that has come up previously, a concern about pesticide drift on neighboring conventional agricultural operations and hoop structures provide like a secondary benefit or barrier to any potential pesticide drift coming from neighbors.
I think that answers your question but let me know if I can provide more.
That's good. Thank you very much. My question has to do with, it's in the board letter when there is discussion about the conflicts between legacy agriculture and this project that the DPR, Department of Pesticide Regulations does not allow substantial drift, pesticide drift onto non-target crops or non-target private property Would this project potentially be impacted by a less than substantial drift
event? I think what I would say is planning does not regulate pesticide drift. Pesticide application is regulated at the state level, so I think we would be hesitant to try to define the state's term in that way. Because pesticide application is regulated by the state, by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. And then also at the local level, DPR works closely with ag commissioners who kind of serve as the primary enforcement agent of the state pesticide laws and regulations. It's outside of planning purview. I think if this issue were to arise with this project it would be a civil issue or a jurisdictional issue for the agencies that have I'd like to start by saying that we do not have authority to regulate pesticide application.
Um, what? We can say you know on just a broader level on this issue is the Commissioner's office did convene a working group consisting of cannabis farmers, conventional crop farmers and pesticide applicators with the goal of being able to identify potential solutions Aimed at helping these industries coexist, including best management practices for pesticide application to help reduce the risk of drift as well as recommendations to help foster communication between adjacent farmers.
6:43 – 6:568 turns
Thank you and I guess the bigger point I'm trying to make is that somebody can legally apply Their pesticides and it may still have an impact, which I think I understand that cannabis has a zero tolerance for any type of residue. Is that correct?
Mr. Chair, yes that is correct the testing requirements for cannabis are very high and so yeah I think right now it's very hard to determine what will transpire out there it's really too speculative for us to know if something could happen I mean it's conceivable but there's just no way to predict it
All right, any other questions for staff before we go to the appellant? Seeing none. Ms. Taylor. Welcome and you have 10 minutes for your presentation.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Courtney Taylor appearing on behalf of my clients who are collectively the Miller family and Bienesito Vineyards I'm just gonna quickly, you guys know enough about the history. Just quickly to set the stage this is the adjacent Bienecito Vineyards where the appellant is situated. You can see it's a wide open vast agricultural area. The appellants property is directly to the east of the proposed project.
Just to quickly orient the board We've created a map that depicts the general area of the project, my client's adjacent land uses and the project scope. We've overlaid the site plan on the parcel so you can really see the scope there and the most relevant things to look at on these two different maps are the rivers that are abutting the Project Parcel to the north and the west And the close proximity of the parcel to two downwind stationary sources for emissions of NOx and particulate matter.
So you've heard a lot of different project issues that have been outlined by staff today. They've done a great job tackling all of the different legal issues that we have thrown at them in this appeal today for the purposes of the presentation will be focusing on six issues that we believe need to be addressed today and provided that the staff provides more clarity on these specific issues before your board has the substantial evidence needed to make the findings that you are legally required to do today So, I also just want to quickly make a note that we have received a lot of information at the last moment with some pretty site-specific analyses on the environmental effects of this project from the applicant team. We have struggled to review this in a very short time frame.
This is unfortunately the scenario that CEQA really tries to avoid where We have upfront review of these issues by the county rather than having to rely on last minute submissions from an applicant expert team. So with that in mind, I want to first start talking about the analysis of the wells on site. So originally we conducted an analysis of well number one.
This was the well indicated on multiple revisions of the project plans as the well source for the project. We undertook analysis by our hydrogeologists to understand, based on the well completion report provided for Well Number 1, how that well may interact with subsurface flows and be subject to the State Water Board's mandatory forbearance periods for diversion of surface waters which do include subsurface streams.
We learned on Friday afternoon that the applicant has suggested that they move, was proposed to move the well from well number one which you see in red here to well number two. Which is not depicted on any of the supply line diagrams the board has before you today. Again this is a project that was revised multiple times always referencing well not one we relied on that assumption and thus conducted our own hydrogeological study based out of information Since that time again, the applicant has moved to well number two which we are unclear how that is planned to service the property given the site plans we have currently in the record.
To further complicate matters, the applicant has noted that the well completion report that we have analyzed for a well number one is actually the well completion report for well number two and so we are not clear which well completion report is in the record To further complicate things, the longitude and latitude on the well completion report point to a site on San Luis Obispo County side on a parcel there also owned by the applicant's family.
So, we haven't really had adequate time to review well number two given this recent change. In the limited time our hydrogeologist was able to confirm that his analysis does not change despite the move to this other well and that his prior analysis with respect to well number one does apply here. The well is still close enough to the rivers that there are interaction between the subsurface streams with respect to well number two and that the cannabis policy from the State Water Board would still apply despite the change to this new well location. And we have Dr. McCord on Zoom who will be available for questions after the presentation should you have about this topic. I'm going to skip past air quality impacts and save that for the end of my presentation.
With respect to compost, there is no detail within the project site plans or description that gives any indication about how the compost or waste areas will be constructed or managed To be clear, the scale of this composting proposed and in such a concentrated manner is really not typical for agriculture in the Santa Maria Valley. Differs greatly from what other farms have proposed and how any other farm in the valley operates. We feel confident making that statement. Most haul their compost off to England Gray so this is a different set of circumstances than you would see from typical farming at this type of concentration. We did receive more information on Friday about this site and the operations. The big change there that is now a concern is a proposal to dry cannabis waste onsite in this area for a 90-day stockpiling period, so that raises concerns about what the mass is and the odors that would be coming off of that site.
Further, without any further description of this area or understanding how it's managed, it is very difficult and we cannot find substantial evidence in the record that there has been an assessment whether this site and the location of the compost area would impact Steelhead in the Santa Maria River directly adjacent because it is likely from rain events that there would be runoff. And this is an area that does flood so we believe that has not been analyzed.
Lastly, there are potentially VOC emissions coming from this compost area and without further information about how this area will be operated. It is very challenging for the county or our team to understand what the emissions may be from that area. Again we do have additional information as of Friday about this area. Many of the assumptions in the applicant's emissions calculations go to Supervisor Williams' question with respect to plant density, how many plants per acre? How big are the plants and this 90 day stockpiling. So there's some very fundamental assumptions in the operational report and the applicant's calculations with respect to environmental impacts that hinge on those factors. So we would suggest that the board consider incorporating those operational limitations and assumptions into the project so that we can be sure those calculations are correct.
All right, next moving on to the project trucking and emissions. As of 8 a.m. this morning we do have additional information on applicants' operations and we believe that the applicant should be required to revise their projects to incorporate the information we received this morning to reflect the realities of the project's operations. To again, the analogy that I've been using with my client is you can't prepare an emissions factor report using a study fleet of Chevy Volts and then operate the project using Ford F-150s.
The applicant needs to commit to the assumptions and parameters in their operating procedures that they've provided and the subsequent calculations that stem from that, to ensure they're accurate and that the project is actually operated in the manner that's been proposed today. The next issue is a berm that is located on the project site. The board letter and the applicant have incorrectly identified the berm as wholly within San Luis Obispo County, when in fact the majority of the berm is actually located in Santa Barbara County. The actual construction berm that diverts the Cuyama River is on the project parcel site in San Luis Obispo County.
Given the proximity of the property line of the appellants and the large mass of soil that was moved to create a berm of this size, these construction activities are not exempt from grading permit requirements. The area is clearly used for activities related to the project site. I think it's unrealistic to expect this area would not be utilized, as it has been in the past for project activities on the parcel.
This access road is also the sole means of access to the applicant San Luis Obispo County parcel where, as we understand it, the operators of the project live. So this site, this road and this berm will be used on a daily regular basis for access to the project site so we do believe It is part of the project and as the board has done in the past with all other cannabis land use permits, this is the time to correct violations on the project parcel in connection with the approval or hopefully denial of the land use permit for your board today.
Want to touch on the air quality impacts that have been referenced. I know I'm running out of time, but essentially we have a very, very specific sensitive site with two downstream downwind, excuse me, emitters of NOx and particulate matter. And this requires site-specific analysis. There is no way that the programmatic EIR reviewed these specific set of facts that we had before us Further, the research regarding BDOCs and the emissions from the cannabis plant itself did not come to light until after the programmatic EIR was certified. That is new information so we have met our burden with that fact alone. Second again site-specific impact this is directly across the county line from San Luis Obispo who is in nonpayment for federal NAC. So I know I'm out of time so I'm gonna wrap up As we presented, the project cannot be approved today with the evidence you have in the record.
Our team further has not had an opportunity to review many of the materials submitted by the applicant and we find it challenging that the county may rely on these late submissions that came after their staff report was prepared to show that there was substantial evidence in the record before those items were submitted some of which came in just today so we respectfully request your board uphold our appeal and deny the project, or at the very least we would really appreciate careful consideration of the issues we've raised to ensure they are thoughtfully reviewed with an objective analysis prior to project approval.
Thank you so much for your time and thank you Chair for letting me go a bit over and our team is available here and on Zoom for any questions you may have.
Thank You Ms. Taylor.
All right thank you.
Are there any questions from the board? Okay, seeing none. Let's hear from the applicant and let's go ahead and add a minute-and-a-half to the applicant's time.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and Honorable Supervisors. I'm counsel for Canarios. I am here with Abel and Brandon Maldonado. And also our experts are on Zoom. We have Trey Driscoll, our hydrologist, Dr. William Biswate, our air quality expert, and we also have Adam Pohl, a senior air quality specialist from DUDEX. We worked with all these experts to address every single issue that was identified by BNECEDO And all of our reports demonstrate that this project will not have any adverse impacts and in fact will be an improvement over baseline conditions.
Please do not hesitate to ask any of our experts any questions, and with that I'm going to turn it over to Abel.
6:57 – 7:061 turns
Thank you Amy and thank you members of the board for having me here I was walking over here from Amy's office, and I looked at the courthouse. And I looked at the top and it says Dios nos dio los campos. The good Lord gave us the fields. How appropriate is that for today? Because I was raised in the fields of the Santa Maria Valley, my mother and father worked the fields of the Santa Maria Valley, my kids are still working the fields of the Santa Maria Valley.
The Santa Maria Valley fields have given my family everything and we would never do anything to harm those fields that continue to give so much to our community. Mr. Chairman and members of the board, for the record I'm Abel Maldonado. I was born and raised in Santa Maria. 33 years ago I founded this company named Agro Hall Farms. I served my community for many, many years at the local level, at the legislative level, and actually a little bit at the executive branch. When I returned back to Santa Maria, I divested from Agro Hall Farms. I am no longer connected to the company and I started a small family company with my two boys, my daughter and my wife Laura.
We have raised all of our kids on this beautiful property. And 4-H, FFA, you name it. Erica, Nicholas and myself are all Cal Poly alum. We love the community. We love the area. In 2008, my daughter planted a beautiful vineyard on this property and she's the one that came up with the name Runway. Why? She said dad I like fashion, I like runways okay so let's name it Runways. So we are very lucky for all that she's done. She is the winemaker.
It's rare that you see women winemakers but she is one of the best in my mind and I'm really proud of her. My two other sons, Marcus and Nicholas, they're on the farm every day. We farm strawberries and avocados. And I have another son, Dino, but he plays football in New Mexico State University. He's not on the farm. In 2018, I met a doctor named Dr. What a man. He is the leader and he's the director of the Technion Institute in Israel, and we started talking about what he does. And it's—he was involved in CBD and industrial hemp.
He introduced it to me. He introduced me to a doctor at UC Davis named Dr. Rogowski, the head of neurology, and they talked to me about bees. And on this farm my boys, we decided you know we can't compete as a new small family farm. We can't compete with big Big corporate companies in Santa Maria that do the vegetables that we learned, because you can't do it today. Because today you either got to be really really big or really really really small and if you try to compete with the big guys you can imagine what happened. So Dr. Diddy came to our farm and we started doing industrial hemp And it's been a love for the plant and a love for the land because hemp actually cleaned our farm. It is a great plant that cleans the farm, and if you do it right with right genetics I think it's a great plant for the county as well.
We planted in 2018, 150 acres of industrial hemp. In 2019 we did 330 acres of industrial hemp and in 2020 we did 125 acres of industrial hemp. In 2021 we didn't plant it because we have a project that are going to put on the land and we decided to wait and the land has just been vacant since. Why do I bring this up? 605 acres of industrial hemp over the last three years on this ranch. 2.4 million plants of industrial hemp, eight foot tall and 20 feet from Bien Nacido Vineyards and the Miller family property.
My daughter has had her vineyard eight feet from all these industrial hemp plants. Zero issues with our wine. Fact of the matter, our wines have never been better. So we actually tasted some of the Biennacitos wine because I like Biennacito's wines and in 2018 you should see the tasty notes that they have written about their wines. Of how beautiful and fresh and raspberry none of them mention industrial hemp.
Anyways what's the difference between the two plants? Hemp and cannabis, really there's nothing. Just like when you have bell peppers some geneticists took out the green and put red and yellow and purple peppers. Cauliflower some geneticist took out the white cauliflower made it purple in this process some geneticist took out the cannabinoid that everybody knows called THC.
So it is a cannabis plant without THC So through all this process, we've been at it for two years and eight months. We've applied for an extension to get an LPU. We were approved in February the 8th, and then Biennacito and the Miller family decided to appeal my project. They had some issues at the time. Actually my brother and my sister, believe it or not, they appealed my project as well on the basis of overspray. Which actually shocked me because in California under the California Department of Pesticide Regulation you cannot overspray any field.
We went to the Planning Commission we were approved 5-0 and that's where I kind of figured out that I'm just negotiating with myself. What do I mean by that? Courtney, counsel to the Miller family said there's zero compatibility here. No matter what I do. And then Mr. Marshall Miller who is here today came up and said to Commissioner Park, He really worked hard to bring us together, to get something to move forward because at the end of the day nobody wants to argue with their neighbors. That's not what we do! I don't believe that's what they do but in the same token Commissioner Park did everything he spent five hours at my farm Marshall Miller told him Mr. Maldonado would have to move the mountain behind his house and he would have to move the Pacific Ocean for us to be happy with this project.
Well, I don't know where I can get an RFP to move the Pacific Ocean at this time but it made it very clear to me that there isn't anything I could do to make them happy. That's just an arrogant comment in my mind and right after that the commission voted five to zero to support this project and to oppose their appeal. After the committee, I didn't have to do anything But I took everything that Commissioner Park brought to this table. And I took it to heart and I told all my team, do what he said.
Eliminate the flash freezer, increase the setbacks, increase the front distance from the beginning of the property, increase landscaping. So here we are. The last minute and there's more stuff coming every time. We are an Act II zone. Our acreage is 430 acres in that parcel. I could have asked for 130 acres, I could have used 50 foot setbacks and I didn't want to do any of that.
We have a great project here. I want to say it's the best cannabis project in the county of Santa Barbara. I'll put it up against anybody 100% organic 2.4 million plants of hemp versus 400,000 plants of cannabis? That's a huge difference. And I'm almost done Amy. They appealed the project again and how do I feel about this? You know in the political world toward the end of a campaign we call it silly season.
They just start throwing everything at it. This is silly season! It really is the stuff that's coming out and you know I never thought of all my time That a family or business would use CEQA, an important California law, recklessly to try to eliminate a project that's very, very good. I never thought I'd see that! The Miller family is recklessly using CEQAs costing taxpayer money, it's costing jobs, wasting county staff.
They also went on—they really want Just make changes. They're using CEQA to downsize my project, it's been downsized. They want to delay my project, it's been delayed and they want to get concessions and they've gotten concessions! I just can't move the Pacific Ocean or the mountain behind my house. And thirdly, they'd like me to use the County of San Luis Obispo rules, ordinances and laws You can't break the law in the County of Santa Barbara and use some other county's rules to continue my project.
Unacceptable!
7:06 – 7:1516 turns
Since we're running out of time, I want to briefly hit the issues raised by Ms. Taylor. So first the reason why we moved the well up closer to the project is because we moved the whole project north to provide a bigger buffer to their tasting room. Well number two as you can see is located over 3,000 feet from the Cuyama River and 2,000 feet from the Sisquah. We had two experts opine there is no way that they could be diverting surface water so that's the first point And I do want to pop into compost. So, composting is a beneficial practice for soil health. We are not using the hot composting method. The items that will be dried out and tilled back and mulched back into the soil are things like stalks I'd like to start by saying thank you so much for the opportunity to be here today.
And then just in closing on air quality, we did three site-specific studies on GHG, greenhouse gases, VOCs and terpene taint. And all of them showed no impact from the farm. So with that, we would request that you approve the project and allow the Maldonado family to continue to farm on a sustainable basis. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from the board? The applicant, Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, I have a couple of questions. So could you talk more about the compost site? I know you sent a late submission but I'd just like to hear given that you're tilling in a lot of the plant, you're taking the flowers trucking them elsewhere what goes in the compost site and why is it so big?
Sure, and I can kind of walk through on this slide cultivation methods. So we probably oversized the compost and waste area. We do not think we will need something of that size but we just in abundance of caution wanted to size it. And by the way, we put it in the back of the project so it's further away from the Beandecito Farm. So first just as this is the quick kind of overview of what happens on a cannabis farm So clones are planted, and then about two to four weeks prior to harvest they do something called big leafing. So it's a common practice—you remove the big leaves that don't contain the THC levels, etc., and the purpose of that process is to ensure that you're allowing the flower, the colas, to receive more air and sunlight. So pruning is a common practice of live plants for really any type of agricultural commodity.
So those leaves, the big leaves will be weighed because you have to account for your waste right under California laws. Then those will either be spread in the field or taken to the compost facility and once they're dried they'll be tilled back in. So due to summer heat that happens pretty quickly. The next step is when they come into harvest, they come and they cut off the very large branches and the colas themselves, the flowers. And those are immediately put into very large We're talking, you know, ag boxes which are cardboard. They have holes in them for aeration etc., and then placed into the trucks and there's up to two trucks per day. These are fairly large trucks but you can see here we will never exceed two trucks per day and we actually estimate that we will use about 26 truck trips to King City per harvest So we're not, you know, we looked at their 600 number truck trips and that was really based on what was interesting about that.
It was based on studies from 1992 from hemp from other counties even other countries and so we were a little disappointed because as you all know there is quite a bit of cannabis in this county and they could have come to us to ask whether methodology And we wanted to be transparent to the board, because I know there's a lot of concern over what is happening on these cannabis farms. So Brandon is here. He provided a detailed memo to your board which really explains the process. So I hope that answered your question.
That helps. Thank you. So you expanded the number of hoops from what to what?
You know, I might let Brandon answer that. We have, I believe, 35 now And part of that was also we talked about the good neighbor agreement, the settlement with Abel's brother. So we know that the hoops since his brother plants conventional ag on the other side of Abel's farm, we knew the hoops would protect from over spray so that was one reason but what is the exact number?
Oh, so it's now two-thirds of our cultivation operation are under hoops. And the reason why we did that is Amy stated to help protect from overspray on both sides because we also have bees on our property and a year and a half ago—and again this Anecdotal can't completely prove it, but we know there was spraying activity going on in one of the Miller's tenants and it did affect our bee colony. And we lost 20 bee colonies because of that, we believe. Can't prove it, but it's highly likely of that. So we found that for cannabis because we're tested particles per billion adding the hoops one does protect from if there is a drift of any odor It does restrict that to some extent, but also it does protect from overspray. So those were two of the main reasons why we did that supervisor and then also as you'll see on the plans, we moved it much further back from the road.
and from their tasting room. So I think that we did the best we could, and we did that based upon, like Abel said, Commissioner Park's suggestions or recommendations, and I think we did a really good job of accomplishing that.
And I have a few more questions. So is it three harvests per year that your permit?
Two harvests.
Two harvests. And to be completed in what period of time?
Well, and this has been—and I've been consistent because I did most of this project data and information. And I spent a lot of time with your planning commission and staff going over everything including the transportation demand plan. That's why I was shocked by the idea that we'd have 600 So I'm going to go ahead and get started. The memo from the Venacino Vineyards consultant, and I was astonished that they would use data from Mississippi and from Latvia. From studies from 1992 and 2011. And the 2011 Latvia study was on hemp.
So, I don't know how that had anything to do with our composting or our transportation. And the transportation photos that they used were from a news article about a 700 plant farm one acre in Northern California. Again as Amy said there's plenty of data down here. They could have called us or asked us. They could have talked to the planner. They could have gotten a lot of good data That memo that provided on composting and transportation in a scientific sense has data that is completely flawed and has nothing to do with what we're talking about. That's why I provided you the memo I did, and also the diagram of how we take down the plant When it's fully grown to when it's harvested. And
then I had another question, could you talk about the berm? Did that have proper permits?
Yes, we talked a lot about that actually we had let's see three biological reports from different biologists that we paid besides what you guys do in the county side We also had Fish and Wildlife out there twice. I also worked very closely with the Regional Water Board, and this isn't just my only project. I also besides being a partner on this project supervisor consult with many other folks throughout the state on cannabis regulations so I deal with fish and wildlife The regional water board and all the other agencies that regulate cannabis on a regular basis. And I can tell you, I think that our project is probably one of the most environmentally friendly projects that's ever been proposed in Santa Barbara County if not the state.
My question really had to do more, we've had another project that we found out later had unpermitted activities occurring. So I'm very eager and I guess staff can
answer this. One of the claims in their memos is that there's violations There are no violations. There are no active violations and I think staff should answer that question.
Thank you. Mr. Chair, Supervisor Hartman, I'm going to have Mr. Joe Dargal bring up a slide and then he'll discuss what it is that we researched and found.
7:16 – 7:2413 turns
Okay, thank you Chair and Supervisors. What you'll see on the screen here in front of you is this is a snapshot of a lot line adjustment that was completed in 2016 for the subject parcel. And you'll see in red what's circled is this area of what's a low creek crossing and then what goes down south that just barely crosses the property line as you can kind of see in the aerial photo That's the berm. That's in question.
And so what staff has found there we go, it's back. So what staff has found is that we do not have any permits for any grading in this area but oh, there we go. So we've done a review of aerial photos dating back through on the site, and the earliest that we've seen any changes in topography was between I believe 1969 and 1978. That's when the area changed.
And so we would have to do more research to determine whether or not any permits would be required at that point in time, but when you do look at all of our mapping system, you can see that the USGS Blue Line Creek and the bounds of the creek are all established based on the acknowledgement of that existing berm. So it dates back to quite some time And that's essentially the review that we have completed. We've also reached out to the different responsible agencies and they have indicated that, so Fish & Wildlife and we've also contacted the Water Board and they've indicated that they do not have any violations for this work and they do not, oh and we reached out to Slope County as well which as you can see a majority of the work that was done is in Slope County and they have no violations for the work that was completed.
Thank you. Any other questions from the board? Okay, so it's time for public comment. Madam Clerk do we have any public speakers on this item?
Yes, Chair Nelson and members of the Board we have one request to speak on this item and
Hello, can you hear me
okay? Yes we can. Please proceed thank you.
Can you hear me okay?
We can.
Thumbs up maybe?
We're good.
Hello. We can hear you. Thumbs up! Thank you Supervisor Das-Williams I appreciate that. Hello all my name is Christina Medina Dirksen. I'm a council member in the City of Marina California couple counties up from you in Monterey County and like yours ours as much an agricultural community I want to voice my support for this project because I know that Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Gasecki are strong operators.
They are leaders in the ag industry and the cannabis industry. For Mr. Almaldonado, Ag is not just his business it's his livelihood and his legacy. Involving his children they would in no way compromise their livelihood. In fact this project is innovative. It's promised as one like you've never seen before in your county It will benefit your county greatly by bringing in jobs, innovations in agriculture and much needed taxes.
I'm very confident that Mr. Maldonado and Mr. Gusecki and their team have done all that they can possibly even gone beyond to make this project compatible for those reasons. I urge you to support Cano Rios because it is compatible with neighboring farms and it promises to do what no other project in your county And that is to bring together agriculture, cannabis and promise for strong tax dollars in the future. So I urge you to reject the appeal and approve this Cannarios project. Thank you very much for your time and your consideration.
Back to rebuttals at this point, so first the appellant. And you have five minutes Ms. Taylor.
All right thank you so much. So first wanted to just address some of the points made by the applicant. So with respect to the hemp that was previously grown on site I know it's been cited that there were no complaints related to that hemp cultivation but in fact there were pervasive odors on the appellant's parcel that were noted by buyers, the Master Sommelier that works for the appellants. So the fact that there were no complaints does not mean that there were not pervasive odors experienced on the appellant site due to those operations.
With respect to the new well, so that well was not moved until Friday despite the project being moved further north at that time. So we are skeptical that is the motivation for the new well site and again did not have time to really review that new well. Other than we do note that the site plans we have for well number two indicate it's about 900 feet from the river, not the 2200 feet as noted in the applicant's hydrogeologist materials. We're not quite sure where that number has come from.
In terms of that, the wells interaction with surface sub Terranian surface flows. In the very limited time our expert did have to review that, he did confirm and feels very confident that that well number two does also have the same issue with respect to interactions with subsurface flows and would also be subject to and have the same issues with the state water boards cannabis cultivation policy with respect to forbearance periods.
With respect to some of the statements made in terms of this being an abuse of CEQA and a reckless process and a waste of time, we respectfully disagree with the applicant. These are very serious issues to the Miller family. The Miller family established best available control technology for winery emissions. They take air quality very seriously. This is a real issue to them.
And they take having properly permitted river crossings seriously as well. And they can attest to that all of this entire area of the Quiama was blown out in 1998 due to El Nino and releases from the Twitchell Dam, and this was rebuilt in the 90's at some point. So yes perhaps it was built originally in the 60's and 70's but it was rebuilt at some point in 1998 and we have letters in the record from Dalhampton That reference that all of the berms and crossings along this river were blown out in 1998. So this was rebuilt, I think that's an important point to make. In terms of any statements regarding trying to apply San Luis Obispo County law to the project, I think that was sort of a gross mischaracterization. That was actually part of settlement discussions that we had had with the other side to try to resolve this.
We really respect Commissioner Park for his efforts, but he was definitely not speaking on our requests in any conversations he had with the applicant and any changes that were made to the project were not changes that we had requested. I think that's it. I think I don't have anything else to add. Is there any further questions? Again, if there is any questions on the water or the air quality we do have both of our hydrogeologists and our air quality consultant and counsel on Zoom so please take advantage if you need more information.
Thank you Ms. Taylor. And at this time rebuttal from the applicant
7:24 – 7:3113 turns
Yes, thank you. A few points. So Mr. Maldonado purchased the property in 2000 so any change that occurred to the berm happened well before he purchased the property again. He hasn't seen any changes since he's purchased the property it's been thoroughly investigated by both the county and various agencies who have come on site and no one has issued an NOV. With regards to the well, the well number two has been identified on the plans along with three other wells. In addition it was analyzed in 2019 in a report that was sent to the county With regards to the well, it's 600 feet deep. So it's extremely unlikely that it could have any impact on the Quiama or Sisquauk rivers. It's also thousands of feet from those two water bodies.
Also just you know, to ensure that there will be no impacts, the State Water Resources Control Board who has jurisdiction over surface water will be reviewing this well location, Well Number 2 when the project team applies for its state licenses. The State Water Board at that time can make a determination if they're concerned that there's any interference with the surface water bodies. But at this time, we know that this well is highly regulated by the Twitchell Management Authority under the ongoing jurisdiction of the Santa Clara Superior Court who entered a stipulation after 10 years of ongoing litigation over the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. So we have no indication here that this is surface water or will impact the surface water flows in the rivers.
With regards to VOCs, it's interesting that they're talking about their concerns over air quality. The Millers actually lease to Cal Portland which is the large quarry site which is a big source of air pollution. Nonetheless we hired the leading expert Dr. Biswate to conduct a site-specific study using an EPA model and what that model did is it looked at the terpene emissions from the plants.
It looked at the ozone and the NOx levels in the area It took into account the two quarries in the area and it found that as a result of the project, so 48 acres of cannabis would have no increase on ozone in the vicinity. In addition there were two other studies related to GHG gases and terpene taint also found no impacts. So with that thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. All right back to staff. Staff have any additional comments?
Mr. Chair, we do not.
Okay. Additional questions from the board?
Supervisor Hart. Yes I just want to make sure that staff is in concurrence with what I think I heard which is the well was moved from a location that I assume was problematic when it was looked at more carefully in relation to surface water intrusion now it's a completely different location with different hydrology And at the end of the day, the Regional Water Quality Control Board's future review will resolve that question. So it's sort of independent of our authority and outside the purview of our permit. Is that correct?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hart, that is correct. It's ultimately their jurisdiction.
And then regarding compost, the appellants have raised questions about how the composting is being done on site. The operations of it, you know exactly what is being described and it sounded as though last Friday when I was doing site visits and hearing these things there was one level of explanation that was provided to everybody and since then there has been significant additional information about how that's actually going to be done, and you've had a chance to review that. And your evaluation of that is that that is consistent with agricultural practices and it's nothing that raises any concerns to you?
Mr. Chair and Commissioner Hart, or Supervisor Hart, that is correct. We've reviewed that and it meets all the appropriate setbacks that are required for the project and all the different agencies that require
And similarly, in regards to the trucking operations and the vehicle strip and the transportation demand management strategies additional information has been provided. You've had a chance to review it and you think that's consistent with what the applicant has proposed? The Berm, you have independently checked with county planning staff in San Luis Obispo County with the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff and with Fish and Wildlife. And your belief is that the Berm is a historically existing thing that doesn't have any impacts from those agencies' perspective? What about the allegation that that may have been true, but that it was destroyed in the 98 floods and rebuilt without permits?
Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hart, so that is correct that we did complete those reviews and reached out to those agencies and they confirmed there are no violations as far as the reconstruction or repairs of damage that occurred. That information, I don't think we have seen substantial evidence that would really substantiate the claim that it was destroyed and then subsequently repaired. So at this point in time, I don't think that's something that we reviewed fully.
And would that change anything in terms of our permit today?
If we did have substantial evidence that it was destroyed and then subsequently repaired, we would need to look to see whether or not the work that was completed did in fact need permits. And so there's a number of issues that we would look at. Yeah, but then the other component is that the bulk, the majority of that whole berm and the crossing is within San Luis Obispo County.
So there's a very small portion that just barely crosses over into Santa Barbara County. And the other component that we would, I would also want to point out is that whether or not this meets the threshold for the requirement for a grading permit and a land use permit is still unknown. We have a requirement for 50 cubic yards as the threshold for a grading permit and then a subsequent land use permit associated with that.
We don't know if it meets that threshold. So there's a lot of information that we don't have and with it being so old, it'd be very difficult to know at this point.
And the decision that we make today on the cannabis permit doesn't preclude a future violation, allegation of violation that would be investigated and pursued by the department separately from
7:32 – 7:379 turns
this. Mr. Chair and Supervisor Hart, that is correct. Today's action I believe would not preclude the county from investigating this matter further should substantial evidence arise later.
And then the air quality impacts, your point is that yes there are volatile organic compounds that are going to be produced by this cannabis farm but those were contemplated in the project EIR and that is built into the status quo planning efforts in regards to the cannabis program as a whole.
That is correct. The PEIR considered air quality impacts to be a class one impact as part of the program EIR and did analyze biogenic POCs. All
right, thank you very much for those answers.
Thank you Supervisor Hart. Supervisor Williams?
So just my, my question on the first of all I you know I think it's important for any farm to be able to get a chance to compost so that's not where I'm going with this question. I think that's an important thing there should be composting on site however I read the DUDEC analysis for the organics, the green waste and it mentions a 1500 plant density. And I'm just wondering because I couldn't find it in them in the conditions of approval where would that be?
What would be the control of that in our permitting process is In the land use permit somewhere or is that in contemplated to be in the business license? Where would that be?
Mr. Chair and Supervisors, that is not a component within the Land Use Development Code. It's not included as a development standard so we don't have any component from our code that we could use to apply that to this land use permit. And I'm not even sure actually if that's included in the business license as well. We would need to probably defer to the CEO's office on that.
Well, then I guess the question is for that applicant. You know if this is a big issue you've put this out as your plan and apparently is the one issue that I could see has merit because it could determine whether or not your two truck trips a day really is enough I personally appreciate that the applicant went deeper than just saying that the air quality issues were contemplated in the IR.
I've raised the issue with the propellant, that in an area where there's so much organic VOCs It would take an increase in the carbon monoxide or in the other ingredients for smog. You can't increase smog by just having more EOCs without having either more industrial processes, I'm not going to go into the details of that right now. But I do know that truck trips create impacts and so if the truck trips is dependent on And since you already have it in your DUDEC analysis.
Thank you, Supervisor Williams. So if you look at the analysis and the worst case analysis that was done by DUDEC did two analyses. One was GHG from truck trips and vehicle trips from employees. And then they also looked at the green waste, right? So if you look at their analysis, they found that we were both significantly below certain thresholds for the 1,500 plants per acre. At this time I think it would be difficult to commit to we're going to do 1,500 plants per acre over 40 acres that was our best case estimate at this point but I do think we need some level of flexibility as farmers. I also think it would be difficult for P&D to go count every single plant but we can assure you if you look on our plan site or site plans which The second page, we show that we're actually going to have and this kind of goes to your question too Supervisor Williams about you know density and business license versus canopy versus premises area.
You can see that we will have those significant roads, significant rows. So in reality we believe that we're going to have about 50% less density than you would over the 48 acres and you know we've submitted those as our site plans so those roads and rows etc So I hope that answers your question.
7:37 – 7:4311 turns
I understand the need for flexibility in agriculture. have no that mean nothing in the future.
Yeah yeah
I that's why I'm asking it
for questions. Supervisor, I can answer the question I did this did the report was the analysis was based upon Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I know where you're going, and I appreciate it. And I think I'd want to say yes except for market conditions can dictate that we want to have let's say 2,000 plants but those plants will be of the smaller variety bigger colas but smaller size so I wouldn't want to restrict ourselves that way what I can I think we could agree to is that we would keep the net weight whatever the plants are within that structure if that makes sense
Well, I guess this to my colleagues. I don't think that all the issues in the appeal have merit particularly not the air quality one but I also think that the documentation that we use to weigh An appeal should have meaning, and I don't find it acceptable to base a decision on this density and then have it be okay for someone to have it be 33% higher density in the future.
So I guess that's a tough spot to be in. Let me ask
a question. So I guess what it really gets down to though with DAS, mostly worried about the amount of truck trips because that's what it would come down to and I think they've already indicated that. I mean, I don't think it matters how much there...I don't know what your real concern is. Is your real concern like the mass weight or is it how many truck trips are actually leaving?
Because I think that's the easier way that they've already agreed to
limit. My good colleague displays his intelligence to understand that that's the relationship, it's you know we do have a control on truck trips meaning you definitely have indicated And you're right when you say that the truck trips, if it was respected would have a direct relationship with that density. Meaning like if two truck trips is enough at one density, it might not be enough at the higher density and that's sort of my concern. You might consider it belt and suspenders when we already have the prohibition on the two truck trips I just want to make sure that we're not, you know, saying like that. That we only need belt or we only need the suspenders. But I just think that it's It would be better particularly when we're like.
You know, mobbed with evidence by two sides for You know, three trucks per day or more. So I would argue particularly when it's been offered us in writing as a reason for us to deny the appeal that we should have it mean something in the permitting process You know, either through the land use permit or the business license permit.
Thank
you, Supervisor Williams.
Ms. Plummer? Just a point of clarification. Chapter 50 and Chapter 35 have no requirements with respect to this. So this is just something that was prepared as an analysis regarding the composting. But as Supervisor Lavagnino pointed out They have in their transportation demand management is that they will have two truck trips a day. So if they start having more truck trips than that, then that's not consistent with the first condition of their project which is the project description.
In addition, they're composting on site. So the only reason they would be taking anything off-site is if they were composting off-site, right? If it's tied to the compost component of it. But we just don't have any hook to require it.
They still need to take off the leaves. So the only way that would be blown way out of if they weren't composting on site, but they still. The density, the difference between 1500 and 2000 would be a 33% difference in density. One would think that might affect their capacity for truck trips. And I just don't understand why we would weigh this stuff as evidence which we all voted to do unless it actually means something.
People shouldn't be submitting stuff about their operations to prove that we should approve it and I agree that it's been convincing about their operations but that documentation about their operations should have meaning.
7:43 – 7:559 turns
Thank you Supervisor Williams. I'll
ask Mr. Guseck if he'd like to weigh in on that
I would, I think that Supervisor Williams and the rest of the board. What I will say is that our transportation demand plan that we submitted, nothing there that we submitted is inconsistent and we said we do two truck trips a day max for up to 21 days. I stand by that so what I was providing you as analysis of what we are looking to do now but the market could change But believe me, my partner Abel does not want to do more than we would love. We're probably going to find a way to do less than 20 truck trips when it gets down to it. You know gas and transportation is expensive that's why I had to laugh when the appellant submitted a transportation plan that suggested that we could have 1200 The only way that would make sense is if we were transporting our cannabis and stretch limos.
So, we're not doing that. We're going to reduce and avoid as many truck trips as possible but I stand by what we have in the Transportation Demand Plan which was approved by the Planning Commission and my staff is that no more than two per day in a period of three weeks.
Thank you Mr. Kasicki. Other questions from the Board? Okay, so there's no questions here. Let's go ahead and begin deliberations. Supervisor Lavigna?
Thank you Mr. Chair. Well guess what this one is finally in my district John for now. You know I think to Supervisor Williams' point I get what he's saying and I understand we're always about as he says belt and suspenders it's just easier to count two truck trips than it You know, another couple hundred thousand plants. So I think that's a good way to manage that. This one I've paid way more attention to because of the fact that it's in my district and I know this area very well.
And I have to say that always when we end up with an appeal, I'm always disappointed because we have two very intelligent great families in Santa Maria That both do really good things, you know There's no better wine around that I know of then and I'm no offense runway But the end the Cito wines are awesome. Your wines are great too but And you know both families have history and just be nice if everything could work out But at the end of the day, sometimes business is business. And both were very open and kind when I was speaking, when I sat down and went through deliberations, and raised some interesting points.
For me one of the things that I noticed on this one is the strategy seems to be, and I hope others if you're watching whether your consultants, attorneys or whatever, the strategy seems to be Seek concessions, just keep throwing things out. Force the other side to change the plan and then when they do change the plan come in and say we didn't have enough time to review it and we would like more time to go over it and analyze it. Well all that does is as you know continue to move the project back, move it back, move it back.
I don't find what the appellant says is to believe the application's confusing. There's too many unanswered questions. It's very complicated. I didn't see that. And one of the things that also this brought up to me when I was reviewing this was, how many times do we hear at meetings that we're just handing out these permits like candy? This is just willy-nilly. They'd just go to anybody.
I think there's a case study on how difficult it is for an applicant to get through our process. No offense to staff, you've done an amazing job on this. This is awesome. It's just been a grind and this is a project that it's on AG-2 six miles from town where we tell everybody go out in the middle of nowhere if you're gonna do this. Well they did. It was properly zoned. It was in compliance with the LUDC and the comprehensive plan.
APAC has reviewed the project found it was consistent with the uniform rules, the Williamson Act. There are no notices of violations on this property The cool thing, too, for us is there's a baseline because it's traditionally been farmed for decades. We have years of data from numerous wells on the property. You know, the applications were 46 acres on a 431-acre property.
The applicant had to complete an archaeology study, biological plans, submitted a lighting plan, fencing security plan, landscape and screening plan, noise The staff report is 267 pages long. And the appeal is another 137 pages long. So this isn't something we just decide, hey, this is what happened. This has been exhaustingly evaluated. I completely understand also the fears of Mr. Miller and his family.
I'm a big fan, like I said, of their wine but this project is a huge improvement over what the existing project was both with odor and water usage with its historical legal hemp cultivation that was there previously. The reality for me is the way I see it is the 2018 PIR was unchallenged The county knew that cannabis would create significant and unavoidable class one impacts.
At the time we adopted a statement of overriding consideration, and again there were no legal challenges. This application was submitted in April of 2019. That was nearly three years ago two years and eight months. Now as we get straight to the end, you know we hear things about air quality impacts and I know Supervisor Williams touched on those. That one got me the most and I apologize for this but it's like there is a Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
with the cement, somehow it's going to affect Blackman School. That one that's when I realized okay wait a second we got to get back to what reality is there are reasons to appeal projects and there's reasons to try to get concessions but just tossing everything out there doesn't help me I don't think it helps the board it doesn't get us to a better project so for me this project has been vetted like I said exhaustingly it's been signed off by our planning development department It was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.
It's been reviewed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and will continue to be, and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And I'm satisfied that the applicant has met all of our very, very, very extensive regulations, and I support staff's recommendation.
Thank you Supervisor Lavenino. Supervisor Hartman?
Yes, this is a difficult case because it's the clash of the titans. Two of our county's most illustrious families are at odds about what else? Cannabis. I very much appreciate the appeal because I think this is an unusually sensitive site. It is on the border with Slough. It is a place where the Sisquauk River and the Kiama River come into the Santa Maria River And it's a beautiful area.
But and I appreciate all the issues then that were raised by the appellants, and I think you know I'm glad to have known more now about the water wells, more about the air quality, more about the berm, more about the compost, more about the transportation plan. Those now are much more fully vetted and I understand it a great deal better. But I don't believe that, well let me just, I don't quite agree with my colleague Supervisor Lavinino that they changed the plan.
There was new evidence that was brought in very late and it did take us all this hearing to fully absorb and assimilate what that evidence meant but I think we've gotten to that point. I don't think that because our programmatic EIR said that we're going to override these class one impacts, that that stands for all time, all places. I believe there are conditions that we will see someday that require additional environmental analysis but I don't think that happened in this case and so I really can't find a reason not to support staff's recommendation
Thank you Supervisor Hartman. Supervisor Williams?
Well, I think this is the right kind of location and I love the Maldonado story. I am a sucker for multi-generational farming. That's a really important thing about the heritage of our community and God willing the future of our community Of course, and I appreciate the analysis on air quality. I think that was really well done. And you know until about three minutes ago, I thought that would be an eye vote didn't deny the appeal but I literally in seven years on the City Council and in five years on the Board of Supervisors, I've never had an applicant Never had an applicant put forward testimony and not be willing to have that in the conditions of approval.
And so this is a first for me, it's a de novo appeal. It's within our rights as a Board of Supervisors to condition a project, especially if they are submitting that as part of their testimony and analysis So you know I'm in a quandary. I guess I'm gonna flip a coin in the next two minutes.
7:55 – 8:0213 turns
Supervisor Hart, do you have any comments at this time? Okay so you know I've approached all these LUPs the same And these are, and this is again as everybody's mentioned, this has been a difficult one. For me I had to take the names off of the documents that I was reading and approach it just like I approach every other appeal that comes to us. You know, I do have some concerns with the PEIR.
That's really settled law at this point for the county. And so you know things like pesticide drift, those are things that I have a huge concern with. with Mr. Maldonado yesterday, you know he talked about he's a farmer as well. He acknowledges that there are strategies he is going to need to deploy in his operations to be a good neighbor and to adjust accordingly, um, to help mitigate the risk of that.
And I mean, that's what it's going to take, you know? Cause there's going to be constant conflict moving forward between legacy agriculture and cannabis, especially with the difference in the values of them. Um, so, you know, I appreciate the response I'd got from, from Abel on that. But at the end of the day, for me to deny or to uphold the appeal and deny this project, I need to find that staff erred somewhere. The findings that we have to make is that we don't support where our staff got to. And I just can't get there on this project. I've gone through it many, many times. I've been trying to find the fly in the ointment here, and I just can't. Each issue, the berm, we've been able to satisfy.
Truck trips, I'm satisfied that staff has talked to me about what the PEIR looks at. And even if this truck trips were twice as many it would still qualify under the PEIR. Would it be ideal? Of course not but it would be satisfactory. I was never there on the water diversion issue. I think that's a bad precedent that we go down that route on diversion so at the end of day my vote will be to deny the appeal.
I guess, well, I was thinking of making a motion but maybe I kind of wanted to get county council's opinion on conditioning in LUP.
Mr. Chair and members of the board, LUPs are more limited than conditional use permits. There are ability you do have discretion in making the findings so there are circumstances where you can require changes to a land-use permit particularly when it has to do with compliance with the code, compliance with their policies but it is a more limited discretion than a conditional use permit
I'll make a motion at this point to. This is what happens when you have electronic instead of good old fashioned paper.
You
got it? I think it's long.
All
right, I'm going to move staff recommendations A B C and D that's to deny the appeal Make the required findings for approval as it pertains to CEQA. Determine that the PIR is adequate and grant DeNovo approval of the revised project.
Roll-call vote Moved by Lavinier · Seconded by Joan Hartmann
Show transcript
Paul, just this isn't really like an issue I think about the project. But I do think it sets a bad precedent for folks to submit things into the record that they're unwilling to have as part of their project and so I hope that since now Some of the folks involved in this project will be involved in others. I hope that's not repeated. Don't send me a big awesome thing convincing me to do something that involves a calculation you're not willing to make a commitment on.
Well, I mean, I think since that is going to continue point for you Supervisor Williams. I wanted to address that as well. I think what I heard was that was a good faith effort estimate of what the plan is and I think My background in agriculture, you know conditions change. Farming practices change genetics change and I think that there is a hesitation. I kind of want to defend the project here. I think it's a hesitation to prevent The flexibility that they might hope to have in the future, I think what they offered us was something we can rely on.
But you know, I don't think we want to get into that place where counting plants or practices in the future? Supervisor Hartman.
I don't think we ever would but it's not just like some flavoring, it's not just an estimate, it's the basis if you read their green waste emissions plan that density is what everything else is based on. If you change that number then the whole analysis is different and so You know, I mean, I guess they're going to probably come back to us at some point unless they heavily overestimated the truck trips. They'll come back to us with an amendment to want to change the truck trip if they change things to $2,000. But my point is that if it's based on $1,500, we could build some flexibility on it but that should mean something.
Thank you Supervisor Williams. Supervisor Hartman?
Maybe I'm missing something here, but for me the issue isn't how much the plants weigh. What does it matter? The issue is greenhouse gas emissions from truck trips. It's an indicator to get to something else that's more important. So if we have a limit on the truck trips which we have, I'm struggling to understand Supervisor Williams Why the indicator is more important than the ultimate goal, which is to limit greenhouse gases?
8:02 – 8:107 turns
I think that's a very fair point. You moved me slightly but I still think it's very irregular to have us accept testimony and have the applicant not be willing to commit to it.
All right, thank you Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman for going down that route with me. Let's go ahead and call the question.
Roll-call vote Passed 3–1
Show transcript
Motion passes 4-1
Okay, one more item. So our final item of the year appropriately, departmental item number five, our COVID update. Madam Clerk will you please read that out into the record?
Chair Nelson and members of the board departmental item number five is from the County Executive Office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an update on the coronavirus disease 2019-COVID19.
Good afternoon, Chair Nelson and members of the board and our CEO. And I am happy to be your last item. It is quite late, so I will not I will proceed quickly today next. Today's briefing topics will include the current rates And a brief overview of the vaccination and booster data, as well as share with your board the latest CDPH guidance. And Dr. Ansorg will give a briefing on the Omicron variant next. As you can see The new cases, we have 21 new cases as of yesterday and we have 416 active cases. Our total cases in Santa Barbara County stands at 46,655. We are reporting a current case rate of 12.8 per 100,000 We are not reporting new deaths as of yesterday. The number of COVID-19 patients hospitalized is 39, with 554 total deaths in Santa Barbara County to date and lastly our testing positivity as of December 9th is 3.5 Next This graph describes our case rates by vaccination status.
So as you can see, there's quite a difference between the trend for case rate among the vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals. Vaccines prevent serious illness COVID-19. As more people are vaccinated, the virus is then less likely to spread, mutate and potentially become even more dangerous. Vaccines are the key that will help us put an end to this pandemic. So the bottom line reflects the case rate among vaccinated individuals in our county As of December 2nd, the top red line reflects the case rate among unvaccinated individuals and that case rate is 24.1. So for this time frame, the unvaccinated are almost four times more likely to get COVID-19 than fully vaccinated people.
And this is a trend reflected statewide. In addition, with California's data we also see that there is roughly a 12.5 times difference between unvaccinated people and vaccinated people in hospitalization as well as in death about 13 times more likely. This graph describes our hospitalization. Hospitalization increased 34% over the past two weeks, and this is not a surprise. We anticipated increase in cases and increases in hospitalization following the Thanksgiving holiday.
What is worrisome is that our ICU rates increased I'd like to share with your board that the state modeling predicts Next. This is how CDC describes level of community transmission. So they have low transmission as 0 to 9.99 new cases per 100,000 persons in the past seven days with moderate transmission it is 10 to 49.99 with substantial transmission that is 50 To 99.99 and with high transmission that would be anything above 100 cases per 100,000 so as I shared earlier the current Santa Barbara County daily case rate is 12.8 So what you would do is multiply that by seven. So that would be 89.6 per 100,000 for seven days to mirror the CDC measurement. So what that means is that according to CDC then with our numbers we have substantial transmission in our county next Next, so I'd like to briefly go over some standard data and some new data regarding vaccination and booster shots.
63.8% describes the percent of Santa Barbara County as fully vaccinated. The number is a little bit higher When we look at the eligible population, the five and above. And that number stands at 67.8%. Next. This is new data. This graph describes the vaccination rates among the 5 to 11 year olds, and as you can see at least one dose Santa Barbara County is roughly the same.
As California and the US, however. And if you look at the fully vaccinated, the right hand side, we are quite a bit ahead of California in the proportion of our five to 11 year olds as fully vaccinated. I
am next.
8:10 – 8:1610 turns
This is this describes vaccination rates among the five and 11 year olds. And you can see that with the with the different among different ethnic communities, the whites have the highest at least one dose at 19.1, followed by children in the Asian American community. What is worrisome is that among our communities of color, in particular the Hispanic and the Latino and the multiple races as well as the black and African American community those numbers lag behind And it really speaks to our continued need to partner with community organizations, trusted community advocates and community leaders in outreach efforts as well as in providing access to vaccines.
Next. This is vaccination rates among 5 to 11 year olds by region. As not a surprise, we are seeing a bit higher vaccination rate in South County and this is pretty reflective of the overall vaccination coverage in our whole population that we're seeing typically more coverage in South County next. This is booster percent of boosters among fully vaccinated individuals in Santa Barbara County.
So to date, we have eighty four thousand nine hundred and ninety two boosters administered to Santa Barbara County residents. Comparisons with national and some state data on boosters among the fully vaccinated, we can see that Santa Barbara County have 2% higher than our state data and a little bit lower compared to national data. The second cluster from the left, so among the 18 and above we have a roughly 2.3% higher than the national data.
When we look at data among the 50 plus group, we have about a 6.6% higher than the national data. And lastly, when we look among the 65 and above Santa Barbara County is seeing a 8.4% higher than the national data. Next Percent boosters among fully vaccinated by race and ethnicity. We're seeing the highest percentage among multiple race category, followed by the white category.
Following other state and national trends again we are seeing lowest percentage of boosters received in the Latino Hispanic community. Next. This is a percent booster of fully vaccinated by region. Again, not surprising the higher percentage is in the South County and the lowest is in North County. There's roughly about a 10.6% difference between South County and North County.
Next.
Dr. Dover, before you go on to the CDC or the next set of slides I was confused by one of the slides can we go back quickly and sorry to interrupt you but slide 11? Yes. I was trying to figure out what this represents so only 1% of the North County Ages 5 to 11 are vaccinated or have one dose but then it doesn't seem to add up to the same numbers that you had on the earlier slides.
Yeah so when we look at the, when we tease out the population of five to eleven year olds that live in North County or that live in Central County or that live in South County we're seeing these numbers.
So only 1% Of North County children.
So
how do we get to the 15% number that you had earlier?
Which I'm sorry,
slide 9 and I apologize. I should have asked earlier. But so we have 15%. Of the total. 5-11 year olds but then all of a sudden we go down to 1%. So I don't I don' get it. So 15.3 total for But then if you write, but then we go down two slides later and it's 1%, 1% and 1.7. Yeah I can see that OK so
yeah I could see that all
right.
8:16 – 8:2614 turns
I can see where that's confusing. Let me look into the raw numbers. Okay,
maybe
that's
something you can send out to us later. It seems
like it
is a little bit off.
Yes.
All right, thank you.
Sorry. No, thank you for catching that and I will look at the raw numbers and provide to your board clarification.
I appreciate that. Thank you. Great.
So on slide 16, as you may have heard yesterday CDPH issued new guidance for universal indoor masking statewide effective 12-15 and will last until January 15th. Today CDPH issued additional clarification that states that any county that have existing local health orders those like Santa Barbara County, those existing Health Officer Orders will continue to apply They are issuing this clarification to mitigate any disruption of current efforts with industry or exemptions already occurred at the local level.
CDPH has also maintained exemptions for indoor sports and have included exercise and conditioning as exempted activity in their health officer order. And they are including exemption for performers, and recommend weekly screen testing. And they also acknowledge that there are still outstanding questions related to Cal OSHA and the workplace, and they will be meeting with Cal OSHA to get some clarity.
In addition to the universal masking order issued, they issued clarification of requirements on events with more than 1,000 people will need proof of vaccination or negative tests. And that testing is tightened from 72 hours so now it is 48 hours before the event with PCR tests and 24 hours before event with the antigen test. Additionally, they are issuing a recommendation on testing and that is applicable to all travelers to California or returning to California.
And that needs to be done within three to five days upon arrival. Next I'd like to transition to Dr. Ansorg who will be giving your board a briefing on the Omicron variant.
Good evening Chair Nelson and members of the Board. Omicron is on everybody's mind, obviously. And we get to know more and more about this new variant almost by the hour. So some of the slides that I prepared yesterday are already outdated. The Omicron definitely gets me worried. I have to say that. The reason for that is that it has a lot of mutations. For instance, Omicron has at least 30 mutations on the spike protein section of the genetic code compared to the Delta variant that we are currently still dealing with as only half of it.
What these changes apparently are doing is that they make the virus faster to spread And it protects the virus somehow from the immune system, which is very unfortunate. Next slide please. This is a 3D picture of the spike protein comparing the Delta to the Omicron spike protein. The receptor binding area is the orange and you see that in the Omicron there's a lot of red dots in there, that means mutations so the receptors are...
The structure of this area is definitely altered compared to the previous version. Next slide please. The doubling time, which basically means the speed how fast this variant is replicating is much faster than compared to Delta. Delta was much faster compared to Alpha, which we had last winter and then Delta took over in the summer and now it looks very much like Omicron is giving Delta a run for its money.
It is definitely more contagious than Delta and spreads faster, and therefore it has already outpaced the Delta variant in South Africa. At this point, South Africa has already about 90% of new infections due to Omicron. The United Kingdom that currently harbors most of all Omicron cases in the world already has 20% of new infections due to Omicron. Another reason why it worries me is that there is a much higher rate of breakthrough cases than previously with Delta.
Also, there's a much higher rate of re-infections. People who had COVID in the past and had some natural immunity against it are now prone to get reinfected much easier. A third dose of our vaccines is definitely helpful in improving the protection against more severe disease with Omicron. With Delta, it was the second dose that was absolutely necessary to reach a better protection.
Now a third dose is required because this virus, this new variant is able to bypass the antibodies It is yet unclear if the morbidity and the mortality is less severe than Delta, but all signs are hinting towards that being the case. Meaning that more people get sick but they don't get as sick with Delta. Next slide please.
Next slide please. Oh isn't there another one before?
Thank you. So as I mentioned, the UK has by far the most confirmed Omicron cases worldwide. It is causing a new surge in the UK and they implemented new measures. Here it says 40% of new infections in the UK are due to Omicron. The 20% I mentioned earlier was already outdated It has the potential to replace Delta worldwide due to the speed of the transmission.
Rate of breakthrough infections is much greater than with Delta and we are waiting to see how many people have to get hospitalized due to it. Given that we trail the UK usually by six to eight weeks, we will only be dealing mainly with Delta for the next two months. This is what I wrote yesterday that's already outdated with new information that's come out today by the CDC I don't have a slide on that, so I have to read it to you.
They're estimating that the United States already has in general 3% of all new cases are due to Omicron. There are some areas like New York, New Jersey Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands has an 11% of new infections already due to Omicron. This is concerning because a week ago the general rate was only 0.4% for the United States, and then a week later it was 2.9%.
Now the 2.9% was estimated on Saturday and now is Tuesday evening, so it may already be double because the virus replicates at increased speed. It only takes two to three days to double the numbers. So some things about that are very alarming If the cases indeed increase exponentially as expected, the sheer number of infections even if people don't get that severely ill that they need hospitalizations but the sheer number of infections will make weaker people with weaker immune systems sick and it will likely put a strain on our healthcare system.
Even if vaccination does prevent severe disease and death But it does not prevent infection with Omicron and therefore spread of Omicron by vaccinated people. That really makes it really necessary for us to pivot and rethink how we deal with vaccinated versus unvaccinated people in the community. We would have to slow down the spread via social distancing, why I'm asking frequent testing is very important.
So that's why we have to resort to our proven measures of slowing down spread of viruses in general and that's why we have this next slide please, the Swiss cheese. Comparison that the more different measures you put on top of each other, the better the protection against spread of a particular virus. And with that I defer back to Dr. Doran.
8:27 – 8:3213 turns
Thank you, Dr. Ansorg. As Dr. Ansorg mentioned what our COMS team and what our community partners are consistently doing and will continue to do is really to communicate that the more steps you take the safer you are against COVID-19. And so we know that safety measures I'm going to start by saying thank you to all of you for joining us today. indoors, and then of course being fully vaccinated.
So starting that vaccination journey or getting the booster shot. These are all proven strategies that will keep our community healthier. Next. And I would like to can you hit the play button on that slide? Awesome. So we want to wish our community, your board and the CEO's office happy holidays. And we would like to give a big thank you to our amazing businesses and our valued community during the pandemic.
We totally appreciate your dedication and your commitment to doing your part to stop the spread of COVID-19. So let's during this holiday season, let's be safe by taking precautions. Let's be smart by staying informed and let's be kind by supporting each other. Thank you. And that ends our briefing for today.
Thank you, Dr. De Ordozzo. I believe we have one public commenter so Madam Clerk will you go to that? And I'm closing public comment at this time.
Chair Nelson and members of the board yes we have one request to speak and we're going to Zoom with Jeffrey Schwartz. Jeffrey?
Hear me?
Yes we can please proceed.
It's beginning to look a lot like fascism. Everywhere you go in Australia, they're now locking up the Aboriginal people just a few more steps to genocide, you know? It's beginning to look a lot like fascism. Some people still are willfully blind but it's never going to end this totalitarian trend as long as you continue to comply You traded your freedom for safety, but it is the oldest trick in the book. Submission to tyrants and corporate giants is not as smart as it looks. And Google and YouTube and Facebook now are burning all the books. It's beginning to look a lot like fascism.
We've seen this all before. But now with modern technology, an evil technocracy will trace and track you everywhere you go. It's beginning to look a lot like fascism Hitler did the same thing years ago. He claimed diseases to take away rights, so no one would put up a fight. Now you're using Hitler's playbook to this day. It's beginning to look a lot like fascism.
Hitler would be proud. You've been taking up all our rights but it won't be without a fight to the dictatorship that you're trying to create today. I would like to wish all of you a Merry Carditis and a happy new fear. Also peace and love to all you fascist tyrants, including the myopic and willfully ignorant so-called health officials who are aiding and abetting the erection of an evil global medical tyranny and the destruction of the Bill of Rights. Thank you for your fascism, your mandates, and your dictatorship. Thank you. Thank you.
And thank you Mr. Schwartz for your very civil comments. And that concludes public comment. Back to the board. Any questions from the Board of Staff? Okay, I won't make the meeting any longer so can I get a motion?
Move to accept the
report.
Second.
Okay Madam Clerk will you please call the roll?
Roll call, called by Williams' · 3 under review
Show transcript
Thank
you. That's our final item of the year. I take this moment to close today's meeting and adjourn it in honor of Harvey Wynn. Longtime firefighter for Santa Barbara County, a resident of Lompoc was on a walk on December 4th out at Surf Beach where he was just commenting on the horizon and the beauty when at that time he passed away along with some friends there. Harvey was a friend to everyone who knew him He was well-loved in our community, and he will be truly missed. He will be having a service this Sunday at Wampanoag Forest Corps Church at 2 p.m., where I understand the county fire will be participating and honoring his life. And he's also the uncle of our beloved Jacqueline Alexander. So just wanted to like as he would always say, he was cheating death and saving lives.
So thank you.