Board of Supervisors — 2022-03-01

Good morning and welcome to our March 1st, 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in Santa Barbara. Madam Clerk would you please

A motion to move approval.

And a second? Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The minutes are approved. CEO Miyasato do you have a report today?

I do, Chair Hartman. A couple of items to announce the first is the county is seeking the public's feedback on the draft 2022 County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan update. The plan is updated every five years to prepare our community for changing and dynamic hazards identifying vulnerable communities and structures in preparing mitigation goals The public is encouraged to review the draft plans, provide feedback at ReadySBC.org that's ReadySBC.org. The public comment period begins today and goes through March 15th. The public may also attend a virtual workshop on March 9th to learn more about the draft plan and the workshop information is also included on ReadySbc.org My second announcement is good news and that's the county in partnership with the California Office of Small Business Advocate and the Santa Barbara Foundation announced A micro-business COVID-19 relief grant program with emphasis on micro businesses.

The application period opens March 7th on a rolling basis until all funds are granted. Eligible micro businesses that were adversely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic may apply for up to $2,500 in funding issued from the California Micro Business COVID- 19 Relief Grant Program. To learn more go to sbfoundation.org and click the COVID- Menu at the top and select COVID-19 business community resources. Thank you

Thank you, and madam clerk any changes to

today's agenda or announcements? Chair Hartman and members of the board, I do have a couple quick announcements this morning. First, I'd like to announce that we did receive a request from the department to continue administrative item number 16 to our March 8th meeting. Administrative item number 16 is from the Sheriff Coroner's Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding an acceptance of grant funding from the California Department of Justice, DOJ, to allow for effective enforcement of firearm laws.

Thank you. Are there any administrative items on the agenda that any board members would like to pull? That is our

I'd just like to pull a eight for a separate vote.

Okay, anybody else? And any members of the public?

Chair Hartman and members of the board we have requests from the public to speak on administrative item number four as well as administrative item number 15.

Number four and what was the final one?

Oh I'm sorry administrative item 4 and 15. Fifteen

okay thank you. Let's take administrative item number four. Would you read that into the record, Madam Clerk?

Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item Number Four is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding an amendment to Chapter 50 of the county code licensing of cannabis operations. And we have six requests to speak on this item.

All right.

And we will go to Zoom with Nancy Emerson to be followed by Anna Carrillo. Nancy.

Good morning, Chairperson Hartman and board members. We watch is very concerned about the actions you plan to take today adopting amendments to Chapter 50 regulations that separate cannabis processing from cultivation and remove processing acreage from the cap. The CAP's purpose was to control the amount of cannabis that could be grown or processed and residents were assured that you would not change it.

It seems like most of you intentionally plan to break that promise. It's not the 3 plus 9 acres of processing removed and used for more cultivation that is our primary concern, but the unknown number of new processing projects that will enable cannabis activity far beyond the cap. We do not disagree that there are good reasons to facilitate processing in our county, such as less traffic control of processing by those who grow and county income. What worries us is that you are leaping into these changes with no careful consideration of the consequences for residents and existing agriculture. Your earlier hurried decisions to not regulate Ag-2, and to use a statement of overriding considerations for the EIR have made it very hard even impossible for residents and agriculturalists to coexist with cannabis activities.

And now you are proposing this." If cannabis is being cultivated on AG 140 land above 20 acres, a CUP is required. But a high percentage of applications have been for AG 2 cultivation. There is no regulation regarding the total number allowed of these processing facilities, their size location or odor control unless 51% or more of land is in cultivation or an EDRN is only accessed. Only one project approved to date may be close to the 51% and most aren't driving through EDRNs.

You hope planning will bring CUP language to you soon, but there's no guarantee of that or that a majority will vote for it. There may be a sizable number of applications and it's not okay to start processing them until there is a CUP. Can you even require a CUP if the processing application amends an existing LUP? Finally, these are land use issues being decided within the business license because the cap is in it. That itself is cause for concern but for it's not the proper place for such regulations and there's very little transparency with Chapter 50. Thank

you Miss Emerson.

We will now go to Anna Carrillo to be followed by Sarah Trigato.

Good morning, Board of Supervisors. My name is Ana Carrillo and I'm basically calling about what's happening in Carpinteria. I agree with everything Nancy Emerson said but right now in Carpinteria we already have Many, many, many processing facilities. I think when I wrote before, I think I put that there were 19 now I've counted up that there could be almost 25.

So anyway, I just wanted to, I think carpentry, the coastal zone, just like we didn't get pulled in or we didn't get allowed to have the small acreage ban from cultivation. This should be a whole separate issue for carpentry. Initially, I had arrived at the number of 19 or I think I wrote 15 here by just counting up the number of people who had provisional licenses that then were you know they got their CDPs and then they became you know they all will have processing part. I mean now I see that we have almost seven and a half acres that are dedicated to processing in Carpinteria There are currently at least 21 different operators who have already received their CDPs that include processing in their approved permits. Most of them have been doing processing under their state temporary and then state provisional licenses issued initially in 2019, continually renewed and have continued to get approved for processing in their newly approved CDPs.

There have already been 10 new CDPs issued that include processing that haven't even started yet, and they're brand new operations which aren't even operating yet. There are two new projects that have been approved that will only do processing with no cultivation associated with old flower warehouses now being converted for processing. There are also CDPs already issued for two projects that plan to build brand-new buildings for processing.

As Carpinteria already has plenty of processing, almost every different operation has their own approved processing. It's a very different situation here than in the inland area. Currently Carpinteria almost has seven and a half and out of the one it's a huge percentage out of the 186 acre cap compared to the three acres of the 1,595 acres approved in the inland areas In the Carpinteria Valley, cannabis cultivation including processing is situated along basically two four-mile stretches of roadways and interspersed with many ADRNs. The city of Carpinteria, Carpinteria High School, two daycare facilities and a couple of private schools. Carpinteria should be excluded from this part of the business license change if you do it as Carpinteria was not included.

I think I mentioned that already before. The processing part of cannabis is the smelliest part I urge you to not approve the

Carp Valley already has a great deal of processing, which as Ana just noted is the smelliest phase of operations with 21 operators with approved permits. The 10 operators that are currently processing are causing a tremendous nuisance already to those of us that live here, school kids and visitors. An additional four other processing facilities are awaiting review and approval. So in total there are 25 processing facilities existing or in pipeline in Carpentria Valley alone, in addition to very dense cultivation activities Gutting the cap would add significant acreage for cultivation or additional processing past our 186-acre limit, a situation where we already have intense concentration and density issues. This is pouring salt in the wound.

The county has not been able to enforce even the meager controls in place to protect residents, and by passing this you would open the door to making a bad situation much worse. I do not believe that the cap should be altered in any way, including this backdoor attempt to circumvent it in any part of the county. I would also urge the board to be more transparent with the public going forward trying to slide in a change to the cap by exempting processing without mention of the cap is not sufficiently direct and Chapter 50 is not an appropriate vehicle for land use changes.

Thank you very much.

We will now go to Lillian Clary and then we will go to Santa Maria for Dave Cross. Lillian? And Lillian, we have unmuted you on our end if you can please unmute on your end and provide your comments. Great,

hopefully this is coming through at this point. I'm having some connectivity problems. First of all, I'd like to thank Supervisor Williams for pulling this item from the consent agenda. The amendments proposed do not take into account what I am going to politely deem unintended consequences although to my mind the expected consequences are not unintended In any case, concerns raised by many County residents require further public discussion.

What I see here is a rush to adopt amendments that make a travesty of the promised cap and open the door to unlimited processing operations throughout the county. There is no valid reason to do this. You are going back on your promises to residents and implementing changes that only the cannabis industry supports. And strangely enough Only the cannabis industry was allowed to participate in development of the amendments.

I know you're all familiar with concerns raised by others. One additional issue out there for discussion and that is what mechanisms have been designed for the collection of taxes from these processing only operations given a lack of input from the public, I'm hoping this time around the trip sure tax collector's office has been involved Thank you very much.

Thank you.

We will now go to Santa Maria for Dave Cross, to be followed by Joe Goldberg who is our final speaker. Dave?

Good morning everyone I'm Dave Cross. I'm here representing Little East Green Garden which is a cannabis project between Santa Maria and Guadalupe. They've been in the planning process for over three years they've never stopped their continuing to do that We've been trying to get their sunset date for cannabis operations extended into December. Recently, the CEO's office reached out to us and told us that once this item gets approved, their project would be included on the list for October 31st sunset date.

And I asked for confirmation and got that. Now this is a good step forward for them. It's a big boost for the operation. For the owners and especially for the workers and their family that rely on that income. Unfortunately, yesterday we received a follow up email from the CEO's office that said basically they made a mistake this project would not be included.

Now, this low use green garden project has been on quite a roller coaster from the start. But what this demonstrates to me is at face value, and even to those familiar with This project should be included in that October sunset date. So what I'm asking is that the board provide direction to include Lily's Green Garden on the list of projects with an October 31st sunset date, thank you.

Thank you

and we will remain in Santa Maria for Joe Goldberg who is our final speaker, Joe?

Good morning. My name is, as you said, Joe Goldberg and I own Lily's Green Garden. This whole legal noncompliance category was, I believe created so that folks like us could get their land use permits or licenses and grow their business. And we have been attempting this for over three years. We have spent thousands of thousands of dollars Trying to get this done.

And we have even met last year as you know, the planning department kept putting different planners in and we'd have to start from zero and go back and then new hoops to jump through. And we've had meetings at Supervisor Lavinino's office last year October November with the planning department who told us we're going to work with you folks so you should have your permits by April here we are in March And we're no closer than we were last year in October.

Then, we were at the November board meeting when we were told that these projects would be looked case by case for the sunset date. I got a call last month that said sunset dates set in stone kick rocks basically you're out June 30th you're done and it makes me feel that why are we being targeted? We do nothing wrong. We pay taxes, we employ a lot of people. We're good citizens and I just feel like this is unacceptable. This is wrong. We're being treated unfairly where this is unjust and it's just plain wrong what you're doing. I've worked for over 45 years in my agriculture career And now everything that I've worked for is on the brink of being lost and flushed. And you folks just act like you don't care, it just is what it is.

It's not your life, it's my life, and it's my family's life, and it's workers' lives. And this is unfair. The county says in your logo one county, one future. Where's our future? Decades we've been here. And now you're ready to throw us out like yesterday's newspaper. So what you're doing is wrong, you need to work with us and you need to fulfill the promises that you gave us and the words that you spoke of looking at these projects on a case by case basis to extend them.

We have been trying and trying to get this done. And we're still at the same place we were basically years ago. And it's not our fault. Thank you.

And that concludes public comment on this item.

Thank you so this comes back to the board are there any comments that board members would like to make on this item? Supervisor Williams?

Well I feel like having both the farmers and some of the residents both speak illustrates how difficult it is for us to strike the right balance on this issue, what is What is a erosion of the cap to some is shutting down their business and their livelihood to others. So I think it would just be important for people to understand that if our intention was to circumvent the cap, we surely would circumvent it by more than 10 acres.

Seven in the coast and three in the north. The intention of this change is to improve taxation gathering both by making it easier to tell whether people are being straight to us, they have processing on site that simplifies the whole matter tremendously In a way that is easier to verify. So this isn't a boon for enforcement if we have processing on site. Secondly, it is also simply to prevent operations driving this all over the county which really doesn't serve any point but to reduce the public benefit for the taxpayers of Santa Barbara County.

And no other comments. I would like to say, I call for a separate vote on this. I would be more in favor of this if our CUP that we asked P&D to work on were in place but it isn't so these can be approved with the land use permit they don't have to be connected to existing cultivation It does require best available control technology, but gives the grower a choice and that includes vapor phase which is not in my view really the most effective. And we already know from bitter experience that it's very difficult to identify where the odor is coming from.

So for that reason I will once again vote no on this. Supervisor Nelson?

Yeah, thank you chair Hartman and you know that was one of the concerns that I had as well. And a frustration that I've shared with other board members that it's taken awhile to get this LUP to a CUP in the inland to back to the board. I met with planning staff this week and I've been assured that they're going to bring it sooner than the fall time frame so hopefully that would Give an opportunity for some relief or concern for those in the community who think that Processing permits would be moving through the system quickly And I think we've all seen that nothing moves through the system quickly, and I think we're gonna have the benefit of the CUP Permit for processing in inland if it gets approved by the board moving forward so That's something I've been advocating from my office with planning staff behind the scenes, and I'm going to continue to do that.

And hopefully that gives us as board members the tools to address some of these real concerns in neighborhood compatibility issues that exist out there. So I'm going to go ahead and move forward with this because I feel confident that planning is getting back on track on getting that to us sooner than later.

I

just want to add my voice as well. I think that Chair Hartman and Supervisor Nielsen really summarized the nuance of this issue right now why there is a little bit of tension between different views on the board. but that everybody's trying to get to the same place. It's just going to take a little bit of time to get these two processes aligned, but I'm voting in support of this because I believe we can have it both ways. We can eliminate the barrier that is in place that keeps processing from happening in a technologically sophisticated way that doesn't have impacts on the neighborhood and aligns these processes as they actually evolve and come in front of the planning department to ensure that neighborhoods are protected from additional odor.

So I see this as a win-win, I know not everybody does but I think You know the experience we've had with the timing of all these things is that it does take time and that if we don't start with this ordinance today to open the door to processing, we won't get there. But I don't think we're going to find ourselves with a rush of applications that you know take the jump ahead of the process that we have for the conditional use permit For processing facilities, I think these things are going to line up. It just happens to be that we need to do this today to get it going for those other things to line up and work together.

Supervisor Lavanino.

Oh, I was just gonna would you care to do this on a separate vote right now or after? Okay, I will move staff recommendations for item A4.

Would you call the vote, please? Madam Clerk.

Motion passes 4 to 1

and A8 is our next item

Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item number eight is from the General Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Santa Barbara Main Jail renovation project award professional service agreement PSA for architectural design programming project number 20041 and this is in the second district.

And Supervisor Williams you pulled this item?

Yeah, I don't want to beat this dead horse too many times. I just think that remodeling the main jail is an unending strategy. It's a money pit strategy and I just want a separate vote on these items.

Okay. Supervisor Nelson?

Well if there's no additional discussion I would move 8-8.

Okay. And could I get a second?

Second.

Okay. And once again, would you call the vote?

Motion passes four to one

and item A15 would you read that into the record Madam Clerk

Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item number 15 is from the Public Works Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the recordation of a restrictive covenant on a 31-acre portion of the Barron Ranch and this is in the 3rd District.

And this was pulled by the public if I remember?

Yes, Chair Hartman and members of the board we have three requests to speak from the public on this item. And if you are a member of the public and you have requested to speak on this item, now is the time to log in. We will begin on Zoom with Doug Kern followed by Mark Wilkinson. Doug?

Hello Chair Hartman and Supervisors can you hear me? Very good, thank you. Broome Ranch is a very special place on the Gaviota Coast and GCC has been strongly involved With many community organizations and members in the Barone Ranch master planning process. We've just received last Friday, the restrictive government and we'd like to have a bit more time to review this 87 page We've had one working day.

We'd like to study it so we can see how that will be integrated with the larger Barone Ranch planning process. Options in the future that we might all like to see. So just need a bit of time to look at this and provide reasonable comments back to you, thank you.

Thank you Mr Kern.

And we will now go to Mark Wilkinson and if Phil McKenna is watching if you can please log in and provide your comments you will be next mark. And Mark, we have unmuted you on our end if you can please unmute on your end to provide your comments.

Good morning Madam Chair and fellow supervisors my name is Mark Wilkinson I'm the Executive Director of the Santa Barbara County Trails Council a non-profit organization established over 50 years ago to protect We are committed to building and maintaining public trail access, build and maintain safe and sustainable trails, and promote public engagement in land stewardship and trail use for all types of outdoor recreation.

For more than a decade we have worked with Public Works and County Parks to establish new trails at Barone Ranch. In addition to building and maintaining trails, we have supported Public Works habitat protection work by partially funding the pedestrian bridge over Providing do not enter signs identifying the boundaries of the habitat restoration area, providing interpretive signs about the endangered red legged frog and other animals living at Barone Ranch.

In 2019 we initiated a community backed one acre habitat restoration project along the entryway to Barone Ranch as a result in the fall of 2021 over 400 native plants were well established however The Alisale fire wiped out half of the native plants. So we will water and nurture the new plants that volunteers added last month for the next two years. We support the concept of protecting sensitive habitat at Barone Ranch through a restrictive covenant. However, we believe the habitat protection and recreation at Barone Ranch are inextricably linked.

Therefore it is premature to now decide on the boundaries and the nature of the restrictive Instead, a balanced approach would be to consider habitat protection and future recreation plans in their entirety. This would permit your board to consider the entire picture and not address management of Barone Ranch in a piecemeal fashion. We ask that the administrative item identified as A-15 for today's meeting regarding the Barone Ranch Restricted Covenant be rescheduled for a future date to allow your board to consider this item concurrently with recommendations that emerged from the countywide Recreation Master Plan for potential recreation development at Barone Ranch.

Thank you.

And that concludes public comment on this item.

Is Mr. McLaughlin or Ms. Wells available?

Mr. McLaughlin is on Zoom.

Before he starts, I would just like to say that I read the language of the restrictive covenant and particularly that on reserved rights. And trails are called out with other roads, paths, telephone lines that they can be maintained and replaced and repaired for ranch agricultural and recreational purposes. So I think the language is good but what I am hearing from people is that The actual policies and procedures for maintaining trails and roads, there seems to be a difference of opinion between Public Works and some of the non-profit and perhaps even parks. It would be valuable I think to work out what the policies are. We do maintain trails to Forest Service Thank you very much.

Yes, good morning Madam Chair and board members. Thank you and thank you for the conversation yesterday to supervisor on that as as you mentioned existing facilities within this restricted covenant can still function and they can still be maintained. The restricted covenant that's before your board today predates the work that we're doing now on the master plan. The master plan started in 2019 The restricted covenant work started in 2008 with the Tejigas reconfiguration project, and it was also included in our project description. The restricted covenant that your board's being asked to consider this morning is contained in four of our permits for the Tejigas reconfiguration project. It was for State fishing game at the time it was for the regional water quality control board.

It's for US Fish and Wildlife, federal agency and the Army Corps of Engineers. Madam Chair we can certainly work on standards if you will for the trails and work with parks on that but the department sees really no benefit to delaying approval The restricted covenant today, because your board's approval will really have no impacts on the discussions we've been having with GCC about recreation because repairing corridors cannot be used for recreation. So I think we need to also keep in mind when we sat down with the federal regulators the Army Corps in particular. They wanted 50 plus acres put into a restricted covenant. Through negotiation, we were able to get them down to 31 and that's what your board is considering today. So that's the main channel plus the tributaries that come into that main channel.

Mr.

McAulpin, is this time sensitive?

Madam Chair, I mean it's your board's discretion certainly if you want to give GCC a week to read it. That would be fine but it was a commitment that the county made in 2008 to the federal government as well as the state as part of our reconfiguration project at the so

Well, in my view and I'm not sure I'd like to hear what my colleagues on the board think but you have to use the hook you have. And I think this offers an opportunity to resolve what is kind of an ongoing headache. And if we could develop procedures by which we could maintain trails to the highest standards in a way that protects habitat as well as making less maintenance work over time on the roads and trails That would be the ideal situation. So I would like to make a motion to that effect, that we delay this matter until we can develop policies for trail maintenance that protects both habitat and trails.

Supervisor Williams?

Well, I very much support a delay. I just try to understand the difference between what the director just mentioned of giving them a week or two versus waiting until we have all these policies in place. What would be the consequence of doing so? I definitely think it's reasonable to ask Some time for them to look it over and understand our discretion in the actual agreement But I'm not I'm not sure that we I want to understand if we have enough time to wait for all these other policies to be developed

Well, it's not many policies. It's a single policy on how we maintain trails and while I don't want to get into the details of how this works, the two can work very well together. It so happens that the best way to design trails is with sheet flow which is the best way to support the creek there But there seems to be disagreement between departments and between the nonprofits, and this is the opportunity to get it straightened out once and for all. So I'd like to grab that opportunity if I could. Supervisor Hart?

Yeah, I agree that we just give a little bit more time. We can have an agreement that everybody supports, and that's the

best outcome.

Supervisor Nelson.

Yeah, I don't quite understand it at this point and so I'm gonna think I'm gonna figure it out here today on the dais I'm happy to see this be continued so I can better understand the issue

Okay So County, I'm just so I end supervisor Lovino and County Council if you could explain what we need to do a date earth

yeah, I I'm not interested in pushing it off and You know, forever. You say it's one policy the problem is for us to do one policy could be six months and it didn't sound like Scott thought that was a good idea so for me I mean I'm fine with a couple of weeks we have another meeting on the 15th here in Santa Barbara but I wouldn't be able to support moving out

Well, I would be willing to delay this until the 15th. But I would like to encourage Parks Public Works and my office and the nonprofits to work this out we can do it there's agreement on principle it's just how to apply that Supervisor Williams,

I think that's a great idea. So you want to make a motion on that?

Just just quick quick second on that too. So is this just applying to this particular trail are you talking about trails countywide that would all be

This is Barone Ranch.

I know but I mean this policy that you're talking about would only apply to Barone and

The policy at least of Park Service is to maintain according to national U.S. Forest Service standards, so that's in place. What it means in the context of Barone Ranch is unclear.

Chair Hartman if I may, I think we can continue this item until March 15th so there's a date We will work with the departments and the non-profits, and we'll work with Mr. McAulpin so we all get a clearer idea on what the time frames are. When we come back I don't know if we will have a policy ready for you. I doubt that we will but we can give you an update at that time.

I would be delighted with that.

Move continuance to March 15th. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes so that does bring us to the balance of our agenda with a continuance of A16 to March 8th may I have a motion to that effect?

So moved. Second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion passes. So that brings us now to our resolution to be presented, Administrative Item Number 25 and this is I think a real high point in our agenda today. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record?

Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item Number 25 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman and Supervisor Hart. It is to adopt a resolution recognizing Santa Barbara County as the 2021 Wine Region of the Year. And joining us today receiving this resolution we have Allison Laslett, CEO of the Santa Barbara Vintners Association. Katie Rogers, President of the Santa Barbara Vintners Board and Jessica Gasca, President of the Santa Barbara Vintners Foundation and if you'd like to join us at the podium I'll go ahead and read the resolution into the record Whereas every year Wine Enthusiast Magazine, the most influential voice in wine and drinks journalism honors individuals and companies that make outstanding global contributions to the wine and alcohol beverage industry.

And whereas in the fall of 2021 Santa Barbara County was named internationally wine region of the year placing above other significant winemaking regions who were also nominated in countries such as South Africa France and New Zealand. And whereas Santa Barbara's wine country is one of the world's most stunning wine regions, famous for its expansive views from the steep traverse mountains to the craggy bluffs and scenic beaches. And whereas Santa Barbara County is home to seven federally recognized American Viticultural Areas or AVAs which are delimited grape growing regions with specific geographic or climate features that distinguish it from the surrounding regions and affect how grapes are grown.

Whereas within our region, the Santa Rita Hills and Santa Maria Valley experience cool foggy mornings and regular afternoon winds allowing cool climate grapes such as Pinot Noir and Chardonnay to thrive. Warmer weather varieties like Cabernet Sauvignon and Sauvignon Blanc succeed in the Happy Canyon of Santa Barbara and Los Olivos District to the east In between, Ballard Canyon fosters grapes typically of the Rhone Valley as well as in the Goldilocks-Rhone zone of Alisos Canyon.

Santa Ynez Valley encompasses such areas as Los Alamos Valley and Foxing Canyon which can grow a wide array of grapes from Albarino to Zinfandel. And whereas it is not only our county's remarkable terrier that makes our region special but our industry professionals from winemakers who create art in a bottle to agriculture workers who nurture the grapes, to tasting room professionals who promote a culture of pride and enthusiasm for our wines. And whereas Santa Barbara County has one of the highest proportions of women winemakers per region in California and many wineries offering opportunities for vineyard and farm workers through shareholder bottlings and dedicated scholarships. And whereas in addition to its variety Santa Barbara County ranks high in sustainability as it is home to some of the nation's first organic and biodynamic vineyards.

Now therefore, be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of Santa Barbara County does hereby honor the significant contributions and prestige that vintners and wine professionals have bestowed upon our region and their well-earned global recognition as Wine Region of the Year passed and adopted today.

We're going to show a film. I just had a couple remarks before you started up. This is a huge, huge deal. We are the best winemaking region in the world. It calls to mind for me what was called The Judgment of Paris back in the spring of 1976 when the whole wine world was upended after mostly French wine professionals conducted a blind taste test between California and French wines And California wines were deemed superior, catapulting our wines to world-class status.

And then there was the film Sideways that captured the allure and pleasure of imbibing very poetically describing You know, it led to bad things for Merlot but it certainly put the Santa Ynez Valley in lots of people's minds. And now we have this amazing recognition of the variety of wines in Santa Barbara County. It's really a stellar achievement and it has so many spillover benefits for all of us As a long-term resident of the Santa Ynez Valley and now a very frequent visitor to Lompoc, I've seen what really good wines do.

It brings great hotels, which brings for the county TOT. It brings really good restaurants and development of a food culture that values locally produced foods and recipes. And it brings a greater attention to cultural activities that are place-based art history in theater that showcase the local area and a greater appreciation for the local environment Part of the terroir and a desire for hiking and biking opportunities to experience it more intimately.

And also, more social offerings and activities that people can enjoy the camaraderie. So all of this elevates the quality of life for residents. This award is the result of decades of hard work by our local Vintners, and we really appreciate and benefit from what you have accomplished. It's extraordinary! Supervisor Hart, would you like to say something now or after the film?

I'll just really quickly because you said that so beautifully. I don't think there's really anything I can add other than it really is an extraordinary achievement to be recognized in this way and there are so many people in our county who have been toiling for a really long time. You're going back 40 years ago, you thought this would work. To the people today, the farm workers who pick the grapes, the folks who pour the wine, the people who create the wine, all the spillover industries, the folks who are representing the Vintners Association here today. This is just an amazing achievement by a lot of people working diligently and with passion and creativity for a long time. It's just an extraordinary moment to celebrate so thank you.