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.0:10 – 0:155 turns
It's a great time to enjoy the great outdoors in Santa Barbara County.
Hi, my name is Tina Snyderwind and we are at the Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Preserve, a hidden gem in Santa Barbara County. This is a 592 acre nature preserve that the Santa Barbara County Parks Department owns and manages. A lot of the things that people come here to enjoy are surfing, hiking, picnicking and birding. This is a really good spot for viewing the whales as they migrate from Baja back up to Alaska.
Fishing is a really good sport around here. People do get a lot of barred surf perch We do have the Santa Maria Estuary, which also does have endangered species of fish in there. We also have plant species on the property that are threatened and also endangered. We have federally protected species here. We have the Western Snowy Plover that's a threatened species of bird. We also have the California Leastern that's an endangered species of bird. Therefore, the dunes are unaccessible March 1st through October 1st for hiking but we always do have beach access. October through February you are welcome to come out and hike and go exploring through the dunes.
We ask that when you do come out, please respect the environment and please leave all pets at home. If you have any interest in making any donations, you could donate to The Dune Center which is located in Guadalupe California.
Welcome to the Guadalupe Nepomu Dunes Center. Our mission is the conservation and restoration of the dunes complex. In addition, we have this fabulous little museum where we have a lot of cultural and natural history on display including sands from all over the world. And then we have some historical things like the archives from the 1923 filming of the Cecil B. DeMille Ten Commandments.
For further information regarding the Rancho Guadalupe Dunes Preserve, you can go on to the Santa Barbara County website at countyofsb.org.
It's a great time to enjoy the fresh air here in Santa Barbara County. Hello, my name is Tina Snydewind and I am here in the dunes of the Guadalupe Preserve. They are administered by Santa Barbara County. There are 592 acres of a preserve that is being managed by the county and many people come here to enjoy surfing, climbing, also having picnics and also enjoying birds. And it's a good place to come and see the whales that migrate from Baja to Alaska and you can also come fishing. Do you know what you can fish? The banded mojarra.
and we have a large part of the Santa Maria estuary, which is also a good place for fishing. And we also have species that are threatened because they are in danger. We also have protected areas of species to protect like, for example, we have the Chorlito Sulfuro Occidental and we also have the American Charrancito Therefore, the dunes are not inaccessible from March to October. And from October to February they can come and be accessible. You can come for a walk and enjoy yourself.
We ask that when you come, respect the environment and also please leave your pets at home. If you are interested in making a donation to help Las Dunas, you can also do it in the center of Guadalupe de las Dunas de Guadalupe. Welcome to the center of Guadaluable that our mission is conservation and restoration of the complex of Las Dunes. In addition we have a fabulous museum with great We have cultural and natural history, we also have sand from all over the world. And we also have relics of a film that was filmed in 1923 which was The Ten Commandments by Cecil B. DeMille. For more information about these dunes you can go to www.countyofsb.org Yeah.
0:16 – 0:197 turns
Beep. Beep Beep
Hey, let's check out this park. Oh wow! That's really cool! To find a great local park or forest near you go to discovertheforest.org
If you need to do something to feel okay to drive, you're not okay to drive. Don't drive buzzed.
Yo Scott! Hey! I'm heading out man, you want a ride? No, I got my car back- I actually really need to go to the bathroom. You know what? I was just in there and the line is like ten people long. You know, I think we'll just... Dude, are you okay? You wouldn't believe what I was just thinking. I am definitely buzzed. Yeah... I think I will take this and I will take that ride home. Smart man! Did you see how the dog was looking at me?
If you need to do something to feel okay to drive, you're not okay to drive. Don't drive buzzed! It's a great
time to enjoy the great outdoors in Santa Barbara County
We are so lucky in Santa Barbara County to have so many things to do outside, but sometimes we need a break from being outside and being in the heat. So that's a great time to come check out the Santa Barbara County Public Library. This here is Montecito Library. The idea for this library began with community members starting it in 1886 and this particular building was built in 1980. I'd love to show you around! Come take a look!
So here we have our kids room, and every Tuesday morning we do a stay-and-play program out front. And that's for kids age zero to five. We play games and sing songs and read books together. And then every summer we do our Summer Reading Program where we bring in all kinds of musicians and performers and we learn new things and we encourage kids to read.
Roll call, called by Clerk of the Board
Show transcript
0:35 – 0:418 turns
Turning to the minutes from December 2nd and December 6th, may I have a motion to approve?
So moved.
A second?
Second.
Any further discussion? Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 moved. A second? Second. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Show transcript
And CEO Miyasato, do you have a report today?
I do have a report. Good morning Chair Hartman and board members. Two announcements one is about Toys for Tots which we will get to but before that I'm very pleased to announce that the county received recognition for two programs in the 2022 CSAC annual challenge award program this is an annual statewide award program that honors innovation This year CSAC received 370 entries and 18 were selected as winners. We received two awards, one for the COVID-19 Health and Human Services Recovery Plan and one from Montecito Community Trails Partnership. CSAC staff will formally present the awards to us Next year, but a bit about those programs for which we received the recognition. The Montecito Community Trails Partnership paired the skills and assets of Public Works with those of the Bucket Brigade to develop and build over 2.2 miles of pedestrian paths along high-volume travel routes throughout the community.
This work was completed in less than two years, costing approximately one-fifth the cost of similar public works projects. The county and the bucket brigade are working on similar models in two other locations. By working together and developing a long term plan, the Santa Barbara County Public Works Department and Bucket Brigade leverage each other's strengths to improve public safety in Montecito.
The second award which we received was recognized the COVID-19 Health and Human Services Recovery and Resilience Strategies in a three year, which is a three year effort. And it's designed to support provide structure to recovery activities and address impacts of COVID- 19 on the vulnerable under resourced and underserved individuals within our county. The goal was to create recovery focus areas to ensure that current and future county services not only support all individuals through the current crisis, but also lift the marginalized and underserved above the pre-COVID levels. Please join me in congratulating our Health and Human Services Departments, Public Works staff, and also my staff who helped in these endeavors. Thank you to them.
And now the moment we've all been waiting for. I'm pleased to announce that the county once again sponsored the Unity Shop and Marine Corps Toys for Tots drive. County employees and the public donated new unwrapped toys since November at collection bins located in the county administration building. The last day to donate toys at this location is December 15th, but collection boxes are also located at county fire stations. Tom Reed and Angela Miller-Bevin from Unity Shop are joining us today to officially top off our boxes. All these toys will go to low income children in our community, so here to tell us more please welcome Tom Reed and Angela Miller-Bevin.
Madam Chair, Supervisors it's wonderful to be with you this morning. I'm Tom Reed before I introduce Angela to you wanted to give you the briefest update during COVID Unity closed down all of our programs except for emergency food distribution And that was a concerted effort that bode very well for us to take care of, as you know about 18,000 individuals on an annualized basis. And right now your toys will go to help thousands of families that are coming through for Christmas And for the holiday season, so we appreciate your help. You may be interested to know that during COVID many of our seniors were afraid to leave their house not knowing how contagious things were and how it was spread. And so we initially started what we thought would be a temporary program of delivering groceries with a refrigerated van.
They could still call in and let us know what they wanted, so And that eliminated the waste, and we thought that would be temporary with thousands of deliveries. But then we realized there are physically and mentally challenged individuals in complicated housing situations especially with the working poor or the low income. And so we've decided to make that permanent. We're even expanding it into North County which is your bailiwick cooperating Food bank and with shelter programs and collaborating with Good Samaritan and other charities will be doing a better job for folks in the North County. So thank you for helping, thank you for being a part of Unity. You may be interested to know that Brad Paisley opened a clone of the Unity shop grocery store in Nashville.
He opened up about three weeks before COVID broke out and so it was Baptism by immersion, as they say. He was into it before he realized. But interesting to know that a legislative assistant in San Francisco traveled to see family in Nashville and bumped into what Brad and Kim were doing there And when that person arrived back in San Francisco, spread the word and before long the mayor came up with a $5 million grant somehow to put four Unity shops in San Francisco.
First one to be open the very first part of the year. So we're proud to be continuing the legacy it's been 105 years for Unity. Tell people I've been there the whole time and they believe me. So, I'm not sure exactly how that works but the point is it is as unique as we've always said it is when places like San Francisco realize they need what Santa Barbara has, Santa Barbara County has. It's kind of an honor to be continuing a legacy that Barbara Telefson poured her life into. Pearl Chase started it, of course, in 1917. So allow me to introduce Ms. Barbara. Excuse me. No, Barbara's passed. Are you Barbara?
You don't look like Barbara. This is this is Angela Miller-Bevin I've been there 20 and a half years, and I'll be retiring in about two weeks and Angela is taking over at the helm so please give a greeting to Angela Miller Bevin
0:41 – 0:4514 turns
Thank you And I look forward to working with all of you in the future um I just want to let you know that we are so grateful for the toys that you are giving I grew up in Santa Barbara Low-income family my mom was a single mom raising two kids and we benefited from these toys So for me, it's coming full circle. So we are really grateful The community is so lucky to have some so much support from the county So thank you and I brought you an impact report that you can read in your free time
Thank you You
want to do this
So now is the time when the board gets to brag on their gifts. Who would like to go first? Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you we have a farm toy playset provided by Calcos Machinery in Santa Maria where our constituents are providing fine farm equipment for the Santa Maria Valley which grows the food for our community and the world and so I don't know if Supervisor Lavagnino, do I need to present your ball for you? I'm sure there's some soccer fields that you wanna talk about.
Yeah, no, I just say when I was shopping, I looked at a lot of complicated stuff out there and I realized, to me the best gift is the most simple one. And so this is a message to kids to get out and exercise and if we can ever find a spot to put another soccer field in Santa Maria, there's a soccer ball for someone to go out and have a great time with.
Terrific. I'll go next. I'm of a generation that we grew up wondering and people really asked, what have women contributed to history and to culture? And so mine is 32 wood embossed blocks of Women Who Dared. You can't start too early letting people know that girls and women are at least equal partners.
I am so jealous Joan. I think science is super cool and oceans, of course. I can't live without them so the game that I got is Oceans. You can compete with your friends over creating food webs over millions of years in this game for four people person game two to four people it's a little bit older set you know 11 year olds 12 year olds but looks like a lot of fun
Yeah.
I just wanted to congratulate Tom Reed on his retirement, I can't believe it. I admire you so much and the work that Unity Shop does and gotten to know you through our mutual friend Jeff Bridges and thank you for this opportunity and for your service. I am promoting a little literacy here with especially for the young ones. I used to love the pop-up books. This is one of the best books Guess How Much I Love You but it's a pop up And these kind of tractor books have been a big hit in my house.
All right, and we didn't realize you were retiring but to do it with the legacy where you're planting seeds that are actually growing elsewhere and Santa Barbara was on the cutting edge in large part to your leadership. A wonderful, wonderful
legacy. Thank you very much. It's a little bittersweet. It's growing and it's expanding. It is in a solid position and I kind of hate to leave although I'm handing it over to Angela. It is in good hands and the future looks very bright for the Erie Show.
And what are you planning on doing in your retirement?
Well, I'm gonna do a little traveling. Got a couple old cars I use for weddings around town just for fun. Love to share them with folks. May do a little consulting with major gifts things with nonprofits. They seem to do the best work out there in my opinion and fundraising is always an issue in the nonprofit world. And so if I can help a little bit to make the world a little better place, I'll be thrilled to do that as well.
0:45 – 0:5115 turns
Well, thank you so much. So we're going to go down and put our toys in the box.
One, two and.
Thank you and to everyone in the county who contributed along with us. All right, Madam Clerk announcements for today.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, I do have a few quick announcements this morning. Administrative item 53, a resolution honoring Roger Echeves will not be presented and can be added to the balance of the administrative agenda. We posted an addendum to today's agenda on Friday December 9th amending the closed session agenda, the administrative agenda, and the departmental agenda.
The closed session agenda was amended to reflect the correct paragraph under conference with legal counsel anticipated litigation. The language reads, paragraph 2 of subdivision D of paragraph 2 of subdivision E of government code section 54956.9. The administrative agenda was amended to include additional language for item 27 from the Planning and Development Department regarding the GSR LLC new Ag Preserve contract in the 4th District, and to reflect the addition of Administrative Item 56 from the County Executive Office regarding the appointment of the Agricultural Commissioner and Public Health Director. A request has been made by staff that Administrative Item 56 be trailed until after closed session The departmental agenda was amended to reflect adjustments to the recommended actions for item 3 from the Planning and Development Department This addendum was posted online and has been made available to the board and members of the public I would also like to add for the record The administrative item nine requires a four-fifths vote.
For the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide comments during general public comment or for an item on the board's agenda, please see page two of the agenda. Please be advised that the Public Health Department is still strongly encouraging all county staff and members of the public to mask and socially distance themselves in crowded areas 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 2. If you have any questions, please contact the Clerk of the Board's Office at 805-568-2240. That concludes my announcements for today.
Thank you. And so turning to the administrative agenda, Madam Clerk do you have any items that well let me first ask the board items to pull. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes if I get a roll call vote on A18.
All right and any other board members yes A7 please
all
right and i would like to pull A5 and uh so madam clerk any members of public
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, we also have a request to speak on Administrative Item 9. Which one? 9, Administrative Item 9.
Okay. So would you read A5 into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item 5 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding an acceptance of Fiscal Year 2021 Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program funding and submission of planning grant requests to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Thank you. I pulled this because I just wanted to say, I think there were only 17 grant awards and for Santa Barbara County to get $5.1 million is quite extraordinary and just wanted to remark on that. Really, we've got a housing department in our county that is pulling way beyond its weight. And this is just another example and it's going to make a huge difference for youth in our community.
Supervisor Williams? I
agree. It really reflects the commitment of both staff and this board to tackling homelessness issues and housing issues and a great step forward.
All right. Turning then to A7, Madam Clerk.
0:51 – 0:5811 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item 7 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding project funding agreements with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for their Arroyo Burro Beach Park interpretive signs and the Goleta Park Coastal Access Improvement Projects. This project is located in the 2nd District. Supervisor Caput?
Yeah, I just wanted to pull this because again it's just a highlight the good work of staff and chasing down these grant monies associated with refugio oil spill to actually improve our beaches and our coastlines in the second district. And I wondered if Mr. Taperjohn or Mr. Lindgren would like to elaborate further on the project?
Good morning Supervisors Chair Hartman and Supervisor. I think Jill may be in the audience. Jill can elaborate further on it She's the project manager for this.
She's on her way up,
thank you. Good morning supervisors and thanks so much for the accolades I just want to say that it's amazing that we got almost 95% of the funds that were award that were available for their refugio oil spill So I think the Arroyo Burro interpretive panels are fairly simple. They're just installing some small panels along the boardwalk at Arroyo Burro Beach. There are three little overlooks to the estuary, and they'll be able to go with the Florida fauna and teach people about the watershed and the importance of keeping the estuaries and the creeks clean and how that benefits just Thank you. Thank you very much.
And we've been building up some funds through deferred maintenance and preventative maintenance to re-establish those irrigation lines, reduce the grass area and try to make it a little bit more, let's just say usable. Use less water and do a little bit more for the long term use of that park. But what this grant will do, it will help put a walkway in for pedestrians not only along the grassy area away from the beach but also leave some open space in front of the beach for easier coastal access. So thank you so much.
And you're the grant writer are you not?
I run the capital division, so I'm the grant writer. I oversee design. I oversee construction and I just try to make things happen for the community. So thanks so much. Well done. Thank you. Supervisor Katz?
Yeah, thank you Ms. VanWoude. It's great to hear about the project and I look forward to it and also then to know exactly where the money came from. Appreciate it. Thank you.
Madam Clerk A9.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 9 is from the Community Services Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding the Radical Equity Grant Program contract with The Fund for Santa Barbara. This item requires a four-fifths vote. We'll now go to Andy Caldwell via Zoom.
Chair Hartman, members of the board, Andy Caldwell representing COLAB. As you know, I've been watching county government for about 31 or 32 years now and I've never seen what I've been seeing this year which to me is gifts of public funds, patronage monies and the like being given out. Never saw it before until this last year. On this item we have to ask there's a prohibition against the gifts of public funds And you have to ask yourself, well it's not a gift if there's a deliverable product. There is not a gift if there is a result to be obtained.
But this goal of ending racism and creating equity is so amorphous In terms of the ability to measure outcomes, it does smack of a gift of public funds. And before you spend this money we have to ask you what was the outcome? What was the deliverable? What was the product of the money already spent? It's kind of hard for us to believe that the auditor controller could check off on this. And we actually wish the auditor controller would weigh in to see whether or not this just is political patronage monies and, or just a feel good ideological expenditure so that you can virtue signal.
And you know, we kind of look at this a little bit in line of 855 today on which is this resolution to quote unquote protect democracy. Well let's consider what you want to talk about racism. What happened in the L.A. City Council? When Kevin de Leon, the president and the largest labor union in L.A., conspired to deprive black people of their vote and disparaged pretty much everybody else in that community including Oaxacans and other people Maybe 855 should be amended with your love for the Constitution and your hatred for racism. And also talk about shadow banning conservatives on Twitter, there's all sorts of things you could be doing with this money.
We actually really think that you have been elected not for these ideological windmill tilting expenditures But doing things like fixing roads, or maybe you should even pay for kids that lost learning capacity during COVID. Something that's tangible results oriented and deliverable outcomes could be measured. Thank you And we urge, I just like to say that we urge Supervisor Labonino and Nelson to vote no. Just like the rest of you would vote no if this money was going to the Pacific Legal Foundation or the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association or even COLAB. Thank you.
0:58 – 1:0420 turns
Thank You Mr. Caldwell I feel a need to say something in response. We do have human services grants, we do have arts and culture grants and these equity grants...I've attended many community festivals and activities that have been made possible by this and so I'm strongly supportive. Supervisor Williams?
And I will chime in that at the same time that we're doing this We're fixing the feel-good, liberal agenda of trying to end racism or at least heal some of it. We're also fixing those roads. Mr. Sneddon, isn't the payment index rising faster than it has any other time in your career? I'm seeing a nod from
Mr.
Sneddon.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, thank you Chair Hartman. These funds aren't necessarily where I would like to see my first dollar of taxpayer dollars go towards, but we decided to spend these dollars in collaboration as a board through compromise. My colleagues also let me interact with the fund of Santa Barbara to go through applications and be part of that process to hopefully be a guardian to make sure some of these funds weren't spent in an inappropriate way if you actually go through the attachments it goes through a list of things that these funds will not be going towards Would be offensive to me and things I would not be accepting. But I believe if we are going to be spending these taxpayer dollars, which are earned from the public on these public purposes that it should be done in a very judicious manner.
This has been gone through an extensive process and I'm prepared to move it forward with the balance of the agenda.
And thank you for your role in overseeing that. Madam Clerk, A18 would you read that into the record?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, administrative item 18 is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the circumstances of the existing state of emergency.
And this will need a motion and a second to pass staff recommendation. May I have a motion?
So moved.
Second? I second the motion. Any further discussion?
I'm sorry, got distracted there for a second. Is this 18?
Okay, Madam Clerk would
Roll-call vote Passed 4–1 motion. Any further discussion? I'm sorry, got distracted there for a second. Is this 18? Okay, Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Show transcript
Motion passes 4-1.
Okay so we're going to trail A56 so we're ready to approve the balance of the agenda including A27 as amended may I have a motion
So moved.
A second? I'll second. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll on the balance of the agenda?
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 moved. A second? I'll second. Madam Clerk, would you call the roll
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
All right, turning to administrative item number 52. Would you read that into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item 52 is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of commendation honoring Suzanne Grimacy of the Behavioral Wellness Department as December 2022 Employee of the Month in Santa Barbara County. Joining us here in person we have Suzanne if you'll please join us at the podium I will now read the resolution into the record Whereas, Suzanne Grimsey began her career in the county in 1997 as a mental health practitioner too with the former Department of Alcohol Drug and Mental Health Services now known as Behavioral Wellness, BWEL. She spent four years in quality care management branch filling a variety of vital roles including hospital liaison with emergency response services to reduce patient hospitalization, audit preparation and utilization management, and training coordination for department staff Due to her skill in project management and organization, she was promoted over the next several years where she served as branch chief over clinical services and then over quality care management policies and procedures staff development training and cultural competence.
And whereas Suzanne a licensed marriage and family therapist served as BUL's chief strategy officer and public information officer since 2013, and then as PIO Chief of Strategy and Community Engagement beginning in 2021 where she provides expertise countywide to both the County at Large and Santa Barbara County employees. In all matters of critical incident response, debriefing and grief counseling. And during COVID-19 pandemic has provided various county departments with support in managing staff burnout and assisting in recovery and return to work challenges faced by many county staff this past year.
And whereas through her efforts and leadership in the community, Suzanne organized a vast and multi-specialty community wellness team network of local providers in the wake of the Thomas fire that supported community members in the aftermath of the debris flow. And remains an active and responsive network responding to all matters of crisis and local emergencies throughout the county.
Whereas Suzanne is a proud loving mom of two beautiful daughters and a son, and a new son-in-law. As well as a selfless doting dog mom to four canines including three Great Danes and a shepherd pit bull mix. And whose extraordinary patience and exceedingly calm demeanor provides the department director and the Be Well staff in general a sense of psychological safety that inspires self confidence and contributes to the maximum work performance throughout the department.
And whereas Suzanne is also extremely compassionate and well-respected, is able to connect easily with others and is accessible and highly responsive to residents throughout the region to provide vital information and resources regarding the County of Santa Barbara and the Department of Behavioral Wellness Services whenever needed. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Suzanne Grimacy as employee of the month of December 2022 passed and adopted today
1:05 – 1:1012 turns
Thank you so much. That's a lot of whereas is it? It's always honoring and humbling to receive a recognition, but I have to say there's something extra special and meaningful receiving it from your own family. So I'm very proud to be a part of this county family and working aside all within behavioral wellness. Thank you very, very much.
And Supervisors and County staff, I just wanted to say thank you so much. And I'm very excited today on the one year anniversary of me being here to be able to bring Suzanne Grimacy forth as our employee of the month. She is such a deep well of positivity and in all of our meetings she always can turn a frown upside down and find the good in it and is moving us really forward in the biggest transformation that behavioral health has gone through in California in 30 years Her contribution in the department is vital, so thank you for honoring her this morning.
And I just wanted to jump in as well. I can't think since I've been on the board of a difficult situation and an emergency, a tragedy where Suzanne wasn't there. And your counseling people who are in terrible, terrible situations I remember the dive boat disaster and how you organized that whole event, how you take a community sense of being overwhelmed by grief and channeling it to begin trying to grapple with it. And I know you work with our first responders.
They see horrible, horrible accidents and things that take the toll. And so, whatever it takes is Suzanne. She's there and you've helped me on issues that I'm dealing with in Lompoc. So you're always doing what it takes. You're not just staying within the lines of some defined job description and it's to the benefit of our entire county and our entire community and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
Supervisor Williams?
I just want to especially thank you on behalf of the people of the First District for your service during the Thomas fire and debris flow. For anybody who doesn't know Suzanne, she's the amazing combination of expertise and empathy. And your ability to communicate in a way that just by its feeling and demeanor calms and heals is tremendously powerful. Provided that not only for the public but when sort of disaster exhaustion set in among staff For for our staff and I really just want to call that out in particular an amazing service
Supervisor Lavinino, and then supervisor caps. I
Well, thank you Madam Chair. Yeah I didn't want to let this moment go by without recognizing Suzanne just one of those go-to employees that we go to when there's any type of emergency or disaster because as everybody else has talked about her really first off professional attitude the empathy her knowledge just a really balanced voice out there in the community and I always wondered how she got That demeanor, but now realizing you have four dogs and three great names.
I get it and balancing kids and everything so congratulations well deserved
supervisor caps.
It's nice for me to be here to help you give this honor because I've watched you from afar as a member of the public during these tough times for our area and just admired your keen communication skills, as Supervisor Williams said. And you're one of the people I look forward to working with and getting to know. Just appreciate that. But especially too, I just thank you for this timing of this award because in addition to these anniversaries of the Thomas fire and the mudslide holidays can be such a horribly challenging time for those who are experiencing grief and loss So behavioral wellness is it's good that we're talking about this today in addition to the festivities and the toys Just the what you do and what your department does for our County internally, but also everyone and so I look forward to working with you.
Congratulations
supervisor Nelson
Yes, thank you chair Hartman Susanna 10 years ago when I came on as a staff member at the county. I showed up to mental health commission meeting for the very first time trying to figure out what's going on with this department and you were a as soon as Avenue said a calm steady voice there someone that commands respect people need to listen to and dive into and I've always admired that about you and continue to enjoy your service to the county it's been a great service. Thank
you. I think you can see you're much beloved Thank you. Madam Clerk, item number 54 please.
Chair Hartman and members of the Board, Administrative Item 54 is sponsored by Supervisor Labadino. It is to adopt a resolution honoring the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society upon its 50th birthday. Joining us here in person today we have Art Sylvester. If you'll please join us at the podium I will now read the resolution into the record.
1:11 – 1:168 turns
And Supervisor Lavinino, Supervisor Nelson is presenting on your behalf.
Whereas, the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society is celebrating its 50th anniversary as an important cultural and educational institute in Santa Barbara. Founded in 1972 with the purpose of furthering the skills and resources for family history research in Santa Barbara. And whereas, the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society has grown to over 500 members and is the largest and most active genealogical society in the Tri-County area. And whereas, as one of the county's important educational and research institutes, the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society and the Scion Genealogical Library are the primary resources for family history research in Santa Barbara County. And whereas, Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society collects, preserves, and catalogs over 16,000 offerings In its Cy Young Library, available to members and non-members alike.
And whereas the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society encourages research, scholarships, collection, citation and publication of genealogical materials while also educating all levels of family history researchers through lectures, tours, classroom activities and seminars. And whereas Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society operates the Cy Young Genealogical Library and acts as custodian for the attending grounds including Historic Outbuildings and the second largest Redwood Grove in Santa Barbara County Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors honors the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society upon 50 years as the primary resource for family history research and education And further commends the society for its work in furthering an understanding Of its appreciation for genealogy and family history passed and adopted today
Mr. Sylvester
Madam Chair and members of the Board, she reads well doesn't she? I am Arthur Sylvester, President of the Santa Barbara County Genealogical Society. I'd like to introduce some of our officers. We are an all-volunteer organization we have no paid executives We pay a gardener, we pay a CPA but the rest of us are all volunteers. Our president-elect is Ted Azar Myers.
Our past president is Karen Ramsdell. Our membership chair is Kate Lima and our outreach chair is Holly Snyder The organization started out in 1950 years ago. As a few women who were carrying boxes of reference material from house to house in their meetings, they advertised in the newspaper see if anybody else wanted to be on the society. And today we are now 500 members with a permanent library that we own mortgage-free Donated by the Syun family. The Syun family was Dr. Syun who with Dr. William Samson synthesized insulin and invented Visine, get the red out.
We are very active in family history as has been said. We may have one of the finest genealogical libraries in the country and we certainly invite you to come and look up your family history We have docents there every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. And we certainly would like to see you there. We're very pleased to receive this proclamation on our 50th anniversary. We thank you very much.
Thank you.
It's amazing to learn that there is such a treasure, such a resource in our community. Thank you for all your work. That pretty much concludes oh we have one more item A55 Madam Clerk.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, that's actually an honorary resolution. Oh not to be presented?
Correct. Sorry had that I did want to mention one thing we had two other resolutions that we did not present today and they were honoring Holly Sierra and Roger Eceviz. She's retiring from the Bulton City Council after 14 years of service, and Roger Eceviz from the Goleta City Council after 16 years of service, and just wanted to note that our local government city partners are very important to the work of all of us, so we appreciate everything that they've done.
Turning then to general public comment Madam clerk, do we have anyone who would like to speak in general public comment today on matters not on today's agenda? But within our jurisdiction
chair Hartman and members of the board. We do have three requests to speak We'll start here with Meryl Brooks to be followed by Jim Kemp
1:17 – 1:249 turns
Yes, good morning Madam Chair and Supervisors. My name is Mirelle Brooks and I am here this morning representing Citizens Planning Association and I'd like to address the topic of the current housing element update process. CPA has advocated for transparent community planning since its founding in 1960. CPA has been following the current housing element update process, and since the beginning we have expressed concern to county staff about what we consider an absence of full transparency and a seemingly lack of robust community engagement.
This started with the proposed disproportionate allocation of housing units being recommended by staff to SB CAG for the South Coast. CPA realizes that the state is bearing very heavily down on our local communities trying to resolve the housing crisis. While the state of California issues the overall numbers for the RHNA numbers for units and approves the methodology, it is local government officials, members of SBCAG who voted to support what we considered a lopsided allotment of 73% of the units to the resource-constrained South Coast.
As CPA noted in our July 2021 letter at SBCAG, The South Coast could not handle approximately 5,000 additional units unless it was done with a complete disregard for existing community plans and existing agricultural conservation policies. CEPA waited a long time to see the maps. And the public became very baffled to find out that the county staff had spent over a year with consultants and property owners deciding which parcels to recommend for high-density upzoning, with no input from the public along the way.
How and when was the decision made to rely on rezones alone? Why was there no consideration for the number of ADUs, second units and commercial property rezones? Why choose to prepare a blanket programmatic EIR to cover all these potentially huge projects. Such closed-door decision making lies in the face of the tradition of transparency that characterized decades of county long range planning Now, unfortunately the public's being told that not meeting a February deadline means that the state will give developers by right ability to develop anywhere without environmental review.
So we have a few requests. First of all, we would like to have some kind of a public hearing. Ms. Brooks,
that is your time so very quickly.
Okay, very quickly. We'd like to have some kind of public hearing on the supervisor's level to get some answers to these questions. We would like a record of all private meetings regarding specific rezones that are now shown on the housing element maps and lastly we do hope that you can help the planning department Get this plan to the state on time so we don't have to turn over our planning to them. Thank you very much,
thank you.
Jim Kemp to be followed by Autumn Brooke.
Chair and members, good morning. Most of you know me as the former SB CAG director where I had the privilege of working on many important transportation projects throughout the county in every supervisorial district. Today I'm here as a project proponent representing Trees & Trails. We are a coalition of neighbors and non-profit organizations who want to see the Modoc Path completed and care about the Modoc Preserve I'm also here as a landowner.
For the property that includes the Modoc Preserve, I and 1,300 of my neighbors in Hope Ranch and the Hope Ranch Annex area are shareholders in the Lacumbra Mutual Water Company. That's right, the land is privately owned. And we voted overwhelmingly in the mid-90s to reject the sale of this property for development purposes and to place the land into a conservation easement to be enjoyed by the entire community.
We want this PATH project and believe that it can be designed and constructed to be consistent with the conservation easement. We sent your board a letter that outlines 25 years of history, legal documents and planning efforts that led to this project. There is a path to the path. On behalf of Trees & Trails I want to thank your board for securing the $5.4 million state active transportation program grant and providing over two million dollars in your own local matching funds to make this project a reality.
For having the vision to work in tandem with the City of Santa Barbara to close this gap in our multipurpose path system. For your board's unanimous vote to approve the path on Alternative Alignment B, which places the path in the preserve and for not being dissuaded by those who would seek to cancel this project. And continue to suggest alternatives that are not feasible, not consistent with the board's direction and do not align with the conservation easement.
Here is the ask. There has always got to be an ask. Please keep a close eye on this project. We're not done yet. The project needs final design and a permanent easement to place the path in the conservation easement area. This phase of the project is more complicated than Phase 1, which is currently under construction primarily because it involves three entities—two private and one public all having approval authority over the project.
The project is unique and challenging for all three of the organizations, and each agency must understand its role and the role of the other organizations. All three organizations must work as partners and with community stakeholders. That's us, Trees & Trails. And a collaborative transparent process during design will help ensure that the best multi-use path project is developed and that the final product can be approved under the terms of the conservation easement. Thank you for your attention, your support, and happy holidays.
Chair Hartman, am I able to
respond? We wait till the end. We typically don't respond directly but now and then we feel we must but at the end of comment if that's all right. Thank you very much.
Chair Hartman and members of the board we have our final speaker Autumn Brooke
1:24 – 1:296 turns
Bring the mic down a bit here. Honorable Chair Hartman and members of the board, my name is Autumn Brooke. It's a pleasure to speak to you today as a member of the Trees & Trails Coalition. We support the MODOC multi-use path including its placement within the MODOC conservation easement area. I've lived on the Auburn Trail for over 30 years and am a shareholder of the La Coomber Water Company along with its ownership of 33 acres of land along Modoc Road.
In 1996, I became deeply involved as a volunteer in the efforts to protect this rare piece of urban open space from sale and commercial development. I was later hired by the water company as land management and native plant specialist to help shepherd research. And finally in 1999, shareholder vote with 84% approval that placed 25 acres of the land into a conservation easement with the Land Trust as trustee.
I work directly over the next two years with the Land Trust's Executive Director, the MODOC Committee, the shareholders and the community at large to develop a mission statement, an outline for public access. Maintenance, management and enhancement of the easement area as well as the establishment of the MODOC endowment. I have volunteered on and off since on the MODOC committee including maintenance and major restoration activities.
I bring this long experience with the land along with a vision of how it can better serve the community while its habitat is gradually restored to a safer, more sustainable and adaptable balance. Our coalition of local citizen volunteers, subject matter experts, nonprofit groups, neighbors and community members has a wealth of positive contributions to share.
We want to see equitable multimodal access for all ages and abilities which only an all-weather paved path can provide. We envision pullout areas where long-promised educational signage that displays the deep natural and cultural history of this place can become a reality. We believe that this ATP funded PATH project can be a catalyst for these and other enhancements of the conservation easement area.
We can only bring our knowledge and creative ideas to the project design process if we are included, Since the board's approval of the MND six weeks ago, we've awaited the county's public outreach concerned that discussions including just the three decision-making entities could preclude many important options. We appreciate the complexity of this project for the staff And ask that you help their efforts, keeping the process on track and transparent.
We look forward to being at the table. Thank you for your attention, involvement and support.
Thank you.
And Merry Christmas. Happy holidays.
And Madam Clerk, does that complete public comment? Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have no further requests to speak. All right. Thank you, Supervisor Kaps.
I just wanted to provide a brief update to our speakers. Thank you for your advocacy. Shortly after I was sworn in, I did meet with Public Works so it's the request of keeping a close eye. I promise to do so as Supervisor Hart did and my colleagues did as well with the vote and the stakeholder process is about to start in January and things are transparency and involvement is the name of the game.
And a path to a path. A path to a path. All right, with that then public comment is over. Madam Clerk would you read departmental item number one into the record please?
1:29 – 1:379 turns
Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number one is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a disadvantage unincorporated communities amendment to the land use element of the comprehensive plan
Good morning,
Director Plowman. Good morning Madam Chair and members of the Board. As indicated by Miss Graham, this item is an amendment to our land use element and updates the information about disadvantaged communities in the unincorporated areas of the county. This is an important step that we have to take as part of our housing element update actually. And so we have Dan Clemon, our Deputy Director, Ellen Bell, our Supervising Planner, and Zoe Carlson, the planner who is overseeing this project. With that I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Carlson.
Thank you Chair Hartman, excuse me and supervisors. My name is Zoe Carlson and I will be presenting the updates to the land use element regarding the disadvantaged unincorporated communities or DUCs today. So Senate Bill 244 was passed in 2011 and was codified as government code section 65302.10 And it sought to address critical infrastructure needs within low-income communities through identifying where these DUCs are, analyzing infrastructure deficiencies specifically related to water, wastewater, stormwater and structural fire protection.
Identifying funding mechanisms that meet these needs. And planning and development staff fulfilled this state mandate in 2015. And we're now required to update the analysis and the land use element prior to each update of a housing element. So, the project before you today is an update to the existing sections of the land use element of our county comprehensive plan And your board agenda letter includes the findings, the notice of exemption as well as these text amendments to the land use element.
So what is a disadvantaged unincorporated community? A community is where you have 10 or more dwellings that are adjacent to or in close proximity to one another and a disadvantaged community is where the median household income is $62,938 or less which is 80% of the California state median household income or MHI. And for a disadvantaged unincorporated community in the case of a county it must also be a legacy community which is geographically isolated.
It's not within this sphere of influence of any city and it's been inhabited for at least 50 years The seven disadvantaged unincorporated communities you see on this map are Casmalia, Gary, Sisquauk, Los Alamos, Cuyama, New Cuyama and Venticopa. And these seven communities were identified by staff and incorporated into the land use element in 2015. So our updated analysis identified that these same seven communities still meet the definition of DUCs and we did not identify any new communities.
And the proposed amendments, text amendments to land use element include updated maps and descriptions of each of these seven communities. Our updated analysis of infrastructure needs identified that two of the seven DUCs lack access to public water and five lack access to public sewer as shown on the table in this slide. And structural fire protection continues to be a challenge for the Cuyama Valley, including Cuyama, New Cuyama and Venticopa.
The new fire station in New Cuyama does improve fire response for these communities but it continues to only house one engine. We also found that none of the DUCs have stormwater drainage infrastructure currently. Our financing alternatives analysis found that three of the DUCs are within flood zone benefit assessment districts, but these districts lack sufficient funding to support flood control improvements currently.
We also found that grant funding is available to help address infrastructure deficiencies within these communities and the proposed tax amendment includes nine state and federal grant or loan sources support infrastructure improvements. This update to the land use element is a research and analysis based update, and it does not include any new policies regulations or projects or otherwise authorize the development or change of land use It's not subject to CEQA according to CEQUA guidelines section 15061b3 Which exempts projects that have no possibility of significant effect on the environment.
We have prepared a notice of exemption, which is included as attachment B to your board agenda letter. And this general plan amendment is a state mandated update and it is consistent with all applicable policies and development standards of the county's comprehensive plan It's a research analysis-based update, as I mentioned. That's limited to identifying the disadvantaged communities and documenting their infrastructure needs specifically related to water, wastewater, stormwater and structural fire protection.
It does not revise any existing policies or development standards or include any new policies or development standards And it will not expand or otherwise change land use or development of land. Any projects that may be identified resulting from this update would be subject to the applicable requirements that are in effect at the time that the project was proposed.
On November 2, we went to the County Planning Commission and they did not request any changes and unanimously recommended approval And the recommendations for today can be found on page one of your board agenda letter and they're summarized here for your reference. And with that, that concludes my presentation and we're available to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you Ms. Carlson. Supervisor Nelson and then Williams.
Thank you Chair Hartman. So go through it again, why we need to have these identified. Is this mostly so that they can access grant funding and other resources at the state level?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair yes the the state mandate is to identify and bring awareness to the needs or deficiencies specifically within these water waste water stormwater and structural fire protection
Thank you. And another question I had is how do you define geographically isolated?
Yeah, there isn't a set definition for geographically isolated. The state is rather vague on that so we used our discretion to identify communities that are rural in nature.
1:37 – 1:4522 turns
Did you guys look at any of the other communities that might have been on the edge? What were the other communities that were going to be on the edge of this?
Yeah, so Ilo Vista is a community that did meet the income requirements for a disadvantaged unincorporated community. But we did determine that that did not meet the intent of geographic isolation.
Did you guys look at the Rolling Hill Estates south of Orchid?
Yes, and that community did not meet the income requirements for the current census data we had. Okay thank you.
Supervisor Williams?
I just want to make sure that in the cases where the grant opportunities are available that you're connecting with relevant departments some of those departments will already be aware of these opportunities but some will not And I just want to make sure that connection happens between county departments.
Yeah, thank you as a component of the process of identifying disadvantaged and incorporated communities we did reach out to the other departments and we discussed the designation of the communities as disadvantaged and incorporated communities as well as potential funding opportunities.
Could you go back to slide five please? So a yes means that they have the service, not that they have the need. Is that correct?
Supervisor Hartman, yes, that's
correct. Okay and so some of the areas there might be benefit assessment districts but for a disadvantaged area that's a difficult thing to be able to support So, we do have grants listed. I guess my question is how do we ensure that we actually have grant writers that are aggressively pursuing this? And I think that was what Supervisor Williams was trying to get at but I'd like you to elaborate a little more because We're really focused, I think since COVID on disadvantaged communities and trying to lift them up. And I think this is a really important place to focus and so I appreciate all the work that's been done And it would be nice to have some goals and figure out how we change some of these no's to yeses by the time we have our next housing element update.
Have we had any improvements since the last housing element was enacted or are these pretty much status quo from then?
Chair Hartman, let me break that down a little bit there to answer the last part of your Your question, there haven't been any improvements. I mentioned that the fire station was built in Nuku'ama which is an improvement. However it continues to be a challenge to respond to structural fire protection in that area and the scope of our project was limited to meeting the state mandates of updating the land use element so we did not initiate Any grant funding efforts as a lead in that project.
So, Director Plowman.
Yeah Madam Chair I think also it's the responsibility of the districts to pursue those grants and so it would be difficult for us to guarantee that they're active grant writing but we can certainly provide the encouragement and I think that is what staff did when they were meeting with district either if there's a district that is in the area or you know working with fire or Whatnot, but it is a challenge. There's no question about that and figuring out how to provide some of these services in these isolated areas
sure III I know Los Alamos sits now in Supervisor Nelson's district, but the drainage stormwater issues are serious ones there and I assume that would be county flood control That would be responsible not not their CSD so I Anyway, in many cases it is a county department and I just am eager to see that we have more energetic coordination and prioritization so that in eight years when this comes back we see more yeses.
And maybe tracking this in some way or reporting back about grants that we've encouraged people. Otherwise, it just kind of disappears into the air. So I'll be interested in how we track this. Supervisor Nelson?
Yeah, I like to see this not just disadvantaged communities but these three needs and other communities that we have in the county. Getting back to Rolling Hills a lot of people don't know that we actually had a community in Santa Barbara County without water not just not public water any water potable water for six months last year and so you know just because some of them can't necessarily meet the income guidelines those needs are out there and I'm going to along the lines that Chair Hartman was saying Many of these communities, it's not a community service district that's responsible. It's us as supervisors to make sure that these basic functions of governance and resources are available to communities that we either created or allowed to be created in the past and that we're ultimately responsible for so.
Like to keep an eye on those things if staff could get me some of the data on rolling hills, especially As far as the income guidelines are concerned I like to dive in deeper and find out if it's a way for them to be able to Still qualify in the future and understand this process that hasn't necessarily worked out but it's definitely a disadvantaged community. We did have to access state grants to get them water last year and we like to make that permanent in the future, but again that's very expensive to move water lines from a public water infrastructure miles away to another location that's away from Any other sources, so you know getting an assistance from the state level would be would be greatly beneficial to my constituents And so as again is a supervisor that represents Most of those areas I'll be watching attentively.
Thank you
Yeah, I just like to add. I think this is kind of our equity initiative part of yeah This is a really important aspect of it madam clerk Do we have any public comment on this matter? chair Hartman and members of the board we have no request to speak and I Supervisor Lavinino, I just I didn't just want to make sure you didn't have anything you wanted to add here. I
I just want to point out that obviously this is for unincorporated areas so if anybody's looking at this and wondering why Guadalupe isn't on there, they are an incorporated city.
All right with that may I have a motion? Could you put up the second to last slide just so we can see what we're voting on? Thank you. May I have a motion to adopt the recommended actions?
So moved.
May have a second?
Second.
Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 moved. May have a second? Second. Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Show transcript
1:45 – 2:003 turns
motion passes unanimously
All right with that before we turn to departmental item number two, we'll have a 10-minute break We'll be back at 1025 Good morning. After a short break, we're returning to item number two on our departmental agenda. So Madam Clerk would you read that into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, departmental item number two is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the Summerland Citizens Association appeal. Case number 22APL22 of the Planning Commission approval of the Fuel Depot The Point Signs Project, case numbers 21SCC6 and 21BAR146. This item is located within the 1st District.
I'm sorry for the interruption. Chair Hartman and members of the board, the following documents were received after our Friday noon deadline. An appellate PowerPoint presentation received from Mark Shatillo Monday December 12th 2022 at 121 p.m. Staff memo and revised plans received from Planning & Development Monday December 12th 2022 at 257 p. m. Thank you
2:00 – 2:0615 turns
Thank you. So may I have a motion to vote these documents into the record, please?
I will make that motion but just for especially for professionals that do this like once month here, you know Like we got to get these materials ahead of time and eventually we're gonna rebel and not Vote them into the record But I will move to accept these documents into the record
and I'll second
We can have a little discussion because I'm also equally frustrated. This was a pretty thick land use item considering it's just a sign, but I was trying to cover a lot of these materials and it was challenging to try to do that in the first hour before our meeting today.
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion so Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Show transcript
motion passes unanimously okay
next ex parte communications supervisor Nelson your light is still on
I have them ready for you. On 12-5, I had a phone conversation with Gilleray Macon, the representative of the project applicant on the 8th of December. I had an area visit with Phil Snowball and Bob Collector. Also did a personal visit to the site. I drove the 1-1 freeway from Santa Barbara to the county line and back. Also this morning, I texted with both Mr. Klechter and Ms. Noble as well as had a brief discussion with Ms. Macon when discussing another project that is before our board today.
I've focused our conversations have been on the applicability of the various sign standards in Article One and Two of the Code and on the legal nonconforming status as it applies to be contacts of Sign B. Thanks.
Anyone else? Supervisor Williams.
I literally could not list all the conversations that have taken place about this sign in the last two years. However, I could list the ones that have taken place since the appeal because there have been more both with the president of the association and with the applicant over the last couple years. But since the appeal, we had several conversations with both Mr. Ciotillo and with the applicant about the timing of this coming to the Board of Supervisors so that it would be here when the appellant could appear in person. So I was involved in changing that timing And had conversations with both the applicant and the appellant In the month of October and November so that that would happen And thank you madam chair for allowing that and then more recently at a meeting on Monday The fifth with Mr.
Chatillo about this project and a meeting yesterday with Mr. Chatillo and Phyllis Noble about the project. I went by and did my own site visit on site last Saturday, and had a conversation with the applicant on Thursday the 8th.
And Supervisor Caps.
Yes, I also on Friday met with Mark Chitillo and Phyllis Noble of the Summerland Citizens Association and yesterday had a meeting with the applicant's land use consultant, Gallery McComb.
And Supervisor Lavinino for the record?
Madam Chair, I had a request from the applicant's land use planner if I had any questions. It was an email and I had no questions. Since I hadn't met with the other side, I just left it alone and so I have no ex parte to report.
Okay and I met by Zoom yesterday with Ms. Macon and Mr. Price, the applicant as well as another Zoom yesterday with Ms. Noble and Mr. Sciutillo and I'd like to say that I consider both the applicant and the appellant close acquaintances so this puts me in a very difficult position. And we spoke about a number of different issues related to the legal legalities, the public process and those were the key issues related to the sign that we discussed.
So with that Director Plowman.
Madam Chair and members of the board. So as indicated this is an appeal of a sign on the fuel depot gas station in Summerland The original appeal was heard by the Planning Commission in June of this year The Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the approval of the sign And today I have Travis Seawards, the deputy director Alex Tuttle, our Supervising Planner and Steve Connor who's the planner on this case.
And with that I'm going to turn over the presentation to Mr. Connor and we'll move through the presentation then be able to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Mr. Connor?
2:06 – 2:153 turns
Good morning Chair Hartman and members of the board. I'll be presenting the appeal of Fuel Depot Point Market Sign Project. Here's a vicinity map to orient you to the project site. As you can see in this aerial image, the site is located between Lilly Avenue and Highway 101 in the commercial corridor of Summerlin. For a little background, the gas station and convenience store have been permitted in operation in various forms since 1963. And several permits have been approved over the years including pole signs, wall signs and roof signs.
The applicant submitted an application for a signed certificate of conformance in July 2021 which initially included a wall sign, chimney sign and a pole sign. After various revisions, including elimination of the pole sign. The South County Board of Architectural Review or SBAR approved the project design in November 2021 and the signed certificate of conformance was approved on January 3rd 2022.
The signed certificate of conformance was subsequently appealed by a Summerlin resident. Since the filing of the appeal, the project was revised to substitute the chimney sign for second wall sign on the rear of the building SBAR denied the revised project design on April 15, 2022. And the applicant subsequently appealed SBAR's denial. The Planning Commission approved both the signed Certificate of Conformance and the Design Review de novo.
Subsequent to the Planning Commission approval, the Summerland Citizens Association filed an appeal of the Planning Commission approval. So before your board today is an appeal of the approved signed Certificate of Conformance and Design Review by the Summerland Citizens Association. The current proposal consists of two wall signs. Wall sign A on the left will be located at the front of the building and will consist of a 14.2 square foot point market sign by the entrance to the convenience store.
Wall sign B on the right will be located on the rear of the building and will consist of a roughly 4 foot by 10 foot fuel depot sign. Both signs will be externally illuminated with downward facing gooseneck light fixtures, with a maximum of 10 LED watts each or 100 watts incandescent equivalent. Sign A will have two light fixtures and sign B will have four light fixtures.
I will now walk through the four appeal issues raised by the appellant, followed by a summary of staff's responses. A more detailed analysis can be found in the board agenda letter. The first appeal issue is an assertion that the proposed Fuel Depot sign, or Sign B, would not be in compliance with Article I regulations as they relate to wall signs on street frontage.
Article I defines street frontage as the footage of the property that abuts an improved street or streets open to public use to which the property has access. In response, staff has interpreted the regulations and concludes that Article 1 does not prohibit a wall sign on a property with frontage on Highway 101 or any other highway open to public use in the county.
The county sign regulations are intended to authorize wall signs on property facing a public right-of-way open to public use, to which the property has access to the traveling public for purposes of identifying and promoting its business. The sign will be located on the rear of the building, which faces Highway 101. In support of this interpretation, staff has noted that other businesses with frontage along Highway 101 have wall signs visible from the highway including Red Kettle Coffee, Bikini Factory and the Summerlin Inn.
Secondly, the appellant asserts that the Planning Commission de novo findings of approval cannot be met because the proposed fuel depot sign would not be in compliance with the Article 2 regulations for Summerlin. As discussed in the previous staff response, the wall sign would not be prohibited. There's no indication that the code intended to prohibit wall signs facing the freeway and the county signed regulations are intended to authorize wall signs on property facing a public right-of-way open to public use.
Therefore, the findings can be made In the third appeal issue, the appellant asserts that the property is not in compliance due to 12 existing unpermitted signs. The appellate asserts that compliance includes Article 2 special sign standards for Summerlin. In addition, the appellant asserts that findings cannot be made that the subject property is in compliance with all laws, regulations and rules including LUDC findings required for approval of signed certificates of conformance.
In response, staff notes that the LUDC is not applicable to this project due to its location in the coastal zone. Article 2, the Coastal Zoning Ordinance and Article 1, the Sign Regulations are the governing ordinances pertaining to this project. In addition, staff found no evidence of the 12 existing unpermitted signs. There are no current documented violations on the property.
The subject property is in compliance with all laws, rules and regulations. Therefore, the findings can be made And finally, the appellant asserts that the Vuel Depot sign would not be in conformance with the existing community because it would be unlike any other existing or permitted signs in the area and that it faces only the Highway 101 frontage and it will include 24-hour lighting.
The appellate also notes that other signs in the area such as Bikini Factory and Red Kettle Coffee are side facing or do not directly face the highway and unilluminated. In response, staff has noted that several other nearby businesses have wall signs that are visible from Highway 101 including Sandpiper Liquors, Summerland Inn, The Nugget, Summerland Beach Cafe, Bikini Factory and Red Kettle Coffee.
While some of the signs are unilluminated at least one, the Sandpiper Liquors is illuminated and faces the highway in Ortega Hill Road. Article 2 allows for external illumination of wall signs with downward-facing lights, with the provision that the source of illumination shall be extinguishable at closing time of business. The proposed Fuel Depot wall sign complies with the illumination requirements.
Furthermore, there is no provision in Article 2 that prohibits 24 hour illumination of signage. The two proposed wall signs comply with the applicable code requirements regulating signs in Semilon, including wall signs are permitted and one or more wall signs are allowable on each street frontage. The size of the wall signs comply with the size limits in the code and are less than 60 square feet combined.
The material of the sign consists of painted wood and non-gloss material consistent with the code. In regards to lighting requirements, the lights are externally illuminated LED with hooded dark sky compliant downward facing fixtures. Due to the compliance of the proposed signs with applicable code requirements, staff recommends that your board deny the appellant's appeal and make the required findings for approval of the project specified in Attachment 1 of the Board Lever including CEQA findings.
Determine the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQAs pursuant to state CEQA guidelines Section 15311. Grant DeNova approval of the project subject to the conditions it concluded as attachment to. And finally, grant DeNova preliminary and final design review approval. That concludes staff's presentation and we're available for any questions.
Thank you. Do any supervisors have questions for Mr. Connor? Seeing no lights at this time, Supervisor Nelson. Supervisor Williams beats you to the light.
Yeah, I just I know there's a lot of history behind this and it's good You were we're brief but can you just? Inform the board members in case they don't know why why that sort of about face on the previous sign Happened or at least that that wasn't because the applicant did something wrong right that was an error on oh
2:15 – 2:2219 turns
Madam Chair, Board Members, are you referring to the chimney sign? Yes. So the original proposal and approval did include a chimney sign. And Subsequent to the appeal that was filed Staff Reviewed the issue and determined that a chimney sign would be inconsistent with code requirements. And so the applicant removed that proposal or removed that sign from their proposal and reverted to the wall sign on the rear of the building
Of course, that's pretty highly irregular for us to approve something and then Revisit it right. I mean, this is something that the applicant could have fought but did not correct
Madam chair board members given that it was on appeal to the Planning Commission It was fairly clear that The path forward with that was to change their project
Supervisor Nelson
yes Thank You chair Harmon There seems to be some conflict between Article 1 and Article 2 in his appeal with signs. Which one is the, you know, one that we should be looking towards as far as this appeal is concerned? Is there a question for County Council?
Madam Chair.
Director Plowman.
Supervisor Nelson and then Council can add on, but I think we have to review them together which is what we do. And so when we reviewed them together and layered them, we made the determination that we believe that this sign did conform to the code requirements in the purpose and intent of the sign ordinance as well as Article 2 which is the ability for businesses to advertise their operations.
But if council wants to add something to that, I'm happy
Miss Ben Mullen.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board as a general rule. Director Plemons correct you would read we try to harmonize all of the ordinance requirements and general plan requirements. There is a section in Article One that just talks about if there's a conflict regulations of this section shall apply its Specifically talking about the Summerlin community plan, but it is implying that when it comes to signs that this was what we would look at first.
Okay and then another question is about the legal non-conforming status of the building. It's that building the way it is right now would not is outside or within the setbacks? Is I understand that correctly?
Madam Chair, Board Member Nelson. Yes the existing structure which is permitted Does encroach into the into the rear setback towards the freeway and so would be legal non-conforming in that regard
Okay, so then the addition of this sign there and I guess we're talking about sign B That Still harmonizes there with a non conforming status
Right, and I'm sure the appellant will get into this as part of their presentation. But there's a limit on structural alterations to non-conforming structures. Staff would not consider a sign mounted to the exterior of a building a structural alteration to the building.
And then getting back to the lighting it's 10 watts LED which is 100 watt Incandescent equivalent. Is that my understanding? And then when those lights are placed side by side, does that amplify the light or is it... It's not 400 watts when you have four 100-watt bulbs, right? It's a hundred watt spread across 10 feet. Is that how that works? I'm trying to understand the brightness involved with illuminating this sign.
I think given that they're just sort of side by side by side by side, we would just look at it as 400 watts total illumination of the sign. Okay thank you
I guess I'll put this out there because it is an issue that concerns me, and that is precedent. So if we allow signs, lighted signs on the sides of buildings in unincorporated areas where there isn't an access road or a direct link for the public to enter, Then what does that mean for barns and fences and gates in the agricultural area? We're considering, for example, farmstays, Ag Enterprise Ordinance, the REC Master Plan where there may be more kinds of activities occurring on land where people may want to advertise And so what I want to understand is, if we approve this, what does that mean as a precedent?
Can we expect to see 60 square foot signs on these other structures in unincorporated areas of the county? I realize this is the coastal zone. But you're relying a lot on Article 1, so can you answer that question?
Madam Chair, Board Members. Without going into specifics, the requirements and allowances for signs in a commercial zone are different than they would be in an AgZone property. I don't have again the specifics in front of me, but they are different and the requirements are different and keep in mind that While the regulations are in place a sign such as that regardless of its location would be subject to design review So there's always that layer of a review as well for compatibility.
Thank you. That helps enormously Okay seeing no other questions. I think we're ready for the Appellant mr. Shatillo
2:22 – 2:355 turns
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the board. I'd like to have SCA President Phil Noble make some introductory comments and then I see you've given us 10 we were hoping for 15 on
our You have five, stop the clock just for a moment in fact I think we'll start it again just so everybody understands the procedure You have ten minutes to make your presentation. You have five minutes for rebuttal. If you run over on your presentation, then we take it out of your rebuttal time. So those are the rules. They apply to everybody. We're going to start the clock again.
Madam Chair, hi I'm Phyllis Noble and I'm the president of the Summerlin Citizens Association Board. And I've never imagined myself having to stand before you on an appeal but so I'm going to have to read what I'm going to say but before that I want to thank you For changing it to be the hearing today and changing your schedules and having to drive from North to South County. This agenda item is about the wall sign on the rear of the building. The applicant, that's the case number for the rear wall sign included two signs. Sign A on the street frontage In The new canopy and the TI plans were submitted in 2020, and mid-21 two separate signage plans were submitted. One sand plant set included the frontage sign currently existing and a roof sign on the chimney of the building, and the other plant set was for a pole sign replacement where the existing nonconforming pole signs located.
This rear wall signage plan was submitted in the spring post the rejection of the previous roof sign. Signage plans applications clearly state that a county requirements all existing proposed and future proposed signage and associated lighting be submitted into one plan set. We're repeating the Summerlin Bar position before SBAR and at the PC, I don't believe and we don't believe we'd be here today had one initial requirement been enforced and that is the sign application that complies with all of their requirements within the findings for approval submittal requirements in details This would have included a site plan that illustrated the structure sitting in the back lot line entirely inside the 10-foot rear setback rather than a site plan that was submitted with the structure floating almost in the middle of the parcel.
As required in the county sign application, the plan would have included all the locations of all existing proposed and possible future signs. This is the county's language. to include the dimensions from all property lines, to include all the public right-of-ways and photographs of existing conditions, none of which have been presented. Instead, the applications are piecemeal with still no clear plans for the entire gas station portion of the parcel. The plans do not reflect that the gas station has existing frontage signage, in addition to four signs per fuel dispenser and another sign on the price sign. This is not a sign-free business by any stretch.
The business is booming, cars are often lined up in the street and along the public sidewalk waiting for gas. The staff report, thus the subsequent council opinion is based on an incomplete and inaccurate information. Nowhere within any of these documents does it reveal that the entire back of the building is in within the 10 foot rear setback. The application requires that a site plan illustrates all abutting right-of-ways.
Jumping into a legal arm wrestle over the language of street frontage in order to otherwise allow a non-permittable wall sign that is located entirely in the rear setback really should take some thoughtful overview. Under using discretion to essentially change what we have all known the codes to state and intention thereof, should take thoughtful considerations on behalf of the supervisors to avoid I would like to begin by thanking the Board of Supervisors for their support and In working with the applicant, we suggested a wall sign be placed on either side of the structure using classy charming lettering that matches and harmonizes with the simple black lettering used throughout most of Summerlin. We also suggested a Caltrans logo with Fuel Depot signage located well before the Lilly Avenue off-ramp and Evans Avenue off ramp and both were rejected but I do believe if you send us back to staff we can work this out.
Thanks Phyllis, this has been quite a saga and I'm glad that she got to explain some of what the association has been through. So as you know, this appeal has a legal framework to it. The key issues include the policy consideration that the sign itself is an eyesore and the precedent for where wall signs will be allowed on properties that abut the highway but don't take access from them.
This county and the Summerlin sign and all other ordinances allow wall signs only on street frontages with public access. Staff has conflated the visibility from 101 with the requirement of street frontage with public access, and that's a clear legal requirement of our code. There's no public access from the south side of this parcel. You access it from, as you know, Lilly Avenue on the north and so a wall sign is allowed on the north side. Wall sign A is not under challenge only wall sign B which is on the south side facing the highway And secondly, new signs and new lights are prohibited in the setback. We're not talking about lighting issues other than on these two wall signs as Ms. Noble said those are issues that are going to come forward in the future this is a 10 foot wide and four and a third foot tall Three-color sign that will be emblazoned and lit with four gooseneck lights facing Highway 101.
Since the gas station never closes, the lights will never go out. These are the lights that are involved. They're 18 inches protruding from the building, 10 inch wide shields. They're sizable and substantive. And these are important for the structural and rather for the nonconforming I'd like But as it stands today, it is expressed. It is clear. It is non-ambiguous that wall signs are only allowed on each street footage and street footage is specifically defined in the sign ordinance article one as being the footage of the property that abuts an approved street or streets open to public use, to which the property has access. It does not say to which the public can see from a highway. It is to which the public has access. So staff has conflated the legal standards and applied the wrong legal standards and concluded that these wall signs are allowable on the side of a building, on the side of a property To which the public does not have access.
So it does not meet the definition of street frontage, and so it's not allowed under the ordinance. It's simple as that. The gas station has argued that they want Article 2 definitions because there is the underlined provision, if there's a conflict the regulation of this section shall apply. Now this is the Somerland—Council was wrong. Council said this is in Article 1. It's not. This is in the Coastal Zone and Ordinance Section 35138.
And it says in describing the specific sign standards for Summerland, it says if there's a conflict the regulation of this section, the Summerland provision shall apply. Summerland provisions don't define street frontage and so gas station claims that you should look to Article 2, the coastal zoning ordinance which at Which does define both street and street frontage. Street frontage doesn't include the public access part, but the definition of street does.
We don't think that this applies at all. This is a red herring. I'm going to go ahead and close the meeting. So looking at the facts, there's our public access. You can see, let's see if this works. There you go. So there's Lilly Avenue. There's the parcel red lines and the yellow shows how you get there. You cannot get there from the freeway so the street frontage is clearly from the other side. Staff has conflated a number of other signs and I'm going to take a minute or two of my rebuttal time To say that none of the other signs are comparable to the wall sign in this case. These are both on the side or front, they're not rear wall signs.
Here's the Summerlin IN sign and I'm But also there is a, the access is taken from the front. This is where the ordinance if it is applied here says yes you may have it because the access is taking from that side and so it's appropriate to have it. There's the McCormick signpole So and then there's the Summerlin Community Plan, the policy there underscores the importance of protecting public views from Summerlin. Why would you call out Summerlin and say okay, you can have billboards on walls as rear wall signs but nowhere else in the county because the street frontage definition applies?
The gas station's application here and their arguments are so strange that they do not make sense and they conflict with the overall policy. Now, the other issue and the conclusion of course that rear wall signs. The other issue is this setback issue and I do have to underscore the absolute importance of this issue. This is completely independent from the other one. Staff acknowledges that building, that the building encroaches and that sign B is in that area of encroachment but they're characterizing that as a structural alteration. That's a definition in the Land Use Development Code The inland area. It does not apply to this area. The coastal zoning ordinance is what's in front of you, and that's what does control. If the building is nonconforming as to setbacks then the nonconforming structure shall not be enlarged, extended or moved or structurally altered.
So clearly the coastal zoning ordinance is broader than the land use development code which doesn't apply And so any enlargement, and you saw those lights 18 inches out 10 inch wide four of them. You got a sign that's 10 feet wide 4 to 3 feet tall. That is an enlargement within the setback it is absolutely prohibited under our ordinance here's the pictures that show the setback right there you'll note that the plan set provided for the signs Miss places the building inside the setback. That's incorrect This is what apply that red line defines a setback this project does not You simply may not Install these signs in this location So we ask that you direct staff and the applicant To go back revise the sign plans and the lighting plans Let's get this all worked out at s bar And we can come up with a project that the applicant and the community can be proud of Thank You madam chair
Okay and so just for the record, two minutes and 25 seconds off the five minute rebuttal time. And now we go to the applicant Ms. McGill. Ms. Macon?
2:35 – 2:4615 turns
Madam Chair, members of the board Now wait till the.
Yeah, we don't start again now that her. OK, we're going to start the clock.
Thank you. My name is Gallery Macon here representing John Price and the Field Depot
project. And would you get a little closer to the mic and speak up? We don't want to miss a word. Okay, thank you.
Next slide or I'm doing it. So just to get you guys familiar with the project, the Point Market is a market within the gas station and there are seven current locations. And the fuel depot has been around for decades and that's been their logo. 10 locations. John Price has been an operator within the community since 1975, he's a community man and he's been around for a long time.
This is a known, trusted brand in the community. So it's important for branding purposes. John, before purchasing or before taking over this station met with the Summerland Citizens Association back in 2017. It was his first move and wanted to make sure that they were on board with these improvements and the two big issues were signage that can be visible from the freeway and the canopy and they were All on board with that at that time, the Board at the time that he started this process.
This is his 11th public hearing on this station. It's a tenant improvement and sign project and this is his 11 public hearing there has been A ton of time spent on making sure that the community is heard and the public has heard on what happens here at the station. I'm not sure if you remember, but this was the station before John took over. It was a blight on the community. They had all sorts Nonconforming signage, neon signs in the windows in the back. High gas prices. The community wouldn't go here. It was sort of an awful place before. Unsafe, no lighting and they were really encouraged to hear that John was interested in taking this station over and turning it into a fuel depot And here are some after photos if you haven't visited the site.
You should it is Stunning, it's clean It's safe the bathrooms are always maintained and The market has been a huge benefit to this community Nice little food area coffee The community in large parts has been very, very happy with this improvement at the site. These are the two signs we've talked about. I'm sure you're familiar with them now but the fuel depot sign in the back is only 4% of the total facade of that back. It's a very large fascia And so I understand they've got that sign over there but it's an 1100, over 1100 foot side of the building.
And it meets all the signed requirements. Here's some of the other signs that we've been talking about permitted signs in Summerland and along Highway 101. Here are permitted Carpinteria signs. I mean, we're just trying to establish that this isn't going to be the first or ever sign that you can see from the freeway and these are permitted. These are in the city of Carp right next door.
Clearly signs that don't have public access but are visible directed at the freeway and certainly gas stations those are a commonplace that you show the freeway traffic hey there's a gas station here you're going to need to fill up this isn't a standard business This is a gas station. It's meant for people on the freeway to come and fill up gas here. Here's other signs along the South Coast. I mean, there are strip malls in Montecito, you know, other gas stations.
Some of the appeal issues and I have Graham Lyons here, the attorney for John and he can speak to some of the legal responses to Mark's comments. But I just wanted to show The signage on the fuel pumps, those are state mandates. Those aren't signs that get regulated by P&D. These are requirements. You can see there's a 76 sign, here's a Chevron fuel pump and there's the Fuel Depot. These are not things we can negotiate or take off. It's required by state law.
So in conclusion the developer has operated in good faith, has been at this a very long time. has tried to work with them. The alternative locations that they've offered aren't visible from the freeway, they're not actual alternative signs. It really just makes it visible to the Summerlin community and it's surprising if they don't like the look of it why they would want it facing their community and not the freeway.
I take personal offense to their comments that they just don't like the look of it. This is his logo, there's nothing more or less to the sign besides his trademark and his logo. If it was a McDonald's or a Circle K or something else. I mean, that's just what it is It doesn't say come here for the cheapest gas in town. It's just his fuel depot logo And he's allowed a sign on his building showing that this is a gas station every gas station That's been here in the past has had freeway Signage there was an Exxon There was a mobile even the Summerlin marketing gas had Visibility on the pole sign that said Summerlin marketing gas. They were all visible from the freeway. This is nothing new This is no precedent-setting this is A sign that meets all the requirements and all the definitions.
And we had a 50 planning commission. That also agreed with the same statement, so I'm going to reserve the extra time for rebuttal if that's OK. And we're here for questions.
Thank you and I did have a question. There's a contention that the project has been approved in a piecemeal fashion. Could you comment on that?
Sure, there was two permits one was for the site improvements for the canopy and the tenant improvements which is typical to have that as a separate Coastal development permit and then the signs are are a separate permit. They they do go in separately. It's a SCC there is a There was some confusion because State law Prohibits Planning to get involved with like price signage that's required for the site but because of certain regulations of Summerland we learned after the fact that he does actually need a permit for price signage And so that's why that came in After the fact it wasn't trying to piecemeal it. That was a determination that came afterwards
Any other questions? Supervisor Kaps.
Thank you, Chair Hartman. This could be for staff so I'm not sure if this is the time to ask.
So I think no more questions for Ms. Macon.
I don't believe so. I just have a question about lighting, so I guess I should direct it first to staff and then... So you're off
the hook for now.
OK. And you
have
one minute and 50 seconds left Thank you. I just want to make sure I understand what we're determining here on lighting a lot of the correspondence we received from those who are concerned about the project referred to the lighting and the lumens, and I just want to under myself understand with the four gooseneck lights that are those illuminating towards the high that just the highway or our folks in town when they refer to lighting issues that might be addressed later is that in totality of the whole project? And what What progress can be made there?
2:46 – 2:5221 turns
Madam Chair, Supervisor Capps. There's a couple issues you've probably heard with regard to the lighting but the proposed project on appeal before your board today is limited to the lighting, the gooseneck lighting for the signage only. And those lights are bent so they Shine on the wall and on the sign itself. They don't project out towards the freeway But they they are hooded and bending so that they project on the wall to light the sign
So when you referenced earlier that lighting issues would could be addressed in the future what? Is that referring to those four or that's referring to the whole project or both I
I believe an issue was brought up by the appellant regarding other lighting on the building and by the applicant that they're hoping to address outside of this appeal. And that's unrelated to the signage lighting before your board today. My understanding is, that
is going to the SBAR and there is a provision in the original permit governing limiting
So thank you so I have a compelled by the concerns raised of lighting that impedes the night sky but it sounds as though these four that we're dealing with today are just on the sign and not necessarily projected out into Lily Avenue or into Summerland itself. Is that correct?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Caps, that's correct.
Thank you.
And Supervisor Williams did you have any other questions or comments?
Well, you know I suppose just so the folks have enough of the history. This was looked at by the Summerlin Bar right? And the Summerlin Bar just so you know is not something that we appoint it's something that the Summerlin Community Association appoints And so the sign was approved by the Summerlin Bar. That's my understanding, is that
true? Madam Chair, Supervisor Williams I'm not positive on the Summerlin Bars action in relation to the signs you know as you said that kind of happens outside of our process The South County Board of Architectural Review, which is a county-appointed BAR, reviewed the current proposal and they denied the rear sign wall. The applicant then appealed that denial. The Planning Commission uphold the appeal and approved that rear wall
sign. We used to have And they disbanded subsequent to this matter. Not sure if that has any relationship, but they were not a body known for being pro-development or for being lax on design, but they reviewed it and I just want to make sure that is also out of the record.
Supervisor Lavinino?
Hit the wrong button there. Sorry about that. I'm just curious from staff if we have, could you just give me an idea of if we have any knowledge of like on a Caltrans sign when I'm driving by at night and it's illuminated? Do we have any idea what that wattage is? I'm just trying to put into perspective.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavinia, we don't know what that would be
So no other questions right now, Supervisor Lavinino? Okay. Let's go to public comment. Madam Clerk.
Chair Hartman and members of the board we have 11 requests to speak. We will begin via Zoom with Brent Dill to be followed by Jack Thimer.
And let me, County Council I'd like to close public comment with the 11, Miss Van Molen.
Madam Chair, members of the board. I do want to have just a follow-up on Supervisor Nelson's question from before me and ask Senior Deputy Brian Pettit to address it just so that there is no confusion.
All right.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Nelson, just to clarify Mr. Sciatillo in his presentation re-raised this issue of the potential conflict between Article 1 and Article 2. And just to clarify the record Section 35-138 is the signs and advertising structures section within Article 2 that incorporates by reference Article 1 into Article 2 and it does state that if there is a conflict these special sign standards for Summerlin in Article 2 apply.
So to correct the, which would supersede if there were a conflict. The regulations in article two, the special science standards of Summerlin would apply.
And could you remind us what those are in Summerlin?
2:52 – 2:5818 turns
Madam chair, I would refer that to planning and development staff for the specifics of the assigned standards there. They're quite detailed and I suspect they'll be able to summarize them more quickly than I could.
Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Pettit. In Article 2 though, they don't have the frontage language that's in Article 1.
Supervisor Nelson through the Chair both Article 1 and Article 2 contain definitions of street frontage. But differently? They are slightly different.
Okay, we'll come back with that question to staff. Now we'll move to public comment. We have 11 public commenters with that public comment. We will not take any more into the queue but we will give people their three minutes. We hope you can make it brief especially if points have been made prior to you could just say you agree. Madam Clerk?
Brent Dill to be followed by Jack Thimer.
Thank you for taking my comments. I just wanted to voice my support for Mr. Price's project and the existing signage plan that is before you. The project is absolutely a benefit to the community. More of an improvement from what was there before. And I think as a business owner, you should be able to make his presence known within the limits of the law. And it seems like the signage proposal is minimal for what it is and that's all I have to say. I just want to say that I'm local and I support the project.
Thank you. Thank you for keeping it brief.
Jack Thimer to be followed by Matthew Taylor.
I live at 2345 Varley Street in Summerlin about two blocks from the market and the point. And I echo what Mr. Dill said, I don't know him. I've only met Mr. Price one time several years ago but the way they've handled themselves and the facility they built is absolutely first class And it was much needed, as Mr. Dill said. And it seems to me that the argument that there's no public access is really a little disingenuous since you get off the freeway and it's less than 100 feet away. So if you can see where his brand is very important and it's a great message it sends because they give a great product at a great price. And I won't echo more about Mr. Dill's but I think Something that this appeal you know ought to be denied because it's just, you know taking up public effort and staff time.
So that's my thoughts thanks.
Thank You
Matthew Taylor to be followed by Ana Carrillo.
Hi can you all hear me? We can. I will thank you everybody for your time I would just, I'm calling in to express my support for the point market and the fuel depot project in Summerland. Echoing Mr. Timers and Mr. Dill's comments, it's a really substantial improvement and major public benefit to the community of Summerland. It's...I'm honestly surprised to see that The opposition of this project is using a lot of hype that's not real to have an issue with some sort of signage that allows this business to be identified. That's actually my major issue with it right now, is that I can't actually tell that it's a gas station and it needs to be recognized as a gas station. It's very nice beautiful building in Summerlin now that matches the rest of the motif there And signage appears to me to be very compatible with Suburland.
I mean, we've got the Big Yellow Inn. We've got the kettle and everything else there seems to have freeway fronting signage. This thing is freeway adjacent and there is no frontage road there. So this is an extremely reasonable request and it shouldn't be at the appeal level right now. Thank you so much for your time.
Thank you.
Ana Carrillo to be followed by Sharon Kussman
Hello, good morning. I'm speaking on behalf of the Carpinteria Valley Association to express our support for the Summerlin Citizens' Association appeal against the proposed rear signage on the parcel located at 2285 Lilly Avenue in Summerlin. The county land use codes do not allow rear signage and instead allow signage on street frontage for which the public has access to enter the property. The proposed signage is on the rear of the building that is located within the rear setback of the parcel, Summerlin special sign standards only allow a wall sign on each frontage and requires the signage be harmonious with the signage of surrounding and abutting businesses. This unnecessarily large sign visually stands out with bright contemporary font that does not harmonize aesthetically with any signage or structures in Summerlin.
The sign and its 400 watts of proposed lighting will create a billboard effect along the Highway 101 corridor, setting a negative precedent in Summerland and neighboring corridors. We believe the approval of this highway-facing signage will likely have a negative economic impact on the community of Summerland. CBA strongly urges the denial of this proposed signage and stands firm in support of the SCA appeal against it. Thank you on behalf of Mike Wondoloski, President of Carpinteria Valley Association.
Thank
you.
Sharon Koosman to be followed by John McGovern
2:59 – 3:0410 turns
Hi, my name is Sharon Cussman and I'm the property owner. I just want to totally support John Price and Fuel Depot non-point signage. He's done an excellent job of turning that around and I agree with the first three speakers who spoke. Thank you. Thank you.
John McGovern to be followed by Julie Tafoul here in Santa Barbara.
This is John McGovern can you hear me all right?
We can.
Very good, thank you. I live at 476 Lambert Road. I'm calling up and I just wanted to chime in my view of the excellent job that John Price and his team have done. This is a business we need to advertise it as a business. We need to support this young man who's done an incredible job of cleaning up the area where he is now located. And at the same time I do feel like Are we just trying to stop this businessman from getting his job done and being able to advertise his own business?
I think we all have to look deep and say, if I was this businessman, how would I feel? Are we supportive in letting this community grow and being supportive of a young man who's brought this business to Summerlin and has completely enhanced it. And for people to continue to fight the signage To me is appalling. And I think it's not right for us to slow down the progress of what's happening here and making this a beautiful community.
I hope we would all support John on the excellent job that he's done.
Thank you, Julie Tafoul to be followed by Pam Scott.
Julie
Pam Scott Robin Van Tassel
We don't allow that. We have rules that apply across the board, so you have three minutes of your own time. I'll
stop midway and then she can finish the letter then. That's fine. You could just tell me. Hello, I'm speaking in favor of the appeal to oppose the rear wall sign. The SCA has determined a host of issues with this sign that are not in compliance with county codes. As staff has done innumerable times for this applicant they've chosen to elasticize their discretion of approval so far it pushes into new policy to approve this sign.
Their role is enforcement And this sign is out of compliance. I believe the SCA's appeal is clear, the proposed sign should be denied but I want to focus on its visual characteristics as well as its precedent setting. It is out of scale with Summerlin's community standards both in size and illumination. Additionally and very worrisome is the precedent it sets for brightly lit freeway signs along the 101.
There are very real issues of community character, safety and light issues which is why we've kept the freeway free of this unnecessary pollution. The best example is to demonstrate the actual size. This sign that Robin and I were holding up is the actual size of this sign I think it speaks for itself, it is overwhelmingly large. Though it meets the maximum definition, that maximum isn't meant to apply everywhere in Summerlin.
Scale was to be considered as well. Please add the lighting to the inappropriateness of the sign. It's 400 watts from four 100 watt incandescent bulbs probably white light similar to the other lights at the station Please see the lighting impact from the station now. It has 24-hour right to operate. It's shining at 2, 3, 4 a.m. in the morning bringing people into our town.
You can see that once installed, the additional 400 lots of light will add to the overall lighting blight of the project. The applicant had been satisfied with 100 watts on his roof sign that got turned down. Has anyone checked with Caltrans to see where their limits are on night lighting and how it affects driver's visibility?
3:04 – 3:1210 turns
And we'll ask you to speak into the mic so that we can record all your remarks.
This is the way it looks at night at 2 a.m.. So the night lighting, even though it's on the rear will still glow from the back toward the back of the building. Yeah, that's two a. m. We also have pictures There is a statement in the Summerlin community plan that speaks to scale as a reason to approve or disapprove of proposed improvement in our community.
And that, that is your time so
you'll have to... Okay I'll just have her finish.
Okay so you want to continue reading your remarks because the clock is ticking.
This sign does not meet the scale requirement, causes night sky and adding insult to injury to lighting that harms community and sets terrible precedent for lit freeway signs everywhere throughout unincorporated Santa Barbara. Not sure if you know but the gas station project has been bitterly controversial in our little seaside town. Hundreds of people signed petitions disapproving of the scale and character of the gas station And its proposed signage and lighting, and how the community felt left out of the design approval process. This very large glaring sign is unnecessary and intrusive and not keeping with Summerlin's long time character.
Thank you very much if you could deny the sign and approve the appeal and let the applicant come back to our community in which it lies and come up with an overall plan. If the applicant had been compelled to follow the same land use requirements as every other citizen must adhere to, we wouldn't be here today. We wouldn't be spending this time. All signage and exterior lighting would have been viewed within the community's palette instead of the shrill glaring outlier it is today.
Please don't allow a single applicant whose business is already visible from the freeway Which it is, as you can see. 2200 watt lit canopy from the freeway. Very clearly you can see that canopy from the freeway. It's already doing great business. We had a gas station previously. We love having a gas station in our community. So convenient not to the extent that this applicant has.
Both the on-ramps and off-ramps have been closed, and it's still doing a great business. To bend our ordinance to suit someone whose coffers are already very full and overflowing of the needs and wants of the community of Summerlin, Montecito, and Carpinteria, please don't let that happen.
Kurt Colleen to be followed by Tom Evans.
Hi, my name is Kurt Koenig. I've lived in Summerlin for over 34 years almost as long as Tom Evans who I think founded Summerlin. I waited and waited from the time that I came to Summerlin for the gas station to be taken over by somebody else It was a disaster. Gas prices, the food everything was awful so I'm just really thrilled that we have a beautiful clean wonderful gas station.
The signage I know is the only issue here today It's a freeway sign on the other side of the freeway. I drove by the last couple nights, it's clean, lighting from the front is great. If you wanna complain about something, complain about the yellow house sign that's been broken for years or the 300 yard new sound wall that went up that doesn't even work. That is one of the biggest eyesores you could ever imagine so I would suggest that you deny the appeal, thank you.
Our final speaker, Tom Evans.
Good afternoon or morning. I'm Tom Evans. I also submitted a letter that you should have gotten. I first heard from John Price probably in 2016 sometime. He was told that I might be a good person to talk to just about the general gas station situation and we'd had a number of proposals over the years and we had a long conversation, and I told him I'm sure the community would like having the gas station cleaned up and so on.
And that you know the main issues I thought would be how the canopies were done and The signage those would be, you know areas of concern and then in 2017 there was a meeting with just a few people from Summerland it was supposed to be a joint meeting with the Board of Directors and the Summerland BAR and so on but there weren't ready people there. I couldn't attend and But I did talk to people that were there afterwards and there was just a good general discussion about the issues and possible solutions. Signage was seen as maybe difficult to deal with, they were actually talking about doing some architectural changes and additions to the building like maybe a little bit almost of Beginning of a second story to give some more area for getting signage on the building But at that time the actual ordinances and everything weren't too well understood Any approvals By the Summerland Association would have been done through the Summerland BAR.
There's an approval form and it lists all the information who voted for, who voted against what the level of approval is all those things. It's a standard form that is produced and has been done for years. And there was nothing that came out of that meeting of any kind of approval And that's in 2017. There were subsequent meetings with the BAR and everything, but no you will not be able to find any record of approval from the Settlemental Land Citizens Association because there was no approval.
I just want to stress that. That is a fact. No approvals. The county would have them, they'd be in the SBAR file and they would be in the Summerland Association files. And I know that certain people here have said that there's been an approval but nobody has been able to produce the documentation. So anyway, the SBAR they looked at this and they didn't think it was legal.
They have a pretty good feel for that from the signs they see and so on and proposals they see. They didn't think it was in character. The sign itself is not in character with the Summerland ambiance And my personal opinion is John's done a good job on cleaning up the station and so on, but we had some communication problems. The canopy turned out to be way too large which is not an item for discussion today but it was three feet taller than we thought it was going to be and should have been about five feet lower actually. And
3:12 – 3:199 turns
that is your time?
So anyway not in character please support the appeal. Thank you.
Madam Chair, members of the board we have no further requests to speak. So back to Mr. Sciatillo.
And I have two minutes and 75 seconds.
Yes if I could have my presentation back up.
Madame Clerk, you have the clock. 275. I'm sorry. 275. I like that. Yeah.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mark Shatillo for the Appellants, Summerland Citizens Association. This appeal is narrow. It's limited only to the issue of the rear wall sign and that rear wall sign was never considered by the Summerland BAR because that was the result of a last minute switch after staff realized that the roof sign was not allowable It's not about other signs that are visible from 101. Staff has conflated the legal standard, that's irrelevant to this. It's not about whether – it's not about pole signs, signs in carpentria or signs that are falling into disrepair. The question is only whether our county's zoning ordinance and the sign ordinance allows this rear wall sign and it does not. County Council has confirmed Article 1 controls on the definition of street frontage.
That is the controlling definition and it has to which the property has access for the public, so you cannot consider this rear wall sign to be consistent with The applicable ordinance, it just simply does not. By the clear reading of the language that County Council confirms controls on this question whether the sign can go on this real wall there is not, it is not street frontage because it does not have an improved street open to the public from which the property has access.
Moving on to the other issue which is the Enlargement in the setback. This is a core issue of land use law Non-conforming structures may not be expanded except under narrow circumstances and our ordinance defines what those narrow Circumstances are a non conforming structure shall not be enlarged extended moved or structurally altered unless that enlargement complies with the setback requirement It's undisputed that this sign location is in the setback.
Under the clear reading of the ordinance, it's not allowable and I don't have a definition in the materials of a structure But a non-conforming structure shall not be enlarged and the structure is under the ordinance, anything constructed or erected, the use of which requires location on the ground or attachment to something on the ground. The lights are a structure. The sign is a structure and the building is a structure so the building may not be enlarged. And that is your time. You may not install new lights or signs.
We urge you to uphold the appeal. Thank you Madam Chair.
Miss Macon.
Madam Chair, Supervisors, good morning. My name is Graham Lyons. I represent John Price the applicant in this matter. I just am going to take a very brief amount of time. I'm not going to take much time of yours today. Just wanted to follow up on a few points that the opponent made here and I agree this is a very straightforward case if we kind of get through all of the multiple hearings, the issues have been brought up that I don't believe are on appeal. We're really talking about a rear sign and the rules that apply.
At the outset, I guess maybe I misunderstood County Council's direction as to Article 1 or Article 2. Here is sort of our interpretation of this. The county sign regulations do not require direct street access for a wall sign in Summerlin. Article 2 Section 35-138 provides for special sign standards for Summerlin. The section says signs located within the Summerlin Community Plan area shall comply with the regulations of this section in Article And if there is a conflict, the regulations of this section shall apply.
That section, the special sign standards goes on to say that it allows for one or more wall signs on each street frontage unlighted or indirectly lighted. Here's the phrase that is at issue here is what constitutes street frontage? Article two, where we find the special science standards define street frontage. And it defines it as the portion of a property abutting a public or private street period.
The applicable definition of street frontage does not require direct public access from the street. Article 1 may, article 2 does not. Article 2 is the controlling language here again if we go back to the original component of the special sign standards. If there's a conflict in the regulations this standard applies. Article two defines street frontage. Street frontage is one of the terms that's used in the special signed standard and again it simply says a portion of a property abutting a public or private street Location of the wall sign at issue is on street frontage as the property abuts on that location, the 101. And it's expressly permitted in that location under the special sign standards.
The second issue that was brought up is regarding the non-conforming structure where this sign is being located. A wall sign does not constitute a change enlargement or an extension of a building and is not subject to the county's restrictions on non-conforming structures. The county's regulation of non-conforming structures is intended to prevent improvements that extend the life of a non-conforming structure or make a structure bigger.
The wall sign at issue is affixed to an existing building, to advertise an existing business. It doesn't make the gas station building larger and it doesn't extend the useful life of that building. It's simply a sign. For these reasons, we believe the proposed sign clearly meets the requirements of the county's regulations and has been supported with a 5-0 vote from Planning Commission and your staff. We'd ask that you deny SCA's appeal and approve the project. Thank you very much.
3:19 – 3:294 turns
So that takes us back. Do staff members have any comments?
Chair Hartman and Board, I do think we want to read into the record on the definition of structural alteration from chapter article two. It says a change in the supporting members of a structure including bearing walls column beams girders or trusses or in the dimensions support members or configuration of the roof. We do not believe that putting a sign on a wall meets that definition of a structural alteration And I think just to reiterate what the attorney said, we agree there is a lot of definitions at play here.
Article 2 does provide some definitions for street frontage and It does state in article two, you know You should refer to this language and use these definitions and use these parameters for things that are included in article 2 And if not, you go to article 1 we try to look at all the different definitions and provide you with the information for a path forward
Thank you. And that concludes staff remarks All right supervisor Williams
Well, I mean first I think we should very much divide the issues of sign and lighting. Lighting is a widespread concern in the community of Summerland. I do think that there is technology to ensure the business is competitive but that the concerns of the community are met and that is work that we can continue to do as an institution, as my understanding is it will be going to the SBAR shortly.
The sign for me is a source of great angst and frustration. And for a couple reasons, one is I find it tremendous inconsistency. There are a lot of very visible signs in Summerlin from the freeway. Now some of them are old. The yellow house one is especially an irritation to me since you can't even read the letters anymore. The letters are knocked out, but it also includes new signs.
Two other businesses have signs that are right adjoining the freeway visible from the freeway. One of them has in the past a banner sign that was on of similar size to the sign that you see there, I did not receive one complaint about it during my time. And so it seems a little bit like that folks have gotten particularly fixated on this as a new business or as a change of ownership.
I'm also frustrated because of policy whiplash My background in this project goes almost as far back as Tom Evans. The applicant called me, said what should I do if I'm interested in this? I said you should talk to the Summerland Citizens Association leadership. I gave them a number. They got together and the tune was very different than it is today at the time The principal concern in the community was access to more groceries or more diversity of products.
We had been just through the debris flow The biggest task, in addition to the removing the visual light of the previous gas station was they asked by this leadership of the Citizens Association at the time. Was to make sure that there was products that normal people use not just people who need last minute alcohol but people like laundry detergent milk You know, basic things. Aspirin so that Summerlin residents wouldn't have to go to carpentry or farther to get basic goods.
There were other issues as Mr. Evans pointed out I want to just make sure that You understand that what I mean by Summerlin BAR reviewed this. I have been informed by an email from one of the folks who was Summerlin Board of Architectural Review member at the time, says that it was reviewed the project multiple times at the Summerlin BAR including at least two site meetings It wasn't just like we're happy about everything, they wanted this to be done and this to be done. And my understanding is those things were done.
As was indicated that was about the chimney sign right? The first thing that was asked for in the discussions between Mr. Price and the Summerland Association leadership was look you know he said I don't want to be involved here If you don't like this. And what I'm trying to say is that Mister Price did the right thing by going to the leadership asking if you don' like this all go away.
That was also my advice as a supervisor to me You know, a sign in and of itself is of little moral weight in the universe. And so my instinct is to do what the Summerland Citizens Association wanted. But at the time what that was is they wanted a new gas station and it was very clear from the very beginning that would involve a sign of this scale. So it is, you know and the only switch that took place is because the Summerlin Citizens Association leadership changed over in composition and therefore changed over an opinion. The switch is because they, the chimney sign was objected to partway through the process and staff went whoops they're right it doesn't meet our code And then the applicant graciously, instead of holding us accountable which for our mess up we probably could have been withdrew that proposal and tried to come forward with a wall sign.
I have to be able to rely for me to properly represent Summerlin. I have to be able to rely on the input that I receive from Summerlin Citizens Association Board The input that I received at the time was that they were overwhelmingly supportive of it. It is very difficult for me as a representative to then switch around after receiving that kind of input and after a business owner then puts a ton of money and removes the blight that we wanted to get rid of.
And I think It's not just, my message isn't so much for the Summerland Association Board. It's for your members. You have to trust your board members to be able to make some calls every once in a while. You can't have a formal debate about every single business that might be interested in coming into town. You've gotta trust Phyllis and the other board members to make some calls over what might be good or what might not be good coming in And so if this happens again to some other business, I hope that you will trust that they're gonna represent your interest and that Phyllis and the other board members are gonna give me input.
And I am gonna stick with the input that you tell us, tell me the first time, okay? To me, to find for the appeal, I would have to believe the following things. That carpentry has a hotbed of visual blight because carpentry as an occasional sign that is adjacent and facing the freeway. I would have to believe that the appellant's attorney is better judge of our own code than our own attorneys.
And our own planning department. And I would have to believe that 11 years, I mean 11 hearings in four years. Is how long it should take Real substantive visual blight from the community and replace it with a new business and open a new business. That is not how to create a successful business district or how to foster harmony in the community, and I will be voting against the appeal.
3:30 – 3:397 turns
Supervisor Lavinino. We have no lights here, so are you brave enough to
go forward? I didn't have a Brown Act partner on this, so I was very pleasantly surprised to hear Supervisor Williams break down because it's very close to mind. In 11th public hearing for a reasonably sized 40 square foot sign I want to put that into perspective, a common billboard. That we're all worried about. Is 14 feet by 48 feet 672 square feet. That's that's I think that's what everybody's opposed to, but I also thought it was interesting in the appellants presentation they referred to the size of the side of the size of the sign and inches so made it sound larger, but 120 inches is still.
10 feet so, you know, we kind of talked about what the intent of the ordinance. The quote unquote intent of the ordinance was discussed today but I think that if you're going to go to intent then you have to go back and look at when this property was originally approved for a gas station back in 1963. I think the intent also was to inform people that are driving along the 101 that there is a gas station there.
I understand from what the staff report tells us, staff indicates there are no violations on this property. This project conforms with all regulations and land use policies. I totally understand that the Appellants Council disagrees with that assessment but there are other recourses beyond the Board of Supervisors to challenge that. But from the evidence in front of me, I would have to deny the appeal at this point.
Supervisor Nelson, are you ready? Supervisor caps
Thank you, madam chair and thank you to both sides and it's my first land-use Discussion here, and I appreciate it. But I Again, I agree with supervisor Williams that I wish we were also talking about lighting And I appreciate that we're not but I did read very carefully the correspondence that we received and it seemed as though a lot of the energy It was no pun intended was around the lighting and not just the lighting of the sign but the lighting of The what is displayed there, which I know you know you live in Summerland. You want to enjoy nature?
You are close to the beach. The night sky is so important, I would feel much better about denying this appeal if it was also linked to a willingness, or I'm not sure how that takes place in the form of a motion. But if there was continued conversation about reducing the lighting of those who actually live in Summerlin, not those who are driving looking for a gas station. To me that's a big distinction and the lighting on the sign is just common sense that if It seems as though there is public access from the freeway to get off into Summerlin on Lilly Avenue.
In order to get gas. I'm very appreciative of the history that Supervisor Williams has shared and others have filled in the gaps it's does seem like I think the word saga has been used here for the last four years and That's unfortunate, but it also does show why we have democracy and we have these meetings we have associations and Leadership changes, but but the fact that that deal was struck is important. I think that's an important piece of this entire narrative so I Agree with Supervisor Williams and with Supervisor Lavagnino, and we'll vote to deny
Supervisor Nelson
yes Thank You chair Hartman This has been a tough one you know I think that our code is not clear here on And that's a frustration, it's a long time frustration I've heard from people all throughout the county is that you know seems like in the code there's a way to prove everything and there's a way to deny everything. That can be really frustrating for the regulated public and for those who have issues with proposed projects And so I really came in here today, you know, in my judicial role as a supervisor to try to look between the two arguments. You know where do we boil it down? Where are the key pieces that we need to turn to that hinge on a decision and it really boiled down to two things for me.
It was whether Article two contemplates potentially a street sign on the back or the street access as a freeway. And then the second piece is whether the sign is a structure and therefore not compatible with the legal non-conforming status, and then therefore prohibited. And I think both of those, you know, there's good arguments on both sides. I didn't necessarily appreciate the appellant's counsel his legal jujitsu to mischaracterize a county council's position on it or the hyperbole surrounding that.
But what really pushed me over is looking at why do we have zoning in the first place? It's to protect health, safety and welfare. And you know, we cede our property rights to the government to regulate us in those forms and as a sign advertising of business Really altering or impinging the health, safety and welfare of the general public. I don't think it is. I think at that point that I need to side on the rights of a property owner and The economic opportunity, you know as far as gas stations go they're often our number one tax generator in the unincorporated areas.
I'm sure if you look at this gas station it probably has more tax revenue than potentially a whole entire community combined that comes back to the county. And so there's a lot of value there. I visited the gas station and it is top-notch, I mean the amount of improvements that were made by Mr. Price and his family to be commended That's not how we make these decisions though We make it based on the law and that's what we look at. I further looked in you know What was the zoning here? It's C1. So it's limited commercial. The zone district has provided areas for commercial activities including both retail businesses and service commercial activities that serve the traveling public As well as the local community.
I think that this project does that, and I think that this is a sign helps further that end. And as difficult it is, and I'm frustrated that we even have to have this conversation. That now we have a community, and a business, and partner at odds. It's really difficult, and hope that some of that can be healed up. But in the end, I will support my colleagues in voting to deny the appeal.
Thank you.
And I came into this really not sure which side I was on. Because there are, the legalities can be read each way in terms of the public street, public access, in terms of the expansion of a non-conforming use structure. It really can and unfortunately that's the law and that's why we have courts and others to interpret the law And it's very difficult to write something for all time that is clear because things get grafted on and you have to kind of make it read together in the most sensible way that you can.
I was very much influenced, though, by the history and like Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Capps. If you're going to support people in the community, especially businesses, there has to be a deal and then it's struck and then you move forward. You can't be renegotiating because people make investments and it's just, it really violates my sense of fairness. So I'm saddened that the Summerland Association is split and that the community is split on this. I know that the issue of the canopy and the lighting there is still to be discussed and I think there's a lot of room for compromise It's important for people's safety to have good lighting, especially women at night.
But the lighting can be very difficult. I mean it's light pollution. Those photons can trespass and so how to minimize that and I think the applicant is very willing to have that kind of discussion going forward. I was concerned about the precedent. What could this mean elsewhere? I'm satisfied that this is a commercial zone and I'm not going to see this all up and down the 101 freeway.
I was concerned about kind of the piecemeal nature of this, but I don't think that was the applicant's fault so I ultimately are where my colleagues on the board is that I would So with that, I think we need a motion.
3:40 – 6:4710 turns
My conversation with Phyllis Noble was really impressive. I understand she's the tip of the spear in the face of the appeal. I've never had an appellate that is so kind, professional or civil and so even though I can't support that, I want to thank you for the time that you spent with me. I think it should be noted because I think it's a good example of how discussions with elected leaders should be. It was quite productive and I appreciate it. Thank
And I would like to echo those comments and Supervisor Williams.
I'll make a motion, but I want to echo that in its it's really helpful because the community has had a couple little civil wars things where people are very intense on either side and it's good to have calm leadership in the face calm and civil in a day and age when that's Neither in an age that is neither calm nor civil. So I appreciate that. I also just want to reiterate the commitment that I made, I'm sorry Julie had to leave and made it to her. I've made it to several members of the community to not to not leave behind the lighting issue.
The lighting issue is a mixture of what can be resolved at SBAR and enforcement issues because there's already some conditions of approval on lighting, and I will continue to dog that issue because I do think it's a way to balance safety business needs and the desire of Summerlandians to have dark skies most of the time We can we can we can we can balance those so with that I will Deny, I will move to deny the appeal. So I'll move a B C D and
II And I just wanted to add someday gas stations are going to be an endangered species I Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion?
About the endangered species part or what?
Madam
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion and a second. Any further discussion? About the endangered species part or what? Madam Clerk.
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously.
Okay, with that we're going to recess to closed session. Ms. Van Millen what are we going to hear at closed session today?
Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the board. In closed session today the Board has a number of items. Two items of existing litigation, Trauga v. County of Santa Barbara which is a Santa Barbara Superior Court case and Murray v. County of Santa Barbara that's United States District Court Central District case. We've got Labor Relations under Government Code Section 54957.6, Employee Organizations all bargaining units on represented employees managers and executives and our designated representatives are CEO Mia Sato and Human Resources Director Maria Elena DeGruyere We also have one case of anticipated litigation, significant exposure to civil litigation based on the facts and circumstances listed in the agenda.
And two public employee appointments for consideration under Government Code Section 54957, Director of Public Health and Agricultural Commissioner. The time estimate is maybe up to two hours.
So my thought is we come back between 215 and 230. And with that, we're adjourned to closed session. Good afternoon. We're reconvening this December 13, 2022 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors here in the Santa Barbara Hearing Room. We're just returning from closed session. County Council, Ms. Van Molen will you report out from closed session please?
6:47 – 6:5319 turns
Thank You madam chair members of the board the board met and closed session on two items of existing litigation Traga versus County of Santa Barbara and Murray versus County of Santa Barbara also conference with labor negotiators for all bargaining units and represented employees managers and executives One case of anticipated litigation, significant exposure to civil litigation based on the facts and circumstances in the agenda. And two public employee appointments, Director of Public Health and Agricultural Commissioner. And the board took no reportable action.
All right so we trailed item A56. Madam Clerk would you read that into the record now please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, Administrative Item 56 is from the County Executive Office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the appointment of the Agricultural Commissioner, Sealer of Weights and Measures, and Public Health Director. Government Code Section 45953, Subdivision C-3 of the Brown Act requires that a legislative body to orally report a summary of the recommendation for a final action on salary. Salary schedule or compensation paid in the form of fringe benefits of a local agency executive as defined in government code section 3511.1, subdivision D.
During an open meeting in which the final action is taken during administrative item number 56 The board is agendized to consider the appointments of the Agricultural Commissioner sealer of weights and measures with a bi-weekly pay of seven thousand two hundred eighty two dollars and eighty cents plus other benefits consistent with those received by other Santa Barbara County Department heads effective January 23rd 2023 And the public health director with a biweekly pay rate of $10,157.52 plus other benefits consistent with those received by other Santa Barbara County department heads also effective January 23rd 2023.
Thank you so is there any public comment submitted for this item Madam Clerk?
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we have no request to speak on this item. Okay may I have a motion and a second?
I'll make the motion.
Second?
I'd like to second.
Any further discussion? Supervisor Williams any further discussion? Oh, I just wanted to say I'm very pleased and excited And I think I speak on behalf of the entire board about these two appointments They're really extraordinary and we're glad to welcome them on board. So with that we have a motion in a second and Madam clerk would you call the roll?
Roll-call vote 1–0 motion in a second and Madam clerk would you call the roll? · 5 under review
Show transcript
a very enthusiastic eye
the motion passes unanimously Thank you And thank you to everybody who worked on the recruitment efforts It's not easy time to recruit people especially in some of these fields so we appreciate all the effort that people put into this and Departmental item number three. Madam Clerk, would you read that into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number three is from the planning and development department It's a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the applicant appeal of the Planning Commission approval in the Karis Farms mixed light cannabis cultivation project case numbers 22 APL 28 and 19 CDP 15 this project is located within the first district Okay Ex parte communications on the part of the board. Oh madam clerk, excuse me chair Hartman and members of the board before we proceed I'd like to read in just a few documents that were received after the deadline The first is a public comment letter from Holland Knight received Friday December 9th at 12 o 7 p.m The next is a public comment letter from Anna Carrillo received Sunday December 11th at 1 14 p.
m Next is a public comment letter from Holland and Knight received Monday December 12th 2022 at 12 p.m A staff PowerPoint from planning and development Monday, December 12th at 343 p.M And last a comment letter received from Holland and Knight Received December 12 at 415
Okay,
I'll make a motion to take those into the record
Thank You second Second all right Madam Clerk. If you would call the roll on that.
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion to take those into the record Thank You second Second all right Madam Clerk. If you would call the roll
Show transcript
Motion passes unanimously
Okay, and now back for ex parte communications Supervisor Nelson
yes Thank You chair Harmon I had a conversation on Thursday with over the phone with gallery making as well as this morning about the project and the mitigation measures Odor mitigation measures of course
And I on the morning of December 1st visited Rose Story Farm with Danny Han, Charlotte Brownlee, Anna Carrillo and Tim Bliss. And then I also spoke with Gail Ray Macon about it. When was it? Two days ago, I think yesterday. Thank you.
6:53 – 7:0211 turns
I Did a site visit of Ceres Farm and Valley Crest Farm on the 9th with the applicant, their consultant and the owner of the site as well. And on Thursday the 8th I met with The former appellants, Danny DeArmy and her colleagues did a site visit at Rose Story Farms. On Monday the 5th while meeting about previous project we just did I did some brainstorming with Mr. Chatillo and the previous Friday the 2nd I had a phone conversation with Gallery Macon concerning viability of carbon scrubbers.
And previous Wednesday, I debriefed my planning commissioner Mr. Cooney on his thoughts about both projects.
Supervisor Caps
yes, I on December 5th. I also met with March Tillow on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis and yesterday met with Eric Edwards Applicant as well as Delray gallery excuse me
And supervisor Lovenino
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the emails that I received from Mark Sciatillo probably were addressed to everybody but regarding efficacy of carbon scrubbers and did my best to read through that report.
Okay, so with that we're ready to turn to planning and development staff. Director Plowman?
Madam Chair, members of the board this item was originally heard by the Planning Commission on August 31st this year and at that hearing the Board Approved the project and denied the appeal. It was a 3-2 vote, and they approved it with a condition that they had added regarding the provision of carbon scrubbers within a year's period of time. And then the applicant has subsequently appealed it to the board.
So today I have Joe Dargle, Supervising Planner Travis Sewards, Deputy Director and Ben Singer who is participating remotely. And Ben will be making the presentation and so I will turn it over to Mr. Singer.
Thank you Director Plowman. Good afternoon Chair Hartman, Supervisors of the Board. Once I see the PowerPoint up, I will go ahead and begin my presentation. Oh, perfect. Today I'm presenting case 22 APL 28, the appeal by the applicant, Ceres Farms LLC of Planning Commission's approval of the Ceres Farms Cannabis Cultivation Project. Next slide please. The site location is shown here. The project site is located off of Casitas Pass Road or Highway 192, northeast of the city of Carpinteria which is shown in pink.
Also shown here are Highway 101 and Monta Vista existing developed rural neighborhood which is the closest EDRN to the property. The area in blue are the properties owned by the Cate School which is over 1500 feet away The nearest residential area to the project site is the City of Carpinteria, which is over 3400 feet away. Next slide please. This gives a closer view of this 16.77 acre parcel shown in red as well as Casitas Pass Road once again.
Next slide please. The proposed project is to allow approximately 9.5 acres of cannabis cultivation within three existing greenhouses and an existing processing building The cultivation consists of 7.86 acres of mature plant cultivation, 1.43 acres of nursery cultivation and 0.21 acres or just over 9000 square feet of processing which includes drying trimming packaging and storage.
The proposed project also includes the removal of five unpermitted structures, a mobile home in addition to the pump house which exists on site. A cooler structure and two smaller accessory structures. The operation will have up to 66 full-time employees The proposed project does not include any new development or redevelopment of the greenhouses or processing building.
And additionally, as described in the memo submitted to the board, the project has been revised to include installation of carbon scrubbers in the greenhouses within 24 months of permit issuance. Next slide please. The site plan is shown here. The existing greenhouses, processing building, pump house and boiler house are shown in green all which are permitted The yellow is a single-family dwelling, which is existing and permitted and it's not included in the cannabis project.
And in red are the mobile home, pump house addition, cooler structure and accessory structures, which will be removed. Casitas Pass Road is shown on the right hand side of the plan, which is the southern edge of the property. Next slide please. Per their letter dated December 9th The applicant is proposing a modified version of the condition that the Planning Commission applied to the proposed project, to allow 24 months to install carbon scrubbers in the greenhouses rather than 12 months.
The odor abatement plan already includes a tiered response protocol to install carbon scrubbers in the greenhouses in the event that planning and development finds odors are not sufficiently abated as-is However, granting this appeal would guarantee that scrubbers will be installed in the greenhouses within 24 months. In addition, the OAP requires the applicant to respond to all odor complaints within one hour and send them to planning development within 24 hours regardless of the source or location of the complaint.
Next slide please. In summary, the project in its entirety and as modified is consistent with the policies and development standards of the Coastal Zoning Ordinance, the County Comprehensive Plan, and the Coastal Land Use Plan. The OAP meets the requirements of Article 2 and the project will be served by adequate services. Specifically toward the electrical grid issue, Southern California Edison confirmed with Planning Development they do not believe there is a danger of a grid crash If there is not enough capacity, they will not approve an electrical upgrade until SCE has made the necessary grid improvements. But SCE staff does believe that there is enough capacity in the Carpentria substation to serve this project.
Next slide please. Staff recommends your board take the following actions and grant the appeal case number 22 APL 28 Make the required findings for approval as specified in Attachment 1 to the Board Agenda Letter. Determine that the previously certified programmatic EIR is adequate and grant de novo approval of the modified project subject to the conditions included in Attachment 2 to the staff memo dated December 12, 2022.
That concludes my presentation and I am available to answer any questions that the Board may have. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Singer. Do any board members have questions right now for Mr. Singer or any of the P&D staff? And just checking, Supervisor Lavinino? Okay so going then to the applicant's presentation. Ms. Macon?
I just have one. Oh, sure. Some people who have written to me have conflated the question of whether there is enough capacity in the grid with saying that there's enough capacity at the panel on site. Do we know that there's enough capacity yet on the panel onsite to run the carbon scrubbers or is that essentially why the applicant needs the time to do the panel upgrade?
Madam Chair and Supervisors, if I'm getting the question correct. So we did speak with SCE about this specific project and they don't have an open and active application in yet so they can't confirm with absolute clarity that there is sufficient capacity on the grid to serve this project but they said in general there is, they believe that the substation does have capacity to serve the proposed project
7:02 – 7:0914 turns
Supervisor Katz.
I'm hoping you might be able to fill me in a bit on odor abatement plans and the timing that's generally provided in that if Is it is there generally a two-year? Execution, is it 12 months? Is it immediate what's if you could just eliminate a new board member on protocol?
Sure, happy to do that. Madam Chair and Supervisors the timing associated with odor abatement plans is it's required prior to commencement of use so essentially the plan itself has to ensure that odors are abated in accordance with the code during the life of the permit. So this 24 month component that is being discussed with this project is a little unique in that There there would be a transition from one type of odor abatement system to another. So currently the way it's the site is proposed to have odor abatement would have Carbon scrubbers in the processing facility and then vapor phase within the greenhouses right now. And then over time, that would be adjusted to transition away from vapor phase and have carbon scrubbers throughout the entire facility.
So there's a nuance to this that's a little bit different than other OIPs that we've seen.
But just to clarify, so generally the plan has to be in place before the permit is given. And so this is unique because it's transitioning from one technology to another.
That is correct that it the plan has to be part of the approval, right? The decision makers approval and then it would be incorporated as part of the permit going forward And then I did just want to make a quick comment that again what the code requires is prevention of odors from being experienced in residential zones
Thank you All right So now miss Macon
Chair Hartman, Supervisors. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. My name is Eric Edwards and I am the Director of Compliance for Headwaters and we're here today to discuss Sears Farm. Our presentation discusses a brief project summary. I'm going to skip these slides. We just kind of went over all of this in the interest of time for everyone.
Obviously, I'm here to answer any questions. The project merits, the project before you today is a model project. It's in an ideal location surrounded by agricultural properties and supported by a majority of its neighbors. Ceres Farm is a member of Carb Growers and is a party to the Carb Growers Coalition Agreement. The real reason we're here today This project is one of only two farms in Carpinteria Valley currently using the Bensico FODCO odor control system as its primary means of odor control.
And while the currently installed system is smart, efficient and modular both meeting and exceeding the requirements of the county's ordinance, odor control is an ever evolving problem. At this time however we feel we've struck the correct balance. Over the past couple of months, the team has heard the many calls of its neighbors, community members, the planning commission and this board.
And we've agreed to supplant the currently installed vapor phase system with carbon scrubbers specifically designed for greenhouse operation. We only ask for one thing from this board, time. Time to engage with the certified industrial hygienist to design an appropriate system to meet the goals of the county and neighbors, time to apply for permits, time to work with Southern California Edison, and time for the unknown.
We're simply asking for the time to do this right and to not unintentionally jeopardize our business in the event of unforeseen circumstances or delays. So to be clear, we are voluntarily agreeing to phase out the use of vapor phase. And this process will not be complaint driven. It will happen whether we receive complaints or not. Our hope is that this process will be completed as soon as possible.
This is the language on the modified condition. In short, Headwaters was instrumental in negotiating the monumental agreement between carb growers and the coalition. This project has adopted the Model OAP and related provisions. It improves upon and exceeds the county's existing cannabis ordinance, it does so in various ways. In addition to the county's formal complaint tracking system, the project creates a direct line of communication between our neighbors and project staff to ensure any odor episodes are responded to quickly and transparently.
It is designed to respect all residences within 1,000 feet as sensitive receptors whether residentially zoned or not It incorporates a progressive tiered response protocol designed to diagnose and identify odor issues, and to report any findings to the county and community. And we have agreed to replace its currently operating vapor phase system with a carbon scrubber solution.
At this time, we respectfully request that you support this appeal and our proposal for a modified condition. Thank you. Oh, and I also want to thank staff and the clerk for making this change last minute and working with us over the past few days to get this into your, to the board. Thank you.
Okay. Any board questions for the applicant? Mr Edwards.
I have one manager.
Supervisor Lavanino, go ahead.
Thank you. Mr Edwards without giving away any company proprietary information if you would like what is that vapor phase installation? What did that originally cost you ballpark? And how long ago did you implement it?
I don't have all of that information in front of me. I believe it was a couple hundred thousand dollars and it was implemented around 2018. Okay,
and then Carbon Scrubber the new system that you're committed to what kind of investment is that?
We're not 100% there yet but substantial. If we don't have to do the power upgrade we're looking at Depending on the number of mission did the machines roughly cost about between 10 and $20,000 a piece. And we're looking at several per acre at ten acres so it's a pretty substantial million. Yeah and that's not including any potential power upgrade through SCE which would be extremely costly.
7:09 – 7:1513 turns
Thank you and okay that's all I got
thank you.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, yes thank you Chair Hartman. You said you were talking about that two year time frame and do you guys need that too? Deal with unforeseen delays and the hope was as soon as possible. I'm sure you guys have somewhat of a timeline for the hope. Could you please share that with us just so we can understand what the best case scenario is for your project?
Yeah, so asking for the time helps for a number of reasons that are essentially beyond our control within upon approval from this board. We will submit a revised OAP which includes this condition language Subsequent to that, when the project is issued within six months we will have designed the carbon scrubber system in a grid-like fashion and that OAP will have been submitted to the county and vetted by the county.
So I'm anticipating that process will take a few months. Once approved by the county, we would immediately submit for building permits to install these. And so depending on how long that process takes Could we do it in a year? We can if things line up quickly and the building department can process our applications quickly. My fear is I've been doing this for a number of years now, and things end up taking longer than anticipated.
I think through no fault of everyone's staff, has been doing a great job trying to get these projects through. It's just sometimes these projects take a long time and changes to the projects take awhile so we're just asking for flexibility. We find it very difficult to agree to a condition that we know is unlikely to be met from the get-go which would unfortunately potentially jeopardize our business. Ideally, we get this done a year from now. We would start the transition and carbon scrubbers would be in. If we could make it quicker, we will certainly try.
But having the flexibility and permit at least provides for some stability for the business.
One additional question along those lines is supply chain issues with the scrubbers. Are they readily available? How does that work out for you?
Part of it is just the design. Right now, we don't know really the quantity to order. A lot of this is fluid. I know that SCS just released a report proving the efficacy of them and so that was the first step and part of the time request is so that we can have an engineer on site to determine the correct number of these to accomplish the goals And so I believe that there are a handful of scrubbers available in town that have been purchased by other operators, and so that's a potential solution for us. But I just don't know the total number at this time. Thank you.
Supervisor
Kaps. Chair Hartman. So just again on kind of zeroing in on the time if I'm correct in your OAP It had stated that carbon scrubbers could be used when necessary. Is that accurate?
Not exactly. We're planning on transitioning the entire facility to carbon scrubbers, to greenhouse carbon scrubbers. There's currently carbon scrubbers already in operation at the facility in the packinghouse which is a sealed structure just not in the greenhouses so that proposal is to transition away from the vapor phase that surrounds all of the greenhouses and the packing houses and to change that over to the new greenhouse carbon scrubber technology We're not asking for what we're not asking at the two-year mark. We're not asking for flexibility to use both We fully intend to transition entirely and to completely turn off the vapor phase system
So you as a company have determined that this is the best technology To abate the odor and it's just a matter of sequencing
we have been We have been involved in this entire process, again since the very get-go. And we have been involved in the experiments that have been done recently as members of Carp Growers. So we see the direction that these projects are going and again we've heard the many calls of our neighbors, the Planning Commission, this board during our last hearing where we challenged this same condition So I think that there's been substantial change since that last hearing, just with the introduction of SCS's report on the efficacy of these machines. And so instead of coming from a position of unknown, I feel that our company feels more solid that this would be the right choice And so yes, we've made the internal decision that this is the right technology.
Unfortunately, that's not what the code requires. The code requires that an engineer or an industrial hygienist make that call. But we believe that with the direction everything is going, that carbon scrubbers will be the new de facto backed technology here in Carpinteria.
And so again, I'm just trying to the difference between because in August you're told you know condition was 12 months and now you're coming with this proposal for 24. But I just I want to make sure I understand that just is the time that you think but you're hoping that it's going to be less than 24? I mean obviously you've expressed to me or want to be a good neighbor. You want to reduce odors as much as possible. So I guess what I just want to have a lot of clarity about why like the justification for that length of time because I just see Yeah, so.
7:16 – 7:2412 turns
Initially we will go to an engineer or an industrial hygienist to design the system and so within six months that new OAP has to be approved by the county. That process hopefully is becoming quicker now. Experience in the past has told me that it takes many, many months to get these types of changes through the county but I know that staff's workload on these projects is lessening and The projects are becoming more efficient, so I anticipate that moving slightly quicker than in years past.
SCE is a huge unknown for us. We've tried to submit power upgrades at other facilities. We are two years in the making at other facilities and have pretty much gone nowhere with SCE. So even the two-year mark for us is a potential business risk in the event that an industrial hygienist says we need 20 machines and our power just doesn't support it. I don't know that we'll be able to get through SCE between now and 24 months from now, but at least it gives us a fighting chance.
Hopefully the number's less and hopefully the facility—hopefully the engineer and the electrical engineer will tell us that the facility can support We have a certain number of these and if that's the case, the timing can be sped up from sort of worst-case scenario. But when you're planning for projects and budgeting out, it's just best to plan for worst case especially when other parties control the timeline and you don't really have much say in it.
Beyond SCE, simply the county permitting. So we have the land use permitting side which is And then we have building permits and electrical permits from the building department. And again, in my experience over the last several years working on these projects it takes a substantial amount of time to get these permits through and there's multiple interactions with the county and back and forth with the engineers and these projects just take time to do it right.
And that's the request for two years but the project as it stands right now currently satisfies Currently meets their ordinance requirements. The odor control system is functioning, it's there. We have carbon scrubbers in the packinghouse. If the project is approved, we are part of the CARB Growers with a tiered response. So our project already meets and exceeds the requirements of the code. This additional condition in the extra time that requesting is just to make it even better. It's just to prove to everyone that we want to do the right thing and we're trying to do the right thing.
Thank you. Supervisor Williams,
you know I approached this Last hearing and the at first by well we should be first looking at whether a year is the right amount and where they got that and I Got very good advice from my planning commissioner about this project. But I asked him specifically about this Requirement I said what was this based off of? Was this based off of any knowledge of how long a panel upgrade or anything takes and they said no it was based on nothing. It was a number grabbed out of air, right?
And so what I am friendly to the idea of is that we should be having conditions of approval that are possible to implement Now That's not where I stopped. I just want to make sure everybody knows since the day before the last hearing on the Valley Crest, we have been trying to work with SCE to ask the questions. How long would it take them to get a panel upgrade?
Is there enough capacity at the existing? Do they even need a panel upgrade? And in the six weeks since that time, even though we are talking to the technical staff at SCE, they are not able to tell us that. The first thing that they hinge on is well, we approach that once somebody puts in an application. Well you can't put in an application until you have a permit from the county So we have to have a permit before they can answer that question. What's frustrating for me is they can't even ask the question about Valleycrest, even though we gave them a permit six weeks ago. So in my experience when you can't get an answer out of somebody in six weeks if they're unlikely to accomplish it in 12 months but that doesn't mean that we don't want it sooner than 24 months so I do think it's important To think about, and obviously too late to put it in the conditions.
But I really would like a commitment that's verbally of a milestone for the community. And so I wanted to say that early so you could chew on that.
And I had a couple of questions myself. The first is, do I understand it correctly that you won't put all the scrubbers in at once but you'll phase them in and phase the fog coal out or will it be a moment-in-time transition?
Ideally we would be phasing in order to reduce reliance on FODCO, which is a big concern of our neighbors. And so ideally it would be a phased approach and we would install them either as they become available or as we're able to get engineering and permits for them depending on power needs And all the other considerations we discussed, but yes. Ideally they would be, we would do it in sort of phases instead of one day we have all 100 machines shipped to the facility and we redo one hard switch that probably wouldn't be easy operationally. It'd probably work better to go the opposite direction.
And my other question is for staff. If we did have a 12-month condition and they couldn't meet it for reasons of impossibility, like a contract, what would you do? Or if the reasons they couldn't meet it were delays on our part as opposed to say Southern California Edison?
Madam Chair. If the applicant was unable to meet their conditions of approval, we would have to look at that very closely. If the reasoning for the delay was because something on P&D's side, say a delay in permitting, I think we'd still have to look at how timely they submitted for that permit. Did they wait three months after approval to submit for the permit and then they were delayed?
So I think we'd have to look at it very closely But essentially I think that's something that we could we could look at at that time and use the bar enforcement component
Director Plowman, I mean madam chair Eventually it would be a violation right if you don't meet your conditions It's a violation. And so permit compliance would be working with them to try and bring them into Compliance
but but if it's impossibility things outside of their control do we? Do we allow for that?
I? Mean it That's a very interesting question, and I'm not sure I have a complete answer for you exact because I don't think I've encountered that. You know eventually we might want to modify the condition if they couldn't meet it so that they would be brought back into compliance. But yeah, I'd have to give them a little bit more in depth
thought OK well will go to public comment if you have additional thoughts when you can let us know. Madam
Clerk, Chair Hartman and members of the board. We have seven requests to speak on this item. We will start with Jessica Laughlin via Zoom.
7:25 – 7:339 turns
Good afternoon can you hear me? Yes we can. Great I do have a PowerPoint that i was going to present today. I wasn't sure if it's possible to get that up Have you coordinated ahead of time with the clerk? Yes, yes we did send it ahead of time and they said to request it and put a note in my request to show that there was a PowerPoint. It's up I believe Okay great Thank you and I'm not able to see it for some reason but I will just ask you to go on to the next slide as I speak and I'll keep it under Three minutes, so apologies. Oh thank you now I can see the screen.
Okay great and I'll go ahead and get started. Good afternoon my name is Jessica Laughlin. I'm from Holland and Knight and I represent several of the nearby neighbors who are affected by the odors and the health risks with the applicant here on behalf of the Hahn family, Tim Bliss, and the Maracher-Brown family I respectfully urge that the Board of Supervisors deny various forms appeal here And affirmed the condition of approval required by the Planning Commission that required the carbon scrubbers within 12 months of approval. My clients have waited long enough here and every day that they have to wait is just another day that their agricultural business, their livelihood and enjoyment of their home is on hold.
Next slide please. And actually if you could go to slide number six. I included here some of the background about My client, but they will speak here today. But what I wanted and they've spoken here before, but I wanted to make clear is that they are very intensely affected by the odors here. And doctors, Dr. Han in the row story form and Ms. Danielle Han have been living there for 30 years and they have noticed the issue whenever the cannabis operations began. They have spoken extensively before the board here and submitted comment letters I'm going to go on to the issue today, which is whether or not these should be imposed within a year. And if you can just go ahead, I'll skip actually to slide number 10 if you could.
And here the OIP reduced carbon scrubbers because it said it's still in its infancy and not commercially available but we know that's not the case. We've seen by seven recent cannabis cultivation permit applications that it is commercially available. We've heard about the Carbon Scrubber Study which demonstrates The efficacy of carbon scrubbers. This was released a month ago and it demonstrates exactly what we expected to see here, that the pass-through efficacy was 95% and there was a clear benefit here. It also compared to the vapor phase technology that's proposed for this project in showing that the vapor phase technology actually increases the total emissions. And the longer that my clients have to wait, and you've heard today about how long it could take to get these applications.
So this isn't...the change isn't just I would just encourage the board here to hear the neighbors. They've been saying this for long, they're trying to be good neighbors. This is not about cannabis and whether or not they agree with that it's just about protecting their agricultural business and the enjoyment of their homes here.
Thank you. Thank you.
We will now move to Tim Bliss here in Santa Barbara to be followed by Bill Hahn
Chair Hartman and Supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to speak. With this modified appeal we're moving in the right direction. Growers and neighbors are working together and coalescing around carbon scrubbers agreed upon standards and reliable measurement at the product line. I want to thank Doss and Joan for playing a significant role in getting us to this point.
Thanks also to Alex for committing to the scrubbers. Alex, we realize scrubbers are expensive. We know it complicates your permitting process and we realize you're in a competitive business. As your longtime neighbor, thank you. This is all very encouraging, and I want you to recognize that. But we must also keep in mind that there is a lot of work ahead of us, and we need the help and cooperation of all.
First, 5980 must commit to scrubbers on at least the same timetable Alex has. If they don't put in scrubbers then there will be little relief for the neighborhood Not to mention it's a slap in the face to Alex and good growers in the valley who are listening, responding and spending real dollars to be good neighbors. We all need to work together to shorten number two we all need to work together to shorten the time to scrubbers.
We neighbors are agreeing and committing to 24 months from today But we all know that is too long. We're trusting that the board, the planning department, Alex and others will continue to work with us on interim solutions and shortening the timeframe. Until scrubbers are up and running, we neighbors will continue to labor under Fogco and or The Skunky Smell.
And Rose Story Farm, a source of pride in carpenteria will be pretty much shut down. The Smell and Fog Co back up into their canyon. They can't operate their fragrance business. They can't conduct tours. Danny has a book coming out in March. She actually has it with her, the copy today. And she won't be able to promote it with visits to the farm. It severely limits their ability to rent their houses.
Scrubbers puts Rose Story Farms back in business and thriving. And lastly, but just as important, the Planning Commission needs to revisit streamlining the permitting process for cannabis growers. And the county needs to give growers and neighbors a little slack to do pilots and pivots without penalizing well-meaning growers. Everbloom is a good model that we can all look at.
Please give us leeway to experiment so we can discover mutually workable solutions. If we all continue to do our part with a sense of real urgency, solutions will come fast We neighbors are encouraged by these latest developments. And we look forward to seeing each other at Dutch barbecues instead of negotiating sessions.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, who was what was I'm sorry? What's the name of the last speaker?
Mr. Hans, Dr.
Hans. Great thank you very much.
Oh Bliss, I'm sorry.
7:33 – 7:404 turns
And now we will have Bill Hahn to be followed by Ana Carrillo.
Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to speak before the commission again. I would certainly reiterate and applaud Tim for his summary and his comments, and I too feel like we've made some real progress just in the last week or two relative to first the certification and acceptance that scrubbers are in fact the best technology we have available to deal with the odor problem and also the willingness of the operators Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And we have developed our own farm, which is a fragrant rose farm. And just the word fragrant rose farm and then cannabis odors and vodka you can see there's a juxtaposition that's not a very attractive one. And so we've been really impacted. Our business model has been impacted We have not been able to continue selling roses, giving tours or promoting the farm as a very unique experience. A very special place where you can actually smell flowers so we have a day-to-day problem with odors.
And with the institution of FODCO, not only did we have a nuisance factor because there's drift to the product and it's basically as you know spewed into the air as a means of controlling cannabis smells but it does not stay where it gets initially applied. It does float around as all these molecules do so we're directly impacted by that. My wife has had a lot of health problems And one of our business models includes renting facilities at the farm and renting homes at the farm for people who appreciate fragrance. And we've had a number of people leave the farm because they said, no this is intolerable, we can't stand that smell et cetera. So this has affected us. Now as Tim said, we're encouraged by the movement forward.
I would just urge the board to consider the timeline. We've tried to be good neighbors. Utilize the odor complaint system and find that it is starting to be effective But even there the application although it looks great on paper. It takes a really long time to implement I mean both the odor Complaint itself takes a while but but to get the machinery going And we ran into a lot of roadblocks before there was any clear indication that the complaint mechanism was working So we anticipate Whatever timeline is laid out, it will be slow, cumbersome. It'll face many obstacles in all of this time where we're still having the FODCO application in our neighborhood and in our farm and it's drifting into our day-to-day life and affecting us. And again just to reiterate what we've spoken to previously there's absolutely no data that tells us that FODCO is safe for humans to breathe on any kind of regular basis There's no scientific justification to expose people to these products.
We know these respiratory irritants are a real impact on susceptible individuals, one of whom is my wife. So I would just urge the board to consider pushing the timeline or narrowing the timeline and pushing back on any extensions that we can imagine giving to the applicants. Thank you.
On a Creole to be followed by Mimi Brown.
By the way, Mimi left. It became too late. I'm Ana Carrillo and thank you very much for this opportunity to speak. I am very pleased to see that the applicant is now agreeing to the PC decision about installing carbon scrubbers though asking for 24 months instead of 12 months and I only heard about this yesterday so some of my points in my letter were written before I knew that You know, I was very appreciative when the Planning Commission put in the 12 months because I felt like that was something that should be done. This is one of two operators in the Carpinteria Valley using the FogCo vapor phase system and there are immediate residents suffering severe health problems because there have been no long-term inhalation studies of spraying this chemical into the air.
On October 4th, 2022 when your board approved the appeal at the neighboring parcel at 5980 there admittedly had not been that many odor complaints received. Now I know for a fact that has changed and I've even seen the odor complaints made recently to the company's primary odor contact. His few responses to the neighbor making the complaints have been very disheartening Even though the owner operator had signed the agreement with the coalition about the four-tiered response to odor complaints, needing to respond within the hour and move through the tiered response level.
Eric Edwards, Headwaters Compliance Officer promised at the hearing before your board on 10-422 that because of the agreement they are obligated to respond within two hours. Filing a complaint is quite a laborious process, and many in the Carpinteria Valley have just given up filing complaints because there has been no action even for those operators that are fully permitted. I'm hoping with the hiring of the firm GeoSyntec that will change.
It's definitely not fair that avocado farmers can't have drift from their spraying of pests going to the neighbor's properties while growers of cannabis can. Remember, cannabis was not granted right-to-farm status so their drift is a nuisance problem for neighbors regardless of what zone they live in. A next door neighbor business has had to change their whole business model because of the daily odor issues. This is just not fair. The owners-operators of Ceres Farm are the same owners-operators of the property at 3450 Villarreal, where their OAP has stated that carbon scrubbing is considered the best industry practice to mitigate odors and even resubmitted their OAP to reflect this and were approved by the Planning Commission at the meeting on 12-5-22 last week.
Then I've written about the electrical grid. I think you've already talked about that or, you know, have talked about that. The cannabis ordinance requires the best available control technology be utilized for solving odor problems which is what the Planning Commission followed when they added this condition to their approval of their CDP. Currently in the cannabis ordinance, the county will only respond to complaints made in residential zones. This restriction needs to be changed so the county can respond to complaints of residences who live outside the agricultural zone. It is unconscionable that the county cannot and will not respond to complaints made by Kate School housing over 300 students 75 faculty and many small children in their child care facility because of this rule Thank you very much for your time
7:41 – 7:466 turns
And our final speaker, Mark Shutillo.
Well good afternoon Chair Hartman, members of the board. I'm Mark Schatillo and I'm here speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. The coalition of course has a comprehensive agreement and the applicants are signatories to that agreement. That agreement expands the area where an odor is considered significant and triggers the response to include residences on agricultural lands That's something we'd love to see the county embrace in an ordinance change, but for the time being that's been effective at elevating the concerns and bringing forward to the community's attention the need for additional control measures at this facility.
You are aware, of course, that the SCS Engineers has produced a relatively definitive study which establishes not only the efficacy of carbon scrubbers to be able to address odor in vented greenhouse, which is the common source type throughout the carpentry cannabis industry. But also, concluding that carbon scrubbers are superior to vapor phase systems because they intercept the odors in the greenhouse as compared to vapor phase systems which actually require a reaction amongst chemicals outside of the greenhouse. Inherently, the filters are more effective. So for that reason we are excited that the applicant is moving forward and we applaud their efforts and support the project with implementation of carbon scrubbers to control odor.
The SES study concluded that 10 units per acre was appropriate as the best available control technology. The 24-month period is one that we'd like to see shorter, but we also were cognizant of the challenges that the applicants have and we're also in active conversation with the operators and we share a goal of accelerating that period of time as much as possible.
And we also share a goal of trying to, in the interim before the full scrubber implementation is possible. In the interim, to phase in the addition of scrubbers and to reduce the amount of Fogco that's used for as the odor control materials. We really need the board support and the county support in providing the flexibility to be able to allow the experimentation as Mr. Bliss referred to, to be able to work closely between the operators and the neighbors on the affected parties to ensure that the technologies that are being used at any given moment are the maximum effectiveness For effectiveness and for avoiding the concurrent impact associated with using vapor phase So we would ask that the board direct staff to expedite the processing changes not only for this grow But also for the companion grow at 5980 and the others in Carpinteria so that we see scrubbers being a great embraced and utilized more widely And that the county staff display enough flexibility so that working forward through this process, we can in the interim accomplish the best possible odor control with the least possible emissions of Fogco.
Thank you very much.
Chair Hartman and members of the board, we
have no more requests to speak. All right back to the board. Do we have, I guess first staff have you heard anything in public comment or that you would like to elaborate or comment on?
Thank you Madam Chair yes we do have a couple items and i think Ben Singer is going to bring those up.
Yes Chair Hartman thank you. A few things to respond to first is that the County Air Pollution Control District has reviewed the FONCO-BENZICO formula Including the proprietary information and confirm that there are no California listed toxic air contaminants as part of that formula. Second, planning and development enforcement staff does log review and respond to all odor complaints that they get regardless of the location of that complaint or the source of that complaint.
And a third point too Hopefully help clarify a question that Supervisor Capps had for the applicant on the kind of how the carbon scrubbers are required or not based on the current OAP, is that their tiered response. I believe it's the third tier does require kind of a re-install or review of the odor I do Madam Chair, question for staff.
7:46 – 7:5212 turns
Thank you I'm just curious about. So read the SES report. I think we were all assuming that carbon scrubbers are going to be considered best available technology, but how does that? How does that work? I mean, does staff then review this report and make a determination that yes, carbon scrubbers are best available technology and then what effect Those who have already received a permit and just kind of break that down for me when a new technology or an old technology is now considered to be superior.
Madam Chair and Supervisor, I'll go ahead and take the first stab at this and see where we land so we've reviewed the SES report in general it's a site specific study and based on the code I think we would still continue to look Each of these sites with a site-specific lens. And so the code requires an analysis by a certified industrial hygienist or a professional engineer to establish what the BACT is for that site, and so each site that we'll look at going forward will continue to look at it from a site specific perspective with the understanding that this report is available and we'll review that and we can utilize our consultant Geosyntec to help come to a determination about what is BACT But again, it would be more of a site specific analysis rather than a carte blanche determination that one system is superior to all other systems at every site.
Okay
and then oh Lisa
go
ahead.
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino and I think the way our program is written in the code it essentially lays out this tiered response right so what we've been advising applicants is make sure that your OAP has a variety of options in it. So that you can go to Carbid Scrubbers without having to get a new permit or modify your existing permit So that we're trying to help them be flexible if the proposed odor abatement system isn't effective that they're starting with. So it's our responsibility to go out and make sure that it's working And if we're getting complaints, then you know that's why we've hired GeoSyntec to help us determine whether their systems are working. And if they're not working and they are having odors from that site being detected in residential zones then we ask the applicant to ramp it up to the next level that's identified in their OAP.
So most applicants have been doing that They have been making sure that they have multiple types of odor abatement systems in their OAPs so that they can flex up if necessary. Does that answer your question?
Yeah, it does and I guess the only the only question I would have at that point is which would be some good news for everybody is that what happens if I mean technology being what it is it's continually progressing and improving And we're three, four years down the road from now and somebody hits on something and says oh it's you know whatever chili flakes is the thing to do.
These people now have invested millions of dollars in a carbon scrubber what would be their requirement at that point? And how would we go about implementing something that... Is that a change in the ordinance or how is that dealt with?
Yeah, Madam Chair Supervisor Levin you know possibly I think we'd have to wait and see if we got to that point but if all of a sudden there's a new technology that's created that none of us have ever imagined and they're not listed in the OAP. There may be some kind of fix that we would make to the code I think it would be probably not a great idea to force every applicant to come in and revise their OAP through a new permit. So, I would seek a different solution to that but yeah, I mean it's possible that we will find ourselves in that place in a couple of years given technology.
I was going to say, I don't want to put you on the hot seat but I guess it kind of is. Do you feel in your professional opinion that 24 months is a reasonable period of time to implement this system?
Madam Chair, Supervisor Lavagnino. I think I am not in a position to be able to comment on that because I don't understand the intricacies of how they have to implement this. I have heard what the applicant says. I have no reason to disbelieve it but I don�t think I have enough knowledge to weigh in any further than that.
Well, just from my experience this morning where I think it took us two years to approve a sign on a gas station. I know two years sounds like a long time to a lot of people but when you're working with the government sometimes not so much. Okay? I've got some other comments but I'll wait for everybody else to have their questions answered.
Supervisor Caps? Yeah, just to continue with Director Plowman do we know along the lines of Supervisor Lavinia's questions, I mean Everbloom has scrubbers. Do we know how long it took them This is to you, Director Plowman. I'm just curious again we're trying to get some clarity on time frames here because I think it's extremely important and I read in Melinda Burns' piece that Phil Green of Everbloom which I'm very impressed is they already have it and they think that everybody should have it by 2023 not 2024 so what's that based on? Did it take them 24 months to put in scrubbers, did it take them 12 months? I'm just trying to get again. The timing is on the question thanks to the applicant, thanks to their willingness to come to the table after the Planning Commission ruled in August of twelve months.
But the question is, can do we need to the length of time? Do we have any benchmarking if Everbloom is saying everybody should have it in 2023? What's that based on there? They're part of Carp Growers, correct?
7:52 – 7:586 turns
Madam Chair, Supervisor Capps. I think that's a question we would have to pose to Evergreen's applicants because I don't understand what steps they took and when they started their process but we've heard from this applicant that they're having a hard time even working with SCE to be able to power up some of these things so in some cases We have to rely on the information that we're getting from the applicants. And I don't, I don't have the expertise to be able to determine whether or not it's inaccurate perhaps in the future will be able to work with our engineers geocentric but there's all kinds of intricacies involved in getting these things in place right? They're working with a utility that isn't always as responsive as they'd hoped. So whether or not they may need to upgrade their panels, or maybe there's something in the SCE system that needs to be upgraded by SCE, I don't know.
But in the communications we've had with SCE those two things are possible. And one takes a long time and that's SCE upgrading their own facilities and that can take years
So maybe this will help me out, because how long have carbon scrubbers been part of sort of the ramp up of an odor abatement plan? And so about six months or a year. Okay, so to educate me if there's a certain amount of complaints then it's like okay you've put in this but now you need to ramp it up as you use your terminology Has that occurred do you give a time frame to that ramping up
so. So, Madam Chair supervisor caps. We have been in a position where it's been very hard for us to determine where the odor is coming from because these are, as you will learn now that you're getting involved in cannabis, these grows are cheek by jowl. And so we have been struggling to figure out which greenhouse is emitting the odors. So we have now been able to hire a consultant that's gonna be able to help us with that. Determine whether or not one, they put in place is actually functioning the way it's supposed to function.
And two, to help us figure out using wind data and other information about where they might be coming from. So it's not going to be an exact science because we cannot always pinpoint exactly where it's coming from because they're all so close together. I mean, our dream is that each grower has like a signature on their plant that we could then detect. But that is not something that is a reality. Yeah, no, that's
not really the nature of my question. It's more the obligation of the folks that were giving permits to follow the plan to ramp up and it just seems to me this study is groundbreaking and thanks to this industry for having done it and spending money to do it, to now show us at least in one site specific but that this is the standard. This is the best technology as our ordinance says so it just seems to me that we should be not waiting to ramp up to this best technology but rather requiring it from the get-go and that's where...as I learn this all and take this all in and also read In the newspaper about what other you know, Graham Farrar is going to be he has this as part of his odor abatement plan and I confirm that with him today. I mean it just seems like Require giving so much leeway in terms of timing for something that we know at least at this juncture is the best and odor has been the biggest problem of This ordinance from day one wouldn't you agree with that?
I think it's absolutely been a challenge, absolutely. But my limitations are based in the way the code is drafted. And so right now, the way the code is drafted is they have the ability to propose different types of odor control systems and then those odor abatement plans are certified by a hygienist or an engineer. So if the board were to seek to just start with carbon scrubbers that would be an ordinance amendment change to article two
Well I'm interested in tightening up the ordinance because, I mean, the best technology it just seems as though we owe it to our community to be employing the best technology to take care of or at least 86% take care of the grievance that is plaguing the lives of people, and we've heard countless complaints in countless meetings. And just even the time that we spend doing this as opposed to other things. So anyway thank you for answering those questions. You can see sort of where the nature of my questions are is just how long do we need to keep allowing for things to ramp up when we already know they're at a threshold and industry is already following and leading in this regard?
7:58 – 8:036 turns
Okay, I think we're ready to start deliberations Supervisor Williams. It's in your district
Yeah, I I think that it's After the last hearing I you know, I felt like we made The right call but I didn't feel great about it No, I felt like it was a it was a tough call. I felt like the issues that the neighbors have is a something that we should address So, that's why six weeks ago I went to Mr. Farrar. So remember there is not just two operations right here. There's four operations right here and one of them is Mr. Farrar's glasshouse operation which at least Kate believes is the largest source voter in the area. I cannot confirm or deny that So that's why I went to him first.
And they thought about it for about a week and then they said, yeah we'll come back with a change to our odor abatement plan. And that can be fleshed out a little bit more because they're farther out in the queue so they're not gonna come till the Planning Commission until this spring or late winter something like that?
Middle of winter, I believe this glass
house. Yes middle of winter and You know And of course it you know, I think when we're looking at multiple competitors, I think it also Will help in asking others to do so which is why I've asked Alex and headwaters to to do the same thing I want a remedy as quickly as possible. And I know that two years is not ideal and I think we should try to do better than that, but an ordinance change will take a lot longer than two years plus it doesn't address the ones that have already been approved unless they come back for a change of their permit.
And so the best and fastest remedy to this is growers voluntarily adopting carbon scrubbers. There's no way to do it faster than that, and so we should be supportive of that. It also is more enforceable when they voluntarily put this in their plans. So I think that is why we've come here today with this solution, and I think it's a step in the right direction.
I also hope that we will do more experimentation on the Valley Crest side and hope that both The grower and the neighbors would be involved with that because it may be once adoption happens incrementally, right? Of the carbon scrubbers that odor goes down in general. Fog co-amounts go down in general and we could even play with fog co-solution at the Valley Crest in a way to make sure My mind, the most important thing is that the Hans should be able to farm. Everybody should be able to farm. It's an agricultural district. It is AgZone so everybody should be able to farm. I want to make sure that happens and I'm definitely as supervisor willing to stay involved with what happens between now and adoption.
And we'll support upholding the appeal.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, since we're deliberating here it occurred to me that the goal is to keep on top of the applicant to make sure that they implement this as soon as possible. That was the term he used, as soon as possible And instead of just, you know opening up to a full two years with this amendment would the applicant or and I hate to throw this on the fly or Sheraz Williams. Keeping the Planning Commission's one year time frame in place but then give the discretion to the planning director to allow for an up to one year extension if there are circumstances that are beyond the control of the applicant if that would be something Thank you.
8:03 – 8:1012 turns
I think that might require a code change because there isn't a provision in there that would allow me to do such a thing. We do have provisions that talk about like substantial conformity determinations or revisions to permit, but there are some criteria that are associated with that And we have found that changes to the OAP really couldn't meet that criteria because of the controversy around them.
So I don't know if, I saw council conferring over there and I don't know if they have a perspective about that but just my gut tells me that's what would be required but we can look further into it.
Supervisor Williams and I know County Council is looking at this too so welcome back to you.
Well I mean, I didn't want to talk about this much but us doing something that imposes it on them is not as enforceable as them putting it into their plan. So I think that's a dumb move so you know the the you know I was hoping that We would get with this compromise a jolly Christmas, a happy Hanukkah. We may. Be patient. Be patient. It was what it was trying to be. But I would like to hear
from council.
Madam Chair and Supervisor Nelson, we are just looking at the substantial conformity piece because that was off the top of my head. The only route that I could think of. Director Plummer is correct, there are criteria that need to be met and it sounds like planning has looked at that in the past. We could look further at it but I'm not seeing a
path immediately. Again, I was just trying to find ways to get us there because I know we're really close and you know there has been significant progress made since Valleycrest and I don't want to try to take away from that here as part of these deliberations and if I can continue where I am at You know this is essentially the same OAP that was in Valley Crest that I voted for.
I think they put a limit on themselves to a maximum time frame here and I think that's what Sue Reza Williams is speaking to, and I think that that is a step in the right direction you know I know unfortunately that two years is not a long time Santa Barbara County and I know it's a long time for the people who have to live with the Consequences of this and they have been for quite some time But I also know how our processes work. I understand how public utilities work and I Can appreciate the concern of the applicant?
For not being to make that one-year timeframe that the Planning Commission is put on them
Supervisor Lavinino
Thank you, Madam Chair. First off I want to thank Supervisor Nelson for trying that was a great effort and I know as well intention so but I did not want this hearing to pass without I really wanted to compliment our public speaker Mr bliss. Congratulations, I would have to say in the five or six years since we've had canvas hearings. That was most balanced public comment. I don't, I'm sure you've been before us before. I'm sorry if I don't remember you but you should hold a class and teach folks how to come and speak at public comment because that was outstanding it was productive.
You made your point and so my hats off to you. And we need to learn a little bit from him, probably us on the dais could learn from too. So I'm more doses and I hope we can get this done
supervisor caps.
I appreciate Supervisor Nelson's attempt as well, and I just want to ask my colleagues is there anything else that sort of would achieve what has been stated by the applicant Two years is a long that trying to do something faster. Again, how can we? Is there any motion here that we could get consensus and compromise? I also agree with Supervisor Lavagnino this has been a very constructive public comment in general and also just to acknowledge the progress that has been made with not only today but in the last few years by staff, by this board, by industry just again that the fact that that study was paid for By industry, the fact that this level of odor abatement that we have something that we're actually talking about. That is been determined to be 86% effective in reducing odor.
So in that spirit, is there something that we can do to put into this decision sooner than 24 months as has been expressly hoped for by the applicant.
I'm going to, I know Supervisor Williams wants to speak but I'm going to put my trust in Supervisor Williams to continue to urge this process forward and I know he's done an extraordinary amount so far to negotiate and to work with the various Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Their best offer given the unknowns, but they've committed publicly to phase this in and to do it as soon as they can. But there are situations outside their control, namely Southern California Edison and our own planning department that has a lot of other things on their agenda as well.
So, it's the holiday and I'm feeling optimistic. And I'm going to put my trust in my colleague Supervisor Williams to continue bird-dogging this the way he has because I think his leadership has taken us a long way in the past few weeks. So now Supervisor Williams if you want to speak?
Thank you Joan, that means a lot. I do think there is, I don't think it should change the motion but I do want the applicant to tell us what is a milestone? What percentage can be achieved by what time so that the neighbors can, you know, look to something that will happen sooner than 24 months. And I want to put that back out to you because I do think this is an opportunity to make a public commitment not part of the motion but a public commitment
8:10 – 8:1613 turns
Chair Harmon, Supervisors. It's a hard one. It's hard from just a place of unknown to give you a percentage without knowing what the total number would be and whether the current infrastructure in the facility could support it. I don't want to say anything publicly here that I can't actually do in reality. That said, We, I think that we can publicly commit to implementing this in phases and I think that the first phase can be some number of scrubbers within the first year depending on facility Again, facility infrastructure. And I think we're committed to doing that. I just can't commit with too many unknowns and so that's what I can commit to you guys today is that we will be installing these as quickly as possible with phase one being within the first year that there will be some number of machines, some percentage of the overall plan
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Probably hate to purchase them and then have them sit around I
would really not like to do that one. I'm not the one writing the checks unfortunately, I Would just hate to spit out a number that I but I couldn't 100% guarantee right now that we could do
And what it give us some idea of what what is phase 1 for you guys? Phase one
would be to try to address a lot of our neighbors' concerns and situate a handful of machines in the areas that will allow us to reduce reliance on FODCO in areas that are directly affecting our neighbors. So working with the neighbors to put the first tranche, if you will, of machines in an area that hopefully addresses the concerns of our neighbors.
You buying a percentage of these machines and installing them in the areas that are closest to the neighbors. Yes, working
with our engineer and the neighbors to abate if not all of their concerns as much as we can do in that first
year. I'm not as merry as I was five minutes ago but I stand by the motion then.
So I wanted an opportunity Supervisor Caps, did you have more because I then I would say my piece after you
Yeah, just I'm very I don't know if my colleagues can speak a little bit more about how It's more enforceable If it's offered up if you can just illuminate me myself and the public because that obviously is a very enforcing this is really important. And I think what we're what I'm struggling with is It acknowledgment of government and that things do take time.
Yet, we have people who can't farm yet who have headaches etc. And just that's the struggle right is a practical acknowledgement that it does take time for progress but we are the fact or even in this stage of conversation is Is very heartening to me, but I just want to understand a little bit more. I could get there If I understood a bit more about how it's more enforceable if you all offer it up rather than us
Madam chair and supervisor caps so what
makes items enforceable as if they're included in either the project description or the conditions of approval. So what I'm hearing is that the applicant has offered a condition, really changed to the project description to install the carbon scrubbers at 24 months. It is not clear to me if the additional statements are changes to the project description or just public commitments.
If it's a change to the project description, then that would be enforceable as a project condition by the county. If it's a public commitment, then it's public commitment to the community and to the board of their efforts.
But what kind of conditions can we impose under our ordinance?
8:16 – 8:236 turns
Madam Chair and members of the board, I think that the conditions that follow the ordinance have already been imposed on the project. If there are additional things that you would like us to look at to add, we could consider that. But all of the standard conditions are already included. The Planning Commission added this additional condition and applicant has modified it as part of the project description. That would be enforceable as is So I'm happy to address any specific questions.
Supervisor Williams?
I mean, you know this is we shouldn't be in the habit of giving people telling them how to sue us but the fact is that it is questionable whether someone can just make up a condition of approval that is not in the ordinance and so If it's a voluntary condition, we know it's enforceable. If it's not, we don't know if it's enforceable.
Thank you for explaining that and also I just to hear the applicant describe that it's not as though there won't be scrubbers until 24 months from now, but actually more immediately is music to my ears. And I appreciate the back and forth that you've gone through here to help us all myself included understand exactly the phasing in and the fact that odor will be abated By the technology that we now know is the best currently.
More immediately than just, oh let's do this in 24 months but rather phase it in starting immediately. I'm seeing you nod, thank you.
So, I just had a couple of things that I wanted to say. The first is that our ordinance is far from perfect and I really appreciate the efforts by the carb growers and the Citizens for Responsible Cannabis and the neighbors and in this case Supervisor Williams To work together to try to find more creative solutions that aren't just in black and white in the ordinance. And I don't know whether there's any way to honor the request for allowing more flexibility, more pilots, more experimentation but I think they've been working really hard to help us find more creative ways of addressing concerns and nuisances that arise from cannabis. And so I just, I want us to keep alert to that.
My district is really with the vineyards and there have been a lot of discussions over time about the impact of cannabis and the smell on wine grapes But this case was extremely interesting to me because we're dealing with Rose Story Farm. And they have, they're another agricultural interest that has been significantly affected in a negative way by the cannabis odors and so I think that points to other problems with our ordinance. I think to say that the smell It's only when it affects Residentially zoned is is really not adequate and I'm hoping that we can push for a change to the ordinance at some point that that deals with That issue of order because I think this is just a really It's a fascinating case study where they're producing a product that really depends on the scent and the perfume and the odor.
And they use that as a distillate to sell, and it's hugely valuable. And then also to bring people onto their property just to experience it firsthand. And both of those have been really cut off altogether because of the odors. And so anyway, I think that's a change that we need in the ordinance. I wanted to just respond to another of Supervisor Capps. We just learned that there is a major new energy innovation with fusion.
So I'm going to go ahead and open it up for questions. to go along with Supervisor Williams. But again, I just think this has been an extraordinary effort and I thought Supervisor Lavinino recognizing Mr. Bliss and how he's been one of the neighbors, I think all the neighbors have been trying to say how do we coexist? How do we find ways to work together? We're all in this small community. And I was really impressed by how everybody has done that And I think that's a good note for the holidays. So Supervisor Williams?
Yes, I do think this is still, I know it's not merry completely but this is the merriest cannabis hearing we've had thus far and we can hope for more merry ones and just you know I do. I do know that it's frustrating that sometimes improvements take some time and And I want to acknowledge that and I want to say that I think this board is committed doing that and I think more than ever The agreements between the carp growers and coalition for responsible cannabis really shows that there is a Broad commitment to working together in improving this and so I do think we're in a better situation And we will keep on working at it, and I will move to grant the appeal Make the required findings for approval determine the previously certified program programmatic Environmental impact report is adequate and grant de novo approval of the project
8:23 – 8:2810 turns
I second that.
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 move to grant the appeal Make the required findings for approval determine the previously certified program programmatic Environmental impac
Show transcript
motion passes unanimously
all right one more item Madam Clerk, would you read that into the record please?
Chair Hartman and members of the board departmental item number four is from the county executive office. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the fiscal year 2023 through 2024 budget development report and proposed policies.
Ms. Anderson
Good afternoon, Chair Hartman and members of the board. I am here with our budget division chief Paul Clemente to kick off our next budget cycle with our five-year forecast for the general fund budget policies and a discussion on board priorities as we head into the next fiscal year. Today our report will include the budget timeline, expert and state outlook, general fund five-year forecast, other major fund projections, new budget development policies. And we're going to end with a discussion on board priorities for next year.
This is our typical time frame for our budget process, starting with December in this five-year forecast that we're going to be presenting to you. The budget development policies and we've already kicked off with the departments in the prior week. Over the next two months, the departments will be preparing their budgets and then submit them to our office. We will review those, meet with them for workshop reviews in March. And then we present to your board in April budget workshops that will run April 10th, 12th, and 14th of this year.
In May, we release the CEO recommended budget and then we have budget hearings and adopt the budget in June. June 13th for this year and if that runs over June 15th We typically use UCLA of Anderson forecast to get a sense of a national economic trends and how they will be impacting California While the forecast indicates below-trend GDP over the next three years and continuing inflation, they are not signaling a major recession at this time.
The Legislative Analyst's Office report focuses specifically on the state's outlook and how it could potentially impact local governments. The LAO is projecting that the state is likely to have a $25 billion deficit in the current year primarily related to the decline in personal income receipts. There's a great deal of speculation and uncertainty as to how this will impact the governor's budget that we will see in January. This is a concern for us, as one-third of the county's operating revenue is from the state or federal resources for programs that provide critical services to our community A little bit about the forecast. Forecast is intended to provide goals for short-term and long-term balancing by identifying anticipated demands on our resources and key areas that will need attention while work to prepare as we work to prepare the recommended budget it includes major budgetary components such as discretionary revenue and salaries and benefits that are impacted by our recent labor negotiations And for purposes of this report, this focus primarily on the general fund that supports a majority of our county operations.
It is important to note for the general fund forecast we are anticipating that major discretionary revenue sources are relatively stable but at lower levels than what we've seen over the past two years. These are preliminary estimates based on what we currently know and can reasonably expect For growth and both expenditures and revenue it does include salary increases related to recent negotiations And retirement costs are based on the assumption that the rate of return will be at 7% It also assumes general fund cost allocations are held as status quo levels of service and does not at this time include any department expansion requests
Supervisor Nelson would like to. Just a quick
question that 7% return, that's the de-risking from SB CSRS? That's going to take place?
That's correct. Typically there is a rate of return discount. We anticipated it might go down to $675,000. They did not. The SB CSRS Board did not end up doing that so we are holding it at 7%.
We're currently at seven and we anticipate moving forward.
8:28 – 8:402 turns
So I'll touch briefly on the assumptions we've made for salaries and benefits and the impacts those have on the forecast. Salaries are increasing about 3% in the first year of the forecast, and averaging about 3.4% annually for each subsequent year. Salary increases are driven by negotiated increases with the bargaining groups as well as assumed step increases and merit increases.
We've also assumed status quo staffing throughout the five-year period, so no new staffing for new programs or expansions are built into these numbers. This 3% increase in year one equates to growth of about $13.2 million over the prior year. Retirement costs are assumed to increase about 5.6% in the first year of the forecast and average that same amount about annually over the remaining years of the forecast.
Pension costs to the county are driven both by the salary increases as well as the SPSRS rates for each retirement plan. Pension costs are partially offset by the pension cost sharing negotiated with the bargaining groups a few years ago, which defrays the county's costs by about $7.5 million each year. Factors driving the pension rates in this forecast model were the 21-22 investment returns of about 0% on assumed Returns of 7 percent as well as keeping that assumed rate at a return of seven percent for the length of the forecast The five point six percent increase in year one equates to about nine point four million dollars over prior year County costs for health insurance are anticipated to go up 18% in the first year, which is driven by a few factors including higher premiums in 2023 than was anticipated when the fiscal year 2022-23 budget was built and assumed 9% increase in premiums in 2024.
And then the rolling end of the health insurance subsidies that were recently negotiated with the bargaining groups. Cost increases average about 10% a year for the remaining years of the forecast. The 18% increase amounts to about $9 million in year one. Here we see a ten-year trend, five budgeted years and then five projected future years for these three major salary and benefit line items. We can see the escalating costs over time but in particular we can see the increasing share of the total being made up of healthcare and pension costs by the final year Pensions we see a significant jump of 20 million dollars in that final year 27 28 Because some large investment gains from the prior years have been fully smoothed into the rates by this point But we still have one more year of smoothing in the recent losses from 21 22 That's why we see this larger jump in that final year And
then we're going to touch briefly on some general fund discretionary revenue and This chart shows the general fund discretionary revenues over a 10-year period, five years of actual and five years of forecast. The major revenue accounts for discretionary revenue are property taxes, sales tax, transient occupancy tax or TOT and cannabis tax. Property taxes make up 77% of the county's discretionary revenue for fiscal year 23 24 property tax Revenue is higher than a typical year as as the result of extraordinary growth in the assessed value in the current year Of 8.1 percent is carrying forward into the next budget cycle For a total thirty two point four million dollars things are slowing down however with a mild growth of at least 2.7 percent annually for the out years of forecast and Sales tax make up 4% of the county's discretionary revenue.
Consumers are facing high degree of economic uncertainty, however we don't expect a major impact to local revenues at this time. Our HDL consultants predict a slowdown of economy resulting in about a 1.6% decline in our revenues with growth in the out years of at least 2.9%. Transient occupancy tax or TOT makes about makes up about 4.6 percent of the county's discretionary revenue TOT is highly dependent on tourism and the availability of lodging in the unincorporated areas of the county This revenue is holding steady with a modest revenue growth of 1.3% in 23-24 And minor changes in the out years for the forecast Cannabis tax revenue continues to be, to reflect a volatility.
Last fiscal year collections totaled 8.7 million dollars and while 16.3 million was projected on the current year after the first quarter we are already anticipating that it will be lower by potentially 6.5 million dollars Taking this into consideration the forecast assumes 9.4 percent decrease in the fiscal year 23-24 14.8 million dollars the forecast then assumes that this revenue will grow up to 20.3 million dollars over the next five years More data collected related to the receipts in the current year will help to refine these estimates moving forward Now we're getting to the five-year financial forecast for the general fund.
We developed the forecast, we first look at any board policy commitments that we need to be incorporating into the budget. The board has adopted policies related to the strategic reserve growth and northern ranch jail operations. The strategic reserve holds the reserve account at 8% general fund operating revenues. The current balance of the reserve is currently 41 million dollars We have built in an estimated increase To keep that reserve at a eight percent level with the growth in the revenue the NBJ operations policy helps to fund the operations and the new jail facility that opened late last fiscal year and The annual funding level is at $21.9 million in 23-24 for the forecast, we have incorporated half of the 2.6 million dollars in growth for the 23- 24 year with the other half anticipated to be covered with Prop 172 funds.
In the out years the GFC grows by 4.5 million dollars by five years, by the year 5. The board has a policy to allocate 18% of remaining unallocated discretionary revenues for deferred maintenance needs. For fiscal year 23-24, we anticipate this will have a cumulative total of about $12 million to be allocated to public works general services and parks. Additionally, a proposed new policy this year to mitigate significant increases for internal charges would help departments on a case by case basis resolve service level impacts resulting from premium Insurance premium increases and costs for internal services such as IT. The forecast builds in the assumption that at least $4.8 million will be needed to avoid service level impacts.
There are several operational changes that are impacting the forecast. We have included a $6 million to be set aside to address benefits and other initiatives the board may pursue for challenges related to retention or recruitment of employees. We continue to include resources for the transition of new IT department out of the general services department at 500,000 for the next two years. And we continue to have $5 million in ongoing costs identified from ARPA projects that will need to be addressed in fiscal year 25-26 for homeless costs related to services. Community Services Department continues to seek alternative and ongoing sources that may reduce this amount over time.
In-home supportive services, MOE with the state continues to increase labor costs for Department of Social Services. It is anticipated to grow by $2.3 million over the five year period. The Elections Department has indicated that it anticipates moving to the Voters Choice Act or VCA within the next year. You may recall some funding was set aside last year for this effort that will be used to cover a portion of the cost.
AB 1869 that repealed the authority of the counties to charge certain criminal justice fees will no longer be backfilled in fiscal year 25-26, leaving a budgetary gap of $850,000 for Criminal Justice Department's predominantly probation. So we've incorporated that as well. There is still much uncertainty around CareCourt that will impact several county departments. That includes B-Well, Public Defender, Public Guardian and County Council.
We have included a preliminary estimate of $1.1 million for staffing costs estimated by the department to be implemented by December 2024. Obviously that'll be refined as we identify any sources from the state that may be impending. The final two items listed here fall within the fiscal plan As we look at the next slide in a moment You will also see a line item for set aside for future deficits as we are anticipating Deficits in the out years in particular for the fiscal year 25 26 year With the homeless costs planning a set-aside of 7.5 million dollars would help mitigate future balancing issues In previous years, your board has already made efforts to mitigate several of the anticipated increases today. General liability and labor negotiations are two areas your board prudently set aside funding over the past two years that is providing a $5.1 million assistance to help offset costs in Year 2 of the forecast.
So this table brings all of the previous information into one layout for the general fund. This is the incremental change or growth in General Fund ongoing revenue and costs over a five-year period. It is important to keep in mind that these are estimates based on the best information that we have at this time, and will be refining these throughout the budget development process.
It assumes status co-operations for the General Fund Departments and no expansion requests are included. In year one, for 23-24 we anticipate there will be some surplus of up to $1.4 million after these items are incorporated. In year two, fiscal year 24-25, we show it is break even only due to the release of prior board set aside slightly more than $5 million as planned.
Year 3, fiscal year 25-26 we show a $1.6 million deficit even after the release of $7.5 million proposed to be set aside in the current year to address future deficits. In years 4 and 5 we continue to see deficits at $2.9 million and $5.4 million respectively. These deficits will need to be resolved with either alternative ongoing resources or temporary use one time unallocated resources until costs can be reduced.
So here are the key takeaways. We have steady growth, helping to offset the increasing costs which is a good thing. We anticipate a minimal surplus for fiscal year 23-24 and deficits in the out years. Based on this department should remain conservative and assume status quo general fund allocations. To resolve the deficits we may be looking at ways to cut costs and review revenue generating ideas And potentially the use of one-time funds to bridge the budget gaps.
And we recommend that your board consider funding priorities that are focused on one time projects or needs versus ongoing costs.
8:40 – 8:4611 turns
So I'll speak to some of the general fund unallocated one-time balances available. Just to touch on some of these, we've got potential for at least $10 million available in account 9940 which is where the surplus revenue from prior fiscal years is deposited until allocated out towards future one time uses. As discussed with your board in October, there will likely be at least $6.6 million of Prop 172 public safety funds fund balance available after taking into account current and planned uses.
And given the decline in revenue last year and this year we don't anticipate any cannabis fund balance available for new uses in 23-24. Finally, to circle back to what Ms. Anderson mentioned earlier the state is looking at a potential $25 billion budget gap we'll know more in the coming months what they'll be proposing to balance that gap if it does materialize but we may want to reserve some of these funds to bridge gaps in the out years if the state does end up cutting funding to programs that have a local impact and give us time to either wind those down or find alternate funding Two other significant issues we've been tracking outside the General Fund are in the Roads Operations Fund and the Public Health Fund. For some years now, roads operations expenses have been exceeding revenues and depleting fund balance in order to maintain their current level of work while balancing their budget.
Increases in material and services cost and insurance and other operating costs without commensurate increases in local and state revenues to that fund have driven this issue The CEO's office has been working closely with Public Works To understand this issue and the options available to address it And we will be returning to the board in a couple months with recommendations For public health, the 340B pharmacy change we've been talking about for a few years has finally gone into effect and the formula for the state backfill will likely cover less than 15% of the potential $4 million loss. The department has been preparing for this and continues to look for areas to increase efficiencies, decrease operational costs, and find new sources of revenue.
The department has available fund balance to bridge the gap created if necessary while they adjust their operations. And before we move on to discussion of the 23-24 proposed budget development policies, we can pause to discuss. We went through a lot of forecast information just now if there's questions.
Any questions from board members? I have. Supervisor Nelson and then Supervisor Lavinino.
Yeah, can we go back to slide 8? So our health insurance costs continue to climb in the county. At what point are there opportunities for us to look at those costs and try to arrest that increase? It seems to be year over year, and I know we're also looking at finding ways to make those benefits more competitive. Just curious if there is efforts underway or Something that we could be doing at the county level Are those things that go out to RFPs are there other ways to address? rising health care costs besides basically taking You know what, we're given from our various providers from year over year. I
I guess my staff is waiting for me. So there are ways, but just to let you have some background how we come with our health insurance costs. So we have a consultant who helps us looks at the market and sees what's available to us. We have limited choices in nursing health insurance costs rise everywhere. We actually as you recall had very little health increase rises during COVID because people weren't going to their doctor And then there was an explosion of costs that they still see will continue. So we can, we can bring that up but just to let you know our process is HR meets with all the unions and there's sort of a group that talks and discusses and kind of consents to the health increases Because remember when we have an increase in our premium costs, it not only affects the county but it affects our employees and paying that increase.
So we're very mindful of it. And sometimes it's a matter of plan changes. And so far our employee groups have not wanted to make significant plan changes. But we continue to look at it every year and that group meets every year with HR.
Okay. At the 18.7% increase I mean is that's the portion That the county takes is that what that number represents because also obviously the employees take a percentage of that as well
I Missed the second part sorry, so
is it the gross amount that goes up on 18.7? That comes for the counties this
yeah The cost recorded here is reported here is the county's cost what the county will be paying it comes out of their financial projections
All right, and then if go to slide 9 next one over I know that we've been fiscally prudent on our pension costs by having to pain down our liability. I know we're, we've been consistent with that as well as de-risking SB CSRS. Could you remind me when we were going to see potentially some significant reductions of paying down some of the losses from the Great Recession?
Supervisor Nelson through the chair, I believe that's around 2030 2031 and you're talking about when the 2013 all of that Unfunded liability was rolled up and put into these rates. And that should
be a few more years on the okay Thank you. And then last one go let's go back to 22 where we had all the different funds You know, I see the five million dollars sitting there in homeless service costs in year three But I don't see anything going forward. Also on there as well, I see the 18% deferred maintenance increase by policy in 23-24 but I don't see that now years.
Can you help me understand why we're just doing placeholders there and not continuing those policies?
8:46 – 8:5724 turns
Right is Supervisor Nelson through the chair. So this table reflects the growth or increment in any given year so the 5 mil address of five million first the five million we know in 2526 the ARPA funding ends and so this assumes that The general fund at this point would be the source of those the coverage of those services And so that $5 million would be ongoing prospectively from 25-26.
So once that funding is identified for those services in 25-26, you don't need to reidentify them in 26-27 going forward. In regard to the 18% deferred maintenance, that is based on what is available in discretionary revenue after everything else has been done. So when we're sitting at deficits that would be zero but that changes as we have more accurate numbers as we get into every year reflective. We have a general idea for 23-24 so are able to put that in.
Supervisor Lavanino.
Thank you, Madam Chair. So well first off Nancy I really appreciate you and Mr Clemente's presentation. I think what you lay out is always a very sound fiscally conservative five-year outlook. So the 11 so property tax increased 11 percent that's got to be the highest increase do you know how far back that goes? That's got to be the biggest jump in the last 10-15 years I would imagine.
Supervisor Lavinier, through the Chair, I would suspect that you are correct. That is highly unusual and obviously not sustainable so it is one of the things we're seeing as part of the forecast development.
That's why I was glad to see you build the forecast out on 2.9? That's correct. Yeah, I was very happy to see that. I just wanna make sure so the one thing that always gets me is the general fund carryover. So I was mistaken about this almost the entire time I worked here. Okay, so the general fund carry over unallocated general fund doesn't go into the next year's budget?
Is that correct? It stays unallocated until the following fiscal year
Supervisor Labadino through the chair, that's correct. So you're typically about a year behind. That allows us to identify anything that may be needed and can plan accordingly for your board's allocation in the following year.
Right, so when we get to April that $10 million that you say is available in the general fund that's unallocated. Was that from last year or is this? I mean will will when you're looking at these numbers right now in April what number are you going to bring to us and say okay here's the here are the dollars that you have to kind of fill out what your priorities are
Supervisor Lavinia is through the chair. So, so the unallocated general fund balance that you're going to get in April is related to the fund balance carryover from June 30th of 2022. Right which was last fiscal year correct?
And what's that do you know what that number is?
So we're estimating that as Mr Clementi indicated about 10 million dollars we believe will be available at least
Okay, last question is oh so this is all assuming also no service level reductions.
Supervisor Lavenino, that's correct.
And Supervisor Lavenino just to remind everyone of the three people who are watching probably Supervisor Kapp's mother. The three people that want
that $10 million though Mona that's the problem.
Well one is just to remind you that's year-end carryover so it's what we ended this past fiscal year with what we saved some of us from vacancies some of it was extra revenue So it's one time. So when you talk about service level reductions, it makes me nervous because we typically reduce services when we don't have enough ongoing revenue. This amount is one time in nature so... You
know me I don't want to spend it. So I want a great fiscal outlook for the next four years and that means saving that ten million dollars. So thank you.
And so that was your final question Supervisor Lavinino? And I see Supervisor Kaps.
This is a very general question, but what should we be keeping our eye on? What is the concern to you? I heard that expiration of ARPA funding etc. If you could just summarize that as we discuss this.
Sure, Supervisor Kapsch through the Chair, it's very difficult for budget directors to be able to plan accordingly when there is a lot of uncertainty. So, that $25 billion that the state is going to be incurring is concerning to us for sure. Basically because we're trying to work on our budgets now and we really don't have an idea of how the governor's gonna deal with that come January.
And then when there's a revised his budget gets revised in May so there's a lot of uncertainty all the way up to When we get to June, so we're not sure how That's going to be impacted. It's not part of our forecast. So we don't have that plan for we have a lot of issues related to retention and recruitment that That are trying to be addressed and so we want to make sure that we're adequately setting aside funds to accommodate those We have a lot of costs associated to our jail And infrastructure projects that are getting planned that just have a rise in cost So we have estimates for at one point in time that are now increasing that we're having to identify funding for so it's it's a lot of the things where We have increases that we don't have our resources going up in the same capacity.
So I would imagine those are my biggest ones, and I don't know if Mona would like to add anything?
No, thank you for that question. I think Nancy's five-year chart sort of says it all. Just for context, I entered the story of Santa Barbara County when we were just coming out of the Great Recession and we had no money. The county had to make some really difficult choices during that time like all organizations so we didn't have any money so we had to really carefully budget, manage resources Departments did not get all the funding they wanted and we tried to fund board initiatives But what we did was we made plans for big things like the northern branch jail like the fire tax shift Like paying down all these different deficits that we had a plan for maintenance, and we've stuck to those plans so the board has been great and But as we enter this next period of time and I see more deficits ahead, and we're not Ms.
Anderson's planning judiciously not too conservative and not overly optimistic And so I just want to be careful because as we look into the future To do any big major initiatives the board wants to do that? We may need to do just to address things mean some difficult choices and so I just want to remind everyone that if we do something that really is important to the board It means planning for it. It's gonna take time or reducing one of these things that we have on the board, on the chart.
But next year we're in pretty good shape as she says but as Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Hartman know when they first came on the board we had to lay off like 60 employees or more I can't remember 70 employees which was a very very difficult time and it was because of state funding so again that's why Ms. Anderson is saying that because that's always on the back of our minds Like we said a third of our funding comes from the federal and state sources and when the states in trouble So then this when the state sneezes the counties catch the cold so it's something we're always wary of And if the board wants to backfill any state loss of state revenue, and I know some of you don't but if we do A lot of the revenue that we have in general fund that could be available as spoken for on this list So it just means some difficult choices ahead
Thank you for that sobering answer and for all of the work on this.
I just had a question on slide 18. So the deferred maintenance, that's our 18% one of our policies. So I didn't fully understand the second one, the internal charges increased mitigation. So I followed our big policies, the fire tax shift, the jail set aside, the 18%. And you know, I think we're all very proud of the board for the discipline that they've had over time. So I'm just trying to understand which policies we still have like that, that we're setting aside money for and really making a long-term commitment.
Chair Hartman excellent question this is actually a proposed policy that Mr. Clemente will go into here in a minute but your board has Set aside specifically for this issue because it's been a growing problem and you will see that is significantly impacting 23 24 in particular to the insurance premiums, so What we've done is tried to put that into policy because what we're seeing is that we're having to mitigate service severe service level impacts with departments as we're getting into the review process of and developing the recommended budget.
So we wanted to, like I said your board has already set aside 500,000 in the past it's part of that 5.1 that we're releasing it's just not going to be enough so we're trying to plan accordingly for this and it's not only impacting general fund departments it's impacting others as well So Paul will go into that policy discussion in just a moment the other Set aside that significant that is also being released and resolving Significant deficit in the second year is for labor. So your board has set aside I think it was approximately four point two million dollars in ongoing resources of last two years to Knowing that we were going into labor negotiations and that has has significantly benefited the county
Thank you
8:57 – 9:0314 turns
So if there's no further questions chair Harmon, we will move on to discuss the two policies that are new for this year And then into board priorities
So most of our proposed budget development policies for 23-24 are similar to the 22-23 policies and were an attachment to the board letter, but we did want to highlight two new components that will be adding on the following slides. So Policy 3H is exactly what Nancy was just talking about. It's a recognition of the growing cost to rates such as liability insurance premiums and workers' compensation. Our general fund contribution methodology only provides annual increases for salary and benefit increases, not charges like these because to some extent departments can control these costs which are typically driven by claims against departments. However in recent years much of these increases Have been driven by market conditions outside of department control and during budget development over the coming months If a department is struggling to balance their budget due to rate increases Driven by these market factors The CEO's office will work with them to determine the cause and may increase their GFC if available in the recommended budget to avoid service level reductions Policy 4f comes out of the October 18th board discussion on the sheriff hiring retention and overtime issues We'll be maintaining a two million dollar proposition 172 fund balance in general county programs Which may be released at year-end if CEO recommends and the board approves it to help mitigate overtime costs and reimburse recruiting Expenses as part of this measure The department has committed to work with the CEO's office to establish better time coding and data tracking to help dive deeper on analyzing overtime drivers.
And Chair Hartman, I think we'll pause there if there's any questions on either of those two policy changes.
So since you mentioned overtime, I know we're only halfway into the fiscal year but could you discuss what you're projecting for overtime costs?
Chair Hartman as part of our October report we were and our first quarter Look, we were anticipating that this year is going to be significantly higher than last Probably their total over overtime costs are gonna run about 17 million dollars or so at this point which is Last year. I think was a 1212 million
and in part of that's offset by vacancies but So how does that fit into this?
Right, so the plan is to work with them so that they can track their overtime costs to get to what is essentially going to always be a baseline level of OT. So you can plan? And we want to be able to calculate that and validate it. So then we can set a budget that's more reflective of really what their ongoing OT is going to be because they have a lot of challenges regarding their vacancies that are impacting that number.
Supervisor Nelson
yes, thank you. I think it's really important though That 17 million number is eye-popping and if there are the three people that are still watching one of them might be from the media What is that number that we're also anticipating on the salary savings? I think that needs to be in context not that it's a good thing But I think the public needs understand what are we anticipating? salary savings That partially offsets at seventeen million dollar number
Supervisor Nielsen through the chair, it's quite a bit of it. It's most of it and I believe and I'm trying to recall our Q1 report where we brought that late November and I want to say the Sheriff's overall Year-end Deficit projected at that time which is driven by this overtime and salaries issue is was around one to one and a half million dollars Quarter two will close December 31st, and we'll be preparing and bringing back to the board after That's the six month mark then a more comprehensive look and projections updated for our q2 report to your board It's probably February March
And that's really important. I mean, the sky isn't falling financially as an organization that's not healthy to have that much over time. We've been hearing from the men and women in our Shares Department that are taxed beyond what is reasonable. So it needs to be arrested and dealt with but at the same time, We are Conservatively budgeted, and we are going to be able to at least handle that for now But you know it's gonna. Be causing other problems in service level reductions forced service level reduction because of lack of staff in the future So thank you
supervisor Williams
I agree with that, but I'd still bet you pizza it's going to be more than $1.1 million over budget. So yeah, I'll take the over.
You'll take the bet?
9:03 – 9:0811 turns
Okay Supervisor, I'm sorry Chair Hartman if there are no other questions we will move on to board priorities and get some of your feedback. So keeping in mind that we have some GFC and one-time resources that are going to be unallocated it helps for us to hear what funding priorities are of interest to all of you The list on this slide are items your board has discussed or supported in the past, and I'll go through them real quickly.
High priority long-range planning projects, enhancement of the rural crime efforts, recruitment and retention initiatives, countywide library system support. enhanced crisis intervention programs, the CIP priority list, workforce housing, greater criminal justice diversion projects, augmentation of the set-asides for capital projects or future liabilities, open space and recreation projects, deferred maintenance, and set-asides specifically for district area special projects.
Your board will have the opportunity and able to provide additional guidance, but we are Looking to hear any other focus areas That would help us as we prepare and review the department budgets
Our wish list Supervisor Williams your lights still on
Yes, I want to just put this in the context of...I'm going to put forward this need from the standpoint of if we're in a time when we have to be very judicious about number one putting out anything that would be ongoing expenses but number two That it would be advantageous to put out something that addresses some of the root problems of our malaises. And if some of our biggest problems are retention and attraction of employees, and cost of living then We have to do something to address housing.
And I also would argue for it from a revenue potential because if we develop employee housing, whether it's rental or ownership then the county also has a revenue stream because we're talking about land that we already own and It could help address all of these issues in the long run, or at least insulate us in the long run. And so if we have a limited amount of money and next year's budget that probably should be one time in nature then I think we should use it to jumpstart workforce housing at one of our sites. Again, I don't actually advocate that we Allocate the money to build it. I advocate that we put out an RFP To builders who are willing to create some kind of arrangement where they build them build the product It has to be sold to employees or rented to employees and then we share in their revenues from that product But I think that addresses would address give some employees some hope I think it also would help The community in general, if we can address housing stock because then that would be fewer of our employees that are competing with the general public.
Oh and I also wanted to say I'm good with both policies that you all have
articulated. Thank you Supervisor Ramos.
Yeah, I just want to thank staff for listening on the board priorities. I don't have anything to add really like to see the real crime effort on there. I'm not sure how we would do that with a 1 time allocation but it's something we can talk about and work on in April. But outside of that all my stuff is taken care of on this slide.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes, I just want to add my support to these both budget policies That are proposed As well as that I think all my priorities on their open space recreation deferred maintenance rural crime CIP Yes it thank you and special projects within districts
And I the CIP That's a given list, but will we We may have additional things. We'd like to be included would that be something we? address at
a later point chair Hartman that that's helpful to know too typically we get that list prioritized from From general services in the other CSD and Public Works, but we can certainly ensure that we're having that conversation prior
Supervisor caps.
Yeah, just I'm happy to see workforce housing on this list and thank you supervisor Williams for bringing that up It's the number one issue that I hear about when I talk to Constituents all around the county but if there is options for the county to actually use our own land work with developers etc That would be something I'd be thrilled with Thank You
9:08 – 9:1722 turns
Well, I'm going to sound greedy. But the first thing if we are doing workforce housing, I mean I think child care you know that's another aspect of recruitment and retention and so anything we could address on-site childcare in that context. I was inspired earlier by a community resource deputy how Supervisor Nelson was able to cobble together different sources of funding and it inspired me to at least, I haven't talked to Sheriff Brown.
Thank you very much. Bathrooms in Los Olivos, that is really a significant issue for that community. They're very dependent on visitors and tourism. We've looked at it's very expensive but I'm struggling to find a way forward especially given that it's a special problems area. I did promise that I would raise it in the context of this budget discussion so here's the start Supervisor Nielsen.
Yeah, so Los Alamos has the same issue as you know for representing that and that's where I hoping that sometime You know set aside for district areas that you know All to say it because we've got a new colleague, you know Where we are the municipal services for a lot of these unincorporated areas And so it's always a struggle when I talk to my constituents about how we have to balance the needs of the county as a whole, as well as their community. And that all five of us have wants and needs and desires in different groups that we need to service, as well as think about things that are county-wide whether it's mental health beds, library services, and so sometimes we can't really invest. It's hard for us to invest Each you know community in the county we don't sometimes don't have those funds I mean sometimes the CSA's or Community Service Districts are not quite enough and the county needs to Or I would hope could in the future be a partner, and so I'm hoping that I Don't know what the number is.
I don't know where we get with it But that we start to have some of those discussions or at least be thinking forward-thinking It's not something I'm asking for tomorrow but it's something I do bring up because there is a need out there and hopefully it would be something that It could be partnered or cobbled together with, you know, for Los Olivos and other communities as we move forward. And I also did want to add that I'm not against workforce housing but the devil's in the details on a plan like that so I could be supportive but it has to be the right deal that makes sense for not only our employees but the taxpayers as well.
CEO Miyasato.
Ms. Anderson, could you clarify? We've heard some different things and I want to get to Supervisor Nielsen's suggestion what this list means, what you're planning to do with this list if anything.
Yeah, so the intent now we're very early in the process So we've identified as a product part of the five-year forecast that they'll there'll be some level of additional one time funding and maybe minimal Ongoing general fund costs. So typically what we do is we try to make sure that we're aware of some of the major focus areas It's not that it's going to be fully incorporated in the budget But they are things if their priority to your board That helps guide us as we're moving into reviewing some of the department A request and those types of things that we can help with some of that funding allocation thoughts and present it to your board.
So Chair Harmon if I may, so all the things on this list aren't things that we actually are able to fund expansions on? Oh yeah, we understand. Just want to make sure because- We are very clear on that. Okay because wait in setting priorities- Well what? We can't
just do all of
these things? Because my stuff is on that list. My stuff is on that list. So I heard Supervisor Williams and Supervisor Kaps talk about the need for workforce housing, I appreciate that. Supervisor Hartman talked about things within her district which is good it helps us but when I want to get to what Supervisor Nelson talked about because that is a new idea that was introduced last time was this last part of a set aside for district area special projects so as you recall in your budget hearings last year there were some pot of one-time funds that wasn't allocated And you agreed for it to be split in the South County, for the Mid and South County Supervisors for district area special projects.
And so the question was coming back next year since all of you have different issues within your districts do you want us to create that? If you don't wanna talk about it today we'll come back in April and talk about it but that would help us Understand what is left in the pot for all these other things
Supervisor Williams.
Well, I mean my suggestion for that Just from experience is like if things if a need in a community has you know Three zeros behind it maybe it's doable If it has four zeros behind it, maybe if two supervisors pool it, it should be doable. But I don't think this pot of money should be for things with four zeroes behind them or five zeroes behind them because then it would eat up all our allocatable money in a year and we can't do big things.
So I'm supportive of doing that where we each have something that has maybe three or four zeros behind it, but not more than that.
And just was it about 50,000 last year?
Chair Hartman, it was 75 roughly correct.
Madam chair?
Yes.
You know, I would take what Mona said kind of in reverse it is that. I'd rather take care of these items and if there is something left over then we talk about district area special projects for 1 time. I don't want to start with us looking at district area special projects 1st and then say, oh, what's leftover? Maybe we could support the library or rural crime or workforce housing whatever I think.
And I know what you're saying is you need to know how much is left over, but to me that's priority B. Is that if we can squeeze it in? You know we can make that work and that's something I think we need to kind of work with our colleagues on the board, but I'd rather see. Broad focus where all of us are in agreement and then you know there's a small set aside for something that you kind of need to get done in your district to take care of a problem that for some reason just doesn't get done any other way.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah, I would like to say ditto to that. At the end of the day we are county supervisors not just district supervisors and many of these needs are county wide and those should be our top priorities. Keeping in mind there are needs out there and trying to be creative, cobbling together funds from different areas is a good solution and bring it to your colleagues and get support for us.
I didn't mean for it to go too far off on a special district conversation or district-by-district conversation, but I do want that in the back of our minds as we go through some of these discussions on trying to find ways to deal with very unique specific needs and communities in the county.
So with that, do we have any public comment Madam Clerk? Chair Herman and members of the board we have no request to speak on this item. Okay, we're back to the board I don't see any lights could I get a motion for A through D?
I'll make a motion staff recommendations A through D
Second
Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Roll-call vote Passed 5–0 motion staff recommendations A through D Second Madam Clerk would you call the roll?
Show transcript
motion passes unanimously okay with that we are adjourned to Tuesday January 10th 2022 where we will have 2023 sorry my notes were wrong yeah well I'll hand off the gavel and we'll do some swearing-in have a wonderful holiday