Board of Supervisors — 2023-11-28

Good morning. I will call to order the November 28th, 2023 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors to order. Madam Clerk please call the roll.

Move approval. Is

there a second?

Second.

All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? And the CEO's report.

Good morning board members This morning I'm pleased to share with you another video from our series Your County, Your Heroes and it features as you know unsung heroes throughout the county who embody the spirit of selflessness and service and dedication. The videos in this series are played on channel 20 throughout the week and are highlighted in our monthly county newsletter on CSB TV's YouTube page and our social media accounts in both English and Spanish And I'm going to have to thank Kelsey Butita, our PIO communications manager for putting things together. This morning we are honoring Monica Hernandez and Nelson Maldonado from the county's Lompoc probation office. With that why don't we show the video?

Welcome to Santa Barbara County where extraordinary individuals shine bright. Join us as we celebrate the unsung heroes who embody the spirit of selflessness and dedication from tireless volunteers to dedicated public service, these remarkable individuals inspire us all.

Nelson Maldonado and Monica Hernandez are two of the county's exceptional Deputy Probation Officers who work out at the county's Lompoc Probation Office. Both go above and beyond to help their clients get back on their feet, and successfully integrated back into the community.

I currently supervise clients that are released from state prison. I try to assist them with securing employment, referring them out to any programs. I try to focus on what they feel is the most important thing that they need assistance with.

I enjoy seeing people being able to transform their lives because a lot of times they might have made a misstep in life but it doesn't mean that the rest your life has to go down that path So I always strongly encourage them that it's never too late. So connecting them with services in our community, substance abuse or mental health treatment has been amazing to see the transformation of some of these people when they commit to wanting change.

They already feel they have something stamped on their forehead that they messed up. They also remember when you treat them like people. I try to build that rapport, ask them about their kids, their families. I want them to succeed. The worst part about this job is having to arrest people

Monica's a hero because she gives back to the community. She really digs deep into her work. She's excited about what she does with the clients. I've seen her work with these clients one-on-one and bring the clients and their families all together for farming healthier lives

Our number one job is just to support the people on our caseload. We are their biggest cheerleaders. I love when they come in and they test clean or they tell me they got a job like high fives, knuckles we do it all just because we want to celebrate them.

What's great about Monica she literally was born here and raised through care so it's great to be able to like work in the same community that we were pretty much raised in and being able to give back

Lompoc is a very small office, and we often say tiny but mighty. We do it all here. It is teamwork. We call it the Lompoc way. We will do anything and everything to help. I call Nelson Maldonado the mayor. He knows everybody. We get the best information just because of the rapport we build with the families. They will give us insight on the areas where our clients are struggling, and then it will help us better address them later. And he is the master of getting that information.

I would characterize Nelson as someone who goes the extra mile all day every

day.

I think he pays attention to the small details, he connects with his clients on a personal level and pulls out tidbits that are meaningful to them that he knows can help him effect change

I get every walk of life. And those who are really in need and they don't have proper clothing, they can actually go through our closet for that job interview to go to court. It's really impactful.

I want them to succeed. I love when people call me back or send me emails and tell me of the things that they've accomplished after they've successfully completed probation. That's what makes me happy and that's why I decided to do this.

It's letting them understand that they're valuable and that they have self-worth. And if not necessarily just to themselves, but to others around them, to this community. That's what drives me every day. It's just seeing people changing their lives once they've achieved that then everything else can fall into place.

Supervisors, Monica Hernandez is in training today but as you heard in the video they've done incredible work and Nelson Maldonado was here if he could just stand up so we can give another round of applause. That concludes my report this morning.

Great to see you and all the folks from probation who showed up to give you support. Madam Clerk are there announcements or changes to our agenda today?

Chair Williams and members of the board, I do have a couple quick announcements this morning. I have a quick announcement on administrative item number nine. Administrative item number nine is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding the appointment of the community services department director prior to board action on administrative item number nine in accordance with government code section 54953 subdivision C3, the Community Services Department Director salary information shall be summarized verbally. Effective January 22nd 2024 Jesus Armas says bi-weekly salary will be approximately $8,432.

Additionally, we received a memo from the department correcting administrative item number 28 Administrative item number 28 is from the Public Works Department It is to consider recommendations regarding amendment. Number six to the professional services agreement with corrupt Corollo engineers incorporated for engineering services During construction of Laguna County Sanitation District plant upgrades and this isn't a fourth and fifth districts the memo corrected The correction to this item in the memo indicated the sponsor should be reflected as Public Works Department Board of Directors Laguna County Sanitation District and not the Water Agency.

Additionally, I have a quick clarification on administrative item number 47 Administrative item number 47 is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to approve the appointment of Roy Reed to the Planning Commission, term ending December 31st 2024 and this is in the 4th district and for clarification this appointment is effective December 1st 2023. Additionally we received a continuance request from department from the Department on departmental item number one Departmental item number one is from the Community Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding an ordinance to amend County Code Chapter 46A Inclusionary housing the department is requesting a continuance of this item to the January 23rd 2024 meeting We currently have no requests to speak on this continuance request So the board may take action on this item now or wait till we take up the departmental agenda and take action at that time Lastly for the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation And to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda Please see page 2 of the agenda Individuals that would like to provide verbal public comment 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 area code 805-568-2240 again That's 8 0 5 5 6 8 2 2 4 0 and that concludes my announcements for today

So we also have a six being pulled by mr. Nelson I Let's read 8-6.

Chair Williams and members of the board, administrative item number six is from the county executive office. It is to consider recommendations regarding fiscal year 2023 through 2024 first quarter budget status report in cannabis taxation compliance and enforcement update.

Mr. Nelson.

Yes, excuse me. Thank you Chair Williams. I pulled this item usually this is comes to us as in the departmental items so I wanted to pull it just to talk a little bit about this update especially that the cannabis revenue there were I saw was down to half million dollars for this quarter I think which was really alarming for a lot of us and so Hoping to potentially get maybe an explanation from staff on that and what we're looking at. I think it's worth noting also on the enforcement side, I am curious about where we do with our odor abatement plans. I'm still hearing a lot of issues about odor ongoing. I know there was potential solutions that some of the operators were working with especially in the Carpinteria Valley and Sue Riser Williams area but I know that continues to be a persistent problem, and so any word on how planning is doing with enforcement on odor abatement would be helpful.

And what other options are available to the board? I know I mentioned last time we had this item about best available technology and when do we get there when it has to do with carbon scrubbers. So I know it's a lot of questions all at once Brittany but if you wouldn't mind hitting on the taxes and start talking about some of the other issues and where we are with best available technology.

Thank you, Supervisor Nelson through the chair. I'll start with that question about taxes. So we did report that what we had collected at the time of writing this board letter was $518,000. However, as you may recall, when we changed Chapter 50 and how Report and collect taxes. We allow an additional 30 days to collect the taxes after the operators have reported and so Based on the reports and what we've now collected were at 1.7 million, so there's a big difference in that 30-day Period so we are at one point seven which is still lower than then we had hoped but obviously significantly better than the 500 As for the odor abatement, odor issues and complaints go through the Planning and Development Department. And so I know that Director Plowman is on the line as well as her Deputy of Development and Review and the Supervising Planner that works on the cannabis projects and I think they are would be better to speak to where they are with that and how they're addressing the odor issues.

So I believe... I'm here. Thank you.

Yes, I have Travis Sewards and Gwen Baylor on as well. Um so uh it and I think what I would say is that we've had a number of appeals that have been about different issues Some of them have been about water and access. In fact, the three appeals that we have currently today relate to one's odor, one's water, one's access. But there have been a lot of issues regarding odor particularly in the Carpinteria Valley.

And so we've been working through those appeals but we also have been doing our odor reports. So we have been the first year that these operations go into effect We have a consultant, GeoSyntec, go out to the site to assess whether or not their utter abatement systems are functioning as expected. And so we've been getting those reports and learning that in some cases some of the systems are working, in some cases they're not, and then they're directed to correct the problems with the systems. Mr. Seawards, do you want to talk a little bit about what the department's learned more specifically Growers that aren't meeting the requirements of their odor abatement plan and then what we're going to be doing with that once they, we conclude those studies.

Thanks Director Plowman I'm probably gonna punt to Gwen as well but I think in speaking with Gwen In general, we're finding that people are complying with their OAPs. And when they're not and sometimes it's minor issues like they're using the wrong type of fluid in a vapor system or they're using the wrong type of filter you know staff is working with operators to come into compliance within 30 days But in general at a high level, and Gwen correct me if I'm wrong, we're finding that the consultant is finding that operators are in compliance with their OAPs.

We do have a number of growers that have elected to use some kind of carbon filtration systems. We currently have 174 units in greenhouses in six different operations down there They are very expensive, and so some have opted to wait for a period of time before they install them. They were conditions required at the time they were approved through the planning commission and then ultimately the board.

And so there is a schedule of those when they're going to be going in, but usually they had about 12 months to install them.

And since I was the one who asked for that amalgamation of information about two weeks ago, the staff also amalgamated how many new units are going in. So the 174 carbon filtration units that are already in the Carpinteria Valley are a mix of units because some of them predated the infinity units that people are advocating for and Seem to have greater efficacy but the and then there are about 70 something that are envisioned that staff know are coming and being installed in some are only waiting for our own building department approval process to be installed.

And almost all of those, or at least the majority of those are the infinity units.

Well I think you know hearing from planning that most of the odor abatement plans are being honored and being successfully executed is actually worrisome. If we're actually, you know they're satisfying the conditions of that but yet we're still having odor issues it seems that it should be there should be at some point a shift towards the best available technologies that are out there. You know that was I think in every one of those odor abatement plans its best available technology And if there's a debate about that, I think that's a debate we should probably have up on the dais and what that looks like. So either to help the land use process forward or whether we put that in licensing in the future, I think there is an opportunity out there where there has been a large step forward on odor abatement especially those with mixed light Greenhouses, and I think that we as a board should take some steps towards that And so I would like to try to figure out you know obviously that's not this item here But maybe we need have a future item To discuss that a little bit further and see how we might be able to get that together So that was kind of my hope from pulling this item today

I'll take the liberty of just asking the question to staff. What I saw on that grid was that most of the permits already have the option of staff moving them to carbon filtration units as part of a Tier 3 response, but there is a protocol to reaching a Tier 3 response so maybe you could explain that to the public and the board? So essentially What I saw in most of those permits and odor abatement programs is that staff already has the option to move them to it, but it's part of this tier three protocol. So maybe you could explain that.

Yeah, Mr. Chair and members of the board, that is correct. The way the odor abatement plans are set up is that they utilize their existing proposed odor abatement systems. But if they are not ultimately abating odor, then we can gradually ratcheted up the requirements eventually to the carbon systems. Most of the growers have been including those as an option in their odor abatement plans so that we don't have to amend their plan in order for them to be able to install that, and we had been advised that... We've been advising the applicants to make sure that they did that so it was a simpler process to bring them into compliance. But I think what I would say is that there are still a number of sites In the Carpentry Valley that haven't decided to go ahead and install that, there's I think somewhere between 17 and 14 growers that haven't.

But again, there is the provision in their plans and in our code to get them to the point where they are not producing odor. We have seen a decline in complaints in the Carpentry Valley particularly in the areas where there have been the installation of these types of facilities So they have been, they are working and they're making a difference.

So there's a disconnect for me it sounds like people are being compliant with their odor abatement plans scrubbers or an option yet the odor persists and so you know if all the odor abatement plans are being successful then they really should be able to in theory drive through carpentry and not smell cannabis and so I think that's where A disconnect for the public and for myself is how do we resolve that if it's going to be a persistent issue, if all the odor abatement plans are being successfully executed then that should be what we're experiencing but at the same time we continue to. So just trying to square that issue is a challenge for me and I guess with our enforcement schedule we're waiting for complaints to go through those tier 1, tier 2 And we're relying on the public to make additional complaints to escalate that.

So Supervisor Nelson through the chair, so it's a mix of things when we complete the four quarters of our analysis with the consultant then if we find that their odor abatement systems are working as they proposed but yet they're still producing odor that is detected in residential zones That's what the code currently says. It's not that I drive down the road on the 192 and I smell odor, it's that you're in a residential zone district and you're smelling odor.

That's when we have the ability to increase the requirements of how they address their odor. It is particularly tricky in Carpentaria because all the grows are right next to one another so it can be challenging to identify who the culprit is but that is the protocol that we go through. We do all the analysis that first year We do four reports and if they are not reducing odor, then we can change require them to change their odor abatement plan.

We also do it through complaints.

So I guess my only thought and we don't have to obviously it's this item is just a receiving file. Was, I think there's a bigger discussion than an administrative item and should be something that we should look at in the future of the board look at not just these odor issues in Carpinteria but also the inland areas as well. I know they're still ongoing issues with conflicts with odor with existing sensitive receptors in the North County.

And so I'm interested in seeing us bring something in the future to talk about that and see what are our additional solutions. If we're okay with the current status quo, if the board is then you know I guess that's what we'll do but at the same time this is you know where technology is evolving. You know this industry has evolved. I think we have some opportunities of this board to take some positions on this and try to really get our arms around it and that's my hope.

Supervisor Katz.

Thank you, thanks to Supervisor Nelson for giving us some airtime and to the chair as well because I too was confused as to why this was not a departmental item because it's been a while since we've talked about it and I want to thank staff this is much more than just a budget update that you know going into the number of appeals I did have a question about those appeals it said 95 appeals on 66 projects and then I distinguished the report distinguished a little bit further saying of that 86 were Withdrawn, closed or action was taken.

How many have been withdrawn? I mean most of them have been dealt with by the county. Is that accurate? Director Plowman.

Supervisor Capsley to Chair. Most we have processed through the County. We've had, I don't know Mr. Seawords what would you say maybe 10 or 15 that have worked it out?

Of the 95 appeals that have been filed, 23 were withdrawn and that's likely because a solution was reached. Yeah

so most of

all the other ones we've acted upon

yeah so like 80 plus. So I mean I think that's the data of your disconnect Supervisor Nielsen is that if things were working with odor then we wouldn't have such a Extreme number of appeals and I agree with your suggestion that this deserves more discussion from the board if because last time we really don't talked about odor was about a year ago when There was a deal in place at least in Carpinteria that we had a lot of optimism for and that deal has since broken down in terms of Operators agreeing to do the best available technology, which is what this study has shown as carbon scrubbers, carbon filtration. So if that's broken down, is that going to mean more appeals? I know we have four currently. I've confirmed with my planning commissioner that odor is by far the strongest reason for appeal so it's taking up a lot of time and energy on a bunch of people's parts as well as this imbalance of enforcement being based on Constituents having to spend money time energy to make some change.

So Thanks for clarifying that on the appeals I definitely support giving this more more time and potential action I do have a question for for miss Oderman about taxes That's good news that it's 1.7 and not the 518 million that was in the staff report as you indicated would likely happen. And so just to clarify, that means that the two operators I know you can't get into who they are and not asking for that but the two operators that came through in the last final days of that 30-day window provided that 70% gap between 518 million and 1.7 million?

Supervisor Capps to the chair.

I'm sorry 518,000 yeah

no actually the two those two operators continue to not report so they will not be able to renew their licenses per the changes we made. The difference is that ordinance stated that they had to report by the 30-day mark how much they needed to pay and then they had an additional 30 days to actually pay the amount. That's where the difference of the 518 in the 1.7 So the 1.7 in the staff report was

what folks had?

Everybody who had reported it actually paid. OK,

so

could

you provide because I know this board took action to try to close that gap of operators that weren't paying taxes and therefore shorting our county and our taxpayers are we now at full compliance except for these two operators that didn't file and therefore won't have their License renewed basically I'm asking did our action is it working? I know last quarter It seemed to work that that we got a hundred percent compliance and paying taxes and where are we now

Thank You supervisor caps Yes, I think it is working these two operators. That didn't report They're required to report because they still hold active state licenses But for all intents and purposes They are not growing And they have indicated that they're not going to renew and and they will not be able to renew because they did not report So we continue to pursue their reports But they're gone, so we really do have 100% compliance. We still do have operators that are reporting zero of course because they're not growing or they didn't have any sales in that quarter but yes we have a hundred percent compliance.

Well just to close I reiterate support for Supervisor Nelson's suggestion that we spend more time on odor given this, to see the numbers of 80 plus appeals related to odor and that disconnect between being told that it's working and enforcement is working yet. We know that there's good technology out there that would I think if it were any other industry we would be requiring that or at least looking at it so I'm all in support of bringing this back

Supervisor Hartman.

First a tax question and then back to odor so with the new numbers how does that compare then with our projected cannabis revenues?

Thank You supervisor Hartman for the current fiscal year are you referring quarter yeah I believe Mr. Clemente is on the line and his team handles the overall total projections for the year, and

I just wondered are we close to target or are we falling short of what were already reduced

expectations? Paul is on the line. Paul why don't you take that question?

Thank you. You're

a little muffled Paul can you speak up a little bit closer to your

mic? Okay, close to the mic. I believe that our projections this year are six million dollars which is about one and a half million less than the seven and a half million that we built into the budget. And that takes into account that assumption of the 1.7 million this quarter not though not the $500,000 number that had actually come in by the time we wrote this but the one seven that we expected to come in

Okay so that's consistent with what you had in the board letter. Yes,

it doesn't increase that number.

Thank you very much back to odor I believe that odor has been Plaguing us ever since we adopted the ordinance, and we tried different ways of trying to address it obliquely. With caps, with banning in EDRNs, with setbacks, and now CUPs for new operations. But it continues to be an issue, and I think the fact that the revenues are less than what we expected, what kind of nuisance do we expect people to have to endure?

I think our ordinance could use a look at, again because we do have new technology. I also believe that measuring at the closest residential area instead of at the property line is really impossible because things mix and so that's Technically a very difficult thing to try to sort out unless you have a real signature from the operation, from the cannabis plants within one that you can identify elsewhere. Now we don't have that kind of technology so I would be delighted to support a discussion once again of odor control on cannabis and I'm really excited that Supervisor Nelson raised this

Supervisor Lavinia. Thank you, I'm ecstatic you've raised it because we haven't talked about it enough honestly. We haven't? Holy crap guys this is all we've ever talked about for the last five years so what else do we regulate by smell? I'm curious in ag do we do anything in ag and smell because if we're gonna bring back cannabis I'm gonna bring back ag and I hope everybody's listening to this because if your staff or you're running any program in this county, if this comes back when this keeps coming back. I think what the writing is on the wall here cannabis is going to start to try to get erased bottom line there are the votes up here to do it and so yeah no because you're not gonna get what you want You're complaining about odor in not even your district.

There's no way you're going to get odor control. Are there any grows inside in North County?

Supervisor Leavenworth, I believe we have one.

One. Is that right there at Los Alamos? That one. Okay so outside of that it doesn't matter what odor control. You're not gonna be able to put odor control on outdoor grows There's no technology to be able to do that. So you're going to continue to get the odor complaints that you're getting, regardless of what you do. The money that we're getting, or isn't it? And at some point it sounds like you guys are saying it's not worth it. Which is fine and that's a policy decision but you better let our employees know in the community know what the trade-off is.

The trade-off is there will be cuts and they'll be layoffs and it's no coincidence since we started the cannabis program we have not had one service level reduction in our budgets zero so It's fine to sit up here and talk about that, but there are impacts that come with new programs. And I'm not saying we shouldn't try to get the best available technology on indoor grows. I think we are.

But I don't know exactly what's going on in Carpinteria. I give that to the guy that represents Carpinteria so I think we're opening a Pandora's box here. If this is where we want to go down, I'm going to be in the mix of trying to bring other industries that you spend most of your time, both of us do, trying to reduce government regulations on businesses and it just seems so out-of-character that on this one industry, that's the one where all of a sudden we want to impose more restrictions and more regulations.

Frankly, I don't understand it. We can have as many hearings as we want. We're going to be in the same position

at the end of all of it. And I just want to say that this discussion really seems to reflect not a local understanding of what's going on with odor. Odor is getting better, not worse. Not only evidenced by the number of complaints but by the number of units you just listen to staff there's a hundred and seventy four hundred and seventy-four carbon filtration units already installed in Carpinteria people talk about it in the public sphere like there's zero or that there's only ones at Everbloom You know, this is just not an accurate reflection of the state of odor in Carpinteria. There's also 70 something being installed. So if you want that to go faster what you ought to do is hire more people in building and safety because a lot of those are waiting on us to approve them right?

Waiting on the county to approve them And then we, in looking at these odor abatement programs there's only like a couple of them that don't already have carbon filtration in their OAPs at tier three. So there is already a legislative solution so if you guys want to just like make this into a political fight for two years it will take us at least two years to get through the Coastal Commission and change the ordinance Then by all means have a legislative thing and try to. Try to protect roads from odor instead of residences or the department can move down the tiers and install them where they ought to be installed and mind you that's not always the nuisance issue or the issue with some of these things in many places it's not odor that people are even concerned about its The essential oils from the buyer's system, which we have zero evidence poses a problem.

But I think it's partially our own processes that require it to be run 24-7. And so part of dwelling on odor ignores the fact that there's other issues to install all these Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I'd like to ask you a couple of questions. So this is complex. Each system each situation is different and it requires staff's ability to treat each one different but I definitely join you in the chorus of urging staff to move places that are not compliant with their OAP down through tier 3 because we should have more of these systems required.

But just not as a legislative solution, as an administrative solution because the tools are already there. Mr. Nelson?

Yes, thank you Chair Williams. So obviously this item deserves to be a discussion item I don't think it's fully vetted out here and we're putting some cards on the table but you know some of the concerns that Supervisor Labadino has are the same questions I'm asking. Strategies put growers out of business and that's a huge question for me, one of the first questions I have about this.

And as we look at the inland area in the North County, that's an area that's already struggling with cannabis as far as staying in business most of our north county grows. And so how can we work with those growers to find off-ramps for them to maybe go indoors or have other solutions that we might be able to make compromises for? So, that's why I think it deserves a broader discussion. I know it's all we've been talking about the last five years.

Five years ago two of us weren't on this board. And so there's an opportunity for us to have some of these discussions and nuances that I think it deserves. It does not mean that we're just going after cannabis, or trying to put them out of business by any means. In many ways, I've been a big advocate of trying to keep regulations As few as possible, but if the regulations aren't working. If it's just a house of card system then we should be looking at other solutions especially if there is technology out there that can address this and so I would prefer to get into that over a bigger discussion item in the future and I'm okay with making motion receiving file this item.

Supervisors, and so thank you Supervisor Nelson. If the board wants us to come back I would appreciate a motion directing us to do that and being specific of what you'd like us to bring back just for some context my office is coming back to talk about cannabis taxation options after sometime January or February because looking at ballot measures in the future and our direction was to come back then. If we come back on this, it's a bigger item and bigger issue we'd have to work with planning. We wouldn't be ready to come back at that point but we could come back sometime after that but it would be helpful to us if you could be specific on direction if you want us to come back.

Chair Williams I would support adding that direction to this receipt file if that is allowed to happen

We do have a public speaker first. Let's go to the public.

Chair Williams and members of the board, we have one request to speak on that item and we're going to remain in Santa Maria for Karen Hanenstein. Karen?

Good morning. Most of you know me. I'm speaking on this cannabis issue because I've been listening to you take a lot of time this morning talking about complaints that are happening from constituents about odor and how important the odor is, the odor issue. You enacted an illegal ordinance when you set your cannabis policy. Mr. Williams and Miss Lagunino, I'm so sorry.

You were involved in setting the cannabis policy that outlawed commercial cannabis inside existing developed rural neighborhoods but only in North County. You made that only apply to North County in existing developed rural neighborhoods, not to the ones in South County where the majority of the complaints happen. As a constituent and a person who's directly affected by your cannabis policy I would like to know why that happened and what your justifications are?

For setting a policy which outlaws commercial cannabis production in designated neighborhoods, but only for North County residences. I believe that that part of your ordinance Being that it discriminates against North County businesses and North County residences, and North County property owners. I believe that that specific part of your ordinance that you said is actually illegal. Where is county council in this room? Are they represented in this room?

County Council, are you right here? Okay, I would like to meet with county council Over how the ordinance that was set by this board affects my family's property in North County. If that's possible, I also have had meetings already with Mr Nelson and Ms Hartman because they are our direct representatives but Mr Williams and Miss Lagunino, Ms. Capps, Mrs. Capps I would like to meet with all of you also if that's possible Mr. Williams and Miss Lagunino You're very familiar with why because you were here during the reign of Dennis Buzanich Thank You Karen

that is your time and that concludes public comment on a six

Is there a motion from the board? I'll make sure Nelson.

Yeah, I'll make a motion. Make a motion that we adopt staff recommendation to receive and file and they redirect the CEO's office to work with planning as well as her department on bringing back if you try them to address the successes and the challenges that persist with odor abatement not only coastal but inland So that's I know you were asking for specifics. I think that's still fairly broad, but I do.

I think that allows for further discussion of the board on it. I mean, I think specifically we want to know how things are moving through the various tiers. We want to know if the odor issues that are happening in North County are things that would are compliant with their order abatement plans or if they're going outside of them And whether we have the staffing to do the enforcement as well as process the permits that are necessary to address this issue.

That's my motion. Second.

Motion is seconded, any comments? I'll support the motion. I think that you know there still is remaining issues and that was broad enough to that we should address them and that we should go over what staff's ability is to address them all those in favor please say aye opposed no Okay and I don't think we need any other separate votes. They all are, we went over A9 and A47 so you have another to pull? Okay then let's get a motion on the balance of the consent agenda