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.0:00 – 0:0326 turns
All right, good morning everybody. I'd like to call to order this April 23rd 2024 meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. Madam Clerk can I get a roll call please?
Roll call, called by Jacquelyne Alexander
Show transcript
All right,
next item of business is the approval of minutes from the March 2nd 2024 meeting. So moved.
Second.
Moved and seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. We also need to approve the minutes from the March 3rd 2024 community meetings. Oh I'm sorry oh we have to use our new technology I don't know. Is it on here?
Oh, you have to click the...
Where's my button
now? On the side.
We got
it.
And Chair Lavagnino and members of the board just to clarify that motion was to approve the minutes of April 2nd 2024.
March oh it's in here is March second.
My apologies.
Okay April second.
Correct as listed on today's published agenda.
That's what I meant yeah
I think all my dates may be wrong. OK, here we go. All right. So we're good there. Let's go to
next item of business is the approval of the April 3rd 2024 community meeting
approval. Second
moved and seconded. All those in favor.
Aye.
I will abstain. I was not at that meeting so well.
Next item of business is approval of the minutes of the April 9th, 2024 and April 10th, 2024 budget workshops.
So moved. Second.
Moved and seconded all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed passes unanimously.
Next item of business is approval of an amendment to the minutes of the March 19, 2024 meeting. And before we proceed with approval, the clerk has announcement to make on that amendment.
0:03 – 0:0911 turns
Yes, thank you Chair Lavinino and members of the board. An amendment to the minutes of March 19th 2024 is before the board today for approval related to departmental item number four from the Public Works Department which was a hearing to consider recommendations regarding approval of the Tahequs landfill capacity increase project in the third district. The amendment before the board for approval is a correction to recommendation F which should be directing staff to return to the board within six months with a report regarding waste diversion, waste reduction and ways to engage the community. To implement those changes further directed staff to return to the board within one month with a report regarding negotiations with and this should read The Gaviota Coast Conservancy and not The Gulf Corporation Council.
And if we can get approval of those amended amendments.
Second. Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Our
next item of business is County Executive Officers Report.
Good morning Chair Lavagnino and board members today I have a few items one is just if you could put the slide up Great. One is just announcing that S&P Global Ratings has assigned the county a triple A credit rating, the highest rating available. This will afford the county access to the lowest interest rates available to the financial market. This is something the board should be proud of and I just want to thank Harry Hagen and his staff and Jeff Rappel of my staff and Paul Clemente for helping put this financing together along with all the financing team.
Second thing is, you heard earlier this week that Governor Gavin Newsom announced last week that Santa Barbara County in a joint application with the City of Santa Barbara has been awarded $8 million to tackle the pressing issue of unsheltered homelessness in the region. This grant aims to link individuals currently residing in vehicle encampments throughout the county to a housing solution The county's success and proven track record of taking the issue seriously with demonstrable outcomes and utilizing data to guide our efforts were likely important factors in receipt of this award. It's very timely, as you know there is an item on your agenda later this morning.
Also, Santa Barbara County has been included in the federal major disaster declaration for the January 31st to February 9th storms. This will allow the county and other governmental agencies and non-profit partners in the county to apply for FEMA disaster reimbursement for eligible response costs and damages. At this time, the county was not approved for individual assistance for community members and businesses who have experienced damages. or for our agricultural businesses. The county is continuing to work with the state and federal partners to identify resources for our community. For more information go to ReadySBC.org for additional assistance and information Also, our county council office has received a prestigious award. The California County Council's Association nominated and awarded senior deputy Mike Munoz for a 2024 litigation award for drafting an amicus brief for the Olympic and Georgia Partners versus the County of Los Angeles case.
The case involves an assessment appeal issue while the matter is still under consideration by the court, Mike spent a significant amount of time over the holiday season researching and drafting the amicus brief including extensive coordination with other counties so congratulations to Mike Munoz. And lastly, yes Mike Munoz. And lastly this morning I'm pleased to share with you another video from our county series Your County Your Heroes. It features unsung heroes throughout the county who embody the spirit of selflessness and dedication. The videos in this series are played on channel 20 throughout the week and are highlighted in our monthly county newsletter and on CSB TV's YouTube page and social media This morning we are featuring Flory Soto, a custody deputy of the Behavioral Health Unit of the Northern Branch Jail.
And again thank you to Kelsey Batida who helped put these together and if you could 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 servants. These remarkable individuals who inspire us all your county, your heroes.
My name is Chloe Soto and I work for the Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department. I've been here for over 25 years, and I am currently assigned as Custody Deputy of the Behavioral Health Unit at the North Branch Jail. We work with incarcerated inmates that have needs more so on the mental health spectrum.
All of our inmates are part of the community and I think that every interaction she has with them, it makes a difference. If somebody's having a difficult time you know she will do the research, she will do the legwork, she never takes the easy way out. She'll reach out to different agencies, different programs and she just goes above and beyond for you know inmates and co-workers.
Let's make it work whatever it takes! I'm here to ensure the safety, security and well-being of these inmates and that is my job. We are here to try to help them so when they do leave they already have everything in place to better themselves when they leave this facility. That's a goal! I've been dealing with hardships myself. It's hard when your only parent dies at such a young age and you didn't see it coming, so that's the start of my journey. After that, I had nowhere to go anyway, so they went into the military. I was a combat heavy engineer. I was overseas more than I was stateside. I left the military after 10 years. I was homeless for a little bit so I'm affiliated with issues and Santa Barbara County Sheriff's Department welcomed me, so I've been here ever
since. She's somebody that probably in her life has experienced tremendous highs and tremendous lows. She has been faced with circumstances that would break people easily. And I also have a
son that special needs And when they asked me to do the behavioral unit, it's like I feel like I'm giving back. It's my son he's 16 now and it has been a struggle knowing the things that I've gone through in life and seeing other people go through them too. I don't see myself as being no different than the next person all it takes is a second to make the wrong decision so I'm humbled in that I treat people the way I want to be treated
She was built and was made strong enough to handle all the experiences that she has had in her life, to be more relatable for the population that she's dealing with here while they're in custody. Like she's able to see their struggle and not judge them for the struggle.
0:10 – 0:149 turns
Doing too well, I think I can identify quite a few things because we're not counselors. We direct them to the resources that they need so we don't hold anything back from them. Just let them know you care. I know exactly what you're talking about. She's my hero.
She should be, she's probably a lot of people's heroes. I think a lot of people in our department look up to her and I especially have looked up to her for years. She wears her compassion for her work on her sleeve and I love that about her. She has the personality of a comedian. She has the mental fortitude of a soldier Which is represented in her work and her perseverance. She has the compassion of a saint, and she has the heart of a
servant. I just want to say thank you to the Sheriff's Department, to the county for taking a chance on me. I'm not going anywhere. You got the right one.
It looks like we all stood up, but she didn't. That's okay.
Well congratulations and on behalf of the board we just want to thank you for all the work that you do. We know you're probably in the toughest job that there is in the county not just as a custody deputy but the detail that you have and we appreciate all of your hard work and your servant attitude. Thank you very much. Okay this time I want to turn the floor over to Supervisor Capps
Thank you Mr. Chair, yet again I report sad news out of Isla Vista we lost another young life Jacob Parker died on Saturday an alum of UCSB he graduated last year and was happy to come back to Santa Barbara for alumni weekend to see his old friends and hang out where he used to live along the bluff. He was a lover of music and a big, big Bay Area sports fan. Yesterday my colleagues and I in my office were visited by his family, his mom, his father, and his aunt who were understandably Incredibly shocked and didn't know where else to go so they came to the county.
This board has passed a safety plan, thank you we are doing everything we can to increase fence heights. The fence where this property is has not taken us up on that offer multiple phone calls letters meetings to raise it to six feet which By all likelihood would have prevented this accident from happening and he tripped. So I just use this opportunity to implore those who own property, 74 of them along the bluff to do the right thing by our kids and raise these fence heights and put in other It's too much.
The moms of those who've lost their children are saying enough is enough, and I say enough is enough. We just can't have, we've had 14 and we cannot have any more so we'll move on but I just wanted to acknowledge what this board is trying to do the right thing and move forward. Thank you.
Okay, Madam Clerk, we're at clerk announcements. Are there any announcements or changes to our agenda today?
Chair Lavanino, I just have a quick announcement regarding public participation. For the Board of Supervisors methods of public participation and to provide public comment on general public comment or an item on the board's agenda please see page two of the agenda. 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 number is 805 568-2240 and that concludes my announcements for today.
Okay,
that takes us to our administrative agenda would any board members like to pull any items from the agenda? I have, okay Supervisor Nelson?
0:14 – 0:1916 turns
Yeah,
A21. 21. Supervisor Williams? 17. 17. Supervisor Capps? 19. 17, 19, 21. Okay and do we have any items that the public would like to pull?
Chair Lavinino, members of the board we have no requests from the public on administrative agenda. Okay
I'd now like to entertain a motion to approve the balance of the administrative agenda except for items 17 19 and 21.
So moved.
Second. Moved and seconded. And Mr. chair i don't i'm not requesting a separate vote so you could include 17. And it's
actually also same with 19.
Okay, 17 okay so why don't we move everything but 21 for a motion?
The maker of the motion
that works for the maker and the second yes okay all items except A21 all those in favor aye.
Aye.
Okay motion passes unanimously Are there any, well I should ask if there's any nays? None. All right let's pass this unanimously then
let's move on to item oh we're gonna go to our resolutions first so administrative item number one please
Chair Lavagnino and members of the board, administrative item number one is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of April 2024 as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County and recognizing outstanding local student poets. And joining us in person today we have Samantha McDonald, an 11th grade student from Regetti High School.
And I'll go ahead and read the resolution. Whereas the United States Congress and Academy of American Poets have designated April as National Poetry Month to highlight the extraordinary contributions of poets and their role in uplifting culture through self-expression, and whereas the County of Santa Barbara stewards programs such as Poetry Out Loud and Youth Poet Laureate to support civic engagement platforms for our next generation leaders And whereas in these endeavors, students serve as distinguished cultural ambassadors joining their peers throughout the nation and their collective effort to explore the written word, voice distinctive visions and cultivate empathy through language. And whereas we commend the participants in the 2024 Santa Barbara County Poetry Out Loud competition, Brianna Camarena, NJ Carrera, Bella Gonzalez, Natalie Lancour, Samantha McDonald and Eric Youngern from Ernest Rigetti High School and Chanel Corpus, Kalani Iliak, Melissa Palmerin, Matthew Cazzino and Michael Estrada from Pioneer Valley High School.
And this year's champion Anna Mathews from Dos Poblos High School. And now therefore let it hereby be ordered and resolved that April be proclaimed as National Poetry Month in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Good morning, everybody. My name is Samantha McDonald and I am 16 years old and I've been very involved with public speaking. I have attended Poetry Out Loud competitions which is where my love for public speaking has started. I'm also a part of FFA so I compete in various public speaking competitions and the poem I would like to recite today is called Hanging Fire by Audre Lorde I am 14, and my skin has betrayed me.
The boy I cannot live without still sucks his thumb in secret. How come my knees are always so ashy? What if I die before morning and mom is in the bedroom with the door closed? I have to learn how to dance in time for the next party, my room's too small for me. Suppose I die before graduation? They will sing sad melodies but finally tell the truth about me! There is nothing I want to do and too much that has to be done and mom is in the bedroom with the door closed.
Nobody even stops to think about my side of it. I should have been on the math team, my marks were better than his. Why do I have to be the one wearing braces? Will I live long enough to grow up and mom is in the bedroom with the door closed? Thank you.
Thank you for being here today. Administrative item number two.
0:19 – 0:266 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board, administrative item number two is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution of accommodation honoring Gregory Wolfe as the 2024 Santa Barbara County and the 2024 California Teacher of the Year. And joining us in person today we have Gregory Wolfe and if we can have you join us at the podium? And I will go ahead and read the resolution.
Whereas Gregory Wolfe, a dedicated educator at Santa Ana's Valley Union High School in Santa Barbara County has been recognized as the 2024 Santa Barbara County and the 2024 California Teacher of the Year. And whereas Mr. Wolfe, a UC Santa Barbara Gervitz school alumni serves as a ninth through 12th grade dual enrollment U.S. history, dual enrollment political science and advanced placement psychology teacher providing rigorous and engaging instruction. And whereas Mr. Wolf has exhibited leadership as the social sciences department chair vice president of the parent-teacher student association and associated student body activities director enhancing the school community through his involvement And whereas Mr. Wolf's background in education, including his tenure as a Dr.
J Student Teacher Fellow reflects his commitment to excellence in teaching and whereas Mr. Wolf's dedication to fostering a positive learning environment and empowering students has earned him widespread admiration from colleagues, students, and the community. Whereas Mr. Wolfe has demonstrated exemplary commitment to education and made significant contributions to student growth And whereas Mr. Wolf's passion for serving students stems from his belief in the transformative power of education, and whereas Mr. Wolf's selection is a testament to his outstanding contributions to educate and his unwavering commitment to student success. Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors recognizes Gregory Wolfe as the 2024 Santa Barbara County and the 2024 California Teacher of the Year recipient passed and adopted today.
Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you, well it's an amazing honor to be a teacher of the year for Santa Barbara County but you have earned the state's highest recognition for educators and It's a tumultuous time for people in schools. And I think we heard that in Samantha's poem, what's going on in young people's lives and what teachers are asked to do. You're teaching the substance, you're teaching in social sciences and how to be a good citizen but then there are a lot of personal issues and other kinds of things that are descending on the schools Teachers are, I think our most noble profession and it's just an honor to be in the same room with you for what you've accomplished. Thank you so much
Well, thank you to the entire board for this and especially Supervisor Hartman. I appreciate you taking the time to recognize me. So this whole process sort of came at a fortuitous time for me, the nomination for county and then going on to state because I'd sort of reached the point of burnout after COVID in particular. And then, of course, schools have sort of become ground zero for partisan political era, which can be rather disruptive to the learning environment. So it was sort of a combination of all those things felt like my career had sort of ran its course But in filling out all of the applications which required a lot of self-reflection on my own profession, it sort of reaffirmed and then getting the recognition of course. Sort of reaffirmed for me why I do what I do and really got me back into the game so to speak.
And it reminded me really that it's all about the kids. So I had to sort of reflect on my own story, and while it was content that brought me to teaching beginning in the fourth grade when I visited the Gettysburg Battlefield with my parents. And I was sort of obsessed. History brought me to teaching but once I got into the classroom, I quickly realized that it's the kids that give me that fulfillment and that's why I do what I do.
There are so many teachers out there, tens of thousands I'm going It would be to recognize all of the teachers who put in that work. So I sort of consider this honor to be not about me, myself as like the best teacher of the year but the one person who was chosen to represent all of those teachers in this given year so I appreciate this and I accept it on behalf of all my fellow educators thank you very much.
Very cool alright that takes us to administrative item number three Court.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board. My apologies, double clicked the wrong thing. Administrative item number three is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the week of April 21st 2024 through April 27th 2024 as National Crime Victims Rights Week in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have District Attorney John Sabernock and Victim Witness Assistance Program Director Megan Reinschild If you can join us at the podium, I'll go ahead and read the resolution.
Whereas over 4 000 individuals are directly harmed by crime each year in Santa Barbara County and each crime affects many more family members friends neighbors and co-workers and whereas crime leaves a lasting physical emotional and financial impact on people of all ages abilities and economic racial and social backgrounds And this year's theme of how would you help sheds light on the options, services and hope for crime survivors. We call upon communities to amplify the voices of survivors and commit to creating safe environments for crime victims to share their stories and experiences in the criminal justice system And whereas the Santa Barbara County District Attorney Victim Witness Assistance Program is the primary provider of help and support to victims of violent crime, and provides services such as court support and advocacy obtaining crime victim compensation in an attempt to mitigate the negative impacts of crime and assistance with navigating the criminal justice system.
And whereas National Crime Victims Rights Week honors the extraordinary progress that has been made on behalf of millions of victims since the passage of the Victims of Crime Act in 1984. And whereas National Crime Victims Rights Week challenges our community and our victim service providers, criminal justice partners and concerned citizens to promote victims rights initiatives and the need for effective and compassionate victim services and financial and emotional support for all those affected by crime.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares the week of April 21st through 27th 2024 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week in Santa Barbara County, thereby reaffirming the county's commitment to respecting and enforcing victims rights and expressing our appreciation to all of the victims and crime survivors who have turned a personal tragedy into action in order to build a more just community passed and adopted today.
0:26 – 0:324 turns
Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you, our county's victim witness assistance program is really one of the crown jewels that we have and I've always appreciated that but more recently I've had a constituent who's been affected her son was killed and it the kind of support that she's received from your office has helped her family and helped us deal with just a heartbreaking situation. So I appreciate this, not just in an official role but as a personal role. Thank you.
Thank you. Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Victims, you know it's interesting listening to the educator at the high school where my children went talking about the why we do what we do. At the DA's office, victims are why we do what we do. It is what every young DA that I interview for a potential job, everybody at the Victim Witness Program, every criminal investigator, every law office professional, it's so they can help the community and help victims.
Nobody chooses to be a victim. We spend a lot of time here, and I've spent a lot of time in these chambers talking about the criminal justice system. Usually we're talking about money or statistics but we have to realize that behind those statistics are people who have been stolen from they've been battered they've been raped and maybe they've even been killed And it is the commitment of my office to help people, to help people navigate the criminal justice system. To help people get their lives in order. To help people transition from being a victim to being a survivor when they are suffering through what is often the most difficult experience that they will ever have in their lives.
In doing the bulk of that work without the quote glory that the attorneys get is our victim witness support program. The angels of the office, as I refer to them. The people who are knee-deep in human misery on a daily basis but continue to help. They continue to support. They continue to care. It is a division essential to the function of the District Attorney's Office as being a county representative of the people and of the victims.
So I thank you so much for this honor, for sponsoring it Supervisor Hartman and to all the members of the board for the support you have given our victim witness program. And I would like now we are fortunate to have a national expert one of the most caring Intelligent individuals you will get to meet. We are fortunate that she is part of the district attorney's office and part of our county family, Megan Reinschild.
Thank you very much for your time and your ongoing support of our program. As the teacher was saying earlier, I want to echo some of those words that really I'm here on behalf of the countless victims of crime that we serve every year in recognizing the importance of their journey and walking alongside of them through what is often a secondary trauma, navigating the criminal justice system.
And so I also want to just acknowledge the staff in our office as John did because they are our unsung heroes. We have an army of victim advocates throughout the county, acclaimed specialists that processes victim compensation benefits, restitution specialist And they're the ones that are on the front lines talking to victims of crime every day and hearing about their journey.
I also just want to acknowledge that we are a village, we work with many of our county partners, child welfare services In cross-reporting suspected child abuse cases, some cases that never get to our office but we're still integrated in providing support and services. Our sexual assault response team in partnership with CALM and the Public Health Department, Marion Dignity, Lompoc Valley and Cottage Hospital, who are amazing partners. And our law enforcement partners and rape crisis partners in our work around human trafficking. We do not do this work alone and so I want to acknowledge our partners in the trenches for assisting us in our everyday work and sharing the compassion for that. I thank you very much for your time
0:32 – 0:342 turns
Thank you, Megan and the entire team. Can't even imagine what you go through in a week. All right that takes us to administrative item number four this is Supervisor Hartman day yes
Chair Lavanino, members of the board. Administrative item number four is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman is to adopt a resolution proclaiming the month of April 2024 as National Native Plant Month in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Steve Widenhager, Executive Director of Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and Puck Erickson, Board Member of Santa Ana's Valley Botanic Garden. And if you can please join us at the podium and I will go ahead and read the resolution.
Whereas native plants have provided food, shelter and medicines in the inhabitants of Santa Barbara County from the time of the earliest Native Americans to present day. And whereas native plants are uniquely adapted to live in Santa Barbara County's semi-arid climate require less water fertilizer and other chemical supplements to grow and flourish here and have evolved to support native wildlife And whereas native plants are essential for healthy, diverse and sustainable ecosystems and are critical for cleaning air, filtering water, stabilizing soils and helping us to solve our climate crisis. And whereas many native California plants have beautiful foliage and flowers providing great pleasure to residents and visitors alike.
And whereas desirable native plants are in many locations out competed and crowded out by less desirable non-native plants that have little to no ecological Ecological value and that in many cases create ecological problems. And whereas National Native Plant Month is an annual month of awareness, education and advocacy reminding us of the benefits of native plants to pollinators and other wildlife, to the economy and to the health and sustainability of our ecosystems And whereas the Santa Barbara Botanic Garden and the San Ines Valley Botanic Garden work to conserve native plants and habitats, and to promote discovery of the beauty, serenity, and joy of our diverse natural environment and its significance in our lives for the health and well-being of people on our planet.
Now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors declares April 2024 as National Native Plant Month in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
0:34 – 0:386 turns
Thank you very much Board of Supervisors for this resolution. It is critical to recognize that native plants are the foundation of all life on the planet. They support more wildlife, they support more insects and pollinators, they support the ecosystem services that we oftentimes take for granted. Without native plants our entire life on the planet would crumble so it is important that we begin to celebrate those and this is a wonderful beginning to that step I do hope that in the future, as we're thinking about whether it be roadside beautification, trail systems or even our urban forests that we take into account and incorporate native plants more and more into those systems. So thank you for your support.
Thank you, Steve and thank you to the board. I just wanted to say when we started the Santa Ynez Valley Botanic Garden it was on an old dump site and there were no plants there But we persevered and we thought we were just growing a garden, and we actually grew a community. And I think there's a very quiet message that our native plants send to us when people come to the garden, and that is one of inclusion and diversity. We don't really need to have workshops. All you have to do is come to the garden and see an incredible array of plants, flora and fauna That all work together to create an incredible, healthy, sustainable community. And I think we can all learn from that. Thank you.
Supervisor Hartman.
Well, I just wanted to acknowledge that we have two of the leaders in native plants in our entire county and you've been pioneering new ways to excite people about the wonders and adaptive features of native plants that can survive in our rather difficult climate for plants so thank you for all your programs and I encourage people to go online and learn more about it Because I wouldn't have thought this, but it's a great place for families and children both gardens. You can spend the day both places so thank you.
Okay and that takes us, oh Supervisor Williams. Well I just wanted to say since the Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens is in the first district in Mission Canyon they're also not only a great example of promoting sustainability and awareness but also of figuring out how to be good neighbors in difficult situations in residential neighborhoods right? And I think that's an issue It happens more often, perhaps in the first district because there's so many institutions and businesses right next to farms. We're gonna talk about that right next to residences.
We'll talk a little bit more about that later on today but the Botanic Garden really has worked to improve their relationship with the neighborhood and that's been really, really born fruit over the years. All right,
excellent. All right, that takes us to administrative item number five. Madam Clerk?
0:38 – 0:437 turns
Chair Lavanino and members of the board, Administrative Item Number Five is sponsored by Supervisor Hartman is to adopt a resolution proclaiming April 26 2024 as Arbor Day in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have William Ortega, Brian Soares, and Joe Garcia. And if you can please make your way to the podium I'll go ahead and read the resolution Whereas Santa Barbara County has a long and prosperous agricultural history of growing annual and perennial plants for products as well as landscape benefits. And whereas the residents of Santa Barbara County treasure the valuable landscape trees provide on both public and private lands, and consider them to be essential living features that contribute to their quality in life experience.
And whereas the natural beauty of our urban forests and county landscapes, as well as the enhanced beauty of the planted and developed landscape environments add to the many qualities that draw visitors and new residents to one of California's most beautiful counties. And whereas four of the largest incorporated cities in Santa Barbara County have for many years been proud and active participants in the Tree City USA program sponsored by the National Arbor Day Foundation And whereas April 26, 2024 is National Arbor Day and whereas as governing stewards responsible for the planting and care of all trees growing on county public lands. As well as promoting and encouraging conservation of valuable trees growing on private lands now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that this Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara together with the Public Works in the Community Services Department Proclaim Friday, April 26th 2024 as Arbor Day throughout the county and encourage all citizens to recognize the multitude of benefits our community derives from the conscious acts of planting and properly maintaining landscape trees.
And request that all institutions of primary and secondary education throughout the county seek ways to observe this important day and to teach students the value of trees in our lives past and adopted today.
Thank you, Chair Steve and board members. Appreciate it. I spent three years ago with with Dawes Williams last year with sorry Lori Katz and now Jonah Hartmann. I appreciate we'll be in the fourth district next time. I appreciate you guys for supporting Arbor Day for the county of Santa Barbara. I'm from the urban forest public works department, Urban Forestry team.
And it's important to share this information with the kids and the people around that Arbor Day is important to keep trees, maintain trees and plant them. We're one of two counties in California that are certified Tree City USA which I'm proud to be part of it. This is actually my third one Anthony Ramirez. Right there. He's been part of every one of them we had, which is were certified 23 years and I appreciate him for actually walking me through it before I was the type of person just to go cut a tree, move it out of the way. And now I kind of tippy toe around the trees and especially in first district because you really got Be accountable for what you do and how you remove things, and you can actually damage a tree. We have 9300 trees that we maintain in all five districts, and we respond to all the trees that fall on our right-of-ways to open up the roads with the emergency services.
Last night, we were out for a couple hours of recon, but thank you guys, I appreciate it. On behalf of the county Santa Barbara Urban Forestry team, thank you. And this is our Parks Department, we'll let them speak. Thank you guys.
Good morning Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. My name is Brian Soares I'm the Park Operations Manager for Kachuma Lake Recreation Area. I'm joined by Kachuma Park Ranger 2 Joe Garcia. I'd like to just take this opportunity to acknowledge the many women and men like Joe throughout the Parks Division who work diligently every day to maintain the grounds which includes well over 8000 trees to help provide a safe beautiful space for our community to recreate Parks Division has recently implemented the use of new software tree plotter to help us continue to track the health and maintenance of our trees in a more efficient manner. On behalf of Community Services Department, Parks Division I'd like to thank you for your support. Thank you. Thank You Supervisor Hartman
I just wanted to add that at the Santa Ynez Elementary School when we planted a beautiful live oak, it really captured the imagination of the students. This will live to be 100 maybe 200 years old and I can see this when I'm grown up and I have grandchildren so it really was an amazing day and thank you so much for making it so special for all of us
Supervisor Nelson.
Yes thank you I just want to take the opportunity to let the public know that we're having an Arbor Day celebration at Waller Park this Saturday April 27th at 10 30 a.m. at 300 Goodwin Road, the Arbor day Grove. We were celebrating Mary Lou Lowe's longtime volunteer with the Friends of the Waller Park and honoring her as we celebrate Arbor Day so that will be this Saturday at Waller Park. Thank you guys all right
thanks for being here guys appreciate it Okay, our final resolution, administrative item number six.
0:43 – 0:473 turns
Chair Lavanino and members of the board, administrative item number six is sponsored by Supervisor Nelson. It is to adopt a resolution proclaiming May 2nd 2024 as the National Day of Prayer in Santa Barbara County and joining us in person today we have Veronica Leach and Beverly Taylor. And I will go ahead and read the resolution into the record. Whereas throughout history, America has faced trials and triumphs. And Americans have responded in prayer seeking courage and comfort, inspiration and joy filled celebration. Faith compels us to seek and cling to the light in times of darkness and spread light to those in need. And whereas from the first gatherings of our founding fathers elected officials have prayed and entreated those they serve and represent to join them in prayer including the authors of the Declaration of Independence Wrote that they, the representatives of the United States of America in general Congress assembled appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world and carried on to present day in presidential proclamations such as last year's invitation to join him in asking for God's continued guidance mercy and protection.
And whereas a National Day of Prayer has not only been a part of our heritage since it was declared by the First Continental Congress in 1775 but it is a public law established in the United States Congress In 1952, approved by a joint resolution and amended by Congress and President Reagan with public law 100 through 307 in 1988. Affirming that it is essential for us as a nation to pray and directs the president of the United States to set aside and proclaim the first Thursday of May annually as a national day of prayer. And whereas in every state across America, the observance of the National Day of Prayer will be held on Thursday May 2nd 2024 with the theme Lift Up The Word, Light Up The World based on the verses found in Second Samuel 22 29 through 31.
For you are my lamb O Lord and my God lightens my darkness This God, his way is perfect. The word of the Lord proves true he is a shield for all those who take refuge in him and whereas unified prayer is mobilized across America every first Thursday of May on the National Day of Prayer as neighbors come together to join their hearts and voices in reading sacred scriptures and attending services to seek God for the city and country where we live learn work worship serve and desire all to thrive and we express our faith and exercise our freedom to pray In prayer then unite our hearts and voices in personal prayer and public gatherings across America with fervent praise, repentance love and humble intercession for our neighbor and nation. Holding fast to the promises throughout the holy scriptures that the Lord hears and avails much as he answers the faith-filled prayers of his people now therefore be it hereby ordered and resolved that the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors recognizes May 2nd as the National Day of Prayer in Santa Barbara County passed and adopted today.
Thank you Board of Supervisors. On behalf of the Santa Maria Valley Community of Prayer, it's an honor to receive this proclamation today. We are excited to be celebrating our 27th National Day of Prayer here in Santa Maria. It'll be on May 2nd at the Veterans Memorial Center on Tunnel and with that comes much history and I just want to take a moment to recognize those who have gone before us the previous 26 years who have sown into mobilizing unified public prayer here in our community to strengthen individuals, families and everyone who makes up the fabric of our wonderful community here. And I just want to thank you for recognizing the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer here in Santa Barbara County it's an honor and just hearing everyone share today from different Parts of the community and just the need there's there's tragedy.
There's struggle, and there's also beauty And as we come together and we just pray I really it was insightful for me and my fellow board member Beverly Taylor Just to hear the different needs current and it gives us more to pray about and we're just thankful for your support God bless you Thank You
Good to see you, Chief Taylor. Hope you're enjoying retirement. All right we're now going to take up the administrative items pulled in numerical order. Madam Clerk can we please read item 17 into the record please?
0:48 – 0:5211 turns
Chair Lavagnino, members of the board. Administrative item number 17 is from the Behavioral Wellness Department. It is to consider recommendations regarding Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc. Fiscal Years 2023 through 2027 Services Agreement for Crisis Stabilization Unit CSU services.
Supervisor Capps?
Thank you, Chair Levin. You know I pulled this because it's something that the community has been focusing on as are we. It's a big ticket item and so I just thought it would be important to demonstrate what's happening with this progress at the Crisis Stabilization Unit and discuss it. Thank you Director Navarro
Hi, good morning Chair Lavagnino and supervisors and county staff. We are very excited to be having this on the agenda today it's been just over two years that we had to shutter the CSU. It was not being effectively utilized with our understaffing at the PUF and thank you all for your leadership in helping us to Enhanced salaries and recruitment at the PUF and we have experienced full staffing there. And so now it's taken us a minute to get things going in the RFP, and we have selected a contractor who is doing this work across the state as well.
They're very excited to begin and we are thrilled to be turning this into a locked facility So this will really expand our capacity for that acute care here in the county now by eight beds. And these are again, as we look at the research, we know that when folks are placed in acute care and have an acute crisis, the majority of them almost two and three can resolve within 24 hours given the right level of care and attention and then step down to ongoing services. And that is our goal and intention with the CSU thereby making the puff Fully available for those who need that more intensive and longer term care more regularly.
Thank you, I understand this provider has a good reputation track record?
Yes they do.
Supervisor Williams
Well this is incredibly welcome and fulfills a promise that we made to advocates to broaden the continuum of care. When this was open before, it was not locked and that did really curtail the demand for the service. And, you know obviously this is also not only about having enough beds to adequately serve population but to have beds that are tailored best to the conditions of the client which is vital not only for the best interests of the client but also for financial sustainability which enables us to then Have more bets. Yes, so this is just welcome news and I really feel like it's important when we fulfill a promise to say you know one more several more to go on this on this front. Thank you so much director.
And thank you for bringing up the census issue. When we were a voluntary unit, we were serving less than 300 folks a year for a variety of reasons and our target goal as you remember from the budget workshop is to serve no less than 1,000 each year in this new service. Thank you.
Just one quick question. Who will refer clients to the CSUs and how will you outreach to them that it's now available?
We are already beginning our messaging. Telecare has put together a wonderful brochure and we will be passing that out at all meetings, provider meetings on our social media to remind folks that the CSU is open and give the opening date which we are anticipating will be mid-May following the final signature by the state on the locked facility certification. And in addition to that it we will again be reaching out to the partners who most often We're accessing the CSU in the past which was Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, our local law enforcement and then also of course our mobile crisis benefit teams will now have that option. And they're really able to discern those folks who again may need a lower level of acute care meaning needing less time than the 72 hours but can be put on hold with the anticipation that they will resolve in that holding state at the CSU and be able to step down
0:52 – 0:5728 turns
All right, thank you very much. So we don't need a vote on that. We've already voted on that so we'll go to A-19.
Chair Lavanino and members of the board administrative item number 19 is from the Community Services Department it is to consider recommendations regarding funding for grant writing expenses supporting the development of solar storage and microgrid projects and there is a four fifths vote required on this item but as previously stated it's already been voted in at the record
Supervisor Caps.
Thank you I pulled this also just for awareness of progress in the right direction we know in the south coast the vulnerability of our grid certain entities like Santa Barbara Unified have created micro grids in order to prevent, have the ability to have power when and in the event of all of these Extreme weather events, et cetera. So I just am pleased that our department is moving in this direction by getting a little more capacity so we can go out and get the historic amount of money that exists in the state and federal government for this kind of climate change mitigation. Thank you.
Excellent.
And we've voted on that as well. So that takes us to our last item which is A21. It's budget revisions.
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, administrative item number 21 is from the County Executive Office. It is to approve budget revision request numbers 9652, 9656, 9659 for a majority vote and budget revision request numbers 9600, 9606, 9609, 9635, 9637, 9641, 9646, 9647, 9654, 9664, and 9665 which require a forfeits vote.
Yes, I think maybe next time what we'll do is we'll
pull which specific which one
way.
So so I'm pulling or I want to discuss a board journal entry at 9665. So the last one there. This is the General Services increase of appropriation for the better radio solar array monitoring system and I was kind of embarrassed to read it when I saw that it was $100,000 increase to this project so that we can save 30,000. And so I just couldn't approve that with a straight face without having more information. So I don't know if there's anybody here that could speak to that and I have a couple other questions if there is.
If not...
Director Lagerquist is headed this way? Good morning.
Unfortunately I don't have the full specifics on that, but I can get back to you on what specifically we're doing. I mean, I know we've got some grant money there that we're hoping to get back as well.
Do you want to just table this? Yeah, we
could table that journal entry so that we could bring it back either later today or another meeting. I just have lots of questions about why it's not in the original project plan. You know, why is this new? Why are we spending $100,000 to save $30,000? It sounds like a good idea but there's just a lot of questions that the entry suggests as well as how far are we already over budget and all the other things that go along with that.
Go
ahead, CEO Miyasato.
I'm sorry, sir, I know that our Budget Director Paul Clementi is online. I don't know if Paul has anything more to add or if you want to just defer this to a future meeting.
So I don't have any further on the project specific supervisor Nelson's asking about. I believe the funding is from the, and the department will have to speak to this further, is from the original project funding and they're transferring it over I'll speak with the department
Why don't we, if there's somebody in the department, if we can find something else out later on in the meeting just let us know. Otherwise unless there's some reason why it has to be passed today let's just... So I think the initial motion here will be to trail it?
Or I can make a motion to approve all the budget adjustments except for 9665 so they get those through.
Okay makes sense
So
we get a second on that. All items except 9 6 6 5 seconded by Supervisor Williams. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? And then you want to make a motion on 9 6, 6, 5.
Well since it wasn't approved just come back and I'll
just come back some or do you feel like we need to make a motion on that? Mr.
Chair,
I'm
just not sure if we're trailing it to later today or we're continuing it to a different hearing? Well, if we don't
do anything to it what happens to it?
0:57 – 1:0310 turns
Just be no action.
There'll be no action on it right now yeah and then if you find out something let us know otherwise we'll go to our next meeting okay thank you okay Now's the time for members of the public to speak on items that are not on today's agenda. Madam Clerk, are there any requests to speak from general public comment?
Chair Lavanino and members of the board yes we have six requests to speak from the public on general public comment. We are going to begin here in Santa Maria with Philip Gallanders to be followed by Chuck Williams.
Good morning Supervisor Lavanino and members of the board. My purpose to speak today is with regard to a recent Supreme Court case, that of Sheets versus the County of El Dorado and I have four questions to ask you as insofar as that case affects Santa Barbara. First, the finding was that the revenues that come from impact fees and other such items are in fact illegal because they're unconstitutional takings and they are not legal taxation They found nine to nothing against these fees. So based on that, four questions.
One, following this decision is the County of Santa Barbara considering how and when to legally comply with the Supreme Court's decision? Two, How much is the total amount of impact fees charged against the property of citizens illegally over the last 10 years? Three. If you do not intend to terminate the impact fees, how do you plan to justify them as fees rather than taxes?
And four. Have or will you be setting up a process By which the County of Santa Barbara will recompense citizens from whom money was taken in an illegal manner, a form of force majeure. This was not from taxes this is from bureaucratically imposed impact fees. This is something I believe the board needs to consider because the Supreme Court found nine to nothing against these fees, and therefore if the board does nothing they are contravening the Supreme Court.
And I don't think that the board, the pay scale of the board goes that high. I yield back thank you.
Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah, I don't usually comment on public comment but I know a little bit about this. A former board office employee who actually wrote an amicus brief on this case on the sheets case Jason Parsons so you know things are too soon to be to know exactly what the decision means at this point we're all looking at it So, you know we're aware of it and I'm sure there'll be some decisions that are being made throughout the country not just Santa Barbara County from that decision. But it's going to take a little time for the legal scholars to look at that and make further decisions so it's too soon to tell but I think we're all aware of it thank you. Thank you.
We will now go to Chuck Williams to be followed by Leanne Woliver. Chuck?
Good morning, Chair Lavagnino and Supervisors. Today I'm representing New California State. California is out of money and being controlled by China. Gavin Newsom has stolen $850 billion from EDD and DMV and sent it to China. China funneled this money back to Newsom for his upcoming 2024 presidential campaign with his communist dictator Barack Obama as vice president. California is out of money. China is 100% involved with California. You depend on state and federal grant money, both controlled by Democrats and RINOs. Both are broke. United Nations hired ICLEI Sustainable Developments, a global worldwide marketing company to promote Agenda 21 in American cities and counties with one plan that fits all much like the parklets targeted for Old Town Orchid.
Some grant monies have Agenda 21 strings attached and promoted by the United Nations who hate Americans also working to destroy this country from the inside. When you comply with Agenda 21 and ICLEI, you are working against the people of Santa Barbara County and America. Sustainable Development Agenda 21 is in nearly every city and state and county in the United States.
On October 2011, Wisconsin legislatures introduced bills enabling local governments to repeal comprehensive plans that alter the county's master plan. Assembly Bill 303 and Senate Bill 225 On Friday, April 12th 2024. I'm not going to read this because Mr. Gallagher just talked about the Supreme Court so thank you guys for the time.
Thank you.
We will now go to Leanne Wolever to be followed by Marsha Wurtz.
1:03 – 1:139 turns
Good morning, Chairman and board members. I want to invite everyone to we're going to be having the David Clements event which will be in Santa Barbara County. It'll be May 5th 2024 at 6 p.m.. Orchid Lions Club 126 Broadway Street in Orchard California. Now I know a lot of people don't know who David Clements is And so I'm going to read a little bit about who he is. He's an attorney and former professor, David Clements will be releasing his documentary called Let My People Go which he has released.
And what this film that he's made, it features the most qualified experts investigating the 2020 election theft. Jeffrey Lindbergh a former Santa Sandia National Labs nation state vulnerability expert Dr. Walter Daughtry renowned computer scientist Joe Hoff CPA and auditor and author of The Steal Draza Smith former A National Lab cyber grid security expert and Harry Hari, cybersecurity systems expert and co-author of the Help America Vote Act.
So he'll be speaking like I said on this night. I encourage you guys to go. And listen to what he has to say. The other thing I wanted to mention is what Philip Gallanders was reading about impact fees. I don't know, I know probably the board realizes where this is coming from but the community might not. This was in a Board of Supervisors Kevin Crye blamed the impact piece for restricting new supply of affordable housing and thus spiking rents on young families.
But what this case is important In that there was a man who lived, elderly man who lived in Eldorado County had bought a modest trailer of about $6000. And seven and what that county did was charge him at 23,000 420 mitigation fee and which was not right. He was elderly. He went through this for seven years with an attorney, and it made it all the way up to the Supreme Court.
This happens in all 58 California counties, 482 cities and towns and villages And so this is something that is unconstitutional and needs to be rectified in the counties of California. If the, go ahead.
I was just going to say that's your time but
okay
all
right thank you appreciate it.
We will now go to Marsha Wertz and then we'll go to Santa Barbara with David Blue Wolf Diaz. Marcia?
Hi, good morning. Marcia Wirtz. I know Marsha, Marsha, Marsha. Get that a lot. Santa Barbara County resident. So good morning to Santa Barbara County and the Board of Supervisors. I would like to speak on regarding what is going on in our skies above us in the atmosphere over our county. The S3383-National Weather Modification Act of 1976 demonstrates that the government has had weather modification technology since the 1970s. In recent years, Santa Barbara County has been subjected to extreme and severe weather events such as category four storms, high winds, high levels of rain, long periods of arid dryness and drought with low humidity and of course fires.
The U.S. patent for an apparatus for altering a region in the Earth's atmosphere ionosphere and or magnetosphere is 4,686,605 of August 11th 1987. It would be logical to say that weather attacks or weather manipulation is well underway. Recent fires in Lahaina, Maui are an example of such technology being deployed over the people as there's evidence of satellite images showing there was weather modification over Lahaina the day before and the day of the fire in last August indicating the people and their population Are being subjected to and are at the mercy of this patented technology, which could one could reasonably argue is warlike in nature.
In light of this information I implore the county, you the board of supervisors Look further into this technology and raise the question, what is exactly going on over Santa Barbara County in the skies? It is in the public domain that local news has reported on aircraft seeding over the skies of our county in attempts to induce rains. What particulates are in such seedings in these aerosols?
In this technology, this weather modification technology over the residents, over the populations, over wildlife and habitats, over the vegetation. And what are the health impacts that are a result of these particulates? How is our county air quality impacted? Many county and city planning Departments are releasing their 2030 and 2040 agendas which plan to disregard the Constitution and the constitutional rights of the people by way of such regurgitative narratives in the mainstream like climate change and climate crisis.
All of which are taken directly from United Nations Global Planning documents themselves. So these documents do exist, they're in the public domain. So I just urge this board all of you have taken an oath to the Constitution to support and protect just the rights of the people and thereby I think our air quality would be included in that so. So I'm urging you to...
Thank you that is your time. Just investigate and take action
thank you. We will now go to Santa Barbara with David Blue Wolf Diaz and then we will go to Zoom with Sherry Foster.
Good day. Today's issues with supervisors caps on the Isla Vista cliff projects and the women with the prayers, great jobs showing that the village is actually working in this region. Supervisor Caps back in the mid 60s, 65-66 when I was just a little kid, a little punk. I went to some of these meetings regarding safety way back then and I suggested just take away the apartments use eminent domain and put a big strong fence that can be monitored on a regular basis so no one impinges on it because The cliffs are eventually going to win and they've been winning. And unfortunately it's been costing a lot of great lives, young lives that no need to be which brings me in a full circle around oh by the way thanks a lot what brings me around to the full circle all this praying and all this concern With the woman who was speaking about prayers earlier, I was very impressed because over at our burial site in Montecito you notice Hammonds.
We know it as Chihuahua and just recently the county put up a fence, the park director, the new one like the previous one has been a strong proponent of the The neighbors gentrifying our burial site that's on a federal register with the national parks and one of the first ones to be inducted into the state heritage parks as sacred sites. We have extremely strong protections but they're going ahead and Converting it into what we would call a dog park and forget our religious, sacred beliefs at these sacred sites. And it's just quite devastating to see that we had very little support from the supervisor in that district which was Doss Williams. Wow he promised David Pu'u in front of me and myself As well as in another meeting with Marcus Lopez, the chairman of the Montecito Band of Barbarino Indians that he would take care of the problem.
Don't worry about that. He's promising us left and right. He did nothing but flush us down the toilet. It goes to show that Thank you very much. We didn't vote for Doss because we didn't like what he was doing to the tribal people. So my thing is, well, people in the committee do care about culture and beliefs and maintaining the activity of what we consider a great life and purgatory here in Santa Barbara County. Thank you very much. Have a good day.
1:13 – 1:175 turns
We will now go to Zoom with Sherry Foster who is our final speaker. Sherry? And Sherry, we have unmuted you on our end. If you can please unmute on your end. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can thank you so much please proceed.
Okay, Chairman Lavinino and board members on Friday April 12th the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a 9-0 decision on the implementation of impact fees through city and county level boards are ruled unconstitutional it is devastating blow to Particularly this county after Andy Caldwell called in for public comment via phone on March 19th, 2024. In the budget updates and stated that outrageous impact fees at this board has issued to specific businesses. How ironic? How does this board plan to repay back all these unconstitutional collection of taxpayer dollars?
On January 23rd, 2024 board meeting Mr. Williams asked what was the power of Joseph Holland over the Board of Supervisors? The clerk responded with he is accountable for running the elections she was not aware of the contracts being part County Board decisions. Now the people of Santa Barbara County know the truth, that it was you Chair Lavinino who signed the contract as Mike English presented it on February 13th 2024 in general public comment You physically pointed at yourself and waved your arms as a public demonstration of accepting the fiduciary accountability for the taxpayers' dollars that led to the discovery of how this Board of Supervisors, who was duly elected by the illegal and legal voters of Santa Barbara County.
We the people for New California State and for Santa Barbara County, along with all constituents with the Election Integrity Project. We the people have the power to place election security on the agenda. The Brown Act is one of over 922 amendments to the 1879 California Constitution that is unconstitutional Our 1849 California Constitution is our legitimate constitution.
Joseph B Holland, Cheryl Avenino and board members it is better to admit your mistakes now after the Board of Supervisors meeting on March 12th 2024 when George Alvarez spoke after I read the 14th constitutional default for slavery. I concur with his words he spoke that day The people for Santa Barbara County have been enslaved in a system of slavery for over 145 years when the state of California incorporated in 1879. Thank you, have a blessed day and we look forward to seeing you at Professor Clement's viewing of Let My People Go on May 5th.
Thank you!
Thank you.
And that concludes general public comment for today. Okay,
thank you very much and we will take a 10 minute break and be back with our departmental agenda All right, we're gonna reconvene this meeting of the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. That takes us to departmental item number one. Madam Clerk?
1:17 – 1:325 turns
Chair Lavanino and members of the board, departmental item number one is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the classification and salary plan for appointed executives in management.
Morning, Christy.
Good morning. So thank you. Thank you, Chair Levenino and members of the Board of Supervisors. I'm Christy Schmidt, I'm the Director of Human Resources and I'm here today to present you with phase three of the Management Classification and Compensation Project. Go ahead, next slide please. Our management ranks are very important to our organization as they're the chief implementers of the policy direction of our elected officials. They recommend and ensure the appropriate expenditure of funds, and they provide leadership to our employees throughout the organization in their service to the public.
The management compensation involves balancing several goals. We want to be able to attract quality candidates for management positions at the county We want to be able to encourage existing talented employees to assume increasing levels of responsibility and accountability in the organization. We want to be able to retain our existing managers and executives in an extremely competitive labor market where their skills are highly sought, and through all of this we want to ensure we're being wise stewards of public funds.
Next slide please. On December 7th, 2021 the County Human Resources presented the board with a three-phase project regarding the non-elected management classifications and compensation with the intent of eliminating broadband classifications and establishing steps based pay ranges that are more similar to the compensation structure for the majority of the county's representative and more commonly seen for management positions in the public sector.
The project goals were to establish a transparent and objective management classification and compensation system, align pay with the labor market for similar positions at comparable counties, ensure internal pay equity for incumbents and address internal compaction, establish clear promotional pathways based on increasing responsibility Prepare for the incorporation of the payroll function into the workday ERP product and consolidate various documents governing our management pay and benefits.
The management class and comp project was separated into three phases, with phase one of the project which was the board addressed certain immediate operational challenges such as equity recruitment and retention by establishing an interim process for merit COLA and equity increases. The board also approved increasing bilingual pay, establishing a Juneteenth holiday and floating holiday and eliminating retention succession and longevity pay within the broadbands.
With phase two which concluded in November of 2023 the board approved in concept new management and appointing executive job family groups, and classification levels. And directed the HR director to finalize the administrative aspects of the new structure and add certain other compensation components for management and appointed executives. This included designating management administrative leave banks of 40 hours with 80 hours for executive, a 5% specialty pay for finance managers who have a CPA or CPFO license And an executive succession plan allowance in phase three, which is the focus of today's recommended action.
The board has asked to approve effective June 24 2024 new salary ranges. For existing classifications and then existing positions will be assigned to new classifications. And existing documents will be rescinded with provisions consolidated into a compensation and benefits plan for manager and confidential employees. And then a separate agenda item today will set a hearing next month to begin the product process to amend the county code regarding the exemption of management classifications for the civil service system. I should note that all of the changes that we'll be able to discuss today are applicable to appointed department heads, but we're not making recommendations about elected department heads as part of this project.
Next slide. Okay, so as a reminder these are the job levels and job families that were approved by the Board of Supervisors last fall. There are 18 job families that will group managers with similar competitive labor markets. The job levels reflect significant differences in responsibility, authority, supervision and accountability in the organization. These include three levels of management professionals There are three levels of program managers, the assistant director level.
The department director level and the assistant CEO levels. There are a few positions that didn't fit cleanly into the overall concept, and we have recommended some separate Attachment A to your board report includes new classifications and salary ranges. We're recommending salary ranges for each classification which were set based on aligning anchor jobs in each family with the labor market median for that job, and then setting other levels within the same job family based on compaction between the different levels of accountability and responsibility. And in some cases we were also looking at internal alignment across job families For most management positions, the structure of each salary range will include six steps set at five percent apart and managers will be eligible to move between the steps based on performance similar to other county classifications.
Classifications at the department head level and above will have a similar range of 30% but don't have fixed steps that just provides the CEO with a little bit more flexibility when addressing department heads We've preliminarily assigned each management position to a new classification based on incumbent position description questionnaires that our managers all filled out, and subsequent meetings with our department heads. Attachment D to your report shows the preliminary list of authorized management positions in each department with the old broadband classification and the preliminarily recommended new classification for each of these positions.
Next. So the benefits that we anticipate from this change include increased transparency, so it would be easier to look and see where a given manager's compensation falls. Objective criteria for setting salaries that is internally and externally justifiable. A better ability to compare internal and external equity between positions. The creation of multiple classification levels that will provide clear promotional pathways based on increased responsibility and accountability.
Providing a structure that's more similar to other public sector employers and other county employee groups, and providing a limited duration on the pay advantage that external hires can tend to have coming in when we compete for those jobs. Next slide please. So we are going, managers will be placed in the new step structure at the step just above their current salary inclusive of any merit increase that they're eligible to receive. You can see that managers are clustered at step five and six where they'll be expected to cluster after a few years in the classification. We're moving from broad bands where employees are clustered toward the center of a broadband to a more narrow band where employees are clustered at the top of the salary range.
Managers below step six will move towards step six with regular annual step increases. The structure as proposed will result in 36 managers being Y-rated and that means that they're already paid above the recommended steps six for the salary range of their appropriate classification Their salaries will be frozen and they'll not be eligible to receive merit increases, and will not be eligible for COLAs until the range catches up to their new pay rate. Generally we do have a two-year limit on Y rating but because of this structural change we are waiving that so they can stay Y rated until their range catches up.
Another 25 managers aren't Y rated, meaning they will be eligible for their merit increase. But they're close enough to step six that they won't be eligible to receive the full merit increase that would otherwise be eligible for them. However, they will be eligible for COLAs in the future. We also call those here GSIs I think general salary increases. Next slide.
We're also proposing the adoption of a resolution that establishes a consolidated compensation and benefits plan for managers, appointed executives and our confidential employees and unrepresented attorney. The resolution repeals three previous documents which were the benefits resolution that applied to managers as well as confidential employees and attorneys, the management classification and compensation plan and the civil service rules for managers.
The resolution further incorporates provisions from phase one and phase two that you've already considered, including the bilingual increases to new holidays, the administrative leave banks of 40 hours and 80 hours. The 5% special pay for the non-executive financial managers in a 5% special pay for a temporary or succession assignment. It also provides for a hiring incentive for executive positions with board approval, which can be up to 10% over the top of the range and then grandfathered until the range catches up. So that just provides the board with an additional provision it can employ to compete for top talent. Next slide please.
Since we are changing all of our classifications, we need to provide for those management classifications that will be exempt from the civil service system. To do that, we recommend changing the county code to eliminate reference to obsolete classification of enterprise leader and instead the code will exempt all management classifications unless the Board of Supervisors chooses to cover them under the civil service system. The proposed change is scheduled to come for you for a first hearing on May 14th As part of the resolution that you are considering today, management classifications at the Manager 1 level, so Manager 1, 2, 3 and above, are generally listed as exempt from the civil service rules. Included in the civil service rules will be management professionals and certain social services and child support services managers who are required to be covered by their federal funding rules.
Any current managers who have an existing civil service coverage in their current classification, but whose new class won't be exempt from coverage will be grandfathered in as covered by the Civil Service in their new classification. Next slide. The annualized cost of the salary structure related to managers at the department head level and below is approximately $1.3 million overall, of which approximately $715,000 or about 55% is general fund.
This is related primarily to the market alignment of salary ranges and the conduct of that salary survey, and the placement of managers in the new step system so that we can place them on a step. There are no additional costs for the structural changes for department director classifications which do not have steps. These impacts were anticipated and sufficient ongoing funds will be set aside in the fiscal year 24-25 budget to cover the change.
So just a word on next steps, this is a big change for the organization. If approved by you today we'll begin engaging with our managers to ensure that we've got it right and what that means is that all managers will receive a personal notification of their new classification and their salary placement within the new classification Managers who feel they've been misclassified may request a review of the decision, beginning with those managers who were Y-rated or had a truncated merit increase.
Adjustments will be made as appropriate and recommended. And the reason we're coming to you early is so that we can have that process to ensure that everybody gets an opportunity to at least ask us to look at their placement if they think that it's wrong, so that changes won't become effective until June. And so we have time to consider those requests and to bring you the final action in June.
We'll also be going back to survey the labor market again, to ensure that our salaries are still competitive. The data that we were using was from fiscal year 22-23 so it's due to be refreshed We may recommend adjustments based on that process. Moving from a broadband system to a narrowband system makes it more important that we're regularly looking at the labor market and making adjustments as appropriate. We do the same thing with our other employee groups, as you know. We are always looking at those survey results.
We need to continue to focus on improving our contributions to family health insurance benefits and that is for our employees countywide. So with that, this has been a three-year long project and I want to recognize the leadership of work that everyone has put into this before I joined the county. Yourselves and Ms. Miyasato and her staff, my predecessor Maria Elena de Guevara, and of course my incredible staff and especially Yvonne Torres and Aaron Jeffrey who are here with me today. And we are happy to take any questions.
Okay let's open it up to questions from the board Supervisor
Williams. So review for me again, that slide was really helpful on the steps. What makes you a Y-rated or truncated step in the criteria?
1:32 – 1:3716 turns
So if a manager's current, if we've placed a manager in a classification based on their job duties and their level of accountability and authority in the organization. And their current salary is already above the top of the range for that recommended new salary range. That is when they would be Y rated. And if they are maybe not quite there, but you know close enough. You know, maybe 1% They may have a truncated merit, but we're not going to put people people won't be able to go above.
But the step six, but we also don't want to cut their pay. So that's why we're why rating them and they just stay at their current pay and through Cola's the top of those salary ranges eventually catch up
Are, is it possible that some employees are assuming that they're going to be Y-rated based on the current data and we don't really know because we haven't done the salaries? The most recent salary survey. Is that possible?
That they, I'm sorry can you repeat the
question? All these calculations are based off of a salary survey we did in 22-23. Yes. Right that 22-23 data.
We did age the data. I should add Supervisor Williams to the chair. Sorry
and I could I could assume what that means, but I don't
actually know. For last year we added a 3% to it so the market may have moved more and we'll find out when we do the next survey but for purposes of making sure that we weren't really using completely out-of-date data we did age it by three percent for the year that we missed
And so for employees that may be worried about this, they may be using the calculation based on the 3%, but we don't know. When are we going to do the updating the numbers for 20?
Well, we're planning to start as soon as we get this go through the review process so that our employees who are wide rated and we can get those considered before June. We're going to talk to our other managers about their placement questions and then we're going to immediately go into refreshing that data.
And so in the appeal that you speak of, it's the questions would be am I put in the right employee category? So therefore the right range or not.
Am I in the right job family and am I at the right level given my accountability and organizational accountability and authority?
And you are going to look at the appeals from Y and truncated ratings first, because those are the ones that are more limited.
Exactly. Thank you.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you, Chair Lavigno. You know, really like the work that's been done here and I really appreciate all the everything has gone into it and very supportive. But I think at the same time as it's a broad solution, you know there's going to be winners and losers with this. And when there's losers these are people's lives. And so I know there's gonna be a lot of people out some of our managers that are going to be looking at this through the lens of how this affects me right now. It's natural.
And I think with this that as we, you know the winners and losers. I really appreciate that you guys will be looking at this right away doing some reviews immediately. I think that there's probably some challenges out there with for some of our departments that are looking at trying to hire people in certain areas where they might not being able to fill it and now they're just seeing maybe that get brought even down further.
I'm just hoping that the process, that we constantly renew this and we're constantly looking at it. I think it's a very dynamic situation and we're looking at a very not everybody can fill these positions so it's a very dynamic work environment. So but getting along to those that are potentially losers in this process, it's those that are Y rated and potentially Y rated for a long period of time.
Help me. I mean how many you know some it's going to be potentially Y rated How much time will they, you know what's the worst case scenario? Is someone going to be Y rated for five years. I mean is that possible with three percent. I mean what are some people staring down because I think that that is a concern because I got to imagine if I'm looking at being Y rated for five years and just seeing my pay continue to erode its ability That would be a challenge and it'd be a real hit to the morale.
And so I don't know if that's even the case, but help me out there are there some people that are gonna be potentially Y-rated for a certain
period of time? 15% would be the high end we may have one and that person maybe already Y-rated so that they were on you know but most of our managers it's going to be in the zero to five percent range. The vast majority of people who are Y rated will be Just barely to 5%.
1:38 – 1:4412 turns
And if we're looking at three percent colas, that might be a you know five years before they actually start to see another cola. Is that yeah? That's
a scenario and that's one of the reasons we want to make sure we got it right before uh before we get to June and give them the opportunity to talk to us and ask us to look at it again. Because there are potentially some significant impacts.
Yeah, I'm really glad that i'm not in HR as a career because you know obviously you have to deal with a big organization 4600 people you got to make something work and so I really appreciate what you guys are doing here that's why I support what you're doing but there's also going to be some counseling going on and some um you know as you work through some of those really human issues there for some of our employees that are potentially staring that down maybe some of our highest performing employees too so I really hope that You're able to figure out a way with those reviews that you do, to at least acknowledge that.
Maybe if those employees they also need acknowledge that maybe they were above market for awhile too and this is part of the evening out of that process but I'm sure it's gonna be a tough pill to swallow for some of our employees but again most of this I think that you guys have done a good job tackling this thank you. Supervisor Hartman?
I think you said there were 36 managers who are in the Y classification, but the truncated how many are there? 25. So if we have 18 job families that's a lot of people in management across our organization. Have you had an opportunity to look in terms of men and women, and how they're affected? Does it differentially affect one group versus another graphically?
Yeah no I don't think I have that data we can certainly look at it yeah Right. One of the benefits of this is really setting objective criteria that we can really look at and it's one of the improvements that this whole process will bring, is our ability to really make sure that positions that are like are grouped together and that we can really deal with those equity issues.
It'll be fairer over time. Well, I want to echo what Supervisor Nelson said. I know this has been a long haul. I worked for the federal government once and this was the system we had and our system has been a bit opaque so I think it's good but it is going to be wrenching and I'm concerned about what it'll mean to the leadership of our organization and do you have any ideas on how to persuade people not to be demoralized and not to leave us?
I think one of the things we can encourage is for people to consider promotion to the next level and help them get there, provide them with resources for some professional mobility in that way. Certainly the Y rating, the decision to Y rate which was made before my time but I think that's not bringing people down just because they may be paid above the market But I think part of this is.
Nobody's going to get a pay cut, right? It's just the future expectation. Yes.
Supervisor Caps.
Yeah, thank you for this. I know you came in as this was underway and I appreciate all the work that's gone in for years. I appreciate that this is a more transparent and equitable process. I like that there's increased bilingual pay. I certainly know in my office how incredibly important that is, as well as Juneteenth as a holiday. So I just encourage along with my colleagues that to get to a more equitable system, there's bumps with certain people and these are people not just spreadsheets. And if there's any flexibility I think you're a little bit under budget. I'm not trying to say what to do with that, but I just want to hope that there's ways to keep people engaged who've been here a long time and might just inadvertently be impacted in a way that's very specific to their situation as we get to a more equitable and transparent system going forward.
Thank you.
Thank you, and I think that the thesis of today is this has taken a long time. And I really appreciate you dragging it across the finish line. This sounded easy at the time and then when you start making changes with 4700 people, you're like... It's, I remember referring to it as like a spider web. You touch over here and then that makes these folks out of line and then you fix that and then these people over here are messed up so...
And I think what you're hearing from us too is we're really concentrated on the Y rated because those are the people gonna be the most impacted. Only question, not question but I like direction. I would like to offer is, is that if we could continue to get an update on how many are in that pool because they do tend to be you know our whenever I used to see the list of who was maxed out it's always the brain trust and the stars of the people that have just been busting it and they're just bumping up into you know the Max and it's always been difficult but Um, you know at some point I think we also have to understand and those are the people that have been here the longest.
But at some point there is has to be a realization also on the employees part that for that job classification and title that's the maximum that we were willing to pay. That's what matches up into the Uh, our competition. So it has to kind of work both ways and so I'm glad that it's you know that we've kind of limited it to You know a couple of dozen people But I want to see how that I'm also glad to hear that, you know People aren't going to be stuck in this for five six years but it would be nice to see how we progress through and I'd like to keep getting an update on Those folks that are Y rated, how much closer are they? How many we knocking off each year or so.
But outside of that excellent work this thing there's no way you can't do this without having winners and losers as you said. So not everybody is going to fly through this thing unscathed. Appreciate that is there any public comment on this matter?
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Yes we have three requests to speak on this item. We are going to begin here in Santa Maria with Kimberly Albers to be followed by Kelly Hubbard on Zoom. Kimberly?
1:45 – 1:535 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. I'm Kimberly Alvarez from the Community Services Department. As I look over the persons who are in the Enterprise Leader Classification, I see leaders who have had their responsibilities increase, persons that have worked tirelessly to better this county through seeking resources, leading teams and living out our county values. Many of them have served our county for over a decade Yet they are now the employees that are having their salary range decreased by 20 to 30K a year.
It isn't just today, it is the future. It is particularly disturbing that many of us were not spoken to directly but were notified by the posting of the board letter publicly on Thursday. Having to peruse through 100 pages to find yourself and your colleague with the county was tough. Seeing the list of names that this would impact negatively, benignly called Y-rated today I believe would impact your decision.
I believe we can pause for further review and understanding particularly by the employees that are most impacted. We would like to see actual job descriptions and at community services it is women that are most impacted. Thank you.
We will now go to Kelly Hubbard on Zoom to be followed by Stephen Manuel. Kelly?
Chair and Supervisors, thank you. I went back and forth on whether to speak today but I was disappointed with myself when I did not speak in November so Director Schmidt is in a position of implementing a tough change that she did not initiate. And then, although I do not agree with the entirety of the approach overall, I support the concept. It is a necessary process to create better structures and systems moving forward.
In November, a board member apologies, I cannot remember who it was commented something to the nature of no public comment on this process as reflective of how well this has been communicated and handled. That was disappointing and frustrating to hear. I am reassured by the board's comments today, but in November there were no public comments because this impacts a group of county employees who are unrepresented and frankly many who are at will like myself.
Employees who were advised not to speak on their own behalf or were afraid to do so. So I wanted to share Again, I agree that this is a necessary change. However as it however as is common in these practices and has identified already there are winners and losers. This process could have resulted in pay cuts and it has not. Most are receiving a raise to move to the determined steps which is reassuring. I'm not sure if all those impacted are aware of this reality but I am thankful for this decision and this reality.
However, by my approximation two-thirds of the class just learned that their career earning potential will be reduced by this action. Many as noted by the previous speaker were notified by a board agenda item. Some by pennies, a few by $15 to $20 per hour. Some without the ability to promote within their current career path. This reduction for some is a bruising ego. For others, this is justified and as intended correcting inequities whether realized or not.
For some, this means not being able to continue to work here. For some, this feels like they are unappreciated and undervalued. For many, this simply means they will need to leave unable to grow and continue in their career paths. Again, I support the overall intent and purpose of this action. I respect what we are trying to accomplish here and the very tough position that HR is in.
And I am again reassured by the comments of the board and learning today about the reassessment and re-evaluation of those studies but I wanted to recognize that many of those impacted are not feeling great right now and many may not feel comfortable speaking up in this moment so thank you.
We will now go to Stephen Manuel, who's our final speaker on this item. Stephen?
Hello, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Just to give some background I am in that management classification range that would be designated as a Y position and I am on that higher range in the I believe 15 percent so for myself again as some background it would take several years for the proposed classification to reach up to where I'm at currently.
I want to recognize that I will support and appreciate the work that's been provided thus far for this, and I agree that reclassifications and adjustments are needed. However, I think that this is premature at this point. I think that we need to put together some more work to look at some of these ranges and to ensure that we're Comparing them against not just nearby local cities and counties, but also other competitors such as Caltrans which is paying significantly more than what we're proposing here today.
I also want to recognize that while a majority of these bans and classifications are going up and being competitive against some of those other agencies there are many classifications that are actually decreasing in those bands, mine in particular. If it weren't for that decrease then I would not be Y-rated and I would suspect that many others would not be Y rated as well.
In particular, I work for General Services and there's a significant majority of all of the bands in general services that have decreased by approximately 20%. While this decrease may be commensurate with the industry standard in the area, what's missing is also the ability for a future path. So on the one hand I understand and recognize that I may be in a wide position but having to wait for five years plus for that band to catch up to me is unfortunate And to say that I could try to go for a promotion, for example. That's also not available in my band. So I think we need to be looking specifically at not just the effects of the band itself but what promotional opportunities are available because it's not available for all of these bands, so it's not just as simple as saying they can go for a promotion.
Additionally I just want to point out that there are many other instances that there are errors or omissions to certain positions that should be included in this band and that if you're looking at simply the management class as we are in this proposal what also isn't taken into account is that some of those lower management bands have now been reduced to below what the positions underneath them are currently, and they are not being adjusted by this. So there's a major discrepancy.
1:53 – 2:0013 turns
Thank you Stephen that is your time.
Okay is that closed public comment?
And that concludes public comment.
Thank you we'll bring it back to the board for deliberation. Supervisor Hartman
I guess there are two things that concern me. One is the kind of outreach if in fact people first understood that this would affect them with our board letter, that isn't good. The other question I have is whether there's some opportunity over time to do smoothing for the Y class, that they would only get a percentage of the cost of living. And I wonder if there are options that we could look at?
What I'm worried about is that this is our talent today and it's our talent leadership for the future And I'm concerned that if people get demoralized or resigned, that it could leave a really big gap in our organization. Especially at a time when it's difficult to hire and recruit given the high cost of living in our area so I'm just exploring whether there are any Let me, for better, smoothing options. Anything so that people aren't just cut off but have something smaller than the people under them may take us longer to get to this whole system being implemented but just asking.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair, we certainly could return to you as we go through this process. And I think we'd want to first talk to our managers and listen to tell them where they actually map in because they don't have that specific information yet where their salary would be kind of listened to their thoughts about that but then If it were the board wanted us to return in June with an alternate, some alternatives related to smoothing we could certainly do that. That's something that the board could request. It's sort of spreading it out a little bit further but yes.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes thank you Chair Lavagnino and I think Supervisor Hartman was very eloquent with describing what I see is a similar problem for people in our organization that might be Based with, you know, sometimes we all equate our pay with our appreciation. And I think and who we are is in God. We don't. That's right. So actually, I think that's about as much as we're appreciated.
So so I just think there's it's only a couple dozen people. It sounds like something that we could maybe come back with. I don't want to stop this from moving forward because i think if we stop this from moving forward it's going to die on the vine again and you know two HR directors from now will see it again. So hope you're here a long time but that's just been kind of what this has been so I think we need to move it forward, but I do think we need to send and I think we're doing that now as board sending some signals to those who are impacted here that we are listening and we want a feedback loop that comes back to us sooner Because I think what their fear is that this is going to just get buried and the board won't look at it again for another couple years.
And in the meantime, if something even happens then so you know it doesn't necessarily have to be by June for me but it needs to be sometime not too distant future where we can hear how some of those reviews went. And you know and you know what are the solutions, what kind of counseling that we did to address some of those top performers within our organizations.
And maybe some of them haven't got a chance to make that case that things that you know there's 100 different positions here that have different You know, job descriptions is something I heard there where that maybe you know the title doesn't quite fit what that person does. And I think those conversations need to be need to be had within the organization to eventually bring those back to us in the future and not only is the Y rated issue that I heard was the other issue was that some people have learned that their career earning potential has gone away But I do want to remind them though that hopefully that CPI is going to continue with that too. So you know the Y rating is not just going to impact you if you're kind of, you know, you might hit it a little bit sooner but that might be a piece there to look at as well so I'm okay with moving forward but I do think that we need to continue to look at some of those tough spots.
Supervisors, I think we've heard your comments loud and clear. And again, I thank Christy particular in the HR team for working on this. Everyone acknowledges their hard work. I think it would be helpful if you direct us to come back. I would like to get this adopted but with a commitment that we come back with options for folks who are Y-rated but also what you heard from several employees is that they feel that their career Stability here is gonna be impeded.
And that's because we opted from going from a broadband, which was a 50% span in salary. That means if you thought you came in at $122,000, which is one of them and you saw the top of the band as 180,000 that maybe I keep saying our long range planning division head makes, you as an analyst or coordinator, you thought I'm gonna make that someday And that's not realistic, or that's not what the market tells us. And so HR had the difficult task of figuring out what is that then?
It was just a map trying to do the best job in mapping. But I am concerned. I don't think we have invested enough in managers for the last 10 years. We've had difficult times and so this was an attempt to get managers to have 5% steps like the representative employees so that they didn't just fight for the coal every year for many years we did But they got 5%.
But we see now people at the top end, just like we probably have in our representative employees who are maxed out. So if you could direct us to look at the Y rates and look at is there other options for those? I'm fine to look at those with Christy and her team to see what else can we do. And maybe there are different options that we can take but I think we need to start with what HR has presented today.
Absolutely, Supervisor Williams.
Well, I would be comfortable with starting with that if we did some percentage of COLA for the Y-rated employees as is, I think being suggested by Supervisor Hartman. That's what you're talking about in terms of smoothing?
Yeah, options. I'm sure we're not the first organization ever to encounter this and just how we can make this a smoother landing for highly valued employees
And in June, will we know the 2024 comps?
2:00 – 2:0616 turns
Supervisor Williams to the Chair, are you talking about the COLAs or in June 2024 we will depend on negotiations with our biggest unit is in negotiations right now. But once we determine that COLA then we'll know what our market, what to compare against and then we can look at the market after that but we really should wait till we know what our salaries are after the COLA and then go out with that.
I mean, I do think that there also is value in right now this is a projected number and it might be close to accurate but it might not be fully accurate. And so people are reacting against something that is A number, but not yet a solid number because we're going to update the comparisons too. So there's two things going on. It's both bargaining and there is the update of the comparisons.
And both would happen in June. CEO Miyasato.
Just to clarify, so we don't know what the GSI of the COLA is yet as we've discussed and that would be added. So this whatever the bands are showing now at their ranges in addition to that employees could get the COLA or whatever it ends up being. In addition, HR will do, they've surveyed all the comparable counties for these different job families. So they've already done that work and what Christy said is then they inflated it by 3% just to get an estimate for this fiscal year. So the question is, Christy you said you would be then updating the comparable numbers soon, but the numbers that we're using today are what we're asking to adopt. And as she goes through the process updating it when would we expect updated numbers? Is that for next June or is that sooner than
that? It could be sooner than that. So I think that we can bring that back and talk to you about that. or next year, we would be able to start the process once those COLAs are in place. So part of the timing of that would be okay, once those are in place then we can start the process and many organizations give their salary increases in July as well so usually it's better to wait till after July until all the organizations that we compare to have given that COLA and we've given the COLA and then to start from where we are at that competitive point.
Okay, Supervisor Hartman.
Yes so one quick question so we're waiting for our employee negotiations to be concluded to determine the COLA and then how long would it take to update the market study, the comp study?
It would likely take several months. We have to, there's a lot of vetting of what we get back and so it would likely take several months maybe three months I would say. I'm going to look at my team here yeah.
So just so people have a, so ballpark when would you say you would come back with some options for us?
I would say the beginning of November. We wait till August, until everybody's got their colas in place and then we have about three months there for the comparison work to occur and then we can be back in November so that will be our target date is to come back here with that by
November. Could you just talk a little bit about how you will be interacting with our Y employees and the others who are just the truncated, what will your process be?
So those employees will get a letter that says okay this is the classification that we've preliminarily mapped you into. This is the level that we've preliminary mapped you into. Here's what your new salary would be, the certain new range and what step you'll be in the range and what your resulting salary is Resulting increase and if it's less than two and a half percent, then you get to go first in the request for review.
And so then our process currently has them providing those by May 14th to us. Then we would start the process that's going to be a panel of myself, one of the compensation professionals we work with, and one of my peers to look at it just to have a new fresh set of eyes on that.
And then say November, we see we wanna change something. How does that play in?
If then we would come to the board and probably in closed session on negotiations for with on salaries and benefits for unrepresented employees and talk to you about what the results are and what you'd like to do about those or what you can afford to do and what we would like to do about those results.
CEO Miyasato.
Supervisors, the mechanics of it is on your board letter today there's a resolution that has every position and salary ranges so I think what Mitchman is saying that if those changed that's when you'd be seeing that again with different ranges.
Okay, so with that I'm prepared to move A through C on today's board letter with the direction that we go through the process you just described. That is coming back in November with more information about how this affects the Y employees
2:06 – 2:107 turns
Mr. Chair, I mean, I appreciate the direction that Supervisor Hartman is taking but I think this is a big enough thing over people's heads that November is gonna be an eternity to them. And I mean, we're already having a hard time filling the positions of the rock stars. If we lose a few rock stars that's I mean that would be a real blow to the institution so I just you know I'm trying to figure out something that might be a little bit faster. I obviously don't want to just say we should add a percentage of COLA without looking at what the cost is projected to be, we have to look at the costs right? Especially when things are this tight but you know I don't I don't feel like it should wait until November for us to determine whether we want a percentage of COLA for the Y-rated folks or not.
And what I would say is that something, and Christy all know this because I've said this before, is when you have some employees that are below what they should be paid Usually the battle cry is parody, right? They should get more than the cola to bring close. If there's people that are at the top of those bands and ultimately shouldn't grow as much as other people Then negative parity I think is also okay, this is kind of what that is.
But you don't need to do that all at once, you can phase that in right? And so that's what I guess am advocating for.
Mr. Chair, if I could clarify the timeline a little on that. We will do this process before June where we talk to our Y-rated employees and we make sure that we agree with where they are and we could bring back that discussion about the Y-rated employees in that effect in June. It's the salary survey that we would be looking to wait until November. That would take a little longer for us to do that.
Great and I think anytime that we've tried to do things on the fly from up here on the dais, don't necessarily get done properly. So i would be more than happy to. I think we're sending a strong message to the employees that yes this is Y-rated, it's a concern to us. We're looking for innovative ways and new ways to deal with this and we're directing staff to come back as soon as possible to correct that situation. Supervisor Nelson?
Could I correct my motion then to include what you just said as direction?
i.e., that it's coming back to us in June? Okay, the Y-rated portion. We're moving forward. The Y-rated portion is coming back to us in June or July. Let's say July so we give you a little bit more time because and then we can talk in July about when we want to see the salary if we can November is fine but if we can do it sooner that's great too. So do we have direction?
And I'll second that motion from Supervisor Hartman on that.
Supervisor Hartman made the motion. Supervisor Nelson with the second. Any other discussion? Let's call for a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you. Takes us to departmental item number two, Madam Clerk.
2:10 – 2:157 turns
Chair Lavinino, members of the board. Departmental item number two is from the Public Works department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the amendment of County Code Chapter 28 for use of county rights-of-way for business purposes.
Oh sorry.
Do you mind just reading the item into the record one more time?
Absolutely. Chair Lavinino, or Vice-Chair, thank you, Caps. Departmental Item number two is from the Public Works Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding the amendment of County Code Chapter 28 for use of county rights of way for business purposes. Thank
you. Please begin.
Good morning, Vice Chair Kapsch members of the board. I'm Chris then with Public Works and today we have Gary Smart, the county traffic engineer, and he's going to give the presentation on this item.
Thank you, Chris. Good morning. Today we are bringing to the Board an amendment to Section or Chapter 28 of the County Code that deals with the use of public right-of-way for businesses private businesses. Currently our chapter allows for use of the public right-of-way that's not in the travel way of vehicles for outdoor dining, shared mobility use and car share and other businesses. But this amendment will allow also the public right-of way that's used for vehicles parking in particular to be used for parklets for outdoor businesses In consideration of the parklets, we'll be looking at safety and access.
Impacts to the traveling public and intended uses of the roadway. Compatibility and community impacts. And then the cost and fees. Safety and access. The parklets will only be appropriate for use on low-speed roadways, 30 miles per hour or less. Each parklet will be considered to be unique and will be evaluated on a case by case. The flow of all the modes of traffic shall not be impeded by the parklets.
Appropriate setbacks from vehicle travel lanes or crash rated barriers will be required for the parklets. ADA access will be required both past the parklets and use of the parklets, and the visibility issues caused by a parklet must be maintained to not impact the traveling public. The impact in intended use of the road right-of-way including the public mobility of pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles should not be impeded, and it was intended for the primary use of the roadway Some county areas have limited parking and restrictions, and there'll be restrictions for the parklets on removing any kind of existing parking.
Congested sidewalks or reduced capacity of sidewalks relate to increased business activities. The compatibility and community impacts for the parklets, many areas of the county were designed to have street parking as a primary access for the businesses. Many of our downtown old town sections and stuff. Coastal zone parking generally cannot be removed without offsetting the parking created and should be in close proximity.
Other businesses may be impacted by the loss of street parking Parklets may impact the community aesthetics also. The cost and fees, the cost for the county includes the staff time to review the permits and do compliance enforcement. There's a loss of public space parking. The fees that would be collected We'll be to offset the time staff is using to review the applications and for approvals, ongoing compliance monitoring, and possibly creating offset parking for the lost spaces the parklets are using.
In summary we'll be looking at these categories, safety and access impacts of traveling public, compatibility and community impacts, and then the fees. Here are the recommended actions, which are also in your board item. And we're available for any questions. Questions from the Board?
2:15 – 2:2014 turns
Okay I think we have a number of public commenters. I'm sure that will get things moving.
Chair Lavanino, members of the board. Yes we have four requests to speak on this item uh we are going to begin on zoom with Jeff Mueller to be followed by Robert Spoleno. Jeff?
Sorry I hope you can hear me now um i'm i'm a
yes we can
okay thank you good morning um the The email that I got from Supervisor Hartman's office said that the intent of this is to not permit parklets in Los Olivos. Am I correct about that? Is that, I didn't see that in the presentation.
Can you make your comments all your comments and then we'll try to answer all your questions afterwards because you're on a clock of three minutes.
Okay. Well, assuming that I'm understanding that correctly, I just want to express my strong support for that. Los Olivos is at something of a crossroads and it is very important at this juncture, I think, to think about the residents of Los Olivos and preserve the qualities of the town and therefore there's no need for parklets in Los Olivos And it's entirely appropriate not to have parklets in Los Olivos. I could go into more specifics, but I don't want to waste everybody's time if that's really what the board is agreeing to.
So I'll yield any further time.
Okay thank you very much.
We will remain on Zoom with Robert Spallino to be followed by Sam Marmestein. Robert?
Thank you can you hear me?
Yes, we can. Please proceed.
All right so full disclosure I'm the owner of Pizzeria Deleforno in Olorka. We're the only ones that really put a parklet in and currently we pay the county for the use of this parklet Our motive is obviously selfishly, we want to see our business continue to thrive. But the response from the community for the support of it is overwhelming. We've submitted over 2000 signatures of people and were asked every day can we keep it?
And we think our park that kind of dives into the old Orchid community plan that was adapted by the county 18 years ago. Trying to make it all create a walking, attractive vibe for all the businesses and we feel our Parklet has done that neighboring businesses benefit from our restaurant being busy because orchid offers in Clark Avenue in our location a unique view of the hills and And I know there's some expectations about having more parking and we agree, we need more parking but we think there's a creative solution to do that.
That both fits into the community plan but also meets the need of the vibe that we're all trying to create in downtown Orchard to make it more attractive When you go to San Luis Obispo or you go to Los Alamos or Los Olivos, you generally park and expect to walk to your destination. And San Luis has a lot of additional parking but I still expect to walk a couple blocks to get to where I'm going so the expectation of having parking right in front of every business is probably not realistic. But I think there's a great solution. I see a lot of unattractive parklets out there, and it's great to have some kind of architectural review or somebody leading the charge to make sure the parklets are attractive and they kind of blend in with the environment.
We tried to do that And we just want to enhance the experience and make Clark Avenue more attractive and more interesting to both the residents of the area as well as people, the tourism that comes in. And we just think it's the community expressed to us over and over again through their loyalty to us, as well as just the experience they have. They can watch their friends come and go walking down the sidewalk, and we think it really ties in nicely with the community plan.
And if we take it out, we'll gain two parking spots right in front of our business. But when you drive down Clark, it's going to look like angled parking all the way down Clark so again I'd love to see everybody collaborate together to keep the parklets make sure they're attractive address the parking situation and just as you all know restaurants are Very challenged right now we're getting hit with sewer taxes of $6,000 on my property tax for that little building I have which is 1,200 square feet.
Thank you Robert that is your time.
Okay all right thank you.
2:20 – 2:255 turns
We will now go to Sam Marmistine to be followed by Chuck Williams.
Hello, can you hear me? Chuck, you're next. There's one more before you. That's all right. Go ahead, Sam. OK,
you can hear me? Yep. Thank you. My name is Sam Armistead. I'm the owner of De Los Olivos Wine Merchant and Cafe. I don't agree with taking away the parklets in front of De Los Olivos Cafe. The parklet actually takes maybe about two parking spots It's not going to make a difference in the parking Los Olivos. Maybe somebody will have to park a block away and walk a little bit instead of parking right in front of the business.
The Park Loop adds to the ambience of Los Olivos where you can sit outside and enjoy the nice weather Our space also lets dog owners bring their dogs with them to dine outside, which is very popular for the parklet with our guests bringing their dogs. If we remove this parklet and this space it will cut a significant amount of space for dog owners to bring their dogs.
And if we knew that we can keep this parklet for another one or two years Then we can make the investment in it, and make it look a lot nicer than having the orange barriers that are on there now. But we've had the orange barriers because we didn't know from the county whether we could keep it one year or two years or how long we can keep it. So I don't agree with taking it away. I think it's an asset and a nice thing for Los Olivos where you can sit outside watch the world go by and have something to eat maybe a drink or something So that's my comment. Thank you for your time.
Thank you.
We will now return to Santa Maria with Chuck Williams, who is our final speaker.
Thank you once again. I am opposed to the parklets in Old Town Orchid. Parking was rearranged back 20 years ago to accommodate businesses with the angled parking because they eliminated on-site parking for all of the businesses in Orchid and all commercial buildings. We currently have 18 wheelers driving down Clark Avenue that are parking in the middle of the street and unloading products for the merchants, which is a good thing. But it also creates a jam and we have problems with that. And Mr. Spolano talks about not wanting to take up parking. He is one to talk because he takes up about four parking spaces in front of his home, which is right behind his restaurant. And he drives his vehicle and uses those parking spaces at times So I'm going to move a little faster on this because there's more to this.
We have school kids that walk up and down the residential streets, going back and forth to school. We have seniors that walk on those streets and putting these parklets in is gonna force more traffic in our residential areas as it started 20 years ago with the overlay that was implemented which changed the zoning for all the commercial businesses And I'm not opposed to business at all, but I'm opposed to careless and irresponsible changes that affects the quality of life for those that live in the Old Town of Orkut. And this definitely does.
Also, Orkut Lions Club, the oldest non-profit business in Orkut was established in 1956 and it is a home to OCF also known as the Orkutt Community Foundation who puts on the Christmas parade Members have helped local school kids raise a lot of money for sports equipment, musical equipment, graduation caps and gowns. Traveling sports teams, bands help the flood victims on Union Valley Parkway, fire victims in several California fires. Most recently we reached out to Hawaii and helped them a little bit. We contribute annually to the City of Hope and annual vision screening for the 4th and 5th district school kids, provide eye care to those students who in need at no cost and much more.
In Santa Barbara County your revenue increased a whole lot with the careless Overlay that was implemented 20 years ago. It is also a handicap this little small mighty Lions Club By the way, this puts more resources in the fourth and fifth district communities than any of these businesses combined in Orchid Even though we are still able to function your caught your overlay Eliminated on-site parking making it difficult for us to function properly And now you want to put parklets in to make it even worse So proposed parking on Markham Street to extend the angled parking on East Clark Avenue is just a smokescreen for parklets.
People are lazy and they will take the path of least resistance, which is down our streets and parking in the residential parking. Thank you.
2:25 – 2:319 turns
That concludes public comment on this item.
Okay we'll bring it back to the board Supervisor Hartman
I have a couple of questions just to make sure that it's clear. So Public Works already has a program for allowing restaurants to use sidewalk space, is that correct? And then this is kind of integrating a COVID recovery program into that sidewalk space program, is that correct?
Supervisor Hartman through the Board, through the Chairman. Yes that's correct we allowed the parklets during COVID to provide outdoor space for them to continue operating and this is now codifying that into the County Code to permit it permanently. The outdoor dining has been going on for several years first in Isla Vista and then we expanded it throughout the county.
And the fees are yet to be determined you're going to be studying that?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. That is correct, we'll be returning to the Board of Supervisors with a resolution to establish the fees.
And I know that while you were considering how to do this there were many options and I think you've come up with a very elegant solution using the community plan in the coastal areas and then focusing on the three areas four areas that you do I guess I'll just say this from my perspective on it. I really think outdoor dining is great. It enlivens the street, people like to watch other people and it's good for business and good for people But I do think in some of the smaller communities, my office has had a lot of complaints about the ability to get through the sidewalk, the ability to park, the ability to drive easily. We actually did in Los Olivos one Saturday had a field trip with Mr. Sneddon and others to go around and look at the issues of circulation in Los Olivos And the cafe is right at the intersection which makes it right in the middle of all the activity.
I support this approach, I think it's a solid one. I think it responds to the community as I've understood it and I'm really sorry that it's gonna mean a change for some restauranteurs but I think in the interest of the larger community, it's an overall good plan and you're to be commended for the hard work on it.
Supervisor Williams. Yeah, I just feel like I need to know a little bit more background in the effect on the existing ones. I mean obviously planning the future is most important but You know, how it affects existing ones is the most immediate. Right? So you know I am unfamiliar. I haven't been to I've been through the valley a lot but not in Los Olivos in awhile so I don't know I can't really evaluate that parklet in any way. I have been by the Orchid, I think there's only one parklet in downtown Orchard so I guess I can gauge that will this allow them deny them or require them to make changes but allow them is what those are three options I want to understand it
Supervisor Williams to the chair, it's actually a combination of some of those those options. So and the way that's really addressed is through the community specific guidelines each community area has community plans Different types that have been adopted over the years and different sort of strategies for how to address the businesses, the traffic circulation, the vitality of the area. And so the community specific guidelines have different requirements for each community on where parklets can and can't go. So for example in Los Olivos and Santa Ynez area where the parking demand out exceeds the available parking Parklets can't take parking spaces because there's already too much demand for the parking.
In Old Town Orchid, it's a balancing act because that can be over-parked at times too so if there are parking spaces that are impacted those need to be offset with new parking created elsewhere. And then in other areas like the coastal zones, you can't take away coastal access parking. So they're not allowed in parking spaces. And then the sort of third option piece of it is that the parklets that do remain will be modified to meet these requirements. They need to be temporary and removable. They have certain conditions and limitations on the size and bulk and elements of the parklets.
The ones that do remain will be brought into the permit system and have to meet the requirements for the different areas that they're in.
2:31 – 2:3911 turns
And so it all likely, my takeaway in all likelihood this will definitely get rid of the one in Los Olivos. That one in Orkut would have to, how is one supposed to offset parking? You know or is it Our job to offset fees I think.
Supervisor Williams through the chair yes we so Orchid does have opportunities to create additional parking but yes it costs money so that the applicant would need to pay into a fund to create to help create that offset parking
supervisor Nelson
Yes, thank you, Chair Labadino. And I just want to compliment staff on the work that you've done here. I think that you guys have kind of threaded the needle when it comes to trying to figure out a way just to make this work countywide and especially with community specific guidelines. This is a touchy subject. There's a lot of people in my community in Orkut where this is, you know like Chuck showed up and expressed his displeasure I've got some letters here from those that also don't like it but I also have those that love it so it's a real balancing act as a supervisor.
You know as we try to address this and I think the good thing about COVID, you know because there were some good things that came out of that was we are allowed to kind of test things out and trial them. And figure out things that worked and didn't work even with this park clip that we have in Oldark at this point it was much larger at one point got shrunk We didn't think about things about the flow of traffic and safety so then there were some safety improvements put into place. And so it gave us a chance to really trial something before we came up with an ordinance that could make something more semi-permanent, and I call it semi-permanent because it's not. I mean this is at the discretion of a future board to repeal this. So if there are some issues that become larger in the future that we don't realize now, we can come back and potentially change things.
The way I balance it out here is I understand what I've heard from most of my constituents when it comes to the parklets is because parking is so constrained. I know what Chuck is saying about people going into neighborhoods and that is something that is a concern but at the same time our office has been very engaged on trying to find additional parking We did about 20 spots along Broadway, where we added angle parking in the last couple years and then we have another potentially 24 spots that we're going to be getting by.
Going on to the south side of Clark Avenue and doing angle parking on that which will again at that point help to Make Clark Avenue a little bit more narrower, make it better for pedestrians. It's usually better for businesses in that way. In the future you won't have the big semis being able to park out there anymore because that would have eliminated that.
We have in part of our ATP program or Alternative Transportation Plan Is to really work on some of the connectivity there in Orchid. So this is all follow, you know it's all flows in together and I think to positive so I said another 24 spots on the south side also this year we're looking at adding another 60 spots on Markham Road as a project that our office is doing. So that's adding another 100 spots in Orchid just in the last few years which is a significant amount of parking when you talk about an old town area. And I'm not done yet. You know if we can find more spots we're going to do it. The reason why we made this big compromise when Chuck talks about from 20 years ago On eliminating commercial properties from having to have on-site parking was because that really was constraining the ability for Old Orchid to grow and to prosper.
If you had actually do those parking spots on those properties there's no way they could develop, there are a lot of small lots even the Lions Club doesn't have any parking on their own parcels so we need to rely upon each other to be able to solve some of the problems in the Orchard community And so I think what's been developed here is something that is thoughtful. There is a lot of compromises that are already built into this, and just my commitment to those who are concerned is I'm going to keep the conversation going and trying to solve some of these problems in our community You know, even with the neighborhood that's concerned about the parking going into their public works has come to me and said hey do you want to add angle parking in the neighborhoods.
They'll tell you I pushed back on that because I know that that's the last place I want to go and make sure that we take care of it within our commercial corridor before we start going into the neighborhoods at the neighborhood starts become commercialized in the future work like that zoning did Dan will start to look at that, but that'll be led by the uses there not by the county pushing people out of their houses. That's the last thing I want to do. Those are neighbors and friends just like you are Chuck and so I do hear you.
I'm ready to support this moving forward and so I want to thank staff and those who have supported this and opposed it because I think you've made it a better project.
One of the things I, I love Old Town Orchid. I think when you start talking about when there's parking problems it's kind of a blessing because that means people actually want to be there they want to go to Old Town Orchid, they want to go to Los Alamos, they want to go to Los Olivos. You know who doesn't have a parking problem is The Mall in Santa Maria. You know you can park wherever you want in The Mall and that's another problem so uh yeah I think one of the things that we did learn from COVID is that it's okay to go eat outside and it's it's kind of cool Brings the community together.
I think what Mr., now not all these parklets are created equal either, I've seen some on State Street that are horrendous and hats off to Mr. Spolino because he's made his look like it's part of the community and it looks great and I don't have any problem supporting this. I think also staff did a great job of kind of breaking this up as we go throughout the county based on community plans so When I go into Old Town Orchid, not every time do I get to park right on Clark Avenue. And that's fine because I'm going there to walk and walk through by other businesses and Chuck, I promise you I've never parked in the In the residential area, I don't like people coming into my block and parking on my block and walking over to another area. So I get where you're coming from.
I support that and I can promise you that Supervisor Nelson is continuing to work. And as he pointed out all the ways that he's looking to expand parking in Old Town Orchids. I think this is a really great plan so Supervisor Nelson you want to make that motion?
Yeah I'll go ahead and make the motion to support this item. And one last comment about the parking in Orchard, I think when the big keys is with our commercial operators to have their employees in a parking some of this farther out parking and so that's something I'm going to continue to push on as well if we can have them park there and open up those spots in front of businesses for actual customers. I think that will go a long way.
So yeah I'll go ahead and make a motion to accept staff's recommendations Let's see, what was that? A through C. I'm sorry,
no, A through CII. Can we get a
second?
Second from Supervisor Hartman. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Okay. Believe now we're going to be moving to closed session
Oh,
we do want to take A21. That's right. I'm sorry. We tabled A21 for a while but...
2:39 – 2:4626 turns
And Chair Lavanino and members of the board just a friendly reminder this item was previously read into the record but this is administrative item 21 from the county executive office approving budget revision request number 9665. All
right Mr. Lagarquist
Getting back to you on the budget request here. So there's a long sordid history to this project. A number of changes happened during the beginning phases, we were also stuck with a lot of supply chain issues during COVID so this first came to the board in November 2019 and per our last contract amendment which was September of 2022 We're at about five and a half million for the project.
However, at some point in the early stages of this project There was a decision to value engineer, basically to save some money and they took out a remote monitoring system. And so while each of the individual systems at each of the buildings has a way to monitor it requires actually going into the battery storage system and hooking up a laptop. By putting in this remote monitoring, now my energy manager who sits in Santa Barbara can remote-in assess the energy efficiency of the system, how much energy is being produced and a number of other diagnostics on the system. So $100,000 was not spent in order to save $30,000 But in doing so, we did benefit and get an additional $30,000 credit or grant to help pay and offset some of the batteries.
And then additionally, we did have a $2.7 million loan through the California Energy Commission, and that's going to get paid back through our energy savings from this system here.
So thank you Director Larkin for that. What was the original budget on this project? You say you're at five and a half million now?
That's the one I don't have.
And just, it's hard to stomach. You know when you look at another $100,000 on a project, it's insult to injury to a project that is still not operating and to a project that has C-trains sitting around our county campus which I actually had some questions about that. P&Ds all as often citing property owners for having C-trains on their property. It's odd the fact that we're using them. Those are permanent now? Is that my understanding?
They are. I mean,
that was what was designed in. Signed off by building officials and fire. They've been signed off correct through PMDs and fire. I mean they meet code OK yeah we don't
do that for the public sector the private sector so OK it's just frustrating for me to look at all this and see such a mismanaged project you know so far out of budget so far off the timeline and just keeps coming back and back from more things The C-Train thing is a constant issue, and that should be something we should be looking at as well. I mean, I think it's really inappropriate for this campus, and I think it's kind of an insult to the North County that that's what we think is appropriate here. So I'd like to see that looked at, not that that's what this item's about at this point, but that's a frustration that I have.
So, I'm just gonna vote against it guys, but I'm fine if you guys wanna move it along.
Okay. Is there any public comment on 821?
Chair Lavinino, members of the board we have not received any additional requests to speak on 821. All
right Supervisor Williams has a question.
Sure I just noticed that the charges were up are those working or already somebody was plugged in?
We've had a challenge with PG&E getting the approval to do the connection. We ran into some recent issues Disagreements between how it was designed, what planning and development was going to allow and what PG&E would sign off on as well. We've finally got to some resolution there. We expect to have it online in May. Great, because you know as usual
they're all of the employees chargers are full which probably means there's somebody who can't hook up now today Supervisor Caps and I commuted so we're not a casualty of that together we carpooled so we're and we're good we got enough range were cool but But I'm worried about what it does to retard the adoption of the technology by our employees, many of whom commute and are barely making it and could use the help. So you know hope that we can keep on the urgency because I'm sure another bank of chargers will At 21 cents a kilowatt will really help our employees be able to have some transportation options.
So I guess just to address that, so the system is pushing power back into the grid. We do have battery backups. So each individual building is treated like a microgrid. So if the power goes down for this building we've got a good four to eight hours of backup power through the batteries that are being charged through those solar system as well. As far as the electric chargers for cars, we have 60 being installed right now here at the BetterAvia campus and those should be done within the next couple months and then we'll move on over to Foster Road to put in additional charges over there.
That is great
Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah, so did I get it right? We're fully functional here now we're now we're pushing electricity into the system. In May we will. Okay not there yet.
Right it took the final approval with PG&E and that's happening in the next couple weeks. Okay thank you. And we'll do a ribbon cutting at that point. Supervisor Hartman.
I'll move the item A21 but I don't remember which piece of it 9665, thank you.
Can I get a second on that?
Second.
Second okay all those in favor
aye.
Aye. Any opposed
no
okay passes for one and i think that closes out um a agenda and one and two so we are going to move to closed session um Adam County Council can you read us into closed session please
2:46 – 3:0710 turns
Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board scheduled to meet in closed session on two items. The first is anticipated litigation deciding whether to initiate litigation and the second is existing litigation and it's County of Santa Barbara versus Island View Ranch as a Santa Barbara County Superior Court case and the time estimate is 4040 to 45 minutes.
Okay well I think We're having a little problem in the back right now, so why don't we come back at 10 to one. Okay? All right. All right, we're reconvening this meeting of April 19th 2024, Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors. County Council can we please get a report out from closed session?
Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the board. The board met in closed session on two items deciding whether to initiate civil litigation one case and one item of existing litigation county of Santa Barbara versus Island View Ranch and the board took no reportable action.
Okay that takes us to departmental item number three Madam Clerk
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number three is from the Community Services Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a presentation on the community action plan to address homelessness, including encampment resolution strategy and 2024 point in time count of persons experiencing homelessness.
Good morning. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Chair Lavinino and members of the board. Jesus Hermas, Community Services Director Today, staff is updating the board and the general public about the county's efforts to address homelessness. As staff will review, the county has made considerable progress in housing the unhoused. At the same time we are aware our work is not done. To review our progress and our challenges allow me to introduce Deputy Director Joe Zabonic to begin the presentation.
Good afternoon Chair Labadino, honorable members of the board I am Joe Dysvonik, the Deputy Director for Santa Barbara County's Housing and Community Development Division. Is this microphone working? Yes sir. Okay next slide please. In our presentation today i will ask this board to receive and file this presentation which consists of the following agenda items.
An overview that examines how our funding strategy for addressing homelessness in Santa Barbara County has evolved over the past few years What it looks like today and how I expect this to look in the future. I also summarize this year's point-in-time count efforts. I will then turn it over to Kimberly Albers to present a three-year progress report on the community action plan to address homelessness, and finally Lucille Boss will present a two-year progress report on the county's encampment resolution strategy.
The other recommended action for today is for your board to approve CSD to continue using American Rescue Plan Act dollars or ARPA dollars, for encampment cleanup efforts across the county through June of 2026. And finally we also ask your board today to provide staff any direction and guidance you feel are appropriate and necessary. Next slide. So let's start right off at the key points of where we are in our year three of our plan to address homelessness in Santa Barbara County.
The good news 1,400 people have transitioned out of homelessness and into permanent housing during the past calendar year of 2023. This represents the highest level of success in any one year for this critical metric since being measured in our county and this is the third year in a row of increasing success in this area. This is one metric this one metric is really the primary thermometer of whether or not a homelessness strategy is working Getting this many people out of homelessness and into a permanent housing within one year represents a strategy where outreach is not only expansive, but of high quality.
I say this because it's difficult to get people housed and remain housed unless they accept and use services. And accepting and using services requires building trust with an outreach worker and case manager, and having those same case managers knowing how to navigate the system for their clients to attain and retain housing. Well then this leads us to another critical piece of the strategy, having what I call a continuum of shelter available to support the strategy.
Most of us are aware that to improve our chances of getting someone who lives in the street and riverbeds to the point of permanent housing more often than not requires moving them through a series of shelters. Sometimes it starts at emergency congregate shelters sometimes warming centers sometimes medical facilities or even justice pathways But having these various forms of shelter available and staffed by caring and observant professionals who are knowledgeable and persistent in leading their clients down the pathway out of homelessness, that's what allows us to achieve the success we are seeing in the housing efforts being discussed here today.
This system which was built when your board approved the community action plan three years ago represents an equal mix of inspiration and perspiration so looking back at the slide here that green tab on the far right shows us it's about to get better La Posada, which begins accepting clients next week and Hope Village which opened to clients one month ago both represent a huge widening of the gateway to exiting homelessness in Santa Barbara County.
So let me say a few words about the troubling trends we see here. One there remains a consistent inflow of people accessing services for the first time which is good and bad and therefore colored amber here for reasons I will explain later. Two we saw an increase in the number of families requiring shelter and housing services And three, regarding what we call vehicular homelessness or people who live in their cars. We see significant growth in this category across the county and a disproportionate growth of those living in vehicles being seniors and families.
Oh okay, oh we're on a different slide. So this category across the county and a disproportionate growth of those living in vehicles being seniors and families. On the issue of vehicular homelessness, I would like to take a moment to highlight that your Community Services Department working in close coordination with the leadership and staff of the City of Santa Barbara have been awarded eight million dollars to address vehicular homelessness across the county in the next stage of our Encampment Resolution Strategy. A strategy on which Lucille Boss will update everyone later in this presentation.
Next slide please. Slide four depicts the trend shown on the two bookends if you will of what we do in CSD to address homelessness On one end, we work to facilitate an increase in the availability of permanent housing attainable for an individual or family experiencing homelessness. A housing solution that meets their financial abilities and medical needs for a longer term.
This is done by engaging with both service providers and developers in working to secure the funding and other ingredients needed for such housing. This type of housing is sometimes referred to as permanent supportive housing, if extensive wraparound services are provided. And that spectrum tracks all the way over to low and very low income housing that is attainable through housing vouchers and other subsidies set aside for homeless individuals and families.
The whole spectrum of housing is referred to as permanent housing, and it is to be distinguished from emergency shelters and even interim housing like Dignity Moves projects throughout Santa Barbara. The bottom orange line on this chart shows the results of these efforts over the past several years and it truly represents the end game of all the efforts we take to address homelessness. So that's it right there, the orange line.
This is what demonstrates the trend of how we are approaching our goal with this homeless strategy and we are performing at a solid level. However, at the other bookend of our jobs we must go out and engage with and compel individuals and families experiencing homelessness to accept shelter in the variety of medical and financial services we have available for them.
Some of these people may have been homeless for months or even years before ever accessing services and we would capture their data and group it in the same year with someone who may have become homeless for the first time only a day before accessing services if both of them access services for the first time in that same year This is the blue line at the top of the chart.
So what is our overall goal with this Community Action Plan? This is an important point that I want to make clear here today. Our goal is to make these two lines approach each other and eventually intersect. If that happens, people will still fall into homelessness but our ability to house them has improved to the extent that overall homelessness declines and no one person experiences homelessness for very long In other words, we want to significantly reduce the number of people experiencing homelessness and eliminate chronic homelessness.
Another point I'm going to make here with this chart is that we are seeing two disturbing trends. The number of people accessing services for the first time represented by the blue line at the top is far greater than the number of permanent housing units we can make available to them. And furthermore, the rate at which the blue line is increasing is greater than the rate in which the orange line is increasing.
Which is another way of saying that the increase in the rate at which people are newly accessing services is greater than the rate at which we can help people exit homelessness. So as the banner at the bottom of the slide indicates, although our ability to house people has grown significantly since 2020, the rate of people newly accessing services continues to outpace those efforts.
We believe however that we can close this gap. We can make these lines intersect and that is our goal. But the deeper lesson here is that we as a county and a community We need to focus more intensely on those issues that are driving people into homelessness much earlier upstream in the process of becoming homeless. While we as CSD continue to improve our ability to get those people who are already experiencing homelessness back into a housing solution, the strategy we're discussing here today which is a CSD based strategy is by its very nature more focused on affecting the orange line of this chart and getting those who are already experiencing homelessness or just about to become homeless into a better situation Next slide please.
So diving a little deeper into the topic of accessing services, this slide depicts the trend we have seen over the last three years with regards to the annualized number of unhoused people who have reached out for services each year. The purpose of this slide is to demonstrate a few key points in understanding homelessness in this county. The first key point is to emphasize that the actual number of people experiencing homelessness throughout the year in Santa Barbara County is a greater number than many understand This is most likely because of the way many people interpret the information released in the point-in-time count each year.
What this chart tells us is that in calendar year 2021, over 3,300 people experiencing homelessness reached out for services. Last year over 4,300 people reached out for services. These are unduplicated numbers meaning no single person has counted twice in one year. Also, this number only reflects the number of people experiencing homelessness that have reached out for services. So the actual number each year is larger to some extent.
The second key point is to demonstrate the explanation for the increase that we see here as threefold. One more people are experiencing homelessness. That's obviously not a good thing. Two our outreach network has grown so more resources are available each year to serve them and that's a very good thing. And three We have more and more entry points available in our Homeless Management Information System, or HMIS.
And this has allowed many unhoused individuals who were once invisible to us in many ways to enter our visible spectrum and begin their journey through the continuum of services and shelter needed to exit homelessness. Next slide. So now I move on to the topic of funding. Excuse me. Here I introduce a funding concept we call the Regional Annual Investment into Homelessness or RAI.
The RAI represents an estimated distribution of all funds expended across all cities and unincorporated districts of the county towards providing housing, shelter, and services exclusively for people experiencing homelessness in that fiscal year. This does not represent funds that are simply awarded that fiscal year. It is only an estimate of funds expended exclusively towards addressing homelessness across our county.
We have four sources for funds of this type, federal state local as well as private philanthropic sources. Local sources include monies from the county general fund and also those from our cities. The total of the funds already expended or to be expended in the remainder of this fiscal year is 112 million dollars. Of this 112 million dollars 46 percent or 52.5 million was administered by six departments across the county to include CSD 31% of the total $112 million that is reaching the community to address homelessness as being administered by CSD.
So now that we see where these funds originate, let's see where they go. Next slide please. The way this $112 million is being distributed this year through developers and service providers across the county to address homelessness is shown here. The $121 million enters through the left part of the slide if you will and it's being distributed to the seven buckets shown on the right Our top three priorities of funding are clearly dedicated to what we all know is the real solution to homelessness, building an attainable housing continuum from emergency shelters to interim housing up to and including permanent housing in the proper proportions as needed through time.
The largest bucket at the top reflects money expended in the housing projects and or infrastructure projects but are not yet completed. I was going to flip the slide, but I want to make sure that Supervisor Williams is good.
OK.
Capital and housing development money is invested in the projects that aren't yet completed. Permanent housing are projects that have been completed. Next slide. This slide demonstrates the details of how the $52.5 million administered directly by the county is being distributed to the projects mentioned earlier, and the pattern is the same. The top three buckets are efforts and projects that build our housing continuum but the county's largest investment bucket in the housing continuum this year is shelter and interim housing.
This is obviously reflected in the opening of Hope Village, La Posada, the renovation of Hedges House of Hope, and ongoing improvements at other shelters. Next slide. So the question many now have is because of the large one-time federal and state funding bundles released in response to the COVID pandemic are drying up with no obvious replacement in sight, what will we do to continue the projects we initiated with the startup money supplied from sources like ARPA, CARES Act, emergency rental assistance, the COVID based Emergency Solutions Grant and possibly even our encampment resolution funds, home key and HAP funds?
To be sure, all of these COVID era limited time or even one-time large scale emergency funding packages certainly play to the seed for the growth of the system that we now recognize house over 1,400 people experiencing homelessness in the past year. And this is a system that will surely grow over the coming years in its effectiveness as long as the funding continues. So how will we move forward? Well that is certainly continue concerning issue Cities and counties generally operate on budgets that can be forecast with an impressive degree of certainty five years into the future.
But how do we do this for an activity that no level of government seems to want to commit funding to for more than a year at a time? Well, the answer is one I don't believe the large capital investments we've made into in past years in interim shelter projects needs to continue But two, we cannot view funding for homelessness which is purported to be the issue of our time in the same manner we have been trained to view all budgeting processes. And this makes everyone very uncomfortable but that is okay because rigorous relentless creative and high-level staff work is the answer until such time that either homelessness disappears or much longer term funding is assured. We must believe that funding will be found through rigorous relentless and creative staff work This has been going on in this county for some time towards this issue of homelessness and I'm here to assure you it will continue.
For example, let's take one homelessness program and dissect its funding over the past four to five years. This is a program that not only survived the past several years but grew in its scope and effectiveness and it represents the tip of the spear in addressing homelessness. That program is street outreach In fiscal year 2021, street outreach was funded using primarily two sources that no longer exist as shown in the far left arrow at the bottom of the slide.
With the onset of COVID staff recognized the demise of those programs but saw the onset of new funding sources such as ESGCV HAP and CERF programs coming down as shown in the second arrow on the bottom And rather than having a gap or even a reduction in services, these future funding sources were identified early planned for and smoothly braided into ongoing programs.
Soon after ARPA dollars became available to street outreach and staff grabbed on to them along with more CERF dollars and braided them into ongoing programs such that they only grew in size scope and effect. And this is reflected by the data shown today earlier in the slides as the significant growth in the number of people being served As we move forward, staff is already looking at braiding CalAIM, Community Corrections Partnership, the Mental Health Services Act as well as an upcoming injection of $8 million in SIR funding to carry on and improve excellence in street outreach that ultimately leads to housing someone.
As long as we continue to have housing available for them and I believe we will. Next slide. I want to briefly take a look at the trends resulting from this year's annual point time count. First, I want to mention that the level of volunteerism combined with the level of staff coordination it takes to get this done in a matter of hours across the entire county is tremendous.
However for the sake of time today and the fact that this board letter has a specific report attached that digs deep into the operations and analysis of this event, I will not spend much time on it because it truly does only reflect a snapshot in time So when we look at those snapshots for the last two years, we see a 12% jump in the overall number of individuals visible to us as being homeless.
Specifically an increase of 232 individuals. This trend undoubtedly reflects a true overall increase in homelessness but I will add this that even in comparison of the two previous pit counts say of 2022-2023 we saw what appeared to be a decrease However, we are certain that in reality overall homelessness was still increasing between those two years and every year being shown here in fact. It's just that the snapshot we took at those particular times didn't capture it.
And furthermore although our point-in-time count conducted in 2024 tells us that we saw 2,119 individuals experiencing homelessness, we know from the data presented earlier in slide five that over twice that many individuals experience homelessness throughout the entire county in calendar year 2023. Next slide. So here's my final point before I turn it over to Kimberly, I spent a lot of time today talking about trends and money but i wanted to take a moment to show how our citizens have benefited from the funding allocated by your board to homeless efforts across the county.
I would like to introduce everyone here today to Francisco he is one of the 1 400 Santa Barbara citizens who have achieved permanent housing last year Francisco was one of the first residents at the Dignity Moves Santa Barbara Street Village. He was referred there by Behavioral Wellness because he had a pacemaker and needed a place to recover and stabilize from his significant heart issues.
At the same time, because he had been in and out of incarceration while growing up on the east side of Santa Barbara City, he also had serious legal issues that were being addressed in the court system. But because he successfully engaged in treatment, was a model resident, and had multiple shelter staff testify under oath on his behalf The judge expunged all of his charges and Francisco did not have to serve any more time in prison.
Today he is successfully housed somewhere in Santa Barbara County, and he says that finally having his own place to live after so many years on the street is heaven sent. So now I turn it over to Kimberly Alberts to give more specifics on the Community Action Plan.
3:07 – 3:226 turns
Good afternoon, Chair Lavagnino and members of the board. It has been three years since the Community Action Plan to address homelessness was approved and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. In the packet you'll find a three-year progress report that describes in more detail many of the projects and steps forward. The Community Action Plan includes a detailed work plan that the Homeless Assistance Programs team uses to guide our work on a daily basis as we administer funding and the system of care.
There are five strategies outlined in the plan, and I have the privilege today of highlighting the key progress for each of those strategies. Next slide. More housing, as Joe talked about. Increasing access to safe and affordable housing is truly the focus of the plan and where measurable progress can be shared. There has been a 35% increase in housing inventory dedicated to homelessness since 2021 Permanent housing inventory has increased by 496 units through development of new units and securing new long-term rental subsidies paired with services.
Interim housing was expanded and enhanced by 330 new beds being created which includes the recently opened Hope Village and La Posada opening next week. The pool of funding available has increased by $134 million in new programs, sources and competitive awards. And our amazing providers have developed partnerships with 531 new landlords to secure housing in the private rental market through tenant-based rental assistance.
Next slide. We must meet individual needs. Expanding supportive services to ensure we can meet the needs of individuals experiencing homelessness in our community is the second strategy. It is not an overstatement to say we are changing the way that services are delivered, as many supportive services are now billable to Medi-Cal. Just over a year ago, no one in our system was receiving Enhanced Care Management and Medi-Cal funded Housing Navigation Services and Tenancy Sustaining Services. Today 931 people active in the Homeless Management Information System are receiving those services We also had great success with the emergency housing voucher program which provided a model for more robust post-housing placement services with an interdisciplinary team and permanently housed over 350 people with a 90% retention rate.
Next slide Having a support system in place to help persons obtain and maintain housing is the third strategy. We are expanding the reach to those experiencing unsheltered homelessness by over 1,000 persons engaged in services Unsheltered persons engaged in services. Encampment resolution efforts that will be highlighted later and in the presentation, and county departments joining together such as Public Health, Behavioral Wellness, the Public Defender, and Community Services to serve persons with the most complex needs are part of that progress.
We have maintained the reduction to veteran homelessness with a 57% reduction since 2020 and in the photo you see a 69 year old local veteran who had been living in encampments before his recent move-in to Buena Tierra. We must continue to build provider capacity. It is one of our most significant challenges in the system of care, an extremely dedicated group of provider agencies many of the names you see here serve persons experiencing homelessness across the county very limited administration funding for oversight low wages burnout and lack of affordable housing for staff make it difficult to sustain the workforce CENCAL Health has invested over $8 million in capacity building funds to prepare providers to build Medi-Cal for supportive services.
New private and philanthropic investments have also been tremendously helpful. For example, the Beleco Foundation has invested in the Farm and Culinary Arts program and interim housing. Good Samaritan is the largest shelter and provider of services to persons experiencing homelessness in Santa Barbara County. Private investment by the Vallejo Foundation allowed Good Samaritan to lease the land from the county around the Bridge House Shelter and establish a farm with fruit and vegetables The produce is then moved to the commercial kitchen in Santa Maria on the Morrison Avenue campus. There, the in-house chef train shelter residents and prepare meals for not only the residents at the Morrison Avenue campus but nearby Hope Village.
A commercial kitchen is under construction at Hedges House of Hope to replicate that model in South County. Bridge house farm produce and culinary arts training programs will feed the residents at Hedge's House of Hope, La Posada, and the Santa Barbara Street Village. This provides valuable savings and efficiency on meals across a number of our local shelters.
Once these projects are working and established, Good Samaritan intends to grow the farm and culinary program into a social venture of food trucks providing catering and meals for sale to the public. This will provide jobs to persons residing in the shelters as they prepare for permanent housing and it has been encouraging for some of us to see Good Samaritan and Chef Michael catering the recent grand openings We've also seen expansion of the Homeless Assistance Program team through state and federal funding, which is making significant improvements to the system of care by improving access and outcomes.
Collective action is critical in this work. The adopted community action plan by the board, the continuum of care and most local cities creates a roadmap for us all to follow together toward the same goals. 45 organizations are now part of the homeless management information system with 96% of active participants with assigned release of information to allow coordination of their care.
A community interactive dashboard is accessible to the public and stakeholders. The Continuum of Care established the Youth Action Board in 2019. A youth action board meets weekly to create community among youth with similar experiences, provide feedback to the continuum of care, plan community outreach events and support for youth with lived experience at events like the one pictured here at the University of California Santa Barbara.
The Youth Action Board was instrumental in achieving an award of $5.3 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program. As a youth homeless demonstration program community, youth drafted a coordinated plan to address youth homelessness in Santa Barbara County and direct youth-specific funds to projects that best meet the needs of people ages 18 to 24.
The Youth Action Board and Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program team elevate youth voices and needs to augment the existing community action plan, the homeless response system, and the youth point in time count. The progress across all five We'll now transition to Lucille Boss for the two-year encampment resolution strategy report, and I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank her for all her efforts to resolve encampments across Santa Barbara County as she transitions to the interim housing and grants program manager at Housing and Community Development. Lucille.
Thank you, Kimberly. Good afternoon Chair Lavanino and board as you heard a moment ago the community action plan called for strengthening the regional support system to obtain and maintain housing. A key action of this strategy was to create a coordinated encampment response The board approved encampment resolution strategy and response protocols protocol relies on an effective system of care that can ultimately provide shelter, housing, and services to meet the needs of persons experiencing homelessness.
It is a three-year effort 2021 to 2024 with the initial goal of resolving 45 encampments of varying size and impact on county owned or county controlled property The collective efforts to resolve encampments among county, cities, Caltrans and railroad partners from 2021-2023 resulted in removal or clearing of approximately 700 active encampments. This includes 321 led by county efforts, 226 of which were on county controlled property. In South County 169 sites including Montecito Beaches, unincorporated area creeks and open spaces and Isla Vista.
In Mid-County 20 sites in the San Ynez Riverbed near Lompoc. And in North County 37 sites in the Santa Maria Riverbed. The metrics in the written report accompanying this board letter specify physical encampment sites and the performance measures detail client successes, persons moving into shelter or housing. Of the persons residing in their removed or cleared encampments, 289 have relocated to shelter or housing. 143 have been permanently housed and 146 relocated to interim housing or emergency shelter. And there has been a 13% decrease in calls for service for county fire.
These efforts and results were funded by American Rescue Plan Act in state and local recovery funds, and California Encampment Resolution Funding Program. Beginning in year two of the strategy the contracted sanitation services provider Quick Response carefully tracked waste removal. Year two totals removed from encampment sites include over 70 tons of waste nearly five pounds of needles 145 pounds of biohazard waste and 73 propane tanks The county's established protocol and $1.9 million investment was leveraged to acquire, a correction here, $16.52 million in competitive funding with last week's announcement which has expanded robust outreach as you'll see on the next slide.
The first touchpoint with encampments is often through engagement with outreach teams. A person-centered approach of targeted outreach to specific populations, encampments near waterways, grouping of vehicles has provided an increase in program enrollment since August 31st 2021 902 people have enrolled in services through one of the encampment outreach teams This has led to an increased rate of movement into shelter and housing. As reflected again in the performance measures in the written report, more people are moving into shelter and housing because expanded outreach teams have capacity to navigate service and housing plans with clients.
The goals and performance measures set forth in the encampment resolution strategy are intended to improve the safety and cleanliness of streets and open spaces Meet the housing, shelter and service referral needs. Improve the medical and behavioral health. and deliver coordinated services to effectively address and resolve encampments by developing efficient means to manage calls for service and prioritize resources, and effectively share information and coordinate resources countywide.
You'll see specific successes and challenges on the slide and in the written report. The third year of strategy implementation presents many opportunities including deployment of a new outreach team focused on behavioral and physical health funded by state funding Permanent housing in Goleta, Buenos Aires which will end homelessness for a number of people who were previously in encampments.
Interim housing and Santa Maria Hope Village which has transitioned dozens of people from nearby encampments indoors and on a pathway to permanent housing. And interim housing in the unincorporated area of South Santa Barbara County La Posada which next week will resolve large a large encampment dangerously near railroad and creeks by moving people into a safe secure healthy community As people move from interim housing into permanent housing, more people will move from unsheltered homelessness or encampments into interim housing beds or cabins. The community witnessed this type of shift in August 2023 when a large group of people moved from Dignity Move Santa Barbara Street Village, interim housing, and to Vera Cruz Village, permanent affordable housing in Santa Barbara and in early 2024 when people moved from encampments into Buena Tierra and Goleta.
This calendar year 2024 will be one for the record books The incredible outreach, shelter and housing retention teams cannot be thanked enough for their dedication to this work. I'll turn it back to Joe.
So we know how to end homelessness and we know the actions required to do so. We do it by increasing the combined availability of attainable housing and effective services. Now how do we make this happen? By increasing the availability of affordable housing and increasing our support to the hardworking outreach teams, case managers and everyone involved in the service provider workforce.
Next slide. So Mr Chairman members of the board thank you for your time today we look forward to your questions guidance and your response to our recommended actions And now for final comments I turn it over to Director Armas.
In closing we hope that the information presented today demonstrates that when we address homelessness comprehensively and authentically with clear focus and compassion, we can make a difference. Allow me to share a case in point. There we go. In May of 2023, Jeanette Redlass her husband and their six children face a daunting reality of homelessness alternating between living in their car and the living room at a close friend's house as well as navigating the Good Sam Emergency Shelter and later the Family Transitional Shelter Then in October of 2023, Jeanette was paired with a dedicated case manager who worked diligently with her to find permanent housing.
Their efforts yielded success when in February of 2024 the family successfully moved into a four-bedroom apartment. The family could not be happier and more grateful living and enjoying a place they finally call home. As the slide indicates, helping families like the Reles is why we do what we do. Staff is available to respond to questions. Is there any public
comment on this matter?
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, we have no request to speak from the public on this item.
3:22 – 3:275 turns
Bring it to the board. Supervisor Williams. Well I just think that the work being done is amazing. The dedication of the staff is where it starts, the political will by the institution and this board and by our partners in many of the cities. City councils have also chipped in funds and helped. But you know, it feels like we are making great progress. And to some neighborhoods I can tell you they notice the difference right? You know all of the changes are sometimes uneven right and many neighborhoods that in my district noticed a decrease of homelessness in the last few years The problem of course is daunting in the state of the rental market.
It's not a surprise that we still have more people entering homelessness and that, you know, we face the tough task of figuring out a way to outpace the failure of the private housing market as well as the other factors that go into homelessness But I am sure if we can sustain that political will, that we can make great progress. If not eliminating homelessness, I know that we can dramatically reduce it because the...I think it's not always known by everybody but I think this work shows the amount of people that are willing to come out of the camps, the amount of people that are willing to access services While not everybody would accept a normal life in permanent housing, most homeless individuals would. And definitely we have not even gotten close to running out of people who are willing to be sheltered or housed.
I but I also want to bring up that just the importance of analysis of what our programs are working the most. And because they're you know in the context of the statewide picture there is understandably going to be more scrutiny of that And I want this effort to really be bulletproof, and also be introspective enough to know like okay we know that 98% of the stuff is working. The 2% that's not working what do we do about that right? And I think that level of analysis is really important looking into the future and making sure that this is sustainable into the future.
Thank you. Congratulations on the $8 million. That's pretty exciting and helps with the daunting prospect before us. Supervisor Williams and I were in Sacramento last week, and a few state leaders commented on they know what we're doing here as you well know, and the success certainly with our partnership with Dignity Moves and Good Sam but also Encampments.
I just wanted to ask, you had the charts up there so i just want to make sure I understand because I know I have this number ingrained in my head of 563 beds. Given the uptick with our point-in-time count does that change that number at all or is 563 still on track?
So the 563 was built based on the 2019 GAPS analysis, but I think we still feel like it's very reflective of what we need and that we certainly wouldn't want to adjust it until we see how effective we can be. Sometimes we think of oh there's 2,119 people and you're saying 563 beds and that doesn't make sense. But right most of our beds turn over about three times a year so making sure we're continuing that throughput yeah right will be part of seeing if that 563 will hold but yes that is absolutely still the goal and As we inch closer to it right, we're at 330 of those 563. We're already I think going to see with the additional 174 that are coming online now a tremendous impact so we'll continue to evaluate. We do redo the gaps analysis every year and it would show some changes but we have stuck with that number because we still feel like um we want to continue to strive also for shelter flow.
And I calculated this before the La Posada Opening we're 58% there. So that's pretty good still a ways to go, but can you maybe this is a little too much to Analyze at this point, but we're all tracking this This Oregon case before the Supreme Court Are you able to just give us share any thoughts you have of how that could change our work here or is it too early?
I think it's still early and we're trying to assess whether in fact it will have an impact. So until it evolves to a further state, of course the opinion is rendered, we're hesitant to indicate what the ramifications will be.
3:28 – 3:347 turns
Again, I think it just bears repeating because I love that family you showed at the end who is now housed and this is a tough place to live. It's to me and so many experts first and foremost a housing issue. We've just seen rents and real estate go up 35% in the last few years. Wages still staying about the same. Yeah, I appreciate the way that you presented this information. Of course we wish we saw the numbers go way down.
We all wish that and that's what you all are working on every day. So many people are as well but it but but this fits the national trend when housing prices go up there's more homeless and so many people in our community in fact Chair Lavagnino and I were at a United Way event, and that number is also seared in my brain of 42% of our county do not make a livable wage. And housing is the main driver of that so it's just bears repeating that so many of us, so many neighbors are just one paycheck away from being homeless. That's why we see 200 and so more this year than we did last year.
Just reminds us of all the work you have to do. Thank you.
Thank you. Supervisor Hartman?
Well first of all, I just think the quality of your PowerPoint presentation was really superb. You've upped the game for other departments I think and I particularly am drawn to more than a point in time, the title of that And I think this is the first public presentation of this year's point in time results. And with the 12% increase, I wonder if you can help us understand this in perhaps a wider state context or benchmark counties because I think when you lay it all out, it sounds good. But we've done so much and we're losing on it that gap those lines on slide four is widening. So help us Help me when I talk to people, how should I explain that indeed we're really making progress given this? And how can you frame it in your own outreach on the point in time so that we don't feel discouraged.
Let me start and then others who have more experience can expand but one of the important elements is the slide early on that indicated So it's important to understand that while the challenge remains, and it's a difficult one. We've made some significant progress in 14 new people last year. And so it's important to begin with that. And as I believe the Deputy Director indicated, the point in time is a snapshot. One could take it another day and find a different result. And so it's important to remind our residents and our constituents that looking at it as a snapshot is just that, a snapshot, it guides us, it can help us but it's important to look at it comprehensively And then, as was indicated earlier, if we carefully examine and consider the data, we can help guide where we make the investments and how we can direct those dollars to produce the most beneficial results.
So I think if we tell that kind of story, as well as, of course, try to humanize it, we make some progress. And that's why we wanted to share the story about that family that we concluded a presentation with.
And also on my part, just to reiterate the slide that had the two you know the orange line and the blue line. I mean I look at it as you know that's kind of a holistic picture of what we're trying to do and we at CSD our job is to look at the folks that are about to become homeless or already experiencing homelessness and get them back into a better situation I think we also have to emphasize that the safety net as we call it, you know then the network of social services either through our Department of Social Services and what we're doing in HCD.
We just you know, just sort of like the fireman when they were carrying that net and somebody's about to jump out of a building. I mean we need to make that net a little bigger and we got to make sure in the right place on moving forward otherwise the inflow into homelessness is going to grow to the point where Even 1,400 people won't make a dent. So that's the part that we have to work on as a community. Is that blue line?
And I was just going to add some state context. We don't have most communities 2024 data yet. We're one of the early releasers. Ventura did release, and you might have heard that I think about the same day we did and they did show a 3% reduction between 23 and 24 but had shown a 37 percent increase between 2020 and 2023 so if you look at all of the Southern California continuum of cares we are one of only three that between 2020 and 2023 actually had a reduction And so this is our first, right? Our 12% is disheartening.
You know we really wish some of those beds had opened you know we had a lot of beds we thought would be open before the point in time count and they weren't. So for instance like said Ventura they're having the 3% increase between 23 and 24 but their increase between 2020 and 2023 was 37%. So we still feel like when you look, compare us across communities given our and we have one of the most expensive housing markets. We're still thinking that even with 2024 data will still be trending in the on the low end of what other Southern California communities are seeing.
And I think most everyone knows, we repeatedly get questions from other Southern California communities to speak and share some of the things that we're doing because people are aware of some of our successes in permanent housing as well as the interim housing model and now the increase in the CalAIM funded services so quickly over time.
Take your mics off. Sorry, I
3:34 – 3:436 turns
just wanted to echo what Supervisor Williams said with the LAO's report of their accountability will be important. I may be reading something into it but that $8 million seems to me a vote of confidence in our system and that we're doing well. But I wonder if you at some point would Have hypotheses about which programs you think are the most effective or will be, like you mentioned enhanced care management.
I think it's always nice to have a hypothesis and then kind of test and see well did that turn out as well or why not? And so I don't know whether you're thinking in those terms, but I believe the state will be and for us to be able to frame things that way. The relative success or with different communities and then the final point I wanted to make It's just the phrase continuum of shelter. I think that's really important, that there's throughput. That we don't need to build temporary shelters for the 2,000 plus people.
We need to get the permanent housing to put them through and that's heartening. So about the hypothesis if anybody could talk to me about that?
I was going to say, I think we know for the chronically homeless that permanent supportive housing is our most effective intervention. Study after study there might be 200 now that state that but it's also our most expensive intervention because often we have to build the units or Have those long-term rental subsidies paired with services. Not everyone needs it, I think one of the reasons we are so excited about the eight million dollar grant is it's serving a population that we believe can go into private market rental units with medium term rental assistance right? So the eight million dollars comes with three million dollars in rental assistance to actually transition someone from their vehicle to the apartment And we don't believe they need a lifelong subsidy like in Permanent Supportive Housing.
So I think part of it is making sure we get the right intervention to the right group and we do a lot of analysis seeing what's working there, but definitely for some of the hardest-to-serve which is a lot of the folks on our street today. We've housed, I think often you'll hear cities and service providers say we've housed a lot of the sort of easier-to house, those left on our streets are some of the hardest-to serve And so we will need more permanent supportive housing, which is one of the reasons we're so encouraged to have the 321 units under development now that will come online to help support these 174 interim cabins. Right? So
in a follow up on that too I think I mean in a larger sense I think that it is difficult Identify one program that's going to have the long-term cookie cutter solution to these things as our society evolves, right? And the reasons for homelessness changes over time. We may see our justice pathways adjust themselves to deal with it along as well as our behavioral wellness pathways dealing with those types of issues and that's going to affect how we address it at CSD so I think they're really the best way to do it is just to keep your hand on the pulse and understand what's happening and adjust your strategy As you move forward, depending on how the folks to your left and your right in your own county are addressing the same issues. Then we adjust as well until we make it better.
And I think what your question underscores is not to be reticent about testing how we're proceeding. It may be that what we are implementing is deemed the best but it may benefit from some revisions and we should not be reticent about examining our assumptions going in.
Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Lavanino. And I you know obviously a big problem and my approach this has always been to take it bite at a time especially the bite on the unsheltered and those that are living outdoors has been something that I've Been a kind of a passion area for me for quite some time. And like the rest of us, I'm disappointed to see the numbers across the board go up but I'm hopeful that some of the work that we've done within cabinet resolutions is reflected in the numbers that the unsheltered population living outdoors was our smallest increase right? We had only 5% go up in that category versus 16 that are living in vehicles and those that are in shelters and maybe I'm just going to, my hypothesis here is maybe it's resolving those.
We're seeing that kind of go through the snake there where that percentage is kind of going you know the transition from outdoors to vehicle to shelter along along the way so I think that's I'm hoping that's what we're seeing there and I'm trying to draw some conclusions because um you know these things are discouraging and you know Supervisor Williams talked about um you know the political will And you know with numbers like this it's going to wane right when it goes up after we spent so much resource so many resources here.
The public is going to come back to us and go guys you know seems like the more money you spend, the more homelessness we get. You know go back to slide four. That's that's prime example for those that say if you build it they will come. We spent more money. We've got more resources. And our numbers have gone up to the highest number ever. And so I just want to, you know, alert us that we really need to start to try to bring those. You know, we're always trying to bring those numbers down, but we really got to make a concerted effort to show a proof of concept here. You know, you can we can talk a good game. We could spend some money until those numbers come down. That's really the proof in the pudding that I think that the public are going to put our feet feet to the fire ultimately.
And I do believe with La Posada and Hope Village that next year these numbers will go down. I mean, I think that they're finally in place. We finally have the tool there. And that actually feeds in a little bit into Supervisor Capp's question about grants pass. The vision that I've always had for some of these projects was that we needed to be kind of Boise compliant with our enforcement and our community where we needed to make sure that we were complying The 9th Circuit ruling on enforcement of those that are living outside. And so we were trying to build a system that would be complying with that. That's why you have this now, a large amount of bridge housing.
So I actually get another one of my hypotheses. The grants passed decision should have no effect on what we're doing in this county because we're already prepared, because we've been building that bridge housing to do that. That said um we're still missing that piece on the enforcement on making sure that we have some type of camping ordinance in place in our county it's something I'm still interested in exploring. I know we recently had or a couple months ago at the elected leaders forum we had some presentations by Grover Beach and by Goleta on what they're doing To try to encourage those who are living outdoors to go ahead and you know move towards another solution.
The best way to prevent encampments is never let them start in the first place, and we never let them start in the first place if we don't allow them to start in the first place so you know we're putting a lot of resources there and I do think that we need to come in behind their And do something in that space moving forward, because I think that we can clean up as much as we want. But if they just fill in right behind us it's a big waste of taxpayer resources.
Where we're at now two thirds maybe it's up to 90% when we try to clean accountants we offer them housing and they say no. And that's because they can go move somewhere else. We need to change that by partly putting some levels of enforcement in place so that isn't an option just, you know, to say no to us when we clean those encampments. So I know that's not the topic today but I do think it's a topic I'd like to see our board tackle in the coming months here and even if that's me bringing something to the board to discuss with all of you what's been successful in other jurisdictions And I don't want to do in a way that just because grant pass with the Supreme Court takes that up, that they're ruling. I want to do it in the way that Santa Barbara County has been tackling this all along because we've put the measures in place and we definitely have it now with La Posada and Hope Village to be able to do it in a humane way.
Grover Beach City Manager when he talked about this he said it's compassion with order And that's what we want. And the order part has been not there for a long time and I really think that we should be doing our part to make sure that there's order out there so that we can deliver the compassion that we've invested in to this point.
3:43 – 3:5113 turns
All good comments. First off, I want to go back to C3H and I think we got to give a big shout out to Supervisor Farr and Chuck Flax, Jeff Schaefer. I remember when we got $50,000 to attack homelessness in Santa Barbara County, We're like, all right, everybody's in. So we've come a long way. I mean there's a lot of progress. The fact that 96% of people have signed a release so that we can follow where they're going? That number used to be zero. So one department had no clue what the other department was doing. So if the person went to B-Well, nobody in public health or anywhere else knew what was going on. So that's huge.
But really, and then I think something I'm not sure was brought up in this one but I noticed in the report that even though a lot of the numbers are going up veteran homelessness is down almost 60%. So that's awesome. But I don't get too caught up in the numbers because they do get really discouraging if they don't go down and you're putting all this energy in. But we gotta realize something, we do not control, the only way you can do corrective action is you have to attack the root cause of a problem.
And we don't control the root cause. So we're dealt with all these folks that society because of all these huge societal issues that we don''t control We're on the end of it, of the conveyor belt. We're Lucille Ball with all that stuff coming at you and you're trying to figure it out. But to me, I've gone through over my time on this board of being committed to it and then getting discouraged and getting committed to it, being discouraged. I think we're at a point now where there's so much progress, there's so much focus on it.
The numbers don't affect me that much because I do feel that I can see it. I can see the progress being made. But what Bob's talking about, and it's very important is public perception. And the public in North County as long as we have the Santa Maria Riverbed kind of looking like it is They don't see, they don't think we're doing anything. And so I really need to...I'm gonna dig deeper on my end and I think we actually need to put together some sort of working group.
I don't know what's in existence right now but whatever it is as much efforts going into it We gotta do more. And I don't know if that's bringing San Luis Obispo County on board, getting Bob and I on some kind of a committee with almost like what happened in Lompoc where you bring in the public defender and be well and social services and all those things cost money, I know but we can't drive over that bridge and have that face all of our community every day You know, Hope Village is doing a good job.
It's just a total disconnect to them. They're like so what? Look what's over there. And so I know you're inundated with a lot of other things but that has to be we've got to come up with a strategy Either doesn't allow that. I mean, I can't imagine the funny thing is I have people coming to me and say if I try to go in the riverbed and ride a motorcycle or do something, I'm going to get arrested but these guys can have they've got gates and doors and mayors and we've got a whole community out there. And I'm offering myself and my services and we had to figure out not today but we need to meet and figure out a different way to do it because what we're doing right now is not successful and it needs to be so
We would be happy to prepare some information for both you and Supervisor Nelson just to update you on what's going on in the north part, and then we can discuss subsequent steps after that.
Perfect.
Yeah, I'd like to add to that discussion for a moment. There is actually a lot going on right now. We got that waterway encampment dollars. I think it was $6 million countywide which I believe two-thirds of that is devoted to the Santa Maria River.
Half. Take 60.
Yeah, I'll take 3 million. So so there's a lot of money going to it. I get I think what you're seeing Supervisor Levin you know is that it's taken a while to get that thing going. I think there there's been a lot of delays and then with Hope Village like we see, we haven't seen the impacts yet but i do think community services have put a lot into that and um it'd be great to you know get us both tied into there a little bit more so we can be able to answer those questions in the future but I do understand we're getting close to potentially resolving some of those encampments there in the area and again for the public I know it's not well known by everybody, but that's in San Luis Obispo County. You know the levy on the south side is the border more or less and so all of that is in Slough County.
I actually had a conversation with the Slough County Supervisor they didn't know That I was in slow county said you know it goes down the middle right now I know it's all yours buddy so. Anyway, so we work through that now he knows where his district starts and begins which is a good thing because we need their engagement you know at the end of the day we're not this is what happened in Lompoc where the Lompoc River bed.
was in the county but it was owned by the city. So we ended up having law and public PD and the Sheriff's Office pointing at each other all the time on whose real jurisdiction is this? We're having that same issue here, and it seems like that's one of these things within homelessness that by hook or by crook these border issues is where this ends up flourishing
It's not by accident.
Not by accident. You know, you see it between Orchid and Santa Maria. That's where homeless typically will go because they'll go from one side of the street to the other and play that game. And that's why the coordination. That's why the work that we're doing with the elected leaders forum is really important in all this. So just wanted to
yeah I just think in closing on this for me is that just as much as the community Is you know is hesitant to buy into how much we're doing on homelessness because of what they do see in the riverbed is when we do get that cleaned up. We will have everybody on board and it'll be so I really, I know there's a lot being done out there cause I see the vans parked there. I see people walking into the river bed but We'll work together to come up with some new strategies. All right, cool. Supervisor Williams?
I didn't wanna take much more time but you do love the quips so I was gonna say on this subject matter in particular, I channel my inner Lucille Boss not my inner Lucille Long. Maybe that's why it was in the front of my head there. And there's one of these factors that we can actually control which is land use Right. If we want fewer people slipping into homelessness, you know that's why the housing element and making a victory on the housing element where we have accessible housing Most people in this county possess housing or live in housing that is maybe one, two or three steps below the quality that someone of their same income level would live in another community.
Ultimately, that squeezes out the people that are poorest because the units that would normally be accessible to them are not because they're occupied by middle class folks who have nowhere else to go. So we can make a difference through the housing element.
Right on. Okay so can I get a motion for items A through D please?
I move. Second.
Moved and seconded, let's get our little vote screens on. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Passes unanimously. Do you want to take a five-minute break before we've got no you want to roll okay by now but we haven't we have interpreters we have other things who get it you're good okay we're good we'll move on to departmental item number four
3:51 – 4:054 turns
Chair Lavinino and members of the board, departmental item number four is from the Planning and Development Department. It is a hearing to consider recommendations regarding a briefing on cannabis odor abatement plan compliance monitoring in Santa Barbara County.
All right take a second for everybody get loaded up. Wow. Glad we built that overflow room.
Good afternoon Mr. Chair, members of the board. We're here today in response to a request that was made by the board back in November of last year to return with information about sort of the successes and challenges that we've had with respect to the cannabis program and more narrowly focused on enforcement with respect to odor. And so we have our team here today. I'd like to introduce them, we have Gwen Baylor who is a Supervising Planner and she oversees the permitting for cannabis. We have Petra Leyva also a Supervising Planner that oversees enforcement and compliance. We have Jeff Wilson here, Assistant Director. We also have Travis Seawards, Deputy for Development Review who oversees the permitting.
We have Brittany Utteron With CEO's office and then we have GeoSentech here, our consultants that have been working with us on compliance in the field. And we have Megan Klein and Kevin Kaufman with GeoSenTech. So with that I'm gonna turn it over to Miss Baylor and she is gonna make the presentation.
Good afternoon Chair and members of the board. My name is Gwen Baylor And during the hearing on November 28th, your board directed the county executive office to work with P&D to return with an update on cannabis odor abatement plan compliance. How operators are moving through the tiers in OAPs staffing and successes and challenges of cannabis odor abatement monitoring.
There are 108 approved cannabis sites Of these, 32 sites are required to implement an OAP with five in the inland area and 27 in the Carpinteria area in the coastal zone. All 27 approved cannabis sites in the Carpinteria area require an OAP and these sites consist of mature and nursery cultivation and greenhouses manufacturing and processing. The inland area sites consist of outdoor cultivation greenhouse nursery cultivation and processing The Land Use and Development Code and Coastal Zoning Ordinance require OAPs to prevent odors from being experienced within residential zones.
OAPs must include a protocol for the operator to respond to complaints, a professional engineer or hygienist must certify that the OAP includes best available control technologies and methods. Per industry standards, fact is determined on a case-by-case basis The codes also require that corrective actions be implemented if P&D receives three verified complaints in one year.
To verify a complaint, the presence of odor at a specific site time and date in a residential zone must be substantiated and the odor source must be determined to be from a particular operation. The five sites in the inland area use vapor phase and aromatic landscaping in cultivation areas, and carbon filtration in processing areas. Two of these OAPs incorporate a tiered response to odor complaints where the final tier results in additional backed installation.
Three of these sites are not currently operating. The 27 sites in the Carpentria area use vapor phase, misting, photocatalytic oxidation and carbon filtration in greenhouses and photocatalytic oxidation and carbon filtration in processing areas. 11 of these OAPs incorporate a tiered response to odor complaints where the final tier results in additional backed installation.
Seven of these sites are not currently operating A private agreement known as the Model OAP was developed between the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis and Carp Growers. The Model OAP outlines a tiered complaint response and corrective actions. P&D does not enforce these private agreements, however 10 cannabis operators incorporated components of this agreement into their OAP.
PND monitors compliance with OAPs including the 10 that have aspects of the Model OAP These levels have not been triggered at any sites Cannabis operations that must implement OAPs are subject to P&D's odor abatement implementation and monitoring condition of approval, which states that the county shall retain a professional engineer or hygienist at the applicant's expense to conduct odor control inspections upon installation and quarterly thereafter for one year.
In November 22, your board authorized a contract between the county and GeoSyntec consultants to provide professional services of cannabis odor monitoring for three years. With P&D, GeoSyntec inspects and monitors cannabis odor control systems and assesses proposed changes. Most recently, GeoSynthet trained staff on how to survey odor using the nasal ranger.
OAP inspections are conducted by P&D and Geosyntec, and these inspections are separate from business license inspections and general compliance inspections. All 23 operations with OAPs that are currently active have been subject to at least one OAP inspection. After each inspection, Geosyntec outlines whether the operation is consistent with the OAP. Geosynthec documents the presence of odor on- and offsite.
All of the sites inspected were operating the odor control systems. In most cases, cannabis operations are consistent with OAPs. In other cases, sites have lacked components of odor control equipment or deviated from the monitoring or maintenance actions. In these instances, P&D follows up to ensure compliance by the next inspection. One notice of violation has been sent and abated after approval of an updated OAP which was reviewed by GeoSyntec.
14 cannabis operations have submitted revised OAPs. Cannabis operators have requested to modify existing odor control technology in response to inspections, to utilize new technology, reduce costs or respond to community demand. Some operators requested to add new technology to comply with an additional condition of approval that required a commitment to use carbon scrubber technology rather than vapor phase.
Odor complaints can be submitted online by phone or email. This chart depicts the number of odor complaints received. Complaints in the coastal zone are shown in orange and complaints in the inland area are shown in blue. The numbers of complaints have decreased since 2021. The decrease may be due to operators installing new technology, or members of the public may have stopped submitting complaints.
When an address is provided in the complaint, P&G contacts the operator to discuss it. This map of the Carpentria area shows where high numbers of complaints are located and these concentrations are depicted as hotspots shown in blue. Cannabis sites are shown with an orange circle. You can see that most complaints are received around the 3500 block of Foothill Road, the 44-4500 block of Foothill Road and the 56-5700 block of Casitas Pass Road P&D has collected preliminary data with odor detection equipment known as a nasal ranger using a method called dilution to threshold or D over T.
The nasal ranger can be used to survey all odor, not just cannabis odor. This table provides a frame of reference for understanding D over T. A reading of two D over t is barely perceptible and seven to 15 D over is noticeable or strong. This is the same map of the Carpentria area from the previous slide, but this also includes the locations of nasal ranger surveys shown by red diamonds.
P&D has surveyed areas where complaints have been received. While collecting D over T data, P&T has observed afternoon odor readings have generally been higher and that odor has not been detected in residential zones with regularity. These observations may be due to temperature, topography, structures or wind which impact how odor travels As stated previously, staff deployed the nasal ranger to gather data in areas with the most numbers of complaints. The highest reading along the 3500 block of Foothill Road is 15D over T.
The highest reading along the 44-4500 block of Foothill Road is 4D over T and the reading along 56-5700 block of Casitas Pass Road is 30D over T. That's the highest reading. Overall, readings at these surveyed locations mostly ranged between zero and four G over T. Here's a breakdown of staffing in P&D. Development review processes cannabis applications and revisions to OAPs.
Enforcement and compliance reviews compliance with cannabis permits and coordinates with GeoSyntec and monitors and investigates complaints. Building and safety processes building permits for cannabis structures and odor control equipment. Photocatalytic oxidizers and carbon scrubber technology require a 480-volt power supply from Southern California Edison.
Facilities that currently only have a 120 or 240 volt power supply would need to coordinate upgrades with SCE. Where 480 volt service is possible, SCE will need to install upgraded transformers and service drops with the cost charged to the operator running potentially around $50,000 in addition to onsite power infrastructure upgrades. It is unclear what level of power supply is available to each cannabis site, whether SCE infrastructure can accommodate this demand and what upgrades would be required to distribute 480 volt service.
Successes of this OAP monitoring program include that all the sites were operating odor abatement systems during inspections. Cannabis operators are adjusting operations and revising OAPs to increase efficiencies and correct deviations. Odor data is being collected to assist with data-driven decisions related to odor detection and effectiveness of odor abatement systems.
Formerly legal non-conforming sites have approved entitlements, and P&D has initiated monitoring of these odor abatement systems. The code requires BACT and allows the county to require corrective actions such as additional or new BACT. Challenges of monitoring and compliance include that private agreements are separate from county regulations, tiered responses have not been triggered Operators are resistant to install new technologies due to cost, lack of electrical capacity and possible appeals.
Staff is unable to verify odor complaints. It is difficult to identify the particular source of odor and it is a challenge to enforce the residential zone threshold. Key issues that the county can Key issues are that the county can currently require modifications to odor control technology when an operation creates odor in a residential zone if three verified complaints are received.
However, it is difficult to verify complaints. The current threshold is difficult to enforce and another standard or threshold such as one that may include the use of D over T would assist with enforcement and potential upgrades to odor control technology. Your board could take the following steps, which include studying the power supply in the Carpinteria area, amending the codes to require use of a specific odor control technology where appropriate and require quarterly OAP inspections during the first year of operation and annual OAP inspections thereafter.
Research the feasibility of a threshold to determine compliance with OAPs and identify when corrective actions are appropriate. And if a specific technology is identified, staff recommends additional research of existing odor control technologies. These steps will require additional funding and assistance from a consultant such as Geosyntec. Now Megan Klein, who's the senior principal at GeoSyntec is here today and is also going to share some reflections and information from their experience working with P&D so far.
4:05 – 4:128 turns
Is that on? Can you hear me OK? Chairman and Supervisors, thank you for having me. I'm Megan Klein from Geosyntec. It's nice to be here. I have three key reflections to share with you today. The first is on operators engagement and our time working with them in the field. The second is related to our site assessments and visits to their operations. And the third is challenges that we've noted during these visits and as the program has unfolded.
So first I'd like to say that the operators have prepared OAPs and are absolutely working towards compliance. I'll note that initially operators were hesitant to work with Geosyntec as they were unclear on our purpose for these site visits, however they have since relaxed in that hesitance and they realize that we are there to support the county and them in reaching compliance and mitigating odors for themselves and their residents And I will say that for most of these operators, this is a learning curve. None of them have been responsible to operate maintain or monitor these types of equipment before and they are in earnest doing their best to become compliant My second point about site assessments and visits is that the operations are typically compliant with their OAPs.
And I say that to say that there are sometimes minor inconsistencies identified, however many of them have been related to additional equipment or additional efforts in the field that are not listed in an OAP meaning they've taken some additional steps to mitigate odors and we have then Identify that they are partially compliant or non-compliant and recommending that their OEPs are actually modified to reflect the additional equipment that we view on site.
During site visits where we have noticed odors, we are happy to say that follow up visits have showed that odors in those locations have been mitigated or at least reduced so there is some evidence that they are taking efforts to be compliant. Other observations related to their OAP technologies are that depending on the site specifics, they are effective at mitigating owners and sometimes they are not. Again like Gwen mentioned it can relate to their location within the coastal zone, wind and other meteorological phenomenon.
Detailed site assessment visit summaries are documenting those field observations we provide those to P&D staff then they provide those to the operators. We don't provide the assessment findings to the operators directly. The third item I wanted to highlight are the challenges noted. Site assessments are typically pre-planned and scheduled, supporting OAP compliance at the time of those visits.
There may be some benefit in unannounced or unplanned site visits to confirm that compliance is happening when we're not there, when it's not planned. Another low cost or low effort opportunity to achieve the same goal instead of having people visit unannounced. There are tools of the trade, they're essentially machine electricity or runtime hours that can be installed on the equipment to measure their run time and uptime to make sure they are operating these systems and complying with their OAPs.
Another note regarding challenges is that the current ordinance lacks point of compliance specificity. Gwen mentioned this in some of her notes here, that establishing a point of compliance at the right-of-way or the boundary of the zoned area where cannabis can be cultivated and or at the boundary of the residence may be more clear in terms of where noncompliance is occurring Additionally, an odor threshold value like Gwen mentioned could be very helpful to note at that point of compliance whether or not there's actually odors being detected above a threshold that would be established.
Selection of the correct odor measurement and analytical methods is also important. We are using the nasal ranger by our team, and then also we've trained the county how to use the nasal ranger. However it is a qualitative tool. It is not an analytical tool. And so analytical testing could also be something that's explored by the board and others to determine whether those threshold values in those points of compliance are exceeded.
Another note is that the naming convention and terminology used for some of these technologies seem to be used interchangeably, where that's not always correct. Public perception of carbon scrubbers or carbon filters are often interchanged for different types of technologies. There are benefits but also limitations in defining technologies in your ordinance It's not to suggest that specific technology should be the only ones used, because there could be new technologies that come to market that could be very effective at odor mitigation. However, definition and specificity of what people mean when they're writing things in their OAPs may be helpful to the board and to the public to understand what's really going on.
Additionally about the electrical capacity, we've experienced in the field talking to operators and then also discussing the different technologies or observations about technologies that work. That there may be electrical capacity concerns or limitations so if there is a desire to use a specific type of technology note that there are limitations related to electrical and that may need to be studied.
I think that's all I have for today.
Thank you.
Thank you, Megan and this concludes staff's presentation. P&D staff are here as well as staff from the CEO and GeoSyntec is here as well to answer questions. Thank you.
Okay start with Supervisor Nelson.
Yes thank you Chair Labenino. I guess my question about verified complaints in that being a challenge so are we able to verify any complaints? Have we verified complaints At this
point. Supervisor Nelson through the chair, so we have had a great deal of challenge verifying them and causing people to move through the tiered system to increase their technology or change their technology and that's because Usually what happens is we get a notification about the odor being detected in a particular area. We often don't get an address, so by the time we get out there, the odor circumstances have changed, winds may have picked up.
So we have not put anybody through that three-tiered system yet. We haven't had three verified complaints for any of those facilities.
Can you help me with maybe a number of how many verified complaints we have had?
I'm going to turn that over to Petra Leiva to see if we have any.
4:12 – 4:2229 turns
Supervisor Nielsen, we have not as Director Plumman has said I cannot verify the source of the odor based on you know growers being next to each other when as Supervisor.
I think I knew that answer I was actually just trying to bubble that up but there has been no verified complaints yeah
and I think While there are aspects of the ordinance that are good and could be effective, the tool that we have to verify the complaints is a problem. The detection in a residential zone and so we have suggested here that the creation of another tool would allow us to be more specific in areas where we have Persistent odor complaints, like as you saw on the map we've got three areas in the Carpinteria Valley that have persist. That's where we get most of the notifications that odors being smelled or where we're finding it when we're in the field and so if with another tool I think we could push people through those tiers more effectively
Did these thresholds and tools come from the board or those planning's tools?
So that would be something that the board would direct us to look into today in working with GeoCentec, that we would establish something like a D over T threshold. maybe for an area, like okay we have persistent odor in this area along the 192 and we could, and this is all preliminary of course. This is just an idea so we could create an area where we're finding those odor complaints and if we have this threshold that's get triggered more than a certain number of times let's say three times then we can then we could in theory ask all of the growers in that area to go through that tiered system.
Because what we find is it's hard to tell, like we said from one grower to the next who is emitting it and they all feel like they're complying and so they're thinking well it must be my neighbor that's doing it and so we think if we could group them together in an area and use a different threshold we'd be more effective.
But the thresholds we have now are department generated right? I mean the board actually never gave thresholds to begin with
You know what I can't answer that with any we don't have a threshold. We just have a specific requirement that says if it's detected in a residential zone, that is the tool that we have and I don't know where that came from because I wasn't here in the original drafting but that was part of the code that got adopted by the board.
But then you guys have developed tools to try to figure that out
Right, we've been working with GM Sudtec to try and figure out how to make that work but it hasn't.
Hasn't worked?
It hasn't worked
the way it is now. Does it actually need board action or is that something you guys could do internal to your office?
I think it would need board action to amend the code because the code specifically identifies if odor is detected in a residential zone so we would want to change that Or you keep that, I'd have to think about it. But we would wanna add something to the code that says this is what our threshold's going to be.
Yeah, I'll just kinda leave with just a comment as we further go into this discussion. I think this really highlights the challenges that if there's been no cases and verified complaints that this isn't working. And so I mean I know that's jumping right to the punchline but yeah thank you.
Supervisor Caput?
Yeah, along those lines. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Chair.
Neighbors complaining yet we can't really verify complaints and the onus is on them. And there's been 3000 yet. Help me figure this out. There's only been one notice of violation in six years that was in the report. Is that correct? Supervisor Caps, that is correct. Okay so with all these 3,000 people the report states that they may have stopped complaining because of it's better or it may be because it's falling on deaf ears and they've given up hope.
Have we asked them? I know you get contact information when someone complains. Have we been in touch with anybody?
No I have not because most of the complaints are actually filed anonymous so there is no contact. I've had conversations with some reporting parties but No solution so far. I just
think in preparation, because this report has been in the works for several months it would have been, I believe helpful for us to know is it getting better from the folks that have been writing to us and complaining and so forth? So no contact?
No but I get mixed information some people who live in Carpentaria believe it's getting better others who live in Carpenteria say
it's still the same Okay, again I just double down on the fact that if our system is complaint-based we can't verify the complaints. We're not in touch with the people that are complaining then we're trying to make up policy here not based on a lot of real facts so that's question number one. Question number two relates to finances because the report also says a few places that it's too expensive for operators To put in scrubbers or to upgrade their electrical, according to who
is it too expensive? So Supervisor Caps through the chair. express concerns about their ability to pay for it because the different technologies are different prices. I think the Infiniti scrubber is one of the more expensive ones, so they've expressed a concern about it. It's impossible for us to verify that whether or not they can or can't afford it but we are reflecting what we've been hearing.
Sure, that reflection isn't clear in here. It's sort of it's the county saying it's too expensive and a couple places so I just question that because it made me think as a taxpayer you know is it our job to determine the fiscal health of a business to be able to seismically upgrade or Take you know, be a good neighbor. I just question our this thesis that's part of the recommendation to not study this further is sort of that it's too expensive because again that's subjective. That's
yeah. So I, Supervisor Caps through the chair. I would say that we're not saying that the board should or shouldn't do anything what we're saying is just giving you information that we have and so that's information that's been shared with us but that's not to say that the board couldn't direct that they changed the technology and that we change the code for the way it reads But we suggest that in some cases it might be worth looking into a few things like whether or not what the cost is for the power supply. And there's been kind of a push and pull here with cannabis, right?
Initially, cannabis was providing a substantial amount of money to the county for other types of things like libraries and recreation and all kinds of things. And so there has been this ongoing question about the financial feasibility of these operations going forward. So we felt it was important to share with the board what we had been hearing. Like I said, we're not making a recommendation based on that But we are saying that it may be a factor that the board wants to think about.
Well, thanks for clarifying because the board letter page 13 does state these upgrades may be financially and physically prohibitive but okay I just I take issue with that and sort of this is existentially is that our role to be sort of saying what a business can afford to do and not afford to do? So if you're saying you're not making that assessment helpful because again I wouldn't agree that that's, I mean we also haven't gotten into the how much it you know 90% of the appeals are based on odor so litigation is a cost.
Are we assessing their litigation costs versus our litigation? I mean it's it's a slip if we're going down a road if we start saying who can afford what right but our job is to taxpayers and what they can afford so Anyway, thanks for stating that that's not your assessment. That's their assessment. Okay and then I just again with the power because that was highlighted in several places that, have we talked to SCE?
Have we worked with SCE because again they're sort of like it may be, they may require I mean I've reached out to SCE. I just was curious if your team has worked with SCE?
Yes we have Supervisor Capps so they- We have spoken with them and basically what they've said is it's hard for them to know exactly What is going to be required until they get applications in. They need applications from the growers to be submitted so they can determine where the upgrades would be needed and how they would be conducted, and they have said that those upgrades can take one to two years.
And some of the cost of that is borne by the applicants so they may have to upgrade Some facilities that are adjacent to their property, and then of course then they have to upgrade their internal facilities to be able to accommodate that kind of power. It's like when you have a house and you put solar on, you've gotta upgrade your panel to be able to accommodate that level of power. They have to do the same thing inside their greenhouses to be able to operate some of this backed equipment that is being utilized by some of the growers.
But again, that's a may. Like we don't have a determinant that they would all have to be upgraded or the ones that currently have put in scrubbers if they did. That's just sort of, again, sort of a hypothetical is that that is a factor.
We do know that I believe most of them have upgraded their electrical facilities internally to be able to operate these. I just have a difference of perspective. Is that our
4:23 – 4:2916 turns
Is that our issue, whether or not somebody has to, I mean if you know, I buy an electric car and I have to upgrade. That's my, the onus is on me correct?
Right, I think the board has the option to consider it or not consider it. Those are my
questions for
now thanks.
Supervisor Hartman.
Thank you and I just feel a need to put this in context that it was the board that designed this ordinance and everybody else is trying to figure out how to deal with it. And we see that what we've designed is really not up to the task. And there are a couple of things I just want to note. First is the complaints, so it's partly a complaint-driven system and we get the complaints that come into the county. Do we chronicle the complaints that go to the operators?
To get how many and is that part of our system?
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. We do one of the things that the operators have to do is they have to notify the county when someone files a complaint directly to them so yes we do
Okay, that's good to know. I think my impression from talking to a lot of people is that they file a complaint and they never hear anything and they file more complaints. And so there's ultimately kind of a learned helplessness because there's not a feedback. So I think the complaints are probably under counted because of that phenomenon.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair. All complaints are counted, whether there's a reporting party or it's anonymous. If they give us a site address or if they say I was driving along Foothill Road and so every complaint is counted.
I get that we don't feed back to
them. Yes sorry let me...if a reporting party gives their contact information we will email them back And what do you say we receive their complaint. We will look into it and then from there we will contact the operator
and then if you find something to ever get back to them.
Yes we would if it was something. We had one where the complaint was that it smelled, we contacted the operator, the operator looked into it got back to us and said oops sorry some of our staff left a door open. We contacted the reporting party and said this was the outcome shouldn't happen again
Good, and would you say that's a majority of cases so you get back or is that? No. So my point is I think complaints put a lot of burden on everybody it doesn't work very well. What I heard I think from so far is that we really need to figure out where we're measuring odor and what tool we're measuring it with, and what's the limit? And I guess my question is do we have a tool, and this will be for public comment as much as just the staff, is do we have a tool that can measure And then where to measure. I think sometimes it's easy to say measure at the property line, but if you're venting out of you know at a higher altitude and then the air catches it maybe the property line isn't the best place so So these are any basic regulatory system has to answer those questions we've relied more on You have to have this plan and we don't necessarily know that the plan actually limits the end odor that we're seeking to limit.
So you can respond if you want to I'm just kind of putting this out here because it's my questions right.
Supervisor Hartman through the chair and I think that's exactly right is figuring out I think we do have a tool and working with GeoCentec, we could create a threshold that would be more about the general area than it would be specific property line because I think that very problem that you just mentioned is real. In that the climate changes where the odor ends up landing and where somebody might pick it up. And so we want to create something that's broad enough that, that we capture the potential facilities that could be contributing to the odor that's being complained about.
And then my third point and final point for just now, I found your report very helpful where I'm the community I represent particularly Santa Ynez Valley 246 Tlampoc. The issue is mainly with outdoor cultivation that doesn't have an odor abatement plan. And new operations coming in are subject to a CUP and that can be discussed, but all these existing operations are contributing when they are growing and the market has changed that. But for me going forward, that must be dealt with because you'll see some of the letters that came in from the public The winds carry the odor clear from 246 way east of, way west of Buellton all the way east almost dissolving sometimes. And so regulatory systems clean water, clean air they're designed for the most sensitive people to protect people with who suffer asthma or this or that And I think it's really a disservice to our public to not regulate cannabis odor, to protect sensitive people.
If you're very sensitive it's sort of tough and I don't think that's our attitude so those are my points.
4:29 – 4:349 turns
Okay question about how do we handle all other complaints in P&D? Aren't they pretty much I mean every other land use issue, aren't they all complaint driven by the public?
That's correct Supervisor Lavanino.
How does this one differ, I guess?
Well, I mean it's just hard to
pinpoint.
Yeah that's right. It is kind of a moving target if you will and I think we do more than we do with every other kind of enforcement with cannabis because we have our team out in the field. We have them going to meet with the growers. If we get a complaint we're out in the field which we would be with any other compliance issue but there were more Proactive than we would be with any other type of complaint currently.
And we've got a public comment, I think Supervisor Williams.
You know, I want to just ask some questions about our best available technology regime because I think that's really important about how we move forward. But but I do want to say that You know, the economic ability for growers to implement is important in my view not for their benefit but for the communities. Because whatever decision we make today or at a future date to mandate more or that the director makes to mandate better technology Legally have to give them a phase in time.
That is often not as fast as the community would like. And so implementable measures are valuable in the fact that some growers can implement them before the final date that they are required to, and that's why I think it's important that that's a part of the conversation. But I think the real issue that I hear from the public in Carpinteria the most is if we know that some forms of carbon scrubbers have been shown to be really, really effective why aren't more growers adopting them? Why aren't we mandating them and that gets down The substance of the best available technology standard and how that's supposed to work in an environmental law is a legislative body like the Board of Supervisors says best available technology.
A executive body, the regulatory agency in this case P&D is supposed to then have it be a flexible standard, i.e., whenever there's something more advanced that comes along. They are able to adopt it. I think in this case, it's maybe a little bit because of some lack of information to be able to mandate that and so I thought what would be really important is to ask you since you have the power to designate things as best available technology in the ordinance at least that's my reading of the ordinance And the city of Carpentry had an additional suggestion on that.
What information would you need to designate that, at least in places where odor seems to be persistent? And I don't mean just designating it for an individual operation but say there's a cluster of, say hypothetically there's a cluster of four or that where odor is persistent. What kind of information would you need to be able to mandate that as backed for either one operation, a cluster of operations or all operations?
Supervisor Williams through the chair. So what currently under our code what I would need is three verified complaints to push them through the tiered system and push them into a different type of technology than they might be using. And so that's why we're talking about trying to develop this alternative tool to help us do that And then get them using a system. And there's a variety of them, right? There's photocatalytic oxidizers like molecular scrubbers, carbon scrubbers or filters.
So there's different proprietary systems that I think work. You know and the number of units is dependent upon the system that you're putting in but I think there's probably more than one that would, is effective.
4:34 – 4:409 turns
And you know if So if the, you know, so do you feel contingent upon making that action would be three verifiable complaints and the question is whether those complaints can be applicable to a cluster in which case you're suggesting that change. That it would be applicable to a cluster instead of to one operation?
Right, and I would suggest that we not use detected in a residential zone as the standard or as a trigger.
Because all three of those hotspots are not residential zones though there are some residences in the ag zone near those.
Correct, and there's an EDRN that's north of the cluster, the westernmost cluster
Got it. OK supervisor caps
thank you and yeah Supervisor Williams I totally agree with you that there's we need to be reasonable in terms of time frames if something were to be required what I was just trying to get a better handle of is sort of how do we determine what's too expensive if someone if an operators making six million dollars a year versus $500,000 a year. We just were given the number that this is a $30,000 to $50,000 upgrade and that's potentially too expensive. And my point is I don't think we should be making that assessment.
I did want to ask about because one of the recommendations is that we need to study all of this further. And so do we have a time frame for that? I understand that the SCS study, that's the consultant who studied scrubbers that was done in 2021. I felt it was quite comprehensive. Do you all have you to make that recommendation for more studying? Have y'all determined that that study is inadequate? Would we have to do that for every single one of these technologies that's listed? Would we have to do that with Southern California Edison? What are we talking about here, sort of if we're saying we need to study all this more.
Sure so I think just to make it clear Supervisor Caps through the chair What we are saying is if the board leaves it broad, that gives descriptors of the types of BACT that you would like to see used then I wouldn't recommend studying that. I would say that's broad enough and that we could go ahead and implement something like that without doing another study to determine if you were gonna focus just on the Inviniti scrubber where there was that information that came out that you referred to in the report We did have some questions about the information in that report and our consultant has some questions about it. So if the board wants to hone in on one particular technology, we'd recommend studying it a little bit more but no study is necessary to say list an example of a set of fact that could be implemented including the provision that if new technology came around that was as good or better that that could be used, we would need to study that.
So the board could direct us to work on an ordinance amendment to include the requirement for that type of technology. The question about the power, we thought it might be of value to work with SCE to assess what is needed to bring into the Carpinteria Valley to service all of these growers that would be transitioning to a new technology. And we've been working with GeoCentec on that and that is a service that they could provide and I think we said it was 10 to $15,000 to be able to analyze that Was it 10, was it 20? 15 to 20. I'm sorry, 15 to 20. Yeah and about six months to do that studying. It's not mandated but it's a suggestion that we wanted to present to the board as an option just to make sure that we could actually implement what we're doing.
Can you repeat that one more time? The cost or just the whole...
What you're suggesting,
right? So my suggestion is and this is what I would recommend to the board if you wanted to make changes to the code is amend the code. If you want to require it backed Leave it broad enough so that we could accommodate the various technologies that are being, starting to be implemented. Like we have inventory scrubbers. We have some carbon filtration systems.
I think a couple of growers have implemented those and they seem to be working. So leave the BACT broad enough so that we can utilize those different technologies and then be able to take advantage of any new technologies that come down the line. And if the board is, we thought it would be useful to understand this issue of power because it has been controversial in discussions. I think some people say there's not enough power. Some people say there's plenty of power and our conversations with SCEs they've indicated that they would welcome the analysis to figure out where they need to bring all of these, all the new equipment that would need to be implemented. And then we could also get a sense of the timeframe of which that would take, what that would take to get that implemented because of course that will limit how quickly people could transition to the new technology and that's 15 to $20,000 and we think is about six months to study.
4:40 – 4:5524 turns
Okay, I just had a quick question for GeoSyntec. I found something in the report that I just want to know the science behind it and that is it was talking about if I read it correctly that you're smelling it a lot more or it's more powerful when you're driving than when you're just out walking around. And I was like, I don't know the science behind that but I do notice it more when I'm driving but I'm just curious.
You noted this in one of the site assessment write-ups?
It was in the
board letter. Okay, yeah it's partially I don't know the science behind it either but I do know I'm not a transient air modeler but I will say that yeah it is an experience phenomenon by all of us but I think it has to do with like the rate of speed and then the way that you're passing through the cloud of cannabis odor.
Cool alright just wanted to know Yeah, hitting Los Alamos and I'm like boom okay hit the zone. All right thank you so we will how many public comments do we have today?
Chair Lavanino members of the board we have 13 requests to speak. We'll do
three minutes each and we'll close the rest of public comment thank you.
Chair Lavanino members of the board we will begin on zoom with Anna Carrillo to be followed by Mark Shatillo.
All right, good afternoon. Thank you for the report this was very interesting I enjoyed reading all what we experience here in Carpinteria. I will have to tell you with the complaints that I've made I've made to both Barbara County Board of Supervisors meeting Foothill Road. So I just want to share that with the complaint, you know the complaint system and when I tried to call or make contact with carp growers and then the PR person Peter said I'm contacting the growers they will get back to you they never got back to me so I just needed to share that the complaint system you know isn't working Your board voted probably five or six years ago that cannabis does not qualify under right-to-farm rules. All the legal cannabis that is now being cultivated in the greenhouses and carpentry began after practically all the housing was already built, so the odor from cannabis cultivation needs to be contained within the greenhouses in which it is cultivated.
The report done by the Planning and Development Department says that there have been nearly 3,700 complaints made to the county regarding odors experience. This is ample evidence that the existing implementation of odor control requirements and enforcement remains ineffectual. A reduction of complaints over the years unfortunately shows that the residents are tired of making complaints when nothing happened as a result of the complaints.
Since Carpinteria has been most profoundly affected by odors from cannabis, it behooves you as a Board of Supervisors governing Carpinteria Valley to listen to the recommendations made by the City of Carpinteria in making changes through the business license application and renewals. Even though I was assured initially that continuing odor complaints would cause problems when business licenses are renewed this has definitely not occurred As I am very sure that all who have applied have had their business licenses renewed. In the one case that I followed diligently over the years, the business license has been renewed already at least twice even though there are continuous odors from both cannabis and the vapor phase system being used at that operation on Foothill Road.
The recommendations from the City of Carpinteria to amend Section 5010A, to clarify that the CEO has the authority to determine the best available control technology as a science changes and odor control technologies improve over time. Amend Section 1517D to clarify that the failure of a cannabis operation to utilize FACT as determined by the CEO is grounds for denial. Amend section 5259A3 to require the use of BACT as a part of the business license operating requirements. There are also... Thank you Anna,
that is your time.
Thank you very much.
We will remain on Zoom with Mark Shatillo to be followed by Mark Byers here in Santa Barbara.
Good afternoon, members of the board. Mark Shatillo I appreciate the Board's interest in this issue. I became involved in cannabis issues in 2019 because odor is very much related to what had been a long-running part of my law practice and Clean Air Act litigation and science. In the past I represented the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis and I was involved in most of the issues that have been discussed today in the staff report but today I am speaking as an individual And I wanted to speak because I believe that there is a solution for the Carpenter A greenhouses, that is effective. That involves a nominal energy drain and I dispute the contentions of widespread inadequate electrical service we've been hearing that for some time.
But it's really not been borne out by the research that I've seen. But also this technology has a positive benefit-cost ratio, a positive return on investment to operators and that is activated carbon scrubbers. It's an age old technology. It has been used across the entire air pollution arena as an air quality control technology for over 50 years It has a basic system of control using the physical characteristics of activated carbon where a gram of carbon has over 32,000 square feet of surface area and absorbs over 150 million different chemicals.
In the greenhouse environment that's a difficult technology because of the dust and humidity that clogs the carbon so effective carbon control systems require multi-stage pre filters The InVinity system is the gold standard. It's been shown at 10 per acre to be effective at controlling odors at the property line. There may be other technologies that can accomplish that, but they need to prove themselves. I believe we need to discard the vapor phase deodorant technology where you're spraying a deodorant into the ambient air that's being exposing community and individuals and it's not effective at controlling air quality. How can we accomplish that? I think that we need to impose the BACT standard, which is a hallmark of the Clean Air Act. The county can use Chapter 50 as described by Ms.
Carrillo and in the City of Carpinteria's letter an existing tool to update BACT as part of the annual license renewals does not involve the time-consuming amendment to the coastal zoning ordinance but that is the second step is to amend the cannabis ordinance Require conditional use permits that have a term of three to five years with a backed recertification step as the Federal Clean Air Act requires for back determinations for other sources.
Further, the county should invite the air pollution control district to assist in assessing the adequacy and enforcement where the trained APCD staffs can assist in addressing air quality issues that they're far more equipped to handle than the planning and development staff. Thank you, Mr. Chair and I look forward to your positive action to address this important issue.
There's a question for you, Mr. Shatillo.
Yeah. Mr. Shatillo, you've done a lot of work on this ordinance and I wonder if you have any thoughts about where to measure what to measure with and what limit or threshold?
Thank you, Supervisor Hartman, members of the board I have been involved considerably and the issue of where to measure is critically important. I agree with Director Plowman that the residentially zoned area is not an appropriate standard I believe that the appropriate place to measure odors is at the facility property line. That gives you the ability to identify using wind data, and now the carp growers have voluntarily put together a network of wind monitors that's part of their permit requirements and their odor abatement plans that allows the determination of wind direction at the time of any particular exceedance or observation of odors. So that when you have a cluster of odors, a cluster of growers and an odor problem that allows the identification of what's the likely individual source.
But clearly we have combined cumulative and contributory effects from multiple growers. And that's where by imposing a uniform standard would allow Well, the use of a property line standard would allow better implementation and enforcement. In terms of the technology there is increasing detection technology which is the other side of this technology evolution question.
There have been substantial improvements in technologies for detecting odor compounds that are associated with cannabis facilities The nasal ranger is a very basic technology relying on dilution to threshold ratios. It's, I think the last choice it's better than nothing but the use of the gold standard would be to use a fence line monitoring system like the state of California requires for existing refineries throughout this date.
A fence line technology is the very best way to go They're the gas chromatograph technology of measuring samples. Weighted over time, can be effective but it's complicated and as we know odors are ephemeral. You can smell it for a minute and then it's gone. It's stronger as you're driving and then less when you stop. It is a very
complicated target. Mr. Shatillo our County Council is giving me the cut it sign like I think your...I know that there was a question.
I just wanted to be responsive to the question if I was.
I understand I'll ask you another one so you can keep going. How's that? No, just kidding. All right thank you very much for the input, appreciate it. Let's go to our next speaker.
We will now return to Santa Maria with Mark Byers to be followed by Kapono Curry. Mark.
Hi thank you and before my time starts your question about why you smell it while you're driving, I can explain offline.
Okay.
It was my team of scientists that discovered it we can explain it. Alright sounds good. Hi, my company is Bayer Scientific. We provide odor control and indoor purification technology for commercial cannabis across North America, Europe and the Middle East as well as here in Santa Barbara and other California counties. We've reviewed the April 17th 24 Santa Barbara County staff report and its exhibits including a list of cannabis operators on their odor control technologies. I'd like to take an opportunity to address some inaccuracies, clarify potential confusion and pose some relevant questions to the board.
I first want to commend our local customers who have taken the responsibility as corporate neighbors seriously. Companies like Glass House Farms, Headwaters, Autumn Brands, HQM, and Pacific Grown Organics have consistently operated and maintained their true-to-its description vapor phase odomigation equipment and adhere to county regulations with respect to operational hours and system performance reporting.
I've examined table two of the approved coastal zone cannabis operations required to implement OAPs, and I'm starting to reconcile the number of operators purporting to use vapor phase odor control with our active customers list and the county's strict requirements for using this type of technology. It prompts two conclusions, one of either two. Either those cultivators identified as using vapor phase are misusing their equipment by virtue of employing incompatible neutralizer products or they've installed new systems.
If the latter then it begs a question whether true vapor phase equipment is being utilized given our patented technology and proven SCADA platform. In the event that operators are using odor neutralizer in their buyer systems other than those products deemed compatible, then we would warn of warranty being voided and irreparable damage. Our systems were designed to specifically work with particular products and use of other products would be akin to putting diesel fuel through a gasoline engine.
And misuse then calls into question not only efficacy but reporting compliance as those systems are no longer active on our monitoring and reporting platform With respect to molecular filtration. We would point out that the scrubbers identified in the staff report as being utilized in Santa Barbara County appear to have significant power draw. Our experience would indicate that that's not necessarily the issue. Farm Lane, CVW Organics utilizes 16 6000 CFM scrubbers using step-up transformers and other things and have had no energy issues and has had zero complaints in two years.
Finally price does not have to be a barrier We have actually equipment financing available for scrubbers and others, and we've been subjected to the same testing as other competitors with 94% odor reduction. Thank you. Thanks.
We will now go to Kapono Curry to be followed by Colin Dvorak. Kapono?
4:55 – 5:014 turns
Is this working? Yep. Okay, cool. Thank you all very much for having this hearing today and discussing this issue. Did some analysis of county application data that's hosted in Accela. Since the program's inception we've had 215 LUPs, CUPs and CDPs filed throughout the county. Of these only 65% make it through to getting approval. The bulk of these occurred in 2021 And the majority of the people who have gotten their LUPs have been in the process for two years.
Some of these people have to pay lease payments this entire time and it can be quite prohibitive to get set up. Of the people who get approved, this doesn't give you the ticket to the next stage, only of these approved permits got issued. This is a 57% drop-off rate from applications and 35% from approvals. Many of these permits, in order to be issued, require building permits. And you can see in the data that if you look at 21, 22, and 23, you see that roughly about 20 per year get processed all the way through.
Of all of those issued permits, only 78 farms want to be on the cap. In the North County we have 298 acres available in the cap and we have 30 acres available in Carpentaria. In 2022 we saw an extinction event with 50 acres of canopy roughly 30% of licensed holders just gave up their licenses and walked away Per Muny Code, Chapter 50 has been amended 10 times. In fact you've amended it twice a year every year except 2020 and 2023. The odor...
A perfect solution doesn't exactly exist and each solution needs to be tailored to the site in which it occurs A heavy-handed regulation stating everybody needs to go to a specific vendor is going to take a lot of time and a lot of effort to make sure it's efficacious, it works, and it works in that specific application. Instead, enforce BACT, let staff Find what works for each of these sites and enforce that so we can continue to see the drop-off in complaints as opposed to seeing more of these businesses giving up their licenses and going out of business and moving elsewhere. Thank you.
We will now go to Colin Dvorak, to be followed by Tad McKenzie. Colin?
Chair La Panino, Supervisors. My name is Colin Dvorak I represent a cannabis operation in Carpinteria called Pacific Grown Organics. I have just a couple points. I just bulleted this to try to be faster. First of all, we are making progress. We've heard a lot from staff today. Please be patient. County staff are doing their jobs. Our OAPs are getting better as we learn how to better manage odors. It takes years to design, permit and build these systems. It was good to see Petroleva here. I spent many many days on my site with her over three years it took us to permit our project. The OAP being a major component of that design Our facilities are purpose built with our permits in mind. I designed my facility to utilize every watt of power to manage my HVAC, my lighting, my security plan and my OAP.
If I plug one more thing in, I have to unplug something else. If we are required to change anything, it will take us years to make those necessary changes just so everyone is aware of that timeline. I think everyone's been reasonable in talking about that. All sites are different is the second point which with each come their own challenges and opportunities.
Please let's not make blanket prescriptions for all facilities when we've seen from staff reporting that there are very specific issues around the county discuss and review in a more specific content. Empower staff to make judgments on troubled areas and mandate OAP modifications with new technology if that's necessary. To address some of the comments on if it's our problem or not, You know, if operators are burdened with this additional cost.
Were your constituents too? We have spent many hundreds of thousands of dollars following the ordinance that was written by this board in good faith we pursued those recommendations and we invested heavily in them We would ask if changes are made that we're reasonable, and we consider the time and the money. A lot of questions about Edison and the timing that we can get these things accomplished in. I've had a power upgrade in for years with Edison that we've been working with It's not a quick thing. Power is different around the valley.
Things we could do, the supervisors or the county really, the staff could provide us support when speaking with Edison. There's a lot of wasted time from their perspective. They don't want to follow deadbeat projects that aren't going to utilize the power that they upgrade so there's a little bit we can do there. Secondly if there's targeted areas that needed more support Have we considered you know the costs being supplemented? These scrubbers do get very expensive and I'm sure you guys will follow up and find some of those costs but we could do tax considerations, tax breaks for those operators that are being impacted by those areas in those additional odor requirements for scrubbers. Thank you so much for your time.
We will now go to Tad McKenzie to be followed by Eric Edwards.
5:01 – 5:108 turns
Good afternoon, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak today. My name is Tad McKenzie and I'm here on behalf of Pacific Dutch Group. At Pacific Dutch Group we are deeply committed to our community and to our employees. We currently employ 231 individuals all of whom have access to comprehensive health and dental insurance retirement accounts as well as vacation and sick leave benefits Our commitment extends beyond our workforce to include proactive engagement with the community, especially in areas sensitive to the impacts of our operations.
Understanding the importance of maintaining harmony with our surroundings we've invested in excess of two million dollars in odor control these efforts are designed to medicate the impact of our operations ensuring that we remain good neighbors and contribute positively to the area's quality of life. In addition we're also in the process of removing flowering plants from one of our facilities to ensure that we're not contributing to odor in that particular area.
I must express our current constraints regarding further enhancements to the odor control measures. The installation of additional technology is considerably limited by the existing power infrastructure. In addition, the economic implications of installing further odor control systems are significant. As we move forward, we ask for the board's understanding and support. We're committed to continuous improvement and believe that the county staff have been continuously improving their tools for enforcing the existing cannabis ordinance.
We are keen to find solutions that serve both our community and our business. We believe in open dialogue and collaboration to achieve these ends and welcome any assistance or advice the board can provide. Thank you for your time and consideration.
We will now go to Eric Edwards, to be followed by Hannah Brand. Eric?
Chair Lavagnino, Supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to comment today. My name is Eric Edwards and I'm the Director of Compliance for Headwaters, a longstanding member of Carp Growers. Over the years, Headwaters has been instrumental in forging a path for a nascent industry in Santa Barbara County. Throughout this time the industry has experienced many challenges chief among them odor and its impact on the surrounding community Headwaters and all of carp growers has sought to address these concerns head on. In doing so we have engaged with community stakeholders, engineers and staff in an attempt to find science-based approaches to address the concerns of our neighbors while preserving a pathway forward for the industry at large.
I'm here today not to say that our work is done or that all of the community's issues have been addressed, but rather to point to the collaborative work we've achieved over the years. To highlight the improvements made and our desire in action to go above and beyond Our job isn't done, that much is clear and Headwaters continues to invest in odor abatement strategies technologies and science. We have ordered and are fitting our facilities with carbon scrubbers where possible and we have engaged with various engineers architects and contractors to upgrade infrastructure where not. These tasks are not easy and come with considerable cost and despite the economic headwinds pushing against us we've persisted in this endeavor.
We simply ask that this board work with operators on science-based approaches To address community concerns, to avoid mandating one-size fits all approaches and to better understand the nuances affecting the industry, carpentry and the community at large. The industry has proven its willingness to work collaboratively, and Headwaters will continue to do so. We need your support. We need support in providing pathways for operators to upgrade existing odor abatement technologies without threat of appeals.
We need support in providing operators and county staff with the flexibility to address on-the-ground changes without the need for extensive permit revisions and the many months of back and forth that typically entails. We will now go to Hannah Brand to be followed by Autumn Shelton. Hannah?
Good afternoon Chair and Honorable Board. My name is Hannah Brand, I'm one of the owners of Autumn Brands. It has always been our priority to be good neighbors and address all issues on odor. We're part of the tiered response program through the agreement with Carp Growers and the Coalition for Responsible Cannabis. We are responsive to our community at all times we continue to invite our community into our farms too for guided tours to learn more about our operation including our strict OAP Odor is a complex issue. We are confident we are in compliance with our existing ordinance and our property is not in a sensitive area To touch on the power upgrade, we commenced our power upgrade in 2016 with SCE and were able to get clarity on the requirements and commence permitting in 2021.
We continue to move through this process with SCE but don't have a timeline provided from them to complete the upgrade. We're currently running with no fans and other technology because we are at the max of our power for our property. To close, I support the carp growers recommendation and comments that they have provided to you in a separate letter. Thank you.
We will now go to Autumn Shelton to be followed by Jeric Ficker. Autumn?
Chair Lavagnino and honorable supervisors. My name is Autumn Shelton, I am the co-owner and CFO of Autumn Brands. We are cannabis cultivators in the Carpinteria area. While we agree that this is a complex issue, we also are confident that we have met the existing ordinance standards for odor control and our property is not near sensitive receptors such as residentially zoned property in schools. We were pleased to see the information contained in your board letter affirm that cannabis operations are largely controlled for sensitive receptors as required in the cannabis ordinances. It's reflective of the substantial amount of time, money and resources operators have been expending to address cannabis odor in Carpinteria While we are effectively managing our operation's odors today, we are open to considering additional control measures beyond the requirements of the ordinances.
For our farm this will require a significant power upgrade. We have learned of several infrastructure and financial barriers that will likely exceed $1 million just for a power upgrade to our farm. Rendering it financially infeasible, especially when we are already in compliance with the odor control requirements for the cannabis ordinances. We are willing to consider tax rebates or other financial incentives to offset the cost of further invest in an odor control system that may exceed the requirements of the ordinances Not all sites are the same and will not require the same odor control technology. The geosynthetic map that showed our area showed odor on the road that is over 300 feet from our actual operations, however there was none showing where they tested in our driveway leading to the operations.
This is consistent with the odor checks that our team does daily and analysis of prevailing winds Any recommendations for best available control technology needs to be reconciled with the unique variables for each operation and not a one size fits all approach. We appreciate the renewed interest in being more proactive. Cannabis operations are substantial revenue contributor to the county, and unlike most business we are taxed on gross income which is untethered toward net income or profit which remains a challenge in this market. We look forward to participating in any forums science and research as the board and staff further consider options to manage cannabis odor thank you
Supervisor Williams. I just wanted to ask for some detail because, I mean, I wish I had been able to solve the problems and enable you to adopt scrubbers faster but so my recollection is SCE has said that because it The cost is because, as he says, needs to be undergrounded. And obviously Public Works is also involved in this so can you give us just a little bit of detail so we understand sometimes why these costs are higher?
So one of the conditions of our permit, because we got kicked into a development permit for permitting rainwater catchment system after the fact, got kicked into this development permit that is making us actually underground utilities. The county was trying to help us and maybe remove that condition, but since we're already in this process with Edison, that is not a possibility. So we have to continue the process. We have to bore under the 192.
It's become quite intensive for us as well. We did assume we would've been one of the first to get the power upgrade, but obviously this is continuing on. We will now go to Jared Thicker to be followed by Alex Brown.
5:10 – 5:163 turns
Hi, my name is Jared Ficker with Axiom Advisors. I represent carp growers as well as a number of individual operators that are members of carp growers and elsewhere in the county. Thank you for the time today. First and foremost Chair Lavagnino Board of Supervisors your staff has done some excellent work and presented it here and I'm glad they're here and present obviously many of the operators interact with them on our very regular basis trying to perfect and improve voter control At their various operations- I want to make a point in the report.
And the work of your consultant largely shows that we have controlled odor and residential areas which is the standard in these or just so much of the discussion We can all get creative in ways to do that, but we have controlled that and the data suggests. That we've done a good job at it. We've invested tens of millions of dollars in that work, but more can be done. And I think we really need to sit down and talk about some concepts of using carrots versus sticks when we're talking about essentially changing ordinances or doing other things.
We can change an ordinance you know we can try and apply it retroactively folks these take time years. You know the public wants to see this stuff addressed. And I think there's a lot of extraordinarily smart people in this room today we need to do some workshops sit down and figure out how do we do above and beyond what we've done already. And we can do more. But let's sit down and figure these things out. These are some of the challenges, you know, Supervisor Nelson from others. We were talking about complaints. This is a list we just received from the county on complaints back in March. The first five ones. The only information about this complaint 3 4 24 smells bad 3524 stinks.
3624, the air smells bad. This is the kind of quality of information we're dealing with complaints. There's a reason why these aren't verifiable. So let's set up an environment where people can sit down have a discourse works up this stuff and figure out real solutions to these problems. This is not a useful energy or way to solve these things it's just not verifiable so let's figure that out.
We did submit a letter and in addition to some of the recommendations that are proposed, clearly we don't want to see a one size fits all. There are different situations but I would encourage the county to consider some incentive based approaches to new technology above and beyond the ordinance requirements. I'd recommend the county consider a task force on expediting permitting similarly a task force on addressing energy and infrastructure This complaint issue, there's got to be a better way we can do it. We can come up with an interoperable system that everyone can report in and can make these complaints anonymous but we get the data that we can actually do the science and make improvements. It's really important. Chair, we have a question for you?
Yes of course
Yeah, Mr. Ficker what more information would be helpful? I mean if your neighbor's making noise after 10 p.m., you say it's loud. Do you want to...I don't understand how do you...what more specific would people need to be?
Well, I mean you tell me what can I do with something that says on 3-4 smells bad. I don't know what that means. I mean, what do you, smells bad what? Like what, is it on the road? Where was that complaint from? You're talking about more precise location. Yeah because we have to go and working with the Santa Barbara Coalition for Responsible Cannabis, the fundamental premise that they advocated for was get a tiered response so we can take information and make it actionable. We've never received complaints through those tiered response systems in a way that we could actually go through, do the science and figure out what to do better So if the complaint mechanism doesn't work, then let's do a workshop. Let's do something that people can sit around the table and figure out more creative ways to do this.
But you can't do science on a one-word complaint. That is a fundamental problem. So let's fix that. Let' figure out a way to get the data and information. What was the weather at that time? What was the wind? Was somebody driving? Were they walking? Were they in a residential area all these things matter so we can kind of pinpoint these things and do better work- you know this. This is not a terribly useful way to solve these problems and we gotta figure out a better way to do it I mean we're now what five six years in the program We've spent. Years negotiating a mechanism and integrating these odor abatement plans, and we're not you know people are not employing this tiered response system that we built into these things. So we're trying to come up with creative solutions.
But I think like the county at the end your interest should develop a forum where we can talk through this and troubleshoot this, And I would strongly encourage you too. Consider carrots in this approach instead of just sticks. Thank
5:16 – 5:2717 turns
We'll now go to Alex Brown to be followed by Derek Stuckel, who is our final speaker. Alex?
Good afternoon. Thank you for having me here today, Chair and Supervisors. I'll keep my comments brief. I represent Valley Crest Farms at 5980 on Casitas Passway. We've recently updated our OEP, one of those farms that maybe was referenced. One thing I wanted to draw attention to when we're talking about the cost here is something that we've been researching quite a bit lately. So we have an eight acre greenhouse there at 5980 And to put the infinity scrubbers into that by the specifications that would mitigate the order.
By SES engineers study, that's over $1.2 million. So just to provide some context to it and I know Chair Kapp you said or Supervisor Kapp excuse me we're wondering just about can businesses afford this? There's been a loss of licenses here in the county. Tax revenues are obviously down, they're down across the state. Cultivators are losing left and right. There's been so much capital that's had to go in just to get to this point even in the business and those that are here have survived all of that. It's very difficult without further opening up our books to show you that absorbing a million plus dollars is going is going to desecrate this business here, this industry within the Carpinteria Valley.
Ultimately leading to less tax revenue and then ultimately I think leading to what nobody wants to see which is Carpinteria turning into what was probably Goleta years ago which is now condos and homes and a lot of residential. So I just wanted to provide some context on the financial ramifications here because it is substantial. It's not a small amount of money and that's on top of what we're talking about with energy upgrades as well
Supervisor Nelson has a question for you.
Yes, thank you Alex for being here. How much time would a farm need to be able to absorb those costs?
Yeah I think some of the other operators have brought up great points. Everyone wants to handle the issue right everyone wants to do business in this county they want to do business in Carpinteria it's a great place to be it's great place to conduct cannabis operations for a number of reasons You know, we're talking about tax breaks. So looking at the nursery area being omitted to it because the nursery areas still being designated currently I believe as a odor issue within the greenhouse when nursery plants do not really admit, I would say any odor or substantial order that would cause them to need or necessitate carbon scrubbers. As far as the timeline and it's very difficult to say you know But I think there's a willingness of everyone that's here to work with the county, try to figure out how we do progress forward in the long term because everyone wants to be here.
I think the county wants us to be here as well but absorbing such significant costs at this particular point when the industry is going backwards currently not progressing forward it's not expanding right now it's contracting less money is involved but then more capital is gonna have to put in so what I fear is that you lose more operators And what people don't want the most is those operators losing, those going BK. And then all of a sudden those farms turning into what I think will be track homes which is not what carpentry is set to be.
That being said time flying it's very difficult. It's very difficult but I mean I guess that would be something we could sit down and talk about over long, you know coffee. All right thank you very much.
Last speaker.
We will now go to Derek Stuckel who's our final speaker on this item.
No pressure, you're the closer.
Thank
you. Bring me
out of the bullpen. Good afternoon board and staff and of course members of the public. Derek Stuckey, thank you. Cannabusters. So I've heard a lot about BACT, I've heard a lot about odor complaints that went nowhere. I've heard a lot about accountability, about costs. And one of the things that I do want to bring up is how do we determine this smell? If there is a smell The nasal ranger is now being used. I want to just point out one thing that everybody should understand, the problem with cannabis odor is on the front of everybody's face.
Everybody has an idea what it should smell like, shouldn't, likes it, doesn't like it, whatever the case is. Subjectivity, the key. Empirical data on the other hand washes out subjectivity. Our systems, our control systems and they should be BACT I don't know how to get on that list but I'd like to find out we eliminate cannabis odor in fact all organic odor on contact widely in use across millions of acres in the U.S. and abroad, in all industries because it eliminates organic odor.
Here's the beautiful thing about our new systems. We measure our efficacy on the property line of the grow by comparing terpenes within the grow So if you can. empirically quantify your terpene production inside, and then empirically quantify what is left at the property line? All these conversations have become moot. And the good news is it doesn't require a property or an electrical upgrade.
It's not millions of dollars. It's not even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Odor mitigating technologies that are fragrance based are not effective. I'll just say that right now, and I'll put them in against my product in a gas chromatographic test any day. Carbon scrubbers are effective until they're not. In a greenhouse they don't work. They limit the flow through the house by 50% or so which means you can't do business like that So a solution that actually works, photocatalytic oxidizers, expensive again.
Require power upgrades. My system not only eliminates the odor but verifies it at the property line and is completely safe for people, pets, plants and the planet. And that's all I had for you folks today. Thank you for your time. Thank you Mr. Stuckey. Thank you for getting that right, Stuckey yeah.
Appreciate it.
And that
concludes
public comment.
Great name. All right. OK, bring it back to the board. We'll lead off with Supervisor Nelson.
Yeah. Thank you, Chair Labadino You know, there's a lot that's gone on in the last six years. But what's true and is just obvious to everybody is the community odor issues still persist most concentrated in Carpinteria. There are still odor issues throughout the county as Reza Hartman mentioning in the outdoor world. And just for the record, Carpinteria is not the only place with a mixed light greenhouse. We have one of my district as well. So it's not the only place that this would potentially apply to as we work on odor mitigation.
You know, planning is the entity to address these existing odor problems has been wildly unsuccessful and it's not the fault of plannings because this system hasn't been built to do it correctly. You know zero verified complaints I mean that's really alarming you know and I'm concerned that just asking for more planning is going to solve that problem. We haven't been super successful going down that route and iIm also concerned about planning's other burdens that we as a board have been putting on that department, whether it's housing you know improvements in the building department state mandates they're hitting you guys enforcement on special events um you know the list goes on and on and this is a big issue If putting this on you is the right route for us to go.
So I don't know if additional planning or studies is quite the solution, and one of the things also that I'm frustrated about on this process is hearing from some people in the audience say hey give us some carrots instead of sticks. You know I reached out to carp growers in September last year and said hey guys you know this is an issue I think it's gonna really start bubbling up let's start talking about some solutions And and work on this you know I talked about tax incentives maybe we can help you guys with some of your your um sanitary issues. I know there's some sewer upgrades, maybe we can figure out some ways to you know make this cost neutral for you.
Um and really it's crickets until we come to this hearing today. I mean i haven't heard much from the industry until we get to this point here. I called and you know when I talked to somebody at Carbs Growers they just argued with me about how bad the processes were in the county and and I said okay well yeah but I want to try to find a solution. So it was really It's frustrating you know when Jerry when you're up here, you know say asking for that because you know I asked for that you know seven months ago.
And you know we talked about taxes as recently and there's a lot of reasons why we can't change that either so you know my frustration level. With this issue it has is coming to a place where I think we just need to push forward with something you know when we began this process or if we wouldn't. We began this process over again and wrote rewrote the ordinance today have no doubt that we would be writing it was something like this multi technology carbon filtration That's out there. If we were starting all over today, it seems that that'd be an obvious solution from day one and so instead of trying to find new ways to patch up the old system I want to find a way to move towards that moving forward and I know that we have you know it's complicated because we have land use and we're trying to figure out how do we take existing entitlements and make them connect to that but one of the reasons why we had chapter 50 in the first place was We're trying to make improvements that wouldn't necessarily be entitlements are you know and be able to work hand in hand so those things would come together.
You know this technology at a business license renewal period in the future. And so you know that's where I see this going, that's what i would like to move towards because if we actually have the right technology in place and maybe through some of our consultants we have the technology make sure that it's running because I think I heard that was part of the component then we could potentially solve this problem and it would no longer continue to persist and we don't have to keep making a patchwork Of new plans and strategies and staff to make sure that we're making sure he's complying. You know you get the right product in there then, you know I maybe I'm Pollyanna but I think the problem starts to go away when you stop having these hearings.
And these issues a lot of the conflicts would would begin to, you know, go. To go away, and then I think we'd be able to move on to other things. So that's what I'm interested in doing is going down the route of really trying to make some changes in Chapter 50 and then maybe directing planning staff to make the amendments in the ordinance that exist so it could be consistent with Chapter 50 requirements for this technology for mixed light greenhouses. So that's where I'm at right now. Happy to hear where other people are as well.
5:28 – 5:4329 turns
Supervisor Hartman.
I would support that. However, I don't think you can just determine a technology. You really have to be measuring an outcome. What are we trying to achieve with the technology? And what I've heard from staff is that where we're doing it now at the first residential home doesn't work and I I've never liked that. And so I would like staff to come back with recommendation on where to measure and this is, you know, where to measure what tool to use to measure it that's not the nasal ranger because you said that's qualitative. If we can get to something that's quantitative I think that's far better And then what is the threshold that we're trying to achieve?
I think those are three things we need, and I'm not sure if it's the same inland as it is on the coastal zone. I think the backed system is a good one to point to as a strategy to achieve these ends. And I think the way that you've described it having a broader broader in the ordinance and then negotiating with the cannabis operators. I'm not exactly sure how, if the technology doesn't yield the outcome then it's, I think we need to get away from the complaint system as relying on that primarily. I think we've seen that there are, it's just not a reliable system so So those are the four things.
I hear loud and clear that there is uncertainty about energy upgrades and how fast, how expensive so I think to me it seems obvious we need more information about that whether it exists someplace or whether we have to generate it with a study but I don't see how we proceed without it. So those are my recommendations and I'd be happy to make a motion containing that
Okay, well let's get to Supervisor Caps.
Yeah thanks I've been to Everbloom a couple times and read the studies seeing what the Carp City Council has put forward listened to people who experienced it you can't smell anything there and I just The need for more studies and more information as people continue to suffer and be nuisanced. I just don't, I don't understand our, I just see it have a different perspective of our role.
And we have a public nuisance. We haven't been a business. I believe they should be treated like any business that the onus is on them to fix it. I'm delighted that we actually have a solution. Is it the solution forever? Probably not. Things are going to improve, but I don't know why we would delay further. It took six months because of all that planning has to do already and we just have a housing element. It took six months to get a report so to study it further is years and I don' think we're doing our job if we kick the can down the road longer The again, the Carpenter City Council wrote us a letter asking us along the lines of what Supervisor Nelson was saying to shift to Chapter 50 to enforcement.
That's where I am. I guess I'm just I see more of an urgency around this and believe in fairness and not having double standards Understanding that sure, there's considerations and blanket it's not gonna work cookie cutter for every operation in the exact same way. But we're not talking about thousands and thousands of operations. We're just talking about some and I appreciate the implications but I'm along the lines with Supervisor Nelson and looking at enforcement on this and I believe that we have the information we need. Thanks.
Supervisor Williams? My concern has also been to make at least incremental progress faster. And it is why, but it has also been you know the lesson of time if we had done this if we had mandated one technology five years ago it would have been Vapor phase, and we would never even have figured out that infinity works because we would've had a mandated technology. That's the reason why in environmental regulations you don't mandate one technology.
However I think it's important to realize that the dynamism of BACT has been held back by some of these details that we've got in Because I do believe that many of these operations should purchase infinity, whatever they are, scrubbers or the oxidizer. Whether they're a scrubber or an oxidizer, they work. And I think that the longer anybody delays, the worse the final, the most burdensome the final result will be. So I wanna say that whatever is decided here, I hope there's a clear warning sign that progress needs to be made particularly in places that have had some persistent odor That the board cares about, you know, residences even when they're not in the residential zone which is part of what we wrestled with right over time.
And that we want BACT to work as a dynamic system. So I really think that number one, we need to whether it's in chapter 50 or in the land use ordinance whichever make the change and the clarification that the director can do this either without the three complaints or with the three complaints counted as a cluster Because if we have gotten complaints, but they haven't been able to verify them so that they don't count it up to three.
And that's the trigger and we need to figure out a way that the trigger can be pulled when there is a cluster where there is persistent odor. You know, I believe that part of what might be holding us back too is you know, what brought us forward is that the folks at Everbloom took a chance on a better technology. And they deserve a lot of thanks and they actually deserve more than thanks. They deserve progress both for them and for the community that depends on us doing the best job we can.
But the whole thing of holding up one standard, the standard that worked for Everbloom which is right across the fence from one of the most populous neighborhoods in town. is maybe a scary thing. If a director has the ability to mandate technology and also the ability to mandate what density is expected, it can tailor it for different conditions and different operations. And so that's why I'm supportive of the direction that Joan wants to go but cognizant of I would like that to happen as quickly as possible.
Okay, I had a question based on one of the public comments. I think it was Eric from Headwaters talked about trying to remove themselves from the threat of appeal when they're trying to upgrade their OAP. Is that something? It seems like we should change that. Is that real? Talk about that a little bit,
please. Yeah Mr. Chair, members of the board it is real and right now we don't have something in the coastal zoning ordinance that allows us to make those kinds of changes without issuing a new coastal development permit So we would need, that's something the board could direct us to fix because I agree that it would be nice for us to have flexibility and move these things through in a ministerial way like in the inland area. We can make some minor changes to the LUP without issuing a new LUP. We need that same tool in the coastal zone.
Yeah, I agree and I would like you to come back with some way. I mean, I don't think anybody would complain with that if you're trying to upgrade your odor control we should be incentivizing that not.
And it
should
be non-appealable.
Correct.
That's what we would like to try and.
So that would be helpful.
I would like it if we could bring up the potential next step slide as you guys are getting ready to
make
a motion.
Sure, and for me I think you know it was I guess I'll learn more about the science about driving and walking and smelling cannabis but I do know a scientific fact and that is the more you don't like cannabis the more you smell it right so I think people smell it I just think that there's something about when you do smell it, if you don't like it, it obviously upsets you more.
And I think that's why we got to get away from this idea of where it's very subjective and I don't know how you do that with smell but I think what Supervisor Hartman said is something I'm interested in of that. You have to find something that actually measures it and you have to have a standard and where you're measuring it from. That makes sense to me. All these properties sit in different areas.
They have different sensitive receptors around them, some don't. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to overkill somebody that doesn't really even have an issue at this point. But I also think, you know, I've been to Everbloom as well. I wish everybody just had that system. You know, not all businesses are built the same. We can't go, you know, I just don't think it's Advisable or fair to mandate it for everybody, but you know.
So I'm, you have the potential next steps. We'll go to Supervisor Hartman and then we'll go to Supervisor Nelson.
Supervisor Hartman, I just wanted to acknowledge that we would like to be doing annual inspections right now. We're set up to do these quarterly inspections but once those are completed, we would like to do annual inspections and that would be something we would add to the code as well.
And by the way, before you go I just want to talk about power for a second. We at the county are having trouble getting hookups okay so
right here
yeah right here. I mean Hope Village got delayed because we were having trouble with the hookup and Better Avia is having no trouble. So we're huge customer. I can't imagine you know I think that's legitimate. I don't really worry about the cost too much either, though. Like hey, that's what needs to be done. It needs to be done. But I do know that that's a legitimate concern. That's not just something people are throwing out there. So but it would be also nice to have a representative from them that can talk about what the timeline is to fix that issue so.
So can I, I just would like to make sure I have what the board would be directing. And that is to develop a new threshold, right? Objective. Objective threshold. Develop a standard at which you know whether it's D over T or whatever it is like is it seven D over T And be able to use that as the trigger for verifying complaints. That we would decide where that measurement should be taken, whether it's property line or in the area.
That we would also require annual inspections of all the facilities to make sure that the systems continue to work, because we're only doing it in the first year currently. And then the question I had and then study the power supply is what I heard. And then the question I had is Is that the sum total?
There was something else that came up that I think Supervisor Williams mentioned as well, and it came from one of the growers. It was the idea that you could put...I mean an annual inspection is nice but if they know you're coming and it's the annual inspection and that's the day that they turn it on, that doesn't help anybody so if we knew it was running Ms. Leyva brought that up, yeah. I thought you were the one who brought that point
up. I'm sorry our consultant Megan Klein brought it up. Require that run time equipment so we can get the data for how it's running on a daily basis. And our consultant has indicated it's not an expensive piece of equipment. She sent us the information on it, and I think that would be really beneficial for us because right now we have to make sure that we We're relying on the applicants to give us the information right now. And we want to be able to verify it in an objective way.
And then the other thing was to address, as Supervisor Lavagnino brought up, create a ministerial path for people to modify their OAPs to improve their odor abatement.
Or adopt
BACT.
Yeah, right we move on.
And let's not forget the issue if you are going to issue a determination in what it that is a change in BACT for an operation we need to give you a path to do that right and that You have not been able to do so because you have not had three verifiable complaints. So what I am advocating is to treat verifiable complaints as a cluster, right?
5:43 – 5:4811 turns
Right and I think that's part of Supervisor Hartman's motion. Okay yeah
I just wanted to make sure that was in there
So I just want to go back to what Supervisor Nelson and CAPS are suggesting, and that is to require as I understand it not a broad range but a specific technology that we would define as BACT. And so a thought experiment. We can say that. We can say we would put it in Chapter 50 We've said a lot of things in ordinances if you can't implement it then where does it get us?
Where we are
today. Yeah better than where we are today I would argue.
I'll take responsibility. I've been on the board and I think we've made some mistakes with our cannabis ordinance by seat of the pants ideas, and so before I'm ready to vote to require this, I want to understand what the implications are And I'm not there yet. It's easier for me to say this is the result I want, you figure it out. For me to say this is how you've got to do it and you've got to get this result.
I need to know that what I'm requiring That makes sense. Is it the same thing for every greenhouse, no matter where they're located? Is it the exact same technology? I mean what are we asking?
But with due respect isn't that what we were asking for this report and I know I'm new but things take so much time. So if it took six months to get a report I thought that we would be discussing What you're looking into the motion to discuss, you know. Six months from now I again. I need to keep hold of my naive impatience with government because it needs to be responsive. It needs to be reactive to what people have been asking for four years and we've seen it. I've experienced it. The studies show it. The Carp City Council is asking us.
I don't know what studies are going to get us that we don't have today other than more frustration by the part of the neighbors who I believe, I mean public good is what we're, that's the ultimate priority here.
I don't disagree. Believe me, I smell it where I live. But I just wanna make sure we design a program that's going to work and I don't have enough detail in what you're saying to give me confidence that just decreeing the infinity system for every greenhouse... Okay well I don' understand exactly what your proposing there
The CARP letter asks to make it easier for the director or the CEO to make a back determination and that's what we're talking about doing. So I think you are, we are being responsive to that because the whole goal is to make it easier for the director or the CEO depending on who you wanted to do it to make a determination based on peer review data or the information that's sent, or the fact that there's a cluster that you can't do. And right now it's held back by the fact they can't determine which one it is. What I'm saying is they should have the power to make all four of them or all three of them in a cluster do something because a verifiable complaint is for the whole cluster.
Or an objective standard. I'd like to get away from the complaints. Well then, I'm still stuck on the energy because you can decree it. You can put it in as the city of Carp has said but help me understand how we deal with the inability to get hookups and adapt.
I think that's, this is kind of we're at the, what somebody said we're, this is the 10th amendment chapter 50. The initial ordinance, the biggest criticism was it was board driven and it did not come from staff right? I think we're in that same every time we go into an amendment, that's why this thing continues to get screwed up because it's always the board Trying to make another change to it based on what we hear from the public and we've just kind of been chasing this thing.
I'm at the point where I'm like, I want to hear from staff. I want that report to come back, and it might seem like it's a long time. We've been on this thing for six years at this point. So I don't have any problem waiting a little bit longer to get the right technology. Supervisor Nelson?
5:48 – 5:537 turns
It's important though that we step in, right? Because we've learned today after six years there's not been a single verified complaint. So the foundation of the OAPs is verified complaints. We're at zero so we don't even take the first step and staff wasn't going to bring this to us. We asked for it. This needed to happen because we needed to address this because there's a pinch point there where this is not going through it keeps hitting this point and you can't move to back. Because you're not got your first, you know, first step. So we haven't even began to walk to get to their end.
You know, I'm frustrated. So that's why I'm saying let's just go ahead and impose something on here because you know all the solutions that I've been trying to throw out for months here have not have fallen on deaf ears. It's been my feeling that that's been the case. So I'm willing just to jump to what I think is ultimately the solution. I'm definitely willing to go walk down these steps but right now we don't have any process to do that even now. We're going to try to find a way You know that first enforcement case, so that triggers that. I mean it seems somewhat backwards. It seems that we're constantly going to need to be playing whack-a-mole here. That we're gonna need more enforcement you know what i was hearing that you wanted to move to annual reports versus quarterly inspections.
That seems like that's backwards Because you'd want quarterly because then you wanna be able to check and make sure that if there's odor, why would we want to check less often? Again, that's
what...
Did I
misunderstand that? Supervisor Nielsen just to clarify. Right now projects are conditioned for one year of quarterly reports. And so we want to extend that and be able to review them at least annually. And if the board wanted to make that more regular they certainly could. But it's extending it and making sure we continually going out there to check on them.
Right, and I also want to acknowledge that you know the reason why we got The system that Everbloom has gotten is partly because the lawsuits, right? I mean that wasn't necessarily driven by us. The lawsuits pushed this conversation and got to a place where you know some operators are forced to start to go down that route and fill apart. And then we are where we are today. You know I just really want encourage the industry whether whatever comes out of today That you hear the frustration that's out there on trying to find a solution and that, you know some people are laughing but it's coming. You know they're at some point this board whether this works that's great you won't hear from us again but if not you know we'll be back up here in the beginning of the future asking for something um some of these changes.
So I just think it's really important for You guys to think about that, because you know if the problem goes away then there's no reason for us to keep bringing it up. So I just want to send those signals out there To do whatever you guys can to address these problems. Supervisor Caps.
Yeah, I'm just not clear what we're Thank you. What seems to be the direction of the studies are we studying? What are we studying?
Supervisor Caps through the chair, I'll tell you what I think I heard and then you guys can correct me where I'm wrong but what I heard was do the analysis on the power. That's what I heard but not any other studies. We would be working with our consultant to develop the threshold and the process by which we could verify complaints As laid out by Supervisor Hartman.
So the process to verify complaints is to establish a new threshold, to actually establish a threshold rather than using residential odor in a zone. I'm sorry, odor in a residential zone. That is not working so what we want is to establish something that some level of terpene that can be in the air and then once you exceed that That's a verified problem. So a DT at the property line? Possibly I'm not saying, I'm not committing to that yet because I need to analyze it. I mean we haven't even studied it yet So what I'm saying is that we want to work with our consultant to develop a threshold. It could be DT, it could be the property or it could be a cluster where we have like if we have this hotspot map up you can see that we have three clusters and that we would instead of just saying it's at the property line and make one grower one by one by one change their technology that we would group the growers together And say look we have verified problems in this area.
You're all part of that possible problem. Each of you should be going down the path of changing your technology and going to a backed system
5:53 – 5:5811 turns
OK and I mean I'm interested in Establishing a threshold at the property line, but what you I'm not sure what you're suggesting
So I'm saying I need to look at whether that is the best way to do it Because I think what the possible outcome of making it at the property line Is that you could be detecting the neighbor's odor? At that property line And requiring a grower who may not be having a problem potentially to improve their back. And then at the end of the day, you still have odor at that property line because they're so close together and with the wind patterns, the cannabis terpenes move around and where you detect them may not be the source.
So that's the problem we've had all along. So what we want to try and do is create something there's little broader than that so we can capture more of the growers at one time. So I think that is actually going in the direction of what you would prefer based on what i'm hearing today, is that more people would be going towards BACT rather than just one grower where it was detected at their property line.
And you would come to us if this we go down this path with a actual like threshold? Correct And all these people in this cluster need to meet this odor threshold? Correct. Or improved upon? Right, so we would codify that. And however they get there is up to them in terms of their technology?
Well we would work with them certainly but yes I mean right now there's flexibility in the code to move to different types of technology but if it was ineffective then we would have to ratchet it up right?
And you, okay. And so to play that out because this is how it works, you would come back with a consultant and we'd approve of a contract and then there be, I mean can you give a rough estimate on time frame for this? Sure,
so we wouldn't need to come back to the board to approve the consultant to work with us on the energy study. It's at a low enough cost that we can do a purchase order for that. So that's not something we come back for. But what we would be doing is in the interim, is we would be working with our Geo-Syntec to develop this threshold. We will be proposing changes, developing changes to the code to implement what we're hearing from the board today and then we would bring that all back as a package.
So what I heard is it might take about six months up to six months to do the analysis of the energy Study and my consultant is giving me the thumbs up on that. And then while that work was being done, we would be working on these other changes creating this ministerial path in the coastal zoning ordinance trying to establish the threshold so collectively we would be moving down the path at the same time not waiting for one to start the other.
And to the chair's point, would you be giving us a recommendation or would you just be giving us more options for them to then deliberate further? Because again with taxes I thought we were going to get a recommendation and we didn't. So I just want to make sure we're acting. And not just deliberating and studying. And you can hear frustration in my voice, but I don't wanna kick the can down anymore.
Yeah sure no I understand. So we would come back with a recommendation on changes to the code. And it would go to the Planning Commission first because any change that we make to our ordinances goes to the PC first. They would then make recommendations to the board. Okay thanks.
Lights are all still on. Supervisor Williams. I was also going to say that none of this should preclude the director in a case where she has enough evidence to issue a back determination next week, next month to change operations. That's the power that is vested in the director and the ordinance and that's how our regulatory regime supposed to be. They're supposed to give them warnings to do corrections first But the part of what we've been discussing today is how to have enough evidence to figure out whose problem it is.
OK, Supervisor
Nelson? Two things you know I think one is that I think the coach has experienced the odors experience not necessarily detected so That would be something, I think that's actually a higher level. So that's actually what's in there. So that was one thing and the other thing that I thought might be able to fast track this is are there any exceptions that we can actually bring these things back to the board instead of stopping at the Planning Commission?
We're having this all over the place that we have to always... And the board's in this constant conversation and then say hey, we gotta go back through the Planning Commission and get back to you. With Board direction are we able to circumvent that?
I'm gonna direct that question to Council.
5:59 – 6:0418 turns
Supervisor Nielsen and members of the board, if we are doing a zoning code amendment then the government code requires that we have a written recommendation to the Planning Commission and then to the Board. If you're doing a change to Chapter 50, that does not need to go to the Planning Commission. If you're just directing staff on options, you could do that first so it's not everything needs to stop there first but once you've got a draft amendment before your Board could adopt it, you would need to have that recommendation from the Planning Commission.
And that's in government code? Is that state government code, not necessarily county code.
Yes, that's correct.
All right,
Supervisor
Hartman. I think we're getting closer and I'm actually going to ask Director Plowman to help frame the motion direction to her staff but I know we're talking about the coastal zone and the greenhouses But I'm asking that you also include inland and particularly those that are not regulated now. That is, you know it may be a different, the BACT may be different obviously but they should also have a standard.
That to me is really important.
And shoot, you just lost me there man. I was on board.
Sorry.
So let's talk about outdoor for a second. OK. So first off. Yeah. First I think the first grow now because of all the people that have gone out of business. I think the first grow closest to built in is maybe two and a half or three miles. And yeah, the prevailing wind takes it in there and you can smell it so I don't know what the...I think the reason why on this first one that you're where you are is because you want something that's enforceable and you want something that works.
And maybe that's what the study is going to come back and tell us. And maybe that's, that's what you're asking. I just think it's so different than when you're talking about an enclosed structure and keeping this smell in there. That makes sense to me. You're growing outdoors, you're out in Koyama or you're off somewhere where you're not bothering anybody I don't know how you're going to come up with technology, and to me the people that are most concerned about when we start talking about that are farmers. And I know people say well they have the right to farm and they're covered.
There's a pig farm I know along the 246th that's very nervous about what we're talking about because they think that that's gonna be the next step.
May I respond? Yes,
go for
it. The pig farm has been there decades and I don't think they're really worried. And the broccoli argument, I'm not persuaded by that.
How about when I smell McDonald's fries? It's triggering.
But you raise a really important point and that is some people have located their operations where they're not a nuisance And they deserve a lot of credit for that. But but there's got to be I'm so I'm not decreeing, I'm saying this is an issue I would like you and perhaps working with the industry working with the cities to come up with the recommendation about how we can do a better job because what we have now, the setbacks. We have ostensibly that they're only supposed to harvest for three weeks but we don't, we have no way of enforcing that so they can be creating odor.
There are operations within one mile of Buellton, even less than that on Santa Rosa Road not necessarily just 246. So this is an opportunity that I can't Let go to talk about odor in my district and ask for help.
Supervisor Herman to the chair, I think we can certainly if you would suggest that we study that what the options are yes and then options on
on that one is fine okay?
Okay so let's craft a motion on
all right That the direct planning and development to amend the coastal zoning ordinance, to establish a form of measurement of odor and a threshold. And make a recommendation regarding where to measure that, the tool to measure it, and what the threshold will be That we amend the code to create a ministerial path for people amending their OAPs. To improve the technology, the odor control technology.
Amend the code to require annual inspections after their quarterly inspections are complete. To Study the issue of provision of power to the facilities in Carpinteria. And to study what the possible measures are to control odor for outdoor grows in the inland area.
6:04 – 6:1215 turns
What about, did you mention talking about Equipment that's on the running.
Yes, one more thing
I wanted that on there too.
Yes and to include a requirement in the code for runtime for the odor control systems.
Okay
all right there's motion. Does the most I'm trying to understand if the motion Provides for the ability to either take action on a back determination before there's three verifiable complaints or to treat a cluster as one for the purposes of reaching three.
So I think Supervisor Williams to the chair, I think that's what I would like to work with our consultant on. To see what the best approach would be and then we will come back with a recommendation.
Supervisor Caps?
I'm not gonna be able to support this. I just feel like we are taking a more complicated system that takes 17 pages to explain. We're making it more complicated, we're studying it further, we're kicking it down the road. We had an opportunity to do something I think we know what works. We know the best available technology right now and I'm just disappointed with sort of where this is headed today. I was really optimistic that we'd have a more concrete tangible thing because ultimately Who we serve are our neighbors and anyway, I really hope that this can be as fast as possible and as specific and tangible as possible so that we don't then have another range of options before us.
And then decide that we need more time to determine those options further because again I just think we need to shift the paradigm of what we're trying to do here. Like who are we trying to serve and what is our ultimate role? And mine is to pay attention a community nuisance that I know we all experience, we all understand fully. But again, I just think we had a missed opportunity here and so I appreciate the intellectual ability of where this process is going but I think we're making it overly even more overly complicated than it needs to be.
Well, I'll just respond to that for a second first. There's also, this isn't just the cannabis industry, the growers that we're imposing this on. I mean if you went with this, there is a lot of people that work, that are also our constituents that work at these places and that's why when we talk about what something costs or the feasibility of something it matters because you go and impose restrictions that might be Not even necessary for some of these grows, and they're unnecessary on other ones.
But you know people are going to lose their jobs and so it's not just... It's not that we're not looking out for constituents. I just think that there's a balance to it. And I understand that you think it's tilted one way And I guess we're probably moving more another way, and it's just taking longer than you would like. And I understand that. And so we're trying to do the best we all can. So Supervisor Nelson? Yes go
ahead. To your point, I really appreciate that because one point I mean was when I visited Everbloom a couple times the employees love it they love not smelling That and experiencing it so intensely wherever they go after work or there. And that was a really compelling argument for me about how it's helped morale to have something, a technology that's really effective. So I'll let it go. I appreciate your sensitivity and that we've kept this conversation professional but the employers are also on my mind very much.
And I hope everybody's as strongly capitalized as Everbloom. That would be awesome if they were. Supervisor Nelson?
Yes, thank you Chair Lavanino. And I'm not going to support it either. You know, I think my complaint that sometimes we do too much planning, not doing. I mean, I've been saying that for not just this issue but many issues in our county. So this is not shouldn't be a surprise to anybody that I would like to see us get through it quicker. So you know, I think ultimately will probably better be back on this conversation the future. But I'm gonna be up and be cautiously optimistic that some of the moves and the votes that move forward today may make those impacts that I think everybody's looking for I'm equally concerned about the health of these businesses and that's why I reached out seven months ago and said, hey guys what's going on? You know this is an issue I see coming.
I think we need to get ahead of it um and you know I really want to just say again for the industry get ahead of it because I think at some point if you're not ahead of it you know you're gonna get run over by it and I think that's you know could have happened today. It may not you know maybe with this as a caution you know Supervisor Hartman's methodical way of getting there.
Not taking big jumps may be the wise way to move this forward and so like I said, I'm willing to watch and hopefully that does come to fruition But if it doesn't, I do think we'll be back here in the future having the same discussion. I'm sure we will. And I'm
going to second the motion because we haven't went right into discussion and I'm going to second it you know because I do think that it's better in the long run that we push This technology, but that our system is nimble enough to push another technology when the better one comes along. And that means setting up a system by which P&D can issue back determinations more often and with more nimbleness and address the problems that do exist.
I would agree though with Supervisor Nelson's assessment that that should, right now with the market partially I know only slightly recovering is the time to make an investment. You've got to make an investment now as particularly if the standard that Everbloom set is intimidating for you. If you think that you can abate odor at less than 10 units per acre or with another kind of system. Now is the time to do that, right?
And to prove that before out of desperation the board embraces a one size fits all standard.
Yeah because that's coming okay so alright so we have a motion and a second let's take a roll call vote
6:12 – 6:135 turns
CL Miyasato. I think Director Plowman wanted to say one last thing, sorry.
This is not to derail any... When we discussed this during our work program presentation for LRP, we indicated that we could move the Cannabis Ordinance Amendment up but we would delay the work probably on SB9 and STRs That is what we talked about at the hearing. So I just wanted to be transparent with the board that we will slip in the cannabis ordinance amendments now.
Okay, can only do what you can do right? Okay understood and that takes us to our roll call vote.
Roll-call vote Passed 3–2 Moved by Joan Hartmann · Seconded by Das Williams motion by Supervisor Hartman, a second by Supervisor Williams to approve staff recommendations A through C. C being the direction as noted b
Show transcript
Motion passes 3-2
Okay, thank you for that. And so we're adjourned to Tuesday April 30th for a housing element update proposed rezones, a special meeting to be held here in Santa Maria.