 Good morning everybody we'd like to call to order The special meeting of the Board of Supervisors for April 9th 2018 if we could have a roll call, please Supervisor Leopold here Coonerty here Capit McPherson here chair friend here if you'll join us in a brief moment of silence in the Pledge of Allegiance Good morning mr. Palacios Chair friend and members of the board we do have one Replacement page this is on item 3e. There's a new strikeout underline Version Nothing has changed in the actual ordinances other than the underline and strikeout did not show through in the original copy So we've provided a replacement page Thank you for that So we'll move right on to the special meeting agenda item 3 is a public hearing to consider recommendations from the Planning Commission regarding proposed amendments to Santa Cruz County code chapter seven point one two eight One three point one zero and sixteen point zero one and related amendments to the general plan local coastal program for cannabis licensing and land Use regulations for non-retail commercial cannabis cultivation manufacturing and distribution activities Proposed amendments to County code chapter thirteen point ten or amendments to the local coastal implementation program is outlined in the Planning Director we have the various set of attachments the letter the Planning Commission the proposed amendments and strikeout copies for Seven point one two eight and the proposed amendments and strikeout underline copies for one Thirteen point ten and the notice of the public hearing we'll now open it up to staff for presentation Good morning miss Bolster Grant. Good morning Robin Bolster Grant cannabis licensing manager on March 14th 2018 the Planning Commission made 19 separate recommendations regarding the proposed regulations for the non-retail commercial cannabis program The Commission's actions built upon the direction provided by your board to uphold the community's shared values of environmental protection and neighborhood preservation while creating a blueprint for a successful regulated local commercial cannabis industry a Healthy local industry allows reasonable access to medicinal and adult use cannabis with appropriate safeguards Against diversion to children and or the black market and other negative impacts to our quality of life We feel the Planning Commission recommendations support the policy goals articulated by your board and meet the majority of the concerns voiced by the public One area of concern that has been discussed is the tension between commercial cannabis activities and the expectation that folks have in Residentially zoned neighborhoods Several of the Commission's motions address this issue by restricting these activities to parcels that have been under cannabis cultivation for several years Eliminating the potential for new development to be approved in residential neighborhoods Timber production zone protections were also reaffirmed to similarly prohibit new development reducing the potential harm to sensitive habitats and forest land We are seeking clarification regarding the date that we should use in order to define cannabis cultivation as Existing we've provided two options Dictating either that cultivation be established prior to January 2013 or November 2016, which was the close of our registration period Recommendations were also made to enhance the incentives for developing our commercial agriculture zone property with commercial cannabis activity by Expanding the number of properties that can take advantage of larger canopy restrictions and including owners of CA land to the category of eligibility for cultivation regardless of their own history of farming the land One of the more problematic areas of concern has been odor as requested by the Commission staff extensively researched methods and strategies employed by other jurisdictions and While there are a number of effective controls that can be applied to indoor cannabis operations odor from outdoor Cultivation remains extremely difficult to mitigate in our judgment Recommendations offered by the Planning Commission requiring written concurrence from neighboring property owners would not be an effective mitigation measure We have offered two alternative approaches Potentially increasing setbacks to neighboring habitable structures or restricting outdoor grows on smaller parcels In addition the cannabis licensing office staff have observed measures such as planting lavender Or other scented vegetation as an odor buffer It should be noted that the proposed recommendations limiting new development in residential neighborhoods mean that Impacts associated with cannabis cultivation including odor have likely existed on these properties for several years It is also our intention as articulated in the enforcement plan to track and report back on all commercial cannabis related complaints If specific sites are associated with a disproportionate number of odor complaints the licensing office retains the discretion to withhold License renewals or imposed enhanced license conditions As you are aware the Planning Commission also introduced a new cottage license type to address the concerns of smaller established cannabis farmers The restrictions attached to this license type were designed to help ensure that only existing established growers will qualify and Unlike other license types the property owner is required to live on site While there may be some potential concerns Regarding enforcement issues for these smaller parcels where odor may be more difficult to mitigate We do recognize that this license type may serve the needs of small farmers that might otherwise be left out of the legal regulated environment The Commission also asked staff to consider the issue of nurseries to respond to the needs of cultivators in our opinion Existing draft ordinance and proposal to reduce the minimum Commercial ag parcel size in order to qualify for greater canopy limits provides adequate Opportunities for those cultivators seeking to establish cannabis nurseries without additional ordinance revisions As we've said many times the process of creating a brand-new licensing program is by definition iterative and to some extent a work in progress We expect to come back over time with refinements as we learned from our experiences Staff is available to answer questions or discuss our research and to any of these issues further And we seek your policy direction at this meeting so that we can return with the draft ordinance for a first reading at your April 24th Meeting. Thanks very much. It's all half Thank you Are there any brief questions from board members before we open up this public hearing it'll obviously come back for Deliberation from the board So what we're going to do is we're going to open the public hearing just to give you sort of a brief overview of what We'll be doing today. We're not going to be adopting any ordinances today. This is an opportunity for you to provide Input into what has been a pretty extensive Process for us is about hopefully we're coming toward the end of that process. We have received all of your letters We have received all the coalition letters So just to keep that in mind before you give your testimony today that it's something that we have seen and We will take a break at 1045 and again at noon if needed depending upon how long today's meeting goes So please do line up. We will we'll afford two minutes for every speaker and we'll open now the public hearing Good morning. Welcome. Good morning. Thank you My name is Steve Holman. I've lived in Bonnie Dune for 42 years and I have some background in environmental health I wanted to reiterate what I have said before which is There are two streams that serve Davenport that emanate in Bonnie Dune And there are seven streams in the San Lorenzo Valley that emanate in Bonnie Dune in two springs That serve the San Lorenzo Valley water district and there are three streams in one spring that serve the city of Santa Cruz That emanate in Bonnie Dune Also, the water that goes down the streams towards the San Lorenzo River in the San Lorenzo Valley That that which is not diverted by the San Lorenzo Valley water district joins the San Lorenzo River And it has the potential to be to flow to the ocean or also to be diverted by the city of Santa Cruz So all of Bonnie Dune is a huge watershed for much of the North County Pretty much from north of Boulder Creek to Davenport and from Davenport to Santa Cruz to Live Oak the water supply depends on The water that falls on Bonnie Dune from rainfall It's it's at least 50% of the supply of those areas so I think it's really important to Make sure that all of Bonnie Dune is protected from unlawful grows and from clear-cutting of wood of the forest and from Rodedicides and Fertilizers and things that can enter the streams so while it's been proposed that there be the coastal commission plus one mile I think that's an artificial construct because it doesn't include all the headwaters of all the streams that serve all the water systems Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Omen Morning welcome feel free if anybody else would like to address us trying the public hearing feel free to line up if it's okay with you Good morning. My name is Tom Herne. I'm here representing the rule Bonnie Dune association The RBDA supports having the board adopt all of the recommendations of the planning commission. We see this as a compromise but We would we prefer stronger measures to protect the environment especially in the area zone timber production and residential neighborhoods However, the political reality is that these measures are the best we believe that can be achieved at this point Even if all of these measures are adopted Seneca's County will still have the least restrictive commercial cannabis regulations in the state and probably in the country a Point I feel that needs to be emphasized as the enforcement of these regulations without rigorous enforcement This regulatory experiment will is doomed to fail Given that the estimate by Pant County planning staff puts the number of folks that are willing to submit to abiding by the Regulations to grow cannabis legally is less than 10 percent the total number of growers in the county The total number of grows in the county the legal growers won't stand a chance to survive nevermind thrive if the illegal trade isn't curbed And the rest of the community will continue to see the environmental degradation and horrible wildfires That have already been the result of illegal cannabis trade again We support the adoption of the planning commission recommendations in whole I'd like to thank the planning or the port of supervisors for taking the time to listen to the community And then considering our concerns This is one of the most important land use regulations that this county will be facing in many years. Thank you. Thank you Morning. Good morning Eric Hoffman coalition for environmental Santa Cruz First like to thank all of your supervisors for appointing the wonderful planning commissioners We basically as a group Are pleased with the outcome and the 19 motions they made that went on to you As for the planning department, we feel they got it right on the most of the motions most of the information they Brought forth to implement the plan though on the the odor issue with we think you missed the mark We think that there are ways to measure odor that are scientific and you can use to make judgments They're both clear to cannabis growers and to people living near them and there's other ways to mitigate We've been saying this for about three years See our focus now is sort of moved to the legal system and the the product that the fact that only seven hundred sixty people have Gone forward with this program despite a lot of work that's gone into it And so our concern is how are we going to deal with the non growers who will still be operating outside of the system? And we don't see any budgetary things on that so that concerns us quite a bit We think that there should be record keeping on par with what goes on in Santa Clara County We've looked at different counties and what they've done with their cannabis programs, and we think there are examples that are Clear for getting people information about what types of things are going on how many incidences and we think that there should be Public recording that this should happen on maybe biannual basis See what lastly rodenticides? We know the state has outlawed rodenticides, but we don't think that's addresses the problem Even the planning commission suggested that we do one one inspection in a three-year period That won't be sufficient to take care of the rodenticide problem. Thank you. Thank you I'm Bob Strickland. I know the gray beard from Barney Dune And said narrow space listen to the gray beards, but I've sat through the planning commission meeting the other day Well, God the marathon meeting and I listened to the planning commissioners who had very strong opinions in Generally the areas of protecting neighborhoods from land use change and protecting timberland that came up with the 19 Options for about I have a better word. They were pretty much unanimous on all of them the extent the the the nay votes generally were in the Realm of the didn't feel that the recommendation of the commissioners was strong enough to protect neighborhoods in timberland And there was a couple of no votes. I then looked at what came back from the planning Planning department staff and I felt like they were walking back on what the commissioners had Spent the entire day talking about so I urge you to look carefully at the What the commissioners requesting and then look at what the planning the staff wrote and there's some back-offs like a level 5 became a level 4 review a reference to the Enforcement we've already got a form online I've tried to do a dry run of looking at that form and you really cannot fill that form out For this cannabis thing if you see a fence that's too tall I can take a picture I can tell you the dress and I can say go look at that fence. It's too tall I can't find the pot in the around the area I know that right now on felt an empire grade. You can smell pot. It's not overwhelming It's not really obnoxious, but it's there the closest pub private land I can find is at least a thousand feet away, and that's my yard. There's no pot there I've been locked out of bad to keep my windows closed for a whole week because of a pot crow that was about a quarter mile away And now you can't see that using Google Earth because it's in and a warehouse. Thank you. Thank you for those comments Good morning. Welcome. I'm all changed from Corleadus The big problem I'm having with the changes that the staff is recommending now is from 2013 to 2016 The the reason for the 2013 was it was because of the green rush because the county opened their arms to cannabis So if you change it to 2016 all of these out of state and out of county people who come around especially in our area bought up the land are Now eligible and this whole 2013 2016 was to stop this green rush And so I really have a problem with changing that And also the TP zoning I see you know I still have a problem with the TP zoning and having any of this in there because this is what really affects us and the issues the SU parcels and the TP parcels in the mountains are the same This they have the forest that it's all the same kind of land And so she was another another problem, but this mainly my issue is the 2013 to 2016 thanks Thank you Good morning. Good morning. I'm Nancy Macy I live in Boulder Creek and I'm here for myself and my family as well as speaking as chair of the Valley Women's Clubs Environmental Committee For the San Lorenzo Valley. We are very grateful for this public part process We feel strongly that the planners and the planning commission have worked hard to provide thoughtful recommendations for you to consider We two agree with the gentlemen who just spoke that 2013 is the year you should be choosing and Wanted to point out that there's still one major problem, and that is the language of no duty to enforce That clause is patently absurd. It's still in there We urge that you as our supervisors insist that it be removed And that the county actually embrace its duty to enforce its own laws Enhanced to plan how to effectively enforce the regulations so that the legal growers can be supported And the illegal growers can be removed Right now under the cannabis licensing website under enforcement it there all there is is a public complaint form There's nothing else talking about it So because in the past we haven't always the county hasn't always enforced this regulations to protect the environment Too many variances administrative variances. We I'm not clear whether Administrative variances would still be allowed, and I think they should be forestalled. They inherently undermine the requirements We thank you for considering the long-term and cumulative impacts on the environment in our neighborhoods. Thank you very much. Thank you Good morning. Welcome. Good morning. My name is Melody Meyer. I'm the president of source organic It's I'm a local non cannabis business that supports common sense regulations I'm here to advocate for a safe environmentally responsible social conscious and economically sustainable cannabis trade in the county I support the written comments presented by green trade Santa Cruz and I want to highlight a few of those The county has taken some good steps to ensure that existing compliant operators avoid serious Business disruption by allowing them to seek a temporary state licensing prior to the adoption of a final ordinance Please expedite this process and move forward on the proposed ordinance as soon as possible More delays in adopting an ordinance will have adverse effects Adverse consequences on the ability of local operators to seek and receive annual state licensing in a timely manner I urge the board to provide direction to the county licensing manager to fast-track local authorization To allow limited operations for existing eligible non-retail cannabis businesses as they begin the local and state licensing application process California boarders approved prop 64, which was based on a comprehensive state regulatory framework having served on a CDFA Advisory committee for 10 years. I watched this process and fold I believe there are compelling reasons for the county to adopt state language and definition specific to cannabis Operations collaboration between state and local agencies will be significantly enhanced if everyone uses the same terms and Defines them the same way I have many friends who have cultivated cannabis over the years in small-scale cottage like settings including as cottage style license type Will help those producers transition and reduce overall Unregulated activities this help maintain help will help maintain a sustainable amount of economic activity That will support residents businesses and consumers in summary Expedite the process and move forward on the proposed ordinances as soon as possible. Thank you. Thank you Good morning Welcome back. Thank you My name is Brenda Chadwick Happy to have an opportunity to talk to you all again about Advocating for smaller cottage license type here in the county. I Missed by four minutes getting this packet Included today, so I'll hand that over when I'm finished with my comment I did in the packet. I have your original chair of friend and supervisor Leopold your Letter Creating the cannabis cultivation choices committee and that's when I first got started and involved in all this the C4 committee and that was a Real necessary step So many people in the county had let it be known that a total band the band was not a good way to go And I'm glad that you did that. I have a few other things letters, you know talking about home occupation the Sentinels first article that were the registration started Then things started to get a little wonky because during that registration process Many things were changed the fee went from thirty five hundred dollars down to five hundred dollars the type one C specialty cottage license was became law in the state and I came a number of times to encourage you to Extend the registration get the information out to people because I didn't really think that it had been I have my comments to the draft EIR Talking again about cottage licensing and inclusion and I also have a Teared level for that That license type so I am a member of the green trade board and I Totally support their position paper on it and I encourage you to Take a look at my packet. Thank you Hi Pat Malo Director of green trade. I also had the pleasure of serving on the C4 Committee and being involved in all the fun that we've had for the last few years So we've got some really positive things that I think are on the table First the cottage license I think that we've been talking about that talking about that and we finally got the first step towards that and so I really want to You know applaud everybody who's been working on that. I'd really like to compliment the planning commissioners for recognizing that The some community groups community prevention partners for Resilinizing that and a lot of the board and their staffers for recognizing that so I hope we can go forward It doesn't completely fix the problem of all the small folks But it starts to recognize their existence and so thank you for that others have talked about our green trades You know need to extend this temporary Licensing process to everyone who's attempting to get into this and is in good standing because We're getting to spring planting season right now And we want to be able to let as many folks into this as we possibly can So that these this conversation that we're having in the room today about what are we going to do about the folks Who just don't want to follow the rules well first we need to divide To figure out who those folks really are and we need to get as many folks Self-regulating as we possibly can to keep the group that is outside of regulations as small as it can be and as manageable As can be so that we can address all the neighborhood concerns environmental concerns community concerns that the cannabis industry shares You know the last thing there's a couple of pieces of the planning commissioners recommendations that are not going to work One of them is the idea about having to get permission from all your neighbors and as proof that it doesn't smell I think that there is technology out there, and we don't want to have that turn into some sort of extortion clause Also, the special use stuff needs to get fixed as long as it as well as the timber production. Thank you. Thank you Good morning Good morning supervisors. I'm Bob Brawage representing big Creek Lumber Company. You folks have a difficult challenge Your decisions are going to impact this county for the foreseeable future. So it's a tough job We've submitted numerous documents over the past couple of years a recommendation is to not allow it on timber production zones Timber productions was created by the Timberland Taxation Reform Act in 1976 Specifically to create a zone where the first best use in the primary is a growing and harvesting of timber That act also severely limited what else could be done on TP parcels and With a little bit of leeway for counties But I'm certain the legislature never intended For you to authorize an economic activity on TP lands that would supersede the growing and harvesting of timber We agree with the comments that were submitted to you by the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau and in Miss Walker's letter she pointed out a number of other counties that have forest lands that have made a decision to not allow Cultivation on TP for reasons that your board understands It's the most difficult area to monitor and enforce and it's absolutely the area where the likelihood of environmental harm Is likely to occur. I'm happy to answer any questions and and good luck Thank you, mr. Belaj morning welcome back Good morning. Thank you for having the meeting today I'm just gonna jump right in and address the blanket policy of requiring a level five permit for all properties except CA zone that will inadvertently create a bottleneck in the licensing system and prevent the licensing manager and staff from Effectively approving permits in a timely manner. For example, there are properties that clearly should not require a level five permit when the planning recommended that CA properties be Addressed the same as a properties. So you have an indoor cultivation CA property No limit on size Level three But then you have a warehouse That up to 2,000 square feet level five. It just clearly doesn't make sense When addressing warehouses, it should be streamlined Current law would just be a change of use permit on warehouses. So Minimum, I think, you know level three no limit on size as well as CA properties outdoor would be a level four Yet a properties would be a level five It just seems arbitrary to just do a blanket policy. These smaller cottage licenses will have a huge barrier of entry on cost time It just doesn't make sense to wipe out everything and make one thing I think we should take a closer look at what the planning had recommended and Make something that clearly makes more sense and is reasonable. Thank you very much Thank you. Good morning. Welcome My name is Richard Bartel. I live in the Aptos Hills have two comments The first is I've attended a lot of these meetings. I attended the planning Commission meeting I hear a lot of people Talk about the problems that they're having with commercial cannabis grows in their residential environments. I Myself have not heard anybody come in And talk about why it's important to allow this to continue We've got a lot of area in this county where these growths could happen the space is there Why put it in a residential environment? The second is an experience I have and I'm curious whether Any commercial grow is going to see the same experience Several years ago my wife and I decided to build an ADU on our property One of the requirements that came back from the planning department was Well, what color are you going to paint this? We need to make sure that this is Compatible with the neighborhood that you're living in How many people are going to be concerned about the color of a hoop house? It's going to be in the property next to me I don't think white is very compatible if you want to verify it go on to Google Earth Look at this county. I don't think you can see too many houses You can see a lot of hoop houses little white rectangles. Thank you Thank you Morning welcome back. Good morning Kevin Collins. I Really appreciated the effort that the planning commission put into their recommendations to the board. They were very thoughtful. I generally support all of them other than the a couple of changes made by the Department at subsequently I think that the cottage grows still should have a level five review This is merely the zoning administrator. It's not a full planning commission review Residents deserve this. I was When I read the EIR Some months ago I was shocked by the fact that the water resources were virtually unaddressed Water pollution was not addressed water demand was not addressed. This is something that needs to be really understood This is being eliminated from all the urban areas of the county including the highway nine-quarter Soquel etc etc, but the water resource impacts are going to be serious if this expands to the level that it's anticipated This issue is also going to require a level of code enforcement that this county has never demonstrated This is a new kind of development. It's not the same thing as whether or not someone it puts an addition on their house It's a transformational land-use decision. It's going to require when you send an inspector out on a non-compliant site out in the middle of you know The high end of the San Lorenzo or the Soquel watershed, they're going to need us An escort from the sheriff's department. This is going to be quite expensive We've got 750 people that are registered in some way We got thousands of people unregistered unless those that situations brought into compliance with these regulations than this this Square dance we've been having here in this room is not really going to mean very much So you're going to have to prepare for actual code enforcement. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Collins Good morning Welcome back. Thank you. I'm Phyllis Strickland body doom resident for decades I was pleased to see the recommendations that the planning mission came back for and I felt really heard as a RA a residential agricultural Community member and I was I just want to point out that The planning Commission was unanimous in terms of wanting to protect residential neighborhoods from especially Manufacturing above a level one The only dissent was that they didn't want any manufacturing at all one one member of the Commission in RA and I Just would really like you to pay attention to their recommendations and the strength of those recommendations in protecting Residents in the county. Thank you Thank you Morning Good morning. I'm Jamie Padilla and I'm with United Farm Workers and we're here supporting The development of a socially responsible and sustainable cannabis industry in Santa Cruz Santa Cruz County is a really special place for our organization we have members throughout the county and And and we have a special relationship with a farmer here it's with swattenberry farms we represent those workers and And and have a collaborative and productive relationship with with the farmer where Everyone benefits and we look forward to developing those types of partnerships with cannabis producers as well and We are collaborating with folks from green trade and just want to be here and support that The adoption of an ordinance in Santa Cruz Thank you morning Good morning. My name is Christopher Carr. I am here on behalf of local compliant farmers and also I am a board member with green trade and green trade is Santa Cruz's largest coalition of cannabis businesses and supporters. I just wanted to commend the work of the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors This is an ongoing process and I also wanted to extend a cordial invitation. I Submitted my public comment via email, but I am currently a cannabis environmental steward Specialty outdoor on TPZ zone land and I think I would cordially invite my Comrades here from Big Creek Lumber and the board to potentially either submit photos and demonstrate their Some of these parcels are 40 90 plus acres So there's adequate space to facilitate a wholesome environmentally friendly timber harvest and there are also open spaces to facilitate specialty regenerative Outdoor cultivation, so I think there's there's room here for all of us to coexist and to partner And if we don't act fast and ensure an administrative process that provides the safe harbor for all our local operators in good standing We're gonna lose a lot of these local businesses to Monterey County, Santa Barbara County, San Luis Obispo County Because those counties are up and running. So I just want to be solution driven and provide an olive branch and cordially Invite anyone interested. I submitted an email. So you have my email and anyone else. I have business cards Thank you so much. Thank you Morning welcome back Mark real Larkin Valley And you mean remember that I live in the floor of Larkin the floor of Larkin Valley and there are two continuous a zone parcels That are surrounded by RA or like parcels within this coastal zone one mile designation Although a grower began cultivation after 113 Who should be disqualified from light like further licensing under this ordinance? My concern is that should these properties be sold a grower that could be licensed or is licensed would move in grow and under their License without consideration of the neighbors concerns thus licensing should be considered by the lot Not the name and the neighbors concerned regardless of the lots designation and not just the grower suit suitability Preliminary notice and due process for the neighborhood to contest a potential licensing should be under this ordinance under these Circumstances, thank you Thank you. Good morning Hi, good morning, and my name is Kathy Toner I'm also grateful for all the public input and all the hard work and I also want to commend the Planning Commission and all their input I would like to Also urge and support the adoption of their recommendations with a few suggestions Even with the adoption of those recommendations, we would still be looking at having the most permissive Regulatory framework in Santa Cruz County as was mentioned in the state and possibly beyond So I think that we've done a long way towards accommodating the interests and making some serious concessions And so I'm here to say that I think enough is enough We should move forward with this and not allow further weakening of this Of the proposed ordinance, I would include I would endorse the comments that were made to keep the level five review for the cottage license It is only fair A couple of concerns though that remain the issue of enforcement has been raised and I really think unless I've missed it I don't see the enforcement plan before us I don't understand how we can consider and adopt how you can adopt an ordinance With all the issues that have been raised without knowing what that enforcement plan is going to look like so Unless I'm missing it I would say no no enforcement plan no ordinance I would say that needs to be in place and we need to have a chance to look at that for all the issues that have been raised And that includes being fair to those who want to participate in the in regulation We need to really know how we're going to create an equal playing field for them through serious enforcement So no plan no ordinance Robin mentioned up front. I think it's very true. This is going to be a learning process And we've seen the law of unintended consequences from policy decisions in the past So I would recommend a serious monitoring and evaluation mechanism be added to this some sort of annual report as was mentioned As being done in Santa Clara County some public hearing at the every year We should know how we're doing on some of these important indicators. Thank you Thank you Good morning. Welcome back Good morning supervisors Mary Jo Walker. First of all, I wanted to thank you for taking the time to very Conscientiously and thoughtfully deliberate the subject. I appreciate it personally I'm going to reiterate reiterate some of the comments. I've made in the past because they're important to me Please protect our rural communities This is a goal that your board stated time and again and allowing commercial grows large commercial growth in RA and SU Does not protect our neighborhoods other similar counties do not allow this also preserve our timber production zones This is where our water comes from This is where much of our wildlife lives and this is where is most difficult to enforce do not allow class 2 or class 3 Manufacturing in our ATP or SU zones. These are commercial operations and they can be dangerous I'm still unclear as to how the licensing officer is going to track cumulative Environmental impacts which as you know is required for example the cumulative water use of a particular in a particular water district I don't understand how that's going to be done Please eliminate the no duty to enforce clause County Council apparently agrees that it serves no legal purpose and it sends the wrong message As a matter of fact, I think you should be saying the county does have a duty to enforce Reporting back to the board is essential for transparency you and we citizens should receive information regularly about the number of enforcement activities Started and completed the number of licensing licenses granted and denied etc Protect the coastal zone plus one mile. Please stop modeling our ordinances after Humboldt and Mendocino County We are not like those counties within the past couple of years a number of more similar counties have passed ordinances that we should be looking at Order is still a problem. We've talked about that already I support the planning Commission's recommendations by and large and finally enforcement is key The county has not done a good job with enforcement in the past. This is obvious. Thank you very much Thank you Good morning. Welcome back Thank you Board of Supervisors for all the time and energy There we go for putting into the issue of the cannabis cultivation. It's been a long road a long journey I think also want to say thanks to staff and Just that we've done I think a pretty good job. I think there's some room for some improvements particularly, I want to bring up the level five and Coming up with little data on the level five I believe right now the current current County offers for appointments per week for discretionary applications the level five If we were to take half the cannabis applications and say that they were to come in for processing That would be scrutinized up dope We don't figure around 300 it could take anywhere from 60 to 75 weeks Just to get an appointment and that assumes no one else outside of the cannabis industry wants an appointment and Santa Cruz So the level five does present a certain difficulty in sticking with where we need to be on a state level to be compliant also The the odor stuff coming up and we do support scrubbers and indoor operations and whenever we can deal with the smell of cannabis But ultimately neighbors having the ability to control what you do on your property as far as your business goes Talking to the ad commissioner and other staff. There's no other industry where that's enforced or there's a veto power For neighbors to build a veto your application and license process. So we get into this potential conflict with a Neighbor and they could literally come and shut your operation down because you didn't pay enough road dues Or they didn't pay what you wanted to so we just want to avoid any extortion type of scenarios that could come up with regards to that The last kind of issue is the legal non-conforming stuff and some of the M-zones we just wanted to have some consideration potentially discretion for the licensing official. Thank you Good morning Hi, everybody My name is Pete rich and I've been a contractor in the San Lorenzo Valley since 82 I first became aware of the situation of The process and when I was in college and Mount San Antonio College I took a political science class after that I served in the armed forces to defend my country So I've learned about the process I fought to defend the process and I'd like to thank all of you guys And I'd like to thank all the people here the people that agree So if you could use a microphone agree because we're all coming together as a community So I'm going to use my time right now as it's rapidly going away to speak for the unspoken There's a lot of kids that have been disenfranchised. There are a lot of kids that are counter cultural There are a lot of kids struggling with mental issues and with drug issues And I've seen the cannabis industry take these kids in and I've seen their lives Transformed I've seen them learn a work ethic learn a job skill and I've seen them be able to Social mobility they live in houses now not in cars and tents So I'm very aware of that I've also seen the influence of you guys and the guys that do and the guys that don't get along always I've seen the industry clean itself up and self nobody wants. We all love the mountains. We all love Santa Cruz We all love each other. Let's pretend that that microphone for you Sir, sir, I need you to use the microphone. I need to use the microphone full of opportunity. Thank you. Thank you Henry Clay would be proud Morning, welcome. Good morning, Rick Rose I want to talk to something similar To what to what Pete was was saying and that's a special use the SU The SU zoning currently the the SU zoning requires Agricultural quarry or heavy industry I believe probably 90 to 95 percent of small operations fall in this category and This would pretty much eliminate their ability to function as responsible cultivators and It appears that you know, perhaps those kinds of restrictions would lean to something akin to green lighting The black market type of things and I believe that it's one of one of the the key elements in coming up with this document is to To avoid that kind of thing and to get people out of that area into into the light and to conform with What the requirements of the county are So Thank you, thank you Morning, mr. Coughlin's welcome back. Thank you. Good morning to you and thank you all for Sitting through this process helping this process move along I'm particularly appreciate the fact that you are holding a special meeting on this issue. It demonstrates the Concern that you have the the desire to hear from everybody. I think that No one can fault this board for not being inclusive and deliberative in this process. I'd also like to Express my appreciation to the county staff from the CAO's office county council the planning department and of course the cannabis licensing office for doing a Tremendous amount of work often with mixed messages Directing them. So I think everybody Even opponents of this plan have been thoughtful and conscientious in their efforts to make this work There are two particular issues. I'd like to address And I think are the most important things that you can do today The first is to direct staff to include the cottage license type. This is really going to Be important to Get a handle on the unregulated market including people in this very small License type will go a long way to relieving The enforcement obligations that will be with the will fall to the licensing office The second deals with that and that is to direct the staff to come up with an expedited process to deal with the What are going to be a very comprehensive and onerous application a process First with the cannabis licensing office and then with the planning department. Thank you. Thank you office. Mr. I had a question about your letter Regarding special use Excuse me zoning you were concerned that the Excuse me the changes for su parcels significantly reduces The number of parcels eligible and you didn't go into more explanation So I was wondering if you could just say a little bit about that. Well the the eliminating This best way to put this about 40% of eligible parcels Will be eliminated with if the restrictions on su or who are adopted is that because of the acre size? No, it's because of the underlying designation And I'd like to remind everybody that I mean I have been 71 years a California resident and I've seen agricultural The underlying Zoning for most of California was agriculture. I've seen that disappear in a lot of ways. I mean the Santa Clara Valley Used to be pretty full of agricultural activities now the best crop is a condominium and so I You know, I'd like to see us Preserve small-scale agriculture of all types throughout the county. I mean that is the trend Distributed This is a very specific question. It's not an opportunity to have an additional Commentary so If we could narrow what that question specifically is and have the speaker specifically Yeah, otherwise we'll move on to the next I thought that the Planning Commission came up with a fairly elegant way of Acknowledging people who are good stewards at their current zone parcels, but it would prevent it in the future And I'm wondering if the their recommendations Affect current growers or your concern is future ability for people to be able to grow on SU parcels Well today in effect we're concerned about the current growers and So does the the Planning Commission's recommendation affect the current growers or is your concern have to do with those with those in the future? It has to do with the current growers You know the the future We advocate for is no minimum parcel size and no zoning restrictions agricultural activities are permitted on every zone parcel in this county and Cannabis should be no different Morning good morning, mr. Chair members of the board. My name is Steven Beals. I represent several stakeholders in Santa Cruz County. I Would like to briefly speak on the 200-foot setback requirement Requiring a 200-foot setback is a mistake allowing for a reduction of that to a hundred feet is Insufficient to correct that mistake Some of the most suitable locations for cannabis operations in Santa Cruz County will be adversely impacted by this requirement the setback should be eliminated for M zoning districts and other similar zoning districts Completely this is especially true in instances where you have legal non-conforming habitable dwellings in close proximity to intensive use zoning districts, and I think the hundred foot Reduction is inadequate. So when you're looking at the setback requirements, I hope that you take that into consideration Allow staff some discretion to reduce the setbacks. Thank you Thank you. Good morning Hi, my name is Isaiah. I'm in a Santa Cruz resident my entire life Yeah, so I do appreciate how we progress this ordinance and I appreciate everyone's work we put into it I guess I want to echo what Steve was saying about you know, we're trying to move into more industrial zoning for indoor cultivation and There are legal non-conforming structures within very close proximity To a lot of those sites that are very suitable for indoor cultivation so in the spirit of trying to move in more of a commercial realm, you know, that kind of inhibits us to do that and Another another point that was spoken earlier is that it seems for as many level five reviews that are going to be necessary to Accommodate everyone who's applying it doesn't seem like the Santa Cruz County has the Capacity to deal with all of them And I don't think there's really a mechanism to really go through that many level five reviews and a time proximity that allows us To comply with state regulation and be able to get our state license and be in compliance So those are two things for me that stand out. Thank you. Thank you Morning Good morning everyone Eric McCall bluebelly consulting group green trade board member and the representative of folks trying to do Right, there's one group that hasn't been represented yet and I would like to read a comment from them It's the legendary breeders who are ahead of cultivators without breeders. You don't have a food chain We would like to recommend an addition to the nursery license Called a heritage cannabis license to protect seeds mother plants and a trust for tax-free research Seed and strain preservation and legacy breeding We should be allowed up to 50% of a commercial cannabis because typically Breeder operations are kept separate from commercial cannabis operations. You're in a phenom hunt. You're looking for information You may have multiple generations being bred that are not destined for commercial sale You can track and trace them to state-approved destruction But then that portion the seeds or the clones would be useful So heritage cannabis is an essential element of a vibrant holistic future in the very bones and blood of a sustainable taxable cannabis industry so we need policy that protects cultivars Cannabis plants from all over the planet many with special medical effects environmental adaptations and some the result of Multigenerational breeding work these living libraries hold our regional heritage Unique heirloom plants are our best hope for breeding new cultivars. We're known For being the best breeders on the planet some of our legendary Cultivators who are breeders need more space and they need to be able to flower It's not a taxable event because you're not selling this hunt They're selling the cultivars and those yes, Texas if you must but we need to make room in our nursery provision for an heirloom or a heritage Research project. Thank you for your time. Thank you Good morning Hi, my my name is Jim. I live in Felton. I actually live in Long Pico I live on the southwest side of a slope a little bit down from the top of the mountain and one day In the summertime. I was out in my yard and I heard a plane fly over, you know Disappeared, you know, and I didn't pay any attention a few minutes later And then pretty soon it was Something's not right here It's like the planes right over my dear any of you live in the mountains. You live in the mountains You live in the mountains. Do you live in the mountains? What about you mr. McPherson? You live in the mountains You live in the mountains. Okay, so I'm up on this steep road dead-end road, okay private road off another private road in Long Pico Canyon I See that flash of white and red so I get up on my roof and I look and there it is It's a CDF plane a big one But not just one it's got a spotter plane with it another CDF plane two and they're flying around my house And I look I go. Oh my god. Holy. Yeah That's flying around me. It's me and all of a sudden I get this fear this Primal fear. Oh my god. What am I gonna do? Should I run now? Should I grab the cat? And put her in the box and what do I take and you know what it turns out it was a On the news they say oh it was a barn. It was a outhouse. It was a storage shed It was a grow it was less than a thousand feet away in Zion II the third fire We'd had in a few years one house burned totally to the ground melted trailers It was in the news the guy that living in there this tenant The grow water another grow house escape with his guitar his bare feet Then another year later the house next door has a honey oil fire This this is a dangerous business and you're about to unleash a force that you can't control And I just asked you to remember the Oakland Hills fire and a lot of people died in their cars Try to escape that fire on the roads. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Hi. My name is Dennis Farley And I'm here to talk about when you're raising the time limit to 2016 I feel that anybody who bought property before it was voted legal has the right they didn't vote or they didn't Come here for the green rush. They were here before and I just feel that they have the right as anybody else to to apply for a license and And to continue on doing it if you don't allow them most people will do it anyways They'll do it. So I think it's better to have control and get the taxes and the money and anyways, that's what I feel Thank you. Good morning. Welcome back Good morning. My name is Jenna shankman. I am with the coalition community prevention partners Foremost I want to thank everyone for including so many different Prevention elements through this public process and encourage the retention of them That limit access to youth and just kind of shape the norms in our community Those include setbacks from sensitive areas restrictions on advertising and products and packaging that have specific youth appeal which we've talked about more at other meetings and just all the site security measures with locking of the product odor mitigation and lack of visibility and Diversion prevention for for everyone. It's not intended for both specifically for young people But CPP also supports finding pathways for these existing small businesses. They're being discussed if they meet certain conditions with the best management and operation plan and what the planning commission laid out for the type 7 cottage license since this will allow bringing these businesses into compliance and having regulation looking having more environmental monitoring and Yes, we obviously support just kind of the ongoing monitoring for this overall program and making corrections where necessary to ensure Success for just the common values that keep coming up over and over again of environmental stewardship neighborhood compatibility And health and wellness. So thank you very much for your consideration on this important issue. Thank you Morning Good morning. My name is Ann Kelsen and I represent several stakeholders in Santa Cruz County in addition to serving as the legal advisor to the California Compassion Coalition and I want to thank the board of supervisors for their hard work and also for the staff as well Just to kind of back up and provide an eagle's eye view of things Currently, California has only 15 counties out of 58 that actually have ordinances in place and to a certain extent It is a state of emergency There are other Organizations and there are bills in place right now trying to address market collapse like doing away with the cultivation tax But here at home what we need to look at is the fact that we need to have an expedited Administrative process to protect the people that already have letters of good standing who've made those efforts and have partnered with the County for several years and are known operators who are not as far as we know doing anything other than to diligently comply and to Help assist in the creation of of this regulatory scheme here in the county They are in limbo. We have some of them have temporary state licenses that may expire We don't know what will happen when that happens I'd also like to encourage the county to consistently look to the state for guidance in terms of adopting Terms and other uniformity Right now the whole state is looking at a patchwork quilt and just looking at those numbers of 15 out of 58 counties Just shows you that in three years time Cannabis will be viewed the way tomatoes and grapes are and we don't need to have Cannabigotry or other preconceived fears and notions get in the way of looking at the fact that at least 40% of these letters of good standing Could be eliminated altogether when they've been known farmers out Operating and trying to do everything they can in order to bring their business legitimate businesses above board and with that I just wanted to add with the nuisance clause right now as it stands. It truly isn't in an extortion clause Typically nuisances are things that we can measure There are things that are based on reasonableness and the way that it's written right now There really is no measure or reasonableness. Thank you other than all right And I wanted to say there are emergency regulations coming out for compassion by the state and this county should be informed of that as Well, thank you Thank you, just trying to get everybody in good morning sir welcome. Hey, good morning My name is West Dewhurst. I'm a cultivator here in the county and the member of the green trade organization I'm here today to talk about the definition of canopy in the current draft ordinance The stipulation that canopy can be non contiguous But must be separated by walls is impractical due to the need to access our plants to work on them without walls Separating non contiguous canopy the ordinance could be read to mean that the entire floor area of a greenhouse structure could be counted as canopy This would effectively eliminate a large percentage of our already limited canopy because we need that space for aisles walkways equipment and work areas In most cases these things would take up at least a third of our greenhouse floor space So this definition would remove more than 30% of our available canopy The fact that our vegetative plants are counted against canopy limits also introduces undue restrictions on production Generally speaking about 25% of any given cultivation canopy would be dedicated to propagation vegetative growth If this 25% is included in our canopy allowance, it would reduce our production by the same percentage While the most recent draft ordinance allows stacking vegetative plants and multiple layers to ease this burden This method is not feasible in greenhouses or outdoor production putting us a significant disadvantage I'd like to use our ranch as a case study to illustrate this point We're fortunate enough to have a CA parcel in South County Which qualifies us for the maximum of 22,000 square feet if we remove a third of that canopy for the space needed for ancillary activities I'd be left with a little over 14,000 square feet of canopy If I remove from that the 25% of canopy I need for propagation and vegetative plants I'm left with just under 11,000 square feet of flowering canopy less than half of my original canopy limit For those that aren't aware square footage of flowering canopy is a multiplier through which we establish our projected revenue So when I have to calculate the potential revenue from our site I'm using not the intended canopy limit of 22,000 square feet But the effective flowering canopy of less than 11,000. This means our potential revenue and the potential tax revenue for the county would be cut in half Simply adopting the state definition of canopy would fix both of those problems. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you Is there anybody else that'd like to address this in the public hearing? Is there anybody else that'd like to address us? Okay Please please step forward Kirk if you want to address us now's your chance Hello, my name is Megan Richofsky. I'm a resident of district five and I'd like to address some personal issues as well as Kind of the terrorism around fires in the mountains and such of course There's negligence in every facet of life and regulations placed by the county would Hopefully do away with any People who are not qualified or don't know what they're doing in the mountains and causing problems, right? I also asked to address the special use Parcel bar in the mountains. It's Like you're hearing it's inhibiting up to 40% of people When you asked mr. Koff is specifically about if it was acreage that is also an issue for a lot of us I know a lot of People in our area are Afraid and and angry about not being able to do what they've been doing for Half their lives or more, you know So thank you very much for taking the time. Thank you Good morning Morning chair friend members of the board of supervisors Kirk Schmidt I'm a greenhouse owner in on CA land in South County and also representing the Cal the Santa Cruz Farm Bureau Over this process so far you've had many changes in the proposed regulation There are many that have been very beneficial to CA land to open up more grow more opportunities on CA land particularly in existing greenhouses and this would include reduced acreage limitations that was proposed by the Planning Commission as well as a clarification of Including ownership as well as farming for three years as a criteria for Obtaining a license on CA land. However, there as other people have spoken today There's a significant Deviation between the state definition of canopy, which is relatively simple and quite clear but is set out in Detail as to the difference between a flowering canopy and a non flowering nursery crop the provisions in the Ordnance before you Would be totally different and would create confusion both in your enforcement the state's enforcement and more particularly when you get to the Issue of taxation you would be taxing at one rate and the state would be taxing at another rate And it would be difficult for the growers to distinguish between the two because of the entirely different definition would be easier for Santa Cruz County To adopt the state definition if you feel that the size Limitations are too great then change the size, but don't come up with a new definition Lastly the issue of existing greenhouses on CA land is Somewhat confused here because in some parts of the ordinance They're called structures and other parts are called greenhouses But structures require odor abatement and scrubbers and greenhouses The large greenhouses in South County average of over a hundred thousand square feet each and it's impossible to have a scrubber Thank you very much. Mr. Schmidt. Can I just ask you a question? Yes The it's been suggested that the nursery Definition should also conform to the state definition. Do you have a point of view about that? I believe that if you Adopted both the flowering definition and the nursery definition in the state definition would be much more clear for enforcement and for taxation the Definition the distinction between the two is whether it's flowering or not While I have talked to staff and they've been concerned about the ability to distinguish this as a farmer in a greenhouse that used to be full of roses I can assure you it's easy to distinguish between a flowering plant and a non flowering plant. Okay. Thank you. Thank you Thank you, mr. Good. Good morning Welcome Thank you. My name is Isaac and I'm a lifelong resident of Santa Cruz County and there was a couple topics I would like to discuss the first one being the level five for the zoning development and I feel like that would just give the neighbor the power to veto your license and No, other ag businesses are subject to this kind of scrutiny and I truly believe it's an extortion clause I think a level four would be more permissible where you have to post a sign on your road Where neighbors have to drive by and are aware of the fact of what's going on There are a few positive things that I would like I liked in the ordinance and one of them being the co-location aspect of it and allowing the nursery square footage to allot us for that and The last thing I would like to discuss is a more uniform approach to the whole the whole dynamic of this whole This whole thing going forward So in basically the commercial ag is being pushed ahead of everybody else because of less strict regulations And so I would like just like to see the the RA and Everybody else the other types of zoning to get a more fair approach and get a level playing field with that. Thank you Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to address us? Is there anybody else beyond the speaker that would like to address us? Okay Hello, my name is Sandeep and Balachandran. I registered for the License back when it was available. I actually live in Boulder Creek I live on a property which is zoned residential agricultural and this is a since people talked about the cottage cannabis is the prime example of my situation Because it is compliant within a lot of the setbacks even your 200-foot pretty ridiculous setback of House on a neighboring parcel it is compliant within that but the only problem with this plot is that it is not five acres and Knowing the neighbors and Where they are located a bit we've been living on this property for three years that it is really unfortunate that a property like this which is actually complies to a lot of the regulations put forth except for one and Would be Unusable for a cannabis or honestly any other type of agriculture because it's too small for wine or vegetables So that's all I'm gonna say. Thanks. Thank you Is there anybody else beyond the speaker that would like to address us during this public hearing? Thank you Morning. Good morning. My name is Seth Smith. I live in a capitol Last week I'm sorry. I'm with Santa Cruz Veterans Alliance. We're one of the state licensed cannabis Cultivation manufacturing distribution retail operations here in Santa Cruz County and the city of Watsonville Last week we gave a tour of our facility in Santa Cruz County to our congressman Jimmy Panetta who Came through walked around looked at everything we were doing talked with us a lot about what we were up to the challenges we're facing different advocacy efforts that were involved in the effect of taxes on patients all that kind of stuff is very Good discussion. We would like to offer the opportunity as I'm sure many of these folks have and and would also agree I'd like to offer the opportunity to any of the members of the Board of supervisors to also come by to our facilities either here in Santa Cruz County or in the city of Watsonville So that we can show you kind of what this looks like on the ground so that you have a better frame of reference for some of these Issues that people are bringing up to you today That's that's a standing invitation for any of you. Thank you Morning Thompson I am a landowner in the mountains and I'm here Encouraging and advocating for SU lands to be allowed to apply for licenses like many of my other Neighbors here that there are many people that have been growing for years that we all know very responsibly to the environment to the water around them and We should be allowed to Now have legal licenses to continue our craft in the mountains. Thank you. Thank you Morning, welcome Good morning. My name is Glen Astrove I'm a property owner and Bonnie Dune and I have been my family has been for generations I'm here to talk to you about my concerns about the level five review The length of time that it's going to take to get through this and my big concern is That the temporary licenses that are held now will run out and the people put into positions of They have invested into this my big concern is the black market growing and when people do go towards the black market These are the problems in Bonnie Dune. I see with neighbors not respecting Everything that goes in in that we're fighting for so I just wanted to say my concern is the time period if we could push that forward and Stump out this black market opportunities. Thank you. I appreciate your time and I appreciate everybody Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to address us? Okay, seeing none we will close the public hearing Once you've spoken once you can't speak again, but thank you And we'll bring it back to the board and the board can have questions and comments and we'll also have action What I would recommend that the board do from an efficiency standpoint there may be items that are relatively non-controversial in the set of planning commission recommendations that I think we should just take in one motion From an efficiency standpoint, I think then we can move on the other items to Go in more depth on so I'll start with supervisor. We'll just go down the line We'll start with supervisor cap it if you'd please start us off Okay, the microphone might need to be turned on A real simple question. I think in the beginning It is it is tax time people are filing their taxes and People are gonna have to put down their income and they're gonna have to put down their expenses When we're dealing with federal tax they're gonna have to put down taxes and You know income that comes from marijuana How does that look how are they gonna be able to talk to the IRS? When it comes to explaining That the income that they're getting is something that's actually contrary to federal law And we're not going to be able to help them explain that with the IRS No, the short answer to that question is I don't know we don't do tax personal tax law for folks and we don't we don't Get involved with IRS regulations and what it is that they're gonna have to declare to the IRS That's up to each individual to do You bet, okay, but I guess Just a little bit farther on that state law would Trump Let me rephrase that state law would Override county law and federal law would override state law it that's in a preemption analysis that would make sense, but You know the the county can can pass laws Where the state has or the feds have not? Taken the field so to speak Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes sense except You know federal law kind of changes with each election and that's why I rephrase the word federal law trumps State law Who you see what I mean? So could that change in the future? We could have a shift one way or the other absolutely absolutely, okay, and I'll try to make this brief, but I'll go through a few items here we're sure share we share the benefit and the burden With everything and everything that I've looked at in the past I try to make sure that district four gets its share of the benefit along with the burden I've seen it happen with affordable housing. We've gotten our share and other parts of the county are also building it and Sharing the burden and and the benefit of course is affordable housing Then when we get to road taxes, that's based on an allocation of road miles More road miles in certain districts get more tax money Even though the tax money is paid by all the people of the county The point I'm getting to is on this issue of economic and environmental justice I see a large burden CA where most of this is going to be done is going to be in district four and I would like to see an allocation of More money going for to the district of the origin of most of the money that'll come from the cannabis Production, but I don't see that in this so if we if we have a de facto Ban in certain districts we can look at a map Map number on page number 16 if you're able to put that up You can see that almost all the Commercial lag is in district four Okay, you bet So what I'm getting at is if we have different ways of Sharing tax money in certain areas getting more because of road miles or affordable housing and what and what have you? I don't see any of that here and certain districts will be benefiting on the burden of The people of district four, which is a very low-income district So nothing in the ordinances that are before your board addresses how tax revenue will be spent Those are policy decisions that are up to your board to be made during budget time, right? So that's a difference between verbal and actual written interpretation at this point Yeah, I'm not following it's nice not in right. It's not in writing. I mean How this is going to be allocated look at the green area and you see it's all in district four I don't see any and much in the other districts when you when you count the coastal Land and also the one mile setback and so I'm getting at the burden here and just as a Point of clarification it it doesn't prohibit it in the commercial agricultural zone within the coastal zone in one mile There's a different set of regulations on new construction within that area so the white area that you see with the I Don't know what that color would be, but I guess pink that is about 98% within my district shows that the overwhelming amount of C a zoned eligible land actually falls within the second district the green area that you're speaking of specifically just happens to be Zoning that's outside of that coastal zone plus one mile buffer, which has a different set of regulations on for example new construction of Structures, so It's not prevented by any stretch and in fact a number of the people that spoke today Live in the second district have greenhouses or other Facilities within the second district that intend to and have registered to grow So it will definitely be within the majority of it will be commercial activity would be within our two districts That's a fact, but I just want to make sure you understand the map The map isn't saying that the white areas and areas precluded. It's actually allowed It's just within a different designation of some of the rules and requirements that fall under that But it does show where future Production actually could take place Because when you talk about existing greenhouses and existing Production It is pertinent to the map here with the CA land so Cultivation is allowed on CA's own land per the terms of the ordinance. So what it what is your question? Yeah, okay. I have I'm outside the one mile buffer. Everybody else has the one mile buffer right except for district five and then also when it comes to Setbacks and everything else on new or existing greenhouses That that's going to be if that's going to affect district four more than any other district I can't answer that question, but I want to make sure that you understand that that it can be grown on CA properties within the one mile buffer in existing greenhouses To make sure that we're communicating with each other Okay, because a second ago. I thought you said that it couldn't be grown on CA land within the one mile buffer and That's not that's not correct If it's in an existing greenhouse, yes, right? So it could be grown within the one mile buffer if it's in an existing greenhouse. Yes, okay, which is not going to change them at all what about Existing greenhouses in CA land and district four. Is there going to be more greenhouses? I don't know how many greenhouses there are in district for I haven't seen an analysis of that being done as With district four as opposed to any other district So I just don't have the I don't have the answer unfortunately the staff may have a staff may have an answer. It's not really a legal question It's I mean there are a lot of factors that will that will go into determining You know who ends up coming in and applying for licenses Not every landlord wants to deal with cannabis. So While it's true that there are probably more existing greenhouses in district four that doesn't mean that The overwhelming number of licensees will will be in in any particular district, right? We have how many licenses could actually come from district will say three and district five and district One I mean, I mean look at the map. I mean right there. Oh, these are potentially eligible part parcels Right and this this particular map deals with one set of variables Depending on the ordinance that that you know, we land on It's not just CA of course There are other zone districts that that are allowed and there are just there are too many variables for us to definitively say who's going to apply and who's not a Supervisor Capita, I don't remember this similar concern when we were talking about Dispensaries were three-quarters of the dispensaries are in district one And if you're saying that we that we should that the taxes generated should go to the District we would have a lot more taxes being generated in general and district one on this There's a shared burden that we have here as a community And in in district one we may not have a lot of CA zone land but we have a lot of residential land and this board has has Supported efforts to increase the density in those areas And our planning rules say that we're going to grow plants in the rural areas and we've zoned the land CA and so you would expect that plants would be grown in CA zone land and Housing would be built in and in the residential zone land So that's how we that's how we balance this all out as a county Through our general plan and the zoning they're in right and then we get down to the ag land again and whether you know, we're talking about local Ag land probably the best in the world based on quality of soil and then then it comes down to You know the nursery effect that was mentioned with the flowering of plants I would like to see Some of that combined in the same, you know existing greenhouses Were you just like a nursery were if I was to go buy a Bush or a plant They say well, we have the one gallons over here and we got the five gallon over here And we got the you know the bigger plants over here. It's all in one place rather than spread out So how do we how do we burn? We're eliminating Stress on ag land if we have it more locally Centralized rather than spread out Well that's the way it is now in our in our in the current draft ordinance You have before you we've basically created a box and you can put whatever you want in the box And you can call it whatever you want you can call it mature you can call it flowering you can call it nursery you can call it immature For purposes of our staff. It's very difficult for them to enforce a code That's based on principles that don't reflect local concerns and basically what we're hearing is that is that is that Certain folks would like to change the definitions in the code and our code to model the state code but the state code when it was drafted Wasn't concerned with the issues that our staff was concerned with in drafting our code and so It's it's kind of like trying to to fit a to fit a circle into a square in some respects That staff's perspective other people can you know have other opinions and your board is free to make whatever decisions it wants to make on those issues And then we have The issue of odor near especially near residential lag We had one gentleman mentioned, you know quarter mile, but I mean wow that must be the direction of the wind too But it also comes down to how much? So how are we protecting? Residential lag that is close by commercial lag And I'm thinking of the wheelock area off of Green Valley Road near Monivista school. There's a community there And that's the dividing line of district four How do we how do we protect them from? You know that the odor that's coming in What it would have to be in a greenhouse, right? Well, I'm going to direct that question to staff because they've done a ton of research on On odor prevention including, you know, what's being done in other states and the like Well, as I said in my opening remarks that odor is is a big problem particularly for outdoor growth So we're not requiring folks to be indoors At this point So it is easy ish to mitigate an indoor grow, but for outdoor We've we've looked and talked to other jurisdictions and and there's no sort of silver bullet there is a measuring device that is used in Colorado, but to our As far as our research indicates that's only been used for indoor grows They've never applied that to outdoor grows in terms of how they measure so so we didn't recommend going with that It's certainly something that we can look at but the outdoor grow would be in the CA land Outdoor not that's not restricted and that's why I'm getting back to that map, you know on page 16 where the outdoor grow could Actually have a an effect odor effect on the residential lag It it certainly could have an effect in a number of different situations But so could a legal personal grow that we don't regulate of six plants that can be grown Right up to the property line. So it will be difficult for us to To act on anything that is just an odor complaint if somebody complains we will track We will monitor we will look at where the complaints are coming from and as I indicated earlier if we need to modify Somebody's license because we're receiving an inordinate number of complaints about the odor They may have to move back. We may have to increase the setback They may in a worst-case scenario either not get a renewal or have to go indoors. It really is site-specific Okay, and now one that affects actually another district more than all the others and I am concerned about it that That it is protected and that would be timber production the Redwood Forest are the greatest carbon banking trees and in the entire world and if we're cutting down Redwood trees in order to put in Marijuana grow That's gonna have a tremendous stress and effect on the environment of Santa Cruz County. So We do have Redwood trees and production in district 4 But how strict are we gonna be on that? I want to make sure we don't ruin one of the greatest parts of our county Well, we're not allowing any new cultivation sites to occur in timber production There the carve-out that we have Recognizes that there are some existing cannabis cultivation sites Those we would review but they would also have to pass all of the other thresholds and and and pass You know fires review and and everybody else before they would be able to secure a license So there is no new development under the current draft in in timber production and the the effect of water diversion Could affect actually the growth and health of trees in the neighboring areas every license applicant will have to submit a Water efficiency plan and they will have to designate where they get their water and that will be reviewed by by Our county as well as the state and those requirements are are pretty strict Okay, and here here's Pretty much wrapping it up a future habitable structure, let's say I have our a land and I want to put a I Want to put a ad you or what I want to put something on it? but before I put out my plans somebody in that CA land has a a Marijuana grow cannabis grow that is within the 200 feet buffer zone I Are they gonna they're gonna have the right to keep it there? Are they gonna have to move if I get the okay to build some kind of a structure habitable structure to set back The setback to habitable structures would not impact anybody's ability on an adjacent parcel to construct a structure But that doesn't mean that that the neighbor who may have established a cannabis grow Is is there is precluded from getting a renewal? We would we would evaluate it like we do everything else remember these are annual so every year We will be looking to see about impacts of all sorts, but But there's no de facto You know prohibition against somebody who's already established, but you're more than more than willing and able to come in and apply for your ADU But they would have to put up with the The marijuana grow To some extent that would be true. Well, I guess it's more than to some extent. It's probably absolutely yeah, okay, and I think that pretty much I Want to thank you for all the work and every everybody's effort. I I will wrap this up by saying When it was medical marijuana Three four years ago. We've been talking about this. I was I was one of the number one you know Number one in agreement with everybody else on doing something because of the humanitarian part of it and everything now We're dealing with recreational Cannabis and that's because the state did vote for it But also the state did put burdens on us as a county. I I'm concerned about You know cannabis is a drug. We're not talking about a strawberry or a raspberry and so I I see the benefits and I see also the you know drawbacks but Recreation recreational use. I don't want to see my kids doing it and I don't really I feel for other families. It's getting harder and harder to raise the family with pressure from all kinds of things and I I Just think we have to keep in mind. We're dealing with a an actual drug And we do have to be careful when it comes to recreational use Rather than medical use. Yes. Thank you. Thank you supervisor Caput supervisor McPherson. Yeah, thank you chair friend I wanted to make it just a general statement about Then some suggestions on the 18 recommendations from the playing commission and then a couple other Directives if I might that I would like to see included in any motion that would come up And I think that we should all speak before a motion is made and then go from on that plane This has been a long haul. I mean it's been more than 20 years since medicinal marijuana was approved in this state and then of course just over a year ago voters approved the recreational use and We have come a long way and I can't tell you how much I appreciate it It's been mentioned already with the planning commission and that day-long Nightmare that they had to go through to get us to this position to get Focused on what we need to do here. I want to thank the planning commission and the cannabis licensing office Also the C4 committee that took some years to oversee this too. Thank you very much because we really needed all that input The you know What we're with now is it too lenient or is it too strict? I guess that depends on the eyes of the speaker, so it's not going to be perfect in the eyes of many probably most But we have an obligation now to implement an ordinance and a policy that will best serve The county of Santa Cruz and its residents the overarching concern continues to be What will come commercial cannabis operations have the impact you'll have on residential areas as well as the protection of our national resources And as far as the county budget is concerned It's become very evident that this result of this Green rush of a few years ago is not going to result in a goldmine for the Santa Cruz County budget And it's going to be a lot of effort that's going to be have to be done by a multiple departments to enforce this and do it correctly and Then how the revenues are deposited is still a very serious question That's going to have to have oversight from the state and federal level as well But at this point I'd like to direct my attention again to the recommendations by the plan commission and Without verbalizing on each of them. I'd like to say that I do support their recommendations 1 through 6 9 11 with the caveat and 13 through 18 and with 14 also the date of that a concern on the five proposals that I've mentioned Number seven. I think the the planning commission's intent is as good But I believe the staff option to increase outdoor cultivation of habitable structures on neighboring parts which to 400 feet is acceptable. I think that would be proper for neighborhood protection in particular On number eight, I think we should allow both suggested options that the planning commission Put to us and that would be to allow a limited sub set of class 2 extraction processes That is the activities don't involve ethanol or a seat co2 extraction on rural ag agricultural zone properties I think we should allow class 2 extraction on larger RA zone properties or with increased setbacks to neighboring properties That was number eight and the two options that were mentioned on Number 10, I support the staff recommendation to reduce the land use process to level four Which maintains public noticing requirement, but not the time and expensive of public hearing as was mentioned We have hundreds 750,000 we need to get through these as quickly and as efficiently as possible And it would be a bureaucratic nightmare. I think to try to do this following level five Standards, and I also think we should allow a level four review for all cannabis cultivation operations under 10 acres On 11 and 14, I think we need I think it's important. We have some consistency About the dates that we're using and it's 2013 or 16. I think 2013 seems The best but I would be open to other discussion from my colleagues And that was for the two on items 11 to 14 on Number 12 I Agree, but I just wanted to ask is there a reason other eligible property owners and other than commercial ag Zones can't have the same consideration as it's allowed on that number 12 Well, this speaks Specifically to the eligibility requirement for farmers. It's all right So the eligibility extends to folks who either registered or folks who had been farming for non cannabis farming And so the way it was worded it wasn't clear that that would include property owners of farms who didn't themselves Participate if that makes sense. So landlords Okay, I think I think that's clear that And if it's not if my colleagues think we need further Clarification I'd be open to that. Okay. I get so I'd be the recommendation would be fine on 12 I Additionally well, I think it's important that was mentioned that this does not allow new Production on timber zones at this time. So I think that needs to be made clear and we have There's a couple other directives The statement about the definition of a canopy I think to have some consistency with the state it would be important And I think we should We should we should integrate that in our policies as well I'm not saying that we should follow everything the state has said, but I think that would be a the right move for us to do as a county In addition just a few other things a couple directives or suggestions I would have that above and beyond what the The planning Commission Mentioned to I think that we should allow for provisional authorization of Local operators who are in good standing and you know who they are at this point While they seek approvals from the planning department and the canisters licensing office, so we've got a tight time squeeze here I I don't want to be I think we want to just be fair and I don't think this is going to call Create a new rush so to speak because we know where these operations are located I would like to also as a directive And not part of a motion a well just do a suggestion to direct staff to continue working on With the industry and state officials on how to provide and protect compassionate use programs And I am here in my county council save way to stop right there and don't go any further than that And I agree. This is going to have to be a state Santa Cruz County state Decision and we need to be part of that and I would very much like to be part of that and engage with the state and legislators Departments who are doing this to see how we can implement that and Santa Cruz County is a shining We know that Santa Cruz County is a shining example of how that works and how it can work. Well, so I would like to just suggest that direct staff to We'll just keep on on top of this and promote it at the state level and so we can implement it as need be and Finally to direct the staff to report back Quarterly and maybe you think would be semi-annually but to be reasonable about what we're going to be What the rush is going to be here on the number and types of license applications and approvals and information on the most common Obstacles regarding legality I think that I don't know if quarterly is to You've got enough on your plate, but I'd like to be reasonable about it But certainly semi-annually but I would quarterly I'd prefer to have that report on that So those would be the three directives. I would like to have on top of my opinion on What the Planning Commission has recommended and what we've heard from the audience today? Thank you Thank you supervisor in person. Thank you for walking through those items, too Survisor Coonerty I guess I don't have any questions I it's hard to follow where we're going to end up So maybe maybe we could just if we could work through After if you all have any questions, but then we work through each of the Planning Commission recommendations or bunch some together in a group Move forward because I I have comments, but I but I'd probably prefer to wait until we have each Okay, each one of these items in front of us. Okay. I will come back to you supervisor Leopold. Thank you chair Thanks to the staff For working on this, you know, we've only been at the cultivation license efforts for about five years We've been I I think the first letter we brought to about dispensaries was eight years ago so Having a state regulatory system allows us to better move towards The our final square here, which is to have a good set of regulations and I feel as though we're very close But what we have here? I appreciate the public input We have consistently received on all sides of this issue To come to where we are today That we took hours and hours of public testimony We've put together the C4 committee to hear from many different voices. They spent hours and hours and hours and hours trying to come up with Recommendations which were incorporated in ordinance and then we took more testimony about about what people thought about this. So this is Whether you like what we have here or not, this has been a very inclusive process and It it's emblematic of who we are as Santa Cruz, which is we try to bring in different voices and ensure that every voice is heard and I think as we continue to do these final steps to put an ordinance in place I I think it's going to reflect The community well, even if your particular item isn't included You the efforts that we've made to include all these voices are important to how this board is going to end up voting on it the I thought that the Planning Commission did a very good job in over their two meetings To come up with a series of recommendations the most of which I support and I think that And talking with my planning commissioner planning commissioner, he Told me he goes. I'm not really happy with the legislative role. You've given us That that's really our responsibility here as a board But we gave them some legislative responsibilities And I thought that they approached it and some of the solutions they came up with were very good And I and I think that reflected the input that they received from people I Think it's important to note that Unlike other entitlements that the county gives these licenses are only of one year in duration And that gives us a chance to make changes where we haven't gotten things right And I want to encourage people To think that we have a good set of environmental regulations And what we are trying to do here is bring people into a system that That will be regulated and will help us reach the greatest Level of environmental protection as we can I think that there are parts of what the planning commission's recommendations that work really well and there are some parts that don't This item number seven Which is allowing property owners within a thousand feet to have A say in What happens on someone's property is It doesn't work. I think it's it's an open invitation to extortion I think that if If I didn't like something or if I wanted to get a free cannabis or if I wanted Something from my neighbor. I have a big stick To wield and I'm not sure the legality of that. I'll let the lawyers decide But I think that I talked with our agricultural commissioner And you can spray pesticides on your property and all you have to do is notice your neighbors and When we look at that the idea of odor Is much more subjective than The chemicals that are involved in pesticide spraying. So I don't think we should have Higher Regulations around something like odor than we do for Chemicals that we know can kill you if you have too much And so I think that in Of all the recommendations. I don't support this one I'm not sure that a larger buffer in any way Helps or not I think that that's the goal of a Of a one-year license is to be able to come back and say it's not the fear of that smelling on my property It's the experience of smelling on my property And we'll have a better sense about that Once we hear from people These outdoor growing periods are Basically once a year And so there will be A limited period of time where that smell If it's a problem would be a problem and then we have an annual review process where those kind of Impacts could be taken into account So I'm I would be comfortable leaving out seven completely I also think that What we've been trying to do with these regulations is to allow commercial recognizing that we would prefer these cultivation commercial cultivations to to Happen in places where we've designated commercial agriculture activity to happen, which is why we Trying to set a lower bar for commercial ag zone parcels because In our general plan process and what we thought and what people when they purchase property Understood is they were next to a commercial ag operation And so I think it makes sense to keep those bars low. I also think that we should Expand our viewpoint on several other zone parcels And reduce the barriers because if it's not going to be on commercial ag and we want to and it's going to be growing in door Uh, we look at m1 or c4 parcels even c2 parcels either commercially zoned parcels Um, in which we have in which the growing is going to occur indoor in which we have Restrictions in place or Requirements in place that would require scrubbing of the smells so it doesn't impact Um, when I looked at the m1, uh, zone parcels, there's only about 75 and In the county All but three of them are in my district and so I looked at each one of these parcels and for the vast majority of them They are Surrounded by commercial other commercial areas um And so I think that we as a As a board should say If we if people are going to grow this plant and they're not going to grow it on ca m Zone parcels make sense um And I think it was us as we should look at these legal non conforming Structures that are there because I have them all over My district I think as we all do and I think we should give some discretion to the cannabis licensing officer to make it As a judgment about what the impact would be because if You look at the so-called research park, which is generally surrounded By all commercial activity There is a house legal non conforming that's there But we have identified that and for all intents and purposes. We've zoned the area for commercial activity The someone is there's a house there. There's been a house there for a long time We should be promoting commercial activity in that area And so I think we should lower the bar for that and and frankly I would do it for c4 and c2 as well and have a Not have to go to level 5 And be treated the same way as c I think that I think that makes sense for us The uh the the question about the process I think is a real one And it's a real one just because We have set up a system where we told people that if you registered That uh that we were going to limit the registration to those people who registered for a license and That some of those people have made choices Um and have started the statewide process I'm not completely clear on On uh the state uh licensing process But when I see the number when I look at that 750 number And when I see the number of people who have to go through a level 5 process I question whether we have the resources to be able to do that effectively um and uh One of the things we've always tried to do is try to Sink this up with the state process To ensure that that we had something that worked for people who were trying to follow the rules And so um having a level 5 process for everything to me seems completely impractical Clearly to me um the commercially zoned properties of ca Of uh m of c2 and c4 Should not have to go to that level And I think you can make a case that Even are a zoned parcels shouldn't be required to go it but if there's notice and and These are the supervisor or the um or they get A lot of concerns raised by residents that that could be kicked up to a level 5 process we do that for Um vacation rentals where if people Have a get the notice that a vacation rentals coming We uh and they can tell us that there's been a problem with that already that we kick that up I think that's a model that works and I think it's something we should consider Um as a board Um, I do think that when this comes back in april that the The cannabis licensing office and planning should provide us with some information about how they're going to deal with this um, I think that uh In our effort to to try to bring this to a place where Again people who are trying to follow the rules can actually follow the rules And there's this temporary license from the state and there's a certain number of days and everything We should be clear about how we're going to do this, you know And during the great recession Uh, we got an extraordinary number of assessment appeals Um, and so what do we do? We appointed a second assessment appeals board to try to process those And that may be one of the strategies who you want to look at on a on a temporary basis Uh, to be able to to To honor the process that we set out and expedited as well And so, uh, it would be helpful Um, and I think we should make a direction is to hear from the staff about their Uh ideas about how this is going to be addressed and to give people an expectation About how long things are going to take And I think we as We can we can find balance to Um meeting people's concerns and also expediting it if there's some thoughtfulness that go on in there That may involve some temporary reassignments or some temporary Staffing or something to be able to move through this first period that we're going through I support, uh Supervisor McPherson's efforts to try to get us to look at the compassionate use. Um, I think While there's not much that we can do as we wait for the state to make changes We could direct our chair to write a letter To the appropriate legislators or or departments Indicating our interest in wanting to have a clear set of rules to allow the compassionate Use to continue As has happened here in Santa Cruz for many decades successfully And and meeting the needs. I think we should do everything we can we've heard that there's no one who speaks against it Um, and we should use the power of our office in order to make that happen So I look forward to uh I guess the one last thing is the question of definition this was something that we talked about when we met here in february 6 And uh, i'm still uh interested in having our definition sync up with the state definition I do think that that's a good suggestion. I think uh, the testimony we heard from members of the farm bureau today highlight that uh That with training it should be an easy way for us to define this And we'll cause a lot less problems for us down the line. And so I I encourage the Uh, the Alignment of our definition of canopy and nursery with a state definition Thank you supervisor leopold Um, let me just begin by thanking all of you for the civility and constructive tone of today's meeting overall This has been a very productive discussion over the last few years. I do appreciate Uh, that we're working toward a resolution here. I have a couple of questions of staff about what it would mean to implement some of the things that my colleagues Are asking for and then i'll get in to discuss Through the planning commission's recommendations of things that I'm aligned with because we may as supervisor coonerty had noted be able to take A chunk of it at once and then move on an item by item But we had a discussion We had a discussion in february about what it would mean to align the canopy definition as the state There were concerns about what that would be Um, we directed staff to look at that There's language in our ordinance now that or the proposed ordinance I should say that I believe addresses actually the concerns of both the environmental need as well as Meeting the needs of the farm bureau and the nurseries, but It could one of you either On the legal side of the or the non legal side Although when I look at here literally everybody sitting up here is actually a lawyer for what I gather But if There's a lot of lawyers right here If you could explain to the board the rationale for why we weren't aligned with the state Definition that would be useful. I think for us to understand I think the canopy Actually the canopy definition except for the the stacking provision that we added Does align with the states by and large right in terms of The the only let me let me just jump in there the way the way that it it differs Um Is in A lack of acknowledgement of immature plants That's that's that's the distinction the the the but the 90 percent of the definition of canopy that we have is right in line with cdfa And the rationale for that is the rationale for that is that your board selected limits on What it wanted Cannabis a cannabis farm to look like right and and and it's strewn throughout our code and it was negotiated by c4 These limits were discussed debated etc you landed on them and And staff does not want to be responsible for changing those that's a major policy distinction to open Up something that your board had given us direction on if you if you want a cannabis farm to look like 5 000 Square feet in a specific place Our version of that is that that's The amount of space that you want cannabis plants in regardless of whether they're called immature mature flowering nursery Whatever if your board wants to change that there's a variety of ways that you could do that I mean you could lift the limits and say that That lift Lift the limits and then say that 25 is going to be devoted to what you call nursery stock And then we can come up with a nursery definition of non flowering but the bottom line is that is that Staff has been concerned and we've said it numerous times about the enforceability of with stretched resources Trying to deal with what is an immature versus a mature versus a flowering versus a non flowering plant and Well, there's not much more to say about it other than other That's useful I appreciate that I mean the point is because I what I've heard both in february and today is sort of this sense That it's just a simple thing just to line it. It's not that big of a deal But but there's generally a policy rationale in a five-year process As to why we landed where we did it's generally not always the best idea to just arbitrarily from the dyes Just make a change that could have a pretty significant change to a policy across the board Until you've actually had a policy in effect one of the things that's been discussed is there's a year review. Well, There's a year Licensing component to this then I think that from a policy rationale perspective. We should We should really narrow in on what we've been narrowing in on for quite some time and if it's needed To be broad and moving forward it can be broad but I but I think it's actually a pretty significant shift Which is why I wanted to ask for that clarification I wouldn't be supportive of of doing in that now But I think that because I think that we've come a long way to ensure that those needs are met But I appreciate that component. Of course it is within the board's Perview should we need to change it which is important chair I would just I would just say although we've been in this process the c4 committee was I think formed in 2016 or something You know the state didn't have its definition of canopy until relatively recently and that you know the the benefit of have a statewide regulatory structure is it starts It creates the box in which we will operate in and and so as a reflection of that that gives us a chance To refine what we've done. I understand your concerns, but I don't think it's a it's a gross Change to say we're gonna we're gonna sync up with the state A definition I I respect that I just I have a different view on that issue But I think that that's something that the board will obviously take up I have a follow-up on Just just briefly because I am trying to go through all these items. I'll make it brief With the canopy if we're talking about centralizing And having that would make it a lot easier to enforce also when there's an inspection If you're looking at the seedlings Then you're looking at larger plants flowering plants If they're in a canopy and they're all That's part of stacking right It makes it a lot easier rather than somebody trying to inspect one side over here for seedlings and one side over somewhere else Right as as the plants mature It it would be a bit onerous for us to try to figure out when something had moved and yes plant by plant You can tell but when you're looking at potentially hundreds or thousands of plants It's a little different what we really envisioned and and what would be easiest for us would be To provide a box and say it's up to the individual cultivator to decide how they fill their box We allowed stacking for uh for very small plants and and and the idea was that you wouldn't be Penalized for having multiple layers. We wouldn't count all of those We also reduced the the minimum parcel size for the ca property To have essentially unlimited canopy with co-location with again the idea that we would incentivize Using existing structures and and co-location to provide a greater canopy limit so that if somebody wanted to devote A big chunk of their their business to nurseries. They would have Adequate space for that but just to be clear that the the state when they look at nurseries. They're looking at exclusively Nurseries like that is your business. That's all you do And in that respect the state says no canopy limit But they're also not looking at land use and and what it looks like to have, you know New development to to encompass that So a lot of what we've been talking about is propagation where you have Businesses that start from small and grow all the way to maturation But that's a little bit of a different model than somebody who does nothing but nurseries So if that's your business model, then we would just assume you take the canopy limits that we've provided for and use that for your nursery All right, thank you So moving forward to just on some clarifications that supervisor McPherson had noted an interest in a provisional authorization Can you just tell me operationally what that would actually mean what that would look like? um It could take different forms what it could be an extension of what we have been doing With the with the letters that we've been providing where we basically say that An actor is in good standing. They've paid their taxes in this case. We once we have Ordinance language, we would know more about whether they comply with the basic Zoning restrictions and and parcel sizes and and so forth It is possible although we haven't gotten there yet that folks could Resubmit the letters that they already have those folks who have come through and and obtain those from us We could Create there's a placeholder for it Something that we call sort of provisional or some something where we sort of park folks while they work their way through For instance a level five process where they've satisfied our requirements They've satisfied some level of like completeness or something like that And we give them something that they can then take to the state to To submit and and and obtain an annual license from the state Okay, thank you. So I'll walk through just some of these items and I'll move back to supervisor coonerty I think to try and start moving toward action on these items I Actually one last thing I do have Maybe just a slight concern on the ca the 20 to 10 acre component. I don't have an issue with necessarily the reduction We don't we have something that exempts all ca from requiring any odor requirements at all you don't have to have a scrubber for example in an indoor Grow within ca property Once we start reducing this down to 10 acres I mean it basically what we're saying is is that anything can go on a ca property And I've been very supportive of of encouraging this in proper zoned areas But ca is adjacent in many areas in my district to residential areas So if we're going to have no odor mitigation requirements at all on ca and we're going to reduce the acreage This is I think going to cause an issue and if it if it means that you're allowed to at the year review it But I don't see the tools by which the cannabis licensing officer When we functionally exempted ca from all these requirements would necessarily be able to create a mitigation that would then stick I think that we're actually creating an externality that we didn't really think of and I have a concern about within that component So I think that I mean the number one complaint we get is is in regards to odor And I think it's something that the board should take seriously There are limited things that you can actually grow on ca in this side of the hill for example some of the more Scented elements say like a gillroy growing garlic or some of the green onions would not actually succeed on this side Of the hill in the same way so people that are living even in those areas aren't used to The level of odor that we could be creating if a disproportionate amount of these grows occur in ca And we have no mitigations associated with it So I would like to see that there actually be a process for ensuring mitigation something that actually allows a review Of the licensing officer to create or require I'm still in favor of scrubbers in ca. I recognize that that my colleagues didn't support that in february But I think that we should have some element that recognizes that we could be creating a situation moving forward As I believe a disproportionate number of these grows just based on all the other elements that we are doing today Will move towards ca and so that's my concern about the reduction of 20 to 10 I don't know what how we would do that and I don't know how to really articulate that into a motion But right now it's just left out there where that's a functional exemption And I think that's going to be problematic because it's also an enforce force ability issue moving forward Regarding odor on non-ca lands, I'm supportive of what supervisor McPherson had noted on the 400 feet I think supervisor leopold has a point. I'm not sure if 200 to 400 feet would necessarily make a significant difference Uh, because it's basically the size of a football field and during that time of of When it is blooming, I think that 400 feet may also not be enough but I think that we need to make a statement in our code of of An expectation that to the degree possible odors are contained on site and because of that we have The setback requirements that allow for additional mitigations if need be by the cannabis licensing officer, can you clarify that? You were talking about 400 feet The planning staff made a recommendation. So the planning commission made a recommendation that seems Uh Nearly impossible to enforce which is this sign-off requirement of people within A thousand feet. There are other concerns not just of the enforceability of it about whether It's a reasonable aspect, but I think that in and of itself we should create something that allows for Odor to be considered with the seriousness that I think that the community has with it One of the recommendations of planning staff is to increase our 200 foot setbacks of habitable to 400 foot Which is something supervisor. So it could be expanded to 400 feet That's a proposal in front of you from the planning staff a recommend Well, not a recommendation, but it's been an option presented by the planning staff in front of you today. That's that's big. I Yeah, I like that So I agree too on the date consistent as 2013. It's already that way in the timber zone I I feel like the code should harmonize that throughout. I don't think it makes sense to have the 2016 date I also agree that the no duty during force language is Created an unnecessary amount of consternation within the community unnecessarily. So so we should Just get rid of it The 24-hour comment line isn't really actually a realistic option I mean there is no one's going to be staffing at 24 hours a day It kind of creates an unreasonable expectation what we I mean we we currently have I guess in theory a 24-hour Ability to submit through online or when we expanded to the citizen connect So I don't I understand what the planning commission is trying to say on that But I don't know that operationally it necessarily makes sense I am actually comfortable. I understand and hear what my colleagues in the community has said regarding the higher level of review But I feel that the highest level of review Is actually reasonable And I'll explain a little bit why on level five We currently actually have in our code that most home occupations actually require level five now So if you view a cottage grow as a home occupation And considering it's going to be commercial activity in a non-commercial area You would have to get a level five if you're doing another homoc At your house And yet we're now saying that apparently it's too onerous to do that for a commercial cannabis activity There and so maybe the board to be consistent should either consider The other components of our code on level five review on home occupations Or we should say that Uh, there was a reason by which we created that as a level five to start with We have a level five for a fence height over six feet We have a level five for for having a trailer installed on an agricultural parcel that someone's going to live in We have a level five for an ad that's over 640 square feet We have a level five for a lot of things that I think a lot of people would consider pretty de minimis as far as what they are So I don't consider a level five review on a new commercial activity To be onerous, but I understand that that may not be Shared by my colleagues, but I wanted to understand I wanted to explain why it was that I had advocated for level five in the first place And I think it harmonizes with other elements in the code So moving this back to you supervisor Coonerty. I do see Based on everybody's comments that I've been tried to write them down our relative consistency on there are things that we actually Might be able to get through without having to do individual motions And so please go ahead and make your comments And then I think that there are that we can take a chunk of this and in a motion and then go through on individual points Yeah, that's well, so I was going to be I was going to make a motion And I'll just for the clarity of the public and everyone involved so item number This would be items one through six 12 13 15 16 and 18 Let's say that slowly and I'm going to I'm going to walk through each one because I think people Because not everyone's working from the same numbers One through six 12 13 15 16 and 18 so Let me read those so that everybody knows which is to delete the no duty to enforce provision To retain all require that's number one number two retain The requirement for the mandatory site inspections as part of the initial review of all licenses Three retain the riparian setback provisions and retain the use of the riparian exception provisions Require the best management and operations practices include language to ensure that water purveyors use truck water Are legal operators five Include language to clarify the cannabis license official will determine and or declare water emergencies Six eliminate exceptions to the minimum parcel size allowance 12 is Allow property owners of ca properties to qualify for a license application Regardless of whether they actually farm the property 13 remove the q zone designated sites from eligibility for commercial cannabis Uh 16 Is to reduce the minimum parcel size from 20 acres 10 acres for ca zone parcels when existing structures are used for co-location or master plans 7 not 17 Uh 18 uh require all license cultivation sites to be accepted at be inspected at least once every three years Oh, sorry, did I skip 15 and 15 which was Uh reaffirmed the existing prohibition of the establishment of new cannabis development on timber productions owned parcels Is that a motion do you want to go for that emotion? Well, I would like to take that as a Uh parent motion unless there's there's uh concerned By my colleagues before we go item by item on the other ones that I think that there are going to be more in Death, I'm just trying to run yeah as efficient as possible on this one I would second that all right, so is that a if you can make it as a formal motion if you could actually move Yeah, that's very good. Um So we have a motion from supervisor coonerty and a second from supervisor McPherson specifically just on these items We will be going through the ones that we have a better creative on uh point by point So please Should we just wait for the directives and make that separate too as I mentioned Yeah, I think it's up to the chair the way I would work through it Yeah, we go through each one of these by items and then additional directives After that at the end. Yeah, I've got and I've got them written down what they are Is there a discussion on these items specifically? Okay, so the We're gonna vote on this after after we're done right here. That is correct. Just this set of items right here I'm a reluctant participant. I'm going I'm going along. I really want to vote yes on this. Okay Can we add to this that That 400 feet is a yes or no Can we carve out an area Let me just explain supervisor cap it the item that you're concerned about we are going to vote on separately So we are only voting on so we're not dealing with setbacks. We're not dealing with cottage We're not dealing with an odor. We're not dealing with a number of things at this point These were the items that seemed non-controversial from both the planning commission and the board in our discussion today And those items that you're interested in we're taking individually All right, and I it's it's not anybody's fault. I always have trouble with district 2 And the the reason I'm getting it Let me let me just let me just say the room does with me and a number of my constituents do too So this is nothing new to me I want to clarify one thing What what makes us unique here is the dividing line is green valley road On his side he has commercial ag on my side. I have actually residential And I I don't see anything much about protection on residential. What is the setback residential from ca Does anybody know that Yeah, on green valley road, I have that whole mace of verdi neighborhood. That's all residential You cross into district 2 where all the trouble originates And then uh, what what is the setback? The setbacks are not uh specific to supervisorial It's not residential. I against actual residential. So So there's the way that that the ordinance is written we have the 200 setback from cultivation area from To any adjacent Habitable structure regardless of the and I'd like to see that extended if we're able to vote on that today But I'm not I'm not sure is that going to be something we'll vote on later It is it's not a part of this motion But those setbacks are a part of a discussion of another item that we will be voting on today So yes, all right when it comes to the setbacks Okay, and one last thing before we vote on this Uh the good part that I do like is The cost will come down And when the cost comes down That should have a great effect on illegal growth versus legal growth Legal production illegal production It's kind of like Why would I buy white lightning from some still up in the mountains when I can buy a bottle of jack daniels at the Uh liquor store I mean, I wouldn't do it right. I mean one is who knows what's going on up there and the other one's bottled certified and legal So that will have a great effect the and the other concern that's been addressed that I do like is that We do have a duty to enforce And at one time I had a real hard time with that We always have a duty to enforce the laws on the book Regardless of whether or not we agree with them If they're the law and we haven't changed them we have to enforce them So that's that's going to help too The last thing that's holding me back on this whole thing is I understand people that are saying not in my neighborhood Because you live in your neighborhood and you've protected 90 percent of the uh Santa Cruz county In a lot of ways But that Other part in my area It seems to be all or most in my neighborhood and I have a big problem with that Because I have the ca land that's affected by most of this without buffers and everything else So I I'm probably the one who hasn't even decided how i'm going to vote yet because I want to make sure it's not all or most in my neighborhood Until we clarify that so I I don't want to go along here and then find out later that the other part is going to be Turned down. I want a bigger buffer From the residential and and from residential lag If I can get a 400 foot buffer, then I can go along with this Okay, well That that'll come up Next So just on these items though we have a motion and a second I'm sorry. Could we just respond to one thing the supervisor cap it Stated so we want to make sure that everybody's on the same page The lawyers are are concerned about the idea To state that there's a a legal duty to enforce our code I know you didn't say legal duty to enforce our code What you said is that there's a duty to enforce our code If you meant a moral duty, I don't know whether you meant a moral duty versus a legal duty But there is no legal duty to enforce our code and we want to make sure that the supervisors understand What they're voting on and that's why the staff Doesn't mind This take removal of this provision because it seems like it's caused a lot of consternation in the community What staff was trying to do was be transparent in stating that staff Gets to prioritize how resources are used But we don't want there to be a statement Left on the record or to have people walk away Misinformed that there is some legal duty to enforce our code because that that is not accurate And why would we not have any legal duty? It's not it's not a legal duty that can be enforced by a third person By a third party in other words a third party doesn't have standing to come in and force the county to Um To to enforce the code a certain way I don't have an ability for example to sue the chp and order the chp to pull over that driver As opposed to that driver as opposed to that driver and um, I want to make sure that that we're not Um, miscommunicating that idea to the public and that the public doesn't believe that the removal of this provision Is going to allow a neighbor to come in and sue the county For failure to enforce a certain provision as to a certain cultivator Because that's just not accurate Does that make sense? Uh, unless that cultivator is violating the code though. I mean, I would if they're uh They're they're not taking care of the order. They're not doing, uh, you know Or what for that matter they're they're growing illegally Well, we have many code provisions like for instance example would be an over height fence Uh, a six a fence that's over six foot that somebody didn't come in and get a permit on You know somebody could sue their neighbor And uh and and go to court and sue their neighbor for a failure to comply with the law But they can't sue the county for failure to go in and enforce its code against that person But they could call the county to have the sheriff go over there and or Planning code enforcement Code enforcement could go over there and look at it and cite them. Yes Absolutely, they can cite them code enforcement could go over and and and And the cannabis licensing office someone can call the the cannabis licensing office at any point and say sure Please go please go ahead go over there and cite this person and and what the cannabis licensing office does Is it determines? Okay? I've got a thousand complaints and I've got two people So I've got to be able to prioritize Where I'm going to go and when I'm going to do it Without having to run into court every 15 minutes because a neighbor or a third party comes in and says You are not doing what I'm asking you to do That's that's just not the way the law is set up Okay, so basically it's the same with uh somebody has a big party going on on friday night They have amplified music and it goes past 10 o'clock 11 o'clock 12 o'clock Uh It's under the same type of priority I don't know if it would be under the same type of priority But I think you're I think you're tracking it correctly that that that basically in that instance Um, if uh, if uh, if if the if the station so to speak is is trying to deal with uh a murder a robbery and a burglary and a party They're probably going to prioritize the party is the least Uh important thing to address at that point, but they could uh site We could we could cite somebody for going beyond the uh the ordinance Absolutely, that's the yeah, and we're going and and and staff's intention is to do that. Yeah, it's to cite people So I guess but I as the maker of the motion. Let me just say the reason Understanding that legal limitation I think it's important that we send a message To folks that that that this is a whole new area of regulation That we're gonna hopefully have a lot of people come into the fold through Uh through our through our licensing scheme and then the folks who don't come in both the people who have come in as well As the overall community has an interest in enforcement and while there is no duty to enforce I think us as elected officials and the sheriff's elected officials Uh will feel an obligation to respond to community concerns As they come up understanding that there are limited resources But that but that we don't want to send a message out As some speakers noted today that that that we don't that we aren't going to enforce And so I think as a maker of the motion That's it's important that I think we tell everyone in the community that while there is a a lot of needs and a lot of prior a lot of Demands on our system that this will be a this will be a priority for us going forward I'd like to call the question. Yeah questions called or is there anybody that Well the question's been called all those in favor of ending debate on this item say I I Opposed okay, so now we'll go back to the motion. We have a motion and a second all those in favor I opposed It passes unanimously on items one through six twelve thirteen fifteen sixteen and eighteen Now moving back toward the other items an additional direction that we have supervisor. Coonerty. Do you want to take a shot at it? I'll take sure. I'll take a shot, which is um starting at item seven. This would this would be just I'm just going to do one item. I think we as a and I don't need to make these emotions, but uh as a board the For item number seven. I would um Enhance the setback from 200 feet to 400 feet As uh my motion To deal with potential odors So we'll read this item seven was to revive The best management practices provision regarding odor require that any cultivator operating zone districts other than ca obtained written concurrence Uh within a thousand feet the board is electing to Delete that recommendation from the planning commission based on this There's a recommendation on the floor instead to accept the planning department's recommendation Which is to enhance the setbacks which are currently 200 square feet to not square feet 200 feet to 400 feet of habitable structures on neighboring Parcels and if I get a second then I so that's a motion on that And there's a second from suvazir cap it Is there discussion on this item and I I guess i'll say what I I have real concerns. This is obviously one of the biggest neighborhood impacts we have The what gave me some Uh what modified some of those concerns was your discussion that as part of the annual review Uh smell impacts could be a reason for modifying a License and or revoking a license And so I think that should create an incentive on an annual basis For people to make sure that they are not having an an undue impact on their neighbors And as a point of clarification uh supervisor capited asked Because c a and a can be a j or r a can be adjacent to each other you didn't differentiate one c a so just to be clear That this would include c a Uh habitable structures from c a to another or c a to c a Think you're off For outdoor grow we do not this does not distinguish between zone districts. That's correct. Is that a question? Yes, okay. I have a question as well What would go with that if it's an indoor grow and they're they're not containing the odor Then uh that would be something for the code enforcement to go out and look at right Well, that's my question. Are we talking about only about outdoor grows here? Are we talking about outdoor and indoor grows? We would ask for clarification from your board on that. Okay, so The answer to that was outdoor based on the understanding of staff I I still would like additional direction that something on c a for indoor as well be addressed I don't feel as though and even if scrubbers aren't the answer from the majority of the board I don't feel as though staff has enough Flexibility now to address an issue that was coming from c a property Especially now with the reduction that we just voted on from 20 acres to 10 acres to address that sense. So I I don't I don't have I can't articulate what the language would be This could be a direction that comes back as part of the ordinance in a couple weeks But I think that c a There should be some component that allows flexibility for staff to create mitigations for c a parcels Even if we're not requiring a direct element of say scrubbers or a direct investment because it may be on a site As you had mentioned earlier robin on a site by site basis Currently c a is exempted from that which is my concern. I mean we're trying to address the odor I mean if the indoor growth is causing an odor then we got to have the same buffer for that under the current Ordinance proposed ordinance c a is exempted from That uh, supervisor leopold didn't mean to cut you off. No, I appreciate that and I appreciate the the uh, the question I understand the people's interest in wanting to create a greater buffer for outdoor grows And 400 feet is greater than a football field It's better than a thousand feet, which was more than three football fields But it it We have no idea whether this actually will work or not, right? I mean I It's it's a pretty large buffer I I can't think of anything else in the code where we have these kind of buffers again You can you can spray pesticides within 200 feet of someone's house um, and so It seems like This is this is more feel good than good policy and that that uh, That I'm not going to support it Because I think that it's not based in science or fact It's based on feelings and emotion and that's not a good way to make policy. We've worked very hard Uh, to to to try to win it down something that really works And that's why I can't uh support this I understand that that we do have some setbacks as you know 600 feet or setbacks from dispensaries to other locations like say schools as per the state regulations So I don't think it's Totally off off kilter with some of our other requirements within the greater cannabis Components that we have to have this setback, but it is true that we have nothing measurable or objective in that way Um If the maker of the motion would be willing uh to at least have as additional direction that staff Come back With something in regards to ca that would give them the flexibility So i'm not trying to open up this ordinance in a way that's concerning But I just want them to have the flexibility when there's the the licenses come up after a year that they actually can Put in requirements that would address odor mitigations on ca properties. That's a friendly. Yeah, that's friendly Yeah, and just to be clear We're still only talking about outdoor and your concern about ca is that even indoor that's correct because on all the other zone parcels They're required to have the scrubbers and everything else and that's an enforceable That's correct, and i'm not saying that there needs to be a scrubber I recognize on the february meeting there wasn't three votes for that support But on a site by site basis. I would like to see the some flexibility after a year if there's an issue That's what i'm bringing up. Yeah Is there any additional discussion on this? only that I I think it should include indoor grow and outdoor grow The odors the problem and again If it's only if the indoor grow doesn't have to do it, then I think I don't I don't get it. I mean So right now the proposal is outdoor grow only with additional direction that that staff come back On april 24th 24th april 24th in regards to ca include that includes indoor That would provide flexibility for odor mitigation for them, especially in the license renewal component What's the planning department's recommendation today indoor and outdoor or just outdoor the planning commission's recommendation just focused on outdoor And therefore the planning staff's recommendation Well, not recommendation, but options only included outdoor And then you're going to look at it and I come back on the 24th with the recommendation So I'm trusting you to come back on a recommendation for outdoor grow, but I don't know if it's coming or not It's coming on outdoor So the the motion today is to increase the setbacks for outdoor cultivation for all zone districts from 200 to 400 feet That's an increase in setbacks for all zone from 200 to 400 on ca specifically In february actually an item that you had voted for and did not require scrubbers on indoor Greenhouse grows or structure grows within ca so I've asked staff on a friendly amendment that my colleagues accepted to Come back with language that would give them flexibility around odor mitigation on indoor grows within ca as well Okay, and I would appreciate if you do come up with a no on the recommendation that you put it in writing that you're recommending no on Restrictions on the odor within 400 feet on indoor grow I rather than just a verbal. We're not going to put it in I want to see it actually If you put yes, I'm going to be in favor of it But if you if you don't have a recommendation for it, I want it to be addressed in writing Okay, so we have a motion and a second with an amendment So there's just been a lot of discussion and back and forth and staff is not clear on what this actual motion is So if you could state it stated in one in one the motion is Um Increased setbacks from outdoor cultivation to habitable structures on neighboring neighboring parcels from the current 200 feet to 400 feet with additional direction to come back to give with To give flexibility to the cannabis licensing officer For odor mitigation on ca land including indoor Clear as mud It's a tough item Okay, thank you. Thank you additional questions from Our bank of attorneys All those in favor high opposed. No it passes a 4-1 with supervisor leopold voting. No Supervisor Coonerty if you want to try for item 8 um I guess I don't I don't have as much of uh Uh, I don't have as much of an opinion on the supervisor. I would say the supervisor McPherson had proposed that We allow Class two extraction processes those that don't involve co2 and you can correct me supervisor McPherson if i'm wrong On r.a. Zone parcels and that they could include all parts of this the class 2 extraction process On property of a certain size and I didn't know whether you had an idea there supervisor McPherson. No, I didn't So item 8 so the the community knows of the planning commission's recommendation was to Remove eligibility for class 2 manufacturing operations in the r.a. Zone district The two options presented by county staff was to allow a limited subset of class 2 extraction processes such as activities Don't involve ethanol or co2 extraction on r.a. Zone And to allow class 2 extraction on larger r.a. Zone properties or with increased setback to neighboring properties The discussion at the board is to accept these options, but to further define them right now. So It looks like Option a is not an issue option b. We just needed to find what a larger Property would be defined as yeah I mean my my sense about the class 2 Manufacturing operations is that these are really non-volatile extraction processes and so I understand The concerns, but I think if we say on r.a. parcels larger than five acres That we would That that would work out well. I think that that's acceptable. Yeah You fine Is there additional discussion? We actually have a do you want to make that as a motion survive? I'll make it as a motion to allow The class 2 extraction on r.a. Zone parcels that Less than five acres that don't include any ethanol co2 extraction and over five acres all class 2 Manufacturing I'll second that Is there a discussion on this item? Additional discussion Okay, I have concerns about this item. So I'll just be voting no, but I appreciate the work that people have put into this So all those in favor I? opposed no Item Nine Is to under the planning commission's recommendation is to prohibit the joining of parcels to reach the minimum parcel size on r.a. Zone parcels or su zone parcels with Mountain residential or rural residential general plan designations I I guess supervisor McPherson was in favor of this item when you brought it forward. So I don't know if there's anybody that actually wants to Debate that element I thought it was made clear from supervisor leopold's questioning that this actually did not eliminate the 40% component Which is what the planning commission was aiming to do but Um Yeah, I'm happy to move this recommended action. I didn't know if there was If there was disagreement on the board about this, but I'll move that recommendation second Yeah, okay my sense about the su parcels is that I like that we found something that kind of allow people who've been operating to stay in place And it as part of a longer term planning effort to think about where It would be more appropriate and I think that that's a that's a good balance. I found that to be very useful for What the planning commission did? Okay, then we have a motion and a second to accept the planning commission's recommendation Which is to prohibit the joining of parcels to reach the minimum parcel size on r.a. Zone parcels or su zone parcels with Mountain residential or rural residential general plan designations. We have a motion and a second all those in favor I opposed that passes unanimously Uh, so now item 10 was to add a new cottage garden license category subject to the following a minimum parcel size of Two and a half acres maximum canopy of 500 square feet limited to ar atp and su zone districts Continuous cultivation by the applicant since before january of 2013 registration by cultivator with the county in 2016 Absence the complaints filed against the property within five years of applications The applicant must reside on the property all back cannabis business taxes must be paid in full Co-location and our master plans are prohibited a level five permit processing and the license is non transferable This is where we this is where we this is item number 10. Yeah, number 10 the uh With a staff record. Yeah the staff record. Um, but I think uh, well the proposal I would like to see is a level four For it processing. I think that I would support that so the option from Proposed by staff is to reduce the cottage garden land use permit Process to level four which maintains the public noticing requirement without the added time and expense of a public hearing There's a motion from supervisor McPherson to create this Uh new cottage garden licensing component with a second from supervisor leopold With a modification that would reduce the permit process to level four is their discussion on this item Um I express my concern with this. I think that the board should make a commitment then to look at other home occupations I think it's odd that we Well, you know, well, I just to that point, you know, when someone goes to get a home occupation permit they get it It doesn't come back every year, right? I mean this these licenses are very different than home occupation I understand your point, but if there's a problem that's going to come back Uh for licensure the following year we don't do that for home occupations Is there other discussion on this item with that one modification? All those in favor Opposed it passes unanimously Item 11 was to make the r.a. Zone parcels ineligible for relocation So I would make uh, I would move Uh, the recommended action make r.a. Zones parcels ineligible for relocation But you and use the uh, january 2013 date As as the benchmark so to prohibit relocation to r.a. Zone parcels unless the parcels have been under cannabis cultivation since prior to january 20 of 13 That's what you mean on the motion. Is there a second? There's a second. Is there a discussion? I would just say I understand the point. I think that uh r.a. Zone parcels of a certain size should we should include here um If we look at it at 10 acres or more That's a that's a that's a much shorter list And we could find some balance of making sure that uh That this work so I wouldn't I'm not going to support the uh motion Okay, I explained that I actually you've got a good point there. I What is the parcel size that we're voting on Well, this would say all residential ag parcels Would not be eligible for relocation So if I'm on a parcel and I want to move I'm going to be grandfathered in because I've had good practices that whatever my zone parcel is Now I want to move to a place that with this r.a. Zone parcel I would not be able to do it under this motion Okay Okay, um, I'm supportive of the motion I have concerns as was raised by some in the in the community about People trying to move on to these parcels that we're not already engaged in this activity I think the 2013 date is consistent with tpz. I think it should be something that we harmonize throughout the code And we'll have an opportunity to another item So we have a motion to make r.a. Zone parcels ineligible for relocation And to prohibit the relocation to r.a. Zone parcels unless the parcels have been under cannabis cultivation Since prior to january 2013 we have a motion and a second all those in favor I opposed no So we have a motion passes for want to supervisor leopold dissenting on that item Item number 14 To allow non retail commercial cannabis cultivation eligibility for parcel zone special use with mountain residential rural residential or agricultural general plan designations Subject to the following restrictions sites with the existing cannabis cultivation shall be subjected to a 10 acre minimum Sites where new cultivations proposed Shall be subject to a 20 acre minimum parcel size Staff had made an option on the january 2013 versus november 2016 component supervisor Coonerty, oh, sorry, sorry supervisor leopold. I'd be happy to advance this with the with the 2013 date I think it makes some sense Second So we have a motion and a second just to read it again This would allow non retail commercial cannabis cultivation eligibility for parcel zone su With mountain residential rural residential or agricultural general plan designations subject to these restrictions the sites with existing cannabis cultivation Have a 10 acre minimum sites with new that should have a 20 acre minimum parcel size However, in order to qualify as an existing cultivation site evidence must be provided that the site has been under cannabis cultivation since before January of 2013 That's the motion that's on the table There's a motion and second all those in favor I Opposed it passes unanimously Uh item number 17 is to provide a 24 hour comment and or message line within the cannabis licensing office Go ahead supervisor McPherson. We need to word this differently. I mean we're not going to have somebody at 24 7 so Uh what are you doing? Which I mean should we say, uh, I don't know. I don't even know if it's necessary I think we want to let them know that they can call in with the if people have a problem, but I don't know beyond that, you know, just simplify it. We haven't ring your house So current we do currently have a form on the website I think that I don't know if you need additional direction to add it on to citizens connect to things It makes a lot of sense to have the mobile app and will there be a phone number that people can also call Just like they would with code compliance And I don't know that we actually need To accept this item. So I think that the board just is an agreement that we won't actually accept that recommendation from the planning commission I don't believe we need action to not accept an item. Correct. Okay, correct Item number is that it? I think that's okay. Well, then we do have actual recommended actions that were put forward by staff to actually Schedule the public hearing direct the board with the clerk of the board, etc So items one through four of the recommended actions We're to consider recommendations from the planning commission regarding proposed amendments to the code chapter 7.128 13.10 and 16.01 Related amendments to the general plan local coastal program for cannabis licensing and land use regulations for non-retail commercial cannabis cultivation Manufacturing distribution to direct staff to prepare the final draft proposed amendments to the county code and general plan local coastal plan and related documents Including sequa findings to schedule a public hearing for April 24th 2018 at 9 a.m. Or thereafter To consider adoption and concept of the proposed amendments to the county code and general plan local coastal program Consideration of sequa findings and direct the clerk of the board to publish notice of the public hearing at least 10 days prior to the hearing date I know we have additional direction on other things, but do we have a motion for these items? I will move that second recommended action And a second so we have a motion and second on these we will have additional directions that we'll be providing We could do those as a separate motion or as additional direction on this motion. I'll leave it to Supervisor Coonerty Provisional authorization compassionate use And report backs either quarterly or semi-annually were something that had been presented by supervisor And I was also interested in in some of the other commercially zoned property to have a lower level of that's right So these there would we consider it a friendly amendment to Direct the chair of the board to write a letter encouraging On the compassionate use program that is a state law change. Okay Just supervise McPherson was allowing flexibility on quarterly versus semi-annually just an honest statement What would be can you do either or which one be preferred? We can do quarterly Okay, so a friendly amendment to I have quarterly report backs Which is something I know the community had asked for for a transparency perspective The provisional authorization It's understood what that is So making sure we got it. It is okay friendly amendment And on the m1 in c4. Was there another one? Yeah, c2 c2 parcel To have those similar to the ca definition Level four and and also flexibility or discretion to the uh the cannabis licensing officer About setbacks Are there questions on that is there is that clear from staff want to make sure before we leave you on this that you actually Oh, sir, please no, please the setbacks with respect to non conforming Yeah, specifically. Yeah the residential structures Are there any concerns or questions on this is to move the recommended actions with additional direction? We have a motion and a second includes the provisional authorization the compassionate use letter quarterly reports and A couple of different zones in the manufacturing and commercial To align them a little bit more with ca and Are there any other questions or concerns with that? No, that was a friendly amendment all those in favor Opposed it passes unanimously Believe it or not I don't want to adjourn anything make sure i'm right I believe that that is actually the entire thing that was before us today. Is that correct? Okay So we will see 99.9 of you on april 24th Uh and I appreciate all of your time coming forward and participating in the process