Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

K. Welcome to the May 6 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. We would like you to join us as we begin every meeting with the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Sorry. I reverted back to my kindergarten days and forgot to put in the under god. Okay. It wasn't there when I was in kindergarten. Okay. Sorry.

Alright. So with that, mister Villalobos, could you do the TV announcement, please?

Yes. Thank you, mister chair, and good morning to everyone this morning. Planning commission hearings are televised live on county and Santa Barbara television, CSB TV channel twenty at 9AM in the South Coast, Longboat, San Yenes Valley, San Maria, and Orchid areas. Reprocast to Planning Commission hearings on Fridays on CSB TV channel 20 and will be, excuse me, available for download in a day or two as the, hearing is also being streamed live on the county's website and the county's YouTube channel.

Should I move on to the phone call? Please.

Alright. Great.

Strange not starting with Commissioner Cooney. Commissioner Ford.

Hi.

Commissioner Park. I'm here. Commissioner Martinez.

I'm here.

And Chair Reid. Here. Thank you.

Could we please have the agenda status report?

Good morning Chair and Commissioners.

Thank you.

We have one item on the standard agenda, which is the continued item of the utility scale solar amendments project, and staff is ready to present on that for our continued discussion. I can move to the projection report, mister chair.

Please.

Our next scheduled hearing is going to be on May 27, and that will be here in Santa Barbara. At a prior hearing, we canceled the hearing of May 13. So we will not reconvene until May 27, and that will be here in Santa Barbara. And that will be on that item or sorry. That date is the continued item of Chick fil A.

And, also, we have an appeal of a parcel map on that date as well. Looking further down the projection report after the May 27 hearing, we have June 3 as our next hearing. There's two items on that date. A request for a vesting determination by the B Rock Quarry, and then we have long range planning presenting the five year capital improvement program and comprehensive plan conformity determination. And that will be here in Santa Barbara on June 3.

Following June 3, we will meet in Santa Maria on June 10 for two items. We have the attentive parcel map, and then we also have a change of owner review by the Planning Commission for the Santa Maria Asphalt Refinery. That is on June 10. And then after June 10, our next hearing will be on June 24, and we'll be returning to Santa Barbara. And that will be to have the airport land use compatibility plan consistency amendments presented for review and determination on that date.

And then after June 24, we will have a hearing on June July 1, and that will be here in Santa Barbara. As of now, there are no further items projected and for the rest of the year. But I'm sure we'll fix that.

All right. Thank you. And now we come to the time designated for public comment. This is available for members of the public that would like to make comment on any item not on today's agenda. So Mr. Villalobos, do we have any, speaker slips or hands up?

Thank you Mr. Chair. I have received no speaker slips. And for those of you joining us online, if you'd like to speak during this portion of the hearing, go ahead and raise your virtual hand and I'll call on you. No hands raised.

No hands. Okay. So let's move ahead to Planning Commissioners Informational Reports. These are reports from individual commissioners on planning issues, seminars, meetings, literatures or any other item of interest that they feel would be appropriate for the commission. Commissioner Park. Actually, have

a question about the projection report. We're moving along so fast. Oh,

go ahead.

Wasn't able to ask it. On the projection report, it shows the June 10 hearing and the development plan permit for the transfer of the asphalt refinery has been two and a half hours. Is that likely? I've been asked to meet with some Strauss wind energy people that afternoon, and I'm just wondering if that's a doable thing.

Commissioner Park to the chair, we are estimating that because past experience on these type of things has generated a lot of public comment. So that's why it's set at two and a half hours just as a conservative approach for the time that we might have for public comment. So it's a change of ownership. It's pretty straightforward as far as the staff presentation and review of the commission. But there could be some public comment.

Because it's related to oil, is that a concern? Okay. All right. Thanks.

No other informational reports?

Commissioner Martinez. Yes, good morning everyone. I thought a good piece of information, I don't know if you've all heard about the soundless espousal ruling against the oh my gosh Coastal Commission, where it recognized the powers of actually local planning, being what it's solely zoned for and unless it's of some peculiar natural interest, but a good read in regards to actually resistance against the Coastal Commission.

Okay. I have one. I have acquired a property outside of the county and, we'll be relocating there. So, my last meeting as a commissioner will be May 27. Sorry to do that to you at the time we have another vacancy. What? But, yeah. It's I have some family issues that really need to be tended to. It's not like I'm going to disappear. The ranches are still going to be here.

I'm still going to be dealing with those and other issues relative to them. But just the situation necessitates my being there physically and it's not in the county. So, this has been a great experience and we can talk a little bit more about it at our next hearing on the twenty seventh. So thank you for your understanding on that one. Now, the director is a part.

We're very sorry to hear that, Commissioner Reed. Losing two important members, that's that's tough, but we're really happy to have had you on the commission. It's been it's been very well, you certainly dove in, but we'll talk about more that on the twenty seventh. But you've you've really grasped the issues and been such an important contributor to this process. So I do have an announcement.

We have had a instance of fraud at the county. There have been emails going out to our applicants requesting payment and in some cases even including wiring instructions. And my name is attached to the email and there so they're fraudulent, invoices that are going out. So what I wanna do is just announce if people are listening to this, do not open the attachments. And I wanna reassure our customers that we are addressing it.

We already have the DA and the sheriff involved to investigate it. It has happened in Paso Robles. They had the same thing happen. So these whoever is generating the fraud is is targeting different agencies. If people are seeking to make payments, they need to go online to our secure payment portal on our official website.

And just making sure that people stay informed on scam prevention. It's really important like weird emails or misspellings or things like that are telltale signs that they're fraudulent. And so you really have to read the email address. So make sure when you get something that is actually coming from countyofsb.org. Hopefully we can nobody will pay.

We've gotten a lot of emails from upset applicants about what's happened, thinking that they were valid and why would I email them such a ridiculous email. But hopefully we'll get it under control and we'll find who the culprits are, but that's probably pretty challenging. The other thing I wanna mention is that yesterday, we were at the board of supervisors with the local preference item. It was it was to be a second reading, but counsel felt there was enough change in the ordinance that we should bring it back as another departmental item, which we did. During the hearing, a item was raised by supervisor Capps through a letter that had come from a member of our Building Industry Association about wanting to understand occupancy and learn about who is renting these units or buying these units.

So we included a provision in the regulations that say the developers shall report at 90% occupancy where their tenants are coming from. Whether they're people that were working here and living outside the county or people working on the South Coast and living on the South Coast or people from outside the community that aren't working, weren't working or living here. So it's just data gathering to give us some information about how successful these marketing plans are. We are limited in the kinds of things we can require, particularly for market rate housing given the fair housing laws. But we wanna collect the data and learn about what's happening with the units that we're building as as part of our housing element process.

And then future board items. We have a briefing on the twelfth, which is next week, on future ministerial permits. So we are working to streamline aspects of our code and reduce permit requirements for certain residential accessory uses, homes, and small commercial projects. This is just a briefing to get guidance from the board to make sure we're on the right track. And then once we get that, we will be coming back through the planning commission and the board before the end of the year with that proposal.

And the oil and gas item, which is going to prohibit the drilling of new wells is going to the board on the June 23. And that's all I have. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Looks like no questions.

Alright. Thank you.

Okay. And with that, we can proceed to our standard agenda. We have a wave public hearing.

Chair and commissioners, that's for notification purposes only. No action needed on that item.

Okay. Thank you. So could you read in the first item, mister Villalobos?

Yes. Thank you, mister chair. The following is here on the request of the county of Santa Barbara planning and development department at the county planning commission consider the following case numbers 24 ORD twenty eight and twenty nine as well as case numbers 26 GPA five and twenty six GPA six.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Alex Suttle with Long Range Planning. And I'm joined with me today, Zoe Carlson, project planner, Matt Hernandez, and Whitney Wilkinson, supervising planner. And as you recall, this project was first heard by your commission back in March. You sent us off with some direction from that hearing. We're back to you today in response and to provide some information in response to that direction. And with that, I will hand it off to Zoe to present. Thank you.

Good morning Chair Read and Commissioners. My name is Zoe and Matt Hernandez on our team will be presenting with me again today. We'll start by reviewing the direction we received from your commission and discuss the Clean Coalition recommendations as well as potential changes to the amendments. We'll also discuss some options to further restrict utility scale solar projects including a countywide cap and we'll then conclude with a summary of options before your commission as well as recommendations to move this project forward to the Board of Supervisors. We presented the draft amendments to your commission on March 11 and you directed us to address recommendations that were included in the clean coalition letter, excluding recommendation number four, as well as evaluate potential caps specifically for utility scale solar, those largest projects and and that specifically in order to be protective of agricultural resources.

You also asked us for additional discussion on alternatives related to the CEQA document, the programmatic environmental impact report. Staff evaluated the recommendations that were included in the clean coalition letter and identified several changes that could be made to the ordinances in response to those recommendations. And the first set of recommendations were related to avoiding new restrictions on behind the meter projects. And in response, we are bringing option to combine tier one and the previous tier two category from March that were previously required a zoning clearance for projects that were up to five acres on developed or improved land. So under this expanded tier one category, these ground mounted solar systems that are up to five acres on developed sites would be exempt from planning permits.

Staff has also included an option to exempt solar canopies of all sizes that are on developed sites as well for your consideration. The second set of recommendations was related to standalone battery energy storage systems and these types of facilities are not included because the direction from the board of supervisors was specifically to increase opportunities for solar development and not battery energy storage systems. Staff has however included an option for the commission to consider to allow an additional quarter acre of battery energy storage systems that are combined with solar projects within that tier one system. So that means that a paired project would be allowed up to 5.25 acres to account for that additional quarter acre of battery energy storage. An alternative for your commission would just to leave that at the five acres limit for tier one for those solar plus battery energy storage so something for your commission to consider today.

Finally in response to the last set of recommendations from the Clean Coalition, we did amend some definitions to clarify that projects may occur on multiple contiguous parcels as well as the methods to determine the overall footprint calculation are the same across all tiers. So this table shows this expanded tier one permitting system and the building integrated or roof mounted systems that we presented as previously being exempt from planning permits would continue to be exempt from planning permits regardless of size. No changes there. Similarly, the ground mounted systems on undeveloped acre areas up to half an acre would continue to be exempt or require coastal development permit if they were in the coastal zone and that's the same as what we presented to your Commission in March Our proposed changes is to expand for the allowance of solar canopies with no limit on sizes as long as they are within existing developed or improved lands. Similarly, ground mounted solar systems on developed or improved sites would be allowed up to five acres.

And for agricultural resource zone properties, these systems would be primarily for on-site use to be protective of these zones and the site specific considerations there. And something to keep in mind is that all of these types of projects would be exempt from planning permits but they would still require building permits and electrical permits, all other permits that would be required for these facilities. Also in March we presented a set of development standards for tier two systems and we've rolled those development standards up into these tier one systems to continue to be protective of resources as appropriate. This slide shows the revised tier two and three framework for community scale as well as utility scale solar facilities. The permitting requirements for these facilities has not changed.

It's the same as what we presented before your commission in March. The community scale facilities would still require a minor conditional use permit, and the utility scale, solar facilities would still require a major conditional use permit. The only difference is instead of these being tier three and tier four, they're tier two and tier three. So we and that's because we eliminated the previous tier two category. We didn't receive any direction from from your commission or any comments, from the Clean Coalition on those tier two community scale solar projects that are up to and including 30 acres.

And Matt will now talk talk us through some of the changes that your commission requested us to bring forward as options to those larger tier three utility scale solar projects that are greater than 30 acres.

Thank you Zoe. This slide highlights that utility scale solar development would be constrained by several regional and site specific factors. This map helps illustrate one of those major constraints, proximity to transmission lines and to substations. While zoning may allow utility scale solar in certain areas, development potential greatly depends on whether a project can connect to the grid in a cost effective manner. Other constraints would also affect where projects could realistically be developed.

These include topography and other site conditions, environmental and cultural resources, geotechnical conditions, and natural hazards. In addition, all utility scale solar projects would still require discretionary approval and a CUP, meaning that each utility scale project would come before your commission and be reviewed on a case by case basis. Overall, the distribution of tier three utility scale solar would be constrained by transmission access, site specific constraints, and the county's own discretionary review process. So this slide further highlights another existing constraint on utility scale solar development, that is the extent to which grazing lands are in agricultural preserves. This map uses the state farmland mapping and monitoring programs grazing land classification, which is shown in yellow.

This does not necessarily indicate that all mapped lands are actively grazed today. Additionally, agricultural preserves are shown in green crosshatch only where they overlap with grazing land in the unincorporated county. This comparison was highlighted as grazing lands are generally the more likely agricultural lands to be developed for utility scale solar due to their lower value in agricultural output. However, as the figure shows, about 62% of grazing lands are enrolled in agricultural preserve programs. Therefore, large scale solar facilities would further be constrained based on the current proposed limits on solar development on contracted land.

Solar developments greater than 100 acres on these lands would require Williamson Act contract cancellation, which includes associated findings and additional financial penalties. So to conclude, a significant portion of grazing land that is most likely to support solar development is already constrained before considering a formal acreage cap. At the last hearing, your commission directed staff to evaluate options for a countywide cap on utility scale solar acreage. The goal of the cap would be to provide some guardrails to balance renewable energy development with the protection of agricultural resources. In developing these cap options, staff considered current countywide electricity demand, anticipated future growth in electrification, and the county's climate action plan targets.

For your consideration, we looked at the acreage needed to supply countywide electricity demand. As shown in the table, an 8,000 acre cap would meet roughly 100% of current demand, accounting for only about 1% of agriculturally zoned land. And increasing the cap to 16,000 or 24,000 acres would allow for 200% to 300% of current demand to be met, helping account for future growth and electrification. These numbers show that even a relatively small percentage of agricultural land, if developed with solar, could support a significant share of the county's energy needs. To reiterate, these options serve only as reference points, and the commission could select an alternate acreage amount.

This slide summarizes two alternatives that could further limit utility scale solar development in sensitive areas. The first is a coastal zone prohibition, which would remove the potential for tier three utility scale solar on approximately 59,000 acres in the unincorporated coastal zone. This alternative was identified in the program EIR as the environmentally superior alternative. It would also preserve opportunities for smaller scale coastal solar, but would also somewhat limit the county's ability to meet its renewable energy goals and would still not on its own reduce all impacts to less than significant levels. The second option, which was not included as an alternative in the program EIR, is a more targeted approach and would prohibit utility scale solar within the Gaviota Coast Planning Area.

This option focuses on protecting the area's agricultural, visual, and coastal resources while maintaining more flexibility elsewhere in the coastal zone. As a reminder, the Gaviota Coast planning Area covers both coastal and inland areas, which is why the acreage is larger. The commission could also consider allowing utility scale solar on existing industrial or oil and gas sites within these areas where impacts may be a bit more limited. At the last hearing, your commission discussed allowing utility scale solar on two existing oil and gas processing facilities along the Gaviota Coast. These sites, Mariposa Reyna and Las Flores Canyon, are already developed and have historically supported energy related uses.

As noted previously, the commission could consider allowing utility scale solar on these existing industrial sites even if broader prohibitions are allowed in the coastal zone or Gaviota Coast planning area. These locations may be well suited for solar development as they could minimize additional impacts while still maintaining a similar type of energy related use. This option provides a more targeted approach, balancing protection of both coastal and agricultural resources. This slide summarizes the policy options that are available for the Commission's consideration as a part of today's discussion. These items are intended to function as a menu of individual decision points, allowing the commission to provide direction on each of the specific components of both the ordinance amendments and environmental alternatives.

The first issue relates to the proposed tier one modifications that stem from the Clean Coalition's recommendations. This includes expanding exemptions for solar canopies and certain ground mounted solar projects. There is also an option to expand acreage allowance for battery energy storage systems for both paired solar and storage systems by a quarter acre. The second issue pertains to whether or not to establish a countywide acreage cap for utility scale solar or tier three projects. If so, we're requesting that the commission provide a specific acreage for this cap.

And finally, whether to prohibit tier three utility scale solar in the Coastal Zone or Gaviota Coast planning area and whether targeted exceptions should be considered for existing industrial or oil processing sites at Mariposa Reyna and Los Flores Canyon. Staff is seeking direction from the commission on these items prior to forwarding recommendations to the Board of Supervisors. And to close, staff is recommending that the commission forward the project to the Board of Supervisors with approval, incorporating any changes or options selected by the Commission at today's hearing. This includes making the required findings for approval, including CEQA findings, and recommending that the Board also make those findings. Staff is also recommending that the commission recommend board certification

of the

utility scale solar amendments program EIR and adopt resolutions recommending board approval of the proposed amendments to the LUDC CZO land use element and coastal land use plan as revised today. That concludes our presentation and we're now happy to answer any questions the commission may have.

Okay, so questions from commissioners?

Have a quick one. Commissioner Martinez. Yes, on your last slide you indicated that there's an additional 0.25 acres for battery. So my question is, is that point two five acres just complement like five acres of solar panels and then you can have point two five or can you have five acres of battery plus point two five?

Yeah, Commissioner Martinez through the chair. So that additional quarter acre would be for battery energy storage system to support the facility. It could be, it would have to be commensurate in size with the solar development. So we're not specifying specifically how big the solar versus battery energy storage system could be. It could be that the solar was a little bit smaller than five acres and the battery energy storage system was a little bit more than a quarter acre. But it just gives a little bit additional allowance for battery energy storage systems that are supportive of solar developments.

But can I go completely to the other way in regards to you have five acres of batteries plus point two five acres of batteries?

They would have to demonstrate that it's commensurate in size.

I'm not understanding that part, commensurate in size. Understand.

Commissioner Martinez to the chair, think the answer to that would be no. It has to be supportive of the solar. So the solar would be the primary dominant use, then the battery would be supportive of that as opposed to the other way around.

Okay. Understood. So it can't be solely battery?

Could not be solely battery. And it could not be 75% battery and 25% solar. I don't know exactly where that cutoff would be, but it really has to be secondary to the primary use of solar.

Okay, so commensurate is proportionate then too. Yes. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Park?

Yes, I have some questions and I can link them to the slides. Let's first go to slide 10. Okay. There's an asterisk at the bottom option allow utility scale solar on two existing industrial oil sites. Are we at the point where we are defining what those sites are?

I mean which exact parcels and those kinds of things? Let me explain why I am asking. These sites are possibly important for solar sites for two reasons. One, they may be abandoned or they may be obsolete, and they're a location that's already been disturbed for solar. And in your excellent memo that was sent to us prior to this hearing, it described those sites in that way.

But I also see it as the potential that there will be ongoing industrial activity of those sites, like Los Flores Canyon, which is really outside of Santa Barbara County's control at this point, at least arguably. And that those will have energy usage and it would be positive thing for the county if that energy usage was not combustion of natural gas but the use of solar. Why does that matter? Because if the industrial site's already taken up the flat land, okay, it's already occupied by an ongoing industry, then in order to have supportive solar, it might have to be on adjacent parcels, which might not be as flat. So, for example, if you drive up into Los Flores Canyon, which is mostly hidden from the road, you see a bowl, so to speak.

And if one was gonna have solar there, the logical thing would be to have the solar on the hillsides, especially ones with the southern exposure. So that's why I'm asking my question, are we talking about these sites and perhaps adjoining agricultural parcels or just those specific site parcels, which might not be enough?

Commissioner Park through the chair. So Ms. Wilkinson just she's looking something up, but she reminded me that Las Flores already operates under some type of conditional use permit. I don't know exactly their permit type, but they could already, their sort of current permit program come in and ask for some solar to support their conditionally permitted use.

But would that only be on the Los Flores Canyon?

I don't know enough about Los Flores to know what the scope of their existing permit covers. Presumably, it's just the partial or the property shown in orange on this slide. If that's where their current permit boundaries are, that's where the solar would have to be to support that use unless they were to seek to expand the permitted boundaries to adjacent properties. So they could do that now through the framework of their existing permit through a revision or something of that nature.

But that's what I was getting at was regarded the expanse of that property. I know enough that from looking at Caltopo and picking up ownership records that Exxon owns that site, Los Flouros site, it's pretty big. I don't know enough to know whether if there was to be solar out there, would it have to go beyond the site? That's what I'm getting at. Things that might have to go beyond the site to adjoining agricultural lands.

And the concern for me is that if we make an exception on utility scale solar so that for under alternative free EIR either Gaviota coastal planning area, the 100,000 acres or the coastal area don't allow solar that we might be shooting ourselves in the foot with regard to some benign and useful solar in the future.

Commissioner me, Commissioner Park through the chair. I also did want to add that we have development standards that would limit solar development on slopes that exceed 20%. That's also something to keep in mind. Have development standards that would prevent solar development on slopes that exceed 20% based off of our

And development

so is what we're voting on, is it specific enough that distinguishes, for example, this potential exemption for these two sites from any solar prohibition? Is it specific to those parcels? I don't know what we have right now. I have a memo that talks about these things in concept, but I don't know actually what I'm voting on. I'm not complaining.

Just Commissioner Park through the chair. Yeah, you haven't seen the exact language because we haven't shared that with you yet because we're kinda waiting to see, what direction we get at the at the hearing today. And and we have some draft language that we can pull up and kind of walk through to show you how it would fit within the draft amendments. As currently drafted, that staff has prepared, it was specific to the parcels, the APNs associated with Mariposa Reyna and Los Flores and was not going beyond that. There's always an opportunity to change that language to make it more expansive.

I guess I would caution you that the more carve outs you start creating, at some point, you get well, what's the point of prohibiting it in this area if you're just gonna create all these exceptions?

In the law, they call it the exception swallowing the rule. Exactly. Heard that all night live.

So as you can see in this exhibit, the majority, the vast majority of Las Flores is in the inland area outside the coastal zone. All of Mariposa Reyna is within the coastal zone, but it's also a smaller property.

So do you envision this coming back before this commission again?

I do not. No.

You do not. So we would today express our approval of certain concepts. There'd be revision of that language in the draft, and that would go directly to the board.

Yes. And depending on what direction we get from you, we have the opportunity to maybe take a little recess, bring up the draft language so you can take a quick look at it, and then we would send it on off to the board with your direction.

It's all right. So I don't have to wordsmith today. So you've got Maripos and Los Flores facilities. I'm even thinking on the coast, what about Tahitiwis? It's basically a landfill and it'll be restored in some fashion. Who knows what that will look like? It might be a potential site for solar. We limiting ourselves just to these oil and gas facilities?

Commissioner Park, through the chair. So we did get in touch with County Resource Recovery and Waste Division to see if they were interested a carve out for Tajikas Landfill. And they said they were not at this time. So we did kind of look into that and decided not to include it.

Of course, if the board was interested, they may take that as a good hint to reconsider, right? Okay. So let me move to slide 12 because this is a good follow-up to Mr. Tuttle's comments. This sets out options for us to consider, but these aren't the only options, right? So for example, if we said, well, how about excluding from solar the Gaviota Coast Planning Area, but only that part of the Gaviota Coast planning area that's also in this coastal zone? We could do that, right?

Yes, you could do that.

And that would sort of obviate the concern over Los Flores Canyon because most of Los Flores, other than the driveway, is outside the coastal zone.

Correct. And just a reminder, too, that what we're talking about with that prohibition is for a utility scale. So that's greater than 30 acres. So that would still provide an opportunity for up to a 30 acre solar project that could support on-site uses or off-site uses.

Okay. And there was a slide with a map on it. I forgot its number. It was the one that had the pretty colors.

Which one?

There you go. Well, yellow. That's pretty. Where is Strauss wind energy on that map? It's in the coastal zone on the yellow piece, right? Near the California's wonderful corner, the Point Conception.

Yeah. I don't know exactly, but it's somewhere in that area where the cursor is highlighted in that yellow. Yep.

Okay. And so if if if we excluded solar in the coastal zone, it would be excluding it on that side. Right?

For utility scale, yes it would.

Yeah. But that's not within the Gaviota Coast Planning Area, right? Does that end before there?

It I don't believe it's within the Gaviota Coast Planning Area, but you can see here the the the purple dotted line represents the caveata boundaries. So it does more or less get, it picks up a a little area north of Halama Road between Halama and the Vandenberg Space Force Base, but I'm not sure if that's within the area of Strauss Wind.

Oh, so is that purple? Oh, I see. You know, to get there you turn off on San Miguelito, which is off oh, well. Anyway, I have more comments about the Strauss in this possible application, but I want to reserve that to deliberations. But I do have a question.

City of Carpinteria wrote a letter that I didn't exactly understand and I didn't exactly understand their first letter. That says more about me than them. But their second letter they're saying, well you know, you follow-up on recommendations from Clean Air Coalition and certain other letters but you didn't address our letter. And I thought, well I didn't understand what you wanted in your letter.

I think you

wanted consultation and something else. But have you endeavored to respond to the city of Carpinteria's first or second letter? I think it's important we respond to the municipalities that are affected by these things. At least show that we're reading their letters even if I don't understand them.

I agree. I didn't know

what they were asking for.

Commissioner Park to the chair. First off, we just did confirm with Aaron Briggs that Strauss Wind is not within the Gaviota Plan area.

Oh, good. Thank you.

So that might simplify things. Secondly, in regards to the City of Carpinteria letter, yeah, they they did talk about or make some requests about early consultation or coordination. Frankly, I'm just not sure what that looks like or what that would be. We have a very established permit process that provides opportunity particularly with the CUP, provides a lot of opportunities for public review and input, whether that's from another agency, another jurisdiction, a member of the public, a neighbor. And that happens at multiple points along the permit process, both at the CEQA point as well as the public hearing and approval point.

Those would be the opportunities for the city of Carpadrilla to to participate and comment and review on the project. I you know, we we have a very well described and some might say cumbersome permit process, particularly at the CUP level. So I would be a little reluctant to add another requirement on top of that, particularly just for one subset of projects. I guess that would be my response to that. We're always happy to have conversations and engage with our neighboring jurisdictions.

But to establish any sort of formal consultation, I'd be little reluctant to do that in the code.

Well, we've all read the letter and you're making me feel smarter. And you've made a good response. So thank you.

Yeah. Commissioner Park through the chair just wanted to make note that the first letter was submitted during the program environmental impact report process and was responded to as a component of that process.

Great, thanks. That's enough questions for now. Commissioner Ford.

Thank you. First of all, I just want to thank staff for taking the time to help me understand this. Sort of complicated, but I feel like I know a lot more now. And also for expanding the tier one, which was a request by many members of the community and the Planning Commission. So thank you. I was just wondering for me and for members of the public, perhaps you could just describe what's the difference between a minor CUP and a major CUP.

Commissioner Ford, through the chair, I believe the primary difference is that the decision maker for a minor CUP is the zoning administrator. And of course it's the Planning Commission for the major CUP. Otherwise I think the findings are the same and it's a similar process.

Okay. Thanks.

Have one more question.

Commissioner Martinez.

Thank you. I was reading into just the options for the acreage cap and also on I think it's number 12 about county wide cap on utility scale solar acreage. What do we look to in regards to those caps? And the reason I'm asking that is that I keep on hearing that the evolution of solar energy is becoming better and better as we go. And do analogize it to when we first came out with satellite television, people with that big huge antenna in their backyard and now we're down to a little napkin maybe that goes on top of your roof that can get better and even more reception.

So are you, the staff, looking to look at these variables, I would say, in relation to it? Because I'm interested in seeing that. Because I imagine as time would go by, if we do something that's static today, it may become antiquated as we go down the line of better technology. We don't need as big a solar farms than we used to. Don't smaller can produce more. I'm just interested in that.

Commissioner Martinez, for the chair. We, you know, in coming up with this acreages, we really looked at current technology. We we can't forecast what future technology might mean in terms of smaller solar to generate the same amount of electricity. So we looked at current, like, conversion rates in terms of how much eight how much megawatts can you generate within a a certain acreage. And so that's how we came up with those formulas to just to meet current demand and then sort of factor that out if we wanted to sort of double that or triple that, recognizing that certainly the trend is towards electrification, both at the state level, certainly, and then even nationally.

So if there were interest in a cap, I would I think we would certainly recommend that you come up that you establish a number that gives some room some maneuvering room so that we're not in a situation of hitting that cap easily and quickly and then suddenly realizing that we want more solar generated. That's not to say that the cap can't always be adjusted at a later date. That wouldn't be that hard to do to increase the cap, in the future by the board. But, I would just suggest that, when you look at the cap in combination with the fact that we have a CUP process and these other constraints that would all help to provide some guardrails on the concerns that were raised at the last hearing in terms of sort of large scale wholesale loss of our agricultural resources. I think that the cap numbers that we showed that even if you have a pretty generous cap that would provide, say, 200% or 300% of our solar needs or electrical needs, that we're still talking about a pretty small percentage of our overall ag land.

And what brought this to mind in regards to Commissioner Park, which indicated about wordsmithing, is maybe there's some language we could include in there because that would give that flexibility to adjust to from current technology to future technology. And what I'm thinking is let's just say we are going to ag land, but the realization that we don't need that much ag land because technology has just exceeded what we originally thought, that that would give us the on-site ability to recognize that and not just be polarized to just being stuck in the corner of saying, this is the wording and they're doing what we put into the language rather than giving you the ability to say, well we need some adjustments here. And that's the key word I'm looking for is just the flexibility to adjust to this emerging technology and maybe something can be put in there to at least address it. Maybe it's an annual review, which I doubt you guys want to do an annual review in regards to the thing. But biannual, I don't know.

But I think it should be something that is looking prospectively into the future of saying it should be reviewed and not just left onto the shelf is what my concern is right there. And yeah, that's just my thought process. Thank you.

Okay. Now, one of the things I would like to go back to briefly, Kuefner Park brought up the letters from city of Carpinteria and since they're unrepresented at this hearing, I would like to make certain that their comments have been taken into account and move forward and are included in discussion At the board, it seemed to me from their first letter, they had some concern that was these how these projects will actually tier from the PEIR. I mean, the conclusions and the considerations in the PEIR adequately evaluate these installations as they appear in that area? So I maybe not make, as you said, a formal change to the ordinance, but I think we certainly need to accommodate the concerns of a significant community as we move ahead with this. Now, I'll get back to this.

I can remember maybe commissioner Park and Ford can, sitting back in the elementary school in the sixties, looking at a little weekly reader, looking at wind and solar and how that was gonna be great in the future and thinking how cool it was. So kind of interesting to now be dealing with it. The question is not, is it a good thing or should we have it here? The question is size and where? And that's what we're dealing with.

Also, I'm glad to see some people from the environmental community finally here, because solar and renewables, like any other form of energy, do have some environmental consequences, so they should always be part of the discussion. I think a lot of that is reflected in what we've seen here thus far. But now, getting down to it. In terms of the tier one and the solar, I think the changes, I'm comfortable with them. I mean, that's a developed area.

I'd like to look more into the ag area. I think one of the answers you gave earlier with respect to what was the maximum acceptable slope for a solar facility, and that's about 20%. Okay. So I think what would be very useful to have, I don't have it here, board of supervise might appreciate later. I'd like to see, is there a map available that shows the amount of available ag preserve and agricultural land is less than that 20%?

By lining out the 20% grade, how much of this map we have in slide, well, various maps, how much of that area is lost since it is in excess of 20%? I just think that would be a relevant piece of information to have for people making the ultimate decision on how big a footprint we want. In terms of your acreage cap, I know we spoke about that earlier, and we looked at the total estimated output of the system as proposed, and we were looking at some reasonable caps. The reason I supported the caps is I spent a lot of time driving out through the San Joaquin Valley, and we see more and more areas of solar farm, some small, some quite large, all producing plenty of energy in them. Also certain that the people of Santa Barbara County don't really want that look for our county, hence, I think the need for some limitations on size.

And also my concerns, which I talked about California flat. So I think the inclusion of the cap is good. But I just think it is additional consideration. Most people can look at 8,000 acres or 100 acres. They don't have a clue of how large that really is in terms of visualing. But these, I think, are appropriate since they almost reflect the amount of grape acreage in the county. So we go with the 8,000 and the 16,000 acres. I mean, how much energy do we want to make? I think if we put in solar and only make enough solar to replace what we have, I think most people would think that was minimal. They would prefer more.

So, what's more reasonable? 16 or twenty four? Sixteen thousand, at the peak, I think grapes were around 22,000 acres in the county, maybe slightly more. I think they're down to about 12,000 now. So that should give people a good handle about how much relative area should be. So I think that's a good discussion for people in making decisions. With respect to the tier three, I know right now for Williamson Act property, can get a maximum though I understand it, you can have 100 acres of solar if your parcel is 1,000 acres. Is that correct?

I believe, well, the board will have a decision between a 10% or 15% allowance. So

so either a 1,500 acres. If you have 100 or 150 acres, if you have 1,000. What happens, we had one landowner, thought it was attractive, she has 8,000 acres. I know there's another one on the map, has 36,000. Are they going to be limited to just one installation? Or is there a tier system for larger landowners that would allow them to either have more sites or aggregate sites? Is there mechanism for that?

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, so as currently drafted, it would be per premises. So sometimes those really large properties have multiple ag preserve contracts. But it would be per contract, that 100 acre limit.

Per

contract. As currently drafted, is no tiered mechanism. Solution in that instance would likely be to pull that portion out from ag preserve when you get to that size. But the board always has the discretion to increase that size limit.

Yeah, I would think a cap with options to increase it if it gets built out and things are working out well. Finally, with respect of Tajigas, I'm glad Commissioner Park brought that up, because I was thinking about it. And like all landfills, eventually it gets filled and needs to be used for something else that could be an ideal site, which brings me to the concept of precluding development on the Gaviota Coast or the coastal zone. I could conceive with the fact there are likely landowners in those areas that could have appropriate sites out of public view who might want to develop them because it is a benefit. So I think that's a consideration that needs to be adopted.

I mean, if we're all going to share in the gain from solar, maybe all need to share somewhat in the pain, the modification of the viewscape. Those are my feelings on those. So overall, and as Commissioner Martinez, I think we always have to consider, and I know there's some talk in here about remediation at such time as sites get exhausted or technology changes, because I think that's very real. And we know the pace of improved technology is a quick one. Face it, back in the 60s, we thought dams were great for conserving water and providing electric power.

Not long ago, I heard legislators say they were dinosaurs. So we know technology does change and at some date, these will be outdated. So I just think the ample consideration of what happens when that occurs, maybe we can do better with a smaller footprint, should be part of this. So that's about all I have right now. So thank you.

Wanna take a break? Okay. Let's take a 10 break. Okay. We will do that.

Welcome back to the May 6 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. We will proceed to public comment. Okay. Our first speaker will be Spencer Brandt. You'll have three minutes. We're gonna be Doss Williams will follow.

Good morning, Chair Reid and commissioners. Spencer Brandt here on behalf of Central Coast Community Energy, or 3CE. We are the not for profit electricity provider serving 1,200,000 customers on the Central Coast, including those in Santa Barbara County. So that means that we're not a developer. We are an agency that procures energy on behalf of our customers.

And so permitting decisions matter to us because they affect the number of solar and renewable projects, storage projects, that we can contract with. That affects prices, which ultimately get passed on to customers. We really want to thank planning and development staff for an excellent job, a very thoughtful job of streamlining the tier one and tier two in the ordinance. We're actively considering offtake agreements with projects that are at this scale. And I think this ordinance, as presented, really treats those projects appropriately.

We also want to speak to the question of the coastal zone. We're asking you to keep the door open. There are some sites in the coastal zone, these existing industrial sites that have been named, including Tujigas Landfill, Las Flores Canyon, and Mariposa Reyna. These sites all have existing electrical infrastructure and existing grid interconnection. And some are already eligible under the ordinance as proposed.

Takayas is not currently, but we think that this is worth considering. It does already have a 2.2 megawatt biogas generating project there and some infrastructure. And I want to flag something really practical, which is that infrastructure doesn't exist in a vacuum. So the land that's adjacent to these parcels in some cases may be necessary if the existing interconnection site is too small to be able to site solar and storage. We really think that a blanket exclusion of wide swaths of area will make it much harder for the viability of some of these projects.

Or not projects, but potential projects, right? The major conditional use process that is proposed is a high bar, we support that process. We support our member agencies having a thorough review of utility scale projects as they come forward. We thank the commission and your staff for your diligence on this. We support the recommendations with those additions. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Mr. Williams will be followed by Katie Davis.

Good morning. Das Williams. I, along with Spencer, lead a policy team for Central Coast Community Energy. And we were founded, and Santa Barbara County joined 3CE because we have a goal of reaching 100% renewable energy ten to fifteen years before the state mandates and that we've been able to do so at fair rates. Both of those are important when we're talking about this today.

Thank you for recommending most of the Clean Coalition changes. And we want to support including the larger amount of batteries in tier one, the additional of the quarter acre. There is a revolution happening out there in energy. And it's taken place since this ordinance was first conceived. Things have changed a lot.

Right now, the grid, as we speak in this moment, the state grid is 89% carbon free energy. And that will probably grow by 01:00 to up to 107% renewable energy, the additional 7% going to charging batteries. In the context of that revolution, what that's created is renewable energy that's cheaper. But it doesn't need to reach economies of scale to help stabilize prices. Typically, economies of scale have to be at least 50 megawatts for a standalone solar facility.

So the ability to have batteries as part of it is really the only way that something smaller will be economically viable. And of course, to do a 50 megawatt facility takes about two fifty to 500 acres, depending on the slopes. I also just ask you to consider the basic question that was asked at the Board of Supervisors when this ordinance process began. Conception really was, will the birthplace of environmentalism legalize clean energy, or are we going to just ask other people to do it for us? Will we practice what we preach?

I just ask you to consider that some of the options here the ones that have 100% exclusion in the Gaviata planning area or the coastal zone are tantamount to excluding the entire South County because of what remains is mostly mountainous and outside of the county's jurisdiction. And so is excluding most of the South County consistent with the idea of legalizing solar in the County Of Santa Barbara. I just want to thank staff for their work. My favorite poet says, Between the conception and creation falls the shadow. It's TS Eliot.

Sometimes hard to navigate that shadow. I thank staff and the commission for doing that navigation for us. Thank you.

I have a question.

Okay.

So you don't support precluding development of solar in the coastal zone in the South County. Is that correct?

That is correct. The coastal zone in areas outside of the Gaviota planning area is quite large. In my neck of the woods, it goes right up to the mountains. And then the Gabyota Planning Area goes significantly inland. And as you pointed out there are places well out of view shed of the Gabby Of Gaviota that would be precluded from doing solar if the entire Gaviota planning area was excluded from the ordinance.

So you're saying there's no exclusion you would recommend no exclusions for Gaviota or the Gaviota Coast? Correct. I would ask that you keep the door open

Great. More.

Great. Well, at last we agree on something.

Yeah. Good.

I would just say that, yes, that to be consistent with the thoughts of how it was conceived.

I think if we're going to show true commitment to it, we need to have it open everywhere and just rely on a rigorous review project by project.

You think that would be adequate? Would be using your land use authority.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Katie Davis, to be followed by Juan Laris.

Hi, Katie Davis. And I also support the solar ordinance, I think, for too long in Santa Barbara County, where we have about three hundred days of sunshine annually. The most abundant and cost effective form of renewable energy has been overly prohibited. We support the Clean Coalition recommendations. Solar on buildings and parking lots reduces the demand on the grid and the amount of land used for solar.

And I think that also includes paired and standalone energy storage. I mean one of the big things that's changed in the last seven years since the county passed the energy plan is that batteries have become really integral parts of solar production because we can store and and benefit from solar power in the evening hours after the sun sets but when cost and demand for energy are are very high batteries improve our energy resiliency by providing 20 fourseven power and that's important here in Santa Barbara County at the tail end of these two grid lines. They can provide backup power in the event of outages. They've rapidly fallen in cost and in safety and in necessity because we have so much solar production during the peak hours so I think that's important way and solar and batteries will help us safely retire the aging and polluting gas power plants in Oxnard that powered South Santa Barbara County in the past so I do agree that we need to provide power in in the South Santa Barbara County as well as North County. I think I think that the ordinance to allow solar on industrial and agricultural land is protective of wildland so I appreciate those you know those zoning restrictions and if there is a situation where utility scale or solar is inappropriate I agree the discretionary approval provides provides a hedge against that.

I do think it's we don't want to be overly restrictive on a rapidly developing and innovative field and I want to bring up something that hasn't come up yet which is the Ag friendly solar agrivoltaics which is which is a growth sector which enables ranching or farming alongside solar. Solar panels can be set seven to 10 feet above the ground and spaced apart to create a mix of sun and shade for crops, shielding plants from excessive heat, cold, and ultraviolet radiation and increasing the yield of many crops. A UC Davis study found that solar shade increased productivity of pepper and tomato plants and used less water. Other studies have found benefits for basil, broccoli, cabbage, celery, lettuce, spinach, etc. A lot of the crops that we produce in the county.

Solar can also shade farm workers and flocks of sheep or goats and for ranches there are even movable solar arrays that can shade and reduce water evaporation on pasture and forage crops. Once livestock are done grazing in one area the solar can move there and the livestock can graze where the solar arrays were. So there's just these interesting innovations so I I do agree that we don't want to be overly restrictive and I don't think we need to have carve outs and allow some flexibility since it takes so long to get these ordinances. Thank you so much for considering this and moving it forward. Appreciate it.

Alright. Thank you. So Juan Lares, who will be followed by Isabel Stice. I hope I got that right.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. I'm Juan Lares. I want to thank you for your time, I'd like to extend a thank you to staff for all your efforts. I serve as the project director of the Central Coast Climate Justice Network, a regional coalition of environmental justice and community based organizations working across the Central Coast.

There's about 12 of us groups that come together and have discussions about how to equitably distribute energy generation in the region and describes our broader energy landscape. I'm here today in strong support of Prosolar Energy Systems Ordinance with the addition Clean Coalition's recommendations. The reality is simple. Santa Barbara County uses energy and Santa Barbara County needs to do its fair share to help generate it. For too long, our energy system has relied on extracting, burning, and importing power in ways that shift environmental and public health burdens elsewhere.

While still leaving our communities exposed to pollution, rising costs, instability, I see this as an opportunity for localized energy and resilience. Santa Barbara County is serious about phasing out oil and reducing fossil fuel dependence, then we also need to be serious about building the cleaner energy infrastructure that must replace it. That means creating practical, responsible pathways for local energy generation. This ordinance does that. It does not guarantee project approval and it does not remove public process.

What it does is create a clear framework for responsibly cited solar energy products to be evaluated on their merits while maintaining local oversight, environmental review, and community input. That is a reasonable and necessary step. Sunburgra County cannot expect to benefit from clean energy, cleaner air, and long term grid reliability without contributing to infrastructure required to make that possible. We all have responsibility to participate in the energy transition, and this ordinance is one practical way for Santa Barbara County to do its part. Solar and surge are not the whole solution, but they're a necessary part of it, and this ordinance is a practical step forward. I urge you to support it, and I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll have Isabel she'll be followed by Ben Schwartz.

Hi everybody, good morning. I'm Isabel Stice and I'm representing the Clean Coalition today. First wanted to start out by thanking the Planning Commission for taking the time to recognize our comments and include the recommendations to staff to take the time for requesting the inclusion of them. And thanks to County staff for the continued engagement in the process of developing an ordinance that enables efficient permitting for solar and solar plus storage throughout the County. I want to start out by saying that the Clean Coalition encourages the Commission to adopt the updated utility scale solar ordinance that includes the proposed changes and staff recommendations, including parking canopy and solar in Tier one, paired solar and storage permitting, and the clarifying methodology definitions.

As an additional note, we still want to recommend and want the opportunity to be recognized that there's an opportunity remaining to maximize the value of the ordinance and increase the permitting efficiency in alignment with county and state policy goals by streamlining the permitting of small standalone storage with solar plus energy storage systems up to 0.25 acres in Tier 1. Placing these in Tier 1s

sorry.

The staff has included a recommendation for paired solar plus storage projects up to 0.25 acres, and this demonstrates that storage projects have a limited physical footprint and small land use impacts. The same reasoning should apply with equal force to stand alone solar solar systems of stand alone storage systems of identical sizes. A standalone battery occupying up to 0.25 acres or less possesses the same structure, footprint site conditions, and land use impacts of storage components of paired solar plus storage projects of the same size. By creating additional requirements for these standalone systems with the identical environmental impacts, it produces inconsistent outcomes. Instead, extending Tier one treatment to standalone storage up to 0.25 acres ensures that permitting remains proportionate to actual land use and consistent across project configurations.

One more thing that I would like to mention is the discussion that we've had on the momentum of our county and the state and us wanting to be an environmental leader. The Santa Barbara County's energy assurance plan has set explicit targets to increase both utility scale and distributed energy resource capacity by 2,030, and the strategic energy plan follows in a similar fashion, emphasizing integrated and streamlined permitting processes to reduce time and cost barriers to clean energy development. The utility scale solar amendments are framed to improve permitting efficiency and facilitating distributed and renewable energy resources, Extending tier one treatments to standalone storage systems up to 0.25 acres directly advances these adopted policy objectives. This would reduce regulatory friction within the county's stated goals of accelerating renewable energy integration and strengthen local energy resilience. We wanna be a leader moving towards environmental change, and battery storage is one of the most important parts of this.

We're no longer just a solar state. We're a solar plus storage state, and battery batteries are the key to the value of that solar. Thank you.

Oh, thank you. Ben Schwartz. And we'll be followed by Heidi Debra.

Good morning Chair and Planning Commissioners. My name is Ben Schwartz. I am the Clean Coalition's Policy Director. And I'd just like to follow-up on a few points that my colleague Isabelle made. The first is that we are very appreciative to the Board of considering inclusion of Clean Coalition's proposals and to staff throughout this process for being willing to engage with us.

Obviously we do recommend option one that includes recommendations from the Clean Coalition and we are very pleased with the outcome after a long process that this development has taken. The first thing I'd just like to say is it's clear that the development of a new ordinance does take time and rightly so. And for that reason, we find it very important for the Planning Commission to recommend to the board an ordinance that provides the maximum security and process for renewable energy and the development of renewable energy and more particularly, renewable energy developed on the built environment. A previous commenter, Katie Davis, made the very important point that the more renewable energy we have on the built environment that's rooftops, parking lots, and parking structures the less we need on Santa Barbara's pristine natural lands. And that has always been our perspective and our goal here is to make it accessible and feasible for folks who have space on the built environment to utilize that properly and therefore minimizing environmental impacts to the maximum degree.

And part of that and this is really the only place where we continue to nitpick if you will is for small standalone storage systems. Right now we are talking about a process where a very small residential solar plus storage system would be included in Tier one and that's great. But we also have under the same system size a standalone storage system would be included in Tier three. And there are a number of perspectives to look at but from the perspective of the county's resources, the Planning Commission's resources, it just doesn't really make sense to be having every single small storage project come before you. Obviously, it's something massive, if it's utility scale, if it's 100 megawatt hours, review is essential.

But if it's something that's going on the side of someone's house to charge their electric vehicle, it doesn't really make sense to go before you or a slightly reduced set of oversight. It makes far more sense to consider the environmental impacts, the land use impacts and the aesthetic impacts, which would be identical to a solar plus storage project of the same size. The resilience from standalone storage is very important and we include in the letter a report from the South Coast Chamber of Commerce that notices the fact that our businesses are struggling because of poor energy quality, particularly tech companies, production companies and having standalone energy storage is a great way to smooth out the flow of that power and modulate so these businesses can continue functioning without seeing losses. And so, really the one thing we are asking is to include 0.25 acres of standalone energy storage in Tier one for maximum efficiency. Thank you.

We'll go to Heidi DeBrau. I don't see Heidi. There can't be more than one. I think I have the name correct, DeBrau. So, alright. Do we have anyone online or on the phone, Mr. Villalobos?

Yes. We have two, we have three speakers online. Okay. First speaker will be Mindy Fogg, to be followed by our telephone speaker, and then on to to end. Miss Fogg, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair Reid and commissioners. My name is Mindy Fogg, and I'm a principal planner with the city of Carpinteria. First, I wanna thank you for continuing this item from March 11 to make stakeholder concerns are fully considered. We really appreciate that. As you, Chair Reid and Commissioner Park, mentioned, the city submitted letters back on March 9 and earlier this week raising a focused concern regarding early interagency coordination for future community scale and utility scale solar projects.

We understand staff's position that the city's earlier EIR comments were responded to through the final EIR process. However, our planning commission letters were narrower and focused specifically on implementation and coordination issues that we still believe remain unresolved and PND staff has not reached out to us to discuss or clarify our concerns. So in a nutshell, we're asking that applications for community scale and utility scale projects near Carpinteria be forwarded to us when they are received by the county. Because so much analysis and project design will occur at the project level, it's important that neighboring jurisdictions like the city are brought into that review process early before designs are finalized and rather than waiting for input at CEQA review or CUP hearing stage. I will say I was disappointed to hear the suggestion from mister Tuttle that early consultation with neighboring jurisdictions would be overly cumbersome or burdensome.

In my prior experience working at multiple counties, applications near city boundaries were routinely shared with the affected cities early in the process to allow for coordination and input and in practice that did not create a significant burden or delay. In many cases, it actually helped identify and resolve issues earlier and more efficiently. We continue to be very concerned about the cumulative effects of development pressures within the Carpentaria Agricultural Overlay District and how those incremental changes could gradually erode the rural and agricultural character of Carpentaria Valley over time. So we continue to support consideration of the full coastal zone prohibition alternative for utility scale solar as a way to reduce potential impacts throughout the coastal zone, including within Carpinteria Valley. And given the coastal act strong protections for visual and agricultural resources, we believe that approach would also provide greater long term policy consistency and certainty moving forward.

I will try to remain available if you have any follow-up questions about our letters and I want to thank you again very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Our next speaker is calling in via telephone. Go ahead and hit 6 on your phone to unmute yourself, and then just please identify yourself before you start speaking.

Thank you. Good morning. This is Claire Wyman from the Grower Shipper Association of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. We do support an acreage cap. We had envisioned a cap for subsets of the county, recognizing that numbers might be different in different parts of the county, more like, if if I'm not mistaken, how the cannabis business license was structured rather than an aggregate total, for countywide, and our board has not discussed a countywide, total aggregate cap.

We do have continued concerns about applying an overlay to AgGLANDS and prefer the acreage cap instead. We do ask you to keep in mind the potential example or potential for examples like data centers and potential new distribution infrastructure, like the Central Coast Power Connect project that had been proposed one time. In Cuyama, the original acreage cap came from the substation capacity, and we would like to see an acreage cap to manage things like battery size and weed management for potential impacts to agricultural operations. The batteries at Moss Landing weren't large in size, but were hugely impactful, for neighboring residents, workers, and ag lands, and we wanna be mindful of these potential complications until the technology is more mature. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

And our last, online speaker will be Anna Citron.

Good morning. Can you hear me?

Yes. Go ahead.

Great. Good morning, chair Reid and planning commissioners. Anna Citrin, legal and policy director for the Gaviota Coast Conservancy. First, we wanna thank the commission for directing and to staff for providing the additional analysis in the staff memo of the clean coalition recommendations, the agricultural acreage cap, and of alternative three and also the hybrid version of that alternative that prohibits utility scale solar in the Gaviota Coast planning area. We support the new tier one framework that incorporates the clean coalition recommendations and also the implementation of a reasonable cap on agricultural acreage that, as described in the staff memo, would allow the county to achieve the climate action plan's goals without sacrificing a large percentage of agricultural land.

We strongly support the hybrid alternative that disallows only tier three solar on the Gaviota Coast while still allowing all other forms of solar, including tier two facilities of up to 30 acres per landholding, which meaningfully contributes to a renewable energy transition. With respect to the option of allowing tier three facilities on some sites on the Gaviota Coast, GCC has consistently opposed industrialization on the Gaviota Coast, not, because of its resource sensitivity, not only visual, but biological, cultural, recreational, and agricultural as well. While we agree that utility scale solar is superior to oil and gas facilities, we nonetheless envision that sites like Los Flores will be restored. I heard from a Gaviota Coast resident, that a side canyon at Las Flores is the most beautiful canyon they've ever seen, and the public never gets to see that. Restoring the front canyon would not only benefit the local ecology, including wildlife movement, but would also provide opportunities for public access and recreation to this very special area.

The same can be said of Taheguah's Landfill, which I'll note is already required to be restored to native habitat per the existing landfill closure plan and can eventually as well support public access and recreation, including connecting important preserved areas like Arroyo Hondo, Barron Ranch, Rancho Tejiguas that are right adjacent to the landfill. Look at Eelings Park. Used to be a city landfill. I hike out there every week while my son plays soccer, and it's an incredible landscape that provides so many benefits to community. So please take that into consideration.

We urge you to support this ordinance, but with appropriate safeguards to ensure that tier three solar is cited in the least impactful areas. Thank you very much for your time.

Ms. Citroen was our last online speaker.

Does staff have any responses to anything that emerged during the public comment?

Mr. Chair, Commissioners, I did want to clarify, I think, one thing from Mr. Schwartz. He had indicated that like, someone putting a battery storage on the side of their garage to charge their electric vehicle or something like that would be a tier three project. And I just wanted to clarify that that's not the case.

Battery storage, like residential battery, like a Tesla battery pack or something like that would normally be exempt and only require a building permit. So and then the other thing, I guess, I would say is not necessarily in response to the comments, but, regarding the city of Carbondorea, their comment letter had some questions that we didn't get into. We we talked about the coordination, but they, as Chair Reid indicated, they had some questions about the tiering of the EIR, which we can talk through if you'd like information on what that process would look like.

Yeah. She she also asked that early in the process when you receive an application, you copy them on that. Is that something that's possible?

You know, we we have noticing provisions in our ordinance for permit applications that get noticed. And certainly, the city of Carpinteria and other cities and neighboring jurisdictions are or could be included within that noticing. I think I would reiterate that, we have a lot of process already, and I'd be reluctant to establish more process. We're trying to go in the other direction of trying to streamline our process rather than add to it.

Okay. Alright. So all in, all done?

So chair and commissioners, think that sums up this portion of the hearing. During our break, we did had a brief conversation with Mr. Tuttle. My recommendation is moving into the next part of the hearing is for Mr. Tuttle and his team to walk the commissioners through each one of these points, looking for clarification to get consensus for the commission so we know how to proceed forward.

So my recommendation is for the chair and the commissioners to turn it back over to Mr. Tuttle and his team to walk through each of these points. And then once we get done with that, if there's any other points that the commission wants to talk about, then we address those at that point, if they're not covered by what staff is presenting today. So that's my recommendation as far as how to move forward with the hearing.

Does anybody have any objections towards doing what mister Wilson suggests?

Commissioner Park? I don't have objection. I think that is the wise way to do it, to keep focused. But, I do want the opportunity to speak to certain ones as we get there. I don't want us to just pull this. What's the

vote on this? What's the vote on this?

Okay, we're done. Goodbye. No, I want I want to speak to some of these things. So let's just as long as we preserve that right, let's go for it.

I think we can accommodate that. So can we proceed? Do we need a break or are we ready to go?

We're just going to pull up the PowerPoint that has that slide with kind of the key yeah, slide 12 the key decision points that we're looking for direction on. So Zoe, you want to kind of walk us through these?

Yeah. Thanks, commissioner. Chair through the commissioners, the first option is expand the expanded tier one option. And, again, there's three decision points here we're asking for a direction on. The first one is including solar canopies on developed sites with no size limits.

So chair and commissioners, it's your time to weigh in on that.

You just

give it an up or down?

So, yeah, this is into staff's response that they're we're gonna walk through these to Commissioner Park is we're looking for input now at each one of these points.

Commissioner Ford. I support this. Yeah. One a.

I would be a yes on that.

Yes. Me too.

Good. B.

So the second option is including ground mounted solar on developed sites up to five acres. Again, this is the previous zoning clearance requirement now being exempt from planning permits.

Commissioner Martinez? Let's just do these left to right. How about

I'll say yes.

Looks to me like a yes. It's developed.

I.

Yes. Good. Which brings us to c.

And this again is an option for up to an additional quarter acre, specifically a battery energy storage systems that would be supportive of that primary solar installation?

Commissioner Martinez? Yes. We always hear about our overcapacity to produce solar in the daytime and obviously during the dark hours of night, no capacity. I don't think moonlight generates much. So, I think it would make complete sense to allow battery storage to supplement and compensate. Yes.

Yes, but I do want to make a comment. What's not on there is 1D which is what various folks in the audience have asked for which is a standalone battery. Yes. You know, I'm convinced that's a good idea except I don't think we should include that here because staff has a very good idea of what the task was as described to them by the Board of Supervisors and they did not task you with that. And I think it's kind of pointless for the Planning Commission to add things in that the Board didn't want and then have you take it up there.

So if the same people can make the same point to the Board of Supervisors and if the Board wants to change its mind, then they can tell you to do it. We don't need to do it here. Doesn't mean I don't hear you, I just think that the way the process is working, it's gonna work better if it's done at the Board level.

Just one more comment I'll make with respect to the batteries. One more comment I'll throw out there with respect to the batteries. We did get this comment letter from mister Laris, a number of other people regarding that Elwood Peaker plant. It only runs seventy nine hours a year when apparently power's down or if we had enough batteries, would it make it we'd be able we'll be able to supply enough our own to where they wouldn't have to fire up that plant for only seventy nine hours a year. I'll just throw that out there.

I know you haven't calculated, but I think that's an interesting insight into why we might welcome more batteries. Which brings us to the countywide cap question, right? The big one.

Yes, that's correct. We would like some guidance first on whether or not you would like to include a cap on utility scale that's specifically the tier three greater than 30 acre projects?

We'll just take this answers according to sense of urgency, so I'll jump in first. I think a cap is probably the most manageable way of doing it. I am not a fan of overlays, etcetera, as Clara Weinman said, is unpopular with the growers in the North County that she represents. I think a county wide cap is much more manageable and it is adjustable and I think among those, I think if we're really gonna be all in, 16,000 would be a reasonable start since it will allow more than just equalizing what our county consumes. It's not overly large.

We have something that people can get in their head as to a comparison, which is about the same size as the vineyard industry in the county. So, I would suggest, I would support a cap and I would support 16,000 as a starting area. Commissioner Ford.

Thanks. I support the cap also. And I don't know much about acreage. And it just seems to me that your suggestion is right, 16,000.

Questioner Park.

Yes, I'm gonna join the chorus. I think the cap is the most practical thing to do at this point. And with regard to the acreage, I agree with Commissioner Martinez that we really don't know exactly what the technology is and is going to be. Somehow with agriculture, which we should be supporting in every way we possibly can when we try to regulate it, we're always fighting the last war and kinda missing exactly how to do it right. And I'm sorry for the generalization, but that's how I see it.

And I so it makes me skeptical about the 8,000 number and what it might be based on. And I think it's just sort of like the three bears, we take the middle way, the 16,000 mama bear and there we are.

One last thought on the caps, the reason I would support the middle instead of the minimal cap, 16,000 acres. A lot of people in ag, obviously, a lot of activities on the ranch or the farm use electricity. As electrification increases, I wanna afford them the opportunity to install some solar. I don't wanna preclude them by starting out with a cap that's too small. And then finally, as we move, as the county moves to try to remove oil production in the county, a lot of the small ranchers, farmers, whatever, have a few wells that they get income from that many feel is vital to maintaining solvency.

So at least if they had the opportunity and the proper location to put in some utility grade disorder might help them recoup some of that valuable and important supplemental income that otherwise will ultimately become unavailable. So I guess our consensus is 16,000. Oh, I'm waiting. Excuse me.

I'm that lone ranger out there that basically I do believe in the cap. I'm actually in favor of the $8,000 and the only reason I say that is because well, not the only reason, but one of the reasons I'm saying this is because I'm interested in seeing how many actual projects are going to come to fruition or even be applied for under what we're doing. And by the time they apply for it, new technology will be out. I mean, I'm thinking that the cap is obviously something that can be either increased or decreased depending on technology and depending upon our energy needs. And also in relation to I'm very wary of doing things on Agla, which I think most of the commissioners on this commission believe in, is that for North County, that's the lifeblood of North County.

I mean, that's what it's become. And that's just my impression. Thank you.

Yeah. When I look at 80 8,000 would be 80 of them. If they each do 100 acres, 16,000 would be 160. So I guess right now we're just guessing about how many.

Yeah, correct. And I'm taking that into consideration that there's going to be these smaller ones because we're accounting that part of it, aren't we? The tier ones are part of that too?

Commissioner Martinez, to the chair, the cap would, the way it's envisioned, it would only be on the utility scale. So any project below 30 acres would not count towards that cap.

Okay. Well, then I definitely would look to the eight. That's why

I'm So the smaller projects, the Tier 1s, the Tier two community scale, those would not count towards that cap as currently envisioned. I mean, commission could make a change to that.

So we'll save that for

So we have a three one position on that particular item. Okay. So I think that brings us to the to the third question as to whether or not we wanna create any exclusion areas. And the two concepts that were presented were the coastal zone or the Gaviata Coast planning area. We can pull the maps back up, or we can, just open it up to you all for a discussion.

Commissioner Park, think I you were first.

I want to speak first because the more I've looked at this, the stronger I feel about it. And I've been doing my homework. I've been thinking about this a lot. And I want to bring up some examples. First we'll talk about the coastal zone then the Gaviata Coast. Coastal zone, I had a conversation this morning with the CEO at Strauss Wind Energy. They wanted to talk to me about something else and whenever somebody wants to talk to me

I say, well let me

talk about what I want to talk to you about. And I put an idea in their head, they're going to think about it. Strauss Wind Energy already has a road network and distribution lines, Okay? That's 99% of what you need to hook up. And they've got those windmills out there.

I've been thinking for decades about co locating different energy sources in the same place. And this is an example of where it might happen. Put solar out there. Put batteries out there, which we already approved for one thing. And this is all about the concept of closing the door or not closing the door. If we say coastal zone, then you're closing the door on that possibility. Do they really want to do it? I don't know. The economics really aren't so great for the wind energy thing. If they could add in some solar, it might be a really good way to do it and we should leave that door open.

So I'm against barring it in the coastal zone. I'll give another example, carpenteria. Carpenteria has greenhouses that were built a long time ago, that's why most of are so rickety and they were built for the flower industry and different things. It got readapted to cannabis. Has cannabis been going well?

Well, we'll see how much cannabis still exists in ten years. What would I like to see in the Carpinteria Valley? Agriculture hasn't really been succeeding. Maybe folks might rather see some solar installations instead of more tract housing. Brings me to an example of something that I think illustrates Commissioner Martinez's point about the evolving technology.

I'm sure Commissioner Reed remember when Glass Point was going out and suggesting that they build greenhouses. In fact, they issued a press release on a giant greenhouse they're going to build at the Bellridge Field, South Bellridge Field in Kern County, that they would build a greenhouse that would have solar collection facility. It wasn't panels, it was going to operate in the old heat mode. It would be protected by greenhouse and it would power up 100 boilers for various steam recovery methods of oil production. And that was 15 times the amount of energy that was being requested for the boilers at Cat Canyon at the time.

So these things do change, they can happen and maybe someday somebody will have solar inside those greenhouses in Carpinteria and think that's a better use than other alternatives, I don't know. But I don't want to close that door so I do not want to vote for prohibiting it in the coastal zone. Let me mention the Gaviota Coast planning area. I think Ms. Citroen made several good points about the beauty of the area and preserving it.

But let's face reality, I'll remember a conversation I had, I think it was with Katie Davis, about the fact that in 2015, that's the date of the rupture of the pipeline, that probably, well I'll say one of the largest, so I'm not exaggerating, but probably it was the largest. Stationary sources of GHGs in this county is the boiler operating at Los Floris Canyon. In fact there was a CARB website that had a pie chart and it showed that something 42 or 43% of the GHGs in this county came from that one boiler site. So if that starts operating again and maybe it already is and that decision is not being made here or even in this building, it's going to be made at the federal level or some courthouse. And you're going to see the Gaviata Coast planning area as having the largest industrial installation in terms of a single sort and its impact of GHGs in the whole county.

And so to be realistic, maybe we should look at is there a possibility of solar installation that could replace that. So I don't want to preclude that. So at this point, I don't want to agree to any exclusion of any area from the utility scale. I think it would be something that's unnecessary. We'll have CUP hearings on each one of these things where everything here will be examined like every grain of sand on a beach. And do we need to have the exclusion as well? I don't think so. I think it could be counterproductive. Is that clear?

Okay. Commissioner Ford.

You know, in my heart, I think, well, we just have to do as much protection as we can for these areas. However, you know, when when we take a strong stand on on oil and gas production and any new oil and gas production and any continued oil and gas production, I think we have to leave the door open for every area to be able to incorporate solar. So I say no to prohibiting both those areas also.

Commissioner Martinez.

I would vote no on any prohibition.

You know, when this first came out a while back, I thought, well, Gaviota Coast, they want an exemption. Okay. But then I rethought it and read some letters from people who really, there was a really great letter in the Fresno Bee. I know it's not popularly read around here, but it's from a Tulare Dairy guy that said how important it was to him. And I don't want to, as I said before, preclude anyone from wanting to participate in this and derive some advantages of it.

I think as far as the county goes, if you're really gonna say, oh, this is the home of the modern environmental movement, we embrace it. You need to demonstrate it by putting your money where your mouth is. So make it available to anyone who wants to participate. If it's a sensitive area on the Gaviota Coast, the Gaviota Coast Conservancy, Ms. Citroen and then the virtually unlimited number of environmental NGOs in the county have shown over years and years, they're fully capable of mounting opposition.

So, I think that'll We just saw a guy trying to build a two acre house on the Gaviota Coast for ten years, you know. So I'm sure if it's something bad, they can handle it. I'm confident in them. So I and then the messaging we got from Mr. Williams, Clean Coalition and others that they're not in favor of a carving out, fine. Let's make the whole county available. Everybody can share in the gain and everybody can share a little bit in the pain. Alright. So.

Excellent. So, thank you, Mr. Chair, Commissioner. So, unless there's other items that we have not covered that you want to discuss or consider, then, I think our next step would be, I think we have clarity on number one and two or sorry, one and three. Three is just not doing something that we were considering doing something, so that's an easy one.

We're just not going to do it. And no changes to our ordinance, to reflect that. For the, first item as far as expanding the tier one solar permitting exemption, We did walk through the table with you earlier in the presentation. We do have draft ordinance language we can pull up pretty easily and quickly and just kind of show you so you can see for yourself how that looks in the ordinance. And then we we just kind of have a placeholder language for the cap, and it's gonna insert whatever number we wanna put in there.

Why don't we do that? It's our job to get it K. In as good a shape as possible before it goes to the board. We have

They want a break.

I've got a request for a break. How about ten minutes? Okay. We're taking it. Ten minutes from now.

Well, back to the May 6 hearing of the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission. Mister Tuttle, are we ready to proceed?

Yes. We are. And, we have the draft. We'll start with just the LUDC that with the amendments reflecting the discussion today. So we'll go ahead and pull that up and just just so you can visualize, these changes. And I'll let, Zoe walk through those.

Thank you. So as, just so you know what you're looking at, this is the ordinance revisions and the the text shown in red are the revisions that you saw in the March, staff report package and with additional track changes shown in this version that I'll walk through quickly with you.

So just to clarify, I think this is article two, so the coastal zoning ordinance. So we'll do CZO first and then the LUD.

Miss Carlson, can you make the text a little larger, please?

Just a little larger.

Yeah, sure. No,

I can't. Let me see.

So I was trying to make it small enough so that you could see the comments, which is where we indicated the changes.

It's fine.

Apologize. I appear to be having some technical difficulties.

When you go down

fast, it's

like looking

for the user's agreement on new software. So

the first section, that we discussed changes to is the the definitions. Just making it very clear how we determine the size as well as clarifying that multiple connected parcels can be included in the footprint. You will also see throughout that we renumbered the tiers as a result of combining tier one and tier two. Tier three became tier two, and tier four became tier three. I don't think the comments are showing.

There we go. Okay. This section, regarding the maximum size allows for the additional quarter acre battery energy storage systems as we discussed. And it also allows the solar canopies without size restrictions as long as they're undeveloped or improved areas. As a reminder, we moved the development standards that were crafted from for tier two into tier one.

And that concludes the changes to the ordinance. Oh,

it's gray. Oh, yeah. Yes.

I'm gonna also pull up the revised table that clarifies the resulting three tiers. And then note at the bottom just clarifies the addition of the quarter acre allowance in addition for the battery energy storage systems for tier one projects.

So I think, know, without obviously going word by word, we've walked through the changes that reflect, the commission's direction. And, the only thing we haven't, touched on is the acreage cap. And, that would really just be an insertion once we land on what that cap is. So we'll do the same thing with the LUDC. And then I think that'll be it.

So do you wanna talk about the cap now, or do we wanna wait till deliberations?

Let's just we'll walk through the LUDC just kind of, similarly, and then, and then you can discuss the cap. And, you know, I think it was evident that I think there was, three commissioners in favor of a cap of 16,000, one commissioner in favor of a cap of 8,000. When it comes to taking a vote, what we could do is separate that action out from the rest of the actions so that you can get some, unanimity in, the majority of the project recommendations and then take a separate vote, if that would help on the cap question. And while they're pulling that up, let me just speak to the issue of tiering off of the EIR for future projects. Any of the tier two or three community scale or utility scale solar projects as a CUP, they are discretionary applications.

They are subject to CEQA. As with any project that comes in under a programmatic a project can tier off or rely at least in part off of that program EIR. And there's an analysis that goes into that to determine sort of whether there's unique aspects of the project or project specific issues that need further evaluation. It gets evaluated against the impacts that were evaluated in the EIR. All the mitigation measures from the program EIR get applied, some of which require further analysis and the ability to apply additional mitigation.

And so, that happens with each project level review as to the level of tiering that occurs. And, depending on the project, it could be an entirely new EIR, a full EIR. It could be a supplemental EIR. It could be an addendum, to the PEIR. So it's really sort of project specific as to the level of tiering that occurs. But there are generally some aspects of the PEIR that a project can just rely on and not have to do further analysis on.

Apologize for the technical difficulties. I believe we now have the LUDC ready to share. Thank you for that. Try and make it a little bit larger. So this, first change shows in the table the updated tiers, with the expanded tier one and the removal of the former tier two, renumbering of the former tier three and four with tier two and three.

And, again, you'll see those changes throughout. Oops. Again with the, development standards we're showing the solar canopies exempt without site coverage limitations. We're showing the adjustment in the size combining that tier one and tier two category, as well as rolling up the the development standards from tier two into tier one as applicable. Again, then we get into our renumbering of the tier three and four facilities as tier two and three.

This is where we can, insert an acreage cap, based on your direction, and we will be deleting this, option for the, exclusion of, the Gaviota or oh, yes. I'm going to be deleting that right now. Again, these are all the existing development standards for those utility scale and community scale solar facilities. And then we get into our definition changes similar as you saw in the coastal zoning ordinance. We have updated the definitions to reflect the changes you saw in that table regarding the different tiers.

And that concludes the changes.

Including battery storage. It was in red. Right there. Ding. All production storage. What's that? Private services for what? I'm sorry. Private services for what? I just saw that.

Commissioner Martinez to the chair. So if you recall in our first meeting, we discussed that currently standalone battery energy storage is permitted like other utilities. And that can be either like a public utility or a private utility. So the all we've done here, what what that language reflects is clarification. So private services, that's if you scroll a little further up, I think it's in the set of definitions in our ordinance.

And it's describing different private utilities, energy utilities. So it's just clarifying that battery storage system is a type of energy utility that is permitted through a CUP process like other utilities.

Okay, which goes back to my original question from when we did this in March. So when people receive any notices that we send out, is it just going to say solar energy system or is it going to say solar energy system, which in this instance is a battery energy storage system? Or are they just going to see the word solar energy system?

When notices get sent out on a project application, like as part of a CUP process, we do a summary of the project description, but enough information so that someone has a decent sense of what the project is, which if a project is for a certain acreage of solar plus battery storage, then that would be included in that description for the notice.

Okay. As long as I have that assurance, then I'm fine with that. I just don't want it to go out. We're building us solar energy system that's 30 acres and there's a UP and that and that's where it ends and everybody's thinking, oh, it's just gonna be solar panels.

Right.

As long as they get that. Okay.

So chair and commissioners, I believe that wraps up staff outlining the changes to the ordinance as we discussed. So my recommendation is to do two motions. The first motion would be to move staff's recommendations as revised today in this hearing. There's two ways we can approach that first motion. I think there's consensus that all the commissioners agree to a cap.

So the first motion could recommend staff's recommendations as revised today to include the cap, but with the exception of the acreage. And then the second motion will then be a motion for the acreage of that cap. So then everybody could vote on, yes, we agree with the cap, but then the actual acreage amount will be a separate motion. So then the second motion would be a motion to set a acreage cap of whatever amount. And then you can take a vote on that. So that's how I'd recommend proceeding.

So do we have a Is someone prepared to make a motion that we have a cap?

The motion would be is to accept the the ordinance with a cap with the cap amount to be determined on the second motion. That would be my motion.

Yes. Okay. Second.

Commissioner Martinez to the chair. So just to clarify your motion, I think it's to recommend staff's recommendations as shown on the screen to include a cap with the acreage amount to be determined by a second motion. As revised today.

Can I just say ditto right now

or just do I have to say it out loud there?

You can say as stated.

As stated.

That's a motion now.

So as as stated also includes an exemption for the no exemptions, right? That's correct. Okay. Second. Let's do a roll call. Mister Villalobos.

Commissioner Ford. Aye. Commissioner Park. Aye. Commissioner Martinez. Aye. Chair Reid. Aye. Motion passes four to zero.

Now

with respect to the size of the cap, Is there any discussion? We have three in favor of 16,000 acres, one in favor of 8,000 acres. Do we need any additional discussion, or is someone prepared to make a motion? I'll make a motion that the cap be of 16,000 acres. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Mister Villalobos, can you do a roll call? Commissioner Ford.

Aye. Commissioner Park. Aye. Commissioner Martinez. Nay. Commissioner Reed. Aye. Motion passes three to one.

So our business is concluded. Are off.

Chair, that is correct. Our business today is concluded. I do want to go back to the projection report. There was a question on the projection report, I think on the June 10 item, which was the date of the Santa Maria refinery. So based on the information received today for commissioner Reed's pending vacation of that his appointment.

That that was awkward. Sorry. I was ad hocking that. So we're gonna be moving that hearing to later in the projection report for that Santa Maria refinery, And then maybe that we may move both of those items off of that date. So I'll be working with staff to address that hearing date and moving those items to a different date. So I think that answers Commissioners Park's question as far as availability on that date.

So when will you know

whether we're being on that date?

Mike. Please.

More than so chair Park, commissioner sorry. Chair Reid, commissioner Park. By the next hearing we'll know whether or not we'll have it and by way I know for sure we're not going to be having the the refinery on that date. And so we may be making a motion to cancel that hearing anyway.

What was the other matter? Was something in my district, wasn't it?

So, no additional business?

Yes, it is. And I'll move tentative parcel On

June 10 there was a tentative parcel map on that, on the Refugio Road in San Yenas area. That was in your district.

Okay. But I'd I'd be safe scheduling my meeting anytime in the afternoon, wouldn't I? Thanks. We're done.

So hearing is now adjourned. This hearing is now adjourned. I needed to turn it on.

There you go.